[gopher_space]

> In terms of programming, LeetCode is quite likely to be harder than your day job.

It's orthogonal to your day job. The "cruft" you talk about is how we remove ambiguity and fill in details so that work isn't a series of free-floating gedanken experiments. If you're able to apply codified knowledge like LeetCode to a programming task it means someone else has already done the heavy lifting.

We "lost touch" with DSA knowledge because it turns out that it's easier to work things up from base principles using the scientific method than memorizing crap that worked for the vacuum tube generation. We don't *need* a reductive LUT approach to the process anymore.

[latency-guy2]

That's great and all, but this is quite irrelevant conjecture, you can argue your point all you want, it does not matter to me. I don't care about what you do, and I probably never will.

The research performed in this study is relevant, and no one so far has demonstrated that it is "misleading", "bad or poor quality research", or really anything to demonstrate to me that it's results are questionable, going back to the parent thats what I address.

[gopher_space]

I was expanding on your point, not disagreeing with it.