text stringlengths 1 81 | start float64 0 10.1k | duration float64 0 24.9 |
|---|---|---|
SPEAKER 1: Brandon. | 1,706.32 | 0.365 |
AUDIENCE: Joseph. | 1,706.685 | 0.365 |
SPEAKER 1: Joseph. | 1,707.05 | 0.4 |
AUDIENCE: Vicky. | 1,707.45 | 0.305 |
SPEAKER 1: Vicky. | 1,707.755 | 0.765 |
AUDIENCE: [? Arpin. ?] | 1,708.52 | 0.27 |
SPEAKER 1: [? Arpin. ?] | 1,708.79 | 0.27 |
AUDIENCE: Derek. | 1,709.06 | 0.666 |
SPEAKER 1: Derek. | 1,709.726 | 0.784 |
OK. | 1,710.51 | 0.66 |
So now, because that all
just was too much to absorb. | 1,711.17 | 3.13 |
Number 1 is now the
first smallest element | 1,714.3 | 4.15 |
according to the proposed algorithm. | 1,718.45 | 1.5 |
So what are we going to
do exactly with number 1? | 1,719.95 | 2.22 |
AUDIENCE: He's going to [INAUDIBLE]. | 1,722.17 | 1.499 |
We're [INAUDIBLE]. | 1,723.669 | 1.218 |
SPEAKER 1: OK, good. | 1,724.887 | 0.833 |
So pop back if you would. | 1,725.72 | 1.39 |
You guys are going to shift
three places this way. | 1,727.11 | 2.104 |
And we're going to insert number
1 at the beginning of the list. | 1,729.214 | 2.666 |
All right, so what's the
next step just to be clear? | 1,731.88 | 1.5 |
AUDIENCE: Number 2 is going to pop up. | 1,733.38 | 2.03 |
SPEAKER 1: Good. | 1,735.41 | 0.666 |
AUDIENCE: I'm going to shift down. | 1,736.076 | 0.912 |
Number 1 is going to stay in place. | 1,736.988 | 0.456 |
SPEAKER 1: Good. | 1,737.444 | 0.456 |
So we find the next smallest
element, which happens to be 2. | 1,737.9 | 2.37 |
We insert him at the
beginning of the list here. | 1,740.27 | 2.07 |
And now, we move on to the
number 3 problem Excellent. | 1,742.34 | 2.47 |
So pop back. | 1,744.81 | 1.56 |
Shift. | 1,746.37 | 1.39 |
And insert. | 1,747.76 | 0.55 |
Good. | 1,748.31 | 0.5 |
4, we got lucky. | 1,748.81 | 0.809 |
So we don't have to do
any extra work here. | 1,749.619 | 1.791 |
So that's a freebie. | 1,751.41 | 0.833 |
Now we look for 5. | 1,752.243 | 0.837 |
Oh, there's 5 at the end. | 1,753.08 | 3.34 |
Good. | 1,756.42 | 1.14 |
And now 6. | 1,757.56 | 0.99 |
We got lucky. | 1,758.55 | 0.77 |
7 and 8, we need to fix that. | 1,759.32 | 2.01 |
OK, good. | 1,761.33 | 0.83 |
So I like this. | 1,762.16 | 0.89 |
It felt pretty fast. | 1,763.05 | 1.02 |
Though, to be fair, the
list is pretty short. | 1,764.07 | 2.1 |
But we were doing kind of a lot of work. | 1,766.17 | 2.167 |
In fact, that was perfect the fact
that number 1 was all the way over here | 1,768.337 | 3.083 |
because we shifted 3 humans. | 1,771.42 | 1.762 |
And can you guys reset
for just a moment? | 1,773.182 | 1.708 |
Let me propose an alternative approach. | 1,774.89 | 1.89 |
So if number 1 is in the middle here
and really belongs all the way there | 1,776.78 | 4.15 |
on the left, we went
to great lengths, it | 1,780.93 | 2.8 |
seems, to shift all of these volunteers
to the left, which is a lot of steps. | 1,783.73 | 3.292 |
Because at the end of the day,
let's assume for today's purposes, | 1,787.022 | 2.708 |
that a computer can only
do one thing at once. | 1,789.73 | 2.061 |
So even though all of you
humans moved pretty quickly, | 1,791.791 | 2.249 |
that was really like one of you moved. | 1,794.04 | 1.88 |
Then, the next of you moved. | 1,795.92 | 1.2 |
Then, the next of you moved. | 1,797.12 | 1.07 |
Then, the next. | 1,798.19 | 0.63 |
So that was like 4 total steps just
to put number 1 on the end there. | 1,798.82 | 4.057 |
Let me propose this. | 1,802.877 | 0.833 |
1, can you pop out again? | 1,803.71 | 1.65 |
Now, this list, so far as I'm
concerned as the computer, | 1,805.36 | 2.9 |
is perfectly random from the get-go. | 1,808.26 | 2.26 |
So why do I even care
that you guys move? | 1,810.52 | 2.96 |
I haven't even looked at
the rest of these elements | 1,813.48 | 2.869 |
yet or done anything with them. | 1,816.349 | 1.291 |
Why don't I just evict number
4 where number 1 belongs? | 1,817.64 | 2.684 |
If you want to go over here. | 1,820.324 | 1.166 |
And if the list is already
randomly sorted in the beginning, | 1,821.49 | 2.499 |
well, then fine. | 1,823.989 | 0.761 |
4, you're going to go over here. | 1,824.75 | 1.333 |
So I've made the problem no worse,
but I have made it slightly better | 1,826.083 | 3.027 |
by putting 1 on the end. | 1,829.11 | 1.385 |
Now I'm going to go ahead and select
the next smallest element again. | 1,830.495 | 2.875 |
2, I got lucky. | 1,833.37 | 1.34 |
Now, I'm going to look for
the next smallest element. | 1,834.71 | 2.58 |
3 indeed is the smallest. | 1,837.29 | 1.524 |
So let me do the same thing. | 1,838.814 | 1.166 |
3, if you could pop back. | 1,839.98 | 1.3 |
6, you're out of there. | 1,841.28 | 2.11 |
And notice that we're doing less work. | 1,843.39 | 1.69 |
Now, the humans are moving a little
farther physically, but that's fine. | 1,845.08 | 3 |
The computer can just move values
around in memory pretty fast. | 1,848.08 | 3.51 |
But I've moved fewer of you. | 1,851.59 | 1.63 |
So this is a slight optimization. | 1,853.22 | 1.55 |
It turns out this isn't
fundamentally better as we'll see. | 1,854.77 | 2.75 |
But it's this instinct
that you should appreciate | 1,857.52 | 2.16 |
of trying to do the least
amount of work possible. | 1,859.68 | 2.083 |
Because otherwise, it's going to add up. | 1,861.763 | 2.507 |
Let's try another one. | 1,864.27 | 2.02 |
Well, let me clarify one thing then. | 1,866.29 | 1.66 |
So what am I doing on each
iteration of this algorithm? | 1,867.95 | 3.1 |
As you suggested, I'm
selecting the smallest element. | 1,871.05 | 3.21 |
But the only catch is, if I'm
now looking for the next smallest | 1,874.26 | 3.01 |
element, that's going to be 4. | 1,877.27 | 1.7 |
But I'm only sure that it's
4 once I get to the end | 1,878.97 | 2.42 |
and realize, yep, that was the
smallest element and then I act. | 1,881.39 | 3 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.