This gets back to the point that Swift is not a functional language. By default, the closure is capturing an immutable reference - the fact that the value might change is implicit to the way you must think about programming in a non-functional language. The mechanism to capture a constant value is to declare it in in a capture list:
var f = {[i] in print("hello I'm a callback and i =", i)}
Like, I'm not trying to be snarky, there's a lot of conversions going on there that aren't explicated. My takeaway is that if you can buy food and little else, that's poverty, right? Or no?
I mean, Twitter only makes sense when a third party digests their API. The default web client is broken (sometimes intentionally) in many, many ways. Perhaps I'm misreading you?
1. HN comment about some aspect of fizzbuzz or whatever. Not how to solve fizzbuzz or whatever; rather, some insight into how people solve problems, which is the interesting part of the question.
2. Two dozen oblivious nerds tell u how to do it in 20 characters of perl
Yeah I figured, but I didn't know if there was an actual parity error because I was working (impossibly) towards the wrong solution, or if there was a hard part that I might still work through and still arrive at a wrong but plausible solution. Does that make sense? There are enough ambiguous elements in the puzzle that make it kind of cat-mustachy and unrewarding. Do the symbols mean anything, or are they just differentiators? One of them is the reverse-space image of one of the others, is that significant? One of them is a unit block - maybe they go in order of unit block count? What's the physical analog or metaphor of the lock, like pins and tumblers or? Should colors be aligned vertically or horizontally, or not at all? Is there a unique solution?
It's not "hard", it's just obfuscated as it stands. I chose one of many plausible success conditions to work towards and got one step away due to what seemed like a parity error and quit.
Am I misreading the Japan thing? Like, it's not hard to imagine that there would be candidates that would be immediately excluded based on surname alone without even getting into race or gender - is this "fair" or "unfair", or is it just the way things are? Is the latter(est) the analogy we're supposed to take from this?