Lots of companies update your data already from this data, not just Google. I guess it may just be a new feature where we email you about it when it's updated.
Having to go and update your recurring billing because your card changed (the expiration date passed, or your credentials leaked and a new number has to be issued) would be a huge pain in the ass.
I'd hope there are some controls here - in the case of a compromise, that only accounts that existed before the compromise occurred will be updated. But it strikes me that something that does the right thing 99% of the time should be welcomed.
It only updates the expiration date upon automatic renewal by the issuer and after an update a CVV2 reconfirmation is required (unless it’s a recurring transaction, saved account details and recurring transactions are different beasts) since the CVV2 has also been rotated.
Change of PAN due to a new card being issued whether it’s on the request of the costumer, lost or compromised card should not auto-update.
> Having to go and update your recurring billing because your card changed (the expiration date passed, or your credentials leaked and a new number has to be issued) would be a huge pain in the ass
I can’t say I agree. What’s a huge pain in the ass is cancelling services, and now you have to cancel your entire credit account to know that your outstanding charges are canceled. That’s highly inconvenient.
"They'll stop going to the company picnic if it becomes an occasion for everyone to list all the computer problems they never bothered to mention before."
Wow, I experimented with it more and it's a matter of context, just as you and other people in this thread have described. That's really striking. Thanks for confirming that it's not a bug.
This is maybe an even more extreme phenomenon (from the same subreddit that was apparently involved in making the Laurel/Yanny thing go viral this past week):
"Perception of their overall ability" seems to have a different scale that the 2 others, so the important point is not the actual values but the correlation measure.
This is a cognitive bias known as the "IKEA effect" [1]
First time I read it applied to coding, the author is completely right. You are much faster the second time you write the piece of program, and it will be probably more effective.
If you have to replace the router, there's a 10% chance that new router is broken. But you only replace when the first router is broken, so it's 10% of 10%.
Read it as "a strategy of replacing when needed" rather than "replacing in all cases for the hell of it".
The strategy "Buy 2 routers, and if the first one fails, then use the 2nd one" is ok, and gives you the 1% result.
My (little) problem is the sentence "Replacing your router (or firmware) almost always fixes your problem.", because if the first router is broken, replacing it will only fix your problem in 10% of the cases, which is not "almost always".
>If you are going to test my knowledge, at least ask relevant questions for the role.
Even for a front-end developer, I think that algorithms matter, because developers have to understand what they do.
And the OP's solution in O(N2), as well as the other one with hash maps, seem quite bad (it can be done trivially in O(Nlog(N), and optimized to reach O(N))
