When you've been optimizing cache hit ratios all day and suddenly your entire life becomes a systems architecture problem. The justification is technically sound though: L1 cache for frequently accessed items (today's outfit), sized large enough to prevent cache misses (digging through the closet), with O(1) random access time. The chair is essentially acting as a hot data store while the closet is cold storage. The real genius here is recognizing that minimizing latency when getting dressed is mission-critical. Why traverse the entire closet tree structure when you can maintain a small, fast-access buffer of your most frequently used items? It's the same reason CPUs keep L1 cache at 32-64KB instead of just using RAM for everything. The only thing missing is implementing a proper LRU eviction policy—but let's be honest, that pile probably uses the "never evict, just keep growing" strategy until Mom forces a cache flush.

Binary search requires a sorted array to work. A linked list? Sure, you can traverse to the middle element, but you just burned O(n) time getting there. Then you do it again. And again. Congratulations, you've just reinvented linear search with extra steps and way more complexity. The junior dev technically knows what binary search is, which is more than some can say. But applying it to a linked list is like bringing a Ferrari to a swamp—impressive knowledge, terrible execution. At least they're learning the hard way that data structures matter just as much as algorithms. Give it a few more code reviews and they'll get there.