Marge Sort

Remember when we actually had to memorize algorithms and syntax? Now my brain's shrinking faster than my will to whiteboard during interviews. The top image shows Homer Simpson's brain scan before ChatGPT, all plump and functional. The bottom shows what's left after outsourcing our thinking to AI - just enough neurons to type "write me a function that..." and hit enter. Evolution in reverse, folks - soon we'll just be fingers attached to a coffee mug.

Oh. My. GOD. You're SAILING through the interview, answering every question like the coding GENIUS you are, when suddenly the interviewer drops the D-bomb - DYNAMIC PROGRAMMING! 😱 Your brain immediately freezes like a Windows 98 machine trying to run Cyberpunk. That thousand-yard stare? It's the universal signal of a developer whose confidence just plummeted faster than a production server during a demo. Dynamic programming is that special kind of algorithmic TORTURE where you break down problems into sub-problems, but the only thing actually breaking down is YOUR WILL TO LIVE. Fibonacci sequences? Knapsack problems? More like "watch me sweat through my shirt" problems!

Ah yes, the classic "just code it in Assembly" solution! Because nothing says "I'm desperate for performance" like abandoning all modern conveniences and diving straight into the metal. FPS dropping in your RollerCoaster Tycoon clone? Forget optimizing your existing code! Just rewrite the entire thing in Assembly with zero libraries, no engine, no team support—just you and 500,000 lines of raw machine instructions. Who needs sleep or sanity when you can manually manage every register and memory address? The irony is that some legendary games like RollerCoaster Tycoon were actually written mostly in Assembly by programming wizards. But those people weren't normal humans—they were coding deities who probably dreamed in opcodes.

Ah, the elegant art of being simultaneously clever and ridiculous. This Python function is the programming equivalent of using a sledgehammer to kill a fly—with style. Instead of the boring old num % 2 == 0 check that peasant programmers use, this galaxy-brain developer created a string "eovdden" and indexes into it using num % 2 as the position, followed by another 2 (which does absolutely nothing). The string is cleverly arranged so position 0 gives "even" and position 1 gives "odd" — making this the most unnecessarily complex even/odd checker in existence. It's like building a Rube Goldberg machine when a light switch would do. And those sunglasses emojis? They know exactly what they've done. Pure chaotic evil masquerading as code.

OH. MY. GOD. Who wrote this abomination?! 😱 The function isEven(x) is literally comparing a number to the STRING "even"?! The absolute AUDACITY! Instead of doing basic math like x % 2 == 0 , some chaotic evil developer decided to check if a number equals the word "even"! This is the coding equivalent of using a chainsaw to spread butter. I can't even begin to process the mental gymnastics required to create this monstrosity. And the worst part? Someone, somewhere is probably using this in production RIGHT NOW. 💀

Forget explaining traversal algorithms—I've moved on to the real computer science question: binary tree fashion choices. Left image: individual pants for each branch (clearly a depth-first dresser). Right image: one giant pair covering all nodes (breadth-first believer). The left tree is basically wearing 15 pairs of skinny jeans while the right one's rocking a single pair of MC Hammer pants. And they say data structures aren't stylish! Next up: linked lists and their necklace preferences.