World's Most Efficient Sorting Algorithm

Ah, JavaScript's default sorting—where even emoji faces aren't safe from algorithmic bias. The code innocently calls sort() on an array of diverse face emojis, but without a compare function, JS sorts by Unicode values. Somehow the browser decided to arrange them by skin tone from lightest to darkest. Not exactly what the developer intended, but a perfect example of why you should always specify your sorting criteria. Remember kids: computers don't understand social context—they just follow instructions, however problematic the results may be.

Non-programmers imagine us locked in epic battles over algorithm efficiency like Godzilla vs Kong, debating the merits of our custom sorting implementations. Meanwhile, our actual bloodsport? Two people in ridiculous costumes having a street fight over whether a variable should be named dateUpdated or updatedDate . The truth hurts. I've seen teams spend 45 minutes in code review debating variable names while the actual bug goes unnoticed. Such is the glamorous life in tech.

Looking at that isEven function hurts my soul on a spiritual level. Someone's literally checking if a number is even by hard-coding individual cases (0 is even, 1 is odd, 2 is even, 3 is odd...) instead of just using the modulo operator ( return num % 2 === 0 ). And they're doing this while casually flying 30,000 feet in the air with a gorgeous view! The perfect combo of terrible code and flex. My sanity would jump out that window faster than you can say "runtime complexity."

When you've been coding for so long that you start indexing real-world objects from zero. Normal people would call this the first step, but programmers know better—it's obviously step[0]. The contractor probably spent years debugging array out-of-bounds exceptions and now can't help but apply zero-indexing to everything they build. Just wait until they number the floors in their next apartment building: Ground, 1, 2... just to watch the mathematicians and Europeans lose their minds.

Left guy: "NO, YOU CAN'T JUST HAVE ONE LOOP TYPE" Right guy: "FOR { BRRRR }" The perfect encapsulation of Go's minimalist philosophy! While other languages offer 50 different loop constructs with fancy syntax, Go just says "nah, one for loop is enough for everything." Need a while loop? It's a for loop. Need a do-while? Still a for loop. Need to iterate collections? Believe it or not, also a for loop. The blue gopher mascot doesn't care about your programming preferences—it's just happily BRRRing through code with its single loop construct, laughing at all the complexity other languages introduce. Peak language design efficiency or stubborn simplicity? You decide!

Regular folks: *clicks video* "Neat!" Developers: *narrows eyes* "I refuse to corrupt my recommendation algorithm with this trash. Time to deploy incognito mode, the digital equivalent of wearing a disguise to buy embarrassing products." The paranoia is real. We've all done the "copy link, open incognito" dance just to watch ONE cat video without YouTube thinking we want to rebuild our entire personality around felines. It's not paranoia if the algorithms really are out to get you.