The function of decomposing color into shades. - page 15
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Well, that's the foolishness of not understanding my algorithm.
No, Peter. It shows that you can't even see the basic logic.
Take a close look.
In general, it's convenient to take someone else's proven code and, covered by its impeccability, tell others (who are looking for a solution with their minds) how much better you are. Isn't that right, Nikolai?)
I don't get you. What do you think, that I copied my code from somewhere?
You're wrong, I'm too lazy to understand someone else's algorithms. It's easier for me to come up with my own. There was never any plagiarism on my part.
Thank you, Yuri, for your participation and insight, as well as for the clear example. After your changes my code became more pleasant to look at.
But here is a little clarification:
So how much of this code is really yours? You keep arguing with me, proving that your code is better. But in fact, you can't explain how it works. Why not? - Because it's not yours. You borrowed it. You tweaked it. Changed the variables a little.
So it's an unequal argument.
If you have your own way of decomposing colour and your own concept, then our contest will be fair. As for now, it is my competition against unknown author(s), whose work you are waving in front of me.
I don't get you. Do you think I copied my code from somewhere else?
You're wrong - I'm too lazy to look into someone else's algorithms. It's easier for me to come up with my own. There's never been any plagiarism on my part.
Oh, come on. You don't have to tell me. I've spent months trying to understand the principles of colour decomposition. You can't tell me anything about it.
In fact, I wrote the algorithm in a day. I started studying the problem five months ago. There was a break of 4 months when I rarely thought about the subject.
So the algorithm is lame, but the concept is formed and thought through. And you have it the other way around.
Oh, come on. You don't have to tell me. I've spent months trying to understand the principles of colour decomposition. You can't tell me anything about it.
In fact, I wrote the algorithm in a day. I started studying the problem five months ago. There was a break of 4 months when I rarely thought about the subject.
So the algorithm is lame, but the concept is formed and thought through. And you have it the other way around.
Moreover, I am even pleased to hear that what I have written I could not write myself. You're a master at giving compliments.
The gradient is an easy platitude.
Check out this video.
It was recorded by me in February 2016. How long do you think - have I been friends with kanvas and gradient?
Well, I don't even feel comfortable taking offence at you. In fact, it makes me feel good to hear that I couldn't have written it myself. You're a master at giving compliments.
The gradient is an easy platitude.
Check out this video.
It was recorded by me in February 2016. How long do you think I've been friends with kanvas and gradient?
It's like you're not hearing it on purpose. How does this video prove that the algorithm is yours? How does it prove you didn't borrow it? If you had laid out your concept of colour, and explained the nuances of the solution...
But no.
Peter is offended, Peter is called names...
There you are. I've been waiting for you.))
And the kitty is back with you.)There you are. I've been waiting for you.))
I'm always here in silence. I'm curious.
From around the corner, so to speak...
...
And the kitty is back with you.))He's the one who called me.