why would you ever want to actually write a sorting algorithm? After all, somebody out there has already done it better, and that's nothing you would ever need to do as real programmer.
This sounds like the assignments were badly designed. Unless your data has an entirely random distribution, with some knowledge of the data that you're sorting you can do a much better job of sorting than any generic comparison-based algorithm. If you're sorting English words, for example (a very common example data set for this kind of thing), then a radix sort implemented by a student will do a better job than a standard library quicksort that's doing a full string comparison on each pair. If the course also asks them to implement a quicksort, and to evaluate both against libc's qsort(), then they should hopefully learn both when it is and when it isn't appropriate to implement their own.
How do you know he's a desktop user?
Because (in the part of the post that I quoted in my reply), he said:
-Os frankly is of little interest to desktop developers
And I replied that -Os is relevant to desktop users, which you then disputed by saying that it's not relevant to HPC.
Modern desktops are putting a lot of effort into reducing the number of wakeups per second in orer to reduce power draw. This means that on most systems, there are a lot of processes, but very few running at any given time.
Timer coalescing does the exact opposite. It means that you'll have a single wakeup and then a load of processes run, and then sleep. This increases i-cache pressure, it doesn't reduce it.
Second: You misunderstand the grandparent. If you don't understand the basic ideas behind a crypto algorithm (or, more importantly, crypto protocols) then you will pick the wrong one. No matter how good a cypher is, or how verified the implementation is, if used incorrectly it will still be insecure.
Serif fonts work fine on small devices, they don't work well at low DPI. Which, in an age of 200+DPI on cheap devices, means that this move makes little sense. The only reason that the scaling is a problem would be if they're doing something stupid, like using a bitmap image rather than a vector. And, of course, a quick trip to google.com confirms that they are, indeed, using a png rather than an svg (with png fallback if they care that much) for their logo.
So, the real story here is that, in 2015, web giant Google has yet to learn that resolution-independent images are a thing.
"Can you program?" "Well, I'm literate, if that's what you mean!"