no problem that's why I write them

yep

Flagged as spoiler for you. Remember that this site exists for programmers to learn both the advanced concepts and the fundamental algorithms, and looking up appropriate documents on their own is a skill to be trained.

And waste that many seconds writing such unnecessary code to bog up the codebase? Don't quit your day job.

Thankfully the tests don't test for "sample", which is good because the behavior of the function when text is in the array isn't specified anyways, so assuming they are truthy is the only sane way to go.

Because that doesn't do what the problem requires.

Weeeee

-0 is 0. Do you know what the word "bug" means? It means when actual behavior fails to match expected behavior, which is not the case here.

-0 is 0

Anything can be exploited, that's why we have multiple tests. Kata translations can have their own way of testing for solutions to work but if you haven't done at least what the original is testing for then you haven't translated a kata, you've just written your own and should had posted it as your own.

Your random tests in your test case only asserts that random indices match your expected indices, it doesn't check for segments to hold the fibonacci sequences property: c(n) + c(n+1) == c(n+2).

When writing real code, clarity is the most important rule in practice, beyond doing smart tricks. You do NOT need to use bitwise operations in non-bitwise-based logic. We only did it because we're used to code golfing.

I am not sure how to handle drastic changes like these. Do you think this is a necessary change to sustain the integrity of the kata?