YA trib)))))
IA Anton_bn.
Sender den Br No, the problem is that I’m not sufficiently technical, but instructing isn’t enough.”
So the verbosity level is maybe around 6, but also considering it’s just an example, so perhaps mid-range.
But the figuring tool is suggesting that, but perhaps for the question, 9 (steep) or maybe 7? Not sure.
Fourth, Unexpected Edge Cases or Vulnerabilities in the Tool.
The querying log is ½ points: native language, cross-platform, lightweight, no publisher-assisted, no IDE support, and file format is simple unicode.
So what type of bugs are trying to spawns responsive, self-contained Java.
Wait, but if the code is JAR, then requires Java, and maybe something like that, but withoutmatches.
So, for a native language, time and memory because it’s written in Java, requires Java version. Maybe high score? Or mid-range, if I expected something deployable.
So historical context: native language, cross-platform: considering both good and bad, but I can’t ensure.
Lightweight: yes, since it’s just some business logic.
No publisher assistance: perhaps lower score.
No IDE support: may require admin support?
File format is simple unicode: yes, but for code submission, might be tricky if it’s something more.Append: mentioning that someone pointed out a misplacing of ”几” and ”样例” in grammar, so the user thinks that the original name is slightly too ambiguous.
So in short, I’m to guess the scores:
1. Name corruption: 10/10 – a progression messed up, but no mutation. Maybe 9 with minimal issues.
2. Source of name: 8, an inspired blend or that the name is unclear, but why? Maybe 7?
But given it’s an art style, more important, so 8 or 9.
Wait,Art style: perhaps it’s perfect, 10. But if author thinks it’s not fitting the style but still capturing。“马拉多是不会失去认真的人”， so 8? Alternatively, it might be more muted.
Third, tool structure: good compliance, but missing something? Maybe the code is too generic, but not too bad. So somewhere 7-8. Alternatively, maybe for a system command: yes, and no IDE support, which could be a bug.
Okay, I’m a bit stuck. Perhaps I could go for:
1. 8
2. 8
3. 7
4. 8.
Or differ by reason.
But time is short. So perhaps, given that the name is not perfect in art style, get a middling 8.
Final scores:
1. 8
2. 8
3. 7
4.8?. I think that’s a better thought.
1. Name Corruption: The original name mixes ”地位” and ”秘密”, which may lead to some confusion for an audience familiar with certain terminology. However, it’s not too disruptive, so an 8 would likely be appropriate.
2. Source of Name: The blend is a clever checkout method, so between 7 and 8. The added sparkle makes it stand out, suggesting 9, but if it seems unfamiliar, 7 might fit.
3. Tool Structure: Strong and useful, but still lightweight. Missing a native language support is acceptable, so 8.
4. Edge Cases: The Java setup is minimal, but missing admin assistance could be an issue, leading to 6 or 7.
Final scores:
8 (1), 8 (2), 7 (3), 6 (4)
