[Tutor] Ways of removing consequtive duplicates from a list

[dn]

>> ... you just asked any
>> women present to not reply to you, nor anyone who has not been knighted by a
>> Queen. I personally do not expect such politeness but clearly some do.
>>
> 
> I confess it took me longer than it should have to figure out to what
> you were referring in the second half of the above but eventually the
> light came on and the smile blossomed!
> My next thought was that it wouldn't necessarily have had to have been
> a Queen although anyone knighted (by a King) prior to the beginning of
> our current Queen's reign is unlikely to be even alive let alone
> interested in this sort of thing.
> Thanks for the morning smile!

I've not been knighted, but am frequently called "Sir". Maybe when you
too have a grey beard? (hair atop same head, optional)

It is not something that provokes a positive response, and if in a
grumpy-mood may elicit a reply describing it as to be avoided "unless we
are both in uniform".

Thus, the same words hold different dictionary-meanings and different
implications for different people, in different contexts, and between
cultures!

I'm not going to invoke any Python community Code of Conduct terms or
insist upon 'politically-correctness', but am vaguely-surprised that
someone has not...

The gender observation is appropriate, but then how many of the OP's
discussions feature responses from other than males?
(not that such observation could be claimed as indisputable)

Writing 'here', have often used constructions such as "him/her", with
some question about how many readers might apply each form...


The dislocation in response to the OP is cultural. (In this) I have
advantage over most 'here', having lived and worked in India.
(also having been brought-up, way back in the last century, in an
old-English environment, where we were expected to address our elders
using such titles. Come to think of it, also in the US of those days)

In India, and many others parts of Asia, the respectful address of
teachers, guides, and elders generally, is required-behavior. In the
Antipodes, titles of almost any form are rarely used, and most will
exchange first-names at an introduction. Whereas in Germany (for
example), the exact-opposite applies, and one must remember to use the
Herr-s, Doktor-s, du-forms etc.

How to cope when one party is at the opposite 'end' of the scale from
another? I'm reminded of 'Postel's law': "Be liberal in what you accept,
and conservative in what you send".

Is whether someone actually knows what they're talking-about more
relevant (and more telling) than their qualifications, rank, title,
whatever - or does that only apply in the tech-world where we seem to
think we can be a technocracy?

Living in an 'immigrant society' today, and having gone through such a
process (many times, in many places) I'm intrigued by how quickly - or
how slowly, some will adapt to the local culture possibly quite alien to
them. Maybe worst of all are the ones who observe, but then react by
assuming (or claiming) superiority - less an attempt to 'fit in', but
perhaps an intent to be 'more equal'...


> I may be getting touchy without the feely, but I am having trouble listening
> to the way some people with cultural differences, or far left/right
> attitudes, try to address me/us in forums like this. Alex may have been
> amused by my retort, and there is NOTHING wrong with saying "Dear Sirs" when

Disagree: when *I* read the message, I am me. I am in the singular. When
*you* write, you (singular) are writing to many of us (plural). Who is
the more relevant party to the communication?

Accordingly, "Dear Sir" not "Sirs" - unless you are seeking a collective
or corporate reply, eg from a firm of solicitors.
(cf the individual replies (plural, one might hope) you expect from
multiple individuals - who happen to be personal-members of the
(collective) mailing-list).


> done in many contexts, just like someone a while ago was writing to
> something like "Esteemed Professors" but it simply rubs me wrong here.

Like it appears do you, I quickly lose respect for 'esteemed
professors/professionals' who expect this, even revel in it.

However, if one is a student or otherwise 'junior', it is a
career-limiting/grade-reducing move not to accede!

That said, two can play at that game: someone wanting to improve his/her
grade (or seeking some other favor) will attempt ingratiation through
more effusive recognition and compliment ("gilding the lily"). whither
'respect'?


I recall a colleague, on an International Development team assigned to a
small Pacific country, who may have been junior or at most 'equal' to
myself in 'rank'. Just as in India, he would introduce himself formally
as "Dr Chandrashekar" plus full position and assignment. In a more
relaxed situation, his informal introduction was "Dr Chandra". It was
amusing to watch the reactions both 'westerners' and locals had to this.
Seeing how it didn't 'fit' with our host-culture, we took sardonic
delight in referring to him as "Chandra". (yes, naughty little boys!)
One day my (local, and non-tech, and female) assistant, visibly shaking,
requested a private meeting with another member of the team and myself.
Breaking-down into tears she apologised for interrupting the urgent-fix
discussion we'd been having with senior IT staff the day before, even as
we knew we were scheduled elsewhere. Her 'apology' was that Chandra was
(twice) insistent for our presence and demanded that meeting be
interrupted, even terminated - and that she had to obey, she said,
"because he is Doctor". (we tried really hard not to laugh) For our
part, knowing the guy, we knew that she should not be the recipient of
any 'blow-back'. After plentiful reassurance that she was not 'in
trouble' with either of us, and a talk (similar to 'here') about the
[ab]use of 'titles', she not only understood, but paid us both a great
compliment saying something like: I call you (first-name) because we all
work together, but I call him "Doctor" because he expects me to do
things *for* him! Being called by my given-name, unadorned, always
proved a 'buzz' thereafter!


> Back to topic, if I may, sometimes things set our moods. I am here partially
> to be helpful and partially for my own amusement and education as looking at
> some of the puzzles presented presents opportunities to think and
> investigate.
> 
> But before I could get to the reasonable question here, I was perturbed at
> the overly formulaic politeness and wrongness of the greeting from my
> perhaps touchy perspective for the reasons mentioned including the way it
> seeming assumes no Ladies are present and we are somehow Gentlemen, but also
> by the mess I saw on one wrapped line that was a pain to take apart. Then I
> wondered why the question was being asked. Yes, weirdly, it is a question
> you and I have discussed before when wondering which way of doing something
> worked better, was more efficient, or showed a more brilliant way to use the
> wrong method to do something nobody designed it for!

Yep, rubs me the wrong way too!
(old grumpy-guts is likely to say "no!", on principle - and long before
they've even finished their wind-up!)

BTW such is not just an Asian 'thing' either - I recall seeing, and
quickly avoiding, the latest version of a perennial discussion about
protocol. Specifically, the sequence of email-addresses one should use
in the To: and Cc: fields of email-messages (and whether or not Bcc: is
"respectful"). Even today, in the US and UK, some people and/or
organisations demand that the more 'important' names should precede
those of mere-minions. "We the people" meets "some, more equal than others"!

Yes, and the OP does irritate by not answering questions from 'helpers'.
He does publish (for income/profit). I don't know if he has ever
used/repeated any of the topics discussed 'here' - nor if in doing-so he
attributes and credits appropriately (by European, UK, US... standards).


> I am not sure who read my longish message, but I hope the main point is that
> sometimes you should just TEST it. This is not long and complex code.
> However, there cannot be any one test everyone will agree on and it often
> depends on factors other than CPU cycles. A robust implementation that can
> handle multiple needs may well be slower and yet more cost effective in some
> sense.

Another source of irritation: define terms-used, eg what is the metric
for "better" or "best"?

Frankly, the succession of 'academic questions' with dubious application
in the real world (CRC-checks notwithstanding) have all the flavor of
someone writing an old-fashioned text-book - emphasis on facts, with
professional application relegated to lesser (if any) import, and
perhaps more than a little "I'm so much smarter than you".

NB the Indian and many Asian education systems use techniques which are
regarded as 'old', yet at the same time they are apparently effective!


-- 
Regards,
=dn