Even in real life, enough circumstantial evidence is often sufficient for a conviction, and I would say that is A LOT of circumstantial evidence.

This is the one in a million chance, does not represent the general case accurately.

Yes, I do that sometimes as well. But that results in comments like this:

// ok so we need to basically find the largest set of nodes, which are ancestors of each other, such that none of them is an ancestor of the other in another tree
// ok so can we convert this to a useful format using tin and tout?
// take path from root to leaf, and we need to find largest set of ranges such that none of them completely contains the other
// but we need to also support incremental add and remove queries
// how to do that?

not something like // Take input int n, k; cin >> n >> k; vector<int> a(n); for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) { cin >> a[i]; } // Binary search check function auto Check = [&](int m) { long long ans = 0; for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) { ans += max(a[i] - m, 0LL); } return (ans <= k); }; // Binary search int low = 0, high = 1e9, idx = -1; while (low <= high) { int mid = (low + high) >> 1; if (Check(mid)) { idx = mid; high = mid - 1; } else { low = mid + 1; } } // Print answer cout << idx << '\n';

(yes I know this is slightly exaggarated, the original code is not nearly as bad, but it's the same spirit)