Changed

You can't refactor it if you can't solve it badly.

This was fun, thank you!

Pretty challenging kata of the series, nice one.

You will get the same final answer regardless of which i and j you choose for each iteration, so long as X[i] > X[j].

Thanks! I like to write in functional style when possible and next in Python is very useful for that. However, after 2 years it took me a moment to understand what that accumulate does.

Agreed on moving the 4 into cycle, it saves a lot of multiplications (though s was meant to represent the sign, expressed with +1 or -1).

I prefer to use math.isclose instead of abs to check if the floating point numbers are close because I can quickly recognize what that code is doing, but your mileage may vary.

and you neither have to sort the arrays but fill the appropriate count of values instead. But I guess than it becomes more verbous (not an expert on Python's syntactic sugar)

My solution in Python reaches the "rectangles have only common faces (version 2)" random test then times out. Ported to Javascript, it passes in approx. 9 seconds.

Nice kata despite the clunky description. I did not even try to brute-force the solution because I thought it would time out (my bad). I ended up writing a solution that works for more general cases.

This was fun, thank you! I am particularly happy with the way I achieved numerical stability in Python.

That's clever! It confirms that 55-character limit and return type integer could both be enforced.

There is room to cast it to integers.