Sorted is O(n log n) complexity, both sorted and sort use the same algorithm behind the scenes. Creating a list is O(1).

i cant tell you how many times i thought about Re but ended up not using it haha beautiful

i had the same idea, just used a string instead :(

i did same thing but i just said arr != None its acccepted too here >1

really nice

brackets denote choosing between a number of characters in regex. in this case, picking one of "a", "e", "i", "o", "u", "A", "E", "I", "O", or "U".

When we do 'max' and 'min' - there is some kind of sorting happening under the hood for two times.

This is wrong. When we do min and max, there is no sorting happening under the hood, for a total of zero times.

Why is it so? I solved with 'min' and 'max' too, but now I think that 'sort' could be more efficient.
When we do 'max' and 'min' - there is some kind of sorting happening under the hood for two times.
But using 'sort' - sorting happens just once.

According to tests from 'pprunesquallor' - 'sort' is more efficient. As you said - only for short lists.
What lists are long? What is the len value after which 'sort' becomes less efficient?
And why?

But didn't it takes more time for slicing, if there is long list? And what if we check "len(arr) > 2" instead of "len(arr) > 1". Wouldn't it be faster?

An empty list is false(y), so it tests if the list (arr) is empty or not

Why 'arr' is used as condition?

Ah, knowing which library to use can make the difference in Python.