Clear, but O(n*log(n)) complexity instead of naive O(n)

This solution is very old, .at didn't exist when it was written.

you can use arr.at(-1) instead of arr[arr.length -1]

similar to mine but MAN it took me 3 whole days because i wrote lenght instead of length lol.

4 months old and I concur concur. I also used sort not realizing how inefficient it is. Thanks for the learning.

Your comment is 2 years old but I concur.

It's just the opposite.

Most of these soltuons were written long before ES6 was viable to use day-to-day.

Should use arrow function

I'm just starting, and my solution was just like this one above.
But excellent point! Seeing your thought make me think a lot different about somethings.
Three years old comment, but really helpful!

It took me a few min to realise that its a good one haha

Dont mean to burden with this simple operation but I'm left a bit confused on the !(weight % 2) can someone shed some light on this...