Man this is genius! I totally forgot about .includes(). I ran a forEach on b. 😅

What would be the optimal solution?

Your self-assurance is admirable. It is also unreasonable.

Yes i agree the kata is flawed for this. I commented this and others replied telling me i was wrong but i am certain the kata is flawed

Either the wording of the problem is flawed, or the testing batteries are. 4 pancakes (at 2 mins each) on a max-3 pan CANNOT take 3 (shouldn't even be possible to be an odd number, according to the description) minutes to produce 4 cooked pancakes. Whether 4, 5, or 6, you'd need to be running that griddle an additional 2 minutes (total 4) to finish the next 1-3 flapjacks.

Then hire more pancakes!

And this is why AI ain't replacing cooks anytime soon. If your cook takes 4 minutes to bake 3 pancakes in a 2-pancake pan, fire them.

"There are 3 pancakes and the pan fits 2 so we need to do batches of pancakes in rounds = 3 pancakes / 2 pancakes/batch = 1.5 rounds

Since we can't cook half a pancake, we round 1.5 rounds up to 2 rounds

It takes one minute per side and we need to cook two sides so that's 1 minute/side * 2 sides = 2 minutes per pancake

If we have 2 rounds of pancakes and each pancake takes 2 minutes to cook then it will take 2 rounds * 2 minutes/round = 4 minutes to cook all the pancakes

So the answer is 4" - Gemini AI (Google AI)

OP tells us bullshit.

Wow this is pretty cool. I didn't know JS checks the ASCII values behind the scenes.

Also, returning the condition itself would work.

Just wasted my time on this. it seems I'm not the only one who has an issue.

After understanding the question, I concluded that this is similar to the pagination algorithm.

1 pancake, 2 pancake limit:

Math.ceil(1/2) * 2 = 2;

This passed all simple tests. How can 3 be expected? Its not a multiple of 2.
You can't serve half pancakes. Even if you did, it'll still take a minute on each side.

I had the same thinking but couldn't articulate it in code. Very clever and readable!

I like this one. It's easier to read.

I like this solution but I'm confused ... why 9?

This is sweet, understandable and simple!