You need to achieve O(log(n))

For "expected null but was 163" the input was not the one you give. It is a "Sample Tests:" so you can read it.

neither lmao

.

['2', 101].sort() resulted in ['2', 101] here

You sure about that? Doesn't sound right to me, and this doesn't support your claim:

function orderWeight(strng) {
    console.log(['2', 101].sort())
}

Log
[ 101, '2' ]

from mdn (which I linked to above):

If compareFunction is not supplied, all non-undefined array elements are sorted by converting them to strings and comparing strings in UTF-16 code units order.

which means 101 should come first, and it seems to do so here. it would be surprising if it didn't. and it is insane (actually it's not so crazy for mixed types, but you'd get the same result for [2, 101]).

My guess is that you are sorting twice and that the non-stable sort is what gets you?

You might be relying on Array.prototype.sort to be stable but that isn't necessarily true for slightly older versions.

but when I run the same program on repl.it or locally everything works

that's only meaningful if you're running the exact same tests. people keep saying something to that effect and it turns out they did something else and that the difference wasn't from the change of environment

not sure what exactly you're asking. make sure that whatever you're relying on is defined behaviour I guess? and javascript is really really uh.. special, when it comes to comparing things

> [7, 8, 9, 10].sort()
[ 10, 7, 8, 9 ]

such a great language :')

I guess you run out of digits. Floating point breaks pretty soon with factorial

It's not the author who gives the kyu. Good you enjoyed it!