The same method as mine, just more verbose but also probably more readable.

I kind of get it, but not fully.

This is that solution that makes you kick yourself for not thinking of it. Very elegant.

This is my favorite solution. It is actually pretty dam elegant!

i just came here to ask this too

'bitwise op' just removes decimals part,
but Math.floor(...) actually round a number down as it said lately 'mr royce-reed',
so it also behave pretty weird when we working with numbers
which not contains into int-type(border:+-2147483647)
StackOverflow question:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/13847053/difference-between-and-math-floor

~~ is just shorthand for Math.floor()

not really

const x = 8589934592.5;
Math.floor(x);
// 8589934592
~~(x) ;
// 0

~~ is just shorthand for Math.floor() and the plus sign is just a plus sign 😝
OP did recursion instead of iterating ... slick but hard to read

Don't need the ternary since count can never be even. LOL Remnant of trying something earlier.

it's a nested function

Thanks, I got it because I did it by hand and got different results than using charCodeAt() and didn't understand because I just kept thinking "what is the difference, every letter is just +96" but when you break it down I understand the math better

Strange that I got it working and the answer has solid hint is in here (only read this after I got it) I don't understand yet the mathmatical difference.