Hell , I ' m going to redouble my efforts to apply my own advice . Lol <| sep |> Of course it is . Specially with all the elite people in the public arena who will get exposed . The 1 % isn ' t that diverse . They are celebrities , politicians , CEOs , Soacial media etc . Money is trying to hide the cold hard to evidence . <| sep |> Check your Latin privilege , celts and germans make only a single sestertius for every denarius a Latin makes . <| sep |> Yeah , that ' s what I thought I was confused as I thought the commenter was saying he meant something else . <| sep |> Thats a fascinating case . Maybe I ' m missing something subtle , but it seems to me that there ' s an alternate , and obviously correct , approach to resolve this issue . When adding multiple entries , resize the backing array once so that it will be big enough , before starting to add any entries . This is ' obviously correct ', in that it it preserves correctness it should be amortised about the same speed as without doing so and it prevents the problem with the ' crowded ' case where it goes quadratic . At least , I think it does . I can ' t quite seem to squeeze out an algebraic proof probably down to the beer ! anyone got any thoughts on that possible solution ? A trivial constant slower if no resize is needed and marginally faster if at least one resize would have been saved . I suspect that most of the time that ' s a not enough to notice .