Design a Singly Linked List 

Yup. That was frustrating me too when the tests were failing.

we are not doing new_node.next = self.head because remember self.head is the dummy node before the actual head of the linked list. So to point the new node to the old head you have to do new_node.next = self.head.next( this gives the old head)

Will make a video on it soon!

@@NeetCodeIO can you also mention how u made the node/tree editor on your website for the roadmap?

@@anonymoussloth6687 angularjs node graph library

Learn about classes, superclass/parentclass and then subclass/childclass. Along with inheritance and polymorphism. 1 month late so maybe you already got your answer but if not there's lots of guides or ask chatgpt (what I did at least)

Depends on scenario but basically if you create a new node Self.head = new node Self.tail = self.head The second line means that they are both pointing to the new node You could also say self.tail = new node basically in this scenario its the "same"

It means we have a dummy value regardless if we're adding/removing from the start or end of a potentially empty linked list.

He keeps the dummy head node and never removes/replaces it. I'm not sure why, it seems silly to keep this dummy node (or to even initialize with a dummy node in the first place). So yes, when creating your get method you should start the pointer at the self.head.next as he shows at 3:33 Personally, I think this entire design is flawed in keeping the dummy nodes that serve no real purpose. We should just be initializing an empty list, and if you go to insert a head or tail when there is no current head or tail, both are set to the new node or return some error stating there is no head/tail. Maintaining the dummy node just adds another variable to consider when making changes to the LinkedList that are unnecessary. Interviewers likely would appreciate seeing you handle edge cases such as this anyway.