*       cancelled, cancellation never propagates to a task that has started to run -- neither to
 *       the callable itself nor to any {@code Future} returned by an {@code AsyncCallable}.
 *       (However, cancellation can prevent an <i>unstarted</i> task from running.) Therefore, the
 *       next task will wait for any running callable (or pending {@code Future} returned by an

 *       cancelled, cancellation never propagates to a task that has started to run -- neither to
 *       the callable itself nor to any {@code Future} returned by an {@code AsyncCallable}.
 *       (However, cancellation can prevent an <i>unstarted</i> task from running.) Therefore, the
 *       next task will wait for any running callable (or pending {@code Future} returned by an

   * <p>This is guaranteed to return zero if the dataset contains only exactly one finite value. It
   * is not guaranteed to return zero when the dataset consists of the same value multiple times,
   * due to numerical errors. However, it is guaranteed never to return a negative result.
   *
   * <h3>Non-finite values</h3>
   *
   * <p>If the dataset contains any non-finite values ({@link Double#POSITIVE_INFINITY}, {@link

   * <p>This is guaranteed to return zero if the dataset contains only exactly one finite value. It
   * is not guaranteed to return zero when the dataset consists of the same value multiple times,
   * due to numerical errors. However, it is guaranteed never to return a negative result.
   *
   * <h3>Non-finite values</h3>
   *
   * <p>If the dataset contains any non-finite values ({@link Double#POSITIVE_INFINITY}, {@link

       *
       * My impression is that an AtomicReferenceFieldUpdater in a static field is similarly fast to
       * Unsafe on modern JVMs (if perhaps not quite as fast as VarHandle?). However, I'm not sure
       * exactly what we've benchmarked, and we certainly haven't benchmarked as far back as JDK 8.
       * (We also haven't benchmarked under Android. We continue to use UnsafeAtomicHelper there so

                    if (NbtAddress.getWINSAddress() == null) {
                        if (LogStream.level > 1) {
                            log.println("NetBIOS resolveOrder specifies WINS however the "
                                    + "jcifs.smb1.netbios.wins property has not been set");
                        }
                        continue;
                    }

   * bug</b> as described in the deprecation text.
   *
   * <p>The C++ equivalent is the MurmurHash3_x86_32 function (Murmur3A), which however does not
   * have the bug.
   *
   * @deprecated This implementation produces incorrect hash values from the {@link
   *     HashFunction#hashString} method if the string contains non-BMP characters. Use {@link

   * xStats().populationVariance() > 0.0 && yStats().populationVariance() > 0.0}). The result is not
   * guaranteed to be exactly +/-1 even when the data are perfectly (anti-)correlated, due to
   * numerical errors. However, it is guaranteed to be in the inclusive range [-1, +1].
   *
   * <h3>Non-finite values</h3>
   *
   * <p>If the dataset contains any non-finite values ({@link Double#POSITIVE_INFINITY}, {@link

 *       OptionalLong} and {@code OptionalDouble}, the use of which is recommended; Guava does not
 *       have these.
 * </ul>
 *
 * <p><b>There are no plans to deprecate this class in the foreseeable future.</b> However, we do
 * gently recommend that you prefer the new, standard Java class whenever possible.
 *
 * <p>See the Guava User Guide article on <a

   *
   * <p>This method is significantly faster than {@link String#equalsIgnoreCase} and should be used
   * in preference if at least one of the parameters is known to contain only ASCII characters.
   *
   * <p>Note however that this method does not always behave identically to expressions such as:
   *
   * <ul>
   *   <li>{@code string.toUpperCase().equals("UPPER CASE ASCII")}
   *   <li>{@code string.toLowerCase().equals("lower case ascii")}