I saw this answer. It's may be funny, but it's not programming related answer, so it's not fit to SO. I flagged it as not an answer, and a moderator declined it. So I think the moderator thinks this is a programming related answer. How can we consider it as a programming related (tools, code, algorithm, ....) answer?
When you flag something as not being an answer, you're asking us to unilaterally delete content posted by someone else. I tend to have a fairly high bar for that.
If someone is making an attempt to address the question, or at least a part of it, in their answer, I'm not going to delete it. While votes aren't the sole metric for whether something is appropriate here, the fact that the answer has a lot of votes for it also helps push the needle into "don't delete" territory.
In this case, while the information they presented was not programming related, it did address part of the question and provided new information. I saw no harm in letting it stay, so I declined that flag and didn't delete it.
There are plenty of questions here for which a viable answer could have a non-programming-related component. I was just reading one the other day about stereoscopic 3-D, where one of the best answers was a discussion of optics and how the eye perceives objects. There was no code involved in any of that, yet it was still useful information.
I flagged it as not an answer, and a moderator declined it. So I think the moderator thinks this is a programming related answer.
You only flagged it as not an answer, not "not a programming answer." There's no reason to think that the moderator who declined your flag thinks this is a programming related answer. It's not, but it is still an answer to the question.
I think this is a good example of the trouble with using analogies amongst programmers, and engineers. There will always be at least one in the group who answers based solely on the given analogy and presents an issue that only occurs in that analogy.
The question is really about making an efficient algorithm for purposes other than exterminating cats, at least I hope that this is the case, but because cats are used in the analogy someone will inevitably get hung up on the specific use case and answer based on that.
This reminds me of my brother, an electrical engineer, who got into an in depth debate with his coworkers about the most efficient voltage and amperage to use for vaporizing chipmunks... It ended badly when it entered the testing phase.
This answer was stating that an assumption made within the question itself is invalid, and as a result of that invalid assumption the problem cannot be solved given the constraint specified.
The question stated that if a cat dies from a fall at floor N, it will also die if it was instead thrown from any floor above it.
An answer that states that a question cannot be answered, due to an invalid assumption, is an answer to the question, by the same logic that giving an answer that "this is impossible, there is no solution" is also an answer (if you explain why and show that there is no solution).