200fifty

I'm picturing some kind of flour-sifting Juicero-type smart device

Feel like the very beginning of this is not completely crazy (I've also thought in the past that straight people often perform "attractiveness" more for the approval of their same-sex friends) but it seems to kind of jump off the evo-psych deep end after that, lol

Also you can't build a bunch of assumptions about "we should organize society this way" while ignoring the existence of LGBT people, and then go "yeah I know I ignored them but it simplified my analysis." Like yeah it simplifies the analysis to ignore a bunch of stuff that actually exists in reality, but... then that means maybe your conclusions about how to structure society are wrong??

edit: also this quote is choice:

I don't know if this really happens. But even if not, the fiction does a great job of highlighting the dynamic I'm thinking of.

It's like pickup artistry on a societal scale.

It really does illustrate the way they see culture not as, like, a beautiful evolving dynamic system that makes life worth living, but instead as a stupid game to be won or a nuisance getting in the way of their world domination efforts

day 2

#!/usr/bin/env perl

use strict;
use warnings;
use v5.010;
use List::Util qw/ max /;

# Parse the input

my %games = ();

for my $line (<>) {
    $line =~ /Game (\d+): (.+)/;
    my $game_id = $1;
    my $game_str = $2;

    my @segments = split '; ', $game_str;
    my @game = ();
    for my $segment (@segments) {
        my @counts = split ', ', $segment;

        my %colors = (red => 0, blue => 0, green => 0);
        for my $count (@counts) {
            $count =~ /(\d+) (\w+)/;
            $colors{$2} = $1;
        }

        push @game, { %colors };
    }

    $games{$game_id} = [ @game ];
}

# Part 1

my $part1 = 0;

game: for my $game_id (keys %games) {
    for my $segment (@{$games{$game_id}}) {
        next game if $segment->{red} > 12 || $segment->{green} > 13 || $segment->{blue} > 14;
    }

    $part1 += $game_id;
}

say "Part 1: $part1";

# Part 2

my $part2 = 0;

for my $game (values %games) {
    my ($red, $green, $blue) = (0, 0, 0);

    for my $segment (@$game) {
        $red = max $segment->{red}, $red;
        $green = max $segment->{green}, $green;
        $blue = max $segment->{blue}, $blue;
    }

    $part2 += $red * $green * $blue;
}

say "Part 2: $part2";

Found this much easier than day 1 honestly...

day 1

part 1

#!/usr/bin/env perl

use strict;
use warnings;
use 5.010;

my $total = 0;

for my $line (<>) {
    my @nums = ($line =~ /\d/g);
    $total += $nums[0] * 10 + $nums[-1];
}

say $total;

part 2

#!/usr/bin/env perl

use strict;
use warnings;
use v5.010;

my %nums = (one => 1, two => 2, three => 3, four => 4, five => 5, six => 6, seven => 7, eight => 8, nine => 9);
$nums{$_} = $_ for 1..9;

my $regex = join "|", keys %nums;

my $total = 0;

for my $line (<>) {
    $line =~ /($regex)/;
    my $first_num = $nums{$1};

    my $window = 1;
    my $sub = substr $line, -1;
    while ($sub !~ /($regex)/) {
        $window ++;
        $sub = substr $line, -$window;
    }

    $sub =~ /($regex)/;
    my $second_num = $nums{$1};

    $total += $first_num * 10 + $second_num;
}

say $total;

Also Lemmy is eating my < characters inside code blocks, which seems wrong. Pretend the "&lt;>" part says "<>", lol

The problem is just transparency, you see -- if they could just show people the math that led them to determining that this would save X million more lives, then everyone would realize that it was actually a very good and sensible decision!

It’s not like a pig that can do calculus would suddenly become a reasonable romantic partner haha.

as a pig that can do calculus, this explains why I'm still single

why are the comments on this post such a disaster. who are these people

Ref: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/23/openai-was-working-on-advanced-model-so-powerful-it-alarmed-staff

I feel like such a hipster. "I hated them before it was cool!"

Is this a correct characterisation of the EA community? That they all harbour anti-abortion sentiment but for whatever reason permit abortion?

I actually wouldn't be surprised if this were the case -- the whole schtick of a lot of these people is "worrying about increasing the number of future possibly-existing humans, even at the cost of the suffering of actually-existing humans", so being anti-abortion honestly seems not too far out of their wheelhouse?

Like I think in the EAverse you can just kinda go "well this makes people have less kids which means less QALYs therefore we all know it's obviously bad and I don't really need to justify it." (with bonus internet contrarian points if you are justifying some terrible thing using your abstract math, because that means you're Highly Decoupled and Very Smart.) See also the quote elsewhere in this thread about the guy defending child marriage for similar reasons.

I... think (hope??) the "*" is representing filled in squares in the crossword and that he has a grid of characters. But in that case the problem is super easy, you just need to print out HTML table tags between each character and color the table cell black when the character is "*". It takes like 10 minutes to solve without chatgpt already. :/