Doesn't this list the words in the order that they are grouped? The article states that randomizing the words completely eliminates any successful results
A file cannot be 'Unicode'. Unicode is just a catalog of symbols one might want to express in writing.
An encoding (like ASCII or UTF-8) describes how bytes are mapped to such symbols. ASCII only describes 128 characters whereas UTF-8 can represent any Unicode symbol in bytes.
Notably though, UTF-8 is a strict superset of ASCII. That is, every character ASCII represents is represented by the same bytes in UTF-8. So encoding Romeo and Juliet in ASCII or UTF-8 results in the same exact file.
An empty grid is randomly filled in till it's solved, then a fixed number of cells are randomly cleared. Thus it's very possible to create an ambiguous solution.
However I don't grade it against every sudoku app in history, I grade it against other handcrafted index.html sites. And on that metric I think it's pretty good.
Lots of room to extend functionality of course, but it seems like a project whose value was in the making, not the having.
My first game had an ambiguous solution not resolvable with logic. It was one of these deals:
a.b
...
b.a
On the plus side, I like that it highlights the current number. For a mature exploration of this idea with many more features, look at https://www.sudokuslam.com/ for ideas. I've been playing that one for many years.
I will improve the puzzle generation function so there's only one possible answer. Thanks for sharing Sudoku Slam, looks great! Especially the "auto-fill in obvious numbers".
Yes autofill, which feels like cheating, along with automatically filling in marks. What this does, though, is let you focus on only the hard decisions and the auto does everything else for you.
I'm as quick to jump on the Medium roastwagon as anyone else, but I will say Towards Data Science has a surprising number of quality tutorials running the full spectrum of data science tasks.
That and they have great SEO, you basically can't avoid them.
I do have a bit of experience with LLM locally, to test the limits of what it can do consistently. 16000 token context windows don't seem like enough to me to tackle this task. I don't know that it's possible to distill my musical tastes into a small enough number of tokens, for instance. Nevermind that you need humans to review the music, currently; unless there's magical song tagging models out there i haven't heard of.
there are minimally invasive mechanisms, like kongregate and that .io game site use, "people also played ..."; most aggregators suck, though. Netflix has always recommended stuff ("For you" or whatever) that i have no interest in, amazon recommends things that i would never buy - or have already bought, including from amazon. Pandora was awesome before everyone uploaded every song to youtube, now it's just a collection of playlists that play the same 20 songs over and over each time you start it.
I don't use and haven't used spotify or any other "music" service, because of pandora experiences and youtube. Also in my car i prefer to listen to old time radio which is easily discoverable* enough for at least a few years of content. Just copy to a USB stick and plug into the car. And my big issue with podcasts is i don't enjoy listening to most (nearly all) people just "talking", especially if they're chewing the scenery to make it more of a "captivating" experience.
I do miss mp3 streaming sites, though. My favorite one went dark during the pandemic, is still dark, and shoutcast dot com has sucked for discovery for at least half a decade if not longer. I think it's mostly popular in non-english speaking countries these days, at a glance.
* OTRR - old time radio researchers, there's otrrpedia and an online player available, the content itself lives on archive.org - i have about a TB of radioplays/content from there that i rotate through (only) in the car.
The extreme personalization of the internet/modern life can lead to a feeling of isolation.
I recently was on a plane with broken inflight entertainment, so all you could watch was a single movie in lock step with everyone else. When the movie ended, there was a weird sense of camaraderie; "we are all stuck in this tube and we all just sat through that mediocre movie".
> The extreme personalization of the internet/modern life can lead to a feeling of isolation.
The extreme manipulation, not personalisation. The latter would be for your benefit, Youtube would study how to make their users happy, have better sleep, be better informed, not fall for scams, etc.
But instead they are studying how to make us spend most time on the most clickbait cospiracy theories.
It's a for-profit company and they have never tried to hide that.
If you know a way to make money from exclusively showing users content that makes them happier, better informed, better rested, etc., then by all means go ahead -- I sincerely wish you the best. But you won't need my good wishes, because you will soon outcompete YouTube and all the rest with your healthy-yet-still-profitable alternative.
It's almost as though basing our society around profit maximization yields negative outcomes. But I'm sure this is just a blip that the Market will correct for.
Or we could collectively ask ourselves what we want and do that, instead of leaving the decision to the most selfish of our kind. That was never a good system to begin with.
>we could collectively ask ourselves what we want and do that
That is what democratic countries already do every 3-5 years -- and TTBOMK the system that gets chosen has so far had capitalism as an important component every single time, despite the option to vote for parties that eschew it partly or completely.
>>we could collectively ask ourselves what we want and do that
>That is what democratic countries already do every 3-5 years
Not sure what country you live in but in Canada they just give you a list of 4 or 5 names of people and you choose one, there's no asking of people what they'd like to do in the slightest. In fact, it's even worse: the folks campaign with certain sales pitches, but rarely follow up on their promises.
It is fascinating how well done story telling can make people oblivious to what physically occurs.
Is there a law in Canada that prohibits people from forming political parties opposed to capitalism, or other prohibitive hurdles (e.g., a large registration fee) that prevent most people from doing so in practice?
If the answer is no, then the fact that no one currently on the ballot represents such a party is just evidence that Canadians, today, have almost no interest in these political approaches.
>the folks campaign with certain sales pitches, but rarely follow up on their promises.
I agree this is a serious problem with existing democratic systems, but I don't know what to do about it. In theory people punish politicians who fail to deliver by voting them out, but in practice, a lot happens between elections, and people's attention wanders.
Maybe, but nobody has invaded the US or Western Europe for a while now.
I think the counterargument that I would mount is that what people want, or think what they want, isn't necessarily what is good for them. This is obviously a very dangerous line of thought - because it can justify all sorts of oppression - but I think it's nevertheless true.
I find solace in knowing that I don't have a say in it. Because regardless of what the idea was, whenever someone tried to force everyone to go along with it and base a society on it, it turned out disastrously.
The only thing we can all do it be open minded, honest, and set a good example for the next generation who will take over and hopefully improve on what we did, while making their own mistakes.
Profit-maximizing business is the engine of economic growth. Looking over the past couple hundred years, I’d say the outcomes have been nothing short of spectacular.
I think that entirely depends on the outcomes you value. If you value economic growth, then yes -- it's been spectacular. However, it has also come at great cost in terms of other desirable things.
It's a tradeoff. Some things are better, other things are worse. There's nothing wrong, and everything right, with examining those tradeoffs and deciding if they need adjustment.
Unregulated profit maximising business has killed how many people through the trans atlantic slave trade?
Without regulation, this is what happens - the bank would collect your organs for payment if they could. Buinesses have no ethical standards.
Profit maximing business did not invent antibiotics, did not invent sanitation, did not create public sewers, running water, soap, GPS, and clorination of water.
Because I'm generally aware of western economic and political history from 1600-1800. I'm not conflating them, they were in fact conflated.
Soviet russian and chinese industrialization was different, but later and not relevant to the Atlantic slave trade that parent poster was talking about.
> Soviet russian and chinese industrialization was different
Of course. "Industrialization requires profit, except when it doesn't". Got it.
> but later and not relevant to the Atlantic slave trade that parent poster was talking about.
I didn't realize they used steam ships to transport slaves from Africa to Americas, where they made them work in factories to produce industrial goods.
There is no ideological war, it is just an unfounded statement that has no direct line of reasoning. What does slavery have to do with industrialization? There weren't slaves in many pre-industrial societies. And the fact that you switched 'industrialization' for 'profit maximizing businesses' as if no one would notice (then acknowledging that communists did figure out how to do it) makes me wonder if you even thought about for more than a few seconds.
I was under the impression that most pre-industrial societies had slavery. Or at least most societies that were successful.
The Bible has passages on how to be a moral slave owner.
As far as conflating industrialization with capitalism, I'm sorry, I'm actually very far left politically but this is just a fact. It's underappreciated in the west that 5 year plans worked well, but they were following a template 200 years, 2 full centuries, later. 100 years after successful British capitalists banned slavery.
You can be under any impression you want but that doesn't make you not completely wrong. The Bible is not a history book, and if it was, it wouldn't be the only one.
And calling 'industrialization' 'capitalism' and 'profit maximizing business' all the same thing and then shrugging it off after getting called out, you are just showing that you ignorant of what any of it means. And your last two sentences are non-sensical -- I literally cannot figure out what 5 year plans have to do with slavery in the west.
I'm not calling those things the same at all. I actually draw distinctions between them. But there's a historical record of how they happened together after not happening separately for thousands of years.
There's a principle of charity when reading that you may want to consider.
Sorry but you don't get charity when you are asserting a point which is completely unfounded. Please find something which will back up your point besides 'they all happened at once' because that isn't even true. There is no correlation with 'capitalism' 'industry' and 'profit' with 'demise of slavery'. I beg you to look up what was happening in the Congo by Belgium when the automobile was being popularized.
There happens to be a correlation with a bunch of nice things because we happen to live in the modern era, but you can't attribute everything to capitalism because, as we noted it was not the only system in place which did these things.
I would like you to find some scholarly research which can bolster your theory.
Before industrialization, slavery and serfdom are common for thousands of years.
After industrialization, it goes away within 1-200 years every place that industrialized. Probably because it's not economical anymore in the presence of industrial production.
You're saying that this observation is so out of pocket that it doesn't deserve a charitable hearing?
Sure -- it makes sense in the same way that it makes sense industrialization got rid of eunuchs. A barbaric practice has died out in certain parts of the world because we live in the modern age.
To say that wouldn't have happened without industrialization, which wouldn't have happened without profit maximization, which wouldn't have happened without capitalism, is not logical. There is nothing inherent in capitalism which requires profit maximization at the expense of humans, it just requires exploitation of private property (note exploitation here means 'being used' not 'being used in a necessarily harmful manner). There is nothing inherent in industrialization which requires profit maximization, it just requires a cheap source of energy and labor and a market (note that this can be a planned market as in communism, or a market in which the demand is created only for war production and is fed by looting conquered territory, as the fascists did in WWII).
And there is nothing which precludes slavery existing because any of those other things exist. In fact, there were massive amounts of slaves who toiled under Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in the modern era, and we only don't have them now because they lost the war.
My "theory" is a straightforward recollection of the way things did in fact happen, on this planet and in this universe. Europeans started the industrial ball rolling with for profit companies. Sorry if you don't like it.
It's an entity permitted by society under the premise that allowing such entities is a net benefit. We can and should continuously re-evaluate that benefit and adjust what we allow accordingly.
Contrast that with the account I read about the 1930s-40s: The major media was radio, and on summer afternoons when President Franklin Roosevelt was speaking, you could apparently walk down the street and not miss a word of the speech, because every radio in every house was tuned to the same broadcast.
A one-way radio broadcast is not a dialogue; in fact, we have much closer to realtime dualogue with leaders today, despite greater scale (yes, its still moderated by intermediaries, but its much more rapid and much less wrapped up in the ability to tell different stories to different audiences without information rapidly flowing between them—politicians still try this, sometimes, but it tends to fail, and increasingly to fail very quickly.)
I suppose the FDR had better writers, and was better at sticking to his scripts.
But there were a lot of people who referred to FDR as "that man in the White House" rather than use his name. And Edmund Wilson quoted somebody at a dinner party in the 1930s, where someone denouncing Hitler was answered with "That's going too far. You're talking about him as if he was Roosevelt."
I think that's the point though, isn't it? Some people will like the speeches, some won't, but they had all heard the same speech and were all more or less on the same page about what was being discussed.
Maybe a bit more like walking into a multiplex to discover there’s only one screen and that they’ve locked the doors behind you for the next few hours, but yes.
A very back of the napkin math - so far, 2023's domestic box office total is 75% of 2019th (pre-covid). Although the number of releases in 2023 is 60% of 2019th number of releases as well. I definitely wouldn't say nobody is going to the movies. I would even say, I went to see some this year as many times as I probably went in 2019.
I see more movies than ever in theaters, because I have an Alamo subscription. It just becomes like going out to a restaurant, and you see a movie you might not have otherwise.
It also is like a restaurant where everyone is required to be silent and not use phones...
I'm not sure the official name for that is but I call it the "shared experience." Obviously something that pulls us together, but recently with less and less of it we're becoming islands in a sea of nothingness.
I was honestly kind of shocked to find out a coworker watched a couple of the same YouTubers I do.
It's probably just because my interests are obscure but my assumption has always been I live in my own bubble. Even my friends don't consume anything like the same media I do, going back to the early aughts.
About once a month I'll be watching a YouTube Short and my wife will yell out "Hey, I saw that on Tiktok"
Media makes you feel isolated and utterly unique. This is personalization deployed at scale. I worked on the first personalization systems and been involved in their implantation for decades.
It’s fascinating how they’ve affected culture to the point where people don’t even see them anymore.
Personalization is profoundly powerful technology at scale. Do not underestimate their influence. What you talk about is the ever present concern of people who know you will talk, and almost everyone talks.
If you share internet wifi you will get similar recommendations based on what others on the network have watched...not just based on "your" suggestions.
Could be that.
Metaphorically...Both of you were offered "the same meal at the cafeteria" so to speak. Based on what "others" who visited that particular cafeteria had eaten in the past.
This happens all the time to me when I visit friends. I realize the reason I have a suggestion on my youtube was because that was what the person who I was just visiting would want to watch.
Linkedin does this too with suggested contacts. I would imagine spotify and others do as well.
I said one day to a friend of mine how it was "getting creepy" and his response was "Isn't this what we have been asking for though?"
Same here. I recently discussed YouTube with a friend and I was really surprised we had lots of channels in common. I honestly thought that what I casually watch wild be more or less unique (as a set)
Cow hoof trimming (a Scottish guy Hoof GP and a US one someone the hoof guy), painting restoration (complicated name Beaumsometing), cooking (an Aussie guy Andy, and a British one who dances at the end of the preparation) and science (Veritaserum, Numberphile etc.)
I skipped the French channels about cooking (grolandiers) and science.
I now realize that I am really bad with the names of the channels :)
People who want to watch something on the plane where you have no/limited choice of quality movies and/or the screen is way too bright and warm. It's the best you've got, not the best in general.
Usually planes have a decent catalogue (remember this was a bugged entertainment system on one flight) and if we are talking about watching on a phone quality doesn't matter (if anything plane screen is bigger).
That has not been my experience unless you like a random selection of the latest big-budget movies mixed with weird artsy films.
> and if we are talking about watching on a phone quality doesn't matter (if anything plane screen is bigger).
Physically bigger (compared to a phone) but almost guaranteed to be lower resolution, have worse colors and contrast and the touch controls are barely working. You can also bring a tablet or laptop if you prefer a larger screen.
Planes used to be like this, and I'm noticing more and more they're expecting you to bring your own device, so it wouldn't shock me if they went back to having no inflight entertainment.
In-flight entertainment is one thing that I wouldn't mind being unbundled because at this point it really is just a crappier version of what you can bring yourself - both the content and the usually outdated and overloaded tech.
Let's say a particular layperson wants to execute a task.
He gives (INPUT <=> OUTPUT) pairs. chatgpt creates a "prompt ( == bytecode)" which captures the essence of those transformations
This process is called "Program Fitting" similar to Line fitting or Curve fitting given list of data points.
Then this bytecode can then be efficiently run on a smaller distilled CVM (chatgpt virtual machine)
diligently chosen by ChatGPT itself since it knows which CVM to best execute the task
and then run the (bytecode = prompt) on new similar data.
No need to run full ChatGPT. ChatGPT creates its own MoE setups.
We had no dedicated QA, but would consistently poach "Customer Success" team members for critical QA work for the exact reasons your listed. Worked quite well for us.
Especially for complex products that are based on users chaining many building blocks together to create something useful, devs generally have no visibility into how users work and how to test.
Email is quintessentially "fire and forget" message passing, so there's no way to guarantee mail has been delivered and no way to "pull it back".
You can embed tracking in your email to see if it's been opened, and not resend in that case, but this will be flakey as it's easy to disable email trackers.
