thanks in that case yea bad luck, glad he was in a cage

I was more like why is the guy there. Because I don’t know the answer can’t make a definitive judgement on the case. If it was just to watch a bear struggle with a cage yea fuck that. If it was to document something that is undocumentable in any other way, that is more respectable.

I don’t know, that bear just wasted quite a bit of energy in an environment where it really matters.

I thought that was my brain sound

Oh no. Anyways

“I replaced glue with water but the pieces won’t stick together, this is terrible DIY instructions”

seagull’s reaction: “DUDE WTF?”

same here, for a second I asked myself “ok where am I right now?”

Great make every effort to suck the soul out of internet, of which there is already very little remaining. Then you can jack off to all the money you made while watching the internet that is %100 bots and racists

Sounds like being a project manager for a team of one coder AI, honestly quite depressing. You don’t get to do the fun part (coding) or you don’t actually get to interact with intelligent human beings (possibly only fun part of a managerial role). The only positive thing you get out of it is basically output (which may become unmaintainable for complex projects in the long run). Sounds like something that only CEOs and people trying to get rich quickly would like.

title sounds like Trump invested in something and lost but actually this was a grift for Trump to steal money from idiots

that is just one instance, in particular lemmy.ml. pretty much everywhere else they make fun of them.

Turns out on part 2 you can remove on access rather than after a full sweep of the grid, which cuts down the number of iterations you need to do about 1/2 sometimes 1/3 (depending on input).

import itertools as it
from pathlib import Path

import numpy as np

cwd = Path(__file__).parent.resolve()


def parse_input(file_path):
  with file_path.open("r") as fp:
    grid = np.array(list(map(list, list(map(str.strip, fp.readlines())))),
                    dtype=str)
  return grid


def solve_problem(file_name, single_attempt=True):

  grid = parse_input(Path(cwd, file_name))
  nr, nc = grid.shape
  nacc_total = 0
  stop = False

  while not stop:

    nacc = 0

    for i,j in it.product(range(nr), range(nc)):

      if grid[i,j] != '@':
        continue

      if np.count_nonzero(grid[max(i-1, 0):min(i+2, nr),
                               max(j-1, 0):min(j+2, nc)] == '@')<5:
        nacc += 1

        if not single_attempt:
          grid[i,j] = '.'

    nacc_total += nacc

    if nacc==0 or single_attempt:
      stop = True

  return nacc_total

how do we even know it was the bread? maybe it was vaccine poisoning

In before we see bottled fart in amazon. And then following that high hyrdogen sulfide content premium grade farts and premium hydrogen sulfide with with added Methyl Mercaptan because it is shown to increase hydrogen sulfide intake

I suspect parrots may be more sensible than that

import numpy as np

def parse_input(file_path):

  with file_path.open("r") as fp:
    banks = map(str.strip, fp.readlines())

  return map(lambda x: list(map(int, list(x))), banks)

def max_jolt(bank, length):

  if length==1:
    return max(bank)

  amax = np.argmax(bank[:-(length-1)])

  return 10**(length-1)*bank[amax] + max_jolt(bank[amax+1:], length-1)

def solve_problem(file_name, length):

  banks = parse_input(Path(cwd, file_name))
  sumj = 0

  for bank in banks:
    sumj += max_jolt(bank, length)

  return sumj

“I am deeply deeply sorry”

ahh the good old “it is for your own good”

The question is more the following: can we trust them to use the information available to them honestly or are they more likely to distort or hide facts if it aligns more with their interests. If the latter is a common situation, then that is not an insane take.