I have seen people burn money in games just as much as some who has gambling problems. Just one has the person expectations being hoping if earning more to continue to gamble with, while gamers who spend cash are looking for more extrinsic values that are still just as useless or not worth it. I do say these game devs are more deserving of the cash but loot boxes exist and others forms of gambling that gets a blind eye. Balatro isn't even real cash. It's not the same.
Acters
joined 1 year ago
That would be cool af to see in C, let me know if you do. In python, we can built the two sets, and have the convenient function call of set( [iterate-able object/list/set] ).intersection( [iterate-able object/list/set] ) to see if the two sets touches/intersects as the block that connects the two sets would be in both sets/lists.
The way I would build the two sets would be to start at the final state with all blocks placed and just union-find all the blocks. When we find that a block appears in both sets, then we stop the union and proceed with the other unions until we find all the blocks that would appear in both sets. then we iteratively find the first block that would appear in both sets. In python the intersection call returns a set, so you can stack the intersect call. like so: set( [top right union set] ).intersection( [bottom left union set] ).intersection( [ one item list with the current block we are checking ] ) technically you can just save the intersections of the first two sets to save a little time because they would not change.
I didn't think of this until recently, but I also think it is such a simple and elegant solution. Live and learn! π
hope you are having a good holiday season!
On the topic about flood fill and other path finding algorithms. I do think your method is quite fast. However, I saw on reddit someone saw Part 2 as more of a tree phenomena called "Crown shyness" where two trees limit their growth to prevent touching each other.
so the idea behind the "Crown shyness" approach is that when you add a block, you find which corner(top right or bottom left) it is connect to(or in union) until one block connects both corners. so instead of path finding, you are connecting walls to one side. This is also called the "Union-Find algorithm" and the optimization is that when a block drops, you calculate what it is connect with. you can find some visualization of it as that would make it easier to see. This method is by far way more performant, because you can be sure that with all the blocks placed, then the blocks are all in one union, but as you remove blocks you eventually have two unions appear! That block would be the solution.
Your flood fill is mimicking this closely but instead of union of walls, it is finding if there is a union between the start and end nodes, or top left node with bottom right node. When that wall that blocks the path is placed, it will create two unions for the start and end node.
ah, I exclude loading and reading the file. but since you are pasting it from pasting into the terminal, that is alright.
My main gripe is that I am looking at the performance of the algorithm/functions over the performance of the disk access and read, the startup/end overhead. Python is notorious in having overhead during startup for loading the code and before execution occurs. Why should I measure the performance of the language too harshly? I rather look at how my code performs. In windows, the python overhead adds 30-40 ms, while on Linux, it performs faster with only an overhead of consistent 20 ms. Though, that is just without importing heavy or many libraries. If startup is a concern, then a precompiled non-interpreted language is a better option.(along with the other benefits) This is my reasoning for only measuring my algorithm. I do include parsing the input as that is part of the challenge, but I do see there are reasons not to do that. when you are looking for code that is performant, you want to scientifically remove too many variables. If you are to reuse some code, lets say the input to that function is already parsed and then you just want performance. However, I do measure my parsing because for the AoC, I want to think about what would be faster to parsing and what is a bad parsing.
For AoC, I find a language overhead is not part of the challenge. we should rather learn new languages when we want or use what is comfortable. however, languages like Uiua with a lot of specialty functions is just not worth measuring performance as the main code is just a simple "function call"
I am sure there is a python package/module that includes a fast path finder, too. I just want to challenge myself mostly to learn instead. however, I am finding I would need to start learning rust instead, because my python skills are starting to plateau.
Wooo! instant is so good, I knew you could do it! When I see my python script getting close to 20 ms, I usually expect my fellow optimized language peers to be doing it faster. Pretty surprised to see so many varying solutions that ended up being a little slower just because people didnt realize the potential of speed from failing to find a path.
The first part has a guaranteed path! if you think about a binary search, when there is a path then the block is higher up the list, so we ignore the lower blocks in the list. move to the next "midpoint" to test and just fill and remove blocks as we go to each mid point. So I took the first part as the lower point and moved to a mid point above that.
at least that is how I saw it, when I first looked, but binary search is a little harder to think of than just a simple for loop from the end of the list back. Yet I still got it done! Even included a dead end filler that takes 7 ms to show the final path for Part 2, it was not needed but was a neat inclusion!
Python
Nobody posted a solution in python for today???
Here is my solver with a little extra to print the Part 2 path. you can totally remove/comment out the printing out of the part 2 path, but it is neat to look at!
Execution time: ~25 milliseconds + an unnecessary ~7 ms to print part 2 path
This is the one where you don't have it print out the Part 2 path and smaller: [ Paste ]
here is also a faster version that uses binary search instead. but its only a few milliseconds faster.
Execution time: ~21 milliseconds + an unnecessary ~7 ms to print part 2 path
Part 2 can be faster if you iteratively remove blocks until there is a path. This is because it is faster to fail to find a path and the flood fill algorithm does not need to fill as many spots because the map would be filled up with more blocks! this drops the part 2 solve to a few milliseconds. others have taken a binary search option which is faster.
Insert rookie numbers meme
So true, I like tech stuff and even on Lemmy where people are more tech literate, there is mostly just porn politics and memes. I do still like putting in some high quality comments. Allows me to forget about the current state of things.
Top is proprietary llms vs bottom self hosted llms. Bothe end with you getting smacked in the face but one looks far cooler or smarter to do, while the other one is streamlined web app that gets you there in one step.
Oh you bet this is what will happen. I've been seeing schools with a car drive line purposely built for people to snake their cars around before dropping off a kid. Massive amount of asphalt and suspension destroying speed tables/bumps and incredulously slow. So kids need to wake up much earlier to just even enter the school instead of the incredibly faster school bus. Why is this becoming more preferable? Well people are dumb and rather not buy fancier school buses that help the community and rather go into massive amounts of debt to not help "freeloaders" and feel not poor from the status symbol a car seemingly has for some good forsaken reason...
Now they are just going to get an Uber or Lyft ride to not deal with the unbearable time it takes to drop off a kid. Used to be only rich kids doing "skipping the bus" , now it's everyone, and now no one is "rich" . Just like that meme from the Incredibles movie, where syndrome said a similar phrase.
view more: next βΊ
I think there are dynamics at play her but to keep it short. I admire your steadfast disappointment towards gambling or playing with odds. However, for a game like balatro being completely free to continue playing after the initial purchase. As far as I can tell, there are no micro transactions or push for players to sink their wallets into the game. The entire game is basically a simulation. All randomizations are predetermined based on a seed. You can set it or you can figure it out if you are smart enough in math and cryptography. However, ratings are more annoyance than being a real guard against the real problems happening right now.
There are many more dissatisfying things. I doubt we should fight over the rating. Instead we should be in agreement that gambling and other pay to play odds like loot boxes is bad and stricter regulations.