|
|
xkcd: Rejected Question Categories[^] 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 285 5/6
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜🟩⬜⬜⬜
🟩🟩⬜⬜🟩
🟩🟩⬜⬜🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 285 6/6
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜🟩⬜⬜⬜
⬜🟩⬜⬜🟩
⬜🟩⬜⬜🟩
⬜🟩🟨🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Got it in the last attempt.
|
|
|
|
|
5 for me as well ... Getting nothing in the first guess is helpful, but dispiriting!
Wordle 285 5/6
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜🟨🟩
⬜🟩⬜🟩🟩
🟨🟩⬜🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Phew! Tricky one today. On my 4th go, I had to resort to abandoning the two letters I knew, in an attempt to narrow down the possibilities.
Wordle 285 6/6
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜🟧⬜⬜⬜
⬜🟧⬜⬜🟧
⬜⬜🟦⬜⬜
🟧🟧⬜⬜🟧
🟧🟧🟧🟧🟧
|
|
|
|
|
It's funny, I use the same 4 words to start:
lower
quips
ketch
mangy
that leaves me 2 guesses, but this isolates all but a handful of letters.
I use: BIFID as my guess if I am coming up light on letters, or I have "moy" (mommy, mobby, molly) or other bdf possibilities
I tend to be good once I know the letters. With 1 or 2 anchors, I can try a few variations to limit my choices.
I actually found an online game and logged enough games, that one of the words was "ketch" lol...
I am curious... Where is THIS version of Wordle at?
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 285 4/6
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜🟨⬜🟩
🟩🟩⬜🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Should have gone with hunch. I would have got it in third attempt.
Wordle 285 5/6*
⬛🟩⬛⬛⬛
⬛🟩🟨⬛⬛
⬛🟩⬛⬛🟨
🟩🟩🟨⬛🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
"It is easy to decipher extraterrestrial signals after deciphering Javascript and VB6 themselves.", ISanti[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
4/6
⬜⬜⬜🟩🟩
⬜🟩⬜⬜⬜
⬜🟩🟨🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
My pattern matched yours exactly 
|
|
|
|
|
They're getting nasty lately.
Wordle 285 5/6
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬛🟨⬛⬛
⬛🟩🟨⬛🟩
🟩🟩⬛⬛🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 285 3/6
⬜⬜⬜🟨🟨
🟨⬜🟨🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
First, thank you for sharing this. I had no idea it was on NYT...
I finally found it. Luckily I found another site that lets me play infinite amount of games.
Wordle Game - Play Unlimited
Anyways, after playing quite a few games, I found about 6 words (4 I use to start EVERY puzzle,
that greatly reduces the letters, and 2-3 alternatives that allows me to split bfd/bvd/fzd)...
The downside is that after a LOT of games, you see the words repeating... And I type the first four words in so fast, I almost miss that I already have 5 letters. LOL.
I guessed this 5-letter word in 6/6 tries.
⬛⬛⬛🟩🟩
⬛⬛🟨⬛⬛
⬛🟨⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
🟨🟩🟨⬛⬛
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Can you guess this word?
https://wordlegame.org?challenge=ZmliZXI
I guessed this 5-letter word in 5/6 tries.
⬛⬛⬛🟨⬛
⬛🟨🟨⬛🟨
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
🟨⬛⬛⬛🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Can you guess this word?
https://wordlegame.org?challenge=dGh5bWU
I guessed this 5-letter word in 5/6 tries.
⬛🟨⬛⬛🟨
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬛⬛🟨⬛
⬛🟩⬛🟩⬛
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Can you guess this word?
https://wordlegame.org?challenge=Y2FyZ28
I guessed this 5-letter word in 5/6 tries.
⬛⬛🟨🟨⬛
⬛⬛⬛⬛🟨
⬛🟨🟨⬛⬛
⬛🟩⬛⬛⬛
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Can you guess this word?
https://wordlegame.org?challenge=d2FzdGU
I guessed this 5-letter word in 6/6 tries. [Forced to use one of my alternative words]
🟨🟨⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
🟩⬛⬛⬛🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Can you guess this word?
https://wordlegame.org?challenge=Ymxvb2Q
[This one doesn't seem obvious until you apply a bit of logic/doubling]
I like that it gives you a link to the specific game.
|
|
|
|
|
Spurred by this week's survey (Do you get up in the middle of the night to code because you can't sleep?[^]):
How much of your work hours and/or mental energy goes to find an "algorithmic solution" to your problem?
I have been coding for a few decades, but my experience is that at least 90% of my time and energy goes to collecting background information, putting pieces together (rather mechanically), typing the code, writing tests, managing the build scripts, reading compiler listings and logs, writing documentation, presenting stuff to coworkers, ... I cannot recite all sorts of algorithms by heart, so sometimes I dig up a text (or open-source code) describing how to solve the problem. Very rarely am I stuck with a problem where I cannot quite easily either devise a method (usually composed from a set of partial solutions), or where I can find a workable solution in literature or on internet.
Those 'eureka moments' are for the most part limited to when I understand the logic in a textbook presentation of an algorithm. I can't imagine not falling asleep because I am unable to devise a new, great, hitherto unknown algorithm.
Of course: If you are an advanced research scientist in a field such as eg. numerical methods, then you job is to develop new algorithms for the algorithm's sake. Few of us are.
Maybe I am different. Do you really spend any significant fraction of your working hours or mental capacity on developing new methods/algorithms?
|
|
|
|
|
Short: About 80%  
But I do it because I like to do it 
|
|
|
|
|
Are you saying that 80% of your time goes to delvelop the algorithm? That only 20% goes to typing it in, building, debugging, documenting, communicating with users/customers and other developers?
|
|
|
|
|
Mental: Yes
Working hours: No
|
|
|
|
|
Still, if you spend 80% of your mental effort on algorithmic decisions, it sounds to me as if you consider e.g. choosing an if - elseif - else sequence over a switch statement part of 'algorithm design'. Or while(){} versus do{}while(). I see those as trivial coding details.
I'd say that if you by a short glimpse on the alternatives can say that they have the same complexity, in the big O sense, then there is no significant algorithmic development from one to the other.
I am probably too ambitious. I really wish that University professors required any hand-in code taking variable size input to be followed by documentation stating the O() complexity of the function. Actually, I never ever saw any lecturer, professor or lower level, make such requirements. I wish it not only for college homework, but to be the norm for any published library or source code. It really should be part of our professional code of conduct to always include complexity as a basic part of the documentation.
You might develop an algorithm of the same complexity as an existing one for the same task. It may have other traits, e.g. execution complexity and data space complexity are not necessarily parallell. But trivial code changes / decisions affect neither.
|
|
|
|
|
If you do all your work on one platform and in a single language you can build a library of plug and play modules where it can become mechanical.
But I work with Embedded; various platforms and various languages.
I'm developing a large WPF application and WPF is very powerful but can be frustrating to say the least.
So yeah I often get up in the middle of the night to get some relief (I'm old and this occurs frequently) and I end up just staying up and coding. Seems like I get the most done in the early morning hours.
And recently I've gotten into CNC and am building a large machine so the extra learning of CAD/CAM and all that goes with the fabricating the machine has been a major undertaking.
The less you need, the more you have.
Even a blind squirrel gets a nut...occasionally.
JaxCoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
Getting up at night to get things done: Fair enough.
But is the reason why you are sleepless that your brain in struggling with how to solve the problem? Find the right algorithm?
I could be coding (or writing documentation) after midnight because it is quiet, cool, nothing to disturb me. But mostly to "get the work done". Not because I am struggling with finding a possible solution, having none available.
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: How much of your work hours and/or mental energy goes to find an "algorithmic solution" to your problem?
At the moment I'm doing a rewrite on one of the components in a product. This component was originally written over 20 years ago, and has migrated from product to product and engineer to engineer. It got dropped in my lap a while ago, and the version of it in our newest product is having problems. I could probably fix it, if I really had to.
Instead, I convinced my boss to let me do a rewrite. I've got the work about 80% complete, and I've reached a point where I need to start connecting the major bits together and fill in the details. One of those connections needs to aggregate a large number of error bits and possibly trigger a state change in one or more devices. The key is to do this efficiently, only evaluating the error bits as needed, and only evaluating the device state when necessary. In other words, I'm looking for an algorithmic solution.
I'm having great fun .
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't every routine/function/method/class/program an "algorithm" of sorts? As for my own time much of it is spent watching the twirly blue circle in Visual Studio and occasionally the white screen of death. Then there are the many many many 15m builds and the occasional language error leaving me scratching my head and attempting to discern the cryptic not very informative compiler error message. - Cheerio
"I once put instant coffee into the microwave and went back in time." - Steven Wright
"Shut up and calculate" - apparently N. David Mermin possibly Richard Feynman
My sympathies to the SPAM moderator
“I want to sing, I want to cry, I want to laugh. Everything together. And jump and dance. The day has arrived — yippee!” - Desmond Tutu
“When the green flag drops the bullshit stops!”
"It is cheaper to save the world than it is to ruin it."
"I must have had lessons" - Reverend Jim Ignatowski / Christopher Lloyd
|
|
|
|
|
PaltryProgrammer wrote: Isn't every routine/function/method/class/program an "algorithm" of sorts?
Sure, but not an algorithm that takes a great amount of mental effort to develop. Just like every little shed is a "building", you do not to into a great "building construction task" that really takes you expertise as an construction engineer to calculate right.
I see myself more as a carpenter putting boards together, laying the tiles on the roof. Some effort goes on deciding the "floor plan", which pieces to put together and in which way, but for most things I do, that is really a minor part, both in hours and mental effort. The carpentry is the essential thing: Coding, debugging, testing, documenting. Not the architectural work.
|
|
|
|
|
As for mental effort, programmers are merely engineers. In my view there are three levels, i.e. to wit [0] scientists discover new knowledge, [1] engineers utilize these new knowledge to solve new problems, [2] technicians utilize the tools engineers fabricate to repeatedly solve the same problems again and again. - Best
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
