200fifty

we simply don't know how the world will look if there are a trillion or a quadrillion superhumanly smart AIs demanding rights

I feel like this scenario depends on a lot of assumptions about the processing speed and energy/resource usage of AIs. A trillion is a big number. Notably there's currently only about 0.8% this number of humans, who are much more energy efficient than AIs.

import qualified Urbit.Ob.Ob as Ob (fein, fynd)

Why

even putting aside philosophy/ethics, have they never heard of common expressions like "too much of a good thing" or "the dose makes the poison"? it's just an extremely, extremely common idea basically everywhere except in the tech industry

Oh man, I won't be able to unsee this, lol

The economic incentive is coming from the popularity of stir-fry.

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