Is the video episode for this up somewhere? It can be hard to find old PBS shows, even from just a few years ago.
696 karma · joined December 10, 2009
(I briefly got excited that there might be a street sign _in_ the photo, but if you zoom way in it says "DENTIST")
+1 to 1940s.nyc. Very different photos — those are were taken for tax assessment, the ones on OldNYC were taken to document the city as it changed. The photographer had an arrangement where he'd get tips from demolition crews, and go shoot buildings before they were gone forever.
[1]: https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/5a5e06a0-c539-012f...
I’d love to read a post explaining how TS conditional types are or are not a form of dependent types. Or, I’d like to understand dependent types well enough to write that post.
This analysis doesn't make use of the Boggle dice. It assumes that any cell can be any letter. In practice, all high-scoring boards can be rolled with the Boggle dice. My code does assume the letters are A-Z, though, so the Ñ die in Spanish Boggle would require some code changes.
Depending on wordlist and whether you want a 16 or 17 letter word, you get "charitablenesses", "supernaturalised" (British spelling), "quadricentennials" or "quartermistresses". These boards all score considerably lower than the REPLASTERING board. Full results here: https://github.com/danvk/hybrid-boggle/#highest-scoring-boar...
I hadn't realized until I did this "side quest" that most wordlists top out at 15 letter words. That makes sense for a Scrabble dictionary, but it's not great for Boggle.
There are some examples in these old posts:
- https://www.danvk.org/wp/2009-08-08/breaking-3x3-boggle/inde...
- https://www.danvk.org/wp/2009-08-11/a-few-more-boggle-exampl...
These bounds are pretty effective at finding the global max for 3x3 Boggle, but 4x4 is a lot bigger.
There is a mapping from Boggle optimization to ILP, but I’ve seen no evidence that this is an efficient way to solve it. I’ve been told that branch and cut is usually better than branch and bound, but I don’t know whether it’s applicable to Boggle.
For context, many people are interested in finding high-scoring Boggle boards, usually via simulated annealing, hillclimbing, or genetic algorithms. But so far as I can tell, I'm the only one interested in _proving_ that a particular board is best. Doing that was the new result here.
It sounds like your Trie implementation had a bug or inefficiency.
The proof used ENABLE2K — repeating it for other wordlists would require another ~23,000 CPU hours each.
One interesting thing about Boggle is that the number of variables (16 cells) is very small compared to the number of coefficients on how they combine (the number of possible words).
I tried Z3 and OR Tools. I didn't try Gurobi. But this was enough to make me think ILP was a dead end. (There were a lot of dead ends in this project.)
I don't know much about integer programming, though, and I'd love to be proven wrong.
I particularly liked the multimodal comparison feature. It lets you answer questions like "where does the bus help me get to faster than the subway?" (Answer: basically nowhere.)
I also found that giving GPT at most a few paragraphs at a time worked better than giving it whole pages. Shorter text = less chance to hallucinate.
opt-in makes sense if you want these checks in production. The appeal of a "check everything" debug mode is that you wouldn't have to modify your TS at all to use it.
There's an interesting point here, though: while comptime lets Zig unify function calls and generic type instantiation, this also creates the possibility of confusing the two and getting confusing error messages.
import {} from 'fs';
Then move your cursor back inside the {} and you'll have nice autocomplete. Works with object destructuring, too.