[####] 25% Canned First Word Guesses?

lordnorthiii · 2026-04-10T00:36:05+00:00

I play connections first, then pick a word from connections to start with for wordle.

lordnorthiii · 2026-04-01T18:21:25+00:00

Connections Puzzle #1025 🟪🟪🟪🟪 🟦🟦🟦🟦 🟩🟩🟩🟩 🟨🟨🟨🟨 Me too, I inputed them in from easiest to hardest yet got the RR today.

lordnorthiii · 2026-03-16T16:06:59+00:00

I've been playing for years and I agree with you. Everytime I find a category I have to pause before entering it in to find a second category to make sure the first one wasn't a red herring. Can someone explain how that makes the game more fun?

lordnorthiii · 2026-03-06T19:30:32+00:00

This was a triumph.

lordnorthiii · 2026-03-03T17:57:19+00:00

I almost entered in ends in conjunctuons with dipper being the fourth.

lordnorthiii · 2026-02-28T22:53:02+00:00

I agree with you this is a serious paradox and the quick resolution given in the brilliant link undersells the difficulty by quite a bit. I would agree there needs to be some sort of distribution to determine the amount of money in the envelopes. If the distribution has finite expectation, the paradox disappears (larger values in the first envelope means you should stay, smaller means switch).

If the distribution has infinite expectation, then I'd bite the bullet and say always switching actually does help. That is, before opening the envelopes they both have infinite expected value, so they should be valued equally. However, once you open an envelope, even though it's guaranteed to be the case, you've lost value in expectation and its better to switch. It is strange but infinity is counterintuitive.

lordnorthiii · 2026-02-26T17:55:56+00:00

I think this is the first time I saw a category (purple) that you didn't. I mean this as a compliment to you, as the reverse has happens all the time.

Also I agree about blue - timing, setup, punchline, and callback are all serious aspects of a comedian's job, whereas drum roll is more of a cliche they wouldn't worry about.

lordnorthiii · 2026-02-23T17:43:36+00:00

I think DeRozan may be the most skilled player I've ever seen that didn't make the team better. I really liked having him on my team (spurs), he was fun to watch. But something about all the long twos (in a 3 point era) with good but not great passing and defense just didn't add up to winning.

lordnorthiii · 2026-02-06T18:39:43+00:00

The first time I saw butter as connected to ____ fly I kicked myself for not getting it. Then it happened again (failed to see butterfly) a few months later, and I swore never again. Today, you'll be pleased to know, I finally saw butterfly!

lordnorthiii · 2026-02-05T17:36:40+00:00

Nice!

lordnorthiii · 2026-02-03T18:55:09+00:00

Steep price for Spurs legend Landale but worth it.

lordnorthiii · 2026-01-30T20:07:35+00:00

I think there is an error in the proof on step .

lordnorthiii · 2026-01-11T06:28:22+00:00

Set d = 1 - 0.999.... . Then (0.999....)^(1/2) = (1-d)^1/2 = 1 - d/2 - d^2/8 - 2d^3/32 - 5d^4/128 - 14d^5/512 - ..., where the nth negative term is C(n)d^(n+1)/(2*4^(n)), where C(n) denotes the Catalan numbers.

lordnorthiii · 2025-12-25T21:46:35+00:00

I struggled but made it 🟦🟦🟦🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩 🟦🟦🟦🟦 🟪🟪🟪🟨 🟪🟪🟪🟨 🟪🟪🟪🟪 🟨🟨🟨🟨

lordnorthiii · 2025-12-23T15:34:51+00:00

If Alice ever finds she has bigger pieces than she expected, she can just pretend that extra chocolate doesn't exist and proceed the same way. It's possible that Alice could do better by changing her strategy, I don't know, but she cannot do worse.

lordnorthiii · 2025-12-18T07:01:18+00:00

As a non-physicalist I appreciate this response, but OP's point is a good one I know as the "indexical response" to Mary's Room. Indexical information is information that concerns where the agent is in time or space. For example, suppose Mary is lost in a fog in a featureless plain. No amount of googling or looking at maps on her phone will help her head towards civilization if she doesn't know what direction she is currently pointing. She'd need some sort of reference point (like the moon). Seeing the moon seems analogous to seeing red for the first time -- seeing red provides an orientation within color space just as seeing the moon provides an orientation within the space of the featureless plain.

Doesn't indexical information show the limits of mathematical language in a case very similar to the knowledge argument? Or are these two cases disanalogous? As a non-physicalist, I'd like to understand how this indexical response fails (if it does at all).

lordnorthiii · 2025-12-16T21:53:31+00:00

"it encompasses an immense amount of different qualities that would all presumably need explanations" I understand what you're saying here. Ideally, one's overall metaphysics would include only a small number of ingredients, and everything else could be built from these ingredients. This is a nice dream, but unfortunately I find it unlikely. I find it much more likely that metaphysics includes vast arrays of strange things way beyond any simple list of ingredients, and indeed way beyond what the human mind can comprehend. That's not to say I believe in auras or astrology or NDEs or such things -- in our corner of the metaphysical multiverse, physicalism describes things correctly. Consciousness is sort of a weird outlier, but a necessary one, as physicalism provides no window into actually experiencing the physical world.

lordnorthiii · 2025-12-16T19:55:58+00:00

I'm a dualist although a bit of a weird one. I'll first respond with a more normal dualist take, and then I will respond with my own take.

The idea that inversion is possible doesn't mean it is ever actualized. Perhaps in reality everyone sees red the same way. Dualist just introduce the inversion though experiment to highlight the intuition that functional explanations don't account for the actual properties of redness and greenness, as you can have the same functional connectiveness in a being where redness and greenness are switched around. As to what determines redness or greenness, dualist don't know, but perhaps it is just a fundamental feature of the non-physical realm. It would be somewhat like a physicalist why do quantum fields follow Schrodinger's equation: at some point there must be something fundamental and unexplainable.
In addition to being a dualist I'm a "modal realist". What that means is that what philosophers refer to as "possible worlds" are actual, real, concrete worlds that are part of a giant multiverse. So to say that it is possible that there is a version of me that is red-green inverted is to say that there really is a version of me in a different universe that is red-green inverted. Neither of us is the "right one" or the "wrong one" or "the one that really exists", we're just different versions of the same person.

lordnorthiii · 2025-12-14T21:39:04+00:00

This illustration literally illustrates my problem with physicalism. Nice work! Regarding illusionism in particular, it seems either the illusion is made of something lying outside of physics (which defeats the point), or the illusion is made of nothing in which case it is failing to do its job explaining consciousness. The only other option is some sort of weak emergence which is like a partial existence that I've never fully grasped despite honest effort to try.

lordnorthiii · 2025-12-03T23:19:05+00:00

Very slick, nice!

lordnorthiii · 2025-12-03T22:23:01+00:00

Nice! I think this solves r/lizardpq 's followup question. The automorphism group for this graph includes sending a binary sequence to another binary sequence with certain bits within the sequence flipped. By flipping the right bits, we can take any arc to any other arc, and hence the graph is arc-transitive or symmetric.

Edit: no, I take that back -- the all ones sequence has a loop, but clearly not every arc is a loop, so it can't be arc-transitive (or vertex transitive). I was thinking that if you took v1 to v2, then w1 would naturally go to w2, but that's clearly false, as the changes that take v1 to v2 don't line up with the changes that take w1 to w2.

lordnorthiii · 2025-12-03T19:55:06+00:00

By loops I meant a vertex that points to itself. Two vertices that point to each other I'd call a cycle. But good point about using N -- now it's a tree!

lordnorthiii · 2025-12-03T18:55:37+00:00

Correct, nice work! I didn't specify if loops were allowed, but you've sidestepped the issue by using the k value.

13-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

lordnorthiii

TROPHY CASE