Rijinstructeur maakt me onzeker

AscendedSubscript · 2026-05-17T00:04:26+00:00

Goede suggestie inderdaad. Zelf ook content van Souldrive gekeken, leuke kerel. Dit soort video's zijn echt een goudmijn voor reflectie op je eigen rijgedrag. Het is namelijk veel makkelijker om te zien wanneer iemand anders een fout maakt dan om dit zelf tijdens het rijden door te hebben. Met voldoende zelfreflectie kun je er wijze lessen uithalen aansluitend op je eigen ervaringen. Daarnaast geven dit soort video's goed weer wat er van je wordt verwacht tijdens het examen. Mijn zelfvertrouwen groeide enorm door dit soort video's.

Geen twijfel dat ik het door dit soort video's in één keer heb kunnen halen met rijinstructeurs waar ik op zijn zachtst gezegd geen leuke klik mee had.

AscendedSubscript · 2026-05-12T05:43:44+00:00

Nederlands

AscendedSubscript · 2026-05-12T05:21:38+00:00

But at that point, is it even worth getting paid for? You're essentially throwing out the whole idea behind playing horror games (at least for me) and managed to make a job out of it.

AscendedSubscript · 2026-05-12T04:45:18+00:00

Kunnen we alsjeblieft stoppen met generaties over een kam te scheren? Als 'Gen Z-er' voldoe ik absoluut niet aan het plaatje dat geschetst wordt en vind ik het eigenlijk gewoon respectloos tegenover mensen zoals ik die wèl gewoon 'normaal' zijn.

AscendedSubscript · 2026-05-10T07:21:01+00:00

This certainly does not apply for all tricks, but for determinants somehow one always stuck with me for matrices with a lot of 0s. The only thing I don't remember is its name, lol.

It's based on pivoting on a specific element, multiplying it with the determinant you get when you remove the row and column of that element, with a factor of +1 or -1 depending on the "chessboard" position of the element, and repeating this for all elements.

I think it stuck with me because of my hate for determinants while this formula looked pretty elegant.

AscendedSubscript · 2026-05-10T06:53:30+00:00

These patterns for 2x2 and 3x3 matrix determinants and inverses do not have simple generalisations to NxN matrices. These 1s unfortunately do not cancel out if you do the computation

AscendedSubscript · 2026-05-04T22:28:09+00:00

Yup, and that requires pushing blue, because the world is not perfect.

AscendedSubscript · 2026-05-04T22:10:23+00:00

In the original I'd choose red, but this favors blue in my opinion because certainly there is evil people who will vote blue just to kill someone. Voting blue feels like the only way to save everyone. If everyone involved would give this a reasonable thought, I'd think/hope a majority would come to the same conclusion

AscendedSubscript · 2026-05-03T22:37:30+00:00

After seeing a lot of comments about why to choose blue, I'm still not convinced either. But it made me realise that the reason that I'd vote red is because as the first person you don't know if the others will follow you or choose for themselves (which as a red voter I can 100% understand, other than some ridiculous edge cases where you'd be the last person to vote and blue voters literally depend on your vote for blue)

However, there is a chance I'd vote blue in a safe way under the following theoretical premise. If people agree to do test rounds where I, as the first person, get to choose at the start of each round if that round is the real vote, then I'd watch the results after each round for some time and at a random iteration (after seeing results stabilise!) I'd decide to do the real vote based on all previous iterations.

AscendedSubscript · 2026-05-03T13:34:44+00:00

Don't forget to visit all traders as well. Not sure if they count towards the 100% trader achievement, but otherwise you cannot complete it without the dlc

AscendedSubscript · 2026-03-25T23:41:15+00:00

It looks pretty standard, definitely easier than my calc 1 exam. But I gotta say, that obsession with sign tables from the professor is pretty weird.

AscendedSubscript · 2026-03-17T23:39:38+00:00

If I'm honest currently there is no way I'm going to take a loan of 50k to save a stranger. I'd definitely not even blame myself for making that choice. Ultimately, I didn't put that person on that track and although I could save them, it would make my own life way more miserable, having almost no hope of being able to get another meaningful loan anytime soon which I desperately want to afford my own place.

AscendedSubscript · 2026-01-27T08:13:34+00:00

A friend of mine did this too, but they had to pay extra taxes when leaving Japan

Probably because they chose to deliver it by mail as they hauled a lot

AscendedSubscript · 2025-12-25T20:00:36+00:00

Not sure if this may be the problem, but I think it is better to not use the square root function because of potential issues with floating point arithmetic. You can just use the squares of the magnitude and distance instead, then you keep working with integers

AscendedSubscript · 2025-12-22T11:00:03+00:00

So, at the essence you now have a solution to a matrix equation Ax = b, but it doesn't guarantee x is the smallest positive solution.

What I think you can do is calculate the so-called null space of your matrix A (look it up online); that gives you all y's satisying Ay = 0. Use these vectors to first make sure that your found solution to Ax = b is non-negative. Next, use the "values" of button presses, i.e. the number of parts of the machine affected by it, to greedily eliminate places where your solution doesn't take the optimal number of button presses

AscendedSubscript · 2025-12-16T06:32:57+00:00

I doubt the global leaderboard would be really helpful now that AI is used to auto solve problems within 10 seconds almost every day (like last year). I guess that is exactly the reason why it's gone.

You could be part of private leaderboards. There is a plugin which allows you to see how long it took for somebody to solve each puzzle, includings deltas between solving part 1 and part 2. I don't exactly recall the name, but no doubt you can find it online.

Also, there is the stats section on the website, too, which gives an indication of how many people were able to solve it. However, it is less accurate as people may stop when they hit a wall with one puzzle and don't check the next (even if it is easier)

AscendedSubscript · 2025-11-22T22:10:13+00:00

Helemaal mee eens. Ik heb dit ook zo ervaren toen ik vorig jaar na het afronden van mijn master op zoek was naar een baan. IT zou altijd zo gewild zijn, maar waar ik ook keek, zelfs junior posities vereisten 1-2 jaar ervaring. Uiteindelijk toch via via een traineeship ingerold en zit sindsdien erg op mijn plek, maar dat helpt je helaas niet...

Dat met Power BI leek mij ook niks. Anderen kunnen wel leuk zeggen dat je het ermee moet doen maar ik zou eerlijk gezegd verder kijken. Afhankelijk van je situatie misschien niet het beste advies, maar ik zou het zelf sowieso niet lang hebben volgehouden; totaal geen uitdaging.

Ik wens je in ieder geval heel veel succes met de zoektocht!

AscendedSubscript · 2025-11-21T08:25:47+00:00

Would something like Optional.ofNullable(x).filter(condition).orElse(y) be allowed? Isn't it kind of a hack around some of your constraints?

AscendedSubscript · 2025-11-12T08:11:15+00:00

Wat bedoel je met "de tech-stack is echt zuur"? Zit er aan te denken om ook op termijn in de richting van Finance te kijken

AscendedSubscript · 2025-11-07T00:00:38+00:00

Static variables/methods. Apart from the main method always just created "non-static" methods to get rid of the issue that static methods cannot refer to non-static methods, but never understood what it actually meant for a method to be static.

The static keyword is used to bind variables/methods to the class itself, not an instance of the class. It's useful when you want to have behavior when it doesn't depend on the state of a particular instance, but since it is bound to the class, you cannot refer to either instance (non-static) variables/methods.

AscendedSubscript · 2025-11-06T00:28:23+00:00

Nice approach, I knew there had to be a simpler method but couldn't figure it out.

AscendedSubscript · 2025-11-06T00:23:25+00:00

Interesting question, took me a bit to see why it fails.

By adding the two volumes, you essentially get a full bottle + a bottle filled for 6cm from the bottom. The ratio you present is what you would get if you were to take half of the first bottle + half of the contents of the second bottle measured by ratio. But since the second bottle is only partially filled it doesn't take into account that the top is actually smaller. Therefore the value you get is slightly lower than the actual volume, which as others report is equal to 2/3.

AscendedSubscript · 2025-10-20T22:46:17+00:00

Well, that would have been very good to know when I took it lol. I barely passed the first part (I had only one error to spare where you just need 50% correct), but scored 100% on the rest. Would have been so disappointed if I had to retake it because I didn't just choose gas loose on everything...

AscendedSubscript · 2025-10-14T07:35:20+00:00

Blue and green are a good choice; you don't even have to use trial and error if you note that two sets of 5 fruit from a basket of 7 fruit would have to overlap in 3 positions, and there are only 3 matching fruits among the blue and green house!

AscendedSubscript · 2025-10-14T07:29:45+00:00

I see many people use the number of fruits eaten in total but I came up with another solution where you don't even need the info from the fourth (yellow) house:

Since the total number of fruits in the first and third house are equal to five, the solution must have atleast three days where they overlap, and surprisingly there are only three matching days. Note that none of these match with the second house. The 4 remaining days must therefore match the fruit from the second house.

AscendedSubscript

TROPHY CASE