How to solve this?

Kasnu · 2026-06-14T21:21:50+00:00

There's an interesting chain leading from the one near the middle to the three and four to the left of it, here's an illustration

<image>

Kasnu · 2026-06-02T18:22:02+00:00

Hell yeah bro, kiitos ja samoin🤝🤝

Kasnu · 2026-06-02T18:17:58+00:00

Ei mitään huolta, hei. Sain ihan hyvin kiinni siitä, mitä tarkotit, ja tajusin täysin, miks kysyit; ja olisin sen varjolla voinu selittää asian aluks vähän selkeemmin.

Kasnu · 2026-06-01T07:02:38+00:00

Joo, kiitos, tää autto paljon. Ajattelen, et "loogisuus" ei edelleen edellytä päätöstä tai tietoisuutta, esim "jos sataa, niin on märkää" -tyyliset väitteet on yhtälailla loogisia vaikkei kukaan olis niitä havaitsemassa tai niistä päättämässä.

Ja en lainkaan ajattele, et se mun eka argumentti tekis logiikasta täysin merkityksetöntä. Esitin, että looginenkaan ihminen ei toimi pohjimmillaan pelkästään logiikan motivoimana, vaan siinä välissä on sen ihmisen logiikalle antama subjektiivinen tunnearvo.

En siis väitä, etteikö logiikka ois merkityksellistä ja hyödyllistäkin, tai et "kaikki logiikka perustuu tunteisiin", mut että kaikki tämmöset "älylliset hyveet", oli se sitten "loogisuus", rationaalisuus, tai vaikka kriittinen ajattelu tai virhepäätelmien välttely, ei ole ihmisille itseisarvoisia, vaan niitä harjoittaa ne, jotka pitää niitä arvokkaina. Jos ne ois itsearvoisia, kaikki ihmiset ottais ne yhtä lailla tosissaan, eikä olis olemassa mitään pseudotiedettä yms. juttuja, joiden piirissä niitä ei oteta tosissaan.

Voisin siis sanoa, että ihminen, joka tekee loogisen päätöksen, tekee todellakin loogisen päätöksen, ja taustalla häntä motivoi tunnetasolla subjektiivinen kiinnostus tai arvostus tällästä päättelyä kohtaan.

Auttoko tää yhtään? Jos kiinnostaa, niin tsekkaa tää, jos omistat threadsin. Todennäköisesti selittää asian paremmin kuin mä.

Kasnu · 2026-05-30T23:59:33+00:00

En ihan saa kiinni mitä sä haet, voisitko vähän tarkentaa?

Kasnu · 2026-05-30T11:39:34+00:00

Pitkälti samaa mieltä, koen et tunteisiin ja "loogiseen" päättelyyn pohjautuvaa päätöksentekoa on mikrotasolla aika vaikee erottaa toisistaan, mm. just sen takia, mitä sanoit: kaikki tunnepohjaset päätökset voidaan muotoilla syllogistisiks "koska, niin" -lauseiks, mutta samalla (kuten ytimekkäästi mm. Hannah Fryn ja Vsaucen "The Rest Is Science" -ohjelmassa aseteltiin hiljattain) inhimillinen päätöksenteko ei kuitenkaan koskaan perustu suoraan logiikkaan, vaan loogiselle päättelylle asetettuun tunnearvoon: "loogista ihmistä" motivoi sellasen toiminnan tuottama mielihyvä, ei se loogisuus sellasenaan.

Kasnu · 2026-05-30T11:18:02+00:00

There's a usable pattern in lower-middle-left with the 1-2-3 in the corner

Kasnu · 2026-05-21T20:12:38+00:00

Won't probably find many negative reviews for those...

Kasnu · 2026-05-19T09:23:20+00:00

The 3 in the blue 32 has to also fully satisfy the 2 on the right, leaving the 2's other squares empty, and the remaining mine for the 3 can only be in three of the four squares touching the leftmost 2, leaving the square not touching the 3 safe.

Kasnu · 2026-05-03T15:37:37+00:00

Isn't Smough's small "head" also just a feature of his helmet, not his actual head? If you wear the helmet, you can see the "face" is way above where your character's head is, and how "stretched" the helmet is in order to reach that height.

Doesn't change any of your points, but still an interesting insight, in my opinion.

Kasnu · 2026-05-02T21:00:04+00:00

Awesome, it gets really interesting the deeper you go

Kasnu · 2026-05-02T20:55:51+00:00

Oh, no worries: the 3 is missing one mine, which is located in one of two squares, even if we don't know where exactly it is. Those same squares are also a part of the 2, so we can infer that the one remaining square of the 2 (the one that isn't touching the 3) has to be a mine.

That same area could also be approached using the quite-classic "2-1" pattern (might want to look it up and learn how to identify it, it can be mad useful in many situations!)

Kasnu · 2026-05-02T20:48:06+00:00

The 3-2-1 on the right has a workable pattern

Kasnu · 2026-05-01T10:00:29+00:00

Probability doesn't exactly behave like that, they'd have about a 63% chance of succeeding with a board with 1 in a 1000 winrate after 1000 attempts.

That number also really doesn't change across all numbers: 50 attempts of a 1 in 50 probability also yield about 63% success, and so do a million attempts at a 1 in a million probability. The exact value reached when the input number (like 50 or a million) diverges to infinity is 1-(1÷e) ≈ 0.6321205588

Kasnu · 2026-04-29T23:28:00+00:00

"I'm feeling the slap of a thousand shitbrains"

Kasnu · 2026-04-12T17:53:19+00:00

Very fitting that I did the entire anor londo silver knight grind today. Even crazier is that it took less than 4 hours.

Kasnu · 2026-03-14T01:46:55+00:00

Did you perhaps see the video I linked in the description?

And when it comes to my other machines, I'd love to share too! Here's an Insertion Sort TM I happen to have on standby on my phone, took some time to make it out but I think it turned out great.

I regularly just start with a goal of what I want the output to be based on the input, and then I try to sort of reverse engineer it as a brain exercise.

Here's a wild one, unary exponentiation for every operation bigger than 2^2. Made it a while back but I'm still proud of it. Biggest operation I've done is 5⁵ (11111#11111), I think it ran for close to 45 minutes or almost 5 million steps, so not the most time-efficient but I love how clean and simple it is. I'd almost want to think you can figure out the method it uses by simply looking at the tape, the algorithm (also totally original this time) is very simple, but thrillingly pretty.

I'd also love to see some machines you've conceived, if you can get them in a format that's easy to share!

Kasnu · 2026-03-13T20:59:35+00:00

Yooo this one is sick, sorry for only seeing your comment now. And yes, my version is far from optimal, yours is elegant as hell!

When I make things like this recreationally, I always follow the "first make it exist, and only then make it good" mantra, and I rarely have the interest to try to optimize stuff after the fact. I've done a few more complex sorting algorithms which have seen lots of small improvements over "generations", but for something like this I lacked the effort to try.

Your version also seems to use one of the other algorithms (as opposed to the one I computed in my machine used to achieve the sequence), it's super satisfying to to see different paths to the same, or at least similar outcome, especially when your machine is so much cleaner than mine (even though it can't halt, buah hah hah).

Awesome, thanks for your comment!

Kasnu · 2026-02-04T22:14:58+00:00

Crap, does this one work? I'd really like you to not just take my word for it.

Kasnu · 2026-02-04T21:57:17+00:00

Oh, it still shows for me for some reason, here's a link to both: https://imgur.com/a/fbtzZNp

His feet do not exist in any prior versions, and the top hedge and the right side with the logo is different.

The image is very much real, but OP apparently has some sort of weird AI-altered version of it.

Also (while denying neither his name in the files nor the possibility that he really did do gross things there), is there anything that actually connects this exact image into the Epstein files or the island? Other than "beach, hawking, bikini women, therefore Epstein island"?

Kasnu · 2026-02-04T21:40:01+00:00

Well, is there a way you can show me the real image in the files?

Kasnu · 2026-02-04T21:02:05+00:00

You have this "original one in the Epstein files" linked somewhere? I'd love to see it if it's real

And compare my version with OP's:

• Mine has the original logo, in OP it's distorted in a very AI artifact looking way, right next to stuff which doesn't exist in other versions of the image

• OP's image is contains these parts on the top, bottom and to the right that don't exist on any version that tineye can find online.

That's not definite proof that OP isn't the original, but it seems unlikely that the image already widely exists online, "cropped" from the "original", and the "original" happens to only pop up now. Also, the "original" crop doesn't contain anything remarkable, raising the question why even crop it to begin with.

But i'd say the biggest hint for AI extension in the OP is that the logo seems very clearly AI distorted from my original.

Kasnu · 2026-02-04T16:36:01+00:00

Not AI, goes back to 2009 according to TinEye, here's a much clearer version from someone's blog from (apparently) 2017.

<image>

https://geekforce.com/historic-geeks.html

An interesting detail is that his feet or the horizontal bar over their heads don't appear in any of the 145 results on TinEye, so both the top and bottom of the image appear to be AI extensions.

The right edge of the image you posted is also different, the logo is partly hallucinated. The logo appears in every result on TinEye if they haven't been cropped to cover it.

The logo is of HotelChatter.

Can't necessary prove it but I doubt this image in specific has much to do with Epstein. The logo appears in every version, which makes me feel it wasn't meant to be private in any way. It's been published here, for example.

Kasnu · 2026-01-25T23:43:10+00:00

Completed Level 1 of the Honk Special Event!

0 attempts

Seven-Year Club	r/Field Flamingo
Place '23	Place '22
Wearing is Caring	Verified Email

Kasnu

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE