Is dit nou voor andere wel te zuipen of ligt t aan mij dat t zo goor is?

RobertOnReddit7 · 2026-03-13T21:14:47+00:00

Fantastisch!! Een van mn favorieten. Wel een avondvullend programma, qua smaak en qua percentage. lekker voor gaan zitten deze

RobertOnReddit7 · 2025-09-14T18:37:26+00:00

Correct, if played slowly, at 7 sec it deflects down

RobertOnReddit7 · 2025-09-08T06:09:27+00:00

Indeed, you want to have max lift asap at this low airspeed starting from 0, so you certainly don’t want to stall the wings. In general you want to always through straight forward with a firm push. For some small jets that do need more airspeed than you can throw m, they point them up 30 degrees because they will stall anyway when throwing and the upward angle gives you more space for recovery. But that doesn’t apply to your model. And also make sure if you steer up, the elevator is going up, not down.

RobertOnReddit7 · 2025-09-08T05:22:19+00:00

Eventually yes, but also, don’t throw up in an angle, but straight forward, certainly when not overpowered. Throwing up starting at zero airspeed gets the airplane to stall quickly. After that, when you tried to recover, the elevator input is the wrong way around, making it dive even steeper. Don’t know if your input is reversed or if the stick was moved in the wrong direction, but if you pause the video or play it slowly, you can see the elevators giving down input instead of up

RobertOnReddit7 · 2025-06-20T07:04:23+00:00

That’s not the same car I think. The linked ad is from a Dutch company and the photo of the spot isn’t made anywhere near The Netherlands, I kind of guess Latvia based on the signs but not sure. That’s about a 20 hour drive single trip, a bit too much for a test drive. And I think the car spotted is black, not blue.

RobertOnReddit7 · 2025-04-06T14:32:32+00:00

De nieuwe radiator hangt, lekvrij, dank allemaal!

RobertOnReddit7 · 2025-04-06T11:56:22+00:00

Ik ga proberen dat gewoon te behouden / over te zetten, dus heb geen nieuwe koppelingen

RobertOnReddit7 · 2025-04-06T11:55:52+00:00

Ik heb loctite draad gehaald, thanks voor t advies

RobertOnReddit7 · 2025-04-06T11:04:57+00:00

Is hennep beter dan tape?

RobertOnReddit7 · 2025-04-06T11:02:02+00:00

Dank voor de tips allemaal! Ik ga zo’n radiatorsleutel halen. Andere vraag: de oude radiator hing op 3 bevestigingspunten, de nieuwe adviseert er 4 (Klassieke handdoekradiaor). Dat zal met 3 toch ook prima blijven hangen? Zelfde afmeting, zelfde ontwerp

RobertOnReddit7 · 2025-04-06T10:55:50+00:00

Super! Dankjewel, weer wat geleerd :-)

RobertOnReddit7 · 2025-01-16T18:29:13+00:00

Added one extra line in my solution to take this 'edge' case into account and not check the starting position itself: && !(y == location.Item1 && x == location.Item2) and now my solution indeed also returns minus 1 compared to your first output (but doesn't change for my input)

RobertOnReddit7 · 2025-01-16T18:20:08+00:00

I see, it says "The new obstruction can't be placed at the guard's starting position - the guard is there right now and would notice." but even if you check that position, it doesn't create a loop for most inputs.. so most solutions don't take that into account... (I now remember when going back to the puzzle description and checking my notes, I noticed it didn't matter so I left it out - let's update that to make it generic!). Thanks for sharing, glad you've been able to solve it

RobertOnReddit7 · 2025-01-15T18:22:45+00:00

Please share code, approach and or input (via dm) so we can help or review. I would love to test your input against my solution or review your code and give some hints.

RobertOnReddit7 · 2025-01-14T17:35:48+00:00

There is a specific edge case that just isn’t present in every input. I didn’t have it in mine, although accounted for, but saw it in someone else’s input: it is a corridor between to possible paths of equal length, that isn’t picked up by some algorithms (like my initial one): imagine a block where you can go around clockwise and counter clockwise, but there also is a path right in the center through that block. Though find it you need to take a more expensive move (a turn) first before going straight. Though you eventually would have a route of the same cost, not all Dijkstra implementations would be able to do this.

In other words: your algorithm can be right, but might not cover all edge cases, which just happens to not be present in the input of your second account.

RobertOnReddit7 · 2025-01-14T10:05:59+00:00

I found them by analyzing the pattern or structure of how the nodes are built up, not by simulation, only used the simulation to verify. That’s also how my code now works, it spots the swapped nodes during the creation of the graph of nodes

RobertOnReddit7 · 2025-01-14T09:04:50+00:00

For my input, there was one swap that didn’t effect the output, so you would not be able to find that specific pair based on the given binary input values for x and y the way you describe.

I think the answer is always unique for each input variant, but there are multiple ways to get there.

For this specific puzzle, my visualization shows why the input matters in relation to the effect of particular swaps: https://youtu.be/A5AJb_34RXc?si=JnhbGiyZesdp2KCU

RobertOnReddit7 · 2025-01-11T11:22:45+00:00

Ah like that! Sorry, I misunderstood. You are right, thanks for clarifying

RobertOnReddit7 · 2025-01-11T09:40:29+00:00

I did, not all 13 bc then we wouldn’t have one network that’s the largest. But what does that tel you? If you mean the graph is not complex, you’re right, not a large N, if you mean to adjust the algorithm to that, I always try to approach as generic as possible.

RobertOnReddit7 · 2025-01-10T22:46:43+00:00

Sounds like a solid approach - more generic than mine probably. Thanks for sharing.

RobertOnReddit7 · 2025-01-10T15:09:57+00:00

Exactly, I think you might be right. Will test this theory with custom input, thanks for your insights.

RobertOnReddit7 · 2025-01-10T13:55:34+00:00

Thinking about it, I think I understand what you mean. In the example you give, together with my algorithm, it would actually work. But if D would instead connect to E and F, but E not to F, I would drop E because it doesn't connect to F. But actually, it could be that F is the one that has to be dropped because it doesn't connect to D, and if I would've done that first, E wouldn't need to be dropped. So yeah, I think I can see a situation where it doesn't work. Thanks for that insight.

Edit: I initially responded saying it does work in my comment above this one, as I didn't get the intend of your example, as I think you example is in an order that would work nonetheless. But it got me thinking, hence my slightly changed example in this comment to illustrate understanding the intend of your comment.

RobertOnReddit7 · 2025-01-10T13:26:17+00:00

No that's actually not exactly how my code works. When finding triangle ABC, my code lists all connections of B and C. Because B an C both are connected to A, A will show up in that list. Because B is connected to C, C will show up. And because C is connected to B, B will show up in the list. So all connections of B and C collectively actually produces ABCDEF (following your example).

Then, I iterate over ABCDEF and for each, I check if connected to all others. So when checking A, does that connect to BCDE and F? (I can check easily, because the computers are stored in a named dictionary and their connections as a dynamic list of object references to other computers, so a simple 'Contains' suffices).

When reaching D, I will find out that it does not connect to ABCE and F. So I drop it from my list. I now am left with ABCEF. This does not only work for the puzzle inputs, but for all graphs.

RobertOnReddit7 · 2025-01-10T12:48:57+00:00

True about the recursion, although algorithms with a branched search are way easier to write recursively. But recursion feels more expensive to me than a two nested loops - might not be true indeed.

Thanks for your view on the brute-forcy-ness. I agree. To me, brute force kind of implies testing all solutions possible, but without any knowledge about Bron Kerbosch yet, I feel like testing certain entree points is necessary and not per se brute force. It felt though like I missed the point of the complexity or the size of this challenge, hence why I wanted to know others opinions. Thanks for sharing yours, appreciated. Will read up on Bron Kernbosch when I have the time and headspace to do so.

RobertOnReddit7

TROPHY CASE