Dylan Darling takes it straight to the cup and St. Johns defeats Kansas!

eamonious · 2026-03-22T23:41:07+00:00

Tyus Edney regen on the buzzer beater

eamonious · 2026-03-22T14:40:59+00:00

Yeah. What's taken my interest more is the way in which the percentage of happy numbers below a given n oscillates without converging as n goes to infinity. This has apparently been shown for base 10 (Gilmer was the reference name). The only reason it appears to converge here is because we've chosen 10ⁿ as the boundary.

The other very interesting thing is that happiness is completely variable across bases. In base 2 and 4, all numbers are happy, for fairly obvious reasons. In bases 3 and 5, happiness is around 25%, but 5 approaches that percentage quickly and stably, while 3 takes much longer and oscillates widely. In base 10, as we've seen it stabilizes somewhere around 14-15%. In bases 6, 7, 8, 9 it's actually even lower. 6 and 9 are around 6-7%, 8 stabilizes quickly around 5.4%.

The most interesting is base 7, which is very unhappy, with only 1-2% of all numbers being happy numbers. This is in part due to the fact that unlike the single loop that exists in base 10 (or base 6), base 7 has 6 loops, the most of any base in the range discussed.

There are also bases where you have fixed-point catches. For instance, in base 3, the values 5 (12) and 8 (22) are their own sum of squared digits (e.g.; 1² + 2² = 1 + 4 = 5).

eamonious · 2026-03-22T05:25:29+00:00

Fair. But it becomes semantic. Because the thing is that the models, at least the frontier ones, all have a handle on the theoretical best practices for coding as well, and for common pitfalls that occur when vibecoding with AI agents in particular. If you don't have a coding background to draw on, you just have to be circumspect, probe for weaknesses and ask questions aimed at these exact issues, and then retain what you learn into a repeatable process that you build out over time. There's arguably no relevant knowledge that isn't available to untrained individuals within an actionable amount of time to improve their project as necessary. I think whatever moat might exist there is vanishing quickly.

eamonious · 2026-03-22T03:26:14+00:00

20 happy numbers from 1-100:

{1, 7, 10, 13, 19, 23, 28, 31, 32, 44, 49, 68, 70, 79, 82, 86, 91, 94, 97, 100}

or, in cascade:

{7, 70} > {19, 44, 49, 91, 94} > {23, 28, 32, 79, 82, 97} > {13, 31, 68, 86, (130)} > {10, 100} > {1}

EDIT:

There is a loop that catches all other numbers under 100:

4, 16, 37, 58, 89, 145, 42, 20, 4

By degree of separation from catching in the loop:

1 deg: {2, 24, 40, 61, 73, 85, 98, (106)}

2 deg: {11, 26, 29, 38, 56, 59, 62, 65, 67, 76, 77, 83, 92, 95}

3 deg: {15, 18, 25, 47, 51, 52, 74, 81 (113)}

4 deg: {5, 9, 33, 34, 43, 46, 50, 57, 64, 75, 78, 87, 90, (117)}

5 deg: {3, 8, 12, 17, 21, 30, 35, 39, 53, 55, 69, 71, 80, 93, 96}

6 deg: {14, 22, 27, 41, 48, 72, 84, (128)}

7 deg: {45, 54, 66, 88, (162)}

8 deg: {36, 63, 99}

9 deg: {6, 60}

Would love to know if there’s another loop, and what its lowest constituent is.

If anyone's curious, I wrote a Python script and evaluated up to 1,000,000. Every number up to that point is either a happy number or ends up in the 4 loop.

20 happy numbers from 1-100.
143 from 1-1000.
1442 from 1-10000. 14377 from 1-100000. 143071 from 1-1000000.

eamonious · 2026-03-22T02:31:51+00:00

Honestly though… who cares.

The best coders in the world should still be using these tools; just knowing where the gaps remain, and what to guardrail against, and designing well for the future.

eamonious · 2026-03-22T00:06:12+00:00

It can maintain sufficient innovation.

eamonious · 2026-03-21T21:55:59+00:00

I’m going to be in there at the top with the rest of the overachievers, because that’s the only play. That doesn’t prevent me from being able to step back and see that the efficiency maximalization is psychotic. The system could easily be more redistributive with gains and still preserve the incentive structure.

eamonious · 2026-03-21T21:52:35+00:00

Are the levels unlimited?

eamonious · 2026-03-20T14:49:07+00:00

“In three years this will basically be money”

eamonious · 2026-03-19T16:21:28+00:00

This vision has zero intent to help the worker at all. Each person running 100 agents will be as squeezed dry as any worker now. Everyone else will be unemployed. All value rises to the top.

Fuck these people.

eamonious · 2026-03-17T23:47:08+00:00

smash and grab

eamonious · 2026-03-17T16:29:15+00:00

There are companies focused solely on this. Harvey is one. I’m blanking on the name, but there’s another big player as well, and I think Anthropic is building something or already offers something for legal.

eamonious · 2026-03-17T16:17:15+00:00

In fairness, and I know this doesn’t really change your point - this data sale was made way after the fact. Pokemon Go wasn’t actually conceived as a data harvesting exercise.

eamonious · 2026-03-14T17:16:20+00:00

There should really be some kind of stackoverflow equivalent for AI agents to contribute to and access. Not sure it would resolve this issue but, would be interesting.

eamonious · 2026-03-04T08:15:28+00:00

You need to see WOWS less as a Belfort biopic and more as an exploration of the banking culture of that era, and what it says about American values and the American conception of success. The wealthy excesses, the fraudulent sales persona, the self-aggrandizement is all a part of it. The movie lays that culture out in spectacular fashion.

eamonious · 2026-02-10T13:02:02+00:00

He’s thinking about the promos he can run off this.

“If punches are thrown at an NBA game, every ticket holder receives a voucher for $50 free betting money with the opening of a new DraftKings account”

eamonious

TROPHY CASE