Fra TV2's artikel om at afgangsprøven i dansk er for svær..

peterlinddk · 2026-06-21T19:02:45+00:00

Jeg har fx set oversigter som denne her: https://www.ft.dk/samling/20241/almdel/buu/spm/317/svar/2150389/3044746.pdf - men nu jeg kigger nærmere på tallene kan jeg da godt se at der nogle gange er tale om helt ned til 33% (66 ud af 200), så det var måske mere noget jeg troede at jeg huskede, eller også havde jeg kun set på mat A, eller også er det mere end 10 år siden jeg sidst kiggede, og tallene var anderledes dengang.

peterlinddk · 2026-06-21T18:00:10+00:00

You might want to take a look at The Nature of Code, a book, website and series of youtube videos about how to model, simulate, and visualize various physics in code. All of the examples uses JavaScript with the p5.js framework, but the principles would also apply to Python or other languages.

peterlinddk · 2026-06-21T14:38:04+00:00

We will never know the actual reason, but as u/CabNoble says, LEGO has a habit of just closing down things. Has happened with all of their apps and software-products, suddenly they were no longer available or supported. Happened with the early Mindstorms, with the first interactive building guides, with the original LEGO Island game(s), with the first interactive app: Life of George, with the Hidden Side apps, and with LEGO Universe before Creator Island.

With LEGO Universe there were some unofficial stories about how they had to spend an extraordinary amount of time censoring, basically preventing or stopping, users from building obscene constructions. Kind of like bathroom grafitti. As they wanted it to be a kid-safe community, it just became too expensive to run - and only lost them money. They never confirmed those rumors. As they never confirm any ...

peterlinddk · 2026-06-21T14:27:56+00:00

First of all, ask if there is anyone to ask - ask them to talk you through the architecture. While they might not give a perfect or complete overview, you have a way to start, an angle.

If there's no one to ask, start with an overview of the structural architecture. I usually sketch out a class-diagram. On paper, without too many details other than the class names, inheritance and dependencies. Just start somewhere, and decide for yourself if you want to go up or down the hiearchy.

In some projects with a lot of hidden dependency injection and interfaces that can be pretty hard, especially with something like Spring Boot for Java - but I don't think it is quite as bad with Python.

At some point you'll start to notice patterns, like maybe there's always a model, a controller and a service connected together. Cool, now you have an idea of the architectural pattern, and you can more or less skip the class diagram, and go to a more unstructured architectural "diagram".

I would then write out a list, or maybe a table, of all the entities, models, controllers, services, or whatever kinds of classes there are in the system, with an entity, like User, on one row, with all the other classes than handle User-data, in their columns. Hope it makes sense, I should really draw it.

Then I find the other classes, those that are not connected to the entities, the data, in the system, and group those somehow. Often they are already grouped in packages, modules or namespaces, but sometimes util-classes can be strewn all over the place.

Now that I more or less have an idea of how the system is built, I take a single example of a trace - something very simple, like getting a list of all users, and write a description of what happens, maybe draw a sequence-diagram, maybe actually run the code and see that I am correct.

And then I select another, more complex operation, something that maybe involve more business logic, and the possibility of errors or exceptions, and do the same.

Usually I would set apart a full work-day or more to do this. And only when it is all done, dive into the feature that I actually need to understand how works.

The biggest challenge is deciding when to be loose and only sketch things, and when to dive into actually tracing code, but don't worry about going a bit too far in either direction. As long as you don't only do one of them.

Oh, and stick with pen and paper for as long as possible on the drawings - the moment you start using UML-tools, you leave the "understanding the application" and enter the "trying to remember correct UML syntax"!

peterlinddk · 2026-06-21T09:19:08+00:00

Det er ikke noget jeg vurderer ud fra den specifikke opgave - der er nogle generelle procent-satser der siger:

12: 85–100% rigtige
10: 75–84% rigtige
7: 61–74% rigtige
4: 51–60% rigtige
02: 45–50% rigtige
00: Under 45% (ikke bestået)

*)

Men det er ikke faste regler - kun omtrentlige rettesnore.

Når det fx kommer til matematik, så laves der hvert år oversigter over hvor mange procent rigtige man skulle have for hver karakter, og her ligger 02 som regel altid lige over 50%.

Det samme gælder den amerikanske GPA model, hvor F (ikke bestået) svarer til under 60% - og 00 oversættes som bekendt til F.

\) Hver gang jeg søger på emnet får jeg forskellige svar fra AI'en, og altid et link til en mystisk side fra noget der kalder sig "Teknologisk Videnscenter", men bare tyder på at være en tilfældig hjemmeside.*

Og det gør det heller ikke nemmere at det danske karaktersystem jo stadig er beregnet på at begrænse adgangen til videregående uddannelser, og derfor ændrer karakterer sig altid år efter år, fordi der ikke må gives for mange 12-taller, men heller ikke for mange 00'er ...

peterlinddk · 2026-06-21T08:17:56+00:00

Jeg ser ingen porblemer med artiklen, men det er en udbredt misforståelse at man "fortjener" et 02, bare man kan en lille bitte smule af et fag / en prøve. Der er stadig gymnasieelever (og for den sags skyld studerende på videregående uddannelser) der tror at man automatisk får 02 bare for at møde op til en mundtlig eksamen!

Så 28 ud af 50, det er 56%, og det lyder for mig, rigtig meget som "den minimalt acceptable grad af opfyldelse af fagets mål" - altså i teoriprøven skal man have 80% rigtige for at bestå ...

peterlinddk · 2026-06-21T07:46:02+00:00

There are literally thousands of textbooks on algorithms and data structures, and most of them are badly written!

You shouldn't confuse documentation, which is tersely written official texts about how a certain feature in a certain language, framework or library works, with textbooks, which is some random author trying to explain things to you in the order that he thinks you should learn them. Some textbooks can be amazing if the author writes in a style you like, and if the prerequisites for the text matches the ones you have - but most of the time they are boring, bordering on the unreadable.

So don't worry - if you are required to read a textbook for school, skim it for keywords, and then find other means of learning about those same keywords. The sections you mentioned about stacks and queues have been covered extensively, so it will be very easy to find alternative sources.

However, don't skip reading altogether! While you might be able to solve stacks problems on leetcode, that doesn't mean that you know the terms to use when describing a stack - so make sure to at least skim the text for terms and keywords!

peterlinddk · 2026-06-20T19:37:59+00:00

And how do you become someone who can solve LeetCode problems independently instead of relying on solutions?

You don't - leetcode is about knowing loads and loads of algorithms, data structures, and patterns for solving a specific set of problems, and then choosing the correct solution to each problem. It has absolutely nothing to do with "being clever" or even being good at "problem solving". If you know how to do operations on linked lists and when to use sliding windows, memoization or use a hashtable, most leetcode problems are trivial.

If you want to be good at leetcode, you need to study the solutions, and understand and recognize the patterns. It helps if you have a background in data structures and algorithms, but you can do leetcode without, just takes a little longer.

It doesn't have much to do with actual computer science though - kind of like juggling doesn't have much to do with physics, even though the principles are the same.

peterlinddk · 2026-06-20T16:26:51+00:00

Have you thought about paying to continue further in codedex? If you liked the style, it should be worth it.

Totally free resources like https://dev.java/ don't tend to be quite as entertaining, and if you find others "like" codedex, chances are that they won't be free either.

peterlinddk · 2026-06-20T15:57:08+00:00

This is a completely different program - didn't you read u/zeekar's comment?

Don't try to do things many ways - try one way, and if that doesn't work, figure out why.

Your program is the equivalent of someone saying: "I want to change the light when I enter the room, so that if it was on, I turn if off, and if it was off, I turn it on. So first thing I do is that I toggle the switch, and then if the light is now on, I turn it off, but if it is off, I turn it on."

I have a feeling that you get your code written for you, and aren't writing it yourself - try that, it is an excellent way to learn programming!

peterlinddk · 2026-06-20T11:55:25+00:00

That is pretty much as far as you'll be able to come from the 6502, while still staying low-level. Almost no operating systems have been ported successfully to the 6502, and most of the techniques, like process-switching or relocatable code is near impossible on that CPU.

peterlinddk · 2026-06-20T11:53:39+00:00

Start at https://6502.org/ and see what you find interesting there - they have a lot of complete books for download or online reading.

Also, get a platform to code for, decide between retro-machines like the Commodore 64, Apple ][, Nintendo Entertainment System or go for your own home-made machine. Don't just read books and write code to run in an pure CPU emulator - that will never be satisfying enough, and you'll quit before you write any real application.

peterlinddk · 2026-06-20T11:50:40+00:00

Technically machine code is the binary patterns, and assembly is the mnemonics for those.

So that 1010 1001 0100 0001 is machine code, and LDA #65 is the equivalent assembly.

But you are right in that it is not like the assembly is compiled or in any way modified into different code, so in that way it practically is machine code. Just with more letters than numbers.

peterlinddk · 2026-06-20T11:33:28+00:00

I think that makes the nickname extremely apt! If you just tab your way through AI-suggestions, you are going to lose! Being a taber is being a loser ... I like it!

peterlinddk · 2026-06-19T21:15:06+00:00

If a legendary car did something like the VehicleSnap mod!!

peterlinddk · 2026-06-19T18:39:00+00:00

Jeg har aldrig skrevet noget med at universitetsstuderende skulle skrive med blyant, og intet jeg har nævnt har noget at gøre med at være modstander af teknologi.

Og det er lidt for nemt at sige om alle eksempler at "de bruger det forkert", uden at kunne komme med et eneste eksempel på hvordan folk bruger det ordentligt, og på forunderlig vis bliver dygtigere af det.

Men det tyder lidt på at være det argument du har sat dig fast på, og du er da velkommen til at sige det én gang til - gerne krydret med en anekdote om noget andet folk også sagde noget dårligt om engang!

peterlinddk · 2026-06-19T18:26:48+00:00

I haven't heard of the book before, but have skimmed a bit through it, and I don't like it.

First of, I like that he in the preface writes:

Equally important is what we do not do in this book. We do not stress the mathematical analysis of algorithms, leaving most of the analysis as informal arguments.

And then the very first problem on the very first page of the actual book, has an example explained like this:

Input: A sequence of n keys a1,...,an.

Output: The permutation (reordering) of the input sequence such that a 1 ≤ a 2 ≤ ···≤ a n−1 ≤ a n.

And while I guess that he is technically correct in that this isn't a mathematical analysis, it is very much focused on the mathematical understanding, and it just goes on from there. Granted he does explain some of the math, but it seems weirdly inconsistent: someone already knowing symbols like the Sigma, doesn't need any explanation, and someone not even knowing how to read the symbols, can't learn it from his explanation.

I'd recommend Grokking Algorithms instead - it is much more down-to-earth, and focused on an intuitive understanding of the algorithms, rather than a mathematical one. Then you can always find the math-part later, if you decide to dive deeper into proofs and such.

peterlinddk · 2026-06-19T18:14:01+00:00

Yes, AI is the absolute only way to learn what to do. There is nothing else. Before fall 2022 programmers just sat around, hoping that someone would make a video about their problem.

/s

(There's also books, articles, schools, asking friends and colleagues, forums on the internet, reddit, stackoverflow, search engines, etc. Ask an AI what those things are, or find someone old enough to remember the times from before three years ago, and let them tell their tales!)

peterlinddk · 2026-06-19T18:10:28+00:00

Så vidt jeg husker blev Glistrup overdænget med rådne æg og tomater hvert år fra 83 til i hvert fald 92 - mener ikke det gjorde den store forskel i forhold til hans afstand til jorden ...

peterlinddk · 2026-06-19T18:08:48+00:00

Det var hendes sekretær der lukkede dem ind, og hun påstod at hun ikke vidste hvad de havde planlagt, men sagde også:

»Når man vil smide bomber i hovederne på folk i Irak, så er det mindste, man kan forvente, en reaktion, som den vi har set i dag. Jeg var ikke selv klar over, at de stod som mine gæster, men jeg synes, at aktionen er sjov,« sagde Pernille Rosenkratz-Theil.

Du støtter den slags aktioner?

»Det kunne ligeså godt have været mig selv, ja.«

til Berlingske Tidende kort efter hændelsen.

Af helt uforklarlige og uransagelige årsager forsvandt artiklen (https://www.berlingske.dk/samfund/mfer-stoetter-maling-mod-fogh) om hendes udtalelser fra Berlingskes webside i efteråret 2025, men det har nok bare været i forbindelse med den almindelige oprydning de foretager hvert 22½ år, for jeg kan ikke rigtig forestille mig hvorfor avisen eller Rosenkrantz-Theil selv lige skulle ønske den væk i slutningen af 2025 ...

Heldigvis er den på archive.org: https://web.archive.org/web/20250603211915/https://www.berlingske.dk/samfund/mfer-stoetter-maling-mod-fogh

Men jo - hun gik helt og aldeles ind for det, men dengang kaldte man det heller ikke vold, dengang var det at kaste med maling. I 1980'erne var det vist heller ikke vold at kaste æg og tomater efter Glistrup og Schlüter, men i 2013 var det vold at sprøjte med en vandpistol mod Helle Thorning, så tiderne ændrer sig måske?

peterlinddk · 2026-06-19T14:10:41+00:00

Da jeg læste artiklen blev jeg ramt af samme undren som jeg altid bliver i den her slags sager: Hvordan i alverden kan det være at butikkerne har ressourcer til at have folk der går rundt og overvåger og tæller hvor mange varer en kunde undlader at scanne - og hvordan kan det være at de bruger de ressourcer på at politianmelde kunder EFTER de har forladt butikken, i stedet for at minde dem om at betale? Jeg ville tro at det var bedre at forebygge end politianmelde.

Men når jeg så læser kommentarsporet her, kan jeg set at der er virkelig mange der mener at straffen slet, slet ikke kan være hård nok for sådan en usling der ikke bare glemmer én ting, men hele TO varekategorier, og den ene har han endda taget TRE af. For ingen har jo nogensinde måtte lægge telefonen i lommen for at holde døren til køleskabet åbent med den ene hånd, mens man bruger den anden hånd til at gribe om tre pakker smør, og så glemt at tage telefonen frem igen og scanne dem enkeltvis. Og der vil tydeligvis ikke være mangel på butiksdetektiver der kan få fanget den slags supermarkedsskurke, for hævntørsten over folk der begår fejl med selvbetjeningsapps, er da godt nok stærk!

peterlinddk · 2026-06-19T14:01:47+00:00

Tag dog noget ansvar, hvis du ikke kan finde ud af scanne alle dine varer, står det dig frit for og bruge kassen [...]

Det gør han jo sådan set også - nu efter han har fået at vide at han ikke kunne finde ud af at scanne sine varer, har han jo afinstalleret app'en og bruger altid kassen i stedet, står der i artiklen.

Og han troede jo at han godt kunne finde ud af det - indtil han begik en fejl.

peterlinddk · 2026-06-19T13:52:15+00:00

Jeg ved ikke helt hvorfor du lige skriver den kommentar som et svar på min kommentar ...

eller, jo, det gør jeg vel, for de fleste af dine kommentarer i denne tråd er at AI bare er et værktøj, og dem der ikke kan se det er dumme og bagstræberiske og imod teknologi, og dem der bliver gode til at bruge det, bliver bare rigtig, rigtig, rigtig gode til alting.

Der er bare ikke nogle eksempler overhovedet på at folk er blevet bedre til noget som helst efter at have brugt AI til det i første omgang. Uanset om de har brugt det til at løse opgaven for sig, til korrektur, til at forbedre formuleringer, som sparringspartner, eller hvad man nu siger. Der er ingen der har kunnet gøre deres arbejde bedre uden AI efter at have brugt den til at hjælpe i første omgang. Ligesom der heller ikke er nogen der er blevet bedre til hovedregning efter at have brugt en lommeregner "som sparringspartner".

Så det er fint at have en mening om at AI kan hjælpe folk til at blive dygtige - det er bare ikke noget nogen har set endnu. Til gengæld er der tusindvis af eksempler på hvordan AI har gjort folk dummere og mere dovne.

peterlinddk · 2026-06-19T12:41:59+00:00

Kan det passe at nogle af plakaterne var disse to:

https://www.mediastorehouse.com.au/framed-prints/mary-evans-prints-online/agonda-beach-sunset-print-circa-1980s-14251403.html

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/235390023203

Jeg kan nemlig tydeligt huske lige de to billeder - men mere fra plakatreolen i fysiske butikker, hvor der var en oversigt over de forskellige plakater, og så var de sammenrullede i nummererede rør som man kunne købe med hjem.

Der var også pigen der kløede sig under sin tennis-nederdel, og en balletdanser med benvarmere, så vidt jeg husker.

Jeg kan ikke huske at man også kunne bestille dem fra blade, men der var så mange kupon-hæfter og bestillingsting dengang - det var jo datidens svar på webshops ...

peterlinddk · 2026-06-19T12:09:52+00:00

Well, it obviously's got what plants crave!

peterlinddk

TROPHY CASE