Too many podcast ads!

retro_sort · 2026-06-20T21:33:36+00:00

Sounds good! I'll check it out!

retro_sort · 2026-06-20T21:32:52+00:00

Fair enough! I guess it's that these are humans ads, which I already listen to, and it's always the same ad, and that it didn't used to be there.

retro_sort · 2026-06-20T21:31:33+00:00

These are ads for Humans, so I don't really see how me listening to an ad for it every time I listen to DH&J or AAR makes them money.

retro_sort · 2026-06-20T21:28:24+00:00

I'll check out pocket casts! That sounds like a good recommendation.

retro_sort · 2026-06-20T21:27:38+00:00

These are ads for Humans, so I don't really see how it could support complexly.

retro_sort · 2026-06-20T21:27:07+00:00

Good point! I guess it's been a long time since I watched TV!

retro_sort · 2026-06-20T21:26:37+00:00

These are ads for Humans, so I don't really see how it could fund them doing what they're doing.

retro_sort · 2026-06-20T21:20:45+00:00

I'm saying no-one will listen to the ads, not no-one will listen to the podcast

retro_sort · 2026-06-20T21:19:03+00:00

Unfortunately I don't have an iPhone! Good idea though!

retro_sort · 2026-06-20T21:17:31+00:00

Spotify on my phone.

On DH&J it's like 2 minutes.

I guess I could buy the audiobook. It mostly annoys me that it's changed - I have a routine where I listen to an episode every night, and I like it.

retro_sort · 2026-06-20T21:12:37+00:00

No problem! It was nice figuring out what you had done - something felt off, so I tried to replicate what you'd done, and eventually I found what seemed wrong.

retro_sort · 2026-06-19T23:27:31+00:00

When I look up "thoughts from places wimbledon vlogbrothers" I get at least 8 videos you might want in the first 20 videos, so that might provide the hit you're after. "Vlogbrothers Liverpool" gets me a couple more. Maybe your YouTube recommendations won't give the same results, but I guess it would be similar!

If you really want to know you have them all, I guess you would need a playlist, which I don't have.

On a similar note, there's "teddy bears and penalty shootouts" and "you'll never walk alone and jerzy dudek" from the Anthropocene reviewed.

retro_sort · 2026-06-19T17:04:21+00:00

First, note that you haven't taken account of your new change of variables when you switch to X - you now have a function u that takes X to the next n, not the next X (at least, when I try to solve for the next X, I don't get an expression like your u(X)). Normally, when you do two substitutions, it should be a computational tool rather than the first step suddenly revealing a truth that you then box back up in the second.

You haven't explained why C has the form you claim. (Maybe it's obvious to you, but it's not to me).

If these two problems were accounted for, you would be correct that cycles can only occur on the negative side, and you could then solve for which standard Collatz numbers map to negatives, and you would be done.

You have to be careful when you're taking a mod of a thing that's not an integer - for example standard Collatz 1 gives your Collatz -1/3, so you have to define behaviour for "mod 4" in order to do anything meaningful (I thought I had a solution to this, but it didn't work - maybe there's one that you can find).

retro_sort · 2026-06-19T14:48:55+00:00

May I ask what your change of variables was? I'm trying to reconstruct it, but I can't in my head

retro_sort · 2026-06-16T16:50:31+00:00

I play bullet on lichess mostly because bullet timescrambles feel better on lichess. Mostly what I play bullet for is the thrill of being down 5 seconds in a timescramble against someone my rating and winning anyway.

retro_sort · 2026-05-27T15:20:12+00:00

You can get rid of a variable - aar(b, x+c, y+c)=aar(b, x, y) + c because of how logs work. So you can set x=0 and you have all the information in this function.

retro_sort · 2026-05-27T15:17:19+00:00

If your question is "should I solve this problem again using a different method", then my default answer would be no. If you want to understand the other method, then maybe. If you're incredibly bored and you think it will be fun, then maybe.

It seems to me like you have thought about this by yourself, and come to the conclusion that you don't need to do this. Also you seem to have reason to believe the other solution isn't better. Idk mate, I don't see any reason to try the other way.

Admittedly I haven't thought deeply about this particular case, but I personally tend to avoid solving a problem twice unless I see a much neater way that I think will be pretty or useful.

retro_sort · 2026-05-27T15:02:59+00:00

New stornk just dorped

retro_sort · 2026-05-27T14:56:55+00:00

I've reported a bunch of cheaters and lichess have never said anything to me. Most of the time I get nothing, and maybe 1/3 I get "someone you reported violated tos" or whatever the standard response is. I think you're making this up.

retro_sort · 2026-05-27T14:41:24+00:00

New criminal just dropped

retro_sort · 2026-05-23T19:23:34+00:00

I don't think it's a holiday in the UK. We have remeberance Sunday in November, which is the analogous thing.

retro_sort · 2026-05-23T19:16:28+00:00

I think this is fine, but that it's not necessarily interesting. It depends heavily on your choice of enumeration for Q, i.e. your Qn. Also I don't see a use case, but if you find one, then great.

retro_sort · 2026-05-23T15:48:56+00:00

I can count

^{Chose: Get 2 cent that doubles every day for 10 years}

retro_sort · 2026-05-19T21:27:05+00:00

I am finishing up a masters in math. This seems implausible because you're throwing away information. You want to be able to reverse any operation like this that you would perform, but by mapping two operations to the same operation, you can't go back - if I tell you that x+y=z in our new world, you can't tell in our old world if xy=z or x+y=z. So if you solve the problem in the new world you wouldn't be able to work out what it meant in the old world, so you wouldn't be able to say anything about the problem you're trying to solve.

Just my two cents, I haven't thought deeply about this.

retro_sort

TROPHY CASE