Since the start, each problem has 2 parts (2 "stars"). Part one sets up the problem, ensures you have parsed the input correctly, etc. After submitting the correct answer to that part, part 2 is revealed, which sometimes expands the proplem space, adds new limits, etc. Something that solves part 1 might be inadequate for part 2.

Yes, but nothing (theoretically) stops him from saying: "congratulations, you have solved part 1, wait until tomorrow for part 2".

I think either the author thinks people appreciate more the 2 stages challenge, than having one problem each day; or, more likely, the whole "infrastructure" is already prepared for 2 stages challenges per day. And changing that meant more work, eventually touching literally 10 y.o. code. The reason for the reduced days is exactly the lack of time. I assume he preferred to have 12 days, and modify as little as possible the old code. Having 1 stage per day maybe would have been possible at the expense of having less challenges, which again defeats the purpose.

If enough inputs are available online, someone can presumably collect them and clone the entire project without having access to the puzzle input generation code, which is the "secret sauce" of the project.

Are you saying that we all have different inputs? I've never actually checked that, but I don't think it's true. My colleagues have gotten stuck in the same places and have mentioned aspects of puzzles and input characteristics and never spoken past each other. I feel like if we had different inputs we'd have noticed by now.

It depends on the individual problem, some have a smaller problem space than others so unique inputs would be tricky for everyone.

But there are enough possible inputs that most people shouldn't come across anyone else with exactly the same input.

Part of the reason why AoC is so time consuming for Eric is that not only does he design the puzzles, he also generates the inputs programmatically, which he then feeds through his own solver(s) to ensure correctness. There is a team of beta testers that work for months ahead of the contest to ensure things go smoothly.

(The adventofcode subreddit has a lot more info on this.)

He puts together multiple inputs for each day, but they do repeat over users. There's a chance you and your colleagues have the same inputs.

He's also described, over the years, his process of making the inputs. Related to your comment, he tries to make sure that there are no features of some inputs that make the problem especially hard or easy compared to the other inputs. Look at some of the math ones, a few tricks work most of the time (but not every time). Let's say after some processing you get three numbers and the solution is their LCM, that will probably be true of every input, not just coincidental, even if it's not an inherent property of the problem itself.

You do get different inputs, but they largely share characteristics so good solutions should always work and naive ones should consistently fail.

There has been the odd puzzle where some inputs have allowed simpler solutions than others, but those have stood out.

I don't know how much they "stand out" because their frequency makes it so that the optimal global leaderboard strat is often to just try something dumb and see if you win input roulette.

if we just look at the last three puzzles: day 23 last year, for example, admitted the greedy solution but only for some inputs. greedy clearly shouldn't work (shuffling the vertices in a file that admits it causes it to fail).

It's only a small selection of inputs.

I have a solve group that calls it "Advent of Input Roulette" because (back when there was a global leaderboard) you can definitely get a better expected score by just assuming your input is weak in structural ways.

There are several sets of inputs, and it picks one for you.

It's easy to state this, almost as easy as to find a specific entry in the modlog proving it. If you want, I can do the grunt work if you cite a specific username.

It has already been mentioned that banned users' "ban-worthy" comments are censored.

I'd have to run an operation on lobste.rs in order to make a point and then maybe the non-representative examples I do capture are of people actually going crazy.

HN hides "dead" comments for unregistered users but at least registration is open.

This way I can know that some user was unknowingly making ill-informed claims about the extent of the contributions of the author of the linked project to certain products as opposed to any of the worst-case assumptions one could make from the replies.

> [censored]. Oh, you know who also [censored]? [censored]? Exactly!

I'm a member of the site since 2017, read almost every comment (it's not that much), and have a habit of saving "spicy" threads before mods arrive. So there's a pretty good chance I can recover more background than what's available now.

It's the first time I've heard of it, and I consider myself pretty plugged in when it comes to watch news.

Maybe he confused Casio with Seiko.

In the last Herbert Dune book, Chapterhouse, Arrakis is destroyed to eliminate the source of spice, but at least one worm is transported to another planet to begin to turn that into desert, thus ensuring a continued supply.

You hit it on the head: comparing the Nobel prizes to the Olympics. Perhaps to some they look too much like the Olympics: periodic, awarded in various categories. I suggest the similarities end there though.

Surely it's not the subscribers facing the wave, but Disney as a company?

I think it’s deliberate: subscribers cancelling their subscriptions over Jimmy Kimmel and/or price increases is old news, but if you spin it as subscribers facing cancellation of (by implication) shows you can generate more engagement whilst credibly being able to claim it’s just a badly written headline.

This is a garbage website. Look at how the article reads like it’s unfinished, like half of it is missing and there’s no conclusion. Look at the absolute irrelevance of the articles and ads underneath the article.

It’s sort of unbelievable that it’s made it onto the front page here.

Yeah and some of the things I've seen getting nowwhere in new or showhn ... I know it's not quite random, but luck is such a big factor as to what makes it onto the front page of HN

Disable the vote buttons until the article link has been clicked?

I feel like people often vote topics not content.

That's what the flag button is for. You'll notice the article has been marked as flagged. I forget what the karma threshold is before it's unlocked though.

I always assumed flagging was for inappropriate off topic content, I never considered flagging lazy content.

By HN standards lazy is inappropriate. I don’t think it’s written quite that way but the intent is clear: high quality discussion of high quality content.

Indeed. It's not a high-quality publication.

It's deceitful for engagement.

It will to take a while for culture and society to adjust to the reality of corporate incentives. Selling out the cooperative principle for short term profits at the expense of trust is how corporate media works.

Yeah, given the first paragraphs, it's a poorly written article title.

In my experience, Brits refer to their time as "GMT" whether or not DST is in effect.

True; I should have said "most people refer to their local timezone in that way". (The reason I didn't was because at the time, I was referring to those specific timezones, not because I was picking on Americans.)

This is impressive work!

The product of extreme focus and obsessive dedication. It showed me my local subway station immediately and everything checked out. Great resource.