I previously showed you (without a screencast) how to make NP++ default in XP. Of course, people have successfully done this for W7/Vista as well, but the various tutorials I saw were all a huge pain in the ass. Except for one: a comment on a more-complicated method. I made the following short screencast to demonstrate that method. This one has the advantages of being easy to reverse, easy to do, and not in any way intimidating!
I also have a post on using regular expressions in NP++, if you’re into that sort of thing.
You’ve all heard this classic statistics problem, based on an old game show:
A contestant is shown 3 doors. Only one of those three doors hides something of value to the contestant (perhaps a new car), while the other two contain nothing. The contestant chooses one door, but that door remains closed. The host then opens up a 2nd door, and this door is always a losing door. At this point, the contestant may choose to now open the originally-chosen door, or switch to and open the last remaining door.
So why is this interesting? It turns out that the way to maximize your chances of winning is to always switch, and this maximized chance is 67%. It also turns out that this is totally non-intuitive, and that most people think that, if the contestant always switches, the chances of winning are at best 50%. If you haven’t heard the solution to this problem before, you should think through it and see what you expect the chances of winning are under the two conditions: After the contestant chooses a door, and is subsequently shown that one of the other two is a losing door,  the contestant always switches to the remaining door, or  the contestant never switches. After the jump, I’ll explain this intuitively and then show a Python script to simulate this problem.
In a previous post, I discussed my attempt to write a program to solve a puzzle. I never updated that post because, well, I ran the program all night and it didn’t find the solution!
I had made up a fake puzzle that I knew had a solution for testing, and the program could solve it in 15 minutes. But it couldn’t solve the one I had recorded for the real puzzle. I figured (and hoped) that I had simply recorded it wrong and to check, I re-recorded the pieces and tried again. And it worked! Here’s how:
This post discusses a computer program that you can download to try yourself (and get the source code if you want to make your own version).
At a family reunion earlier this summer, we were handed a wordfind that someone had generated somewhere on the Internets that contained the names of the family founders. I was solving mine and noticed that, as anyone has frequently observed, in any given wordfind you will find words that are not in the list. Presumably, this is due to the randomly-assorted letters, by chance, spelling out an unplanned word. Of course, the wordfind makers might also stick those in on purpose (for example, the family wordfind contained the website name multiple times) or purposely prevent some random words (profanity). Regardless, I began to wonder how often a word might appear in a word find just by chance. So I used the margins to scratch out a formula for the chance of finding a word of a certain length within a matrix of random letters.
Inspired by Dawkins’ METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL program (hereafter just weasel) described in his book “The Blind Watchmaker,” and wanting to practice my blossoming C++ skills, I decided to write my own version of weasel. It was successful enough, and I found the results interesting enough to warrant discussion. Download the program (Windows .exe file) so you can try it out for yourself (and you can also get the source code if you want). In this post I’ll discuss what the program does and why. In the next post I’ll talk a bit about the results of the program.