Solve 2025 day 7

.gitignore

@@ -4,6 +4,8 @@
 __pycache__/
 *.py[cod]
 *$py.class
+.python-version
+uv.lock
 
 # C extensions
 *.so

2025/d01.py

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+from lib import get_data
+
+NUM = 100
+
+data = get_data(__file__)
+
+pos = 50
+r1, r2 = 0, 0
+for line in data.splitlines():
+    d = line[0]
+    n = int(line[1:])
+    dir = 1 if d == "R" else -1
+
+    for _ in range(n):
+        pos = (pos + dir) % NUM
+        if pos == 0:
+            r2 += 1
+    if pos == 0:
+        r1 += 1
+
+print(r1)
+print(r2)

2025/d02.py

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+from lib import get_data
+
+
+data = get_data(__file__)
+
+def is_invalid(xs: str) -> bool:
+    for seq_len in range(1, len(xs) // 2 + 1):
+        if xs[:seq_len] == xs[seq_len:]:
+            return True
+    return False
+
+def is_invalid2(xs: str) -> bool:
+    for seq_len in range(1, len(xs)):
+        if len(xs) % seq_len != 0:
+            continue
+        for repeat in range(len(xs) // seq_len):
+            i = seq_len * repeat
+            if xs[:seq_len] != xs[i:i + seq_len]:
+                break
+        else:
+            return True
+    return False
+
+r1, r2 = 0, 0
+for id_range in data.split(","):
+    lo, up = list(map(int, id_range.split("-")))
+    for id in range(lo, up + 1):
+        if is_invalid(str(id)):
+            r1 += id
+        if is_invalid2(str(id)):
+            r2 += id
+
+print(r1)
+print(r2)

2025/d03.py

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+from lib import get_data
+
+data = get_data(__file__)
+
+
+def max_joltage(xs: str, target_len: int) -> int:
+    def dynamic(xs: str) -> dict[int, str]:
+        if len(xs) == 0:
+            return {0: ""}
+
+        rs = dynamic(xs[1:])
+        for i in range(target_len, 0, -1):
+            if not (i - 1) in rs:
+                continue
+            nv = int(xs[0] + rs[i - 1])
+            if not i in rs:
+                rs[i] = str(nv)
+            elif nv > int(rs[i]):
+                rs[i] = str(nv)
+        return rs
+
+    rs = dynamic(xs)
+    return int(rs[target_len])
+
+
+r1 = 0
+r2 = 0
+for line in data.splitlines():
+    r1 += max_joltage(line, 2)
+    r2 += max_joltage(line, 12)
+
+
+print(r1)
+print(r2)

2025/d04.py

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+from lib import get_data, Grid2D
+
+data = get_data(__file__)
+g = Grid2D(data)
+
+r = 0
+adjs = []
+for pos in g.all_coords():
+    if g[pos] != "@":
+        continue
+    nr_of_rolls_adj = len([nb for nb in g.neighbors_adj(pos) if g[nb] == "@"])
+    if nr_of_rolls_adj < 4:
+        r += 1
+        adjs.append(pos)
+print(r)
+
+r = 0
+while True:
+    adjs = []
+    for pos in g.all_coords():
+        if g[pos] != "@":
+            continue
+        nr_of_rolls_adj = len([nb for nb in g.neighbors_adj(pos) if g[nb] == "@"])
+        if nr_of_rolls_adj < 4:
+            adjs.append(pos)
+    if adjs:
+        r += len(adjs)
+        for a in adjs:
+            g[a] = "."
+    else:
+        break
+print(r)

2025/d05.py

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+from lib import get_data
+
+data = get_data(__file__)
+
+ranges, ids = data.split("\n\n")
+ids = tuple(map(int, ids.splitlines()))
+ranges = [list(map(int, line.split("-"))) for line in ranges.splitlines()]
+
+updated = True
+while updated:
+    updated = False
+    sorted_ranges = []
+    for lo, up in ranges:
+        assert lo <= up
+        for i in range(len(sorted_ranges)):
+            slo, sup = sorted_ranges[i]
+            if up + 1 < slo:
+                sorted_ranges.insert(i, (lo, up))
+            elif lo < slo:
+                sorted_ranges[i] = (lo, max(up, sup))
+                updated = True
+            elif lo <= sup:
+                sorted_ranges[i] = (slo, max(up, sup))
+                updated = True
+            else:
+                continue
+            break
+        else:
+            sorted_ranges.append((lo, up))
+    ranges = sorted_ranges
+
+
+result_part_1 = 0
+for id_to_check in ids:
+    for lo, up in ranges:
+        if lo <= id_to_check <= up:
+            result_part_1 += 1
+            break
+print(result_part_1)
+
+result_part_2 = 0
+for lo, up in ranges:
+    result_part_2 += up - lo + 1
+print(result_part_2)
+assert result_part_2 == 350780324308385

2025/d06.py

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+from lib import get_data
+from typing import TypeVar
+
+T = TypeVar('T')
+
+data = """123 328  51 64 
+ 45 64  387 23 
+  6 98  215 314
+*   +   *   +  """
+data = get_data(__file__)
+
+def mul(xs):
+    r = 1
+    for x in xs:
+        r *= x
+    return r
+
+lines = zip(*[line.split() for line in data.splitlines()])
+
+r = 0
+for xs in lines:
+    xs, op = xs[:-1], xs[-1]
+    xs = list(map(int, xs))
+    if op == "+":
+        r += sum(xs)
+    elif op == "*":
+        r += mul(xs)
+    else:
+        assert False, "Unexpected op"
+print(r)
+
+def split(xs: list[T], delim: T) -> list[list[T]]:
+    res = [[]]
+    for x in xs:
+        if x == delim:
+            res.append([])
+        else:
+            res[-1].append(x)
+    return res
+
+chars_trans: list[tuple[str]]  = list(zip(*[line for line in data.splitlines()]))
+lines_trans: list[str] = list(map(lambda line: "".join(line).strip(), chars_trans))
+cols: list[list[str]] = split(lines_trans, '')
+
+r2 = 0
+for xs in cols:
+    x0 = xs[0]
+    acc, op = int(x0[:-1]), x0[-1]
+    for x in xs[1:]:
+        x = int(x)
+        if op == "+":
+            acc += x
+        elif op == "*":
+            acc *= x
+        else:
+            assert False, "Unexpected op"
+    r2 += acc
+
+print(r2)
+

2025/d07.py

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+from lib import get_data, Grid2D
+from collections import defaultdict
+
+
+data = """.......S.......
+...............
+.......^.......
+...............
+......^.^......
+...............
+.....^.^.^.....
+...............
+....^.^...^....
+...............
+...^.^...^.^...
+...............
+..^...^.....^..
+...............
+.^.^.^.^.^...^.
+..............."""
+data = get_data(__file__)
+
+g = Grid2D(data)
+beams = [g.find('S')[0][1]]
+
+splits = 0
+for row in range(1, g.n_rows - 1):
+    new_beams = set()
+    for beam in beams:
+        field = g[(row, beam)]
+        if field == "^":
+            splits += 1
+            new_beams.add(beam - 1)
+            new_beams.add(beam + 1)
+        elif field == ".":
+            new_beams.add(beam)
+        else:
+            assert False, "unexpected field"
+    beams = list(new_beams)
+    # print(beams)
+
+print(splits)
+
+beams = {g.find('S')[0][1]: 1}
+for row in range(1, g.n_rows - 1):
+    new_beams = defaultdict(int)
+    for beam, count in beams.items():
+        field = g[(row, beam)]
+        if field == "^":
+            new_beams[beam - 1] += count
+            new_beams[beam + 1] += count
+        elif field == ".":
+            new_beams[beam] += count
+        else:
+            assert False, "unexpected field"
+    beams = new_beams
+
+print(sum(beams.values()))
+

2025/lib.py

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+../lib.py

README.md

@@ -2,244 +2,60 @@
 
 Solutions and utility script for Advent of Code challenges in Python.
 
-## AoC 2015
+## AoC 2025
 
-- Day 1: 3:10
-- Day 2: 5:24 :/ 
-- Day 3: 7:26 ... :/
-- Day 4: 5:11 ...
-- Day 5: 14:05 o.O
-- Day 6: 15:00
-- Day 7: 17:00
-- Day 8: 14:55
-- Day 9: 13:48
-- Day 10: 70:00 ... slow, but fun
-- Day 11: 12:30
-- Day 12: 6:03
-- Day 13: 7:06 (would have been first by a minute, probably 70ish in 2023)
-- Day 14: 27:45 ... that was weak, logic error for part 2 :/
-- Day 15: 16:00 I should probably stop brute forcing these optimization problems
-- Day 16: 19:00
-- Day 17: 9:05
-- Day 18: 10:39
-- Day 19: Many days... yeah this one took me way too long to figure out
-- Day 20: 10:54
-- Day 21: 25:52 cute bug where I didn't consider that no armor is an option
-- Day 22: That was bad. Did not know how to choose between dfs/bfs and logic errors.
-- Day 23: 10:00
-- Day 24: 20:00 ugly - recursive solution would be more elegant
-- Day 25: 9:34
+Only twelve problems and no leaderboard this year. That means life will be less
+stressful and this will actually be more fun. Thank you Eric Wastl and let's go!
 
-## AoC 2016
+- Day 1: Maybe the hardest day 1 part 2 ever for me? I struggled to calculate
+  the number of ticks on 0 directly and ended up just iterating over all the
+  ticks naively. Maybe I should revisit this.
+- Day 2: The simple direct approach with iterating over all the IDs in the
+  ranges just worked okay. Not pretty but acceptable.
+- Day 3: Fun dynamic programming problem. Part 2 took me a little too long
+  overall but it was fun.
+- Day 4: One of the easier grid based puzzles. Less than five minutes with
+  existing grid library.
+- Day 5: A problem with ranges; I decided to implement proper range merging this
+  time because I always kind of avoid that. I could probably decrease the
+  complexity from O(n^2) to O(n log(n)) but I am happy that I've implemented
+  merging at all.
+- Day 6: Transposing some rows and cols. Fun and good to keep the brain fit
+  but not really hard. I would have been way too slow for the leaderboard
+  in pre-AI years.
+- Day 7: Grid puzzle that required non-naiv implementation for part 2. Took
+  me a second to realize that I could not save the coordinates by list but
+  had to use a count to be efficient.
+- Day 8:
 
-- Day 1: 29:00 That was emberassingly slow. Out of my rhythm?
-- Day 2: 13:24 Getting back into it but still slow af, obviously.
-- Day 3: 11:20 Ugly and slow.
-- Day 4: 21:05 -__-
-- Day 5: 29:35 -___-
-- Day 6: 4:20 okay
-- Day 7: 31:20 hmm
-- Day 8: 14:50 meh
-- Day 9: 26:00 okay
-- Day 10: 23:07 okay
-- Day 11: 75:00 -__-
-- Day 12: 10:05 okay
-- Day 13: 9:43 okayish
-- Day 14: 120:00 struggled with this one (example incorrect?)
-- Day 15: Trial and error. Should use CRT instead.
-- Day 16: 14:11
-- Day 17: 45:00 didn't follow instructions... focus!
-- Day 18: 9:43
-- Day 19: 90:00 that wasn't easy for me
-- Day 20: 67:00
-- Day 21: 32:33
-- Day 22: 90:00
-- Day 23: 60:00
-- Day 24: 48:00
-- Day 25: 6:45
 
-## AoC 2017
+## AoC 2024
 
-- Day 1: 7:30
-- Day 2: 6:15
-- Day 3: 75:00 hmm should have been way quicker
-- Day 4: 3:02
-- Day 5: 6:13
-- Day 6: 8:37
-- Day 7: 19:22
-- Day 8: 8:15
-- Day 9: 6:10
-- Day 10: 55:00
-- Day 11: 66:06
-- Day 12: 6:44
-- Day 13: 120:00
-- Day 14: 17:48
-- Day 15: 11:40
-- Day 16: 13:16
-- Day 17: 55:00
-- Day 18: 23:00
-- Day 19: 45:00
-- Day 20: 9:55 (would have been 10th)
-- Day 21: 90:00
-- Day 22: 25:00
-- Day 23: Multiple days... but super fun.
-- Day 24: 15:45 (48th)
-- Day 25: 41:00
-
-## AoC 2018
-
-- Day 1: 1:49 (2nd)
-- Day 2: 10:53
-- Day 3: 6:16 (24th)
-- Day 4: 25:16
-- Day 5: 17:03
-- Day 6: 1:10:29
-- Day 7: 20:15
-- Day 8: 18:35
-- Day 9: 1:17:52
-- Day 10: 19:14
-- Day 11: 22:52
-- Day 12: 180:00
-- Day 13: 73:09
-- Day 14: 20:48
-- Day 15: 185:11
-- Day 16: 36:10
-- Day 17: 180:00
-- Day 18: 24:04
-- Day 19: days (super fun, but hard for me)
-- Day 20: weeks (a cache was all it took - weak)
-- Day 21: 28:40 (16th - brute force but still not so bad)
-- Day 22: 185:00 (should not have been so slow but was fun)
-- Day 23: days
-- Day 24: days
-- Day 25: 29:20 (slow)
-
-## AoC 2019
-
-- Day 1: 4:25   (copy and paste error, no leaderboard)
-- Day 2: 7:07   (19th)
-- Day 3: 10:46  (37th)
-- Day 4: 8:48   (just too slow, no leaderboard)
-- Day 5: 34:24  (that wasn't hard at all)
-- Day 6: 23:17  (so slow, no leaderboard)
-- Day 7: 72:17  (I found that one challenging, 30:33 would have been required for leaderboard)
-- Day 8: 08:55  (54th)
-- Day 9: 115:00 (Try to read next time.)
-- Day 10: 76:00 (This wasn't easy for me. Fun, though.)
-- Day 11: 21:04 (Too slow, but fun.)
-- Day 12: days  (Took me a while to get the right idea.)
-- Day 13: >120:00 (Just struggling so much for some reason.)
-- Day 14: >120:00 (Hmm, wasn't that hard either.)
-- Day 15: >120:00 (I am really weak at the moment.)
-- Day 16: days    (Wow. Just too hard for me to solve quickly?)
-- Day 17: days    (Fun but too tricky for me to be fast.)
-- Day 18: days    (Slow and slow algorithm.)
-- Day 19: 40:00   (Way too slow! Oversight error. Come on.)
-- Day 20: days    (Not actually that hard but I struggled for no reason.) 
-- Day 21: days    (But it was super fun!)
-- Day 22: days    (Needed some help...)
-- Day 23: 23:13   (Still too slow even though my int computer was in good shape...)
-- Day 24: 53:00   (Can I ever even get points at all?)
-- Day 25: 70:00   (Well, done at least. Super super fun!)
-
-## AoC 2020
-
-- Day 1: 2:48   (people weren't able to submit because of a website outage)
-- Day 2: 4:47   (no leaderboard, you can tell it's getting faster)
-- Day 3: 7:06   (way too slow, lol; time to take it seriously)
-- Day 4: 14:30  (yo, I am just too slow)
-- Day 5: 11:53  (not competitive)
-- Day 6: 4:11   (75th, finally on the leaderboard)
-- Day 7: 24:39  (bad)
-- Day 8: 6:26   (43th, tied George Hotz :)
-- Day 9: 7:37   (choked bad)
-- Day 10: 34:27 (so weak)
-- Day 11: 21:05 (hmmm, I rally have to analyze why I am so slow)
-- Day 12: 21:52 (just slow again for an easy problem)
-- Day 13: 18:00 (I don't really understand the CRT to be honest)
-- Day 14: 40:26 (Made a bunch of mistakes even misunderstanding Python)
-- Day 15: 17:57 (Too slow for an easy one like this)
-- Day 16: 33:00 (Not too unhappy really.)
-- Day 17: 10:00 (40th)
-- Day 18: 80:00 (I am struggling with stuff where parsing is involved)
-- Day 19: 78:00 (Should have been faster)
-- Day 20: 95:00 (Lot's of code)
-- Day 21: 23:02 (Simply to slow)
-- Day 22: 45:49 (Simple and too slow)
-- Day 23: 105:00 (Sad)
-- Day 24: 15:38 (Close to leaderboard)
-- Day 25: 14:40 (Way too slow)
-
-## AoC 2021
-
-- Day  1:   4:01   (Haha. Why am I so bad?!?!)
-- Day  2:   6:36   (Okay. I might as well stop doing these.)
-- Day  3:  23:46   (How long can I take when I try to take long?)
-- Day  4:  22:18   (No way. Such stupid bugs.)
-- Day  5:  13:30   (Decent, but obviously too slow.)
-- Day  6:  16:33   (Right idea quickly but then struggled to implement.)
-- Day  7:   6:12   (Decent, but too slow again, obviously. Maybe fast enough for part 1.)
-- Day  8:  72:00   (Yeah, that was too much of a struggle.)
-- Day  9:   8:07   (37th okay, okay)
-- Day 10:  15:50   (I was pretty happy with that but double the 100th place.)
-- Day 11:  11:43   (Could have been much faster here.)
-- Day 12:  19:11   (Okayish, but of course too slow for leaderboard.)
-- Day 13:  16:48   (Should have been way faster.)
-- Day 14:  25:52   (Not hard but just too slow.)
-- Day 15:  19:17   (Not that bad. Multiplying the thing threw me off.)
-- Day 16:  50:01   (Way too slow. Was non-trivial but fun. Much better was feasible.)
-- Day 17:  21:59   (Not tricky again but struggling for no reason.)
-- Day 18: 162:00   (I couldn't figure out how to solve it as a tree so I did the basic way.)
-- Day 19:   days   (Super hard for me but super fun ultimately once I had the right approach.)
-- Day 20: 105:00   (That wasn't easy but was able to solve in one go.)
-- Day 21:  37:45   (Wasn't hard but I was just too slow.)
-- Day 22: 142:00   (Wonderful problem and hard for me but learned something new for sure.)
-- Day 23:  81:38   (Fun but obviously not competitive.)
-- Day 24: 232:00   (Super hard for me but I am proud of it.)
-- Day 25:  15:43   (That could have been much much faster.)
-
-## AoC 2022
-
-Done with this. Overall everything is solvable. It's more about consistency
-and focus. Of course, learning more algorithms and techniques helps.
-
-**Times:**
-
-- Day  1: 7:52 ... so slow brah :/ top 100 required 2:05...
-- Day  2: 22:30 ... I mistyped the first and second was just bad top 100 would
-  have been 6:16 (doable?)
-- Day  3: 13:08 actually decent but top 100 required 5:24
-- Day  4: 7:08 but top 100 required 3:33 still okay
-- Day  5: 11:56 but 7:58 for top 100... getting better?
-- Day  6: 3:50 but 2:25 for leaderboard :D
-- Day  7: 27:55 and 14:47 for leaderboard; okay, I would say
-- Day  8: 61:00 and 10:00 for leaderboard; I need template code for searching
-  coordinate systems
-- Day  9: 58:00 and 7:32 for leaderboard; I need code for 2D stuff
-- Day 10: 25:20 and 12:17 for leaderboard; okay, okay
-- Day 11: 45:00 and 18:00 for leaderboard; arg, it was doable man
-- Day 12: 39:45 and 9:46 for leaderboard; the people are ready for their
-  searches :D
-- Day 13: 44:00 and 12:56 for leaderboard; these people are just good,
-  seriously
-- Day 14: 35:00 and 14:54; I just have to get that much quicker... 2D code!
-- Day 15: 150:00 and 27:00; I didn't use Manhattan dist initially, lot's of
-  debugging
-- Day 16: 52:00 and 64:00; ARE YOU SAYING I WOULD HAVE MADE THE
-  LEADERBOARD?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
-- Day 17: Second one was fun with having to detect the repetition.
-- Day 18: 12:00 and 32:00; really straightforward and of course way too slow.
-- Day 19: Slow. (2024-09-13 improved with help from hyper neutrino.)
-- Day 20: Struggled way too much.
-- Day 21: Straightforward and relatively fast.
-- Day 22: Very hard and wasn't able to do hands free. Even the best guys took
-  over an hour.
-- Day 23: Super straightforward, but took me way longer than it should have
-  because I loose focus and make silly errors. Like back in Middleschool.
-- Day 24: Easy. Should have been faster, but no crazy mistakes. Still way too
-  slow for something easy like this.
-- Day 25: Quickly solved via constraint solver. Actual solution much simpler. Don't know
-  if I would have been able to figure it out.
+- Day  1: `00:01:30   124      0   00:02:49    141      0`
+- Day  2: `00:05:34   686      0   00:08:21    531      0`
+- Day  3: `00:01:48   165      0   00:02:40     56     45`
+- Day  4: `00:07:47  1101      0   00:24:07   2410      0`
+- Day  5: `00:07:07   679      0   00:23:02   1998      0`
+- Day  6: `00:09:43  1082      0   00:16:29    464      0`
+- Day  7: `00:12:29  2058      0   00:13:08   1170      0`
+- Day  8: `00:15:59  1742      0   00:26:56   2190      0`
+- Day  9: `00:48:23  6055      0   01:09:38   3159      0`
+- Day 10: `00:19:47  2976      0   00:20:47   2244      0`
+- Day 11: `00:05:13   642      0   00:33:07   2673      0`
+- Day 12: `00:30:30  3540      0   11:41:33  16212      0`
+- Day 13: `00:05:35   225      0   00:55:48   2544      0`
+- Day 14: `00:20:41  2136      0   00:35:14   1048      0`
+- Day 15: `   >24h  32248      0       >24h  23671      0`
+- Day 16: `   >24h  24941      0       >24h  20575      0`
+- Day 17: `17:34:16 23722      0       >24h  17778      0`
+- Day 18: `14:35:01 20398      0   14:37:18  19550      0`
+- Day 19: `00:14:37  2001      0   00:19:43   1584      0`
+- Day 20: `01:08:53  3637      0   01:53:01   2837      0`
+- Day 21: `00:48:40   215      0       >24h  16427      0`
+- Day 22: `00:13:04  1930      0   00:28:29    739      0`
+- Day 23: `   >24h  20096      0       >24h  17620      0`
+- Day 24: `15:57:01 17307      0       >24h  11326      0`
+- Day 25: `10:41:54 14140      0       >24h  13631      0`
 
 
 ## AoC 2023
@@ -289,31 +105,249 @@ and focus. Of course, learning more algorithms and techniques helps.
   Manually plotting requires matplotlib and networkx packages.
 
 
-## AoC 2024
+## AoC 2022
 
-- Day  1: `00:01:30   124      0   00:02:49    141      0`
-- Day  2: `00:05:34   686      0   00:08:21    531      0`
-- Day  3: `00:01:48   165      0   00:02:40     56     45`
-- Day  4: `00:07:47  1101      0   00:24:07   2410      0`
-- Day  5: `00:07:07   679      0   00:23:02   1998      0`
-- Day  6: `00:09:43  1082      0   00:16:29    464      0`
-- Day  7: `00:12:29  2058      0   00:13:08   1170      0`
-- Day  8: `00:15:59  1742      0   00:26:56   2190      0`
-- Day  9: `00:48:23  6055      0   01:09:38   3159      0`
-- Day 10: `00:19:47  2976      0   00:20:47   2244      0`
-- Day 11: `00:05:13   642      0   00:33:07   2673      0`
-- Day 12: `00:30:30  3540      0   11:41:33  16212      0`
-- Day 13: `00:05:35   225      0   00:55:48   2544      0`
-- Day 14: `00:20:41  2136      0   00:35:14   1048      0`
-- Day 15: `   >24h  32248      0       >24h  23671      0`
-- Day 16: `   >24h  24941      0       >24h  20575      0`
-- Day 17: `17:34:16 23722      0       >24h  17778      0`
-- Day 18: `14:35:01 20398      0   14:37:18  19550      0`
-- Day 19: `00:14:37  2001      0   00:19:43   1584      0`
-- Day 20: `01:08:53  3637      0   01:53:01   2837      0`
-- Day 21: `00:48:40   215      0       >24h  16427      0`
-- Day 22: `00:13:04  1930      0   00:28:29    739      0`
-- Day 23: `   >24h  20096      0       >24h  17620      0`
-- Day 24: `15:57:01 17307      0       >24h  11326      0`
-- Day 25: `10:41:54 14140      0       >24h  13631      0`
+Done with this. Overall everything is solvable. It's more about consistency
+and focus. Of course, learning more algorithms and techniques helps.
+
+**Times:**
+
+- Day  1: 7:52 ... so slow brah :/ top 100 required 2:05...
+- Day  2: 22:30 ... I mistyped the first and second was just bad top 100 would
+  have been 6:16 (doable?)
+- Day  3: 13:08 actually decent but top 100 required 5:24
+- Day  4: 7:08 but top 100 required 3:33 still okay
+- Day  5: 11:56 but 7:58 for top 100... getting better?
+- Day  6: 3:50 but 2:25 for leaderboard :D
+- Day  7: 27:55 and 14:47 for leaderboard; okay, I would say
+- Day  8: 61:00 and 10:00 for leaderboard; I need template code for searching
+  coordinate systems
+- Day  9: 58:00 and 7:32 for leaderboard; I need code for 2D stuff
+- Day 10: 25:20 and 12:17 for leaderboard; okay, okay
+- Day 11: 45:00 and 18:00 for leaderboard; arg, it was doable man
+- Day 12: 39:45 and 9:46 for leaderboard; the people are ready for their
+  searches :D
+- Day 13: 44:00 and 12:56 for leaderboard; these people are just good,
+  seriously
+- Day 14: 35:00 and 14:54; I just have to get that much quicker... 2D code!
+- Day 15: 150:00 and 27:00; I didn't use Manhattan dist initially, lot's of
+  debugging
+- Day 16: 52:00 and 64:00; ARE YOU SAYING I WOULD HAVE MADE THE
+  LEADERBOARD?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
+- Day 17: Second one was fun with having to detect the repetition.
+- Day 18: 12:00 and 32:00; really straightforward and of course way too slow.
+- Day 19: Slow. (2024-09-13 improved with help from hyper neutrino.)
+- Day 20: Struggled way too much.
+- Day 21: Straightforward and relatively fast.
+- Day 22: Very hard and wasn't able to do hands free. Even the best guys took
+  over an hour.
+- Day 23: Super straightforward, but took me way longer than it should have
+  because I loose focus and make silly errors. Like back in Middleschool.
+- Day 24: Easy. Should have been faster, but no crazy mistakes. Still way too
+  slow for something easy like this.
+- Day 25: Quickly solved via constraint solver. Actual solution much simpler. Don't know
+  if I would have been able to figure it out.
+
+
+## AoC 2021
+
+- Day  1:   4:01   (Haha. Why am I so bad?!?!)
+- Day  2:   6:36   (Okay. I might as well stop doing these.)
+- Day  3:  23:46   (How long can I take when I try to take long?)
+- Day  4:  22:18   (No way. Such stupid bugs.)
+- Day  5:  13:30   (Decent, but obviously too slow.)
+- Day  6:  16:33   (Right idea quickly but then struggled to implement.)
+- Day  7:   6:12   (Decent, but too slow again, obviously. Maybe fast enough for part 1.)
+- Day  8:  72:00   (Yeah, that was too much of a struggle.)
+- Day  9:   8:07   (37th okay, okay)
+- Day 10:  15:50   (I was pretty happy with that but double the 100th place.)
+- Day 11:  11:43   (Could have been much faster here.)
+- Day 12:  19:11   (Okayish, but of course too slow for leaderboard.)
+- Day 13:  16:48   (Should have been way faster.)
+- Day 14:  25:52   (Not hard but just too slow.)
+- Day 15:  19:17   (Not that bad. Multiplying the thing threw me off.)
+- Day 16:  50:01   (Way too slow. Was non-trivial but fun. Much better was feasible.)
+- Day 17:  21:59   (Not tricky again but struggling for no reason.)
+- Day 18: 162:00   (I couldn't figure out how to solve it as a tree so I did the basic way.)
+- Day 19:   days   (Super hard for me but super fun ultimately once I had the right approach.)
+- Day 20: 105:00   (That wasn't easy but was able to solve in one go.)
+- Day 21:  37:45   (Wasn't hard but I was just too slow.)
+- Day 22: 142:00   (Wonderful problem and hard for me but learned something new for sure.)
+- Day 23:  81:38   (Fun but obviously not competitive.)
+- Day 24: 232:00   (Super hard for me but I am proud of it.)
+- Day 25:  15:43   (That could have been much much faster.)
+
+
+## AoC 2020
+
+- Day 1: 2:48   (people weren't able to submit because of a website outage)
+- Day 2: 4:47   (no leaderboard, you can tell it's getting faster)
+- Day 3: 7:06   (way too slow, lol; time to take it seriously)
+- Day 4: 14:30  (yo, I am just too slow)
+- Day 5: 11:53  (not competitive)
+- Day 6: 4:11   (75th, finally on the leaderboard)
+- Day 7: 24:39  (bad)
+- Day 8: 6:26   (43th, tied George Hotz :)
+- Day 9: 7:37   (choked bad)
+- Day 10: 34:27 (so weak)
+- Day 11: 21:05 (hmmm, I rally have to analyze why I am so slow)
+- Day 12: 21:52 (just slow again for an easy problem)
+- Day 13: 18:00 (I don't really understand the CRT to be honest)
+- Day 14: 40:26 (Made a bunch of mistakes even misunderstanding Python)
+- Day 15: 17:57 (Too slow for an easy one like this)
+- Day 16: 33:00 (Not too unhappy really.)
+- Day 17: 10:00 (40th)
+- Day 18: 80:00 (I am struggling with stuff where parsing is involved)
+- Day 19: 78:00 (Should have been faster)
+- Day 20: 95:00 (Lot's of code)
+- Day 21: 23:02 (Simply to slow)
+- Day 22: 45:49 (Simple and too slow)
+- Day 23: 105:00 (Sad)
+- Day 24: 15:38 (Close to leaderboard)
+- Day 25: 14:40 (Way too slow)
+
+
+## AoC 2019
+
+- Day 1: 4:25   (copy and paste error, no leaderboard)
+- Day 2: 7:07   (19th)
+- Day 3: 10:46  (37th)
+- Day 4: 8:48   (just too slow, no leaderboard)
+- Day 5: 34:24  (that wasn't hard at all)
+- Day 6: 23:17  (so slow, no leaderboard)
+- Day 7: 72:17  (I found that one challenging, 30:33 would have been required for leaderboard)
+- Day 8: 08:55  (54th)
+- Day 9: 115:00 (Try to read next time.)
+- Day 10: 76:00 (This wasn't easy for me. Fun, though.)
+- Day 11: 21:04 (Too slow, but fun.)
+- Day 12: days  (Took me a while to get the right idea.)
+- Day 13: >120:00 (Just struggling so much for some reason.)
+- Day 14: >120:00 (Hmm, wasn't that hard either.)
+- Day 15: >120:00 (I am really weak at the moment.)
+- Day 16: days    (Wow. Just too hard for me to solve quickly?)
+- Day 17: days    (Fun but too tricky for me to be fast.)
+- Day 18: days    (Slow and slow algorithm.)
+- Day 19: 40:00   (Way too slow! Oversight error. Come on.)
+- Day 20: days    (Not actually that hard but I struggled for no reason.) 
+- Day 21: days    (But it was super fun!)
+- Day 22: days    (Needed some help...)
+- Day 23: 23:13   (Still too slow even though my int computer was in good shape...)
+- Day 24: 53:00   (Can I ever even get points at all?)
+- Day 25: 70:00   (Well, done at least. Super super fun!)
+
+
+## AoC 2018
+
+- Day 1: 1:49 (2nd)
+- Day 2: 10:53
+- Day 3: 6:16 (24th)
+- Day 4: 25:16
+- Day 5: 17:03
+- Day 6: 1:10:29
+- Day 7: 20:15
+- Day 8: 18:35
+- Day 9: 1:17:52
+- Day 10: 19:14
+- Day 11: 22:52
+- Day 12: 180:00
+- Day 13: 73:09
+- Day 14: 20:48
+- Day 15: 185:11
+- Day 16: 36:10
+- Day 17: 180:00
+- Day 18: 24:04
+- Day 19: days (super fun, but hard for me)
+- Day 20: weeks (a cache was all it took - weak)
+- Day 21: 28:40 (16th - brute force but still not so bad)
+- Day 22: 185:00 (should not have been so slow but was fun)
+- Day 23: days
+- Day 24: days
+- Day 25: 29:20 (slow)
+
+
+## AoC 2017
+
+- Day 1: 7:30
+- Day 2: 6:15
+- Day 3: 75:00 hmm should have been way quicker
+- Day 4: 3:02
+- Day 5: 6:13
+- Day 6: 8:37
+- Day 7: 19:22
+- Day 8: 8:15
+- Day 9: 6:10
+- Day 10: 55:00
+- Day 11: 66:06
+- Day 12: 6:44
+- Day 13: 120:00
+- Day 14: 17:48
+- Day 15: 11:40
+- Day 16: 13:16
+- Day 17: 55:00
+- Day 18: 23:00
+- Day 19: 45:00
+- Day 20: 9:55 (would have been 10th)
+- Day 21: 90:00
+- Day 22: 25:00
+- Day 23: Multiple days... but super fun.
+- Day 24: 15:45 (48th)
+- Day 25: 41:00
+
+
+## AoC 2016
+
+- Day 1: 29:00 That was emberassingly slow. Out of my rhythm?
+- Day 2: 13:24 Getting back into it but still slow af, obviously.
+- Day 3: 11:20 Ugly and slow.
+- Day 4: 21:05 -__-
+- Day 5: 29:35 -___-
+- Day 6: 4:20 okay
+- Day 7: 31:20 hmm
+- Day 8: 14:50 meh
+- Day 9: 26:00 okay
+- Day 10: 23:07 okay
+- Day 11: 75:00 -__-
+- Day 12: 10:05 okay
+- Day 13: 9:43 okayish
+- Day 14: 120:00 struggled with this one (example incorrect?)
+- Day 15: Trial and error. Should use CRT instead.
+- Day 16: 14:11
+- Day 17: 45:00 didn't follow instructions... focus!
+- Day 18: 9:43
+- Day 19: 90:00 that wasn't easy for me
+- Day 20: 67:00
+- Day 21: 32:33
+- Day 22: 90:00
+- Day 23: 60:00
+- Day 24: 48:00
+- Day 25: 6:45
+
+
+## AoC 2015
+
+- Day 1: 3:10
+- Day 2: 5:24 :/ 
+- Day 3: 7:26 ... :/
+- Day 4: 5:11 ...
+- Day 5: 14:05 o.O
+- Day 6: 15:00
+- Day 7: 17:00
+- Day 8: 14:55
+- Day 9: 13:48
+- Day 10: 70:00 ... slow, but fun
+- Day 11: 12:30
+- Day 12: 6:03
+- Day 13: 7:06 (would have been first by a minute, probably 70ish in 2023)
+- Day 14: 27:45 ... that was weak, logic error for part 2 :/
+- Day 15: 16:00 I should probably stop brute forcing these optimization problems
+- Day 16: 19:00
+- Day 17: 9:05
+- Day 18: 10:39
+- Day 19: Many days... yeah this one took me way too long to figure out
+- Day 20: 10:54
+- Day 21: 25:52 cute bug where I didn't consider that no armor is an option
+- Day 22: That was bad. Did not know how to choose between dfs/bfs and logic errors.
+- Day 23: 10:00
+- Day 24: 20:00 ugly - recursive solution would be more elegant
+- Day 25: 9:34
 

lib.py

@@ -276,7 +276,7 @@ def extract_year_and_date(scriptname) -> tuple[str, str]:
 def get_data(filename):
     path, file = os.path.split(filename)
     year = path[-4:]
-    day = file.replace("d", "").replace(".py", "")
+    day = file.replace("d0", "").replace("d", "").replace(".py", "")
     txt_file = f"d{day}.txt"
 
     if os.path.isfile(txt_file):

pyproject.toml

@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+[project]
+name = "aocpy"
+version = "0.1.0"
+description = "Make ruff and ty available via uv"
+readme = "README.md"
+requires-python = ">=3.13"
+dependencies = [
+    "ruff>=0.14.11",
+    "ty>=0.0.11",
+]