I've had what seems like a good idea. Let's find out.

We're working on finding a cell that is maximally distant from a given cell. What are our next steps?

Sometimes we focus on the application, sometimes on the making of the application. We begin with making.

I think ensure_connected can fail. Let's prove it, then fix it.

Having completed the basics of the contents vs layout design, it's time to look around and see what needs improvement.

The FGNO OGs gave me some good ideas about my design: thanks, OGs. This morning I'll start following some of those ideas. I use test doubles!

Today, we'll start populating our dungeon. We'll start with an intrepid adventurer named Dot.

This morning, I think we'll look at some code. As a start, I have a question about Room. Brief LLM-AI digression.

Ten thousand years before the events of Dune, mankind fought the Butlerian Jihad against the tyranny of machine intelligence. We need a Humans Union.

I did a little off-article cleaning of Cell. We'll look at that. And I have an idea which may be good, or then again, not. Weirdly, things go better than expected.

Yesterday's closing idea looks good to me. Let me know what you think, if you care to. We find that we're not quite finished. A serious lesson is relearned. LLM-AI diversion at end.

With our new path deviation operation working, it's time to look at the code and see if it's asking for anything. We end with a seriously questionable choice.

We need the validity check in PathHelper. And I see how to generalize it. Which should be first? Updated: found a test.

Let's see if we can make PathHelper less bad, perhaps even make it better.

We still get straight paths sometimes. I have an idea ...

We can make most of our paths wander, except for the straight left-right or up-down ones. I've had an idea. Is it a good one? I decide to use a prior idea, in an interesting spike.

When last we met, we had just discovered a nice way to make a wiggly path. Since then, I've improved the code a bit. We'll look at that and then see what we see.

Our minimal paths are too straight for most purposes. Is there a nice way to make them adjustably not so good? Is 'adjustably` a word? It is now. A nice discovery arises.

Yesterday at session end, I tried to hack in a minimal-path idea. Failed. Today let's try to fail better.

It is certainly no surprise that the day after something first works, there is plenty of room for improvement. We'll be looking for some of those things this morning. We learn from a small step.