A Pattern That Never Ends, Yet is Always the Same... Eventually

John Conway, a freaking genius when it comes to numbers, tells the story of a time at a party when someone showed him this pattern:

1
11
21
1112
He says that he didn't figure out what the pattern was, so don't be ashamed if you didn't either. The pattern is, starting with 1, the amount of times that a number is shown in the line above. For example, the first line will be 1, then the next line is 11 because the number 1 appears one time. The line after that is 2 1 because there are 2 ones in the line above it, and so on. This is called a look and say pattern, because it requiers you to look at the pattern and say the numbers out loud to complete the pattern.

I thought, what if we were to extend this pattern? It would look like this.

1
11
21
1112
3112
211213
312213
212223
114213
31121314
41122314
31221324
21322314

What I discovered is that 13 lines is the most you can extend this pattern. After that, the pattern repeats itself infinitely or repeats the last few lines. The 13^th line has 2 1s, 3 2s, 2 3s and one 4- which makes the 14^th line 21322314, the same thing as the 13^th one.

This pattern also works if you start with another number. It even works if the 1^st line isn't a one digit number, like the pattern starting with 12:

12
1112
3112
211213
312113
311223
212223
114213
31121314
41122314
31221324
21322314
21322314
21322314

If you're really clever, you would have noticed that the last line is the same in both examples. Note that if a number is not in one line, it won't necessary be in the next one but once a number is introduced, it will be, at least onece, in every succeeding line.

I've tried doing starting with a number that has a zero in it and I got a pattern that eventually repeats the last two lines. I'm not going to show it here because they're too long. But you're welcome to try it yourself.

Anyways, that's what I've found so far. I can't find who told John Conway the original pattern, but here's the interview in which he introduces the pattern. Bye.

How to Change your "my eyes only" Password on Snapchat

This is something fairly simple, yet I couldn't figure out how to do it myself at one point, and I couldn't find any guide on the internet, plus, I've heard people say that Snapchat's newer updates are harder to use. So this is how to change the my eyes only password:

First, you need to go to the my eyes only section. This is done by scrolling up in the camera part of Snapchat. You should now see your memories. Memories are pictures that are saved in the app, but not necessarily in your phone or cloud's memory.

Second, you move to the right twice. The first section is memories, the second one is the photos saved on your phone and the third one is a my eyes only, which should be password protected.

Third, you have to click on the link in the bottom right corner that says "options".

Fourth, you should get a pop up that asks you if you forgot your password or if you want to change it. Click "change passcode"

Fifth, enter your old password and the new one you want twice.

Please note that this method may not work for all phones and all updates, however, I imagine that a lot of them will use very similar methods. Also, if you forget your password, Snapchat doesn't keep a backup.

If you wanted to see my video on Snapchat Memories, click here.

The Paradox of Infinite Happines and Zero Suffering

It can be said that a morally correct action is one that increases net happiness or decreases net suffering. For example, if there is a rich man and a poor man, the rich man is to give enough food for the poor man to survive because the amount of happiness the rich man can get out of having more food is much less than the suffering that the poor man will get from starving to death. I'm not taking credit for this. The idea that morral correctness is based on these two things is often attributed to John Stuart Mill¹ and his ideas on utilitarianism.

According to utilitarianism, if one biologist works his entire life to find a cure for AIDS, they are being morally correct, because, although the biologist suffered from working his entire life, many people will be happier because they don't have AIDS. Since this is true, it can also be said that an entire generation of people can work their butts off to make a better world for all the future generations. Keep in mind that the suffering of the one generation is out weighed by the joy all of the generations to come will have if the one generation worked so hard to make the world a better place. And if this is true, we can also say that two generations can work to make the world an even better place. And three generations can do so too. After all, the more generations that work super hard, the better our science, art, culture etc. will be.

If you haven't caught on to where I'm going with this, let me explain: let's take as a thought experiment that 100 generations start working their butts off to make the world a better place. Surely, this is would be correct according to utilitarianism- the suffering of 100 generations is less than the gain of the infinite generations to come. However, if the 101^st generation stops, they're being morally incorrect because they should be working for all of the future ones. The paradox is this one: if, at any given moment, the living people stop working to enjoy what their predecessors have created, then they are being immoral because they could work to help the people of the future. But, if no one ever stops working in austerity, then every generation is being immoral since they aren't cultivating the potential happiness that the pas generations have worked so hard for. When do we stop?

You might say that we could stop one second past when the world is going to end, but with all of this work on science, we will find out a way to get to a new planet for sure. If we're really working to make the world (or other living place) a better place to live in, we must find a way to prevent life from ending as a whole. A solution to the paradox could be to have half of the population plus one enjoying the work of others. However, that would retard the creation of science, art, culture, etc. because more than half the population isn't working. These are just some counter arguments that came to mind. Please leave your own in the comments.

To make everything clear, I came up with the paradox of infinite happiness and zero suffering on my own. It is possible, though, that someone else has already came up with a similar, or even identical thought experiment already. In that case, I'm not copying you, I've never seen your work. If you wanted to add to my idea, or contradict it, comment below. Also, you can I'm White Xocolate on YouTube and WhiteXocolate1 on Instagram. Have a wonderful day². Bye.

¹Not to be confused with The Daily Show's former host John Stewart.

²Unless you're working in austerity to make the world a better place in the future.