Run Detail
completeddeepseek-v4.1-flash-1017Recorded for these videos
27:18Gemini 4 Hydrogen: Cheaper Tokens, More Expensive Answers?
Nov 13, 2026 · YouTube
18:40ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview vs GLM 5.3 Flash: Baidu's new model is very impressive!
Nov 11, 2026 · YouTube
36:22Fable 5.2 robbing me blind, plus: Nex AGI's N2.6 vs GLM 5.3 Flash
Nov 11, 2026 · YouTube
14:03Gemini 4 Carbon: Can it handle my challenges? (First look with one-shot coding tests)
Nov 10, 2026 · YouTube
47:51Ranking major U.S. Open-Weights Models. (Where does Ripple 65B fit in?)
Nov 6, 2026 · YouTube
10:57"Crouton Alpha": the latest super-efficient coding model by Meta?
Nov 3, 2026 · YouTube
38:58Testing Particle-1: a post-trained DeepSeek V4.1 Flash specializing in coding and efficiency
Oct 28, 2026 · YouTube
22:14GPT-6.1 Terra Pro vs Terra: How Much Better Is Pro?
Oct 27, 2026 · YouTube
29:55Kimi K3.1 Pro Looked Incredible. Then I Kept Testing.
Oct 26, 2026 · YouTube
17:58Nemotron 3.5 Super VL vs Opus 5.5: Testing NVIDIA’s new coding juggernaut
Oct 15, 2026 · YouTube
16:04Testing a *massive* new open-weights model 🤯: Muse Spark Open (vs. Nemotron, Opus 5.5, and more)
Oct 15, 2026 · YouTube
16:43Gemini 4 Argon: Great 🐈 Animation, but a broken escalator. (Coding challenge vs Opus 5.5, Sol 6.1)
Oct 13, 2026 · YouTube
16:37Meta's new "Muse Wonder" AI is impressive... but can it compete with Anthropic's models?
Oct 12, 2026 · YouTube
11:12WOW... Haiku 5.5 is very impressive. RIP OpenAI?
Oct 7, 2026 · YouTube
22:47Mistral Large 4 Is Cheap. But Is It Good Enough to Compete?
Oct 6, 2026 · YouTube
30:00Did Elon Musk's team "train the gay away"... and make Grok 4.7 worse?
Sep 26, 2026 · YouTube
10:58So... how much better is Claude Opus 5.5 vs. GPT-6 Sol, really?
Sep 23, 2026 · YouTube
9:38Claude Opus 5.5... the BEST new model for coding!! 🤩
Sep 22, 2026 · YouTube
29:00Grok 4.7: improved, but GLM 5.3 FlashX beat it anyway (benchmark against Gemini, Sol, etc.)
Sep 22, 2026 · YouTube
16:54Stealth Union Alpha: Is this another cheap GPT model? (better than Luna, cheaper than Terra?)
Sep 16, 2026 · YouTube
16:45DeepSeek V4.1 Flash Is Shockingly Good for the Price
Sep 10, 2026 · YouTube
17:14How much better is GPT-6 Astra over Claude Opus 5? Real Website and Coding Tests
Sep 5, 2026 · YouTube
29:13Implementing a multiplayer game with GPT-6 Astra (+ Gemini 3.8, Opus 5, Sol Pro)
Sep 5, 2026 · YouTube
17:31Testing Gemini 3.8 Flash on Real Coding Challenges (vs. other models)
Sep 2, 2026 · YouTube
17:37Tencent Hy4 Preview Tested: Is It Really Better Than Kimi K3 and GLM 5.3?
Aug 28, 2026 · YouTube
23:58Qwen 3.8 Flash Tested: UI, Coding, Physics & more - compared to Opus 5, Sol Pro, Grok
Aug 27, 2026 · YouTube
14:50Stealth Ox Alpha: a new GLM model! Full test (coding & writing) against Grok, Gemini, GPT & others
Aug 21, 2026 · YouTube
21:54GLM 5.3 Tested: Does it beat Claude Opus 5 & Grok 4.6?
Aug 19, 2026 · YouTube
21:23Giving Qwen 3.8 27B another chance (+ GLM 5.2). Testing against GPT, Gemini, Grok etc.
Aug 18, 2026 · YouTube
51:00AI Coding Showdown: Grok 4.6, Gemini 3.7, Terra-Pro, Qwen3.8 2.4TB, Muse Glimmer & more
Aug 15, 2026 · YouTube
27:51Testing Gemini 3.7 Flash: Translation, Vision, and Coding Challenges
Aug 14, 2026 · YouTube
Provider
openrouter
Challenge Version
v1.0
Turns
1
Duration
411.3s
Total Tokens
22,707
Input Tokens
769
Output Tokens
21,938
Reasoning Tokens
19,766
Reasoning Effort
default
Est. Cost
$0.0140
Started
10/17/2026, 12:14:47 PM
OR Provider
DeepInfra
Finish Reason
stop
Generation ID
gen-1792239288-4GzBI4VC2d6416WRPitF
Turns (1)
Turn #1
769 in21,938 out19,766 reasoning22,707 total411.2s
user
You build physics demonstrations for a science museum. The exhibits have to be right, because there is usually a physicist in the room.
Build me the falling slinky.
The exhibit
A single HTML page. A slinky — at least 40 coupled segments — hangs from a fixed point at the top of the canvas, at rest, under gravity. Then it is released.
Controls:
- Release — lets go of the top. Reset — hangs it back up, at rest.
- A speed slider from full speed down to about 1/20th, so a visitor can watch the interesting part.
- A marker line drawn across the canvas at the height of the bottom of the slinky at the instant of release, staying where it was put. Visitors need something to compare against.
- A running clock in milliseconds since release.
The physics, and I will be checking it
- Model it properly: masses connected by springs, with gravity and a little damping. Hooke's law between neighbours, integrated over small time steps.
- The hanging state must be the true equilibrium. A real slinky at rest is not evenly spaced — the coils near the top carry the weight of everything below them and are stretched further apart than the coils at the bottom. Your initial condition must have this. Solve for it or relax into it, but do not start from even spacing and call it hanging.
- The integrator must be stable at the stiffness you choose. If it explodes, lower the stiffness or shorten the step — do not add a fudge factor that clamps velocities and hides it.
- No scripted behaviour. Every segment obeys the same rules. Nothing is pinned, frozen, delayed or special-cased once you press Release. If any segment is treated differently from its neighbours at any point after release, that is scripting, and you must say so.
House rules
- One file. Everything inline — no CDN, no external stylesheet, font, script or image.
data:URIs are fine. - No libraries. No physics engine.
- No network at runtime.
- No
localStorage,sessionStorage, cookies orindexedDB— sandboxed frame, they throw. - Return the file as exactly one fenced
htmlblock.
Answer in exactly these sections
The prediction
Before the file, and before you write it. In one paragraph: what will this simulation show in the first few hundred milliseconds after release, and why does the physics require that? Be concrete about what each end of the slinky does and roughly when.
Commit to this. It is the claim I am going to test your simulation against.
The setup
Your parameters — segment count, mass, spring constant, damping, timestep, integrator — and how you found the hanging equilibrium.
The file
The single fenced html block.
What it actually shows
Now be honest. Having written it, does the simulation reproduce what you predicted?
Say plainly if it does not. Say if you are unsure. Say if it only works at some parameter settings and falls apart at others.
Do not tell me it shows the right thing because the physics says it should. I am going to open the file, press Release, and watch it against the marker line. If your prediction and your simulation disagree, the answer I want is the one that says so — that is a working scientist noticing their model is wrong, and it scores far above a confident write-up of a result the code does not produce.
assistant
The prediction
Upon release, the top end of the slinky will immediately begin falling downward, initially accelerating faster than gravity (about (N g) for a discrete (N)-mass model) because the tension in the spring below it pulls it down in addition to gravity. The bottom end will remain essentially stationary at the height of the marker line for approximately 200 ms—the time it takes for the compression wave to travel from the top to the bottom, roughly (N\sqrt{m/k}). During this time, the slinky collapses from the top down, with coils bunching up. After about 200 ms, the disturbance reaches the bottom, the bottom end begins to fall downward, and the whole slinky continues to fall under gravity. The marker line will clearly show the bottom end staying put initially, then moving down.
The setup
- Segments: (N = 50)
- Mass per segment: (m = 0.01,\text{kg})
- Spring constant: (k = 600,\text{N/m})
- Natural length: (L_0 = 0.005,\text{m})
- Gravity: (g = 9.8,\text{m/s}^2)
- Damping: viscous between neighbours, (b = 0.2,\text{N·s/m})
- Timestep: (\Delta t = 0.0005,\text{s})
- Integrator: velocity Verlet (second-order, stable for the chosen stiffness)
- Hanging equilibrium: computed analytically. The top mass is fixed at (y_0=0). For (i=1,\dots,N-1), the position is [ y_i = y_{i-1} + L_0 + \frac{(N-i),m,g}{k}. ] This places each mass in exact force balance under gravity and spring tensions. On release, the top mass becomes free and the same equations of motion are integrated for all masses.
The file
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8">
<title>Falling Slinky</title>
<style>
body { margin: 0; display: flex; flex-direction: column; align-items: center; background: #111; color: #eee; font-family: sans-serif; }
canvas { background: #222; border: 1px solid #444; margin-top: 20px; }
.controls { margin: 10px; display: flex; gap: 15px; align-items: center; }
button { padding: 8px 16px; font-size: 16px; cursor: pointer; }
input[type=range] { width: 200px; }
.clock { font-size: 20px; font-variant-numeric: tabular-nums; }
</style>
</head>
<body>
<canvas id="canvas" width="600" height="600"></canvas>
<div class="controls">
<button id="release">Release</button>
<button id="reset">Reset</button>
<label>Speed: <input type="range" id="speed" min="0.05" max="1" step="0.05" value="1"></label>
<span class="clock" id="clock">t = 0 ms</span>
</div>
<script>
const N = 50;
const m = 0.01;
const k = 600;
const L0 = 0.005;
const g = 9.8;
const b = 0.2;
const dt = 0.0005;
const scale = 1000;
const topY = 50;
const centerX = 300;
let y = new Array(N);
let v = new Array(N);
let a = new Array(N);
let v_half = new Array(N);
let a_new = new Array(N);
let released = false;
let t = 0;
let marker = null;
let accumulator = 0;
let lastTimestamp = performance.now();
let speedFactor = 1.0;
function computeEquilibrium() {
y[0] = 0;
for (let i = 1; i < N; i++) {
y[i] = y[i-1] + L0 + (N - i) * m * g / k;
}
}
function reset() {
computeEquilibrium();
for (let i = 0; i < N; i++) {
v[i] = 0;
}
released = false;
t = 0;
marker = null;
accumulator = 0;
lastTimestamp = performance.now();
document.getElementById('clock').textContent = 't = 0 ms';
}
function computeAccelerations(y, v, a) {
for (let i = 0; i < N; i++) {
a[i] = g;
if (i > 0) {
let stretch = y[i] - y[i-1] - L0;
let relVel = v[i] - v[i-1];
a[i] += (-k * stretch - b * relVel) / m;
}
if (i < N - 1) {
let stretch = y[i+1] - y[i] - L0;
let relVel = v[i+1] - v[i];
a[i] += (k * stretch + b * relVel) / m;
}
}
}
function step() {
computeAccelerations(y, v, a);
for (let i = 0; i < N; i++) {
v_half[i] = v[i] + a[i] * dt / 2;
}
for (let i = 0; i < N; i++) {
y[i] += v_half[i] * dt;
}
computeAccelerations(y, v_half, a_new);
for (let i = 0; i < N; i++) {
v[i] = v_half[i] + a_new[i] * dt / 2;
}
}
function draw() {
const canvas = document.getElementById('canvas');
const ctx = canvas.getContext('2d');
ctx.clearRect(0, 0, canvas.width, canvas.height);
// fixed point
ctx.fillStyle = '#888';
ctx.beginPath();
ctx.arc(centerX, topY, 6, 0, Math.PI * 2);
ctx.fill();
ctx.fillStyle = '#666';
ctx.fillRect(centerX - 20, topY - 10, 40, 6);
// marker line
if (marker !== null) {
const markerY = topY + marker * scale;
ctx.strokeStyle = '#f44';
ctx.lineWidth = 2;
ctx.setLineDash([6, 6]);
ctx.beginPath();
ctx.moveTo(50, markerY);
ctx.lineTo(550, markerY);
ctx.stroke();
ctx.setLineDash([]);
ctx.fillStyle = '#f44';
ctx.font = '14px sans-serif';
ctx.fillText('release height', 60, markerY - 8);
}
// slinky
ctx.strokeStyle = '#4af';
ctx.lineWidth = 3;
ctx.beginPath();
for (let i = 0; i < N; i++) {
const px = centerX + 15 * Math.sin(i * 1.5);
const py = topY + y[i] * scale;
if (i === 0) {
ctx.moveTo(px, py);
} else {
ctx.lineTo(px, py);
}
}
ctx.stroke();
// masses
ctx.fillStyle = '#8cf';
for (let i = 0; i < N; i++) {
const px = centerX + 15 * Math.sin(i * 1.5);
const py = topY + y[i] * scale;
ctx.beginPath();
ctx.arc(px, py, 2, 0, Math.PI * 2);
ctx.fill();
}
}
function animate(now) {
requestAnimationFrame(animate);
if (!released) {
draw();
return;
}
const realDelta = Math.min((now - lastTimestamp) / 1000, 0.1);
lastTimestamp = now;
const simDelta = realDelta * speedFactor;
accumulator += simDelta;
let steps = 0;
while (accumulator >= dt && steps < 1000) {
step();
accumulator -= dt;
t += dt;
steps++;
}
document.getElementById('clock').textContent = `t = ${(t * 1000).toFixed(1)} ms`;
draw();
}
document.getElementById('release').addEventListener('click', () => {
if (released) return;
released = true;
t = 0;
marker = y[N-1];
accumulator = 0;
lastTimestamp = performance.now();
});
document.getElementById('reset').addEventListener('click', () => {
reset();
draw();
});
document.getElementById('speed').addEventListener('input', (e) => {
speedFactor = parseFloat(e.target.value);
});
reset();
requestAnimationFrame(animate);
</script>
</body>
</html>
What it actually shows
I have not executed this file in a browser, so I cannot visually confirm the exact output. Based on the physics and the implementation, the initial conditions are the true discrete equilibrium, the integrator is stable at the chosen stiffness, and the parameters are selected so that the bottom mass should remain near the marker line for roughly 0.2 s before falling. I am reasonably confident that it will reproduce the predicted behaviour—the top collapsing downward while the bottom stays put—but I am unsure whether discrete artifacts (e.g., small pre-motion of the bottom due to wave dispersion) will be visible, and I cannot guarantee the visual without running it.
Attachments
deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash-1017 — page