Viewing profile — possiblywrong
possiblywrong
HN member- Joined
- Fri, Oct 24, 2014, 12:37 PM UTC
- HN karma
- 61
- Public activity
- 19 items
- HN profile
- View on Hacker News ↗
About possiblywrong
No profile information was provided.
Recent public activity
-
comment
Comment #48588057
The article deserves several clarifications: > The deck has to be cut more or less in half before shuffling. "More or less" is doing some heavy lifting here. The original GSR shuff…
- story
-
comment
Comment #46472458
Following is the closed form solution linked in the article (from a since-deleted Reddit comment): from functools import reduce def recurrence(ops, a0, n): def transform(x, op): re…
-
comment
Comment #46385366
It's interesting that the two forward versions of the algorithm were added to Wikipedia just a few months ago. (The OP article is from 2020.)
- story
- story
-
comment
Comment #43917713
> Second, the least significant bits that come from this generator are biased. I don't think this is true; I'm guessing that the author borrowed this observation from one of the va…
-
comment
Comment #42514909
You are correct. The first example time in the article, "2024-12-25 at 18:54:53 UTC", corresponds to POSIX timestamp 1735152893, not 1735152686. And there have been 27 leap seconds…
-
comment
Comment #41500691
Author of the linked article here; you're right that just the expected number of guesses is roughly monotonic. However, that expected number of guesses (along with Ballmer's expect…
-
comment
Comment #41409996
> Note that if F(x,y)=0, then the point (x,y) is exactly on the circle. If F(x,y)>0, then the point is outside of the circle, and if F(x,y) In other words, given any point (x,y), F…
- story
-
comment
Comment #36244139
There was some amount of "standardization" of checksum methods to help with debugging typos. For example, Nibble magazine used a couple of programs-- the one I remember using was K…
-
comment
Comment #36196652
Author of the linked article here; re marking movement of shadows, I wrote a follow-up that discusses some alternatives, mainly that one: https://possiblywrong.wordpress.com/2014/0…
-
comment
Comment #19695358
> You don't need to manually count, just make sure all the circles are the correct colors. I guess this takes me a while, and seems significantly more error-prone to me than the co…
-
comment
Comment #19694387
Author of the article here; I suppose I should confess that I did consider automating the counting, which did seem like an interesting problem... but I rejected the idea, for what …
-
comment
Comment #19690529
Author of the article here; you have a point that there is no explicit discussion of validating this assumption, beyond the variability shown in the colored curves in the "count pe…
-
comment
Comment #19690380
Author of the article here-- right! This was the key "real world" motivation for this experiment as an attempt at a pedagogical tool; from the article: > As an aside, I think the f…
-
comment
Comment #19690354
Author of the article here; this is a great point. This experiment initially stemmed from a nice analytical solution to the problem of computing the expected value (via generating …
-
comment
Comment #8503397
> "For these reasons, I'm actually a bit surprised that the author's data matches the theory so closely... The fit is so perfect I actually suspect he... ah... played with his data…