Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How random is xkcd? (2015)

hardmath123.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 133 posts

Re: How random is xkcd? (2015)

#21

Post by madeofpalk »

mattnewton wrote: post #3

Kind of an aside to the nerd sniping happening here, but I think the fact that people complain about the random button is a sign that the feature isn’t doing what those people really want, even if it is doing what is advertised. Those people _want_ a button biased to return novel ones they haven’t read either in that session or across all time somehow, likely because they are using it to discover new comics.

Plainly, it’s the difference between picking one at random, or shuffling a playlist. I think people can intuitively understand the difference between the two.

Re: How random is xkcd? (2015)

#23

Post by eru »

082349872349872 wrote: post #10
xvedejas wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is the correct way to phrase it. Just because the probabilities of each are both 50% doesn't mean it's more likely than not to get the same number of ones and zeros. It would just mean you're equally likely to get a few more ones as you are to get a few more zeros. But the counts are unlikely to be very far apart.

But in absolute (not relative terms) the counts will tend to diverge over time.

Yes. You expect the absolute difference in numbers of 0s vs 1s to grow roughly with the square-root of the total number of digits produced.

Re: How random is xkcd? (2015)

#24

Post by madeofpalk »

flir wrote: post #17
thisisauserid wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You aren't suggesting that something random should be predictable, right?

I read "almost as many" as "not quite as many". In other words, fewer. My mental model is that an unbiased random stream of 1's and 0's should converge on 50% 1's and 50% 0's over time, not 49% 1's and 51% 0's. Looks like it's a language ambiguity thing I'm not quite getting.

To converge on 50% implies 49%\51% prior. Almost even.

Re: How random is xkcd? (2015)

#25

Post by eru »

b112 wrote: post #18
flir wrote: post #4

> a random stream of bits should have almost as many ones as zeros almost ??

Yes, almost. They will approach equal as the count approaches infinity. So if ypu ever see a random pick equate to 50/50, the end of the universe is upon us.

The ratio of occurrences of 0s and 1s will go to one in the limit. But the absolute difference of occurrences will diverge. (It grows roughly like the square-root of the number of digits.)

Re: How random is xkcd? (2015)

#26

Post by niles »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #15
0xFF0123 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Almost" suggests it is predictably fewer

It suggests roughly the same amount, could be higher or lower.

Around would do that more effectively. Almost is more similar to nearly, and I agree commonly used for lower.

Re: How random is xkcd? (2015)

#27

Post by madaxe_again »

mattnewton wrote: post #3

Kind of an aside to the nerd sniping happening here, but I think the fact that people complain about the random button is a sign that the feature isn’t doing what those people really want, even if it is doing what is advertised. Those people _want_ a button biased to return novel ones they haven’t read either in that session or across all time somehow, likely because they are using it to discover new comics.

Correct conclusion IMO. Many years ago I ran a social network with a focus on art and media, and we had a “show me another” button which picked a random submission to display.

People complained that it wasn’t random. Incessantly.

So I changed it, to instead maintain a list of previously viewed items for each user, and to exclude them from the results.

And that was that. People almost immediately noticed that it had been “fixed”.

There’s mathematically perfect, and then there’s user expectations - and ne’er the twain shall meet.

Re: How random is xkcd? (2015)

#28

Post by nullhole »

mattnewton wrote: post #3

Kind of an aside to the nerd sniping happening here, but I think the fact that people complain about the random button is a sign that the feature isn’t doing what those people really want, even if it is doing what is advertised. Those people _want_ a button biased to return novel ones they haven’t read either in that session or across all time somehow, likely because they are using it to discover new comics.

Sid Meier talked about this wrt Civilization battle odds:

https://youtu.be/bY7aRJE-oOY?t=1101

Re: How random is xkcd? (2015)

#29

Post by [deleted] »

mattnewton wrote: post #3

Kind of an aside to the nerd sniping happening here, but I think the fact that people complain about the random button is a sign that the feature isn’t doing what those people really want, even if it is doing what is advertised. Those people _want_ a button biased to return novel ones they haven’t read either in that session or across all time somehow, likely because they are using it to discover new comics.

[deleted]

Re: How random is xkcd? (2015)

#30

Post by avianlyric »

mattnewton wrote: post #3

Kind of an aside to the nerd sniping happening here, but I think the fact that people complain about the random button is a sign that the feature isn’t doing what those people really want, even if it is doing what is advertised. Those people _want_ a button biased to return novel ones they haven’t read either in that session or across all time somehow, likely because they are using it to discover new comics.

There’s a really good article from Spotify Engineering that looks at exactly how Spotify bridged this gap between “random” and the “random” people actually expect.

https://engineering.atspotify.com/2014/02/how-to-shuffle-son...

It a good read on understanding what people generally expect when they ask for a random stream of songs (or comics), and how you can meet that expectation by carefully engineering how you generate “random” lists.

Post reply on HN