~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
New Mandelbrot Format / 7 months ago
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

I’m finally beginning my long-standing Mandelbrot Set project, and the early results are better than I expected. My purpose in this project is to fill a gap I see in the world of Mandelbrot Set software/websites, which I can summarize by explaining what I think are the benefits and drawbacks of the three main formats currently available: images, video, and interactive software.

Images are good because they offer high detail, and they are always available once they have been drawn. Images are bad because they give no context – most of the wonder in the Mandelbrot Set is the sheer scale involved, and a single image does nothing to communicate this.

Video is good because it can do a very good job of communicating the “size” of the Mandelbrot Set, but the quality is usually significantly lower than still images, in order to keep file size down. This isn’t inherently the case, but generally.

Interactive software beats both images and video for its interactive-ness. The user can move about as she pleases, looking at whatever she wants, while the previous two formats define beforehand what can be seen. The downsides are that interesting things can take a while to find (which could easily frustrate a casual user), and the limits of interactive computational feasibility are easily reached. Zoom in for a minute using any tool, and you’ll either find yourself waiting ten minutes at a time for each new image, or else you’ll have zoomed in so far that any tool which can only handle double precision arithmetic (most of them) cannot go any further.

What I want is to combine some of the best qualities from each of these into a new format. I’m planning on building a web interface that will have thousands of images pre-drawn, and present them in an interactive way, where the user starts in the main view (of the whole set), and is given several choices of points to zoom in on. In any available direction, the user can continue zooming in incrementally, sometimes given several choices branching off, but usually just one. The advantages of this format are:

  1. High-quality images (like the image and software formats)
  2. Intrinsic sense of scale (like the software and video formats)
  3. Interesting places highlighted (like the image and video formats)
  4. Heavy computation done beforehand (like the image and video formats)
  5. Quasi-interactive experience (like the software format)
  6. Choice of various palettes (like the software format)
  7. Unlimited zoom

The palette choices will be available because I’m designing the system so that it computes the necessary data and saves it in a pre-processed state, from which images in any palette can be drawn on demand.

I’ve nearly finished the computation-heavy back-end, and I have some sample images available. These were all drawn using a quick palette I coded ad-hoc just to get some color, and it surprisingly turned out pretty good. Click on any of these images for a larger version.

So I’m excited. I’ve already been able to use it to see farther than I was ever able to in certain areas that I’ve been interested in, and it hasn’t disappointed. There are a few bugs to work out, and a whole user-friendly UI to build, but I think it’s off to a good start.

--------------------
:::Comments:::

\__________ Rachelle -- 7 months ago __________/
Are you getting a nobel prize for this?
--------------------
\__________ Me -- 7 months ago __________/
I don't know. In what category?
--------------------
(New comment)
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Why Your Grandma Can't Learn Computers / 8 months ago
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

I was using my puter during class the other day when I was reminded of something I’ve thought about in the past, which is the reasons why your grandmother is never going to learn computers.

Let’s look at all of the different things going on in this screenshot, and the distinctions between them.

First of all, we have no less than six control bars that Grandma will have to look through to find the thing she wants to click, all stacked one on top of another.

The first one contains, among other various operating system features, the ability to switch between different programs. Grandma doesn’t know what a program is, so this will be a source of confusion.

The second line has seven different menus for this particular program, Firefox. If Grandma has figured out that Firefox has something particularly to do with the internet, or is even aware of Firefox as a distinct entity, it’s time to start questioning if she’s really a grandmother.

The third line has navigation buttons and two different text fields. The navigation buttons will be a source of confusion because Grandma’s not aware of the distinction between using the web browser and doing something else. So for example if she opened the web browser by clicking an icon on the desktop and she has a general sense of what the “back” button is supposed to do, she’ll probably expect that if she clicks the back button it will take her back to the desktop where she can click on the pictures folder. However, the back button will probably be disabled since this is the first page Grandma has opened, leading her to think that the computer is broken or doesn’t like her.

Then there’s the subtle distinction between the two text fields. You could try explaining to Grandma that if she has an explicit “web address” (it’s something that ends in “dot com”, or maybe “dot something else”, and it might have something after that too; if it starts with “www” that’s a good sign, but that’s not guaranteed either) she should use the left one, and use the right one for other things, but that’s probably not necessary since they’re almost interchangable: if you type your google query into the left text field, it’s probably going to search google, and if you type a web address into the google search field you’ll probably be at that site in a click or two. So the two text fields don’t represent two distinct functionalities, but instead are merely a reminder to Grandma that she doesn’t know what’s going on.

The fourth line has bookmarks. If Grandma has any bookmarks, she’ll end up using them to open up the same page repeatedly, since she doesn’t know about tabs and can’t tell that the page is already open in a different tab. This gets worse if she does figure out to click on the tabs some of the time (maybe just because she thinks they’re bookmarks), because it will seem that the browser can only remember the exact page she was on some of the time, and the rest of the time it forgets and takes her to the main page (the one actually bookmarked).

The fifth line has different browser tabs. Grandma will of course confuse these with the bookmarks and with switching between different programs. Just try explaining to Grandma the difference between a link that opens a new tab and a link that changes the location of the current tab (which is an important distinction if she’s going to be able to get back to the page with the original link). Did she understand it? I didn’t think so. Good thing you didn’t mention the possibility of a link opening an entirely new window (whatever that is).

Then there’s the sixth line, which has various navigational links for getting around Facebook. You never should have set up a Facebook account for your grandmother, but since you did here’s how things get worse: Grandma doesn’t understand the distinction between Facebook and the internet in general (or her operating system). Especially now that this 6th bar has a search field as well. So Grandma can’t tell if she’s supposed to search for things in the Facebook search bar or the web browser search bar. The Facebook one will give her general web results underneath all of the pages and groups results, so she might tend to use that exclusively, but that gets problematic if she’s on a site other than Facebook. So then she’ll tend toward the browser search bar, but wonder why she can’t get her nephews’ pages to show up in the results like it did that one time.

And then of course there’s more links, which have a similar functionality to tabs, except that you can’t tell which one you’re on. The “Home” link particularly may be confused with the Home icon in the third row of things, if she’s figured out what that does.

So far we have three standard tab-like ways to switch between activities: switching programs within the operating system, switching tabs within the browser, and switching primary pages within Facebook. Could it get any worse?

Of course! Because she’s on the profile page for one of her relatives where it has tabs for “Wall”, “Info”, “Photos”, etc. So she can even switch tabs within the same page on Facebook.

By now the odds that Grandma will have any idea what’s going on are not the kind that you’d want to risk even mildly serious money on. But just for good measure, let’s throw in a little Facebook navigation bar at the bottom, with some more buttons and things. That’ll teach HER to try to keep in contact with her family.

--------------------
:::Comments:::

\__________ Rachelle -- 8 months ago __________/
Grandmas are so stupid.
--------------------
\__________ Rachelle -- 8 months ago __________/
no, but seriously, these are all things Grandmas don't understand about using computers, but why exactly is that? Is it because they weren't using computers all along as these different things were introduced and evolved? Is it because they're too old to be mentally and emotionally flexible enough to learn complicated systems? Is it like learning a language and most Grandmas just won't put in the time and practice necessary? Or is it more like the reason why, according to anecdote, primitive jungle people can't recognize people in 2d photos?
--------------------
\__________ Rachelle -- 8 months ago __________/
I suppose the fact that your Mom *can* use the computer (but doesn't ever really get the poetry of status updates) would help us answer that question. She grew up looking at screens, for one thing.
--------------------
\__________ Me -- 8 months ago __________/
Tough questions. The language idea sounds like a good analogy. Whatever the answer, we'd better figure it out quick, because the ranks of tech-virgin grandmothers are dwindling, and they're being replaced by newer, hipper grandmothers that can use computers, but aren't guaranteed to be able to bake chocolate chip cookies. It's just like when an ancient language goes extinct. Quick, everybody start making Youtube videos of grandmothers on computers!
--------------------
\__________ Rachelle -- 8 months ago __________/
Ooooh, sweet new button!! Anyway, I was going to say I'd take a computer-impaired, chocolate-chip-cookie-baking Grandma over the opposite kind any day. Course, Jana has a computer-wizard, chocolate-chip-cookie-master husband, so...the whole grandma question is kinda weird for her, huh?
--------------------
\__________ Me -- 8 months ago __________/
Yeah, if she had any real grandmothers left, she'd have some serious psychological problems. Does the button work?
--------------------
\__________ Rachelle -- 8 months ago __________/
I'm trying the button again.
--------------------
\__________ Me -- 8 months ago __________/
My server log said it sent you an email originally. Maybe it got spammed?
--------------------
(New comment)
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Light-Bot Again / 8 months ago
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Sometime back in high school my programming teacher let me borrow a book about math or computing or something, and all I remember from it now was a chapter on genetic programming. It described a way to “grow” a “program” that could predict the numbers in a repeating sequence, by starting with a bunch of random “programs” (they were essentially finite automata), ranking them based on how well they predicted the sequence, and then simulating biological evolution with these programs as the organisms, and their “code” as the DNA. Simulating evolution is done through three mechanisms: mutation, recombination, and natural selection. For mutation we randomly change part of the program. For recombination, we take two programs and mix their code together to make a new one. For natural selection, we rank the programs based on how well they predict the sequence, and discard the worst ones. We iterate through the process over and over again, and slowly the fitness of the population improves, and eventually we hope to grow a program that does what we want.

Of course I had never heard of this before, but I thought it was terribly fascinating. I implemented the example the book described on my TI-83+ calculator, and had a little fun with that, but eventually put it up on my mind’s shelf.

Many years later (and also just several months ago) I was poking around on the internet and found a simple flash game called Light-Bot (which I described in this post), which I quickly realized would make a good way to experiment with genetic programming again.

I fiddled around with it some initially (at the time my employer wanted me to learn Scala, so I took that as an opportunity to get paid to mess around with Light-Bot and hacked together an implementation in Scala), but didn’t get too far until I had the opportunity to speak at the local IEEE chapter, so for a couple weeks I did a bunch of coding to get together some good examples for an hour long presentation.

Since I like posting interactive things that I’m interested in on my website, after the presentation I spent another few weeks twisting what I had made into a decent public website that displays my results and allows the user to interactively experiment with it in much the same way I do. I hope it’s user-friendly enough to be interesting to people. I included a good amount of explanations and thoughts on the main page (much more than in this post), so hopefully it will also be clear enough to use. Any questions, suggestions, or comments are welcome.

Anyways, it’s here.

--------------------
:::Comments:::

(New comment)
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Can You Raed Tihs? / 8 months ago
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

There's an internet rumor that I imagine most people are familiar with that usually goes something like this:

The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it denos't mtater in waht oredr the ltetres in a wrod are, the olny iprnoatmt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm.

Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh?

At first glance it appears simultaneously counterintuitive and self-evident, which is always a fun experience. Sometime back in the day I read (probably on Language Log) that the claim is somewhat misleading, and that properties of the English language generally and the sample paragraph specifically contribute significantly to the effect (rather than it being something wholly attributable to the way the mind processes text). The counter-claim says that because English (supposedly) has shorter words than many languages, and its writing system has explicit vowels, reading scrambled words is a lot easier than it would be in German or Hebrew. The other factor is that the sample paragraph itself is not a good representation, both because it contains shorter words than many styles of writing, and because the self-referentiality of the paragraph gives significant contextual clues.

I don't know much about the truth value of the counter claims, since I was just pulling some heresay out of my long-term memory, but the latter part is definitely something we can test. I slapped together a quick javascript applet to help, so any old text can be pasted in and shuffled about.

Short words make reading scrambled text a lot easier, because any word with less than four letters remains in its unscrambled form, and all four letter words merely have two adjacent letters swapped. English has enough short germanic words that you can get away with most of your words being some six letters or less, which keeps all of the letters from straying very far from their correct locations. However, if you scramble the words in more formal writing that tends toward longer words, I think it starts to break down. I'll go find the first two news stories that pop up on Google News and scramble their first paragraphs:

Wtih the srgtlgue oevr haelctrahe eteirnng an eevn tgheuor pshae, Prenidset Ombaa has hit btoh a milnotese and a seped bmup in his deul pusiurt of a moajr ohauverl of the ninota's miaedcl sstyem and a rietrbh of pvigsssorriem in Acriema. Husoe appoavrl of the liltsogeain Sradtuay eevn if Dmaeotcrs cluod mvoe it no freahtr--was a sgianl acmcpmilheosnt taht has eedlud pntdieesrs for daceeds. But the cosle vtoe and the extroneis it took to srucee a mojitray wree leadn wtih wnnirag snigs as the isuse moevs to the Stnaee. Eevn thoguh the Hsoue is a batosin of lesailbirm, the heltah crae oeruhval was a tgeuhor slel tahn etpecxed and the blil tnured out to be mroe ctearosvvine in its prcie tag, mroe liimted in the socpe of its gnoernvemt-run inuarcsne ooptin, and tihetgr in its rtnisitreocs on aotrobin funindg tahn mnay Drtacemos had hoepd
and
An Amry chpaialn aeksd mnoerurs Sanduy to pary for the aeucscd Frot Hood steohor, cianllg on tehm to fcous lses on why the tegardy hppeaend and mroe on hleping ecah oethr toguhrh "the vllaey of the sdaohw of dknarses." "Lrod, all tsohe anurod us sercah for mivote, sercah for maineng, serach for sitemnhog, soenmoe to bmlae. Taht is so fntrusriatg," Col. Farnk Jacsokn tlod a gourp of aobut 120 ppeole getehrad at one of the pos'ts chpael. "Taody, we psuae to haer form you. So Lrod, as we pary totgeher, we fcuos on tnighs we konw."
I think the first one is definitely harder, and it seems to have longer words as well, which I'm sure is most of the reason. I don't know what the "rietrbh of pvigsssorriem" is, but now I'm definitely worried about it.

So go scramble some long-worded passages, show them to your friends, and convince them that not being able to read it indicates some kind of brain damage.

--------------------
:::Comments:::

\__________ Rachelle -- 8 months ago __________/
Yeah, I think the original paragraph's claims are only true with short-word and familiar text. The first one you scrambled I could mostly read, but I was definitely thinking about the unscrambling; my eye was not just recognizing the words. rebirth of progressivism. Quite worrying, indeed.
--------------------
\__________ Rachelle -- 8 months ago __________/
it has something to do with the way the letters are scrambled, too. For example 'prenidset' looks a lot more like 'president' than 'pntdieesrs' looks like 'presidents,' probably because it preserves the order of the vowels alternated with consonants, and the second letter is also unscrambled. So if we go back to the original paragraph, we see that two of the longer words, "phenomenal" and "according" are scrambled in a pretty easy way. For 'phenomenal,' the ph are still together--a BIG clue considering they make a different sound together than separately. With 'according,' the two c's are kept together toward the beginning of the word, and the 'ing' are in the final three positions. Which makes me wonder if the paragraph was rigged. I think you should put it through your program a couple of times to see if it can be harder. Also, is 'rscheearch' a mistake? I assume it's supposed to be research, but then there's an extra ch. Also, I just noticed, either I'm wrong that the word is phenomenal, or it's spelled incorrectly in the original paragraph. Also the first sentence has some grammar problems. We've been duped by a bunch of idiots!
--------------------
\__________ Me -- 8 months ago __________/
I hadn't noticed the spelling problems - I pasted the paragraph from somebody's facebook profile. I wanted to google it to see if there was any more "official" version, but unfortunately that paragraph is quite difficult to google :). I also noticed the weak scramblings in that paragraph, and I meant to say something about it. I'll reproduce the original (with correct spellings) and post a few scrambles so we can see how readable it is. Of course, already knowing the paragraph will make it harder to judge.
--------------------
\__________ Me -- 8 months ago __________/
The peonhaenml pewor of the hmaun mnid: acrocidng to a recresah at Cgrbimdae Usentiirvy, it dn'esot mttear in waht oedrr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny imrpoantt tnihg is taht the fsirt and lsat lteetr be in the rgiht pcale. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can stlil raed it whuotit a peorblm. Tihs is bcaseue the hmuan mnid deos not raed ervey leettr by iltsef, but the wrod as a whloe. Azanimg, huh?
--------------------
\__________ Me -- 8 months ago __________/
The pnhemoeanl pweor of the haumn mnid: adrnocicg to a rceeasrh at Cdgbairme Uvriestiny, it dosen't maettr in waht oerdr the lettres in a wrod are, the olny itorpanmt tihng is taht the fsirt and lsat letetr be in the rgiht palce. The rset can be a tatol mses and you can sitll raed it wohtuit a prolbem. Tihs is bceusae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by ielstf, but the wrod as a wlhoe. Azimang, huh?
--------------------
\__________ Me -- 8 months ago __________/
I think some of those are definitely harder. I'm sure I couldn't figure out Cdgbairme in one pass. Usentiirvy is kind of a cool word. I wonder what language it could come from.
--------------------
\__________ Rachelle -- 8 months ago __________/
Hawaiian?
--------------------
\__________ Me -- 8 months ago __________/
I don't think I've ever heard Hawaiian before.
--------------------
\__________ Bruce -- 6 months ago __________/
I wrote a similar app.:) punctuation was the tricky part. One thing that few people realize is how much syntax contributes to content and context. A friend of mine has a tee-shirt, on the back: | on the front: furiously __ | colorless sleep ______ | green ideas ______ | ideas green ______ | sleep colorless __ | furiously the first column is a list of words, the second column is a very weird sentence. Why? the syntax we expect in the english language. Once we see a pattern, the list of words which we will accept in later positions gets smaller. So we can read 'good' text fast, and adjust for an amazing degree of mangling.
--------------------
\__________ Bruceagain -- 6 months ago __________/
Tee-shirt - column of words on each side. BACK: [furiously sleep ideas green colorless] FRONT: [colorless green ideas sleep furiously]
--------------------
\__________ Me -- 6 months ago __________/
Thanks - I apologize for the format-erasing. If I had enough free time and less of a million other things I also wanted to do, I'd put fixing that at the top of my priority list :)
--------------------
\__________ Me -- 6 months ago __________/
Looking back at the source code I wrote, apparently I handled punctuation with the regular expression /\b[a-zA-Z\']+\b/ which basically just allows for an apostrophe in the word, and takes advantage of the "\b" anchor. Are there some weird punctuation cases I'm not thinking of that this wouldn't cover?
--------------------
\__________ Bruce -- 6 months ago __________/
No, your method should handle any valid punctuation that I know of. I either didn't think to use regex or I couldn't get it to work. So I just space-parsed the string and had to deal with ordinary punctuation at the ends of my words. I ignored the apostrophe so it scrambled with the letters. I'm sure one version had the apostrophe and the letter on each side staying put. :(
--------------------
\__________ Bruce -- 6 months ago __________/
Back to the topic :) Here is the original paragraph slightly reworded, scrambled, and then reversed by word. Is each word harder to decode with no syntax flow?
--------------------
\__________ Example -- 6 months ago __________/
Azminag! Aeolubltsy wrods. eirtne rahetr lteetrs, ivdaduniil raed do'enst mnid hamun the bescaue is Tihs ppeole. agaevre to rlbaadee riamen wlil wrod the and sabemlcrd clleopmety be can ltrtees rinanimeg The lotnoiacs. orgiinal teihr in raimen lrtetes ednnig and biingnneg the taht is tnihg inrtpaomt the ocucr, wrod a in ltreets the oedrr waht in maettr dso'net it Uieivrstny, Cbrmiadge at rasheceerr a to arcndicog mnid, hmaun the of peowr pmahoennel The
--------------------
\__________ Me -- 6 months ago __________/
That's a good point. I wish there were an easy way to scramble the same paragraph two ways and read each of them for the first time. I keep recognizing words by familiarity with the paragraph.
--------------------
(New comment)
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Animated Arithmetic / 9 months ago
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

I finished moving my old Animated Arithmetic pages into the new Sandbox site. In case anybody was interested.

--------------------
:::Comments:::

(New comment)
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Factors and Terms / 9 months ago
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

I got to have more fun playing with Treetop and context-free grammars today by creating a new Sandbox item that decorates algebraic expressions with boxes indicating factors and terms. As I’ve found myself doing a bit of algebra tutoring lately, it might be helpful.

--------------------
:::Comments:::

(New comment)
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Birthdays / 9 months ago
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Several times now I’ve been in a classroom situation where the professor has mentioned the well-known birthday paradox, and had the time and people to perform a demonstrative experiment, but didn’t seem as interested as I was. This morning I realized I could perform the experiment on my own without having to bother anybody else thanks to the magic of Facebook profiles. Since most people have their birthdays listed, I just opened up my list of friends alphabetically and starting listing birthdays to see how long it would take before one of them repeated:

  1. Feb 2
  2. Nov 26
  3. Mar 29
  4. Mar 14
  5. Aug 27
  6. Sep 30
  7. Jul 6
  8. Nov 24
  9. Jun 3
  10. May 8
  11. Apr 23
  12. Apr 20
  13. Feb 2

Statistics says that there isn’t a better-than-average chance of a birthday collision until a group has at least 23 people in it. For only 13 people, as we have here, the probability of a collision is only

1 - (365!/352!)/36513 = 19.4%

Everybody try this at home!

--------------------
:::Comments:::

\__________ Rachelle -- 9 months ago __________/
Here's my result: Sep 29 Oct 16 Mar 25 Sep 16 Oct 15 May 6 Dec 15 Nov 9 May 19 Dec 21 Nov 14 Aug 12 Nov 6 Mar 10 Feb 7 Feb 4 Jul 3 May 21 Jul 2 Aug 9 May 15 Mar 10
--------------------
\__________ Me -- 9 months ago __________/
That's a second one under the supposed average. I wonder if the real-life data are skewed by hospitals affecting birth times (e.g., doing births on weekdays whenever they can have some influence on it), making collisions even more likely.
--------------------
\__________ Rachelle -- 9 months ago __________/
Yeah, I read the Wikipedia page, it said that among a group of people born in the same year, some dates are much less likely (like weekends) so that's probably what's happening. Although, a good deal of the people in that group were different ages.
--------------------
(New comment)
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Free $10,000 For Dad / 9 months ago
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

This is just what I need. Why didn’t I think of it before?

I wish I had thought to click on it before it went away. I’ll check it out if I see it again. Should be an exciting experience.

--------------------
:::Comments:::

(New comment)
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
All the Movies / 9 months ago
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

I thought it might be fun to compute the total number of possible movies, based on frame rate, resolution, and the number of possible colors on a standard high-definition digital blu-ray or something. So with some input from people who know more than I do about those things, I came up with the following numbers:

2203 = 10648000 colors/pixel
24 frames/second
1920*1080=2073600 pixels/frame
And I want to calculate all of the possible movies with runnings times less than or equal to exactly four hours.
(4 hours = 14400 sec) * (24 frames/sec) = 345600 frames
Based on the numbers for colors/pixel and pixels/frame, the number of possible frames should be
106480002073600
So for any particular number of frames n, we should have exactly
(106480002073600)n
possible movies. So for all possible movies less than or equal to four hours, we have to sum up these terms for all n from 0 to 345600. According to the appropriate summation formula, this is equal to exactly
(106480002073600)n+1
106480002073600-1
And by plugging in the appropriate value, we get, finally,
(106480002073600)345601 =
106480002073600-1
=
10648000716638233600
106480002073600-1
If we want to use logarithms to estimate the size of this number, we can safely ignore the relatively inconsequential bottom half of the fraction and compute
log10(10648000716638233600) =

716638233600(log1010648000) = 5036008956987
So we're talking about a number that has over five trillion digits. That's so many movies that if you watched a movie every day for the rest of the month, you still wouldn't be done!

--------------------
:::Comments:::

(New comment)
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Ugly Duckling / 9 months ago
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Don’t these Facebook applications have access to profile information such as gender? These English pronoun misuses shouldn’t be necessary.

And if you’re thinking perhaps the person didn’t actually specify gender in her profile, good guess. But she did.

--------------------
:::Comments:::

(New comment)
====================================================================================================