> It felt like the first 3 (or 2.5) paragraphs, which were arguing that Bjork needed an official website, were a bit of a tangent from the main argument of the article, which was that we need more professional critics, but social media has essentially defunded and dethroned them.
In what way is that a tangent? In both cases, the author argues that a centralized authoritative source of information is better than scattershot posts on social media.
> An O(n) startup grows its key metric (revenue, users, etc.) roughly linearly with time—double the time, double the metric. An
O(n^2) startup accelerates, with growth compounding super-linearly over time.
Kind of a strange formulation to have n represent the key metric. In algorithm analysis, we would typically have n represent time (or some other cost). So we would say that the startup whose key metrics accelerate exponentially with time is actually an O(log n) startup - they only have to spend (log n) time to get n results.
>> An O(n) startup grows its key metric (revenue, users, etc.) roughly linearly with time—double the time, double the metric. An O(n^2) startup accelerates, with growth compounding super-linearly over time.
> Kind of a strange formulation to have n represent the key metric. In algorithm analysis, we would typically have n represent time
In the quote you pulled, n is time. If n were the key metric, everything would be ϴ(n).
> So we would say that the startup whose key metrics accelerate exponentially with time is actually an O(log n) startup - they only have to spend (log n) time to get n results.
It's definitely not. If their usage of O(n) has n as time, then they wouldn't say an O(n^2) startup has accelerated growth of the key metric. You'd be squaring the time, which means slowing down growth of the key metric.
When they say O(n^2) startup they clearly mean a startup which achieves n^2 results in n time. Which is the opposite of how the notation would typically be used.
Normally, with big-O notation, the goal is to reduce complexity. The author's wording kinda reverses that assumption only to "surprise" you in the end? A somewhat forced irony.
You learn about it in real analysis, but it's worth noting that in analysis you pretty much always use little-O, which is the one that makes the guarantee you need in that context.
> In algorithm analysis, we would typically have n represent time (or some other cost).
No, n is never time in any kind of algorithmic analysis. n is a function of the size of the input and the output is some measure of the cost related to the input.
In O(n^2), the size of the input is n and the amount of time, or space, or some measure of the cost has an upper bound that is proportional to n^2.
> In O(n^2), the size of the input is n and the amount of time, or space, or some measure of the cost has an upper bound that is proportional to n^2.
Yes, this is my point. In the article, they classify an O(n^2) startup as one which achieves n^2 results in n time, which is the opposite of how the notation is typically used.
> Ultimately, I don't know who or what is the culprit of all this. The market demands cheap software. Games used to cost up to $120 in the 90s, which is $250 today. A common price point for good quality games was $80, which is $170 today. But the gamers absolutely decry any game price increases beyond $60. So the industry has no option but to look at every cost saving, including passing the cost onto the buyer through hardware upgrades.
Producing games doesn't cost anything on a per-unit basis. That's not at all the reason for low quality.
Games could cost $1000 per copy and big game studios (who have investors to worry about) would still release buggy slow games, because they are still going to be under pressure to get the game done by Christmas.
$68K/yr is plenty of money for a single person. And that's just an entry level salary, offered to someone in high school - you would have the opportunity to make far more as you gain more experience. By the time you're looking to start a family and buy a house I don't see why that's not a very promising career.
You seem to possess the (very common) misconception that monopolies are illegal. They are not. Rather, it is illegal to intentionally use one's monopolistic position to make it difficult or impossible for others to compete.
It's not clear to me why you believe that an antitrust ruling against Google would make them bankrupt. At worst they will lay off workers. But a post-antitrust google is still a viable company
Yeah, especially Tobacco. I mean, there hasn't been an industry gutted that hard ever. They were attacked from all sides. They can't even fucking advertise anymore, and when they can, they have to tell you "hey don't buy this it kills you". And then, cherry on top, when consumers do buy this product, they're allowed to use it in like < 1% of spaces.
This is very North America-centric. Smoking is still rampant in many countries, including parts of Europe. It was actually a bit of a culture shock for me.
Oh yes I'm aware, I have family in Eastern Europe and yeah... it's different. When I went in the 2010s you could still smoke in most restaurants. I actually have a strange place for that kind of environment. It's charming, it's endearing, in a way. But it probably sucks for public health.
I think the idea is, assuming you have already resolved to disparage the company
in that case, rightfully you should not take the money regardless of the amount.
but, if it's a tiny amount of money (tiny enough to indicate that the company probably isn't going to bother coming after you in court) then you can maybe consider taking it anyway and accepting the miniscule risk
whereas receiving a vast sum of money would carry a much larger risk of legal action
I play in a lot of tournaments (cornhole, mostly). It's not clear to me from the demo - does this support players signing themselves up? Or do they have to show up in person and the tournament director signs them up?
Online self-signups are really nice because they let players know how many have already signed up - if you're debating whether to drive across town to play, it's nice to know you're not going to get there and it turns out only 4 people showed up. It's also nice for tournament directors for the same reason, as you get a sense in advance for how many people to expect.
I'm also curious whether you've considered integrating this with Twilio or something similar, to send text messages. A big annoyance in running any tournament is making sure people get notified when their next match is up. Casual tournaments are often run in venues where people who are waiting for their next game tend to wander away to get food or a drink, or have a smoke.
The other big thing that strikes me about the demo is, how manual it all seems to be. Unless I'm just missing it, there doesn't seem to be a way to arbitrarily randomize teams and/or randomize a bracket of all entrants, you have to go through and assign team by team. I would definitely add lots of automation/randomization features, if there aren't any, as it's a big time saver for tournament directors.
> does this support players signing themselves up? Or do they have to show up in person and the tournament director signs them up?
Ah this isn't implemented yet as I haven't really come up with this idea yet, but it would be great to have this feature so I created an issue for it :) https://github.com/evroon/bracket/issues/1200. Feel free to leave more feedback there as well.
> I'm also curious whether you've considered integrating this with Twilio or something similar, to send text messages
Interesting idea as well! I haven't implemented any kind of notifications so far yet either. But it seems very useful, also from my experience with hosting these kind of tournaments. I'll think about what the best way to implement this is that would be easy (and free/cheap) to selfhost. Maybe it can be done using javascript serviceworkers that just send web notifications. That would be free. AFAIK text messages would always cost money to send.
Based on using the various solutions in this space as a player, text messages and mobile notifications are the norm (folks that don’t install the app will still need sms or similar).
I've integrated with Twilio. I pay a whole bunch of money every month for sending SMSs. And then recently they made me jump through a bunch of regulation hoops. Had to give them all my business documents.
So even if OP does all the work of integrating it, I assume OP isn't going to pay the fees for you, so then you have to create your own Twilio account and jump through the same hoops.
Hmm is there really a benefit of using SMS rather than email? Nowadays everyone just gets email notifications on their phone anyways right? Depending on the provider, you might not receive the notification as instantaneous as with SMS, but it should still arrive quickly. And emails are cheaper (or even free) to send than SMS.
> Nowadays everyone just gets email notifications on their phone anyways right?
Not everyone does. It's a typical 80/20 problem (the 80% being those who use the technology that's easy to develop for, the other 20% being the hard part). 80/20 not being the exact numbers, obviously.
That being said, you certainly don't _have_ to cover more than one way of sending notifications, but that's a decision to be made and the consequences acknowledged.
You could always just implement an interface such as apprise or webhooks and leave the complexity of SMS (cost) or other types of notifications up to the selfhoster.
In what way is that a tangent? In both cases, the author argues that a centralized authoritative source of information is better than scattershot posts on social media.
reply