pull down to refresh

This is more tricky than it seems because the range grows exponentially with the bounds. And, if the upper bound starts as more than a power of 10 greater than the lower bound, the lower bound of the next zap range LBN+1 will be exponentially less than upper bound of the current range UBN (as N grows) which is extra counterintuitive.

Well now I feel bad for clearly not going through turbo zapping with enough detail for this change

reply

It's fun discovering unexpected consequences.

reply

No doubt, definitely part of the fun!

reply

Deployed with ranges that don't intersect, e.g. 1-21,22-210,211-2100

reply

Looking good

reply

Thank you 🙏

reply

It's always fun when seemingly simple problems turn out to be a bit thorny.

If people want to get really wild, you could only scale the upper bound.

reply

Either that or make sure the ranges don't intersect. Rather than: 1-21,10-210,100-2100. Do: 1-21,22-210,211-2100.

reply

Or maybe just scaling the lower bound: 1-21,10-31,100-121,1000-1021

Or scaling the lower bound faster (still preventing overlap): 1-21,22-100,101-210,1000-2100

reply

If I understand the second one, there should be a 211-1000. That seems fun, too. The first option seems lame.

reply

Yeah, I messed that one up. The case where the upper bound is larger than 10x the lower bound is weird.

I like the randomness increasing slightly slower though.

reply

That's neat.

reply