11-10-08 - Junk

Guy La Liberte is basically single handedly subsidizing the top online poker players. He's dumping 20-30 mil a year to something like 10-20 people. Sometimes I see how bad he is and think I should take a shot at the $500/$1000 NLHE games, but of course the issue is not beating Guy, it's beating the other guys who are feeding off Guy, like durrr or PA.

Hamburger has to be at 15% or its just gross. The "lean" stuff at 10% is dry and bland. The budget stuff is usually around 20% and that's too greasy. I could buy both and mix but that means I have to get an awful lot. I guess I might have to get into grinding my own.

One of the fun things about game development is that you only have to finish things 99% of the way. The last little bit of programming is really not fun. The initial getting it working to 90% is really fun, and then for games you just fix some bugs and polish a tiny bit - but you only have to make it work in the way it's used in the game, not really robustly. If it has some quirks under certain uses, that's fine, just don't use it that way.

Programmers all talk about completion percentages in a really distorted scale. I just did it in the last paragraph. I sort of have to do it, because everyone does. It's common parlance to say "oh yeah, I implemented self-balancing binary trees, I got it like 90% done in an hour". Of course that's nonsense. Any good experienced programmer knows that you've actually done maybe 10% of the total work needed to make it a finished functioning efficient robust piece of code. But it appears to be 90% done because hey you made a bunch of characters in a file that ends in "cpp" so you say 90%. Then when something is pretty solid we say 95% or 99% when in reality it's highly likely there will be a few more nasty issues which will take almost as much time as you've put in already, so you're only about 50% done.

When somebody tells you they're "x%" done, you should raise that to the 10th power. So "90% done" = "0.9^10" = 35% done. "99% done" = 90% done, etc.

I stumbled on this suggestion to compare floats using their int difference which counts the number of possible float values off they are. I wonder if this is actually a robust way to do float math with tolerances. Christer? ... actually I'm sure it's not. It does seem like an okay way to do the relative epsilon compare, but it is not a replacement for also having an absolute epsilon check.

And What Every Computer Scientist Should Know About Floating-Point Arithmetic , by David Goldberg. It's really long and old, but quite excellent. And actually the oldness is good because it means he talks about floating point very generally, since the old mainframes had lots of different weird implementations.

"The Life and Times of Tim" is horrifically not funny. It's like the love child of "Dr. Katz" and "Southpark" , which is like interpolating between boring and retarded.

1 comment:

Autodidactic Asphyxiation said...

I had a burger once that had a core of ground pork in the center, and that was really tasty.

I think I saw that floating point thing years ago. Actually, I thought I had originally found it on cbloom.com somewhere, which explains why I couldn't find it again.

old rants