Corun

Those look like pretty normal numbers in my experience. Certainly nothing to worry about. But, the effectiveness of your marketing isn’t necessarily a good measure of your idea and product. Different targeting can change those numbers drastically.

Also, how good web or search ads are really depends on the economics of your product. If your customers will be paying $60 per year then paying 5$ to acquire them is pretty damn good.

For the moment though, I would focus on getting into real conversations(phone or video) with your customers to understand what they want, how much they’d pay, etc. With so much competition for attention, the days of validating with a landing page may be over.

Knowing powers of two in your head (as I guess many of us do) can helps with root estimates and this algorithm.

Take an example sqrt(5819): That's between two powers of two 2^12 = 4096 and 2^13 = 8192. The square roots of those numbers are easy, since you just half the exponent sqrt(4096) = 2^6 = 64

That gives us our initial estimate g for the algorithm from the article. Now we do: b = n / g = 5819 / 64 To do this division in our head we remember that we already know 4096 is 64 x 64. So we just need the remainder (5819 - 4096) / 64 ~= 1700 / 64. Now that's low enough that I can approximate it in my head 64 * 30 is too high by about 3 * 64 so the answer should be around 27 (actual answer 26.5). So b = 64 + 27 = 91

So now we finish the algorithm, sqrt(5819) ~= g + b / 2 = (64 + 91 / 2) = 77.5.

So, how did we do?

The actual sqrt is 76.28, so seems pretty good!

If we are going for technical correctness... Anything being broken by this is relying on the output of man with no arguments which is not documented as far as I can see, other than that it should have exit code 0.

Where is the boundary between responsible and harmless fun?

Perhaps I should be careful not to edit this comment in case someone's test pipeline curls it and checks the content.

Turns out it's an easter egg referring to a song.

Sadly while many people enjoyed it, others were annoyed by it. And the author has now removed it.

I find it hard to relate with people who not only would be annoyed by something like this, but are annoyed about it enough to push their view on the internet to the point that the author feels the need to remove it.

In my view, the best response to those people? Update it to a more recent, or perhaps a more recognisable reference. Perhaps "Rocket Man".

Hey guys. I'm the developer of this. I'll be happy to answer any questions!

Also you might be interested to know that this is written in C++ and compiled to JS using emscripten and using WebGL.

I'm not sure, but I think the author means that there is no extraction of fields from the instruction, which is one way of defining the decode step.

Yup SketchUp is pretty good, but it's really not ideal for 3D printable objects. And it's still not easy enough to help enable the widespread adoptions of 3D printing.