rho4

That list ordering drives me nuts. What's up with 1024?!

And how come much larger numbers have already been solved? Based on that information one cannot strictly assume that the current solution required improvements to the strategy or hardware, no?

So are there no discontinuities for weekday calculation? Never 2 Sundays in a row or a maybe even a Monday skipped?

Was going to say the same but then decided to search first if someone beat me to it. Sigh.

> After the voting period there will be a record of all the votes without the name of the voter. It will instead contain a cryptographic hash. You will receive a secret after you have voted that can be used to calculate that hash. This allows you to verify that your vote is in the list. This secret is sent in an encrypted mail.

I've always wanted this for mail-in voting. E.g. print a random secret on the voting form I receive per mail. Afterwards publish the complete vote-count on the web, with the choice and a hash of the secret. So I can check that my vote was recorded, and only once, and correctly.

I understand there might be a lot of reasons for why it could fail in practice, but it would be a start.

3 next clicks in missing a back button

Thank you, I really needed to read a sane voice. The relentless hype-onslaught is not easy to cope with.

Haha thanks for that article (I microwave most of my meals). I wonder if this statement from the article will apply to AI:

> Second, microwave cooking fell victim to the same curse that threatens every new easy-to-use technology: it became low-status tech.

Absolutely, I was purely reacting to the "not". Every variable named not-something will lead to difficult-to-read code with double-negation like "if (!isNotSomething()) {...}".

I just wish the variable was called "has_been_viewed_much".

> I'm not sure people are reading comment chains deeply enough to be swayed by two strangers arguing online

HN comments sway me more than any other source nowadays. Reading comments not directed at myself probably makes it easier because my ego does not feel attacked.

I really liked the specific actionable steps in the TLDR.

You can only serve the 3 closest levels to a lobby with stairs or escalators.

I guess I wanted to say that no tool/technology can prevent people from creating chaos (or make up for bad/non-existant processes). People need to do that. Of course, systematic people use tools as well. But you can't expect to buy or mandate a tool/technology and expect your system to then automatically have these qualities.

Not sure if tools and technologies can solve accidental complexity.

In my opinion, a system that has been stable for years isn't 'mature' in a good sense. An exceptional system is one that can still change after many years in production.

I believe this is almost impossible to achieve for enterprise software, because nobody has incentive to make the (huge) investment into longterm maintainability and changeability.

For me, consistent systematic naming and prefixes/suffixes to make names unique are a hint that a person is thinking about this or has experience with maintaining old systems. This has a huge effect on how well you can search, analyze, find usages, understand, replace, change.

A few of my favorites:

- "Not-Boxes": Negatively formulated text (disable... / don't...)

- "Button-Checkboxes": Checkboxes with verbs that trigger actions

- "Radio-Checkboxes": Radios that are actually checkboxes (not mutually exclusive)

- "Toggle-Checkboxes": Checkboxes that are actually toggle buttons and can't decided wheter the text should show the current state or the state that will happen when you click.