[HN Gopher] BBC: How to generate random numbers in 1971 [video]
___________________________________________________________________
BBC: How to generate random numbers in 1971 [video]
Author : sys_64738
Score : 55 points
Date : 2020-02-02 17:48 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.facebook.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.facebook.com)
| wodenokoto wrote:
| Makes you wonder what the overhead on this was compared to just
| giving all the bonds an interest rate.
|
| A lot of things we do today in IT feels overly expensively done,
| but looking at this really makes you appreciate how far we've
| come in terms of efficiency even with modern over engineered
| solutions.
| refset wrote:
| State-backed application of behavioural economics [0] was the
| driver behind the RNG overhead, not efficiency: "Premium Bonds
| were introduced [...] to control inflation and encourage people
| to save" [1]
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prize-
| linked_savings_account#E...
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premium_Bond#History
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| The randomness of premium bonds are the _whole point_. If
| people wanted a flat interest rate they would just buy a normal
| bond, or some other kind of investment.
|
| Premium bonds are so popular precisely because they are
| unpredictable. It's like buying a lottery ticket, except unlike
| a lottery ticket, you get your money back if you don't win.
| pintxo wrote:
| Alternatively, you could put your money in a normal bond and
| invest the interest payout into lottery tickets.
| m-i-l wrote:
| Its a bit more hassle to do that, and I think you're likely
| to be worse off for your efforts. The UK 10Y Government
| Bond currently has a 0.525% yield[0], and the UK National
| Lottery prize fund is 47.5%[1], meaning in the
| exceptionally long term you'd turn your 0.525% return into
| a 0.249% return. If you factor in that the Lottery prize
| fund is weighted very heavily towards the larger sums that
| you'll realistically never win, then the likely return
| within a normal lifetime is probably around half of that.
| Compare with the Premium Bond's 1.4% return[2].
|
| [0] http://www.worldgovernmentbonds.com/country/united-
| kingdom/
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Lottery_(United_
| Kingd...
|
| [2] https://www.nsandi.com/interest-rates
| altacc wrote:
| > looking at this really makes you appreciate how far we've
| come in terms of efficiency
|
| My exact thoughts too. It's incredible that within a few
| decades, a process which was a full time job for dozens of
| people could now be totally replaced with code that runs in
| seconds.
|
| Where I work we often have to involve some manual steps in
| business processes (too complex or edge case to develop in the
| time available, so we hand over to customer support or back
| office staff). When that happens it often feels like we're
| failing to do enough to support those colleagues. But I rarely
| stop to think that a short time ago absolutely everything they
| do would have been manual.
| lawlorino wrote:
| Looks like they are on v.5 now:
|
| > ERNIE 5, the latest model, was brought into service in March
| 2019, and is a quantum random number generator built by ID
| Quantique. It uses quantum technology to produce random numbers
| through light, replacing the former 'thermal noise' method.
| Running at speeds 21,000 times faster than the first ERNIE, it
| can produce 3 million winners in just 12 minutes each month.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premium_Bond#ERNIE
| lexicality wrote:
| ERNIE is on display in the Science Museum in London if you happen
| to be in the area and want to have a look.
|
| It's pretty impressive when you're up close and personal with it.
|
| https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co62675...
| m-i-l wrote:
| They've also got the prototype ERNIE mark 1 at the National
| Museum of Computing[0], next to the Colossus[1] (the first
| programmable digital computer) given it was designed by some of
| the same team very shortly afterwards.
|
| [0] https://www.tnmoc.org/notes-from-the-
| museum/2019/4/18/honour...
|
| [1] https://www.tnmoc.org/colossus
| JNRowe wrote:
| I'm not sure if they're still ordering things the way they were
| when I last visited, but I loved the ~10m walk from abacus to a
| Babbage Difference Engine too.
|
| Plus, if you have a flexible lunch it is a practical visit over
| a few days at this time of year too.
|
| https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co62243...
| jonbaer wrote:
| Longer version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOAfbb5D3Dw
| dang wrote:
| If someone wants to figure out where the OP's clip begins, we
| can add a "#t=" and switch to the YouTube URL above.
|
| (Normally I'd do that but am a bit rushed at the minute.)
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| OP's vid was made 6 years after the longer one above, not a
| clip of it.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Am I the only one put off by having to view BBC content within
| Facebook? Why isn't it hosted on the BBC site?
| mardifoufs wrote:
| I think it probably reaches more people with Facebook. Public
| services like the BBC usually try to have a presence wherever
| the audience is!
| acqq wrote:
| By publishing their copyrighted content exclusively on
| Facebook they are effectively "selling" their public to the
| private company. It's wrong on many levels, especially
| knowing how they are funded.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC
|
| "funded principally by an annual television licence fee[12]
| which is charged to all British households, companies, and
| organisations using any type of equipment to receive or
| record live television broadcasts and iPlayer catch-up.[13]
| The fee is set by the British Government, agreed by
| Parliament,[14] and used to fund the BBC's radio, TV, and
| online services covering the nations and regions of the UK."
|
| I don't see that they publish the same content anywhere else.
| Even for Facebook they could have put only links to their own
| pages with the same content, had it existed. But it seems it
| doesn't.
| Danny72 wrote:
| The content is also published on twitter.
|
| https://twitter.com/BBCArchive/status/1223931569426952192
| mardifoufs wrote:
| I don't think that's true. You still own the content, but
| give Facebook a temporary license to use it until you
| delete it, which makes sense in the context of social
| media. It's written in their ToS [0].
|
| >You own the intellectual property rights (things like
| copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you
| create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company
| Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the
| rights you have to your own content. You are free to share
| your content with anyone else, wherever you want. However,
| to provide our services we need you to give us some legal
| permissions (known as a 'license') to use this content.
| This is solely for the purposes of providing and improving
| our Products and services as described in Section 1 above.
| [...]
|
| >This license will end when your content is deleted from
| our systems
|
| [0]: https://m.facebook.com/terms
| acqq wrote:
| I'm surely not claiming that BBC ("British Broadcasting
| Corporation", "a British public service broadcaster")
| doesn't own its content. I'm claiming they are providing
| their content _exclusively_ to Facebook, a US-based
| advertising company, helping the said company to earn its
| profit from that content.
|
| In this specific case I as a potential viewer of that
| content can't visit BBC's site to watch the same content,
| I have to watch it on Facebook, if I want to watch it at
| all. And I've searched for the specific video on BBC's
| site.
|
| But BBC's mission isn't to make Facebook earning more
| money by exclusively providing to the Facebook BBC's
| content, helping Facebook earning more money from the
| internet ads tracking their viewers, and moreover, it's
| not why BBC is publicly funded, and why it collected its
| fees to produce the content: note again what I've already
| quoted: the "annual television licence fee which is
| charged to all British households, companies, and
| organisations" "is set by the British Government, agreed
| by Parliament,[14] and used to fund the BBC's radio, TV,
| and online services."
|
| And it's not that BBC doesn't have its own web site.
| mardifoufs wrote:
| Oh, yes in that case you are right! I totally agree that
| the BBC shouldn't be allowed to post some of their
| content only on Facebook. Especially given how Facebook
| is probably the most walled off social media around.
| spectramax wrote:
| No, you're right. Facebook has lost its brand Goodwill and it
| is on its way to pillate Instagram as well.
|
| I wonder if Mark Zuckerberg ever sits down, brew some tea and
| question ruthlessly what his purpose in life is.
|
| "What do I want to be remembered as? As a guy that has ruined
| America, the world in some ways and spreaded false news, kowtow
| to the advertisers, chasing year over year profits, quarter
| over quarter revenues, created echo chambers, fucked up
| politics, sucked up to investors?"
| mardifoufs wrote:
| Wow, I think you are maybe a little too hyperbolic here.
| Facebook didn't "ruin" America. Even if you think america is
| somehow ruined, how is it Facebook's fault? Why not blame the
| ISPs, or the hardware manufacturers at that point?
|
| Facebook provided a way to connect people, that's it.
| Scapegoating Facebook for everything is ridiculous and only
| serves to oversimplify extremely complex social dynamics. If
| anything echochambers were stronger before Facebook, it's
| just that people weren't as politically involved.
|
| And every single public company tries to maximize profit and
| revenue, that's their fiduciary duty to the investors. If you
| are against that, that's fine. But to use it as a criticism
| against Zuckerberg specifically is... weird?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-02-02 23:00 UTC)