Take the Beeminder founders' money


#65

1 claim per person per 24 hours seems reasonable, then you have the added fun of wondering whether to claim the current derailment or wait and see if a more expensive one will happen in a few hours time.


#66

Discourse applies its own internal forum etiquette and only separates out non-immediate edits. The absence of an admin-visible time stamp indicates that the edit was within epsilon of the original posting. I don’t know the current value of epsilon.


#67

Let’s just say one claim per hour. That way if you happen to be the only one paying attention you can still collect them all easily enough.

So to make it official: that’s $270 to @olimay and $270 to @aaronpk! Thanks for contributing to countless (ironic use of “countless”) hours of productivity for us! And as I type this there’s greater than a 1.8% chance of an $810 remrev derailment in a few hours. (!) So that’s yielding some serious productivity from @bee, whose head is deep in code right now. Thanks again, everyone!


#68

Agreed with @insti. No ninja tricks! Only proper bushi here! :smile:

I like the claim rate limit rule. I was going to suggest something along the lines of 4-6 hours. In any case, I think the waiting period should be at least subject to change (rise) based on how much is at risk per goal. You probably want a longer waiting period if most goals are in the 810+ range, to spread rewards more evenly across the community


#69

woohoo! I’m definitely checking back in for remrev before 5pm!


#71

Was there a derail on https://www.beeminder.com/meta/goals/infra?


#72

Negative. After the fact it looks super suspect so we shouldn’t do this but what happened is that @bee had snoozed the deadline, then after completing it moved the deadline back to noon.

Very glad to have people looking this closely! Don’t be shy about calling us out when there’s any doubt!


#73

It was weird on my side, for sure. I was offline for a while, and the page said derailed, so I refreshed, and the time was pushed back.


#75

Remrev derailed due to fickleness of tagtime gods?


#76

Url of derailed Remrev goal: https://www.beeminder.com/b/goals/remrev

(Replying rather than editing so as not to mess up timestamps.)


#77

This actually looks more like a ping was accidentally deleted in the log,
or perhaps the uploading rules were changed, instead of an actual
derailment…


#78

It’s legit! $810 to @insti! Eek. But we’re so close to deploying all this now and it’s going to be so worth it. To @ianminds, no, that was previous data trouble but we were firmly back on the hook last night and legit derailed it. There was a 5-hour ping gap, which happens with well under 1% probability and we took our chances and lost. We were being pretty myopic about that. A 1% risk one time is maybe not a big deal but we were in a “just one more day” pattern where it was a matter of time before that bit us in the butt. (:


#79

I finished up the last few things from our final checklist of bugs and such for the RemRev goal, (not that all bugs are fixed, but the critical ones!), and we’re calling the remrev goal done. I put in a total of 181.5 hours of work. I did not imagine it was going to take that long, I thought that if I sat down and worked on it without distraction I could finish it up in about a week. I guess if I was @nick I coulda almost done that in one workweek.

B


#80

Congratulations @bee! The reminders revamp is awesome.

But what about the maniac efficiency boost, where you speed up when doing it all at once? Maybe 181.5 hours of spread-out work fit in 120 hours of maniac work. I wish I knew there was a big feature that would take 181.5 hours done normally so that I could try to do it in one week; that would be exciting!


#81

#82

Ludicrous, maybe, but just to clarify that @nick meant that work that takes 181.5 hours when spread out could maybe be done in 120 hours if done in one concentrated burst. Which, if you’re Nick Winter, can be done in a week. But, yes, good to keep in mind that anyone claiming to do more than a 168-hour workweek better be in a spaceship of some sort. (:


#83

There was definitely some efficiency lost to switching between algorithms
and fussing with settings pages and views and model validations. Not sure
if it was 60 hours worth! Anyhow, there’s potentially another blog post in
all this… plus talking about the cost. Yeah, definitely another blog post
in here. :slight_smile:


#84

Haha yes I knew what he meant. Just pointing out that it is still bonkers. :slight_smile:


#85

Edit: nope, very last minute update. Looks good.


#86

Yup, was just replying that @bee seems to have eked by. I’ve made some clarifications in previous comments about the exact rules for this. I tried to summarize them just now in the original post at the top (see “fine print”). If I’ve contradicted myself or you disagree, do holler!