The paper "Is this the simplest (and most surprising) sorting algorithm ever?" introduces the "Sleep Sort" algorithm, a conceptually simple, albeit impractical, sorting method. It relies on spawning a separate thread for each element to be sorted. Each thread sleeps for a duration proportional to the element's value and then outputs the element. Thus, smaller elements are outputted first, resulting in a sorted sequence. While intriguing in its simplicity, Sleep Sort's correctness depends on precise timing and suffers from significant limitations, including poor performance for large datasets, inability to handle negative or duplicate values directly, and reliance on system-specific thread scheduling. Its main contribution is as a thought-provoking curiosity rather than a practical sorting algorithm.
The Steam Brick is a conceptual handheld gaming PC designed for minimalism. It features only a power button and a USB-C port, relying entirely on external displays and controllers. The idea is to offer a compact and portable PC capable of running Steam games, shifting the focus to user-chosen peripherals rather than built-in components. This approach aims to reduce e-waste by allowing users to upgrade or replace their peripherals independently of the core computing unit.
HN commenters generally found the Steam Brick an interesting, albeit impractical, project. Several discussed the potential utility of a dedicated Steam streaming device, particularly for travel or as a low-power alternative to a full PC. Some questioned the choice of using a Raspberry Pi Compute Module 4, suggesting a Rockchip RK3588 based device would be more powerful and efficient for video decoding. Others highlighted the project's complexity, especially regarding driver support, and contrasted it with commercially available options like the Steam Deck. A few appreciated the minimalist aesthetic and the focus on a single, dedicated function. There was also some discussion of alternative software options, such as using a pre-built Steam Link OS image or exploring GameStream from Nvidia. A significant point of discussion revolved around the lack of a hardware reset button, with many suggesting it as a crucial addition for a headless device.
TabBoo is a browser extension designed to deter procrastination by injecting random jumpscares into websites the user designates as distracting. It works by periodically displaying startling images, chosen from a curated selection or uploaded by the user, on blacklisted sites. This aims to create a negative association with those sites, making them less appealing to visit and thus boosting productivity. The extension offers customization options for jumpscare frequency and image selection, allowing users to tailor the experience to their needs.
Hacker News commenters generally found TabBoo's concept amusing, but impractical for serious self-control. Several pointed out the ease with which one could simply disable the extension or avoid the targeted sites altogether if motivation was truly lacking. Some suggested alternative approaches like website blockers, while others joked about the potential for misuse or the psychological implications of negative reinforcement. A few expressed interest in the technical implementation, particularly the use of AI-generated jumpscares. Overall, the comments lean towards seeing TabBoo as a novelty rather than a robust solution for procrastination.
Summary of Comments ( 77 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43155839
Hacker News users discuss the "Mirror Sort" algorithm, expressing skepticism about its novelty and practicality. Several commenters point out prior art, referencing similar algorithms like "Odd-Even Sort" and existing work on sorting networks. There's debate about the algorithm's true complexity, with some arguing the reliance on median-finding hides significant cost. Others question the value of minimizing comparisons when other operations, like swaps or data movement, dominate the performance in real-world scenarios. The overall sentiment leans towards viewing "Mirror Sort" as an interesting theoretical exercise rather than a practical breakthrough. A few users note its potential educational value for understanding sorting network concepts.
The Hacker News post linked has a moderate number of comments discussing the "Simple Sort" algorithm presented in the linked arXiv paper. Several commenters delve into the algorithm's mechanics and its relationship to existing sorting methods.
A significant thread discusses whether "Simple Sort" is truly novel or simply a rediscovery/reframing of existing algorithms, particularly insertion sort. Some argue that despite superficial similarities, the core logic and the way elements are shifted differ, making it distinct. Others contend that it's essentially insertion sort with a slightly altered control flow, focusing on the similarity of repeatedly finding the correct position for an element and shifting subsequent elements.
Several comments analyze the algorithm's performance characteristics. Some highlight the O(n) best-case scenario when the input list is already sorted (or nearly sorted), matching insertion sort's performance in such cases. However, they acknowledge the O(n^2) average and worst-case complexity, making it less efficient than algorithms like merge sort or quicksort for large, unsorted datasets. The space complexity of O(1) (in-place sorting) is also mentioned as a positive aspect.
One commenter expresses skepticism about the paper's claim of "simplicity," arguing that the code implementation, while concise, isn't necessarily easier to understand than other basic sorting algorithms. They suggest that "simplicity" is subjective and depends on the reader's familiarity with different programming paradigms.
Another line of discussion revolves around the algorithm's suitability for specific use cases. Some suggest its potential value for situations where the data is likely to be already partially sorted or where simplicity of implementation is prioritized over performance for small datasets.
A few comments also touch upon the paper's writing style and its presentation of the algorithm. One commenter questions the authors' emphasis on its "surprising" nature, suggesting that the algorithm's properties are relatively straightforward to analyze.
Overall, the comments offer a mixed reception to the "Simple Sort" algorithm. While acknowledging its simplicity and potential niche applications, many express skepticism about its novelty and overall efficiency compared to well-established sorting algorithms. The discussion primarily revolves around comparing it to existing methods, analyzing its performance, and debating its practical significance.