A Nerd’s Way to Walk Up the Stairs (2011) | Hacker News Reader

A Nerd’s Way to Walk Up the Stairs (2011)

blog.tanyakhovanova.com

139 pointsTomte94 comments

“‘You see, but you do not observe. The distinction is clear. For example, you have frequently seen the steps which lead up from the hall to this room.’

‘Frequently.’

‘How often?’

‘Well, some hundreds of times.’

‘Then how many are there?’

‘How many! I don’t know.’

‘Quite so. You have not observed. And yet you have seen. That is just my point. Now, I know that there are seventeen steps, because I have both seen and observed.’”

Sherlock Holmes & Dr. Watson, A Scandal In Bohemia, 1891

While good fiction, this is pretty dumb. Did Sherlock count the number of tiles on the wall as well? What about the colour of the carpet or the number of cracks in the ceiling?

Knowing how many steps there are is useless information and wasteful to retain.

I think you may have missed the goal of the exercise friend. I think this is a larger metaphor about walking through the waking life without really observing what’s going on.

Disclaimer: I meant this constructively in case it comes of wrong.

I get the metaphor, I just think it’s stupid.

There are an infinite number of things you can observe about the world around you, and there are many many more things you will not see than things you will see. All the way from high society people relations down to individual quantum particle interactions, it’s mind boggling how much there is out there happening at all times in all spaces. It’s not possible to observe all of this and the tiny fraction that we do observe is minuscule.

Pretending that there is some profound way to observe the world comes across as obnoxious and cringe-worthy.

I tend to agree. Our brains have evolved to focus on what is important, and to ignore irrelevance. (For example, we are attuned to notice unexpected movement.) We sometimes get that wrong, but the strategy is advantageous.

“I consider that a man's brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things, so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skillful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones.”

A Study in Scarlet

profundity is relative to the mind that creates the experience of the profound; it's all with respect to some other ideal. what you may consider as trite and lacking substance or meaning, from another perspective may be perceived to be extremely in depth with several layers of indirection and connection to other ideals and with networks of influence going back and forth between said ideals. it's all in how you look at a thing. i certainly agree that some people can be quite cringe inducing with their perception of the profundity of things, but that being said, that cringe is an experience that I am creating within my own mind based on my reaction to their behaviors and expression, not an intrinsic feature of said behaviors and expression. i just think it's important to remember that whatever we say and think, it really truly does define how we actually perceive reality around us and frame the way we interact with the world.

wow i can't help but wonder what the deal with all the downvotes is, it's not like I said something with no substance or I wasted anyone's time; every time I put a lot of thought into something this is the shit that happens smh

The essence of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock stories (and what makes them clever and recommended reading) is that the answer lies in plain sight.

Holmes does not succeed because he is superhuman (although the stories are not without their action bits), but because he applies himself more fully than others, and prepares and experiments more thoroughly.

Is the number of steps important?

Well, it would be if one were attempting to decide between two suspects, one on crutches and one a runner, and the time of path traversal was known.

But by then, others (notably the ever-mystified Scotland Yard) would have already dismissed stair count as unimportant.

Seemingly insignificant facts in aggregate, my dear albertgoeswoof, a case do build.

Yes, but Sherlock Holmes also always magically knows which trivia is important, because he's written that way. He doesn't bother with the count of stairs on every staircase he's ever walked on. And he lives in a world where the trivia he notices always reflects accurately on hidden truths, instead of being simply useless details that reveal nothing of consequence.

For example in one story Sherlock deduces that the person sending a ransom note is an educated man attempting to appear stupid, because although the note is grammatically incorrect the newspaper the letters are cut out from was The Times. And only educated men read The Times.

Except....what if that's just coincidence? I mean The Times costs the same amount at a news stand as any paper right? So what if the kidnapper, who is so barely literate he doesn't read any daily paper at all, went to a news stand to buy something to cut the letters from and happened to pick The Times?

George Macdonald Fraser did a funny sendup of this in Flashman and the Tiger, where Holmes creates a completely wrong narrative of Flashman using true facts he observed about him.

I learned how many steps on the stairs in my house because sometimes I navigate them at night, and don't bother turning the light on. I also count steps when carrying something big and heavy and can't look down.

Where I lived for several years, I would always stay up late and have to navigate the stairs in complete darkness every night, but I never counted the steps. I just intuitively knew when I had reached the end.

Also: he did not solve his cases by deduction; rather, it was (logical) abduction [1].

Hah. How's that for pedantry, eh?

_______________

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning

That was my thought too, but I think the point is subtler. The kind of person who notices those things is good at noticing a lot of things.

I like this relevant scene: https://youtu.be/IjrWOZby8s8?t=47s

Sort of like preppers who teach themselves to identify exits in any venue they enter and how to spot someone that looks out of place. With time you can teach yourself to identify details everyone else ignores, if you have good reason to.

Sure, and he even reaches across the fourth wall to make fun of himself for it. At one point, Holmes points out that it's impossible to put actual detective work in a novel, and thus all crime novels are merely inspiration, at best, not education.

The fun of Sherlock Holmes was that he was written to be somewhat plausible, while having a result that is far fetched. What would happen if someone built a map of London in their head? And know where all the major shops were? And studied cigar ash, and the fonts of newspapers? Etc.

The implication is that Holmes perhaps had a brain that was particularly well suited to such trivia, and a habit of observations. With practice comes skill in making and retaining such observations.

Now, the stair example is indeed a bit much. I doubt holmes would have counted the steps in every staircase he saw (though then again, if one practiced making such observations....). But Holmes did enjoy throwing people off guard, so knowing the number of steps in ones’ own home might indeed be a useful tidbit, precisely since it would offer the opportunity to throw Watson off guard.

This may be the most beautiful "middlebrow dismissal" in HN history.

I think some of us just can’t help counting stairs, perhaps? There are two staircases in my house. 18 steps from the main floor to upstairs. 19 steps from the main floor to downstairs. It kind of bothers me they’re not equal. When I get to my office, there are 23 stairs to the second floor, then 13 stairs, a landing and another 12 steps to the 3rd floor to get to my office. My previous house was an old craftsman & Victorian type mix of weirdness with a staircase that was 6 steps, a landing, 9 steps, another landing, and a final 5 steps to the 2nd floor. I’m always counting stairs.

I often need to know how many steps are in stairs in my house. For instance, just a couple of weeks ago I got a new mattress and to carry it up I count the steps as I take them. It helps me to not gouge the walls.

13 is the standard amount of steps in stairs in houses (in the UK at least). So statistically, you should just go with 13 instead of counting them and you will get it right almost all of the time.

Fascinating! Why is that the standard?

I guess if you divide the standard ceiling height with a comfortable step size you get 13

Reminded me of this video [1] talking about the fact that there are signs in London tube stations claiming the stairs are equivalent to 15 floors, regardless of the number of steps.

The number of floors is roughly correct for Covent Garden, so I guess it's possible that the original typesetter changed the number of steps, but forgot to change the number of floors.

[1] https://youtu.be/pBTvmrRGlbE?t=516

Incidental anecdote: While searching for this video, which I'd seen a year or so ago, I googled "tube 15 floors sign", but didn't see a reference to it, so I opened YouTube instead, and there, in recommended videos, was a video about the tube... by the same person that made the video above. It was a short hop to find the correct video.

It had never occurred to me that Google personalize youtube searches based on your google searches.

The ceiling height is not the same as the floor height of the next storey up.

Generally it's pretty close, though.

I looked at our stairs at home and they have 13 steps with a rise of what looks like a bit less than 20cm - hard to measure accurately with the carpet. That gives a total height of 2.5m which is nice and round.

A bit of searching around and I find the building regulations permit a rise per step between 15cm and 22cm. And I find a site which says “A typical rise is 2,600mm, which divides easily into 13 200mm risers, or steps”

I roughly measured the overall height of 8 steps and it was closer to 160cm than 152cm so looks like they are the typical dimensions.

I'd wager that when that standard was established the divisivility of those metric measurements would not have been a consideration. Most likely it's also close to some even fraction of feet and inches.

2.5m is 8 foot 2.4 inches according to Google (decimals in measurement that are in inches is a thing? I’m metric so don’t know). The standard ceiling distance between floors must be 8 feet in the U.K..

The joists and surfaces between floors in a home are 12-14 inches thick in total, bringing the distance between the floor and ceiling in each level closer to 7 feet.

The joists go on top of the studs, not between them. 'standard' ceiling height is 2.4m.

I’ve phrased that badly. Obviously the stairs go floor to floor... wall height would obviously be floor to floor minus joists, flooring, ceiling material.

This house dates from about 1990 so I think it is built to modern dimensions, but I know nothing about this so I am mostly guessing... the 19cm ish riser also matches an 8’ floor-to-floor height, so it’s a bit hard to tell from just the stairs :-)

I'd imagine since building codes maximum stair rise has been standardized.

So that, plus a limited number of common ceiling heights, results in a few standard numbers of stairs.

Additionally, building to standards allows you to use interchangeable materials [e.g. 1], decreasing onsite time, which usually directly translates into profit. (Labor is expensive)

It seems reasonable the same has generally been true throughout modern history.

[1] https://www.homedepot.com/p/5-Step-Ground-Contact-Pressure-T...

Yes, but do you start at 0 or 1? Also, is the last step you take onto the floor/landing counted?

And when going down, do you use negative numbers?

So many questions left unanswered. I feel you aren't a true stair counting nerd afterall.

:-)

I know you're joking, but the number of steps is well defined and doesn't vary as it's essentially a difference. The difference between two numbers is always the same regardless of whether you're using a 0-indexed or a 1-indexed base system. E.g. regardless of whether you call an element in an array [1] or [2], it's still two elements away from whatever is [3] or [4] -- the number of stairs climbed is the same.

So you're free to use either top-stepian or bottom-stepian notation when counting stairs and you'll get to the same answer either way. So it's just an implementation detail that's left undefined in the spec.

0-indexing steps is clearly the only reasonable choice. Who in their right mind would call the ground the “first step”?

Ground is never a step; zero or one; not. Because while we are on ground; we are on same level, stairs have not started yet. As soon as we put our foot on upper level than the other foot, stairs have started & that upper foot marks the / lands on "first" step.

Following the principle that array indexes are “between” the elements, the bottom of the first step is 0, and the top of the first step is 1. Then the ground, which is equal in elevation to the bottom of the first step, is at 0, and the floor after the last step is N, one past the index of the last valid step, N-1.

Half open zero based ranges are quite satisfying :-)

I think it's the same people who call the ground floor the first floor. Coincidentally, I often have an off-by-one error in elevators.

Please don't. It's bad enough that the US and UK can't agree on floor numbering. :)

  USA 1st, 2nd, 3rd
  UK Ground, 1st, 2nd

Is the basement in the US 0?

No, like the creator of the Anno Domini system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_zero, American elevator labelers do not believe in “unnatural” numbers < 1. Below the “first floor” they jump straight to B1.

Some US buildings also skip the 13th floor. Does the UK share this superstition?

Occasionally, in buildings designed for American businesses, like some of the large bank buildings.

Basement is -1

In the US or UK system? And, in any case, then what is 0?

For me, I have always counted it as a step if my foot-in-the-air lands on a different level than the other foot.

So, if I am walking; & approach a flight of stairs going upwards, before until my both feet are on same plane, stairs have not started & I can't start counting. As soon as I step "up", my feet is on different (higher in this case going upwards), I count it as first stair. Same on the other side. I continue counting till I am stepping up. As soon as I land my both feets on same level; any foot-step after that doesn't get counted in step-count.

Other way to count steps are imagine if we look ar stairs' drawing or cross-section view from side; i.e. a right-angled zig-zag line going up. On both ends, ground & landing lines are also there i.e. the drawing has always a horizontal line on upper & lower side representing floor & landing. This line is from bottom-left; going upwards towards top-right; the drawing's triangular section of bottom-right is, assume, filled in with concrete/anything; & a person walks on left-top section.

Any 90 degree outward bend on this side is a step.

           ┍────   
          ┍┙
         ┍┙
        ┍┙
   ────┙

Four steps in above.

”I have always counted it as a step if my foot-in-the-air lands on a different level than the other foot.”

That algorithm doesn’t count steps of a stair, it counts the number of steps you take to go up (or down) a staircase.

Those are different if you follow this nerd’s way, which, by the way, has benefits other than making it easier to count stairs. It’s a fairly easy way to get some strength training. I think everybody who can should take stairs two steps at a time. That gives you some cushion in old age, as you’ll be able to go back to one step at a time, and postpones the day where taking a stair becomes impossible.

If two steps is easy, you can make going up harder (I don’t advise that going down stairs) by sitting deeper, with your thighs horizontally, or by taking three steps at a time (four steps is out of reach for most)

Would taking two steps at a time in this was possibly cause more knee-joint wear?

It increases forces on the joint, but I think the benefits of having stronger muscles more than compensate for that. That will be dependent on various factors, though (leg length, fitness, weight, tiredness, to mention a few. I rarely do three anymore, and go back to one sometimes)

Subterranean floors should be numbered negatively.

And, why not number floors using binary or hex?

;)

In India, not only are ground floors often numbered 0, subterranean ones are in many places numbered -1, -2.

Stairs are counted by their risers.

Bonus points for doing this while going down. Taking public transportation as part of my daily commute involves a lot of stair climbing and descending. I always find it fascinating to watch the people who rush from bus to train platform and watch them descend 2 stairs at a time (basically always doing long long long) the whole way down. I've never been brave enough to try this method of descending though.

it’s easy once you’ve done it a couple of times. literally that easy to learn.

Honest question, why are you afraid of trying skipping steps on the way down? I ask because I've always done this, and when I'm with company they comment incredulously how quickly I descend the stairs. It never even occurred to me it was difficult or special before.

Perhaps because the penalty for failure rapidly escalates to twisting an ankle and goes up to death, with more likely results of bruises or broken bones?

I've been doing it for a few months too. It was scary at the beginning. The steps at work are pretty high and the first few times I actually had pain in my quads afterwards. It's best to practice on empty stairs with a rail at first.

For some reason I always (if reasonable, and that's often) climb and descend two steps at a time, like you describe. It's quick, and doesn't even tire much more than doing short-short-short, since while the exertion is a little higher, the entire staircase takes a lot less time.

At some point you get good enough at this stuff to descend a staircase, quickly, at a busy train station (somewhat; can't be too busy because then the stairs are too crowded) with no arm rests in range, while you hurry to the underground bicycle storage. There you take two steps down at a time, then get your bike up those stairs (bike in a gutter) in the same way, and not miss a stride when you jump on the bike to cycle to school.

It also feels really efficient. I've never fallen yet doing this stuff, though there have been cases while descending some staircase where I came a bit closer than I'd like.

Addendum: I don't count stairs, by the way. Apparently not nerdy enough.

Me too also... I just find stairs boring, so I nearly always take them as quickly as I can, which means two at a time.

Really kind of scared a friend once doing it down stairs... he was pretty concerned for my safety!

I find two steps at a time much easier than what feels like tentative tip-toeing of single steps. I guess it’s just what you get used to.

Three steps at a time can be a bit ‘shaky’ at times. Especially as I usually try that when tipsy. Not fallen yet though!

For descending, on some stairs I can descend while "falling", it's very fast and not tyring it all.

You have to land on the edge of the stair below so you "drop", then rinse and repeat.

If you do it constantly, you only have to support your body ( but you use your weight to fall, so don't support it too much) and slide with your hands.

If you can't do it the first time, land with your foot normally and then always turn them slightly to go to the stairs below

Kinda hard to explain

Take a look at my reply, we're doing the same damn thing! It's probably rather common.

Lol, my legs do the same thing though while dropping. So a small variation on it :D

An other variation would be to keep your feet in a 45° and then keep doing and landing on every stair edge

Never seen someone else doing that, it's insanely fast if you can master it :D

Did that in my childhood on wooden stairs in my parents house. Rounded edges, kid of hazardous in general but great to slide down like this. Kind of want to try this again, but I also value the integrity of my bones.

I only do it when i can place both of my hands for support and if my hands can slide on it.

It's not dangerous i think though, wooden stairs works best indeed :p

Stair surfing - I've still done it as a middle aged guy.

I would like to learn to do it hands free, one foot in front of the other (forward and down to the next step). I can surf a bit without grabbing the rails, but only rarely make it to the bottom. Definitely needs the perfect wooden stairs to get maximum flight time!

I've done two at time descending for the longest time until stumbled over another fun way to do this. One at a time, but you let one leg drop free while you pull the other leg forward to hit the next step. Somewhat hard to describe in a manner that makes sense. Think of hitting a drum with sticks. Only works with shallow stairs though. You know it works when your legs just kinda do their own thing and pull you forward. Obligatory don't try this in public warning.

https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=tanyakhovanova.com

Do you just post this every 3 months?

Sixth time's the charm!

Looks like they're running an experiment to see the effect of timing.

interesting. That gives a good idea for some HN popular thread-related data mining and analysis!

Busted. I count the number of stairs of buildings I visit, but know the number of stairs per flight (not always the same) in the buildings I frequent.

At one place, it's (4-7-8-7-7-4-7-5-12) to get to the top. It's useful if you don't want to turn on the light and wake people up.

Most of the time, when the number of stairs is odd, I'll go one, then two-two-two-two. When it's even, it'll be either two-two-two, or one-two-two-one..

I might be having a conversation with someone while going up or down the stairs, but the process in my head with the count and the fun I'm having is nice.

I take one step at a time and count stairs on my left foot (but don't alter my walking pattern). So if I happen to start taking the stairs on my left foot, I'll count 1-3-5-7, etc., otherwise it's 2-4-6-8. It can switch between evens or odds whenever landings are involved.

I know the # of stairs per flight at home and at work, not sure about other places though.

The info also comes in handy when carrying large loads that obscure vision or being the backward carrier in a tandem load. I do it when walking across flat surfaces, too, but have found no usable value besides logging distances walked.

I'm the type of person who quantifies a lot of information from my everyday life, but it has never occurred to me to count the number of steps on flights of stairs that I climb. Quantification isn't a costless activity, and knowing numbers of steps just doesn't seem useful. I'm content to remain ignorant of these data.

Isn't he cost of typing that statement out is less than the cost of counting N stairs, where N is usually pretty small?

As a musician (i.e., someone who frequently carries large objects up and down stairs), knowing the count is extremely useful to me. A significant portion of the time, I cannot see the ground. Instead of getting close and then feeling around with my foot one step at a time, I can just count to 14 (or whatever it is) and know I'm on the floor.

Even in a new building, it's common to walk the stairs at least once before hauling heavy equipment (to see where it's going to go), so I almost always have a count before I start.

It can be useful for OpenStreetMap, for instance, where you want to have an idea of the height difference between two points. For instance, if you are moving or carrying a large suitcase/stroller to a place you've never been to. Luckily you only have to count it once and fill it in the database, then others will benefit from it.

I just used this method in my house with great success!

Turns out i have zero stairs.

I don't count them. But from long experience I know the most staircase have an odd number of stairs.

My first step is "short" and whenever possible all following "long". That usually works.

But to the current day I don't know whether there is a real reason to this observation. Maybe it's pure coincidence. Or maybe something typical to may country. Or after all it has indeed some real (maybe even wired) reason.

Also, a nerd’s way to walk on the plane is to ignore sidewalk or other markings and cut a straight of a line to the destination as possible.

Depending on jurisdictions and “no cops, no stops,” ignore traffic signals while focusing on actual traffic. Waiting for a crosswalk signal is like waiting for Godot... giving autonomy over to a machine and a waste of life.

Heh, there are plenty of places in my area that require crossing a street to get to a sidewalk. I usually end up walking down the wrong side of the street until traffic clears enough for me to cross. Efficiency!

My nerds way is to run upstairs. I skip a step. I don’t care what other people think. It’s just faster.

Funny, I've been a bit obsessed with counting the number of steps on stairs at home, at work, and all subway stations I pass through. Haven't thought of this before. Will have to try, but I'm afraid it'll look really weird.

he reminded me that a nerd’s goal in climbing the steps is to establish the number of steps at the end of the flight.

I thought I was the only one who did this. I'll definitely be trying this method next time I find a novel flight of stairs.

17 steps at home[0] and 17 each for two flights per floor at work, since commercial buildings have taller ceilings.

[0] This applies both in North Carolina and the apartment in Texas, which had two flights of stairs (3-story townhouse)

Mine is 16 each for two flights per floor at work, 19 floors. I do it 5 days a week, only for going up, so far. I’ve yet to do the same for when going down.

I visually count backwards in sets of four, and take an initial step of 1-4 so that I can subsequently take only 4's to the next landing. The momentum seems to make this climb more efficient.

A nerd mom's lesson to her toddler on how to take the stairs: Scoot down the stairs on your butt, little one. It's easier and safer at your size.

And this is why I found him at the bottom of the stairwell eyeing the fascinating cornfield next door the day he got tall enough to open the front door, instead of in a bloody heap with a cracked skull on the first landing.

I have counted steps. Knowing the numbers is extremely useful when walking stairs in the dark.

Was holding off on the Fibonacci connection. Its kind of simple, obvious and by now cliche, but can hold my breath for only so long.

Was asked this in a phone interview, I had no clue that Fibonacci would so delightfully turn up on the staircase.

> Thus, you will cover five stairs in one short-long-long cycle. In addition, you should always start the first cycle on the same foot. Suppose you start on the left foot, then after two cycles you are back on the left foot, having covered ten stairs. While you are walking the stairs in this way, it is clear where you are in the cycle. By the end of the staircase, you will know the number of stairs modulo ten

Yet another example why decimal is not an ideal base for counting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com