Google Trying to Solve a UUID
google.com
google.com
Google helpfully informs me that
marathon + (20 inches) = 1.00001204 marathon
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31638976
(I think Bing also blocks hashes but has an exemption for UUIDs; right now it gives me results for random UUIDs but not random MD5s)
Bing and Yandex are both capable of locating OP's Minecraft account in online databases:
https://web.archive.org/web/0/https://www.google.com/search?...
https://web.archive.org/web/0/https://www.bing.com/search?q=...
https://web.archive.org/web/0/https://yandex.com/search/?tex...
PS: example of an uncommon hash that Yandex finds but not the other two: the MD5 of 'Hacker News' (f3e4...), which actually occurs on the web on one site (http://archive.ph/oLgUe http://archive.today/lkyNN http://archive.ph/v3TY5)
I'm assuming what happens is that the hashes for various blockchain transactions have a lot of common sub-strings within that collide with non-crypto stuff, hence why they get offered.
Maybe the folks that manage the search engine were finding that these crawls were adding a lot of useless info and just blanket blocked their inclusion?
Not sure if they still do, but they used to map keywords to integer identifiers, instead of using the actual string value (string indices get very big). Page and Brin themselves explain it here[1]. I do the same in my search engine.
Problem is there are a lot of junk identifiers, so there's a point to reducing the scope by eliminating probable noise-keywords that are unlikely to ever be relevant to any search. UUIDs and hashes would probably fall into that scope, since they have a very large namespace that can very easily gunk up the lexicon with words that are never ever going to be relevant. You'd probably want to keep the word identifier 32 bits if you can get away with it, but maybe 64 bits for a global search engine like Google.
[1] http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html (section 4.2.4)
You have a great ability to break things down in a way that makes sense.
I don't feel like I do a very good job at explaining things for the most part, but maybe that's not a very reliable indicator of whether what I write makes sense. :P
meta: apparently HN penalizes comments that have been edited to be too different from what was originally posted -- I tried adding this to my parent comment, which sent it far down the thread, which was then reversed upon editing it back
(10 + 23)^5 = 39,135,393 which is enough for company devices
For just removing digits-E-digits, that's 10000 patterns for each E position, of which there are 3. Since 36^5 is over 60 million, you're only removing a twentieth of a percent of values. Closer to a tenth of a percent if you remove those values from 33^5 or 32^5.
Avoid generating codes like FARKU, WANKR, USUCK etcetera.
“Scientists rename human genes to stop Microsoft Excel from misreading them as dates”
> …over the past year or so, some 27 human genes have been renamed, all because Microsoft Excel kept misreading their symbols as dates.
> The problem isn’t as unexpected as it first sounds. Excel is a behemoth in the spreadsheet world and is regularly used by scientists to track their work and even conduct clinical trials. But its default settings were designed with more mundane applications in mind, so when a user inputs a gene’s alphanumeric symbol into a spreadsheet, like MARCH1 — short for “Membrane Associated Ring-CH-Type Finger 1” — Excel converts that into a date: 1-Mar.
Original paper leading to the changes: https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13...
When I worked at a lower level I had to deal with this constantly when folks doing mail merges had bad zip formats coming through, and as the “data guy” it all got referred to me to fix.
Still, I think excel is great when used within certain confines. I use it for ad hoc purposes all of the time for simpler bits of work that are one-offs where it would take a fair bit longer to explore the data a bit and make some minimally presentable visuals & tables and some inline notes on analysis and interpretation.
you think zip codes are a more common use case than numbers?
Second, how would you handle international addresses? For many businesses, a program that can't do that would be useless.
Probably it’s just different usage - when I use excel is mostly to store a table of raw data where I want to store the actual data, not what excel thing the data is. I’m using it as the equivalent of a database, but simple to update and share with other people (even not technical folks) or to open a csv and quickly hide/filter some data.
So, if you have `1234` in A1 and `5678` in B1, `=A1+B1` should by default produce `VALUE ERROR` rather than `6912`?
That's... not why spreadsheets were invented.
> when I use excel is mostly to store a table of raw data where I want to store the actual data, not what excel thing the data is. I’m using it as the equivalent of a database,
Then use a database program, not a spreadsheet!
However, if there are no database programs that fit your needs, and you end up using a spreadsheet instead, don't complain that the spreadsheet acts like a spreadsheet instead of a database. It's not the tool's fault that you're the one using the wrong tool for the job.
If you didn't change anything else, just made A1 and B1 text cells, then adding them would still return 6912.
> That's... not why spreadsheets were invented.
It's decades later. Why they were invented is not the priority.
> Then use a database program, not a spreadsheet!
Databases only have a fraction of the capabilities of a spreadsheet. That's not a reasonable response.
The looser your typings the more it matters, and spreadsheets barely even have types.
Edit: found https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/20460/wha..., suggests it was ALGOL-68.
Alternatively, if you don’t want excel to perform addition on underlying numeric values but instead only on defined data types then the formula could result in NaN which would signal to the user that the explicit data type was not compatible with addition.
I know, complaining like this probably doesn’t make sense. It’s a minor issue to begin with and I’m probably an edge case as far as excel users go. It doesn’t make sense for MS to tailor its product for my type of user.
There’s nothing you can do in a spreadsheet that an RDBMS can’t do.
Programmers often object to spreadsheets because they’re too “brittle”. I don’t think it’s an unreasonable objection.
Most spreadsheet users don’t exhibit the rigor necessary to impose a schema on their spreadsheet-based data, nor to use features like named ranges to abstract away the physical location of data in the spreadsheet from its semantic meaning. Data validation is an afterthought, too. Spreadsheets invite silent errors when rows or columns are inserted or removed, data is copied/pasted, etc. It takes more effort, in my experience, to keep the formulae in a spreadsheet working in the face of modifications versus a database.
A database explicitly separates the data from logic (at least, typically— getting into queries that act conditionally based kn queried data blurs that line a bit) and provides a strong schema and enforced validation at the time data is added or modified. You’re not going to get wrong answers from a database query because somebody added a row at the bottom of a range that isn’t covered by a SUM(), for example.
There's a reason lots of MBA types get issued high-performance, high RAM machines- because asking them to learn SQL or whatever AND asking them to learn how data structures and query syntax work instead of just doing things a little more slowly and throwing more performance at Excel makes a lot of sense.
Not saying it's perfect, but please don't hate on Excel et al because they aren't the perfect world way of doing things.
Using them for business processes is a recipe for sadness. People don’t have the discipline to use them for that, and the tools have too many shortcomings.
In terms of “exploring data” I’ve been in way too many meetings where different users have worked on forks of the same original spreadsheet and come up with contradictory answers.
Re: slowing people down - I’ve had the fortune to show a few “MBA types” how to do JOINs in lieu of the eldritch horrors they’d created attempting to re-implement JOIN with VLOOKUP. The productivity gains were significant. Excel is using a screwdriver to drive nails in some very glaring cases.
> In terms of “exploring data” I’ve been in way too many meetings where different users have worked on forks of the same original spreadsheet and come up with contradictory answers.
You shouldn't use a notepad of SQL statements for processes either!
Once certain things are figured out and planned around for repeated use, they need to be transformed into a proper maintainable form, probably involving careful code with error detection. But that's not a spreadsheet vs. SQL issue. If SQL causes fewer problems it's probably because someone that knows SQL is more likely to have programming knowledge/discipline, not something about SQL itself.
> Re: slowing people down - I’ve had the fortune to show a few “MBA types” how to do JOINs in lieu of the eldritch horrors they’d created attempting to re-implement JOIN with VLOOKUP. The productivity gains were significant. Excel is using a screwdriver to drive nails in some very glaring cases.
It's great to use a JOIN when it's appropriate. But a lot of the time there's still no real need for a database, and you want all the other tools a spreadsheet has. Or there is a good case for a database, but the best answer is having some queries that feed the spreadsheet.
If they were text, I'd expect it to end up as `12345678`, personally. + being reasonably commonly overloaded to mean string concatenation.
The French government believed that Covid cases had stopped increasing, because their federated Excel spreadsheet was silently truncating data at 1 million rows. Accidents like this happen all the time.
Access should be based on Excel, only adding sheet types: single-record forms, SQL reports, pivot tables.
In fact, pivot tables are the proof that Excel is a database tool.
WTF? Are you saying Toyota don't normally put seatbelts in their cars? Like... what???
It was created to count money. So it would make sense to defaults field to number unless it obviously isn't.
People are just using a tool that isn't designed for your current purpose.
I think probably the best change it can do is don't alter the data at input. Instead, alter it at display and compute. Then it won't actually corrupt your data anymore.
Then for a wrong field type, you just need to change the type, and the correct data will be displayed as expected.
Zip codes are not a weird edge case either.
These days I'd disagree. Once upon a time explicitly column delimited data with leading 0 padding may have been common, but I suspect in most software written in the last 20+ years leading 0s if included are more likely relevant parts of the data rather than Hollerith card default punches.
If I type 000012 why would you think I wanted 12?
What’s painful is when a file has phone numbers and excel helpfully converts them all to scientific notation.
That a Excel could introduce bugs due to doing floats behind the scenes.... Completely unacceptable.
I appreciate that comeback. Well played.
Why would we have to hold Excel to higher standards?
Now, that Excel stores binary floats, but tries to pretend to use decimal ones, that’s something I think we can blame it for.
From section 2 of https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~wkahan/Mindless.pdf:
Some parentheses in Microsoft’s Excel 2000 spreadsheet possess uncanny powers: Values Excel 2000 Displays for Several Expressions
Expression 1.23456789012345000E+00 <– Entered to help count digits
V = 4/3 displays… 1.33333333333333000E+00 Does Excel carry 15 sig. dec.?
W=V- 1 3.33333333333333000E-01 Whence comes the 15th 3 ?
X = W*3 1.00000000000000000E+00 Where went all 15 of the 9s ?
Y=X- 1 0.00000000000000000E+00 They all went away !
Z = Y*2^52 0.00000000000000000E+00 Really all gone.
(4/3 - 1)*3 - 1 0.00000000000000000E+00 Yes, gone.
((4/3 - 1)*3 - 1) -2.22044604925031000E-16 (But not ENTIRELY gone !)
((4/3 - 1)*3 - 1)*2^52 -1.00000000000000000E+00 Excel’s arithmetic is weird.Because one of it’s main uses is for doing calculations with money?
I just don’t use excel anymore.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/android/addon/google-search...
That seems... very anticompetitive.
The "solution" here is just a simplification, not something I would call a "solution" (like for an actual equation). But as it isn't an equation, that could be fine. Another weird thing is that it won't simply eliminate the first term with 0x=0. Why?
They are under no obligation to answer you on any method, let alone through an official one that is relatively easy to access. Once again, it's a free service.
But that's not pocket size... what kind of pockets do you...
> in the 90s
Ohhhh, JNCOs!
Google tries to interpret a UUID search query as a math equation and solve it.
$ uuidgen
2b2ec13b-a1a4-49da-938a-50b24a1e416a
Google - https://www.google.com/search?q=2b2ec13b-a1a4-49da-938a-50b2...
$ uuidgen --sha1 --namespace @dns --name "www.google.com"
488416f4-fcaf-5027-8c63-0105cfa213ea
Google - https://www.google.com/search?q=488416f4-fcaf-5027-8c63-0105...
Nothing. Maybe it is a bug?
Only other difference I can see then is >1 contiguous letters in the UUIDS that didn't trigger it, maybe variables have to be single letter.
On Android Firefox it just says there are no results. So if you ever need a UUID, just use that one; Google says it's good!
a number probably infinitely small... Google might be the only user in this case
Exercise: Why?
It did however understand 0o16 (octal) ... and 0b1110 (binary), which is a bit surprising because it is a relatively new addition to C++ (C14) and C (C23).