pull down to refresh

28 sats \ 5 replies \ @Undisciplined 3 Aug \ parent \ on: SN release: random zap amounts, webln attached wallet meta
It's always fun when seemingly simple problems turn out to be a bit thorny.
If people want to get really wild, you could only scale the upper bound.
write
preview
27 sats \ 4 replies \ @k00b OP 3 Aug
Either that or make sure the ranges don't intersect. Rather than: 1-21,10-210,100-2100. Do: 1-21,22-210,211-2100.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 3 Aug
That's neat.
reply
33 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b OP 3 Aug
Or maybe just scaling the lower bound: 1-21,10-31,100-121,1000-1021
Or scaling the lower bound faster (still preventing overlap): 1-21,22-100,101-210,1000-2100
reply
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 3 Aug
If I understand the second one, there should be a 211-1000. That seems fun, too. The first option seems lame.
reply
31 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b OP 4 Aug
Yeah, I messed that one up. The case where the upper bound is larger than 10x the lower bound is weird.
I like the randomness increasing slightly slower though.
reply