Social is a Cancer

Two events recently have set me off on what could well end up being a rant.

The first is Kara Swisher’s comments (HN submission and my reply). I firmly believe that the collective brain power and money being spent on social (in particular social “games”) is, well, sad.

The second is the Steam Summer Sale, an annual PC (and Mac and even Linux now I guess) game markdown event where one can pick up games as little as 2 years old for the price of iOS games. I’ve recently gotten back into playing PC games as a distraction and have bought a bunch of games in the last week.

Some are old favourites like Civilization 4 (especially with the superb Fall From Heaven 2 fantasy mod) and the excellent Grand Theft Auto series.

What you notice in playing recent releases (up to 2-3 years) versus older games is one big addition: social. Here is a partial list of what I’ve had to do across various titles recently:

  • Log onto Ubisoft’s much-hated U-play to play Heroes of Might and Magic 6, a franchise I was once very fond of. Demand probably related to Steam was enough to cause intermittent Uplay outages making single player games unplayable. HoMM6 wouldn’t even let me play until I’d logged on to Uplay at least once. Playing it while on Uplay leads to incessant nagging about connecting with friends, sharing my progress and so on;
  • Playing GTA IV involves logging onto the Rockstar Social Club and then Windows Game Live, two separate registrations. Windows Game Live needed to install an update that it failed to on two successive occasions, It only succeeded at all because I happened to notice a background confirmation box that needed to be OKed;
  • Diablo 3 of course only works while online;
  • A friend bought Burnout Paradise on Steam but Steam… ran out of keys. Say what now? How is this not simply a case of Steam being able to generate their own keys? Why is this not a service? and
  • EA, Origin and Kalypso each had their own “social” centers to log onto before you could play the game.

I refused to buy Anno 2070 because its social platform/DRM also included limited activations based on hardware changes. Screw that, screw them and screw the horse they rode in on.

Compare this to GTA 3, Vice City and San Andreas and Civ4, all of which simply worked. Emancipation.

Now part of this is the game industry’s obsession with piracy. Making life difficult for consumers who are paying for games is the surest way of all to create software pirates because I guarantee you that the pirated versions don’t have these problems.

Who really shares “achievements” (you can’t really call them that) with their friends on 17 different social platforms or shares the news on Facebook or Twitter? Who really wants to? Does this really add anything to the game? Is it in any way, shape or form more likely to sell more copies of the game or keep people playing for longer?

“Social” is a cancer and it has to stop.

More accurately this kneejerk obsession with social has to stop. Not everything is “social” and-this goes beyond games—don’t ruin your customers experience by foisting “social” on them and then nagging them about it when they simply want to play or use your product.

And don’t get me started on “social” games. They’re simply some combination of the idea of self-expression (“look how I arranged my farm!”) and inciting compulsive behaviour that’s really not much different from being addicted to gambling. I’ve seen iPhone apps were people have clearly spent thousands of real world dollars. It’s nothing more than an exercise in who spends the most real world money. There is no challenge or end result.

It’s simply a constant cycle of compulsive behaviour and big data analytics to identify what works best in creating addicting behaviour.

Social is a cancer. It’s killing the PC as a gaming platform. That makes me sad. It needs to be irradiated, poisoned and excised before it kills the start-up scene too. Instagram is worth more than the New York Times? Is greater than the development budget for SpaceX’s orbital launch vehicle? Give me a break.

Stop it. Now.

Interview Programming Problems Done Right


Why 37signals Doesn't Hire Programmers Based on Brainteasers and my comment on HN generated a lot of responses, so much so that I'm writing this post to properly explain the essence of a good (IMHO) interview programming problem.

Pascal's Triangle

Pascal's Triangle is a shortcut for getting coefficients most often used binomial probability. The root element is 1. Every other element is the sum of the one or two above it (diagonally left and diagonally right).

There are several variations of the problem:

  • Print out the triangle to a specific row;
  • Return a given row of the triangle;
  • Return a given element (by row and index) of the triangle.

All of them use the same basic logic. You explain this to the interviewee and ask them to solve it on paper or on a whiteboard.

Recursive Solution

The simplest version is a recursive solution, something like:

def value(row, index):
  if index < 0 or index > row:
    return 0
  if index == 0 or index == row:
    return 1
  return value(row-1, index-1) + value(row-1, index)

def row(n):
  return [value(n, x) for x in xrange(0, n+1)]

for i in xrange(10):
  print row(i)

If a candidate can produce this it is at least a working solution even though the performance (for non-trivial n) is prohibitive. Ideally they would be able to point this out (plus the exponential big-O performance).

On my Macbook Pro (2010) this runs for n=20 in about 0.8 seconds.


Some candidates will improve this solution by identifying and caching the repeated calculations. Something like this:

import collections

values = collections.defaultdict(dict)

def value(row, index):
  result = values[row].get(index)
  if result is not None:
    return result
  if index < 0 or index > row:
    return 0
  if index == 0 or index == row:
    return 1
  result = value(row-1, index-1) + value(row-1, index)
  values[row][index] = result
  return result

Real time for n=20 is 0.03 seconds. Bonus points if the candidate correctly states this as "memorization" (rather than the more generic "caching").

Iterative Solution

A more common optimization is to use an iterative rather than recursive solution. The simplest version of this is something like:

rows = [[1]]

for row in xrange(1, 20):
  values = [1]
  prev = rows[-1]
  for index in xrange(1, row):
    values.append(prev[index-1] + prev[index])

for row in rows:
  print row

Performance is similar to the previous one (0.028 seconds). There are lots of subtle variations of this.

Dynamic Programming

The astute candidate will realize that you don't need to store the rows at all. You only ever need the current and the previous rows. This reduces space for O(n2) to O(n).

prev = []
for row in xrange(20):
  curr = [1]
  for index in xrange(1, row):
    curr.append(prev[index-1] + prev[index])
  print curr
  prev = curr

0.027 seconds.

Bonus Points

Assuming f(r, i) returns the value for row r and index i, a candidate may well point out that the triangle is symmetrical, specifically that f(r, i) == f(r, r-i), meaning you, at most, only have to calculate half of the triangle. This is particularly relevant if they are asked to return a specific value (ie f(117, 116) == f(117, 1) == 117).

The second optimization one could make is that since f(r, i) == f(r, i-1) + f(r, i) then to calculate f(r, i) you only need to calculate up to the i'th element of each row.

Why is this a good question?

As demonstrated, the code solutions are short. They're longer in, say, C, C++ or Java rather than Python but not that much longer. The point here isn't to get a perfect solution from the interviewee (meaning that deducting points for a missing colon or a typo would be silly). The purpose of the exercise is to demonstrate the they can turn a relatively simple algorithm into code. They have the thought process to do so. In doing so, their familiarity with their chosen language should be obvious.

Also, there are several degrees of solutions. Any solution trumps no solution but the quality of the solution will give you a useful signal (IMHO).

What should a coding test tell you?

A coding test like this is a negative filter. Assuming your chosen problem is sufficiently simple, if an interviewee can't turn it into at least the outline of code in a reasonable length of time then that's a red flag. If they can do it in record time it doesn't mean they're a rock star. You're just trying to weed out candidates who should've already been screened out.

What's a reasonable length of time? IMHO 5 minutes or less is fast (arguably blazing fast). Anything under 10 minutes is fine. If someone is taking more than say 15-20 minutes, that is possibly cause for concern.


The key qualities in a coding test are:

  1. It needs to be relatively simple. If it takes more than about 20-30 lines of Python to solve it's probably too complex;
  2. It needs to be easy to explain. If someone doesn't know what Pascal's Triangle is, that's not a problem. Explain it; and
  3. The goal is to put thought into code. That code doesn't need to be perfect. It just needs to be sufficiently expressive.