I had received a check recently and wrote about it too https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49286258
Knuth reward check (thomas-huehn.com)
nk_kolja 24 minutes ago
CurtHagenlocher 6 hours ago
utopcell 5 hours ago
hbcdbff 4 hours ago
gradus_ad 2 hours ago
thih9 an hour ago
kens 4 hours ago
ape4 6 hours ago
JK-Swizzle 2 hours ago
I would say he could have even gotten away with “functionally infinite number of alphabets”.
rawling 2 hours ago
WillAdams 4 hours ago
Really need to find another error or point of improvement so as to get the digital account --- I've been reading through TAoCP Vol. 4 Fascicle 7 on _Constraint Satisfaction_, but it's been slow going (though I did find out that it is intentional that he not list beginning of chapter quotes in the index).
largbae 5 hours ago
dhosek 4 hours ago
ryandrake 3 hours ago
assumed_throwaw 5 hours ago
WillAdams 4 hours ago
I only managed to get one check (for an error and a point of improvement) for _very_ minor points in _Digital Typography_ which was facilitated by my having been fascinated by typography since reading Oscar Ogg's _The 26 Letters_ and his cousin Warren Chappell's _The Living Alphabet_ when I was 8 or so.
xyst 2 hours ago
bariswheel an hour ago
janvdberg 6 hours ago
(Hmm maybe I should also write a blogpost about this)
utopcell 5 hours ago
jll29 4 hours ago
That claim goes to the Polish cryptoanalyst Marian Rejewski instead, of course (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_Rejewski); what Alan Turing and Tommy Flowers did was automate the breaking, which was important because it had to be done again every day (due to the many combinations of configurations of the Enigma).
jacquesm 5 hours ago
chompychop 4 hours ago
msuniverse2026 an hour ago
mococa 6 hours ago
jdw64 5 hours ago
jacquesm 5 hours ago
jdw64 5 hours ago
dhosek 4 hours ago
My guess for the top slot off the top of my head was actually #4.
zimpenfish 4 hours ago
> "These account balances reflect only the rewards for errors reported since the beginning of 2006. Many reward checks were issued during 1968--2005, too numerous to mention here."
There's 20 years on that chart vs 37 not on it.
Also that's "account balance" rather than "the most Reward checks" which I take to mean "the most [number of] reward checks" -- there's probably a correlation, yes, but [0] shows a variety of ways where check values are non-constant.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuth_reward_check#Reward_amou...
jacquesm 4 hours ago
You probably have a substantial subset of the people on that list on HN, so it might be possible to recover a chunk of the 'paper era'.
blltprfmnk 4 hours ago
For the record I cashed both and have zero regrets. At the time it definitely felt like the right thing to do as I am not into collecting tokens.
BellsOnSunday an hour ago
zimpenfish 3 hours ago
I'm not doubting the authority on the balances; it's the correlation to the number of checks I'm querying - high balance doesn't necessarily mean high number of checks, especially since the checks can have different values.
jacquesm 23 minutes ago
drfuchs 16 minutes ago
nice_byte 3 hours ago
thank god it wasn't that lol
blatherard 6 hours ago
TimK65 3 hours ago
deathanatos 3 hours ago
tomhow 3 hours ago
deathanatos 3 hours ago
https://www.thomas-huehn.com/knuth-reward-check
But this means the images, whose hrefs are like, src="./bug-report-knuth-2006.jpg"
Don't load; that relative-ref results in a URL of https://www.thomas-huehn.com/bug-report-knuth-2006.jpg
Which is a 404.One can infer that the post's URI is like a "directory" of the subresources for the post, including those images; the URL of
https://www.thomas-huehn.com/knuth-reward-check/
(n.b. the trailing slash) adjusts the resolution of the image's relative-ref now to: https://www.thomas-huehn.com/knuth-reward-check/bug-report-knuth-2006.jpg
And the images load. Yes, trailing slashes in URLs are significant in the case of resolving a relative ref like that.If the author is here, you might consider redirecting the non-slash to the slash.
> But why will you find me there with the entry “0x$1.20”, i.e. decimal $2.88?
I know Knuth has his own notation here, (it is clearly noted at the bottom of the BOSS page) but 0x1.20 should really be decimal 1.125.
tomhow 3 hours ago
simonebrunozzi an hour ago