Large, long, uncircumcised (or “How to make a lot of text at home”)
Good afternoon, residents of Habr.
Surely, many of you have come across such a situation - at a certain point you will need a large amount of text (for example, you will roll up the page, and check the blocks for "rubberiness")
And the ways of obtaining such text can be divided into three large groups:
We will not consider the first two ways, in view of sufficient autonomy of each of them (besides, almost everyone, with some exceptions, uses the second method, with time + gaining experience of the “Computer Operator”, comes to naught, and is completely replaced by the first or third method ).
')
We will consider the third method and find out how justified its use is and how to modernize it in order to achieve an optimal result in terms of time / labor costs.
Yes, I must warn you, this article is not even of a near-scientific nature, and everything described in it is the result of the brain's unwillingness to do the right thing, and the desire to engage in frank nonsense.
I am surprised, and at the same time glad that you are still reading these lines!
To begin, I will tell you how to calculate the efficiency, and the calculations themselves will be lower in the table.
So, suppose that one pressing of Ctrl + A , Ctrl + C or Ctrl + V takes us 1 point ... One point Effort, yes, so be it. This point is obtained in the following way: 0.5 points - for moving the hand to another position (shifting fingers from A to C and V ), and another 0.5 points - for pressing the combination itself.
This means that the standard and well-loved combination Ctrl + A -> Ctrl + C -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V will require 3.5 points from us Efforts for one iteration. And at the same time it will increase the source text by 2 times. I will cite part of the final table, for clarification:
The first column is the iteration number, the second is the number of Effort points spent at the time of this iteration, the third is the size of the initial text increasing by so many times.
As we can see, at the time of the 10th iteration, we spent 35 Effort points, and increased the initial text 1024 times. Impressive, but not enough to stop there.
We are upgrading our initial combination Ctrl + A -> Ctrl + C -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V in Ctrl + A -> Ctrl + C -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V , and that we get in the dry residue?
The “cost” of one iteration has increased to 4 points, but the efficiency has greatly increased. Spending the first combination of 28 points, we received an increase of 256 times, and for the second combination, this figure increased to 2187 times! And with each subsequent iteration, the coefficient of difference increases with a third! Not bad! Is it possible still? ...
Is it possible still? - this question tormented me all tonight! It was not difficult to calculate the first two combinations in the mind, and to make sure that the changes were reasonable. But I could not find out at what point the increase in the combination will lead to regression, counting each iteration for each combination in my head. If you could - now you would not have to read all this heresy :)
It turned out to find the optimal combination fairly quickly, but I could only stop when I noticed a clear decrease in the magnification factor. For this, ten combinations were enough. And here is the most noticeable decrease in "efficiency" - the 10th combination, spending 48 points of effort, we get an increase of 1 771 561 times. Almost 2 million, not sour! And everything would be fine if it were not for the 8th combination, with 49 points, receiving 4,782,969.
“Stop, how is it,” you will say, “in the 10th combination we spent only 48 points, and received almost 2 million. And here, although the result is nearing 5 million, but already 49 points!”
Yes, but you can relax - adding an additional point to the 10th combination is just 2 presses of Ctrl + V (I remind you that one click at that moment increases the result by 161,051. That is, two clicks are a little more than 320 thousand that we already will not save)
In addition, if you really want complete coincidence, then the same 10th combination and 48 points (1,771,561) also cannot withstand rivalry with the 6th combination, which has 5,764,801 magnifications at 48 points. For me, this data was more than enough to figure out how to copy-paste the fastest :)
Below, as promised, I attach the full table, with a detailed calculation of each combination.
ps yes, I forgot to clarify that the most successful is the 6th combination. It is the one that shows the best result (if we compare the first 5-10 iterations, but more of them are usually not required, unless you want to recreate the approximate length of the novel War and Peace)
Well, since you read it right up to here - thank you very much for your attention, and I apologize for the time spent.
Surely, many of you have come across such a situation - at a certain point you will need a large amount of text (for example, you will roll up the page, and check the blocks for "rubberiness")
And the ways of obtaining such text can be divided into three large groups:
- Insert a whole piece of text copied from the nearest site \ manual and so on.
- High-speed pressing of all keys on the keyboard, using the maximum number of body parts.
- Ctrl + A -> Ctrl + C -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V.
We will not consider the first two ways, in view of sufficient autonomy of each of them (besides, almost everyone, with some exceptions, uses the second method, with time + gaining experience of the “Computer Operator”, comes to naught, and is completely replaced by the first or third method ).
')
We will consider the third method and find out how justified its use is and how to modernize it in order to achieve an optimal result in terms of time / labor costs.
Yes, I must warn you, this article is not even of a near-scientific nature, and everything described in it is the result of the brain's unwillingness to do the right thing, and the desire to engage in frank nonsense.
I am surprised, and at the same time glad that you are still reading these lines!
To begin, I will tell you how to calculate the efficiency, and the calculations themselves will be lower in the table.
So, suppose that one pressing of Ctrl + A , Ctrl + C or Ctrl + V takes us 1 point ... One point Effort, yes, so be it. This point is obtained in the following way: 0.5 points - for moving the hand to another position (shifting fingers from A to C and V ), and another 0.5 points - for pressing the combination itself.
This means that the standard and well-loved combination Ctrl + A -> Ctrl + C -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V will require 3.5 points from us Efforts for one iteration. And at the same time it will increase the source text by 2 times. I will cite part of the final table, for clarification:
| Ctrl + A -> Ctrl + C -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V | ||
| Iteration number | Force Points | The increase rate of the initial text |
| one | 3.5 | 2 |
| 2 | 7.0 | four |
| 3 | 10.5 | eight |
| four | 14.0 | sixteen |
| five | 17.5 | 32 |
| 6 | 21.0 | 64 |
| 7 | 24.5 | 128 |
| eight | 28.0 | 256 |
| 9 | 31.5 | 512 |
| ten | 35.0 | 1024 |
| eleven | 38.5 | 2048 |
The first column is the iteration number, the second is the number of Effort points spent at the time of this iteration, the third is the size of the initial text increasing by so many times.
As we can see, at the time of the 10th iteration, we spent 35 Effort points, and increased the initial text 1024 times. Impressive, but not enough to stop there.
We are upgrading our initial combination Ctrl + A -> Ctrl + C -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V in Ctrl + A -> Ctrl + C -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V , and that we get in the dry residue?
| Ctrl + A -> Ctrl + C -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V | ||
| Iteration number | Force Points | The increase rate of the initial text |
| one | 4.0 | 3 |
| 2 | 8.0 | 9 |
| 3 | 12.0 | 27 |
| four | 16.0 | 81 |
| five | 20.0 | 243 |
| 6 | 24.0 | 729 |
| 7 | 28.0 | 2187 |
| eight | 32.0 | 6561 |
| 9 | 36.0 | 19683 |
| ten | 40.0 | 59049 |
The “cost” of one iteration has increased to 4 points, but the efficiency has greatly increased. Spending the first combination of 28 points, we received an increase of 256 times, and for the second combination, this figure increased to 2187 times! And with each subsequent iteration, the coefficient of difference increases with a third! Not bad! Is it possible still? ...
Is it possible still? - this question tormented me all tonight! It was not difficult to calculate the first two combinations in the mind, and to make sure that the changes were reasonable. But I could not find out at what point the increase in the combination will lead to regression, counting each iteration for each combination in my head. If you could - now you would not have to read all this heresy :)
It turned out to find the optimal combination fairly quickly, but I could only stop when I noticed a clear decrease in the magnification factor. For this, ten combinations were enough. And here is the most noticeable decrease in "efficiency" - the 10th combination, spending 48 points of effort, we get an increase of 1 771 561 times. Almost 2 million, not sour! And everything would be fine if it were not for the 8th combination, with 49 points, receiving 4,782,969.
“Stop, how is it,” you will say, “in the 10th combination we spent only 48 points, and received almost 2 million. And here, although the result is nearing 5 million, but already 49 points!”
Yes, but you can relax - adding an additional point to the 10th combination is just 2 presses of Ctrl + V (I remind you that one click at that moment increases the result by 161,051. That is, two clicks are a little more than 320 thousand that we already will not save)
In addition, if you really want complete coincidence, then the same 10th combination and 48 points (1,771,561) also cannot withstand rivalry with the 6th combination, which has 5,764,801 magnifications at 48 points. For me, this data was more than enough to figure out how to copy-paste the fastest :)
Below, as promised, I attach the full table, with a detailed calculation of each combination.
| 1) Ctrl + A -> Ctrl + C -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V | ||
| Iteration number | Force Points | The increase rate of the initial text |
| one | 3.5 | 2 |
| 2 | 7.0 | four |
| 3 | 10.5 | eight |
| four | 14.0 | sixteen |
| five | 17.5 | 32 |
| 6 | 21.0 | 64 |
| 7 | 24.5 | 128 |
| eight | 28.0 | 256 |
| 9 | 31.5 | 512 |
| ten | 35.0 | 1024 |
| eleven | 38.5 | 2048 |
| 2) Ctrl + A -> Ctrl + C -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V | ||
| Iteration number | Force Points | The increase rate of the initial text |
| one | 4.0 | 3 |
| 2 | 8.0 | 9 |
| 3 | 12.0 | 27 |
| four | 16.0 | 81 |
| five | 20.0 | 243 |
| 6 | 24.0 | 729 |
| 7 | 28.0 | 2187 |
| eight | 32.0 | 6561 |
| 9 | 36.0 | 19683 |
| ten | 40.0 | 59049 |
| 3) Ctrl + A -> Ctrl + C -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V | ||
| Iteration number | Force Points | The increase rate of the initial text |
| one | 4.5 | four |
| 2 | 9.0 | sixteen |
| 3 | 13.5 | 64 |
| four | 18.0 | 256 |
| five | 22.5 | 1024 |
| 6 | 27.0 | 4096 |
| 7 | 31.5 | 16384 |
| eight | 36.0 | 65536 |
| 9 | 40.5 | 262144 |
| 4) Ctrl + A -> Ctrl + C -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V | ||
| Iteration number | Force Points | The increase rate of the initial text |
| one | 5.0 | five |
| 2 | 10.0 | 25 |
| 3 | 15.0 | 125 |
| four | 20.0 | 625 |
| five | 25.0 | 3125 |
| 6 | 30.0 | 15625 |
| 7 | 35.0 | 78125 |
| eight | 40.0 | 390625 |
| 9 | 45.0 | 1953125 |
| 5) Ctrl + A -> Ctrl + C -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V | ||
| Iteration number | Force Points | The increase rate of the initial text |
| one | 5.5 | 6 |
| 2 | 11.0 | 36 |
| 3 | 16.5 | 216 |
| four | 22.0 | 1296 |
| five | 27.5 | 7776 |
| 6 | 33.0 | 46656 |
| 7 | 38.5 | 279936 |
| eight | 44.0 | 1679616 |
| 6) Ctrl + A -> Ctrl + C -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V | ||
| Iteration number | Force Points | The increase rate of the initial text |
| one | 6.0 | 7 |
| 2 | 12.0 | 49 |
| 3 | 18.0 | 343 |
| four | 24.0 | 2401 |
| five | 30.0 | 16807 |
| 6 | 36.0 | 117649 |
| 7 | 42.0 | 823543 |
| eight | 48.0 | 5764801 |
| 7) Ctrl + A -> Ctrl + C -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V | ||
| Iteration number | Force Points | The increase rate of the initial text |
| one | 6.5 | eight |
| 2 | 13.0 | 64 |
| 3 | 19.5 | 512 |
| four | 26.0 | 4096 |
| five | 32.5 | 32768 |
| 6 | 39.0 | 262144 |
| 7 | 45.5 | 2097152 |
| 8) Ctrl + A -> Ctrl + C -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V | ||
| Iteration number | Force Points | The increase rate of the initial text |
| one | 7.0 | 9 |
| 2 | 14.0 | 81 |
| 3 | 21.0 | 729 |
| four | 28.0 | 6561 |
| five | 35.0 | 59049 |
| 6 | 42.0 | 531441 |
| 7 | 49.0 | 4782969 |
| 9) Ctrl + A -> Ctrl + C -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V | ||
| Iteration number | Force Points | The increase rate of the initial text |
| one | 7.5 | ten |
| 2 | 15.0 | 100 |
| 3 | 22.5 | 1000 |
| four | 30.0 | 10,000 |
| five | 37.5 | 100,000 |
| 6 | 45.0 | 1,000,000 |
| 10) Ctrl + A -> Ctrl + C -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V -> Ctrl + V | ||
| Iteration number | Force Points | The increase rate of the initial text |
| one | 8.0 | eleven |
| 2 | 16.0 | 121 |
| 3 | 24.0 | 1311 |
| four | 32.0 | 14641 |
| five | 40.0 | 161051 |
| 6 | 48.0 | 1771561 |
ps yes, I forgot to clarify that the most successful is the 6th combination. It is the one that shows the best result (if we compare the first 5-10 iterations, but more of them are usually not required, unless you want to recreate the approximate length of the novel War and Peace)
Well, since you read it right up to here - thank you very much for your attention, and I apologize for the time spent.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/162623/
All Articles