{"items": [{"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1329930481"}, {"author": "Danner", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/116647865129021?comment_id=116697895124018", "anchor": "fb-116697895124018", "service": "fb", "text": "I've worked out the gardens too, and there are quite a few cards in M:TG that need that sort of math to work out, not to mention WoW skills/items that stack.", "timestamp": "1329931968"}, {"author": "Mac", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/116647865129021?comment_id=116710211789453", "anchor": "fb-116710211789453", "service": "fb", "text": "I thought you meant the fancy dudes standing outside the Tower of London...", "timestamp": "1329932891"}, {"author": "Josh", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/118273920476267337216", "anchor": "gp-1329977577293", "service": "gp", "text": "I find it surprisingly (embarassingly? :^) easy to mistake N-squared for 2-to-the-N. Playing 7 Wonders the other day (for like the second time), I was stunned to realize that picking up the fourth of the given science was only going to score me seven points, and that it would have been way better to have two of each than to have four of one, three of another, and one of another.\n<br>\n<br>\nI was curious about the formula too. The difference between two squares is always the next odd number?!? But of course it falls right out of the math. If you assume that N squared plus K will equal N+1 squared for any N, you expand N+1 squared to N squared plus 2N plus one, the N squared terms drop out, and tada, K = 2N+1. (Where K is the value of the next card, and N is how many you already have.)\n<br>\n<br>\nAnyway, this is way different than 2-to-the-N, when the value of the next card is in fact 2-to-the-N, where N is the number of cards you already have, and thus huge. With N squared, it feels like the distance between squares increasing, but it's increasing linearly.\n<br>\n<br>\nRamble ramble. This is probably all obvious to anyone for whom it isn't one in the morning. :^)", "timestamp": 1329977577}, {"author": "Frederic", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/118156077148469167305", "anchor": "gp-1330181266355", "service": "gp", "text": "Josh: 2-2-2 scores 22 points, 4-3-1 scores 32 points. 2-2-2 is only better if you can average &gt;5 points a card with your remaining plays", "timestamp": 1330181266}, {"author": "Josh", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/118273920476267337216", "anchor": "gp-1330181650038", "service": "gp", "text": "Hmm, I thought there were four kinds, and it was 2-2-2-2 (30) vs 4-3-1-0 (26). Maybe it was actually 2-2-2 (26) vs 4-3-0 (25)? I think the particular thing was that I had an empty column, and realized that my marginal value was higher to get two in that column than to get an additional one in two of each other column.", "timestamp": 1330181650}]}