I got up to 16220 that way-- the thing you have to look out for though is as you build the cascading layers, when you get the row three, not to block yourself in (having all 3 rows full so that the only direction you can go, is the one you are avoiding).
Try to keep your cascading layers down to 2, and keep about 2 steps ahead when you get to the 3rd layer.
Many people have suggested keeping your highest number in the corner but I've found that doing so makes it easier to have 2's and 4's "invade" that fortress of high numbers you're building close to the wall.
The best position is for the highest number to be 2nd or 3rd in the row closest to the wall cushioned by the second highest numbers on either side so that you can build up the numbers to either side of them, and eventually add them in.
Why are people are having such a visceral reaction to this idea? Finding alternatives to solid, "fresh" food is an issue we will have address in the near future, if not right now. With forecasts about population growth rapidly rising (We said it would reach 10 billion by 2100. It only took 13 years to jump from 6-7 billion.)
This could be implemented not only for hunger in impoverished nations, but for world overpopulation and depletion of resources including livestock and agriculture.
People are commenting this guy is crazy. But in the next few decades I'd rather there was 100 crazy guys trying this for every McDonald's junkie.
You're right, but sadly this innovation, if it works, has the potential to make the problem worse. Human population, like any population of any organism, will grow logistically approaching some limiting factor. If we don't like a world in which 10B people are limited by agricultural capacity, we'd like a world in which 100B people are limited by something else even less.
The solution is to find cultural limits lower than our agricultural limits. It's possible that we've already done this, and we won't know it until all of Africa undergoes the demographic transition. (Please note: by cultural limits I mean things like changing family norms rather than forced sterilization, resource-motivated warfare, and other such monstrous practices.)
Anyway, world hunger right now is not a problem of there not being enough food, it is a problem of food distribution. There is enough arable land in the Democratic Republic of Congo to feed all of Africa, but wars, greed, and other things stop it from happening.
This actually reminds me of the opening scene to the Youtube series "H+". The web series is surrounds the subject of 'transhumanism' and the changes we experience in our daily interactions when living with technology. People become remarkably disconnected with each other, and unable to survive without being perpetually connected.
The implant H+ gives people constant access to information through the internet, and are always online, which creates the foundation for a global disaster in which someone hacks the system and shuts everybody "off."
I always thought it was ironic that the series came out shortly after the Google Glass announcement because if you take a look, H+ seems strikingly similar..
"Uber probably didn't have a "what to do in a human tragedy" playbook and instead ran their normal operating procedures."
While this is true, it's surprising that they do not have a PR/customer service/support person that specifically keeps an eye out for incidents (or opportunities) like these. As much as their business is based on algorithms, it is run by humans, at least one of which who could have understood how the situation would appear to the average person.
"Uber: On Election Day, this car-service company will be offering customers a free ride to or from a national polling place, up to $20.12. Any amount above $20.12 will be charged, and the offer is only available during the city's voting hours."
I can guarantee no matter how many kudos Uber gets for encouraging people to vote--
"The average person just heard that Uber was charging New Yorkers more" post-disaster.
Duracell gave free batteries and had recharge stations. Comcast had free wifi for both subscribers and non-subscribers in certain hotspots. NYTimes and WSJ had free access to their site for up-to-date information. Chase allowed people to recharge their devices at their ATMs (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/121031113932-sandy-c...). JP Morgan waived late fees for people within affected states. UHaul offered 30 days free storage for Sandy evacuees. Walmart donated truck loads of dry food, beverages, cleaning supplies, and board games.
It's a very small cost in exchange for making a strong impact towards existing and new customers.
That's exactly what they did after the flood of negative press. I live in the Lower East Side and even without the stoplights there are traffic cops directing and it is generally safe walking and driving downtown with no water and debris in the streets.
Yellow cabs and black cabs are already hiking up their prices and "negotiating" with passengers so it would have been nice to see Uber step up in this case.
"...Uber finally backed down and agreed to pay drivers an increased rate but keep fares at their normal leves"
The outrage here stems from the fact that people do not perceive Uber as the corner grocery store, or some guy on the corner selling umbrellas at twice their cost when its raining. Uber is perceived, as most startups are, as a "good guy," an entity who would try first and foremost to help during a crisis before trying to make a profit.
If they had done this (eat the losses) from the beginning not only could they have avoided the bad press but probably gotten enough good pr to increase their customer base.
Or more likely, it stems from the fact that some people understand economics and some don't.
You want prices to go up in an emergency, because it creates incentives to go beyond usual measures to provide supply. Anti-gouging laws are not just useless, they are mindbogglingly harmful. There's a good reason you don't set ceilings on prices during usual times: If the cost of supply goes above set price, there is no supply and people have to go without. The pricing mechanism still works and is even more important when there is an emergency. If conditions make providing supply hard and legislation limits the prices to a set ceiling, retailers aren't going to eat the cost of providing supply, they are just going to say that it's too hard and close up for the duration. If prices are allowed to rise naturally, it incentivizes not just going above and beyond to get goods where they need to be, but also stockpiling supplies before the disaster.
Price gouging is a good thing, because the choice is not between very expensive bread and non-gouged bread, but between very expensive bread and no bread. If there was enough supply to provide for all demand during the crisis, prices wouldn't go up.
Price "gouging" (if you can call it that under the circumstances I'm outlining) is a good thing as long as prices are going up relative to the risk taken in the seller procuring the goods. To use an example that exists outside of the controlled economy, if drug enforcement teams are cracking down hard on a city, the price of marijuana is going to increase. The dealers and growers are taking a much more increased risk to keep supply.
However, here in Michigan after 9/11 (a place not directly affected by the disaster), gas prices shot up drastically, immediately. The governor stepped in and set gas prices at a controlled rate, with serious repercussions if the price limit was breached. That's an example of bad price gouging, in an area where that type of activity should be controlled. There was no immediate threat to Michigan's gas supply, nor to the Michigan transportation network. Prices were not going up as a result of increased risk in the market, but because companies knew they could incite a buying panic at a hugely inflated profit margin. They knew that when their supplies of highly profitable gas ran out, they could get more at the normal rate, then sell it massively inflated again.
What Uber is doing while operating in NYC right now is an example of increased risk. NYC is in a disaster zone. There is a massively increased risk to operating a business on the streets of New York currently. With the public transport out, they need more drivers. Depending on the area, they might need drivers willing to take the risk of operating on these streets. There is a risk to the continuity of their business, a need to fill demand with limited supply. Increasing prices temporarily makes sense. It's the tradeoff between everyone can afford it but no one can buy it versus some can afford it but all who can will be able to buy it.
If the government wants to limit the ability of the market to assess risk, maybe they should compensate Uber and other hire-car companies (aka cabs) to help offset the supply vs demand equation.
I read a book recently called "Cradle to Cradle" (http://amzn.to/Y9iRqm) and it argues against the existing, linear cradle-to-grave lifecycle of consumer items. That instead of taking the "reduce reuse recycle" approach to sustainability, sustainability needs to be achieved from the most basic foundations of design.
It asks the question, what if instead of avoiding waste, we could “eliminate the concept of waste” altogether? What if instead of “working hard to be less bad,” we could create things with completely positive intentions and effects?
Muji is going the right direction with small and achievable design changes to address "high hanging fruit" that actually create substantial impact, though more importantly, they invite the notion that we can live in a sustainable world without reducing our ability to produce and consume to the fullest extent.
The new design doesn't seem to change much though. This is understandable since they started working on this before Marissa Mayer joined Yahoo, but it'd be nice to see how an entire redesign including a better way to categorize that left column would look.
I especially hope that giant "astrology" section is just a module users can change out..
Try to keep your cascading layers down to 2, and keep about 2 steps ahead when you get to the 3rd layer. Many people have suggested keeping your highest number in the corner but I've found that doing so makes it easier to have 2's and 4's "invade" that fortress of high numbers you're building close to the wall. The best position is for the highest number to be 2nd or 3rd in the row closest to the wall cushioned by the second highest numbers on either side so that you can build up the numbers to either side of them, and eventually add them in.
Example:
X___X___X___X
X___X___2___4
8___16__32__16
64__256_512_128