Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It's only a pointless distraction when people see these challenges and treat them as a game to be tricked. Mike already made it clear the challenge is not about financial compensation (and offered to give Patrick the $100 back even though Patrick did not win, under the very generous assumption that Patrick innocently misunderstood the challenge instead of deliberately tried to subvert it).

The point of a challenge like this is the same as the point of the Randi challenge: to provide a means to demonstrate that impossible claims are impossible (in this case, that of being able to compress truly random data, and in the case of the Randi challenge, supernatural/magical abilities such as ESP). After all, if any such claim were valid, then the claimant would be able to defeat the challenge, assuming that the stated rules are fair (and they are).

Which is to say, the point of a challenge like this is not actually to have anyone enter. It's just to be.

> This type of challenge should never be made or accepted, if financial incentives are involved, without an impartial adjudicator.

Did you read the whole page? Mike did offer an impartial adjudicator:

> I would gladly submit any such submission to an impartial ombudsman to determine the question of whether data compression has occurred.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: