My earlier post included a list of all single-word episode titles. That list is long enough that it could be analyzed in isolation and still produce some interesting results. Firstly, here is a summary:

Single-word titles by Series

It seems the number of single-word episode titles started low and increased over time, peaking with Voyager (although Enterprise was very close behind by percentage of total episodes).

The Original Series

The original Star Trek is the only series to have a season with no single-word titles at all (and it has two if you follow the convention that the original pilot, “The Cage” is part of its own “Season 0”).

Many titles from the original series were intentionally unusual, in the hope it would generate interest from people browsing TV listings (as explained more by Bruce Bennett). This generally led to longer titles and is part of the reason there are so few with just one word.

The Animated Series

The animated series followed a similar naming style to the original, although in this case even the single world titles are pretty odd.

The Next Generation

TNG was clearly a transition point in the history of Star Trek. It was obviously more modern and naturally led into the later series with most of the new production staff staying with Star Trek.

It was also still led by Gene Roddenberry early on, along with some of the original writers. This meant that although there were a plenty of long and unusual titles, the preference for simpler ones was becoming established.

Looking at the list of titles we can see TNG has the first that might stretch the definition of “single word”, and that maybe 11001001 is not even be a word. By my established definition though, it counts.

Deep Space Nine

DS9 followed a similar pattern to TNG. Many single-word titles, but plenty of longer ones too.

It also has another title that is questionable as a single word (that is yet another Q pun) in Q-Less.

Voyager

By the time Voyager was written, the preference for single-word titles is well established, peaking in season 2 in which 20 out of 26 have only one word, and includes two separate runs of seven consecutive episodes with single-word titles.

There is another Q pun with Q2 and a bit of controversy with 11:59.

Enterprise

Enterprise titles continue the trend set in Voyager, despite dipping slightly.

If you wanted to be picky you might question the single-word status of Kir’Shara since not only does it contain an apsotrophe, but also a capital letter in the middle.

What about “the”

My anlysis has so far treated a leading “the” as a word. Repeating this while ignoring “the” may produce interesting results, and at the very least will increase the count in Voyager season 2.

Ions

Finally, while browsing the list one interesting pattern stood out. There are 8 episode titles ending in “ions”, including the longest Transfigurations, and a further 22 ending in “ion”.

Sadly, there are none from the animated series.

One of the features I have planned for Tic-tac-toe Collection is a player rating system.

One such common rating system is the Elo rating system, most famously used in chess. There is a lot of discussion about how good it is, but for my purposes it seems fine - at least as a starting point.

There are two fundamental restrictions on Elo that I would have to overcome though:

• It is limited to two players.
• It assumes each player has an equal chance of winning if they have equal skill.

Elo

First an introduction into how Elo rating works. There are two parts:

Given two player ratings, calculate an expected result.

The expected result is essentially the chance of winning, given as a decimal between 0 and 1, in which 0 represents a guaranteed loss and 1 a guaranteed win.

Given a player rating, an expected result, and an actual result, calculate how much the rating should change.

If you do better than expected then your score will go up. If you do worse then your score will go down. With a bigger difference there will be a bigger change.

Multiplayer

Simple Multiplayer Elo

I found an existing implementation of Elo for more than two players by Tom Kerrigan called Simple Multiplayer Elo.

In SME, players are ordered by performance, and then a simulated match is played between pairs of consecutive players, with the players’ ratings updated using the normal Elo method for two players.

This is certainly acceptable, and Tom includes some tests to show it works well. One oddity is if you get a victory over someone with a much higher rating than you, but also beat them by more than one place, you essentially don’t get the benefit for it. For example, consider the following result:

Here, Player A with a rating of 1000 has beaten Player C with a rating of 1500, but essentially hasn’t gotten the credit for it.

My unnamed Elo

My solution is to conceptually run the algorithm on every pair of players (in this case there would be A v B, B v C and A v C). There is a straightforward optimization so that the estimating part of the operation does not directly depend on the other players, just the difference between a single player’s expected and actual scores. So the algorithm is actually:

1. Calculate the expected scores for each pair of players.
2. Sum the expected score for each player.
3. Divide each score by the number of players to normalize back to the range 0 to 1.
4. Calculate the rating change for each player using their actual score and the combined expected score.

The details

With the same data as above, the results are as follows:

Which is made up of the following score pairs:

This results in rating changes of:

• Player A has gained more which is good. That was basically the goal of the change.
• Player B has now changed a small gain into a moderate loss. That’s a little odd and probably not desired, after all the victory against C should be more significant than the loss against A
• Player C has changed a big loss into a slightly smaller (but still big) loss. After some thought, that is probably reasonable. Although C is expected to win just having more players should generally reduce your expectation of winning and therefore how much you are penalized for failing.

Improvements

So why did these results happen? It might be better to look at a table also including expected and actual results, which reveals a choice that has to be made that I have not yet mentioned:

Notice the actual scores used. Player A has a score of 1 indicating a win. Players B and C have a score of 0, which indicates a loss, but an equal loss.

If we instead use different values for the actual score we get a more sensible result

In this case, the “actual score” for a player placed Nth out of C is:

Handling ties

To be as general as possible (and because it actually happens in some of my multiplayer Tic-tac-toe variants) we need to handle arbitrary ties.

The simplest way is to evenly distribute the score to all the players that are tied. So if the top two players in a three-player game tie, their scores of 0.67 and 0.33 are summed and split between them (0.5 each).

As a more complex example, consider:

Final thoughts

I’ve addressed the first restriction of Elo, only supporting two players. As for unfair games, that will have to wait as this post is long enough as it is.

I wrote a post about calendar reuse that included an offhand comment about Easter. The common definition of when Easter is, is:

the first Sunday after the first full moon that falls on or after the vernal equinox

That isn’t quite right, and I made a vague mention of the correct definition.

Since then, someone has made a video explaining the the correct definition in depth with details about the history and why it is this way.

Interacting with this video is done so under the Terms of Service of YouTube

View this video directly on YouTube

Existing work

Firstly, after doing this much work, I have discovered someone already has done a similar investigation: How long is a Star Trek title? by Bruce Bennett, so check that out. One thing it does have that I don’t, is charts.

Improving workflow

The analysis so far has been done using a Google Docs spreadsheet. I then manually wrote the Markdown for the blog posts, which involved some tedious and error prone tables.

I was originally not going to include the giant list of every single-word episode title, since creating that table did not look like fun.

But… I also started working a little program to do more sophisticated processing, and realised I could also make the program generate the Markdown for me.

The program is a .NET 7 console application writen in C#, and writing it was probably quicker than the manipulation I had to do with the spreadsheet in the first place. It was definitely quicker than producing the Markdown tables in the first post manually.

The end result is I can generate tables of all sorts of random episode lists with different properties of varying levels of interest with very little effort.

After starting my previous post with this question but not answering it, I’ll get straight to the point. There is a tie for first place, with two episode titles that are two characters long:

Shortest episode titles

The shortest title per series is:

Every series has several single word episode titles.

Longest episode titles

Unlike with the shortest episode title, I had a good idea what the longest one was. At least, I had two candidates, but without sitting down and counting, picking one would have been a guess. I can confirm they are the longest two, and I present them both since they are such outliers compared to the rest.

And the longest per series:

This brings us our first controversial result. I decided that ellipses should be treated as a single letter (if only for a sense of typographical superiority). In this case, treating it as three letters would produce a different result:

The titles so far have been longest by letter-count. Longest by word-count can also be determined. This gives identical results, except Voyager and the Animated Series now have ties:

It is often necessary in computer systems to get the current date and time. .NET has had a straightforward way to do that since its inception. What it hasn’t had is a built-in way to customize the behavior, particularly for mocking during automated tests.

Quite why this situation has persisted for so long is a bit of mystery. The importance of automated tests has only risen over time and questions about how to deal with this crop up quite frequently. The general solution is to provide an abstraction that you can inject and mock easily.

The popular date and time library Noda Time includes IClock, and any developers are often directed to use Noda Time for anything making use of anything but the simplest of time-based logic. But it is still odd there is nothing built-in, especially considering there is an existing private implementation in .NET, as well as several in ASP.NET.

Well .NET 8 will finally be getting System.TimeProvider:

namespace System
{
    /// <summary>Provides an abstraction for time. </summary>
    public abstract class TimeProvider
    {
        protected TimeProvider();
        public static TimeProvider System { get; }
        public static TimeProvider FromLocalTimeZone(TimeZoneInfo timeZone);
        public abstract DateTimeOffset UtcNow { get; }
        public DateTimeOffset LocalNow { get; }
        public abstract TimeZoneInfo LocalTimeZone { get; }
        public abstract long GetTimestamp();
        public abstract long TimestampFrequency { get; }
        public TimeSpan GetElapsedTime(long startingTimestamp, long endingTimestamp);
        public abstract ITimer CreateTimer(TimerCallback callback, object? state, TimeSpan dueTime, TimeSpan period);
    }
}

Here is the original GitHub issue and the pull request implementing it.

As well as providing a mockable abstraction to get the current time (including a default implementation providing the system time), it also adds supports to a bunch of other APIs to use a specified instance instead including Task and Timer.

And, best of all, despite my earlier claim that this is a .NET 8 feature, this will also be made available as a package targeting .NET Standard 2.0, so it can be used on .NET Framework and other targets.

I recently found myself idly wondering what the shortest Star Trek episode title was. The first to come to mind was the Original Series episode “Arena” (the one which Captain Kirk fights a humanoid lizard in one of the most striking examples of 1960 “makeup”).

I guessed there were probably shorter ones, but was rather disappointed I didn’t know the answer for sure. So I decided to find out.

While investigating, I also started wondering other things, like: what is the longest episode title? Which series has the shortest or longest titles on average? How many episodes begin with “the”?

I have decided to gather the answers to these questions and more together into a series of blog posts.

Some ground rules

I quickly realised even for “shortest episode title” there were some decisions I would have to make about what would count.

What counts as a letter?

Any character is a letter. So including (but not necessarily limited to):

• The letters A-Z (regardless of case or accents).
• The digits 0-9.
• Any punctuation symbol.
• A space.
• An ellipsis (so three dots … is a single character).

What counts as a word?

Spaces separate words, nothing else does. 37's is one word, as is 11001001.

Which series/episodes are included?

I decided to include all episodes from The Original Series (including “The Cage”), The Animated Series, The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager and Enterprise. This is for the simple practical reason that no more episodes are being produced for these (with the recent annocunement that season 5 of Discovery will be its last, I may redo this including Discovery in the near future).

What about two-part episodes?

For two part episodes (that don’t have completely different titles), I’m just using the “base name”.

About those two-part episodes

The first two-part episode of Star Trek was called “The Menagerie”. In the episode title sequence it is styled as "THE MENAGERIE" PART I and "THE MENAGERIE" PART II, with the part information clearly outside the quotation marks used to identify the title. This suggests the title is in fact “The Menagerie”.

“The Menagerie” (as far as I am aware) was never produced as a single feature length episode. Many other two-part episodes were either broadcast originally as a single episode, or later made available as one (often with additional footage included). This means an episode could potentially have three different names (one for each part individually and one for the whole) and using the “base name” seems most sensible in this case.

It should also be noted, there is little consistency in how the two-part episode titles are handled. Some of them give the first part the “base name” and add “Part II” after whereas others include the part information in both titles. Whether the part information is inside the quotes varies, and even whether the word “part” is included.

So overall, I feel justified in in using the “base name”, just as a way of establishing some kind of order. Although I can already tell I’m going to have to write a detailed blog post covering all of this (especially if I get to including Discovery, since that messes everything up by having an episode titled as if it is the third part of a three-part episode, the first two parts of which are from another series).

Image copyright © Paramount Global and used under fair use.

New audio versions of all* of the Discworld books are being produced. They aren’t being released in order though and as far as I can tell there is no convenient page listing all the release dates.

So here are the release dates currently listed on Audible as of 15th March, 2023. There are a few different ways Discworld books get grouped. “Series” below is how Audible have grouped them (and I assume matches the narrator).

Release date

2021 December 21st

2022 April 28th

2022 July 7th

2022 October 6th

2022 October 27th

2023 February 23rd

2023 March 30th

2023 May 18th

2023 May 25th

2023 June 15th

Reading order

* There are 41 Discworld books. The website says “40 magnificent new recordings”. The one that seems to be missing is “The Last Hero”.

Over the weekend I was playing around with Blazor and created a little number game based on part of a popular British TV show.

In the future this may expand in functionality as part of my exploration into Blazor.

You can try the number game full screen.

Just to avoid any confusion, everything in this post is based on how things work in the UK and is for things available in the UK.

So far I have operated various business ventures off my personal bank account. Since I’ve been doing this as a sole trader, this is allowed. It does however make tax returns take more effort than necessary.

FreeAgent

I recently had reason to interact with FreeAgent, which is some pretty cool accounting software that makes a lot of things simpler. Unfortunately to really use it to its potential, you need to link it to a bank account used solely for your business.

Conveniently, they offer a free account to anyone who has a Mettle account. I had seen Mettle before, and it is described as “the free mobile business account with no hidden fees or charges”, and is operated by NatWest, one of the big UK high street banks.

E-money accounts

After a quick investigation, it seems one of the reasons it is free (which is the norm for personal accounts in the UK but not business accounts) is that it is not actually a bank account, but an “e-money account”. You get an account number as well as a debit card, but it is not subject to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (a scheme in the UK in which the government guarantees bank balances up to a certain amount if a bank goes under).

That limitation seemed fine to me since I did not intend to keep a large balance, so I created an account. Sadly, I found out there are other limitations which basically rendered it useless to me.

Prepaid cards

Firstly, it does not come with an IBAN (international bank account number). This means I cannot receive payments from Apple. Secondly, the card is a prepaid card. Since it is tied to the e-money account they give you, it feels like a debit card to use, except some things just don’t accept payments using them. Crucially for me, Microsoft Azure and Google Ads.

Conclusion

In the end, I opened a business account with Royal Bank of Scotland. RBS and NatWest business accounts also get free FreeAgent accounts. The application was more involved (for Mettle, besides verifying your ID you just have to declare you aren’t in one of their list of prohibited business) but in the end was fine.