Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Schneelocke

5000 users

Recommended Posts

Schneelocke said:

The forums passed 5000 registered users recently. Congrats to buntcake for being the 5000th. ^^


Heh.Many users never ever posted here at all, they just register and leave.Did Buntcake ever posted??

Share this post


Link to post

No. Being a registered lurker isn't completely pointless: it means you can search the forums and view people's profiles.

Just because someone isn't posting doesn't mean they're not benefiting from this place.

Share this post


Link to post
Grazza said:

No. Being a registered lurker isn't completely pointless: it means you can search the forums and view people's profiles.

Just because someone isn't posting doesn't mean they're not benefiting from this place.


Besides, what benefits would deleting inactive accounts have?

Share this post


Link to post

It would have serious negative effects: it would screw up any threads in which they have posted. (I hadn't responded to that part of the suggestion because there's no chance of it being taken seriously. I think.)

Share this post


Link to post

Heh actually I did prune a bunch of inactive accounts around the time Doom 3 was released. 839 I think it was. Ling did a similar prune years back so we've probably had well over 6,000 registrations total.

Deleting accounts of members who have posted will result in their posts showing the "Ignored Member" message for everybody who views the thread regardless of their individual ignore preferences (see reply by Fanatic in this thread), so we never prune anybody who's made a post or been banned/losered. The search criteria for the last prune were: registered user; 0 posts; hasn't logged in since Jan 1, 2004. I also made an exceptions list of important users, people who've had their postcounts reset or people who've only posted in blogs.

Share this post


Link to post
Schneelocke said:

Here's another milestone: Melfice has just posted the post with postid 500000. Not the 500000th post yet, but still nice. ^^


And why not celebrate the 500001th post?! THAT'S A BIG NUMBER TOO!

Who cares. ;)

EDIT: here's a winking face for ya as collateral.

Share this post


Link to post
Vile said:

And why not celebrate the 500001th post?! THAT'S A BIG NUMBER TOO!

Who cares. ;)

EDIT: here's a winking face for ya as collateral.


Sure, it's just another number... but then, for example, isn't 30 minutes for a 30nm run, too? Does it make a difference whether you can get below 30:00 or, say, 31:47? You probably won't hear anyone say "yay, this is a historic moment, the first time this was done in less than 31:47", yet people will (did) say things like that about reaching a sub-30:00 time. ^^

I hope this made some sense - I'm so tired I can hardly type. ^^

Share this post


Link to post
Schneelocke said:

Sure, it's just another number... but then, for example, isn't 30 minutes for a 30nm run, too? Does it make a difference whether you can get below 30:00 or, say, 31:47? You probably won't hear anyone say "yay, this is a historic moment, the first time this was done in less than 31:47", yet people will (did) say things like that about reaching a sub-30:00 time. ^^


I do that because people will bug me about it otherwise.

Well played contradiction, though.

Speaking of which, it's taking a while for Henning to take his record back... I wonder if he's waiting to submit it on the 31st or something.

Share this post


Link to post

Those two numbers are not equally special. 30:00 is more special because it has very low information intropy, whereas 31:47 has high information entropy. Strings (we can think of numbers as strings of digits) with high entropy are ubiquitous, whereas strings with low entropy are rare. Note that information entropy (or, equally, Kolmogorov complexity) is a mathematically well-defined concept.

(One may argue that in the case of 31:47 and 30:00, the difference in entropy is insignificant. But think 3147...[insert normal distribution of 1000000 random digits here] and 3000...[insert 1000000 zeroes here], and the difference will will apply in a highly concrete form. In fact, the difference will be infinite if you continue infinitely many digits.)

Share this post


Link to post

It took you two paragraphs to say that "30 is a nice round number that rolls off the tongue easily".

Share this post


Link to post
Numbermind said:

It took you two paragraphs to say that "30 is a nice round number that rolls off the tongue easily".

No. That is a consequence of the things I explained combined with how human language works, but not the same thing as what I explained.

Share this post


Link to post
Fredrik said:

Those two numbers are not equally special. 30:00 is more special because it has very low information intropy, whereas 31:47 has high information entropy. Strings (we can think of numbers as strings of digits) with high entropy are ubiquitous, whereas strings with low entropy are rare. Note that information entropy (or, equally, Kolmogorov complexity) is a mathematically well-defined concept.

(One may argue that in the case of 31:47 and 30:00, the difference in entropy is insignificant. But think 3147...[insert normal distribution of 1000000 random digits here] and 3000...[insert 1000000 zeroes here], and the difference will will apply in a highly concrete form. In fact, the difference will be infinite if you continue infinitely many digits.)


My point was not that 30:00 is not special.

Share this post


Link to post

Then what on Jupiter is "Does it make a difference whether you can get below 30:00 or, say, 31:47? You probably won't hear anyone say "yay, this is a historic moment, the first time this was done in less than 31:47", yet people will (did) say things like that about reaching a sub-30:00 time." supposed to mean?

Share this post


Link to post

It was just meant to illustrate the point that certain numbers *are* more interesting than others. 30:00 for a 30nm is a more interesting milestone than 31:47 (e.g.), and a postid of 500000 is more interesting than one of, say, 493761.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×