3 ms·

I have no idea why anyone would downvote the current comment. I've edited to be clear I'm being totally open-ended. >3.8M is probably the more accurate count.

I have no idea why anyone would downvote the current comment. I've edited to be clear I'm being totally open-ended. >3.8M is probably the more accurate count. You mean "than 3.9" right? So in an open-ended way, genuinely curious here, would you say the 2.63M he's at now (as I screenshotted for you) an "even more accurate" figure? just trying to understand the change in figures - I don't have a horse in this race and can certainly accept your reasoning. I don't know much about how these counts work.

freehunter 10y ago
I don't know at all, but a number that high may be fuzzy like with reddit's voting system. At some point to save database queries, they may just approximate the number.
- logicallee 10y ago
  that's an interesting perspective - though fuzzing by 46% seems more than I would expect (but may be possible.) I got 46% by doing 3.8/2.6 (you can check because 2.6 * 1.46 == 3.8). ----------------------------------- EDIT: I didn't change above the line with this edit but - why would anyone downvote this comment too? when all I say is it's an interesting perspective. (There are no comment replies at this time, just a downvote.) Also I reread my comment and I noticed that it was not actually listed as 2.6 - but 2.63 -- so two sig figs. I actually took screenshots (for myself) with my clock, this is an interesting change: http://imgur.com/a/CU7Qm http://imgur.com/a/CU7Qm it's -0.11m change over about 2 hours 21 min. (take 7 seconds). I don't know what part of that is "fuzzing" (like reddit does) what part of that is lack of coherence (from distributed DB), and what part of that is the actual change. I would think, if anything, it would move up during this time due to the extra attention - maybe HN, CNN and other readers would sub to him after reading this story. at any rate it's certainly a puzzle to me why anyone would downvote this comment. (I don't think it's malicious and there's just one downvote.)
  - freehunter 10y ago
    Someone in this thread is down voting just about everything. I wouldn't take it personally.
dustingetz 10y ago
the big idea here is that distributed systems are complicated and accuracy is often sacrificed to make an intractable problem easier.

freehunter 10y ago

I don't know at all, but a number that high may be fuzzy like with reddit's voting system. At some point to save database queries, they may just approximate the number.

logicallee 10y ago
that's an interesting perspective - though fuzzing by 46% seems more than I would expect (but may be possible.) I got 46% by doing 3.8/2.6 (you can check because 2.6 * 1.46 == 3.8). ----------------------------------- EDIT: I didn't change above the line with this edit but - why would anyone downvote this comment too? when all I say is it's an interesting perspective. (There are no comment replies at this time, just a downvote.) Also I reread my comment and I noticed that it was not actually listed as 2.6 - but 2.63 -- so two sig figs. I actually took screenshots (for myself) with my clock, this is an interesting change: http://imgur.com/a/CU7Qm http://imgur.com/a/CU7Qm it's -0.11m change over about 2 hours 21 min. (take 7 seconds). I don't know what part of that is "fuzzing" (like reddit does) what part of that is lack of coherence (from distributed DB), and what part of that is the actual change. I would think, if anything, it would move up during this time due to the extra attention - maybe HN, CNN and other readers would sub to him after reading this story. at any rate it's certainly a puzzle to me why anyone would downvote this comment. (I don't think it's malicious and there's just one downvote.)
- freehunter 10y ago
  Someone in this thread is down voting just about everything. I wouldn't take it personally.

dustingetz 10y ago

the big idea here is that distributed systems are complicated and accuracy is often sacrificed to make an intractable problem easier.