I read it more like a quantum quandry, you never know exactly how many commits there are, but we will celebrate one possible measure because it comes close and

I read it more like a quantum quandry, you never know exactly how many commits there are, but we will celebrate one possible measure because it comes close and that's a landmark. One would seem to think his statement also applies to himself: >If you think you've got a great way of measuring, don't be so sure of yourself -- you may have overcounted or undercounted. By his own admission, his own counting method is probably flawed.