40 ms·

Makes me wonder how many man-hours were spent on this now. Surely either it was luck that a person with this knowledge read the question, or an extremely large

by tasuki 4y ago

Makes me wonder how many man-hours were spent on this now. Surely either it was luck that a person with this knowledge read the question, or an extremely large number of people read the question?

Sander_Marechal 4y ago
Linus's law: "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" - Eric S. Raymond
GTP 4y ago
Or maybe the one who answered just tried googling for an increasing sequence of those numbers. You can try by yourself to see if it works.
gibolt 4y ago
Probably someone with some good search engine skills. Considering most of the numbers are exact matches, searching for those exact numbers should result in a hit if it has been crawled
kataklasm 4y ago
You assume that question could only have been with innate knowledge of the answer. But just by querying a search engine with two of the numbers I was able to get the same link: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22627418%22+%2219223530%22 https://www.google.com/search?q=%22627418%22+%2219223530%22 With DuckDuckGo it is even the only search result for the same two numbers and I didn't even have to quote them: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=627418+19223530 https://duckduckgo.com/?q=627418+19223530
- wjholden 4y ago
  Tangentially related, I've had some success Googling constants before. For example, I once got interested in the constants in the Harris-Benedict function for estimating basal metabolic rates. By searching for these constants, I quickly found the original text and some other interesting related material. This approach generalizes to strings as well. In my field of computer networking, you're an easy search away from finding out what 0x0800 means with very little context. Searches can also work for numbers that don't look familiar. For example, you'd immediate recognize the first few digits of π, but you might not so easily recognize π²≈9.86960440109.

by tasuki 4y ago

Makes me wonder how many man-hours were spent on this now. Surely either it was luck that a person with this knowledge read the question, or an extremely large number of people read the question?

Sander_Marechal 4y ago

Linus's law: "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" - Eric S. Raymond

GTP 4y ago

Or maybe the one who answered just tried googling for an increasing sequence of those numbers. You can try by yourself to see if it works.

gibolt 4y ago

Probably someone with some good search engine skills. Considering most of the numbers are exact matches, searching for those exact numbers should result in a hit if it has been crawled

kataklasm 4y ago

You assume that question could only have been with innate knowledge of the answer. But just by querying a search engine with two of the numbers I was able to get the same link: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22627418%22+%2219223530%22 https://www.google.com/search?q=%22627418%22+%2219223530%22 With DuckDuckGo it is even the only search result for the same two numbers and I didn't even have to quote them: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=627418+19223530 https://duckduckgo.com/?q=627418+19223530

wjholden 4y ago
Tangentially related, I've had some success Googling constants before. For example, I once got interested in the constants in the Harris-Benedict function for estimating basal metabolic rates. By searching for these constants, I quickly found the original text and some other interesting related material. This approach generalizes to strings as well. In my field of computer networking, you're an easy search away from finding out what 0x0800 means with very little context. Searches can also work for numbers that don't look familiar. For example, you'd immediate recognize the first few digits of π, but you might not so easily recognize π²≈9.86960440109.