4 ms·
I suspect that this limit was just the Max value of whatever number format they were using was. The chances of it not really being 65536 are fairly low. Its jus
by thinkingkong 4y ago
I suspect that this limit was just the Max value of whatever number format they were using was. The chances of it not really being 65536 are fairly low. Its just too coincidental.
- crazygringo 4y agoExcept it's not 65536 -- it's 65356. (I just verified in the PDF.) Which actually makes me wonder if somebody fat-fingered it and meant to type 65536 by hand and got it wrong. Which given everything we've found out about the sloppiness there, would seem quite apropos. Normally I wouldn't think so, but the trailing "999994" also just seems so strangely floating point-derived... but who even knows.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago65536 requires 17-bits. So maybe they tried the one-too-large number, failed, and assumed they transposed something.
- thinkingkong 4y agoWell at least someone in this chain of information is dyslexic.