I may have noticed this on a certain other aggregator site once upon a time, but I’m still none the wiser as to why.
199 rows kind of makes sense for whatever a legitimate query might have been, but if you’re going to make up a number, why 2^23? Why subtract? Am I metaphorically barking up the wrong tree?
Is this merely a mistyping of 8388608 and it was supposed to be ±1 row? Still the wrong (B-)tree?
In a place for programmer humour, you’ve got to expect there’s at least one person who knows their powers of two. (Though I am missing a few these days).
As for considering me to be Ramanujan reborn, if there’s any of Srinivasa in here, he’s not been given a full deck to work with this time around and that’s not very karmic of whichever deity or deities sent him back.
8388409 = 2^23 - 199
I may have noticed this on a certain other aggregator site once upon a time, but I’m still none the wiser as to why.
199 rows kind of makes sense for whatever a legitimate query might have been, but if you’re going to make up a number, why 2^23? Why subtract? Am I metaphorically barking up the wrong tree?
Is this merely a mistyping of 8388608 and it was supposed to be ±1 row? Still the wrong (B-)tree?
WHY DO I CARE
Are you Ramanujam reborn or a nerd who put every number they found on wolfram alpha?
In a place for programmer humour, you’ve got to expect there’s at least one person who knows their powers of two. (Though I am missing a few these days).
As for considering me to be Ramanujan reborn, if there’s any of Srinivasa in here, he’s not been given a full deck to work with this time around and that’s not very karmic of whichever deity or deities sent him back.
I know up to like 2^16 or maybe 2^17 while sufficiently caffeinated. Memorizing up to, or beyond, 2^23 is nerd award worthy.
I know that 2^20 is something more that a million because is the maximum number of rows excel can handle.