that's 3/4th of 100000!
September 21, 2008 10:23 PM   Subscribe

Milestone alert: This deleted thread was #75000
posted by Bonzai to MetaFilter-Related at 10:23 PM (32 comments total)

Failget.
posted by turgid dahlia at 10:50 PM on September 21, 2008


Just three more years.
posted by netbros at 11:04 PM on September 21, 2008


Yeah, when I added that to the deleted thread blog I was kinda disheartened that #75000 wasn't something amazing or interesting. Nope, double post. *sigh*
posted by puke & cry at 11:15 PM on September 21, 2008


Wait, there's a deleted thread blog?
posted by dhammond at 11:22 PM on September 21, 2008


75000 OMG!!!

For 5, that's the product of its square and the difference between its fifth and its cube (52 * (55 – 53))
posted by blasdelf at 11:28 PM on September 21, 2008 [9 favorites]


p&c, you add deleted posts by hand? I'd assumed some sort of screen-scraping magic was at work.
posted by ssg at 11:29 PM on September 21, 2008


That's right, dhommond. There is a deleted thread blog. You can use the search to find topics of deleted threads or metafilter posters.
posted by puke & cry at 11:33 PM on September 21, 2008


It's all by hand, ssg.
posted by puke & cry at 11:34 PM on September 21, 2008


We should have had a party or something.
posted by Cranberry at 11:46 PM on September 21, 2008


There was a party Cranberry, it was just deleted...
posted by pupdog at 11:54 PM on September 21, 2008 [1 favorite]


When the keg disappeared from underneath me, I ninjitsued into an awesome Jerry Lewis impression. You missed it; it was deleted too.
This act was deleted for the following reason: This is not a good trick. - cortex
posted by carsonb at 12:30 AM on September 22, 2008 [1 favorite]


For 5, that's the product of its square and the difference between its fifth and its cube (52 * (55 – 53))

GEEK ALERT
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 12:42 AM on September 22, 2008


As the Cult of the Quasi-Significant Numbers cries out in anguish...
posted by Dave Faris at 3:51 AM on September 22, 2008


Huh. In base-2, that's 10010010011111000.
In base-3, it's 10210212210.
In base-4, it's 102103320.
In base-5, 4400000.

Can you see where I'm going with this? It doesn't seem like that interesting a number.

But... if you keep plugging away at it, eventually you get to base-75000, where it's post #10!

So congratulations, MetaFilter, on post #10!

Now I'm going back to sleep. Don't wake me up until it's post #100,000. In base-100000.
posted by Eideteker at 4:36 AM on September 22, 2008


sometimes mefi can be a total base-10zone
posted by Eideteker at 4:41 AM on September 22, 2008 [1 favorite]


I got the last comment in that thread and with any luck I'll be around for number one million. Woo hoo.
posted by fixedgear at 4:46 AM on September 22, 2008


blasdelf: "For 5, that's the product of its square and the difference between its fifth and its cube (52 * (55 – 53))"

blasdelf(n) = n2 * (n5 – n3)
blasdelf(1) = 0
blasdelf(2) = 96 : An analysis of the symbolism in The Sixth Sense.
blasdelf(3) = 1944 : almost.org, a fantastic example of something that would be deleted nowadays. Plus it's a linkfarm now.
blasdelf(4) = 15360 : LED snooping, a remarkably cool trick.
blasdelf(5) = 75000
blasdelf(6) = 272160

blasdelf′(n) = n2 * (nn – n3)
blasdelf′(1) = 0
blasdelf′(2) = -16
blasdelf′(3) = 0
blasdelf′(4) = 3072 : AOLiza, conversations between real people and an Eliza bot on AIM. Link dead, broken site moved here, working transcripts available via Google
blasdelf′(5) = 75000
blasdelf′(6) = 1671840
posted by Plutor at 6:09 AM on September 22, 2008 [6 favorites]


1. Notice subject of thread.
2. Jump to comment box predicting OH YOU ALL LOVE YOUR ROUND NUMBERS SOOO MUCH DON'T YOU complaint from Dave Faris.
3. Read thread.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:49 AM on September 22, 2008 [1 favorite]


4. Ha!
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:50 AM on September 22, 2008


blasdelfʺ(n) = nn-3 * (nn – nn-2)
blasdelfʺ(1) = 0
blasdelfʺ(2) = 1.5 : bzzzt
blasdelfʺ(3) = 24 : nope
blasdelfʺ(4) = 960 : An old 'home page' style site about Dead People, still updated by its creator.
blasdelfʺ(5) = 75000
blasdelfʺ(6) = 9797760
posted by blasdelf at 8:00 AM on September 22, 2008


blasdelf(n) = 75000
blasdelf(1) = 75000
blasdelf(2) = 75000
blasdelf(3) = 75000
blasdelf(4) = 75000
blasdelf(5) = 75000
blasdelf(6) = 75000

I think we deleted the nexus of the universe.
posted by DU at 8:18 AM on September 22, 2008


DU, you didn't use a unique name — you can't just go redefining functions in the global namespace like that!

Have the common courtesy to use a prime mark [′,″,‴,⁗] or something to disambiguate.
posted by blasdelf at 8:29 AM on September 22, 2008


Phht, whevs. Let me know when we get to the 75,000th deleted thread.

Which should be sometime next week.
posted by dirtdirt at 8:37 AM on September 22, 2008


Sorry:

nerd::blasdelf(n) = 75000
posted by DU at 8:44 AM on September 22, 2008


[SOME MATH FUNCTION WITH SEEMINGLY RELEVANT NUMBERS IN IT]

See. I can play too.
posted by quin at 8:56 AM on September 22, 2008


As long as we're pseudo-science all up ins, I'll posit that the number of zeroes in the posting number predicts the likelihood that it will be a deleted post.
posted by davejay at 9:58 AM on September 22, 2008


cortex, you forgot:

5. Profit.
posted by sjuhawk31 at 10:24 AM on September 22, 2008


Dave Faris: As the Cult of the Quasi-Significant Numbers cries out in anguish...

Your Dedekindian 'numbers-have-no-intrinsic-nature-or-quality' bullshit is over, punk. Numbers have natures. They are not nameless, faceless stops on some ridiculous imaginary line. Your mocking will not be tolerated; the Greeks were correct, and you are wrong.

Go read Heidegger now.
posted by koeselitz at 11:35 AM on September 22, 2008 [1 favorite]


blasdelf(blasdelf) = _

Now all I need is some ASCIImation of a damsel being lowered into a shark's maw and I'll be back on the Commodore, doing math puzzles in first grade computer class.
posted by Eideteker at 1:32 PM on September 22, 2008


You moderators. You see complaints everywhere, even when there aren't any.
posted by Dave Faris at 2:03 PM on September 22, 2008


Patently untrue. I found no complaints in my Rice Chex this morning.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:38 PM on September 22, 2008


slacker.
posted by ryanrs at 1:19 AM on September 23, 2008


« Older FPP update: FOUND, once lost, ...  |  I just noticed that the line a... Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments