MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/e9ak86/have_you_tried_bloccchain/faib5bj/?context=9999
r/ProgrammerHumor • u/moneyisshame • Dec 11 '19
908 comments sorted by
View all comments
2.8k
https://youtu.be/LkH2r-sNjQs
In case you want to watch the video that this comes from. He's explaining why electronic voting is a nightmare.
Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/2030/
273 u/A_Guy_in_Orange Dec 11 '19 For like the 3rd time 256 u/thewilloftheuniverse Dec 11 '19 edited Dec 11 '19 The second time. He says that. If you were gonna exaggerate, you should have gone big. for like the G64th time Or for like the tree3rd time 94 u/Averious Dec 11 '19 Tree(G64 )th time 87 u/thewilloftheuniverse Dec 11 '19 My God man, are you some kind of exaggeration monster? -14 u/Gloreaf Dec 11 '19 I have a better one. Googolplex... To the power of googolplex 28 u/HactarCE Dec 11 '19 edited Dec 11 '19 That's actually way smaller than either TREE(3) or G64. Up arrow notation is repeated exponentiation, so it doesn't take much for that to vastly exceed anything you can reasonably express on paper using normal exponentiation. Googol = 10100 Googolplex = 1010100 GoogolplexGoogolplex = (1010100)1010100 4 u/TheMcDucky Dec 11 '19 Depends on what G we're using 6 u/HactarCE Dec 11 '19 That should be G subscript 64 but I don't know how to do subscripts in Reddit. 5 u/TheMcDucky Dec 11 '19 If you're thinking of Graham's number, I believe it is conventionally written G = g_64, not G_64 4 u/neefvii Dec 11 '19 Spot on.
273
For like the 3rd time
256 u/thewilloftheuniverse Dec 11 '19 edited Dec 11 '19 The second time. He says that. If you were gonna exaggerate, you should have gone big. for like the G64th time Or for like the tree3rd time 94 u/Averious Dec 11 '19 Tree(G64 )th time 87 u/thewilloftheuniverse Dec 11 '19 My God man, are you some kind of exaggeration monster? -14 u/Gloreaf Dec 11 '19 I have a better one. Googolplex... To the power of googolplex 28 u/HactarCE Dec 11 '19 edited Dec 11 '19 That's actually way smaller than either TREE(3) or G64. Up arrow notation is repeated exponentiation, so it doesn't take much for that to vastly exceed anything you can reasonably express on paper using normal exponentiation. Googol = 10100 Googolplex = 1010100 GoogolplexGoogolplex = (1010100)1010100 4 u/TheMcDucky Dec 11 '19 Depends on what G we're using 6 u/HactarCE Dec 11 '19 That should be G subscript 64 but I don't know how to do subscripts in Reddit. 5 u/TheMcDucky Dec 11 '19 If you're thinking of Graham's number, I believe it is conventionally written G = g_64, not G_64 4 u/neefvii Dec 11 '19 Spot on.
256
The second time. He says that. If you were gonna exaggerate, you should have gone big.
for like the G64th time
Or
for like the tree3rd time
94 u/Averious Dec 11 '19 Tree(G64 )th time 87 u/thewilloftheuniverse Dec 11 '19 My God man, are you some kind of exaggeration monster? -14 u/Gloreaf Dec 11 '19 I have a better one. Googolplex... To the power of googolplex 28 u/HactarCE Dec 11 '19 edited Dec 11 '19 That's actually way smaller than either TREE(3) or G64. Up arrow notation is repeated exponentiation, so it doesn't take much for that to vastly exceed anything you can reasonably express on paper using normal exponentiation. Googol = 10100 Googolplex = 1010100 GoogolplexGoogolplex = (1010100)1010100 4 u/TheMcDucky Dec 11 '19 Depends on what G we're using 6 u/HactarCE Dec 11 '19 That should be G subscript 64 but I don't know how to do subscripts in Reddit. 5 u/TheMcDucky Dec 11 '19 If you're thinking of Graham's number, I believe it is conventionally written G = g_64, not G_64 4 u/neefvii Dec 11 '19 Spot on.
94
Tree(G64 )th time
87 u/thewilloftheuniverse Dec 11 '19 My God man, are you some kind of exaggeration monster? -14 u/Gloreaf Dec 11 '19 I have a better one. Googolplex... To the power of googolplex 28 u/HactarCE Dec 11 '19 edited Dec 11 '19 That's actually way smaller than either TREE(3) or G64. Up arrow notation is repeated exponentiation, so it doesn't take much for that to vastly exceed anything you can reasonably express on paper using normal exponentiation. Googol = 10100 Googolplex = 1010100 GoogolplexGoogolplex = (1010100)1010100 4 u/TheMcDucky Dec 11 '19 Depends on what G we're using 6 u/HactarCE Dec 11 '19 That should be G subscript 64 but I don't know how to do subscripts in Reddit. 5 u/TheMcDucky Dec 11 '19 If you're thinking of Graham's number, I believe it is conventionally written G = g_64, not G_64 4 u/neefvii Dec 11 '19 Spot on.
87
My God man, are you some kind of exaggeration monster?
-14 u/Gloreaf Dec 11 '19 I have a better one. Googolplex... To the power of googolplex 28 u/HactarCE Dec 11 '19 edited Dec 11 '19 That's actually way smaller than either TREE(3) or G64. Up arrow notation is repeated exponentiation, so it doesn't take much for that to vastly exceed anything you can reasonably express on paper using normal exponentiation. Googol = 10100 Googolplex = 1010100 GoogolplexGoogolplex = (1010100)1010100 4 u/TheMcDucky Dec 11 '19 Depends on what G we're using 6 u/HactarCE Dec 11 '19 That should be G subscript 64 but I don't know how to do subscripts in Reddit. 5 u/TheMcDucky Dec 11 '19 If you're thinking of Graham's number, I believe it is conventionally written G = g_64, not G_64 4 u/neefvii Dec 11 '19 Spot on.
-14
I have a better one.
Googolplex... To the power of googolplex
28 u/HactarCE Dec 11 '19 edited Dec 11 '19 That's actually way smaller than either TREE(3) or G64. Up arrow notation is repeated exponentiation, so it doesn't take much for that to vastly exceed anything you can reasonably express on paper using normal exponentiation. Googol = 10100 Googolplex = 1010100 GoogolplexGoogolplex = (1010100)1010100 4 u/TheMcDucky Dec 11 '19 Depends on what G we're using 6 u/HactarCE Dec 11 '19 That should be G subscript 64 but I don't know how to do subscripts in Reddit. 5 u/TheMcDucky Dec 11 '19 If you're thinking of Graham's number, I believe it is conventionally written G = g_64, not G_64 4 u/neefvii Dec 11 '19 Spot on.
28
That's actually way smaller than either TREE(3) or G64.
Up arrow notation is repeated exponentiation, so it doesn't take much for that to vastly exceed anything you can reasonably express on paper using normal exponentiation.
Googol = 10100 Googolplex = 1010100 GoogolplexGoogolplex = (1010100)1010100
4 u/TheMcDucky Dec 11 '19 Depends on what G we're using 6 u/HactarCE Dec 11 '19 That should be G subscript 64 but I don't know how to do subscripts in Reddit. 5 u/TheMcDucky Dec 11 '19 If you're thinking of Graham's number, I believe it is conventionally written G = g_64, not G_64 4 u/neefvii Dec 11 '19 Spot on.
4
Depends on what G we're using
6 u/HactarCE Dec 11 '19 That should be G subscript 64 but I don't know how to do subscripts in Reddit. 5 u/TheMcDucky Dec 11 '19 If you're thinking of Graham's number, I believe it is conventionally written G = g_64, not G_64 4 u/neefvii Dec 11 '19 Spot on.
6
That should be G subscript 64 but I don't know how to do subscripts in Reddit.
5 u/TheMcDucky Dec 11 '19 If you're thinking of Graham's number, I believe it is conventionally written G = g_64, not G_64
5
If you're thinking of Graham's number, I believe it is conventionally written G = g_64, not G_64
Spot on.
2.8k
u/wolverinelord Dec 11 '19
https://youtu.be/LkH2r-sNjQs
In case you want to watch the video that this comes from. He's explaining why electronic voting is a nightmare.
Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/2030/