1) Every thread must have at least one snipe at JoS. Snipe.
2) Mods from JoS can see but not touch.
3) Muppet can post only ((∫x/1/y*cos(t)) + A) * e^im times in a day, where 'x' is the number of persons online, 'y' is the number of Mods from JoS curently lurking here, 't' is the angle the cameraman holds when photographing naked Indian chicks on lonely streches of highways and 'm' is the rest mass muppet's daily morning corn crap averaged over the past week and 'A' is the Lucy Sulk Factor.
January 27th, 2006 4:37am
in a neat twist the Lucy Sulk Factor depends on the number of times muppet posts, which gives us:
((â«x/1/y*cos(t)) + A) * e^im=A
in an even more interesting twist of personality the number of times that muppet will post will be exactly the number of times required to generate the maximum possible value for the Lucy Sulk Factor(M)
this gives us:
((â«x/1/y*cos(t)) + A) * e^im=M
now, clearly no one has a clue exactly what topic and post will generate M from Lucy at any given moment.
OTOH we have seen in the past that the likelihood of muppet successfully generating M from Lucy on any given day is 1.
so if T is the number of posts muppet makes on any given day, then the likelihood of any specific post generating M is 1/T
or, to put it another way:
((â«x/1/y*cos(t)) + A) * e^im=1/T
which we could rewrite as:
(((â«x/1/y*cos(t)) + A) * e^im ) * T=1
((â«x/1/y*cos(t)) + A) * e^im=1/T
we can more simply write it as:
1/T * T =1
and thus we can see that, in fact, the entire equation is simply a rather boring truism that states perfectly clearly:
(1) Muppet *will* post
(2) He *will* piss off Lucy
January 27th, 2006 4:54am
You're missing an independent variable which is the amount of personal self aggrandisement muppet is exerting at the time.
As it approaches zero so does my irritation.
But Simon, can we afford a Sutter Buttes Blunder? Or are you sure that a 75 years hence it would not have been one at all?
January 27th, 2006 5:00am
Ok, you've lost me. Not easy to do today either my brain is back together.
not missing. simply ignoring. for all practical purposes that variable never approaches 0 and so can safely be left out of the equation all together....
...although in yet another interesting twist, if we assumed it *was* infact possible for it to do so then it would merely affect the possible values of M.
ie, if we could define M=G*L where G is the level of personal aggrandizement that muppet is exuding at any given moment, then as G tends to 0 so does M, which means that the entire equation simply reduces to:
ie, if muppet stopped exuding any level of personal aggrandizement then Lucy would stop getting annoyed and *then* muppet would simply stop posting altogether out of sheer boredom.
and thus we can see that not only does that equation represent a truism, its a rather neat way of describing the painful amd endless circle of dislike that Lucy and Muppet have trapped themselves into.
January 27th, 2006 5:07am
If "aggrandisement" means what I think it means, you must be really irritated. Unfortunately, I can't find out because my browser crashes when trying to look the word up. This is one of the weirdest bugs I've seen in a long time: I can reproduce it and it work on two dictionaries I've tried...
It's a shame when you try something and it fails badly and not know it. I am ashamed.
January 27th, 2006 8:45am
"But Simon, can we afford a Sutter Buttes Blunder?"
Hey! HTF do you know what that is?
No kidding John, that is wierd.
Well, KayJay is Indian. There's gotta be a connection. In any event, it still doesn't explain what he was getting at.
Yeah, I don't know what the 'blunder' part is, do you?
I still think it's freaky enough that on a board that's got around 50 regulars, two programmers from YC are on here. I mean, it's not like downtown SF or something. (Which I'll be in for a few days and nights next week, at the VSLive conference. Neener neener.)
Awww, man... bring me back some loot!
Re: But Simon, can we afford a Sutter Buttes Blunder?"
C'mon, it's easy. World's smallest mountain range. Simon wanted to add an arbitrary number to the equation. 'Blunder'. Turns out cosmology is constant...
As to my other point, well, I wanted to stick to 'ubermod' in this thread, but somehow managed to mix up my sigs.
January 27th, 2006 8:09pm