this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
644 points (97.6% liked)

Science Memes

11068 readers
2760 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] rbn@sopuli.xyz 18 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I go for option 1.

In all programming languages that I know, integers have a maximum number. E.g., in C that'd be 2,147,483,647. After that, you would run into an overflow, resulting in either...

  • a crash (train stops, no more deaths),
  • death count suddenly turns negative (all people previously killed are suddenly alive again and even new people are generated out of nowhere) - until we reach the next overflow when people disappear and start dying again
  • or - if it's an unsigned integer - death count resets everytime we reach the maximum limit

So compared to option 2, we have a chance of stopping the death count. And even if the train keeps running, we have essentially option 2 but the same people only die very rarely. If we assume a cycle of 1 death per second and an integer boundary of 2,147,483,647, that's just one death every 68 years per person involved. Seems more fair to me compared to 100 people constantly dying over and over again.

[โ€“] Wojwo@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 month ago

Or is it like a Y2K death trolly and when the overflow happens the universe doesn't catch the exception and things get weird. Like suddenly any number can be divided by 0.

load more comments (3 replies)