you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]risistill me 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

At which point in time?

BTW, if you can tell us the actual answer currently, please do.

[–]NetweaselContinuing the struggle 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

if you can tell us the actual answer currently, please do.

Wish I knew it. Would be a lot simpler.
And would be very mean on my part to have withheld it.

[–]risistill me 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

And would be very mean on my part to have withheld it.

Only if you knew someone wanted it and were figuratively thumbing your nose.

I don't see you that way.

[–]NetweaselContinuing the struggle 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Only if you knew someone wanted it and were figuratively thumbing your nose.

Or even worse: "Oh I know what the answer is, but it would be better if you figured it out for yourself."

[–]risistill me 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

When I was in school, I hated the Socratic method, supposedly based on belief in reincarnation. Even then, though, don't assume that I learned geometry during one of my prior incarnations!

That was probably because my memory for things I heard (other than names) was much better than my patience for questions followed by six wrong answers from my classmates, until the instructor finally got that he or she had to provide the answer. By then, I'd lost interest and remembered only the first few wrong answers.

[–]NetweaselContinuing the struggle 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

There may be nothing more tempting to me than "Here is a number that people are keeping from you. How can we find out what it is from the information available?"

It made me go and count the number of unique names making comments in this subsaidit over the past two hours. (~20)
"~15 here now"


For any who are curious enough, here are Wotb(Reddit)'s last 25 comments and next-to-last 25 comments in order to count unique usernames (I call not it) -- https://archive.is/de4V2 and https://archive.is/NUtA2

[–]risistill me 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

I make it 37 different names total, but bear in mind my incredible difficulty remembering names.

The most repeated name was that of the awful redditrisi.

"Funner" would be trying to count the different names on a couple of threads with over 70 replies each, but I'd pass out before I got through the first one.

[–]NetweaselContinuing the struggle 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I make it 37 different names total,

Thanks. That would mean at least 37 different people, assuming no one is using two accounts at once.

Then you have the people who (theoretically) only come in during the times not sampled.
[Edit: I went and checked the timestamps. Those 37 were during one three-hour period. (9pm-Midnight CDT, on a Sunday night)]

Plus the number of lurkers who rarely say anything at all.

It's still looking like it's probably in the 100-200 range, roughly. Not counting the uncountable "totally silent ones."

[–]risistill me 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Late Sunday is one of the subs slowest times, I think. Some of the accounts could be bots, though.

[–]NetweaselContinuing the struggle 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Late Sunday is one of the subs slowest times, I think.

Late Sunday during "is this sub about to go dark" may be anomalous, either direction.
But it's a matter of "going with the data we had."

[–]risistill me 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

thank you. I'll count tomorrow.