641
Infinite Suffering
(mander.xyz)
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
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...
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.
So the Zapp Brannigan approach?
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.
Yeah okay but by that logic you'd also have to quantize time and the suffering would end either way in a finite amount of time.
They used database to store integer...