• sga@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    2 months ago

    This is the point where we start hitting the daily limits, in 2 more cycles, maybe limits of lemmy instance, and in another 2, limits of lemmy

      • sga@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        i never questioned it hitting, I was making some educated guesses about when can we expect that, previous post (81) got about 240 votes in 20ish hours, so i was expecting 243 to also take about same time. But there are some more things, people lose interest, all things have somewhat bell shaped curve, more like weighted bell shape, something like (polynomial)*(exponential with negative power), so most things eventually decay.

        And the stats that I see in the sidebar

        691 users / day
        1.82K users / week
        1.82K users / month
        2.98K users / 6 months
        1.16K subscribers
        75 Posts
        564 Comments
        

        from this I was making guesses, like 243 onwards, targets would not be met in a day, and for next tripling we get more into 3-4 day territory (assuming 691 users has about 200 new users), and by next cycle, we are limited (practically) by subscribers in this lemmy instance (1.16k is about half 2.2k) if we have 2 more cycles, we are practically limited by number of mathematically inclined people on lemmy, then we see it practically die

        A sad ending

        • Ludrol@szmer.info
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I happen to pass you on this bench and I must to disagree. Even if you have a sophisticated model it just doesn’t hold on to empirical evidence. This post: https://lemmy.world/post/16111988 Has 1346 upvotes and is basically the same concept but in even bigger community. There is no precedent that a meme of this kind can hit 2187 upvotes.

          There will be no more than one next cycle.

  • rooster_butt@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 months ago

    It bothers me that it’s not really 3 times as many unless you only count the small white triangles.

    • Randomocity@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 months ago

      If I’m counting right it’s actually X3+2 right? You are adding the inner black triangle and a new overarching triangle.

      • juliebean@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        not quite. if you were counting the black triangles in the previous iteration, then this should be three times as many triangles, minus three. each of the previous iteration has those two big black triangles in the corner, but when you assemble them together, they merge into the two big corner triangles and the central triangle.

  • Codex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    But what about the undisplayed, non-equilateral triangles that I can draw between any 3 arbitrary points in the given plane? Did you count those triangles!?!

  • Nyoka@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    Triangles for the triangle god, fractals for the fractal throne!