Gangnam Style BREAKS YouTube

Re: unsigned int, anybody?

I think a better idea would be using an arbitrary precision integer. No need to worry about overflow, as long as you have memory to store it.

Re: unsigned int, anybody?

Because, and this is the answer to the question about the arbitrary precision comment below you, it's not actually the programmatic type that's causing the problem, it's the type in the database which is the issue.

For a number of reasons most db's don't have a unit type and an arbitrary precision integer is a binary blob which can't be indexed.

Re: unsigned int, anybody?

Aside from the point other's have made maybe youtube is implemented in a language that doesn't have unsigned types...

Re: unsigned int, anybody?

That was my very first thought.

Re: unsigned int, anybody?

Agreed, although "-1" is the number of times I wish I'd seen that bloody K-pop video

If I had a nickel for every... hell, if I had a penny for each view I could retire in, well, Gangnam style. But I get the point, the dollar value even at minimum wage is almost obscene and if viewed by different people that's over a quarter of all people on the planet. Clearly this is what Apple should have pushed out to iTuners instead of U2.

4m12s * 2,147,483,647 views = 9,019,431,317 minutes (150,323,855 hours, 6,263,494 days, 17,160 years)

Are you sure this is correct?

I thought everyone just watched the first 10 seconds and realised that they clicked on the wrong video?

"did nothing else whilst viewing"

You call jumping around like a hyperactive idiot "nothing"?

Assigning this to cumulative time wasted assumes the user watched the video in its entirety and did nothing else whilst viewing

You mean like saying "AHHH! NO! MERCY! I DIDN'T MEAN TO CLICK THIS LINK AGAIN!"?

Thanks

I knew one of my geeky brethren would do the math :)

I've just looked at a Google coding standards document for C++ in which the arguments for not using unsigned integers are incomprehensible.

http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cppguide.html

At one point it states this:

"Consider:

for (unsigned int i = foo.Length()-1; i >= 0; --i) ...

This code will never terminate!"

The fact that you can write stupid code which includes the type 'unsigned' does not seem to me to be a good reason not to use 'unsigned'. I can write stupid code using any C type you like.

Perhaps you could point to the good arguments that you found.

Re: Better Parody

Don't forget:

Penketh High School style: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntkjTbUG_QE (skip first 45 seconds)

(Not really a parody, but pretty cool how close they got)

Re: Yes but

The point is: there is no point.