• @db2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    494 months ago

    60,000? Reddit used to be a hub, I had subs with many times that number of users. You really fucked up, Steve, but at least you’re still in your comfort zone with that.

    • Ace
      link
      fedilink
      English
      40
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      deleted by creator

      • @KoboldCoterie
        link
        English
        134 months ago

        But it also refers to “a staggering 73 million daily active users”, which I wouldn’t really say is a staggering number in $current_year when other social networks have orders of magnitude more.

        Well, there’s definitely no social network with “orders of magnitude more”… Even if that’s only 2 orders of magnitude, that’s almost the entire population of the world.

        So this made me curious and best I can find there seem to be only a few social media platforms that even have 1 order of magnitude more:

        DAU is a pretty rare statistic to find reported on, so it’s hard to say if there are others.

        • @_dev_null@lemmy.zxcvn.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          44 months ago

          Well, there’s definitely no social network with “orders of magnitude more”

          By your numbers (let order of magnitude == oom):

          Reddit: 73M

          Reddit + 1 oom: 730M

          Reddit + 2 oom: 7.3B

          Facebook: 2.1B

          So 73M to 7.3B is 2 oom greater, and 7.3B is the same oom as 2.1B, thus there is at least one social network orders of magnitude greater than reddit.

          Have I got anything wrong here?

          • @KoboldCoterie
            link
            English
            84 months ago

            Okay so I’m just going to open myself up to ridicule here; my understanding of comparing numbers using orders of magnitude might be wrong, and if it is, I would like to know that. So on that note, I don’t think that’s how OOM comparisons work, and I’d be very interested to be corrected if I’m wrong.

            You could accurately say that 2.1B has 2 more orders of magnitude than 73M does (7 vs. 9), but I believe when you’re directly comparing two numbers and saying that one is “x orders of magnitude larger than y”, that doesn’t work. You wouldn’t say that 10 is an order of magnitude larger than 9… that would be very misleading; 90 is an order of magnitude larger than 9. In fact, that claim would be off by… approximately an order of magnitude.

            1 order of magnitude larger than 73M is 730M; 2 orders of magnitude larger is 7.3B, as you note, but… wouldn’t you look upward to say a number is in the same order of magnitude, not lower? So since 2.1B is approximately 29x larger than 73M, it would be 1 OOM larger (and only becomes 2 OOM larger at 100x)?

            To look at it another way:

            73M x 10^1 is a lot closer to the correct value than 73M x 10^2, so even if the correct method is to round to the nearest OOM, it wouldn’t beecome 2 OOM larger until 73M x 50, or 3.650B.

            Again, it’s quite possible that my understanding is incorrect because… this doesn’t come up in every day conversation much, so if I’m wrong, please correct me!

        • Lvxferre
          link
          fedilink
          English
          3
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          In the context odds are that Ace is using “orders of magnitude more” simply to convey “multiple times more”, or “a fuckload more”

          That said I always understood orders of magnitude as log rounded to the units:

          • log₁₀(73M) = 7.86
          • log₁₀(2.1B) = 9.32
          • 9.32 - 7.86 = 1.45 ≃ 1

          If you’re rounding it to a single digit you’d get 1, or one order of magnitude. It isn’t too far from being rounded to 2, if Reddit shrinks back to 66M.