(((active users)))

1    04 Feb 2018 02:18 by u/you_have_no_future

43 comments

2

I feel like I might have fallen for this if I was a common houseplant

0

I don't know a single houseplant that has fallen for this. Give them more credit.

0

if you think even a sizeable minority of the profiles on dating websites are actual real women youre more retarded than a flat earther.

0

Except the earth is flat

1

t. failed basic physics

0

Still better than failing at interwebs...

0

Only failed kike-masonic indoctrination. Good for him.

0

Jesus

0

Wasn't a jew

0

Explain mountains, right now.

0

A big pile of dirt

Explain why we can see the moon everywhere from a "round" planet

0

The moon moves, you silly goose.

Explain the cycles of the moon if it is also flat.

0

Shit covers other shit sometimes

Explain why the sun and moon happen to be exactly the right size and distance from earth that everything can cover each other perfectly.

0

Nothing about the situation is perfect. It seems perfect because everything on this planet evolved in accordance with the natural local laws (like the amount of sunlight we receive every day).

Shine a flashlight at yourself in a dark room, place it far away from you - now place your hand in front of your eyes to block the light. OMFG! HOW IS YOUR HAND THE PERFECT SIZE TO COVER THE LIGHT?

Shit covers other shit sometimes

Amazing critical thinking.

Yeah, feel free to have the last word. I won't respond to you any longer.

-1

"I SAID GOOD DAY SIR!"

how dare someone keep talking after you've said good bye.

You know you've lost the argument so you just shut up and walk away.

0

Naw, actually he just pretty soundly beat you. Have a downvoat too, faggot.

0

So there is a massive.....massive conspiracy to cover up the fact the Earth is really flat? Why?

0

Yes

Government lie to its people, everybody knows this

0

troll harder, just like a jew

0

Uh uh uh

You people are so dumb

Code monkeys

0

I don't believe there is a flat earth.

But I do think its important to learn other people views and how they came to those conclusions.

You can't hope to defeat your enemy if you don't study them first.

0

Mountain jews are real get used to it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Jews

And the earth is flat everybody knows this

0

Commit suicide, 4 day old.

0
0

Actually, my daughter met her current BF on the most famous dating website. Been together a year now.

0

Didn't say they were all fake; just that a huge portion of them are, for the sake of padding their numbers— and obfuscate the fact that there's actually a lot less fish in the sea than you would think.

0

Dating sites are only populated by demented incels who fap on fake profiles or whores.

0

Too much jpeg to read the code.

0

Hard to tell exactly but I think the "current active users" text is a random integer between 3,000 and 5,000.

There's probably more fiddly bits but I think that's the important part

0

onlineCount = (Math.floor(Math.random()*(5000-3000+1)+3000))

0
const onlineCount = Math.floor(Math.random() * 2001) + 3000;

Less like it was written by a retard -- unless "+1" is the actual number of online users.

0

First thing I thought of, when looking at it. How do you hardcode arithmetic, like that, and not realize you're being retarded? :/

0

If I recall, there is actually a much faster-running method to achieve Math.floor in Javascript (also more concise, though perhaps less readable). The following two lines should be equivalent:

var onlineCount = (Math.floor(Math.random()*(5000-3000+1)+3000));
var onlineCount = ~~(Math.random()*(5000-3000+1)+3000);

The bitwise NOT operator ~ performs an implicit cast to integer, and using two to undo the NOT effect while keeping the cast is faster computationally than parseInt or Math.floor.

Form which I find more aesthetically pleasing (constant term first):

var onlineCount = ~~(3000 + 2001*Math.random());
0

(Fuck up your code enough and someone else will w(rig)th(t)e it for you.)

0

The engine will optimise whatever it is trying to do, readability is way more important than performance regardless. I remember interviewing a guy who wrote all his loops in reverse because of performance gains. So I ran a simple test in my browser and not only were normal forward-loops faster but I didn't like his face.

0

For forcing integer conversions (as Math.floor does), I prefer using a bitwise OR, e.g. var onlineCount = (Math.random() * 2001 + 3000) | 0;, which drops everything after the decimal place. I think that would actually be one operation faster since you don't need to negate the operation.

0

Why are they doing 5000-3000? Why not just 2000?

0

I thought that was the range of the random number generator.

I don't get the +3000 after all that though. Or is that the current integer being used?

0

Readability reasons I guess.

0

All dating websites do this, they inflate their numbers present fake profiles use fake pictures. Re-use pictures and profiles from other states, recycle messages sent between users. Show you old profiles that have never been logged into more than once or were deleted. It's all bullshit you'll never meet anybody.

Tinder is a little bit better but even there almost everyone on it is an old profile that never gets used. Unless you pay tinder money, then you get more active profiles.

0

Can't post a viewable screencap, even when it's fictitious. And I have no future.

0

I don't know anything about programming and know that no girls are here.