Talk:9,223,372,036,854,775,807
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bejeweled Diamond Mine
editI discovered that this number is the maximum score of Bejeweled Diamond Mine (available for iPhone). At this point there are apparently 66 players who have discovered how to reach this score. The next two runners up have scores of 6.666.666.666.666.666.666 and 99.999.999.999.999. It appears that somebody can choose their high score by some glitch. Noticing that this score can not be the result of normal game-play (for it would take too much time to reach this score), I was wondering how these players have succeeded in acquiring this high score. Anybody? Bcurfs (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
YouTube-Error
editNot true. The news (https://plus.google.com/+youtube/posts/BUXfdWqu86Q) was a joke (http://www.cnet.com/news/gangnam-style-busts-youtubes-view-counter-not-so-fast/). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.3.50.254 (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Requested move 21 June 2017
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: speedy move. Already closed two of these this week which passed the full process. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Guanaco 17:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
9223372036854775807 → 9,223,372,036,854,775,807 – Per MOS:DIGITS, for legibility and for consistency with 100,000, 1,000,000, etc. Certes (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support per nom including their rationale here. Gap9551 (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Significance to the Year 2038 problem
editThis number seems significant to the year 2038 problem. Please confirm this by adding suitable citations. Thank you. NK (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well, not really. In 2038 we will pass 2,147,483,647 seconds since 1970, causing problems for some 32-bit systems. They'll need to deal with higher numbers and some suitable architectures can count to 9,223,372,036,854,775,807, but any limit of similar magnitude would suffice. Certes (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)