Proof that the goo counter is fake

Thanks, Sherlock.

jasonicus321 wrote:
Thanks, Sherlock.

http://i.imgur.com/TTT80Kq.png

It's real, and I'll explain why. This just how fast their programs can count. It's simple. They've programmed the counter with only ten binary digits and they've got 10 computers counting simultaneously. 2^10 (binary digits) = 1,024 * 10 (CPUs) = 10,240. We're collecting more GOO than this, but their programming doesn't allow them to process more than that.

hey be happy were getting these prizes for FREE u don't have to pay for them with in game money or donuts..

HCoinslot wrote:

LusciousJohnnyD wrote:
It's real, and I'll explain why. This just how fast their programs can count. It's simple. They've programmed the counter with only ten binary digits and they've got 10 computers counting simultaneously. 2^10 (binary digits) = 1,024 * 10 (CPUs) = 10,240. We're collecting more GOO than this, but their programming doesn't allow them to process more than that.

I'm going with this guy, as his post has more numbers than Josh's. Everyone knows more numbers is better.



I am so smart! S-M-R-T!

Facts are meaningless - you could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true

LusciousJohnnyD wrote:
It's real, and I'll explain why. This just how fast their programs can count. It's simple. They've programmed the counter with only ten binary digits and they've got 10 computers counting simultaneously. 2^10 (binary digits) = 1,024 * 10 (CPUs) = 10,240. We're collecting more GOO than this, but their programming doesn't allow them to process more than that.

I can't tell if this is supposed to be a joke or not?

LusciousJohnnyD wrote:
It's real, and I'll explain why. This just how fast their programs can count. It's simple. They've programmed the counter with only ten binary digits and they've got 10 computers counting simultaneously. 2^10 (binary digits) = 1,024 * 10 (CPUs) = 10,240. We're collecting more GOO than this, but their programming doesn't allow them to process more than that.

You've convinced me. My problem with the "the numbers aren't random" argument is, how hard would it be to make a fake counter generate random numbers?

No matter how you look at it, you always come to the same conclusion:
EA does not have the capability/technology to provide an accurate, realtime goo count tally. Thus fake.

DJDK-ec wrote:
No matter how you look at it, you always come to the same conclusion:
EA does not have the capability/technology to provide an accurate, realtime goo count tally. Thus fake.

Okay, you've convinced me. (As long as your argument doesn't involve the need for random numbers.)

JoshSherer wrote:
It increases by exactly 10,240 per second every single time without fail. Do you really believe we're getting the exact same number of goo per second for every second? No.

Here's proof I couldn't care less:

I couldn't care less.