jack: (Default)
[personal profile] jack
My name is and:
I read livejournal, even if I rarely post.
I remember what 142 is without calculating it.
Wow, you've been busy this week.
You should stop messing with your own polls and use LJ.
You should stop messing with LJ and write your own blogging system.
My great-aunt wrote blogging software, you insensitive bastard!

ETA: Oh. That last textbox was supposed to read "*****" but it didn't work.

Date: 2006-04-27 12:40 pm (UTC)
ext_8103: (Default)
From: [identity profile] ewx.livejournal.com
I'm not sure why it feels more natural to be able to remember 132 than 142 but it does. 17 is the first non-negative integer I can't do from memory and of course the first you can't do from memory is easier than others to calculate.
From: [identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com
It doesn't to me. I learned 1-10 times tables very early, and I think picked up 11 and 12 squared then, though the eleven and twelve table never stuck, (though I remember some now.)

A little later I learnt the squares up to 20 iirc. 132 and 142 I remembered because they're anagrams. 152 I remember because 5s tend to become 2s and 5s and I just remember that value. 162 for obvious reasons. And all those come up occasionally.

After that, I'm the same as you, 17+ I dont' remember, and probably never will unless I make a specific effort to do so.

I don't know why I picked 14 rather than 13 as the question. It just felt more elegant somehow. Also, that people who know 122 might easily have seen 132 out of the corner of their eye, 142 more for its own sake :)
ext_8103: (Default)
From: [identity profile] ewx.livejournal.com
The anagram thing does make it easier. I think for some reason I've just had more call to know 132 over the years.
From: [identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com
LOL. It's fairly useless knowledge, but I'm glad to spread it :)

I wonder if 13 *does* come up more. I have the feeling I've used both about the same amount occasionally, but I'm not sure.

Date: 2006-04-27 05:23 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rochvelleth.livejournal.com
You needed an option 'I post on livejournal, even if I rarely read' ;)

Date: 2006-04-27 05:25 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com
I *know* if you post, but if you don't post I don't know whether you read or not :)

PS. That picture is still freaky (but pretty), but it's growing on me :)

Date: 2006-04-27 05:38 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rochvelleth.livejournal.com
But you don't know whether I post and read or post and not-read ;)

Is it freaky? Oh no, why is it freaky?!

Date: 2006-04-27 06:19 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com
But you don't know whether I post and read or post and not-read ;)

But most people -- including you -- comment, so must read a bit. The intent of my question was if you read lj, whether you post or not, but i didn't bother making that clear because i had a fair idea of hwo much people who did post did read. Feel free to do your own poll, but I was really only interested in committed lurkers :)

Is it freaky? Oh no, why is it freaky?!

I can't describe it. It's just sort of... coming at me.

Date: 2006-04-28 08:39 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rochvelleth.livejournal.com
It's just sort of... coming at me.

Unfortunate choice of words there ;)

Hum, I think maybe I'll get rid of it then. I don't want there to be freaky pictures of me. It took enough time finding a picture of me I liked in the first place :/

Unfortunate choice of words there ;)

Date: 2006-04-28 10:41 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com
ROFL. That occured to me too late, and I couldn't think of anything better to change it to :) I thought you'd find it amusing if you noticed too.

Hmm. I'm sure I've seen *lovely* pictures of you. I mean, you *look* photogenic :) Doesn't Edith have some?

Don't be too hasty. It *is* nice, and it might just be me who find it freaky, I'm not sure.

Re: Unfortunate choice of words there ;)

Date: 2006-04-29 01:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rochvelleth.livejournal.com
you *look* photogenic

Thank you.

But no, I don't think there are good pictures of me. Perhaps the odd one taken a while ago that came out surprisingly well, but no recent ones (like, in the last two years or so). Probably because I just don't look good, or at least that's what I think. I sometimes look in the mirror and think I might look pretty, but tend to decide I don't. *shrug*

Re: Unfortunate choice of words there ;)

Date: 2006-05-01 04:05 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com
Aw! Then sit down with digital edith one evening and experiment until you have something good.

I assure you in real life you *are* extremely pretty. Ask anyone :) Please don't deceive yourself on that point for no good reason :)

Re: Unfortunate choice of words there ;)

Date: 2006-05-04 05:33 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rochvelleth.livejournal.com
Aw, thank you, you're sweet :)

Date: 2006-04-28 10:42 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com
The eye invert is also freaky, but I assume that's deliberate.

Date: 2006-04-29 01:03 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rochvelleth.livejournal.com
Well, yes, it is deliberate. The thing is that I know (or at least think I know) that I have pretty eyes - I'm blessed with particularly blue ones, which I like. So making a freaky icon of an eye doesn't seem so bad.

Date: 2006-05-01 04:05 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com
LOL. It works well.