<unjerk>I don’t know if this person is joking, and it scares me. The wall of text in the original post makes me feel like they’re not.why I find this funny
This implies there are 100 unique users every second
</unjerk>The 53+ startups seems like a joke. If you’re not rounding why use the + and not the exact number? Along with this strange interpretation of concurrent users.
They’re starting up so many startups they don’t have time to adjust their bio every time a new one pops up.
Built 53+ startups …
OK bud pats head
Someone needs to stop starting and start finishing. :-)
I remember my physics teacher always asking: “100? 100 what? Oranges?”
… assuming 10ms access time.
Eli5?
The tweeter seems to be head of a software firm. He has a client for whom he’s building an MVP. That is the ‘minimum viable product’ – a rudimentary, first version of a piece of software that has just enough features to actually solve the client’s business needs.
For these MVPs, nice-to-have features and certain ‘quality’ measures (such as response times or the number of users it supports concurrently (i.e., at the same time)) are often of secondary concern.
The client wanted the MVP to handle 100 users concurrently (say, 100 people watch a video simultaneously, or 100 people use the web shop at the same time). The tweeter then tries to reason, with shitass math, that that means that the client expects 8.6 million users per day (100 for every second of the day).
The tweeter therefore is a dumbass.
100 concurrent (max!) user doesn’t mean you have 100 new users every second.
