Reminder: Bitcoin's unit of account was released as a floating point integer, often referred to as Satoshi Precision pre-2010. The function of hashing contains only u_ints, yet script calcs were limited to both + & - 2,147,483,647 bytes per clock. That's 4.2 GB of floats.

It's funny that I bought hundreds of BSV for under $30-$50 over the last few years, and small blockers act like BSV didn't double in value and out perform BTC.

How could this be? BSV is $110 When you exchange this on changenow.io/?from=bsv&to=us… you get a rate of $80 for 1 BSV.

(6/n) Obviously Ferris's Mother knows him best, & can attest to his good character, even if she or Ferris himself make small errors. Principal Rooney, on the other hand, is out to get Ferris bc his ego is involved. HIS character isn't revealed until the end of the movie...

Unsigned integers can't be negative. But also, they are larger. So, I think Craig was giving the most autistic possible response to a loaded question under pressure. An Illustration Imagine you have two jars in which you can keep your jellybeans. One jar is a bit special – it's designed to understand both when you have jellybeans and when you owe jellybeans to someone (let's think of owing jellybeans as negative jellybeans). This jar is like a "signed" integer in C++. It can hold positive numbers (your jellybeans) and negative numbers (the jellybeans you owe). The other jar is simpler. It's made for kids who only need to worry about the jellybeans they have. It doesn't understand the concept of owing jellybeans at all – you can't have less than zero jellybeans in this jar. This jar represents an "unsigned" integer, which means it only deals with non-negative numbers (zero or more jellybeans). Now, because the first jar has to be ready for both the jellybeans you have and the jellybeans you owe, it can't hold as many jellybeans as the second jar can. Why? Because part of its space is reserved for keeping track of those negative jellybeans, even if you don't use it. On the other hand, the second jar, our unsigned integer jar, doesn't waste any space on negative jellybeans. So, all the space that could have been used to track owing jellybeans is instead available for more real jellybeans. That means, if both jars are the same size, the unsigned jar (the one that only counts the jellybeans you have) can be filled with more jellybeans because it doesn't bother with the negatives at all and doesn't need extra space for keeping the negative tally. So, when a computer scientist says an unsigned integer "gets larger," they're pointing out that, in the same amount of space where a signed integer has to be ready for both positives and negatives, an unsigned integer focuses solely on the positive side. This focus allows it to represent a larger number of jellybeans (or, in computer terms, a larger positive number) than a signed integer of the same size could. Now, I'm not necessarily saying that Craig said that, because he didn't. He got jammed up, and he froze, but saying "well, they're larger..." before freezing was not incorrect. It was just needlessly specific about a detail - which is the way we would expect an aspie under pressure to respond to that question.