Personal
4.2 Trillion Unread
Freshness Warning
This blog post is over 19 years old. It's possible that the information you read below isn't current and the links no longer work.
24 Oct 2004
Perusing my Bloglines subscriptions early this morning, I discovered that the Industry Standard feed apparently had more than 4 trillion billion unread items. I don’t have that sort of time.
I clicked the feed, fully expecting the resulting enormous page to eat up all my RAM and force a reboot. But instead I was greeted with the information that there were no items left to be read in that feed. Apparently some sort of temporary Bloglines meltdown.
Comments
Ted Hussey
October 24, 2004 6:12 AM
Yaaaa! I'm the first! Your blog is one of the ones I read on a daily basis. It's always filled with good stuff. I've used some of your plugings on my blog. Like Tony used to say... "They're GGGGGGGGREAT! Thanks, Ted
Manda
October 24, 2004 8:03 AM
I had something like that happen with the Movable Type news blog once, although I think in that case it did try to load all of those entries.
Clay
October 24, 2004 3:07 PM
Actually, I think Tony stills says that. No, you're right. I saw a commercial the other day with a "We are the Champions" ripoff. "Mighty, mighty tigers" or something like that.
Michael Moncur
October 24, 2004 9:15 PM
Same thing happened here (different feed, similar large number, same actual number (0) of unread items.) Odd.
jaronson
October 26, 2004 4:50 AM
That number above is only 4.2 billion...still a BIG number, though.
Freyr
October 29, 2004 1:40 PM
Clearly a bug, that number is only 1224 short from 2^32 (4.294.967.296), which is the maximum value for an unsigned 32 bit number. Something did x = -1224 and then displayed its unsigned equalient.
Jeramey Jannene
November 21, 2004 7:19 PM
And I thought I was lazy, the highest any of my unread feeds have ever gone is 200.
Roel
December 2, 2004 12:13 PM
@Jeramy Jannene: 200 is the maximum amount of posts Bloglines will retain for you. Per feed, that is.
Jeramey Jannene
December 4, 2004 10:30 AM
Ah, thanks Roel.
This discussion has been closed.