zlacker

Well, you can certainly count on HN commenters to deliver the most pedantic, point-missing "ackshually" comments to articles like this!

>>Sharli+(OP)
The article feels like an excuse to talk about six different tangentially related topics at the same time. That's not a criticism of the article -- it's like listening to someone's wandering train of thought out loud, which is equally as interesting as the thoughts themselves. The article even ends with an ellipsis. I think it's a fine article, but the mental wandering could have gone any other way too.

So I'm confused about what point you think people here are missing. There basically wasn't a point to the article, so people are either adding their own thought-wandering musings (totally appropriate, given the style of the post), or they're responding to the title, which is the only time the author really attempts to actually make a clear point. But the title of the article is flawed, and the author's musings do not adequately address the title. That's fine to point out. Nobody is missing any points.

>>feoren+Aw
The point of the article is that lambda calculus makes for a nicer Busy Beaver function that shows its particular strength (of surpassing the most famous huge number) at the standard 64 bit boundary for representing numbers.