zlacker

That reads like a XKCD comic disguised as a Dilbert strip.

Very nice.

And also, what a cool read that was, thanks for sharing the article.

>>ghurta+(OP)
XKCD has a different random number: https://xkcd.com/221/

>>ThatPl+r1
Stray thought: Why 4 and 9? Because the joke is funniest if the number is completely ordinary.

0 and 1 are special and so are all prime numbers. 6 is out because it's the maximum die throw. And one figure is more ordinary than two figures, or negatives, or decimals. That leaves 4 and 9.

>>tarvai+w6
How come prime numbers are special but squares aren’t? 4 and 9 both being squares seems to be a more striking commonality than your logic here…

>>tarvai+w6
The perfect squares are the most ordinary?

>>tarvai+w6
What about 8?

>>dreghg+9j
Maximum throw for a battle axe in 5e d&d, of course.

I dunno actually. Maybe because 4*2=8? The two picks have the property of not being related really.

>>tarvai+w6
That makes 4 and 9 the only two uninteresting numbers, which is interesting, so they’re out too!

Douglas Adams said the same about 42. It’s the answer because it’s completely banal.

>>dreghg+9j
8, 16, 32, 64 pop up a lot in computer circles.

>>tarvai+w6
Everyone knows that six is the most boring number. https://youtu.be/G4OTRRmyTAA?feature=shared

>>dreghg+9j
Oh, right! I forgot about it. I guess 8 would do too.

>>Velori+Bd
Yeah. Alternative explanation: I'd say 3 and 7 are out because they often come up in fairy takes etc as magical. 5 is out because it's half of ten and the number of fingers. 2 is out because it is too small.