Since there has been some perfectly understandable confusion regarding the methodology, I will provide the formula. Each handle was assigned an Observational Placement Value. OPV = {[(L² + 13C + 17Y + 31K + 44A + 53W - 7R) + Ω] mod N} + P Where: L = length of the handle, excluding the @, unless the @ seemed especially self-important. C = consonant temperament. Y = number of letters pretending not to be vowels. K = capital letter interference. A = animal, object, or theatrical-adjacent implication. W = whimsy coefficient. R = redundant-letter drag. Ω = the cueball constant. N = number of observed handles. P = a small corrective applied when the result is funnier that way. For example, consider , which placed at . L = 10 C = 8 Y = 2 K = 1 A = 1 W = 1 R = 1 Ω = 4132 N = 2765 P = narrative inevitability So: OPV = {[(10² + 13(8) + 17(2) + 31(1) + 44(1) + 53(1) - 7(1)) + 4132] mod 2765} + P OPV = {[100 + 104 + 34 + 31 + 44 + 53 - 7 + 4132] mod 2765} + P OPV = {4491 mod 2765} + P OPV = 1726 + P After applying the standard narrative inevitability correction, as one does, the value resolves to 2. This is not arbitrary. It is merely governed by several factors you were not meant to see.
* wow * this makes me feel so much calmer * this is absolutely nothing! haha! hahahaha!
what
Ohh, of course! It all makes sense now! ❣︎
n/) fucking clue h/)w this w/)rks still
The only correct way to figure it all out, of course
:33 < *ac squints at the huuuge mathemeowtic equation before her! so many factors that it makes her pan spin X33* :33 < *luckily she is also the smartest kitty cat in all of the forest! so she can affirm that ind33d this math isss* :33 < *uhhh* :33 < *it checksss* :33 < *out* :33 < *she says* :33 < no :33 < *she CONFIDENTIALLY states, as a certified animal huntress AND number huntress* #doubleduty
whimsy coefficient... hmm.