because it's better than one. frankly, it's a starting point. if 8 or 42 is better we can tune from there.
or replace it with something that's better to do the same thing - if that can be come up with. Do you have a better suggestion? On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Marc Espie <es...@nerim.net> wrote: > Sorry, badly phrased reply. I didn't mean to imply it was a bad idea, but > you didn't explain at all why 4, and not 3 or 6, or 42 ? If it's good with > 4, it ought to be better with more, right ? any data point or rationale for > choosing 4 ? >
