It was test.
 
And you failed it.
 
If you were dyslexic, you wouldn't have been able to understand that particular 'test' exclusion.

 
 
I see.
 

I thought a bapu “calculation” was a way to quantify unfunny and the bapu “equation” was a quantitative relationship between funny and unfunny:
 
UnF = log ( 100 / %F )
 
Where
Unf = unfunny
F = funny
 
In  other words if something is 100% F then UnF = 0.
 
As F approaches 0%, UnF becomes infinitely large. 
 
The results are expressed on a bapu scale.
 
So if something is really funny we say it is 0 on the bapu scale.
 
Edit - Scale not Unit

quantumeffect
So if something is really funny  we say it is 0 bapu.

Or +1 Straummy?

quantumeffect
I thought a bapu “calculation” was a way to quantify unfunny and the bapu “equation” was a quantitative relationship between funny and unfunny:
 
UnF = log ( 100 / %F )
 
Where
Unf = unfunny
F = funny
 
In  other words if something is 100% F then UnF = 0.
 
As F approaches 0%, UnF becomes infinitely large. 
 
The results are expressed on a bapu scale.

So if something is really funny we say it is 0 on the bapu scale.
 
Edit - Scale not Unit

I see that you haven't catered for 'rounding errors' in this formula.

Jonbouy

quantumeffect
I thought a bapu “calculation” was a way to quantify unfunny and the bapu “equation” was a quantitative relationship between funny and unfunny:
 
UnF = log ( 100 / %F )
 
Where
Unf = unfunny
F = funny
 
In  other words if something is 100% F then UnF = 0.
 
As F approaches 0%, UnF becomes infinitely large. 
 
The results are expressed on a bapu scale.

So if something is really funny we say it is 0 on the bapu scale.
 
Edit - Scale not Unit

I see that you haven't catered for 'rounding errors' in this formula.

There R no rounding errors with Bapu Calculations. He is already round.

Bapu+is = Bapu+does ?
Seems easy enuff to me.
 
 
I've always thought it somewhat cruel that dyslexia is a difficult word to spell.
 

And who the hell put an "s" into the word "lisp?" 
 

OK... move away from the mirror. Slowly... just back away and get dressed. Go have some coffee and a few doughnuts.
Take two pills and call someone in the morning.
 
J

While measuring posts on the Bapu scale can be beneficial, I think it's also a good practice to factor in the relative Snark and Becan values to measure the posts on the Beagle scale.
 
I attempted to quantify the Progressive Music Units, (PMU), in relation to the overall non-linear but self-similar aspects of posts. As posts demonstrated qualitative transformations to new dynamical states, predictably, the outcomes were progressively more complex. As the PMU increases, there is a corresponding increase in the appearance of new forms of order out of chaotic regimes. Unfortunately, I got lost in the math. The Pedro scale is just too hard for me.