I’ve noticed that when you do an image search the length of the returned location is almost always 961,761 digits (I’ve seen it be 961,760 a few times).
I would have thought there’d be more variation in the length of the location purely because of how unlikely it is for the pixels to be arranged in any coherent way.
I’m wondering if we only focus on searching for locations that are 961,761 digits long we might be ‘slightly’ more likely to find something…
Of course, I fully appreciate just how absolutely infinitesimal this probability is. But surely it is better to work with a smaller set of near-infite numbers than a larger set of near-infinite numbers.