My favorite was a mailing list message in a billion dollar company that went something along the lines of: " Okay, this is embarrassing, I was having sex with my girl friend (yes I have one, Rob!) and in the middle of that I had an epiphany on how to solve this issue. I interrupted the sex for a second, wrote down the note, and resumed. When done, I tried this and it worked perfect. I can't remember why it works, those cells now belong to my girlfriend who will probably now use them to take over the world or some such, I don't know, but this bug was here for five weeks and now it's gone, so I don't want to here anyone complaining about the fix not being documented. Just accept that it is and move on. "

And then people shit on tech priests because they only burn incense instead of cracking the code of everything they maintain

I've written that comment more than once....

Like a drunk writer

I have some code commented by me to me that reads. /* * What the actual FUCK is this clusterfuck? * * SORT THIS SHIT OUT MAN * * Comment the code * * There is a bug possibly related to this code. * * * Coordinate data is loaded correctly and lookups work correctly until you are handling data near 0,0,0 where the data is still loaded correctly but returns data at 0,0,0 when looking at itself. * * * * Don't you fucking dare delete this until you have done your job properly. * */ The code commented is still there because the drive I was on went pop right after I deleted the backups to set the drive up for raid thinking I had time to do that and make a backup without worrying about the main drive dying. 8 year old drive chooses that moment to go.

Ill die on this hill

"The vessel that houses interdimensional being John Carmack" "Texas Based technocryptic John Carmack" "The resident of the binding between space and time that holds our reality together John Carmack". -Civvie 11

So Samuel Hayden was a self-insert character?

@@carlsonraywithers3368 urm well ackshully John Charmack hadz no purt in za dezelopjent oz za mozurn DOOM chames

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/h554a6h-lanbZKM.html

Actually, when I was coding Amiga Demos for a well known scene group, you used to avoid shifting also. The problem with 680x0 shifting is that it didn't have a barrel shifter, so the more shifts you did, the more expensive it was. So for something like lsl.w #2, d0 its timing was 6 + 2n. Where n is the number of shifts. It was 8 + 2n for a long shift. Anyway, you can achieve much better performance with add.w d0, d0 add.w d0, d0. Same as you would use lea to add to address registers rather than using add or subtract. These are all very common coding practices for demo coders, the same as putting arithmetic instructions directly after starting a blit, because you could essentially get them for free. And also Sin and Cos tables were rarely if ever calculated, they were always precomputed and we'd got tools for doing just that and included as dc.w tables.

@@thewelder3538 You are probably right - it is so long ago and I might mix up CPU's. I just remember I was working on a simple 3D-engine for the Amiga and seem to remember I was pouring over minutiae in the assembly-code optimizing each and every line. I do seem to remember that I did some sort of pre-comp with subsequent storing of sin/cos in memory. Another thing I remember was some super-quick/cheap way of determining the facing of a polygon (for bf culling)- which at first seemed like a complex operation but end up being only a few lines of code with cheap instructions.

I appreciate what you shared.

A trick I've used to allow quick plotting of polar coordinates is to exploit the fact that for values of r in the range 0 to 2, one can compute r*cos(theta) and r*sin(theta) by computing d=arcos(r-1) and then computing cos(theta+d)+cos(theta-d) and sin(theta+d)+sin(theta-d). Use table lookups for the trig functions and no multiplies will be required,

Do we know if id hired someone from the demoscene or did they just hear about this trick from it and not just understand it (hence the WTF)? One up for the EU (EEC??) side of the pond!

Yeah, I remember dynamic lighting was introduced much later with some mods.

none-lightmapped dynamic lighting in Quake was lambert shading on the models. They don't require a inv-sqrt either, they use N.dot(L) per vertex. This video is quite ignorant unfortunately.

it's possible that it was done for make the game faster for multi?

Stop mansplaining

She wasn't wrong. What she says applies mostly to illumination of dynamic objects (like weapons, enemies or players), and sometimes static geometry (walls, floors, ceilings, water) ones that were wrapped (textured) with precomputed light maps. Quake had moving lights (for example light from rockets from rocket launchers, or from player holding quad damage). These lights interacted with precomputed lightmaps on static geometry too.

It is called optimization, not hacking and abusing. Everything had to be optimized for speed.

@@navi-charlotte same shit (?) Taking one thing once intended for a determined job and apply it to do other stuff

@@navi-charlotte I think there's a fine line between the two. Optimization is trying to reduce computational load by figuring out how to get rid of reduntant calculations. I think both lookup tables and the distance example in the OP are just optimizations. A hack relies on using side effects and arguably bit-shifting exponents is a hack, albeit a hack that has been used so often it doesn't seem like using a side effect anymore. The WTF line from the code is definitely a hack - by the time you comment your code this way it's fairly obviously not something the language itended as reasonable code and it wasn't an intended effect of that line to work as it does. And if it's not an intended effect, it's a side effect and hence using it is a hack.

Reminds me a bit of that time when I needed to find all buildings in a certain range around some sample point in a geographical database. The database had several 100K buildings which each had several vertices. Finding these buildings would actually take around 30s if I remember correctly. Sounds fine, but I also needed to process many tens of thousands of points every night. 30s just would not cut it. What I found out is that this database had a spatial index I could use to speed up bounding box operations dramatically. It took like 6 hours to generate this index, but that only needed to happen once. Instead of looking for everything in a circle around the sample point, I looked for everything in a square, and later filtered those results down. The time dropped from 30s to around 20ms per sample. That's 1500x faster by changing a single line (the query) and adding a 5 line for-loop to filter that result down. That did the trick. I could process a whole day's worth of data in about 2 hours. And like you mentioned, a lot of it is caused by avoiding square roots, while the other part is trading CPU time for memory. I don't remember how much memory the index used, but it was not a problem for a relatively modern desktop PC. Memory is so cheap these days, there is a lot you can get away with... That project is still the most dramatic improvement in performance I've done in the real world. I'm still really proud of how it worked out. It's not something I get to do very often anymore, but I think optimization problems are really satisfying to work on.

@@Niosus I can beat that. I worked on a statistical problem and a straight forward implementation of the maths resulted in crazy computation times for my use case - on the order of 10^28 years. I had a function that got called n^n times (my largest n was 27, my advisor had one in the 50s) and it got called with tuples. But I noticed that it did not depend on the order or multiplicity of the numbers. So I got that down to 2^n calls (basically calling it for the power set of an original set, rather than all n-tuples you could get from that set). That got my computational time down to about a week, but my advisors data would have still taken about 1 million years. Then I worked out a way to split the problem in some cases (and most real life examples allow that) and instead of a single problem with the original n you could work on problems of size m and n-m. I analyzed my advisors data in about an hour. Total factor ends up somewhere around 10^35.

As we speak

your dream comes true

Hey, can you read my future too?! I need to know..

Tadaa.... welcome to the future.

This aged like a fine wine

I'd rather call it a craft than art. You can't just splotch stuff somewhere, see if it works and be done. You really need to know how stuff works. Artists rarely do, they usually only care about results ;-)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_inverse_square_root

Very interesting article about it, where the writer actually tried to track down the inventor/etc www.beyond3d.com/content/articles/8/

I wrote this comment in another thread, but I summarize what I could understand from the code. Mind you I came to the conclusion before looking at the wiki page and it does coincide with what is written there as well. I don't see why he doesn't understand it, it's simple to understand. Any function can be represented as a polynomial sum so y=f(x) can be transformed into y = a0 + a1*x + a2*(x^2) + a3*(x^3) + a4*(x^4) + ... The problem arises that square roots and esp. inverse square roots and have an infinite number of sums. But if we stop at some x^n we will have a result at some precision. So for 1/sqrt(x) they discarded all members above the second. The task has now came down to calculate a0 and a1 in order for y to have the least difference from the exact value. They have calculated that the most appropriate values are a0 = 0x5f375a86 a1 = -0.5 which is y = 0x5f375a86 - 0.5*x and is the same as i = 0x5f375a86 - (i >> 1); However this approximation isn't enough precision so they use one step of Newton's iteration x = x * (1.5f - xhalf * x * x). All of those casts in the code were to cast the floats into an int for faster calculation then you recover the decimal precision approximation with the later half of code. Once you understand that the hex constant 0x5f375a86 is really just the integer representation of sqrt(2^127) it becomes more clear why this approximation works in this case.

Secondly, they likely used gourad shading. That narrows things down to calculating that for only each vertex, and then it fills in the blanks between the vectors.

Q3 game used to reflect the floor and walls at the same time .

Crazy Tubex We're talking about Q1

No , this is Q3

Crazy Tubex Did... did you even watch the video? By the time Q3 was out, the hardware limitations for calculating light wasn't a thing anymore.

Wtf is quake 6? You mean Quake Champions?

bronze

Wouldn't Quake Champions be more like Quake 5? Unless you are counting Enemy Territory, which I think of as Quake 1.5

quake not q3

me too I was expecting mipmapping or something Kind of interesting content though

Well it was 2016.

i nearly died from the overacting... If trying too hard needs a video, this is it.

@@positronundervolt4799 lol. KZfaq seems to be bitshifting its algos.

@@Kalisparo Yeah, if I didn't know this was a personal channel I would think it was one of those KZfaq networks with the presenters reading off of cue-cards and trying WAY too hard with the fake enthusiasm/stale jokes etc.

I really like the fact that she enjoys talking about the subject and knows what she's doing.

As a mapper for Q3 back in the day, I was a tad confused...but lightmaps!

I'm not sure this person actually knows how video games work :-/

So you're saying this women is claiming the devs don't know what the code does but they actually do?

@@meshuggahdave5607 The devs know exactly what their code did and why it works. It's a myth and a joke because anyone with half a brain knew how this worked when they looked at it :-/

@@Folsomdsf2 well that's what you'd assume when they're getting paid and putting out games like quake... I thought this was a fishy video but now I know. Thanks

It is sort of a magic number in that the way it works is somewhat orthogonal to the meaning of the underlying data. The number 0x5f3759df (1011111001101110101100111011111 in binary, this is important, examine how it has a pattern about it) is a correction piece. For IEEE 754 numbers stored contiguously in memory and treated as a signed integer (0 + Exp + Mant), the result of a singular Newton's Approx., the bit pattern from the magic number can be used to "repair" the odd/even signing of the exponent and restore the overall mantissa for the float by ones-complimenting i/2 (where i is int representation of the float to be invsqrt) and XOR'ing it with 0x5f3759df then dropping the MSB carry. Whether it's a magic number or not is up to the viewer. That's a subjective term, not a scientific one. I consider it magic because it's less a number and more of a blueprint, and due to the fact it can be used numerically makes it magic. Also, nowadays people should look into using extensions to SSE on x86 platforms and something like THUMB on ARM for doing triple (or more!) fast inverse approximations.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_inverse_square_root

Magic number is programming jargon. It's used to describe a constant that appears directly in code instead of being declared as a variable or a constant. Did you see the code? That's exactly how the number appeared. It's a magic number.

Then go google it. KZfaq is for people who wants to be famous, not for technical information.

We prefer boobanimals.

@Jon Don lol your problem with his comment was that he briefly stated he was a guy?

@Jon Don seriously when people say stuff like this they sound like a feminazi

@Jon Don Nobody cares what anybody cares about, to be fair. With that point, their comment as well as your and my replies are pointless. :D

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_inverse_square_root

Kenneth McCall Ha. That's some sick math skills. So it has quite a history. EDIT: Holy shit, one of the guys involved in the history of that algorithm has the Turing Award for his work in numerical analysis. That's some serious brain power that went into this little algorithm.

@@ellisgl ''though investigation has shed some light on possible methods'' hehe, nice pun in the wiki article, last line of first paragraph

Also, what the hell does this have to do with lies? Seriously, that description is just some poorly shoe-horned clickbait.

simple solution: dont mind being talked to like a child. we are all stupid. so are you. its in our genes. too much self esteem is like too much sugar. rotting.

You might want to disengage that snowflake mode...

I think you got triggered AF

I want to know what's at that address

I agree. Great video, but the puns are forced. Very informative.

i would suggest not to look away behind the camera so obviously, use sunglasses like casey neistat :D

"Nice video, but um, every C developer should know that bit shifting is equivalent to multiplication or division in powers of 2. It's not a hack - it's how binary works." Doing so on integers is totally normal yes. But on floating point numbers? I'd wager that a big number of C developers don't even know the bit level representation of floating point numbers without looking it up. And as the video explain, the manipulation doesn't really do what you actually want, so you have to use a magic number to clean it up. It's a hack. "not calculated on the fly." I didn't get the impression that she was saying this anyway. It's a relatively short video. You'll have to simplify, so of course the details are wrong. Quake 3 does have some dynamic lights. You don't calculate the lighting with raytracing, but some of the calculations for the dynamic light themselves can roughly speaking be similar .

The fast inverse square root wasn't Carmack's doing.

Yes and no. On some microcontrollers, that have specific purposes like calculation of space vector pwms, this method is still pretty useful. Btw. what is described in the video is called the "quake magic number".

***** He's working for Oculus

And a rocket scientist for a hobby, literally.

+Vally123 If you can't stand any more puns, try sitting down. ;) And remember, it was all just a 'bit' of 'light' banter....

You are awesome! haha

Vally123 your grammar is worse.

GameWorld feel free to correct my grammar, then, I don't see anything wrong with it.

Vally123 sorry, I read it wrong.

bob by yeah righto

Quake 3 doesn't run in Dos.

It's not even Quake 3, it's Open Arena. Same but different but still same.

Yup, just grab unity download some free assets and slap together some poorly optimized shit that struggles on super computers and throw it on Steam.

Newton's method was, not the weird integer math and constant value they used. Just forget Newton's method - it's a distraction. The constant value and the combination of two floating point operations into one faster integer operation is the interesting bit. I remember a numerical analyst couldn't figure out how they came up with it. He tried experimenting to see if the constant was the best value to use - it turns out it wasn't. But who came up with it is actually still a mystery as far as I know. The last I heard it was someone at Nvidia. Oh yeah, just remembered. The numerical analyst also tried coming up with a theoretical best constant to use, and in practice, for some reason, it didn't work as well as the one id used, which really added to the mystery. Wish I could remember the guy's name. He was no slouch.

@@brandonkellner4053 there are many "initial guess" values you can use. It depends how many passes the NAlg you use.

@@tehf00n The initial guess is hard coded and there is only pass.

Only super nerds care about this. I just came here to watch a cute nerd girl talk about Quake....

Thank you! I had to plow through quite a bit of complaints before someone finally had something to share regarding that number.

This is a pretty old topic, im pretty sure he's on record of saying he doesn't remember where that came from. Can't say i doubt him, i don't remember what i wrote 2 months ago.

Carmack understood how it worked at a theoretical level IIRC what he didn't understand is how anyone ever discovered it in the first place and that is from a guy with an insane knowledge of esoteric coding approaches and seeing how to trick things up in ways other people would never think of. I've spent waaay too much time in the Quake 2 source code and still find bits that blow your mind when you understand the angle they approached it from.

Bitshifting a floatpoint number IS evil though. I will accept using bitwise AND and XOR on floating point, but only only the sign. You have to put some limits on what kind of evil magic people do with floating point, and often it even ends up slower because even the CPU goes: WTF? I thought this was an floating point, and now I have to route it over to the integer ALU? STALL STALL

There's nothing at all wrong with a technique like this if it's a good fit for the hardware. (And at the time, it was) Bit shifting a floating point seems like a meaningless and broken operation but the result is just used as an initial guess for a couple Newton iterations. The real relevant piece there is that the exponent is bit-shifted and negated, which gets you on the right order of magnitude for an inverse square root. The rest just helps massage it for a little bit better results.

I still do tricky fixed point math in batch scripts in 2019 😭

I'm no programmer bit I've read the 68k specs and it looked like a bitch to write anything.

@@nosville22 68k had one of the most impressive instruction sets out of any CPU I've seen, it was well designed, especially compared to the x86. It was a bit rubbish (IMHO) at performance though with even the most basic of opcodes taking several cycles.

What's happening is that by interpreting the value of the mantissa as an integer, you're sneakily getting a really cheap approximation of its logarithm base 2. More specifically the calculation that matters is: log2(1 + m) ≈ m + σ where m is the mantissa and σ is a constant chosen to minimize the error (about 0.045). Plug that into the final algorithm and do some juggling, and you end up using this value in the code: 1.5 * 2^23 * (127 - σ) = 1597463007 = 0x5f3759df

Dasyati Thanks. The equations are easier to understand. Most explanations of this are long-winded diatribes of an esoteric nature. >.

why wouldn't they be? if the observer perceives the image that looks great, what's wrong with doing optimizations in the background?

@@ChristopherGray00 it was my first semester at SGD so I had no idea how games got made or what went into them.

It's very strange, I'm not sure how this ELI5 / r/fellowkids video is recommended

Cringing.

Gamers come out with lots of cringe lingo so probably trying to sound cool with the gamers.

You're correct, although with Doom there was a 35Hz update cycle hardcoded in the engine, until numerous source ports fixed that, allowing for rendering any number of frames your machine is capable of, per second. gldoom and chocolate doom must do this, if I recall correctly

lel absolutely every single one of your "points" is semantics at best

*_- You're talking about Quake 3 Arena, not Quake_* She's showcasing and looking at the Q3A Source., but the function in question was originally written for ID Tech 1 (aka Quake 1) … albeit in ASM *_Also not 30FPS, never ever 30FPS. Even when Quake 1 was new >50 was the standard. When Quake's multiplayer popularity grew, 100FPS became the desired one, and 100Hz monitors were often cited for helping the greatest players._* I'm not even sure where to begin with this. 50Hz was *never* a Computer Display Standard... and I don't mean "Well outside of Europe it was uncommon", I literally mean *NEVER* … 60Hz was the Commodore Standard, 72Hz was the IBM/PC Standard. This changed with the introduction of VESA XGA (1994) where it was Standardised to 60-75Hz. Of course Displays could strictly speaking support Half Rates (i.e. 31 - 38Hz in 15.75KHz stepping) meaning the Full Supported Range would usually be 31 - 75Hz; adaptive to the input Signal but most would just use VESA VBE (or DOS32X) that would basically use a fixed 60 / 72Hz. Wolfenstein used 70Hz, Doom used 35Hz, Quake used 30Hz, Quake 2 on-ward used OpenGL (Desktop Refresh, Default: 60Hz) This is the first time I've *EVER* heard of "100FPS became desired and 100Hz monitors were often cited helping the greatest players" … which I played Quake and Quake 2 in early "eSports" (before it was call that) Competitive Tournaments. It sounds to me like the same bullshit you tend to hear from people about "PlayStation Games ran at 60 Frame/s, why can't Modern Games" … good god that always makes me laugh hard, because most PlayStation Games were barely capable of 30 Frames/s; and even then the Consoles output to NTSC (60Hz) and PAL (50Hz)., and had to support both without it affecting Gameplay and Audio like it did on 4th Gen Consoles / Computers. You have to keep in mind that Scanline (Interlace / Progressive) Vs. Parallel Raster are two *very* different approaches to Display Image Output, just as Masked CRT Vs. Individual Pixel LED … again have very different outputs. Hook up a Console with a Dual Output (Old CRT and New LED) and compare them side-by-side... you'll very quickly understand why we Nostalgically felt the games looked and ran better of "Native" Hardware., and in many respects it's because CRT Displays just naturally Resolved a lot of the Modern Issues we have with Games. *_-iDSoft didn't come up with the method, it was Silicon Graphics._* That's merely where Carmack sourced the approach., it was a fairly common Performance "Hack"... and the original version of it uses Fixed-Point Floats. There's an example of it in the Amiga 1000 Software Development Toolkit from 1985. *_-It's a floating point DECIMAL. More accurately, single-precision floating point decimal._* "Single Precision" is a Modernised Term. Floating Points are broken down into 3 Terms., Significant, Base and Exponent; which can either be expressed via IEEE, Real or Fixed. This is further expanded via Binary, Decimal, Hexadecimal and Octagonal (and I bet you've never even heard of the last one, but most Computers even today still support such in their FPU; as well, they've not really been touched in terms of base Design since the Late-80s) You're specifically referring to IEEE 754 approach., which wasn't specified until 1985 and wasn't widely adopted until 1990... it is a 32-bit DFP (Decimal) approach. *_Please don't keep repeating the "30 times per second", it was never a thing in computer games. Even Wolf3D's updatecycle is 50 times a second._* As noted above., Quake (ID Tech 1) uses 30Hz as the Base... Wolfenstein 3D and Catacombs 3D both used 70Hz... It's important to know this, as the Audio (MUS Format) doesn't encode the Tempo, and so in order to get the correct playback speed for Conversion; you actually have to know the Refresh Cycle for each Specific Game to rebuild the Tempo. *_-I "get" it that there's nothing much to get. It's bitshifting the single precision to work around its irregularities predictably. People have been doing this since the early 90's. The magic number just ensures that the vector is normalized._* It's called "Fast Approximation", and it's been commonplace much further back than the 90s. Even Floating Point Units themselves,. are by their nature Fast Approx. rather than Strict Precision … all the technique pointed out in the Video does, is essentially switch what would in most cases take a quite costly number of Cycles (MUL/DIV were typically 140 - 180 Cycles) to a more Fast Approximation result that can be handled in a different way; in this case with Bit Shifting (which typically takes 20 - 37 Cycles) while producing "Good Enough" Results for what is being Calculated. Is it "Lying" … eh … that's an academic argument at best. I mean look at it like this., a CLUT (Colour Look Up Table) provides access to the full 24bit Colour Range; while only providing 256 Colours for said task … and if you don't mind thrashing the Video DMA, with the added latency; you can switch it for each Surface Calculated allowing for the Display of > 256 Total Colours / 4 Billion. In either case it's still going to be quicker and more efficient than a 3 Byte Colour.

Kanakotka Good God, what planet were you on where people were playing Quake at 50 fps? “When Quake was new” was 1996. 3D accelerator cards were new, and even my 3dfx Voodoo card got an unbelievable 30 fps running GLQuake at 640x480. Maybe you’re confusing this with refresh rate. Hopefully her enthusiasm won’t be deterred by people like you, because I learned something interesting today. If you “have to comment on them,” it shows how fragile your own ego is that you feel compelled to put others down.

@@neeyotube When pings were higher than your fps. Great times!

Yeah, I'm reluctantly forced to agree. Doesn't really get started until 3 minutes in. The script could have really used some tightening.

I agree, it was mostly just rubbish with about 10 seconds devoted to the actual point of interest which was this calculation that is never explained. The presentation is fine but the script sucks.

True. Good info but took a while to get to the point

I disagree, i haven't got the time to get bored

@@irlrp but you had time to watch and comment on this video? Weird thing to say. I would have got bored reading your comment but I didn't have time to because my time weighs more than gold...

She’s not very funny

Muydeemer do you even clickbait bro..

Thanks! New videos will be coming out next week......(well, next week if you read this when I write it). :)

Jessica i want you to be my girlfriend. Please don't tell me you have a husband and bunch of kids.

All good jokes are edgy. But I can see how you don't like them not being a fan and all.

bless you, may you never know a production deployment on a friday

@@romansmirnov961 Haha thanks :D that's the nicest blessing I've ever had

Sounds like it was made for kids...

I love the jokes

jokes aren't bad, but it's just not natural. she's forcing it. the video is good though.

@@filipenicoli_ I think it was..

I thought the jokes were okay. The bad part is the self-referencing the joke. That's a joke-killer every time. Trust your audience enough to recognize the joke by themselves via their shared culture. If they don't share that culture, it's another learning experience. Either way, win-win.

The name is "cringe". You can get used to it.

wait, She's not Tina Fey ? You sure about that ?

Right on spot

It's her style, I think she's adorable. Not everyone on the internet needs to be emulating the super-edgy style. It was informative, well-produced, and she has personality. I subscribed immediately.

You know what ELSE we had in the 90s?? Fax machines and video arcades and dial-up and floppy disks and FM Synthesizers and grunge music and Buffy the Vampire Slayer and slightly shoddy but very efficient inverse square root calculations!

Fun fact: the original moon landers had the processing power of a pocket calculator

That's actually footage of a game called Open Arena, which is a community created free and open source version of Quake 3, using the same engine as Quake 3.

open arena is just Q3 with chaged assets, nothing else - good when you just want to check "gameplay" of it

i was just testing you guys *cough* you passed.

@TGcitizen: You might be surprised what the difference of "open source" entails. Spoiler: Mods, features, code changes, new assets, new maps.

@GroinMischief Yeah - that means "open source". Maybe they tinkered alot under the hood of OpenArena netcode but graphically/gameplay-wise it didn't improve much or at all (at least I didn't noticed any real diffrence except for diffrent maps and assets remodel/reskin). It plays just like Quake 3 and if you have Quake 3/Quake Live already, It won't give u anything diffrent.

Every joke delivery was a joke in its own. Which was funny. Joke recursion.

M Reese a joke within a joke you say? Joeception