undefined

points

[-]

> Is that necessarily accurate?

Udo's knowledge of TeX is absolutely stunning, so I would be very surprised if he weren't in first place. And DRF [0] [1] seemed to agree with the ranking in a sibling comment [2], which is also suggests that it's accurate.

> There's 20 years on that chart vs 37 not on it.

The reward values have increased exponentially over the years (I think?), so the older years should be relatively insignificant to the overall balances.

[0]: https://www.overleaf.com/blog/618-an-interview-with-david-fu...

[1]: https://tug.org/interviews/fuchs.html

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50037551

by jacquesm5 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

There is only one person that can rule that out, but since this is their statement on the subject I would take it as authoritative unless there is a better source.

You probably have a substantial subset of the people on that list on HN, so it might be possible to recover a chunk of the 'paper era'.

by blltprfmnk5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I received two checks in the very early 2000s and my name isn’t on this list.

For the record I cashed both and have zero regrets. At the time it definitely felt like the right thing to do as I am not into collecting tokens.

by BellsOnSunday2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Most rock and roll thing I heard today :)

by zimpenfish4 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

> I would take it as authoritative unless there is a better source.

I'm not doubting the authority on the balances; it's the correlation to the number of checks I'm querying - high balance doesn't necessarily mean high number of checks, especially since the checks can have different values.

by jacquesm1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I doubt even Knuth has those records, so this is as good as it gets until someone sets off to compile a list of the 'paper past' that has enough proof to back the numbers.