Logarithmic "flatness"

One reason why the n^(4/3) cents measure seems somehow "flat" to me,
and evidently to Paul, is that aside from a initial bias in favor of
small ets due to the infinite relative perfection of the 0-et, it is
a logarithmic measure. In other words, the size of the ets grows
roughly exponentially, so that there are about the same number from
11 to 100 as 101 to 1000 and 1001 to 10000, etc. Also, the size of
the interval around the et defined by its neighbors on the list is
proportional to the size of the et.