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.