@K_A
 

I would expect at least a 32-bit integer to be used here, since it is likely using a scripting language for the Web backend. Such languages tend to default to long integer types for convenience. Indeed, thanks to dynamic typing, it can even switch over to a larger data type, such as from int to long when passing the sys.maxint value. Integer sizes tend to be powers of two to take advantage of the underlying computer architecture, where the byte or larger is effectively atomic for memory.
 
Something else caused it to reset.

@A Sad Pony:
 
lol, no, it’s me who is dumb :D I don’t know what on earth was going on in my head, that i neither noticed the HUGE difference in factors there nor the fact that you actually DID mention that you meant UNSIGNED …
 
So, basically … Ignore my first post entirely, it was bulls**t :)

RaCCa: You set no parentheses on the 2^{32-1, so Wolfram interpreted it as (2}32)-1, but what you meant was 2^(32-1) which is 2,147,483,648. Looks familiar, doesn’t it?
 
No, I’m fairly sure I meant the former, since I mentioned “unsigned” notation. 2^(32-1) would be accounting for the sign bit. And I mentioned that as the absolute largest value for the word length, which as far as I know, is a trade-off with using signed values. Unsigned, (2^{8)-1 is 255, just like that fella was showing in the video. If I accounted for the sign bit like 2}(8-1), it would only be either -128 or 128 (or -127, 128 in two’s complement, I think).
 
And I’m not sure why 2,147,483,648 is supposed to look familiar.
 
2,147,483,648  
is quite a bit bigger than  
250,000,000+
 
_{i’m dumb plz tell me}

@A Sad Pony:  
You set no parentheses on the 2^{32-1, so Wolfram interpreted it as (2}32)-1, but what you meant was 2^(32-1) which is 2,147,483,648. Looks familiar, doesn’t it?
 
If you want to learn more about overflow, watch this

I guess the early rumors of EqD’s pageviews being inflated were true…

boogerstu2: But shouldn’t that number reach up to 999,999,999?
 
In base-2, the boundaries don’t really stop at neat numbers like that. If your computer is 32-bit, that is, the processor can handle word lengths up to 32 bits, and assuming unsigned values, then the largest value your computer can handle in one word is this.
 
Then again, even that value is far larger than the views the counter had, and I’m even being presumptuous in assuming that the counter overflowed, anyhow. I honestly don’t have a clue what exactly happened.
 
_{(i’m dumb, ignore me)}

Just noticed that too. Strange.

@A Sad Pony:  
But shouldn’t that number reach up to 999,999,999? Because the page views were up to a modest 250,000,000+!
 
I guess we’ll NEVER celebrate a 300,000,000 view party! :(

Tis a lie

Let me rephrase my last comment.
 
Numbers stored in computers can only get so big, and they’ll eventually overflow.

Whoop! The counter broke!

Computers can only hold numbers so big until they eventually overflow.