You are. The one referenced in, and linked from the article, that I linked to: was generated in Dec/2007 and published Jan/2008. The one you've found is apparently the by same authors, but has a publish date 7 months later (Jul/2008), 6 months after it was accepted for publication (so unpublished), and apparently uploaded to ResearchGate by someone with the same name as one of the authors in 2014.

The citation generator makes it clear the Jan/2008 version of https://doi.org/10.1080/15326340802427497 is to be cited.

Your linked Jul/2008 paper has no version or prior publication data, which makes it a bit gnarly to untangle. It does, however, mention reference [5] for "a sketch" (that doesn't exist), and links to itself as the source in the references section. There's something entirely suspicious about this version.

Yeah, it's pretty usual Jewish humor, which is mostly self deprecating.

Nice insight.

I'd call it an affinity queue, or perhaps an associative priority queue.

I think that's correct in principle, but the important difference is that you don't have to know the priority in advance.

E.g., to implement an Israeli queue using a standard priority queue, you'd have to track the priority of each "friend group" in a separate data structure.

Concrete priority values are also difficult to reuse without accidentally inserting a new group in the middle of the queue - so the values are at the risk of overflowing.

is it true to assume that in some cases, some messages in the queue might never get processed, if any other messages in the queue have an infinite amount of friends?

Reminds of a triage in a hospital.

Took me a second to get your comment, good one.