Setsul, idk why you assumed I thought this is a lottery, thinking that I claimed floating point arithmetic was random. You completely misunderstood me if you think I claimed something so obviously wrong, and I am not sure why you would invest so much time into disproving this false premise rather than understand what I said better.
Now, let's look back at the whole point of this discussion, which in your many paragraphs, you granted only one sentence to: "Why that happens is a different rabbit hole.", where there is some kind of variation that causes some servers to grant 40 and on others grant 41.
If you actually look at the source code for glibc (or UCRT, if you reverse engineered it), you'll see they don't use the instructions you mentioned. This is why in my response, I expected this to be the most likely cause of that difference, and then put a very, very low chance on some other system. These implementations are constant on any one system, but vary based on what implementation is on that system. Far from the "random" you somehow interpreted.
Anyways, to make it more clear: when I laid out every single aspect of the system which computes this value (notice how I listed out operation (4) but did not identify it as a cause, because there was no new data involved in the operation), and talked about error, I was talking about the IEEE 754 representations of those values, but I didn't bother to actually check the representation as you did, so thank you for that. To be even more specific:
"combined with the result of (1). Given that this is a ceil, you wouldn't need a huge error for it to bump up to 41."
I was talking about the representation of 0.2f, which I did not look at exactly, but suspected was the cause.
"it is likely the attribute manager causing it (3), but I find it extremely unlikely it could create an error large enough to see this discrepancy."
I was talking about the representations of the various numbers used in the attribute manager system, which again, I did not bother to look up.
Given that "floating point error" is a standard term, I struggle to see what really tripped you up here and caused you to so confidently write up this response without a single doubt. Looking forward to your reply. Hope this finds you well.