131 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
reply
37 points
*

I never thought about doing it that way, so I counted in binary with my right hand… Tricky but oddly satisfying

Edit: shit, I’m getting faster at this. I might have to convert

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Imagine how boss a culture would be being able to count up to 31 on a single hand, and 1023 with two hands.

permalink
report
parent
reply
32 points

I’m physically unable to make 8 in binary with my fingers.

My finger just refuses to go up by itself, it will just go up with its friends.

permalink
report
parent
reply
31 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

18 is 🤘

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

I can do it but I have to hold down the other fingers with my thumb or by pinching them into the palm of my hand.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I don’t bother to fold my fingers all the way when I do it. All you need is a binary on/off, so just bending any discernible amount is sufficient.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Bend them the other way. Start with all fingers open for zero, and curl them as needed. You only need to move them a bit, so even twenty (thumb and ring finger back, the others curled) isn’t too hard.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Try bending at the first finger joints instead of at the knuckles.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Flip your hand around

Then its a different finger

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

you can cheat it quite easily, just hover your hand over a table or surface, and touch your fingers to the surface to indicate a 1, and dont to indicate a zero, works on your leg, or someone elses, if you felt like it i guess.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

Help! I was counting and somehow hit negative 15. Is there a bug?

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

In American Sign Language you can sign at least up to 99910 with one hand

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Well at that point you can also draw any number in air, no?

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Or use a piece of paper, as long as you don’t steady it with your other hand.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

great point… and if after the 12 you start touching your thumb to the other side of those phalanges, you now have 24. now each time you go through the 24 cycle, your other hand can tick along the same cycle like an hour hand. now you are counting to 550+ with 2 hands.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Or you could just use the 10 fingers, 2^10 is 1024, so you can count from 0 to 1023

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

You can technically count to 6000000000 with one hand and a way to measure angles

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

0…16 if you add fingertips.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

You can count up to 99 with your hands if you use them like a Japanese abacus.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Up to 1023 if you use binary!

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I was able to get to this number: 1 048 576 by using base 4 and making each finger a different “10” s place using each finger segment and the tip of the palm below it but you have to keep track of how many of each order of magnitude you have by yourself. Alternatively, just use a piece of paper.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Doesn’t work for people with connected muscles for pinkies😔

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Can get to 14 by counting knuckles.

permalink
report
parent
reply
55 points
*

If you watched the series Chernobyl I highly recommend the Titans of Nuclear podcast’s five dedicated episodes expanding on the misinformation it contains.

Nevertheless, excellent miniserie.

permalink
report
reply
22 points

When did dramatized tv become misinformation? It wasn’t a documentary…

permalink
report
parent
reply
29 points

Misinformation, not disinformation.

Also, many if not most people take “based on a true story” on TV at face value. Therefore it’s important to point out the inaccuracies.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

I mean misinformation isn’t the correct term either if a work of fiction never intended to disciminate any real information in the first place.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Since idiots reference it as if it were a documentary.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Absolute master class in filmmaking.

permalink
report
parent
reply
47 points

Couldn’t hide my disappointment at the end when they were like [strong female character] was created from the stories of over fifty different scientists…

permalink
report
reply
17 points

That’s how many historical movies and contemporary shows work though. Like, we all know CSI techs aren’t clearing rooms like SWAT in real life. But the story is far easier to follow if we keep it to a few characters the audience knows.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

For sure. And ultimately they gave credit where it was due, which is nice but it was a bit jarring. I think that means the filmmakers did their job well and crafted a character I could identify with.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Does the female aspect really matter because if not you could just leave it out… I’m sure many would still agree with you.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Um… I don’t think it matters to me what the characters gender was, but it seemed like the least I could do since I wasn’t going to go back and look up the characters name.

I think you’re reading something into my comment I don’t intend? Strictly referring to a character Ulana Khomyuk from the HBO miniseries here.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

They thought you were mad there was a woman scientist and not that they reduced 50 people to 1.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yea they really shoehorned her in. Would have been more accurate to make that character a man.

Oh well, could have been worse. Could have been made by Netflix.

permalink
report
parent
reply
44 points

Did we bring ‘pointing out comedy homicide’ over from reddit? Because a giant reaction face to point out a joke is peak that.

permalink
report
reply
39 points

It’s a great show but it’s also all bullshit pretty much, it only follows the broad strokes of the real story.

permalink
report
reply
65 points
*

If we’re talking about the HBO show, then calling it a documentary is just straight up wrong in the first place.

It’s a “based on real events” TV drama that never claimed to be a rigorous retelling of the catastrophe.

There are a ton of immediate differences to reality that anyone even vaguely familiar with soviet history would notice.

permalink
report
parent
reply
26 points

I really wish they made that clear though, the show tries very hard to make you believe that’s the real story.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I counted 3.6 on one hand

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

3.6. Not great, not terrible.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

It was never supposed to be more than the broad strokes though. Even those were largely unknown in the West.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Oh. People from English-speaking countries don’t sink you with downvotes immediately for criticizing that show anymore. Nice.

Even the broad strokes are, eh, how do you say it, eh … worse than Tom Clancy and that’s an achievement I’m not sure everyone is capable of measuring.

It’s funny though how such series about “USSR” talk in fact about something American. Reminiscent of the “17 moments of spring” series which were about a Soviet spy in Berlin in the last months of WWII, but mostly explored Soviet ideology and morality issues.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*
1 point

Lemmy won’t let me link this properly. Is there an escape character for brackets? This is the link I’m trying to post: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_(miniseries)#Historical_accuracy

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

TIL I can just post the link and, maybe it’s my Lemmy client (Sync for Lemmy) but it’s automatically hyperlinked (for me, at least)

permalink
report
parent
reply

Science Memes

!science_memes@mander.xyz

Create post

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don’t throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

Community stats

  • 12K

    Monthly active users

  • 2.8K

    Posts

  • 41K

    Comments