She is right, using 0 index for physical stuff is stupid.
Your rulers start at 1? That sounds annoying.
I've seen a lot of rulers that actually don't have a mark at 0 and instead go right to the edge as 0. Typically they are worn down, being made of wood, so the accuracy of the first inch is dubious. To ensure the distance is correct, sliding the ruler down one unit is a good idea. So, my ruler starts at 0 but my measurements start at 1.
Rulers measure cardinal quantities and not ordinal ones. There is no cardinal numbering scheme that starts at 1, all of them "start" at 0. For ordinal numbering schemes, the symbols are arbitrary anyway and you can start with whatever you want. It's equally valid to start with 1, 0, -1, A, or "aardvark". The only benefit to picking 1 as the start is to make it easier to count with your fingers while picking 0 lets you easily convert an ordinal quantity to a cardinal one.
Works for floors!
Not on this side of the pond. We typically don't have a ground floor, that's just the first floor.
Blame the restaurant for having a table identified as zero
Why? It seems exactly as valid to me, and more valid if you like positional numberings of your physical stuff.
You just count the number of times you departed from an item in order, rather than the times you arrived.
Guy is wrong. Went to 0th table. She asked for 1st table.
And then he texts back 'where are you?' And then she texts back 'the first table' and he replies 'umm I'm here too. But I don't see you' confused she asks him ' table 0p?' And then '01*?' He says 'no, 00.' Releaved she says 'lol I am at table 01' he chuckles 'I am at 00, I'll go find you'
Later they get married and have kids. But relationship collapses and it ruins both of them and they cannot find the heart to love anyone again. Their children grow up broken and struggle through life. Some get arrested end up in prison, all of them repeatedly fall into a series of toxic relationships for the rest of their lives.
username checks out
Or.... or..... hear me out.... one of them turns around on their chair, and says "hey there".
They were at the corner
In the UK it's called a ground table.
So it was a spelling mistake? They're actually The Knights of The Ground Table!
They dance whenever they're gable?
do you also have minced tables there?
Don't wanna state the obvious, but it looks like they still ended up staring at each other for the rest of the evening.
They have shown that they still love each other, so hope they can work with their one irreconcilable difference.
I love the idea that they're at two adjacent tables, each one staring at the other wondering why they hate them.
They hate each other because they are intolerant to one another's index choices
If you love me meet me at first floor
Americans 😢 British 🤷♂️
explanation
Exactly what this reminded me of. Thanks.
The Major: "Fighting retreat at first light"
Me alone in the trench the morning after next, woken by German voices: "Oh no!"
That is why my restaurant will number tables by UUID.
A much better idea than when I tried to organize my restaurant with hashtables.
It was too much for the waitstaff, who had to reindex the floor plan every time they added or removed a plate.
On the plus side, delivering the right food was always O(1).
It’s for the best
they were never meant to be together, they would confuse the hell out of each other. Imagine they have two kids and she says pick kid[1] from the school, then what?
Child Overflow ErrorEdit: oh wait you said two kids, nvm
Hol' up!
I think children go in dictionaries so you can look them to via name (key).
One kid's getting garbage collected either way
The real punch line is that in a cafe run by programmers, esoteric rules are in full force, but tables 0 and 1 are no where near each other.
Hey, if she thinks 1 is 1st index then you
doggeddodged a bullet and deserve better.Happy now all you English majors.
you dogged a bullet
😳
🐕🐕🐕
maybe she's a lua developer
Wouldn't it be nice if documentation used the words index and offset consistently?
Aren't those two the same thing? At least in C-style arrays, which might not be how they're handled under the hood, but is at least how most languages present it to the programmer.
Yes they are presented in the programmer wrong. The first thing in memory should have offset 0 and index 1
DROP TABLE 01;
Dangit Bobby!
I still mess this up for lists in Python...
1st table is not equal to table 01 because there no 0st table
0th (only first gets the -st ending; only second gets its end)
This would work better as Nth floor of a building
Isn't the guy at the zeroith table?
There is no such thing as "zeroith". Does not matter which numbers you slap on the tables, the one with the lowest number will always be the first. The word "first" has nothing to do with indices, it's just an antonym for "last".
There's no such thing as "zeroith" because it's called "zeroth — being numbered zero in a series"
This works for building storeys, this would work equally well for tables. The only reason this is not used often is because the series are rarely zero-based in anything that doesn't also want to equate index and offset.
You're right that first may be read as "opposite of last", that would add to the confusion, but that's just natural language not being precise enough.
Edit: spelling
Edit2: also, if you extend that logic, when you're presented with an ordinal number, you would need to first check all the options, sort them, and then apply the position you're asked, that's not really how people would expect ordinal number to be treated, not me, at the very least
That's a problem when you get to the fourth.
Yes, and if he texted "Hey, I'm at the zeroith table" and the woman replied with the sibling comment then you know to run far and run fast.
I love how they're looking at each other
God yes, you can clearly see from the background scene that while at different tables they can clearly see each other. All this bickering is madness
IS THIS Love Advice From the Great Duke of Hell??
(it's a webcomic, I loved the story)
This thread is a great example of why they don’t like to let (most) software developers talk to the customers.
It clearly says 1
This could be why Obiwan wound up a hermit? (Programmers of my generation at least talk about "Obiwan errors" because his name sounds like "off-by-one".)
Easy solution: Switch to table UUIDs.
Even if the table is correct the instruction needs to be more precise. Is it table header or table body and in which table column?
What more can I say
Plot twist, neither cared about the table number
One went to the first table produced, the other to the first table placed
No, NO! She said the FIRST table. Not table ONE. Why are women like this???? /s
I work with juniper switches 0 is my 1
Fuck juniper fr though
Nonbinary
Why the fuck would you spell it "1st" if it's not 1?
Edit: Which is not pronounced "onest". I think people might be missing the point here; I'm actually a fan of zero indexing.
I feel like the joke would've landed better if it said "first". I know it's pronounced the same way, but I'm gonna argue anyway that there's a subtle difference. I've heard 0th used in cs to describe what was at the 0-index, so in that context 1st would be"second", but "first" generally means "nothing before it". English is weird. I wonder if anyone knows whether the word "first" or "1st" came 1st (lol)?
Ordinal vs. cardinal. It's "first" not "onest", right? Even the ancient proto-Germanic speakers could tell there's a difference. (In fact, it's basically a contraction of "foremost", and has nothing to do with numbers; their weak numeracy was an advantage on this topic)
If we weren't implicitly choosing 1-indexing it would be 1nd for "second" (and still not "onend" or something). That breaks down once you get to third and fourth, though.
They said 1st as an abbreviation of first (it's a normal abbreviation 1st, 2nd, 3rd ... 7th abbreviate first, second, third ... seventh)
Sure, but you have to see how it's an own goal if you're showing up to table 0.
Interestingly, we've got the same glitch in the Gregorian calendar, where the year 0 doesn't exist. So the 21st century started in 2001…
Yup. We should really zero-index century names and years AD/BC as well, but we don't. If we were still using Roman numerals it would be no big deal, but we rarely do, so there's a confusing clash. I'm not sure if it was this programming humour community or another where I had a big exchange on the topic before.
I suppose you could have some kind of positional system that's one-indexed, so 999AD = 1111999AD, and 2000 would be written 2111, but you'd have to completely redo the way arithmetic works, and that defeats the point a bit. And, the new 999 would not be our 999, because it's effectively base 9.
Bullshit.
Every programmer knows that
'A'in['A', 'B', 'C', 'D']would be the 0th item; the first item is'B'That would be wrong in every technical sense. You're saying that
.first()would skip the 0th item.First = leftmost.
That's because the word "first" in
first()uses one-based indexing. In true programmer fashion it would have been calledzeroth()but that is wholly unintuitive to most humans.I maintain that the element with the lowest index is called the "zeroth" element in zero-based indexing and "first" in one-based indexing. The element with index N is the Nth element.
1st would be 'B', first is 'A'
If you want to be both wrong and confusing
If you want to use correct English and be clear don't use ordinals: Say "index 0, index 1" etc
Save ordinals for contexts without indices: the first time through this loop, the last record"
