0 โ
1 ๐
2 โ๏ธ
3 ๐
4 ๐
75 1 ReplyHey, fourck you too, man.
25 0 ReplyWell, 132 you!
9 0 Reply
6 โ๏ธ
17 ๐ค
18 ๐ค
19 ๐ค
28 ๐
31 โ
13 0 Reply1 ๐
2 ๐
3 ๐
4 ๐
5 ๐
6 ๐
1 5 Reply
If you count in binary you can get to 31 on one hand, and 2,047 on two hands
38 0 ReplyI'm not flipping you off, i just counted to 4
19 is the rock and roll symbol
22 is the shocker
Assuming you use your thumb as the first bit
14 0 ReplyI taught my kids how to do it and for a while they'd tell each other to binary four off
11 0 Reply
It really turns into Naruto style ninjitsu.
7 0 Reply
counting != indexing
24 0 Reply^^
1 0 Reply
Nah. 1,2,4,8,16... or 1, 10, 100, 1000, 10000, depending on how you look at it.
12 0 ReplyYou use more than one finger at once.
2 0 ReplyI don't know many people who count like ๐โ๏ธ๐, so you kinda already do. You're just allowing more combinations
2 0 Reply
Someone is confusing indices and cardinality.
9 0 ReplyBase 5 is based
6 0 ReplyThe French used to count in base 20 (so that means both hands and both feet), which is why they read 97 as quatre-vingt-dix-sept, ie
4*20+10+7
.7 1 ReplyOne of the reasons why I hate learning French so much.
3 0 Reply
Don't you mean base 10?
Also, clearly seximal is the best
1 0 ReplyBinary is better than seximal, unless you rig the tests.
1 0 Reply
coworker taught me this and it blew my mind. I had previously jokingly used base 2 with my hands, but something like 01001 10010 would be difficult to handle.
1 0 ReplyBase 2 should be easy to add, but it requires effort to convert
2 0 Reply
If you count finger joints and tips, using your thumb โ you can count in hex (base16) on each hand.
5 0 Reply๐คฏ wow, that's a neat idea! That might come in handy some time ๐ค
1 0 Reply
"Please count to 10."
"... um, I've run out of fingers."
4 0 ReplyYou only need two fingers for that though
2 0 Reply
THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!
4 0 Reply0 1 10 11 100
2 0 Reply0; 1; 2; 4; 8
2 0 ReplyI've watched Inglorious Basterds I'm not falling for that trick
2 0 ReplyHaaaaaang on is that why we start on 0...
1 0 ReplyNo. We count start at zero because the array already starts with an element of a specific size. Starting at 1 would always skip that initial element.
5 0 ReplyYou could have "empty arrays" in a language if you wanted. The real reason is that you start with an offset of zero as you read an array from memory at hardware level, and so this way address is just "start address + element size * element number".
8 0 ReplyNo, we start counting at one. We start indexing at zero.
An array with one element has an element count of 1, and that element would be at index 0.
4 0 Reply
Because if you convert it back to binary, you have 0x0000 and that is one extra bit you can use instead of limiting your available values.
1 1 Reply
I literally did this the other day... to be fair, it was a list starting with the number zero.
1 0 ReplyFun fact: when learning some instruments (e.g. bowed instruments) you also number the fingers starting from your index (because you don't play with the thumb)
1 0 Reply0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, etc.
1 0 ReplyLUN is life.
1 0 ReplyAKschually, thumbs aren't fingers.
1 3 Reply