Using binary with bent/straight fingers gets you up to 31. There are other ways - like touching your thumb to different phalanges of different fingers, for 0…12.
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.
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 09 Sep 2024 02:03
nextcollapse
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.
Num10ck@lemmy.world
on 08 Sep 2024 17:17
nextcollapse
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.
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.
RandomVideos@programming.dev
on 08 Sep 2024 19:57
nextcollapse
You can technically count to 6000000000 with one hand and a way to measure angles
48954246@lemmy.world
on 08 Sep 2024 19:59
nextcollapse
Help! I was counting and somehow hit negative 15. Is there a bug?
skittle07crusher@sh.itjust.works
on 08 Sep 2024 21:10
nextcollapse
In American Sign Language you can sign at least up to 999~10~ with one hand
Well at that point you can also draw any number in air, no?
Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
on 09 Sep 2024 05:37
collapse
Or use a piece of paper, as long as you don’t steady it with your other hand.
Darthjaffacake@lemmy.world
on 10 Sep 2024 05:53
nextcollapse
Doesn’t work for people with connected muscles for pinkies😔
fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
on 14 Sep 2024 11:46
collapse
Can get to 14 by counting knuckles.
sramder@lemmy.world
on 08 Sep 2024 16:57
nextcollapse
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…
skittle07crusher@sh.itjust.works
on 08 Sep 2024 21:13
nextcollapse
Does the female aspect really matter because if not you could just leave it out… I’m sure many would still agree with you.
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.
Ooooo… okay, somehow I was getting like a “did you really have to gender the example?“ vibe… so hopefully that explains my confusion/response.
Maggoty@lemmy.world
on 08 Sep 2024 22:38
nextcollapse
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.
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.
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.
CynicusRex@slrpnk.net
on 08 Sep 2024 17:53
nextcollapse
If you watched the series Chernobyl I highly recommend the Titans of Nuclear podcast’s five dedicated episodes expanding on the misinformation it contains.
When did dramatized tv become misinformation? It wasn’t a documentary…
SomethingBurger@jlai.lu
on 08 Sep 2024 21:23
nextcollapse
Since idiots reference it as if it were a documentary.
CynicusRex@slrpnk.net
on 08 Sep 2024 21:23
collapse
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.
CptEnder@lemmy.world
on 09 Sep 2024 10:53
collapse
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.
CynicusRex@slrpnk.net
on 09 Sep 2024 16:17
collapse
“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.”
Which was intended in the case of the Chernobyl miniseries:
“Mazin’s interest in creating the series originated when he decided to write something that addressed "how we’re struggling with the global war on the truth right now".[23] Another inspiration is that he knew Chernobyl exploded, but he did not know why. He explained, “I didn’t know why, and I thought there was this inexplicable gap in my knowledge … So, I began reading about it, just out of this very dry, intellectual curiosity, and what I discovered was that, while the story of the explosion is fascinating, and we make it really clear exactly why and how it happened, what really grabbed me and held me were the incredible stories of the human beings who lived through it, and who suffered and sacrificed to save the people that they loved, to save their countrymen and to save a continent, and continued to do so, against odds that were startling and kept getting worse. I was so moved by it. It was like I had discovered a war that people just hadn’t really depicted, and I became obsessed”.[24] Mazin said that “The lesson of Chernobyl isn’t that modern nuclear power is dangerous. The lesson is that lying, arrogance, and suppression of criticism are dangerous”.” —https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_(miniseries)#Development_and_writing
CptEnder@lemmy.world
on 09 Sep 2024 10:56
collapse
Absolute master class in filmmaking.
kokesh@lemmy.world
on 08 Sep 2024 19:17
nextcollapse
Her mate Paul?
Renacles@lemmy.world
on 08 Sep 2024 19:27
nextcollapse
It’s a great show but it’s also all bullshit pretty much, it only follows the broad strokes of the real story.
MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
on 08 Sep 2024 19:33
nextcollapse
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.
Renacles@lemmy.world
on 08 Sep 2024 22:15
nextcollapse
I really wish they made that clear though, the show tries very hard to make you believe that’s the real story.
mynameisigglepiggle@lemmy.world
on 09 Sep 2024 06:01
collapse
Maggoty@lemmy.world
on 08 Sep 2024 22:35
nextcollapse
It was never supposed to be more than the broad strokes though. Even those were largely unknown in the West.
rottingleaf@lemmy.world
on 09 Sep 2024 05:51
nextcollapse
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.
starchylemming@lemmy.world
on 09 Sep 2024 06:10
collapse
whats this?
MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
on 09 Sep 2024 06:36
collapse
Galaxy Quest!
It’s a comedy film that equally spoofs and homages Star Trek. Timeless classic by now. Worth seeing if you never have. :D
starchylemming@lemmy.world
on 09 Sep 2024 06:38
collapse
thanks, i might just do that 😎
FauxPseudo@lemmy.world
on 09 Sep 2024 06:52
nextcollapse
No might. Only do. It is frequently ranked as the best Star Trek movie even though bits not Star Trek. Patrick Stewart didn’t like the very idea of it and then Jonathan Franks made him watch it. Patrick Stewart had to admit that he was wrong. He loved it.
FauxPseudo@lemmy.world
on 09 Sep 2024 08:38
collapse
Stupid voice to text.
MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
on 10 Sep 2024 01:41
collapse
Guarantee you’ll walk away with a new vocabulary of delightful one-liners and inside-jokes you might have once encountered, that will suddenly make sense. :D
I’ve been wanting to watch it again for a while now haha.
CptEnder@lemmy.world
on 09 Sep 2024 10:54
collapse
Literally went over like everyone in this thread
FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
on 09 Sep 2024 12:25
collapse
I saw it. But huh. If you use knuckles/phalanges you can get to 12 without any multiplication. (With multiplication- each knuckle is worth the last finger- you can get to 81.)
yamanii@lemmy.world
on 09 Sep 2024 04:50
nextcollapse
Ever since my father told the teen me that “based on a true story” doesn’t mean it’s a documentary I stopped watching those things altogether, since then I only engage with historical fiction if it’s so out there it’s obvious it’s not real.
Cethin@lemmy.zip
on 09 Sep 2024 06:15
nextcollapse
Yeah, that wording is so misleading. “Inspired by real events” is the more accurate wording, but I feel like I haven’t seen anything with that in ages.
“Inspired by” is way more loose than “dramatization of historical events”. The former can be pretty much anything even loosely based on some idea, but the latter has a more strict set of rules, although still rather subjective.
Chernobyl was definitely a dramatization, not just “inspired by”. It really did tell the events much as they happened, only taking liberties in things that truly required it for the show to work as drama. Like one thing they did was replace what was a large panel of scientists with one character who made the points the panel did. Does that take away from the veracity of the events? I think not much at least.
daellat@lemmy.world
on 09 Sep 2024 07:08
nextcollapse
Chernobyl still is one of the best shows I’ve ever watched. Not a documentary but it doesn’t try to be. It tries to be good historical drama and it is. Very gripping.
FinishingDutch@lemmy.world
on 09 Sep 2024 10:34
nextcollapse
Some works will outright lie about it. For example, the TV show and movie Fargo specifically tell you it’s a true story, and even that names have been changed but ‘the rest has been told exactly as it happened’.
To me that’s weird. It doesn’t really add to the end result in my opinion, but would breed distrust when people discovered it was wholly fictional.
Still, even with things that are meant to be accurate portrayal of an event, it’s always good to check the facts. Hollywood just can’t help but fiddle with reality to tell a more interesting story, even when it doesn’t need it.
FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
on 09 Sep 2024 12:04
collapse
The wood chipper scene in Fargo was inspired by a thing in Connecticut.
That’s about as accurate as it really is.
CptEnder@lemmy.world
on 09 Sep 2024 10:54
collapse
That’s a pretty narrow way to cut yourself off from a LOT of great storytelling.
That’s a historical drama, not a documentary, tho. Like complaining about vikings or gladiator or whatever.
repungnant_canary@lemmy.world
on 09 Sep 2024 09:43
collapse
You are indeed correct, some artistic freedom is definitely expected from that kind of series. But relying on Russian propaganda sources and making Legasov a hero doesn’t qualify as artistic freedom but misinformation. Also the representation of the soviet reality was at least inaccurate - my dad who was raised in the former soviet block summarised it as “representing how Americans think it was not how it truly was”.
Chernobyl is a good and very interesting series and it’s good that it raises at least some awareness about the catastrophe. But imo it could be more technically and historically accurate without losing its attractiveness.
tetris11@lemmy.ml
on 09 Sep 2024 08:09
nextcollapse
The reactor’s kill switch worked fine, but another reactor reacted to it
None of the Soviet’s spoke fluent BBC english at the time
All the scientists were squashed into a single organism called “supafrique” who was the main antagonist
The level of radiation blasted into the atmosphere was greatly exaggerated by captain planet
Superman sealed up the hole in less than 10 minutes
Chernobyl is actually pronounced "Churro-nob-yell"
Everyone who was underwater and worked to kill the reactor actually gained telepathy later on
It was actually hard to write this list. This was a great tragedy.
Fedizen@lemmy.world
on 09 Sep 2024 16:29
nextcollapse
his hand had 8 fingers
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 10 Sep 2024 22:51
collapse
Here’s a podcast from the show writers on the compromises and consolidations they needed to do for the mini series.
threaded - newest
Hand generated by LLM, of course.
Using binary with bent/straight fingers gets you up to 31. There are other ways - like touching your thumb to different phalanges of different fingers, for 0…12.
0…16 if you add fingertips.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, 4 is tricky socially and 8 is tricky anatomically. I touch it to something, as an alternative to holding it up.
18 is 🤘
17 is 🤙 right?
Try bending at the first finger joints instead of at the knuckles.
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.
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.
Flip your hand around
Then its a different finger
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.
Or you could just use the 10 fingers, 2^10 is 1024, so you can count from 0 to 1023
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
Imagine how boss a culture would be being able to count up to 31 on a single hand, and 1023 with two hands.
You can count up to 99 with your hands if you use them like a Japanese abacus.
Up to 1023 if you use binary!
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.
You can technically count to 6000000000 with one hand and a way to measure angles
Help! I was counting and somehow hit negative 15. Is there a bug?
In American Sign Language you can sign at least up to 999~10~ with one hand
Well at that point you can also draw any number in air, no?
Or use a piece of paper, as long as you don’t steady it with your other hand.
Doesn’t work for people with connected muscles for pinkies😔
Can get to 14 by counting knuckles.
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…
Does the female aspect really matter because if not you could just leave it out… I’m sure many would still agree with you.
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.
They thought you were mad there was a woman scientist and not that they reduced 50 people to 1.
Ooooo… okay, somehow I was getting like a “did you really have to gender the example?“ vibe… so hopefully that explains my confusion/response.
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.
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.
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.
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.
When did dramatized tv become misinformation? It wasn’t a documentary…
Since idiots reference it as if it were a documentary.
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.
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.
Which was intended in the case of the Chernobyl miniseries:
Absolute master class in filmmaking.
Her mate Paul?
It’s a great show but it’s also all bullshit pretty much, it only follows the broad strokes of the real story.
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.
I really wish they made that clear though, the show tries very hard to make you believe that’s the real story.
I counted 3.6 on one hand
3.6. Not great, not terrible.
It was never supposed to be more than the broad strokes though. Even those were largely unknown in the West.
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.
It wasn’t as bad as I thought: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_(miniseries)#Historical_accuracy
Lemmy won’t let me link this properly. Is there an escape character for brackets? This is the link I’m trying to post: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_(miniseries)#Hist…
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)
Ummm
<img alt="" src="https://midwest.social/pictrs/image/a8391184-d6ad-4d24-85c2-e49c4a53ef38.webp">
whats this?
Galaxy Quest! It’s a comedy film that equally spoofs and homages Star Trek. Timeless classic by now. Worth seeing if you never have. :D
thanks, i might just do that 😎
No might. Only do. It is frequently ranked as the best Star Trek movie even though bits not Star Trek. Patrick Stewart didn’t like the very idea of it and then Jonathan Franks made him watch it. Patrick Stewart had to admit that he was wrong. He loved it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Franks
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Frakes
Stupid voice to text.
Guarantee you’ll walk away with a new vocabulary of delightful one-liners and inside-jokes you might have once encountered, that will suddenly make sense. :D
I’ve been wanting to watch it again for a while now haha.
Amateur
The real Children Of The Atom.
Did we bring ‘pointing out comedy homicide’ over from reddit? Because a giant reaction face to point out a joke is peak that.
are we talking about the HBO show? The one that’s not a documentary?
yeah, i too like that documentary.
Is this a Chernobyl joke?
.
Literally went over like everyone in this thread
I saw it. But huh. If you use knuckles/phalanges you can get to 12 without any multiplication. (With multiplication- each knuckle is worth the last finger- you can get to 81.)
Ever since my father told the teen me that “based on a true story” doesn’t mean it’s a documentary I stopped watching those things altogether, since then I only engage with historical fiction if it’s so out there it’s obvious it’s not real.
Yeah, that wording is so misleading. “Inspired by real events” is the more accurate wording, but I feel like I haven’t seen anything with that in ages.
“Inspired by” is way more loose than “dramatization of historical events”. The former can be pretty much anything even loosely based on some idea, but the latter has a more strict set of rules, although still rather subjective.
Chernobyl was definitely a dramatization, not just “inspired by”. It really did tell the events much as they happened, only taking liberties in things that truly required it for the show to work as drama. Like one thing they did was replace what was a large panel of scientists with one character who made the points the panel did. Does that take away from the veracity of the events? I think not much at least.
Chernobyl still is one of the best shows I’ve ever watched. Not a documentary but it doesn’t try to be. It tries to be good historical drama and it is. Very gripping.
Some works will outright lie about it. For example, the TV show and movie Fargo specifically tell you it’s a true story, and even that names have been changed but ‘the rest has been told exactly as it happened’.
To me that’s weird. It doesn’t really add to the end result in my opinion, but would breed distrust when people discovered it was wholly fictional.
Still, even with things that are meant to be accurate portrayal of an event, it’s always good to check the facts. Hollywood just can’t help but fiddle with reality to tell a more interesting story, even when it doesn’t need it.
The wood chipper scene in Fargo was inspired by a thing in Connecticut.
That’s about as accurate as it really is.
That’s a pretty narrow way to cut yourself off from a LOT of great storytelling.
There’s enough original fiction and documentaries that I can live fine with not watching some director’s fanfiction on screen.
You can’t just leave it there and not elaborate what the inaccuracies were.
Check out this YouTube channel: youtube.com/@thatchernobylguy2915
That’s a historical drama, not a documentary, tho. Like complaining about vikings or gladiator or whatever.
You are indeed correct, some artistic freedom is definitely expected from that kind of series. But relying on Russian propaganda sources and making Legasov a hero doesn’t qualify as artistic freedom but misinformation. Also the representation of the soviet reality was at least inaccurate - my dad who was raised in the former soviet block summarised it as “representing how Americans think it was not how it truly was”.
Chernobyl is a good and very interesting series and it’s good that it raises at least some awareness about the catastrophe. But imo it could be more technically and historically accurate without losing its attractiveness.
his hand had 8 fingers
Here’s a podcast from the show writers on the compromises and consolidations they needed to do for the mini series.
youtu.be/rUeHPCYtWYQ
Is this meme appropriate to use when
<img alt="" src="https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.2345329808.6525/raf,360x360,075,t,fafafa:ca443f4786.jpg"> ?