this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
1113 points (96.4% liked)

memes

14862 readers
5472 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 40 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

If the day started at 1:00 then by the second hour you would be at 2:00, even though only 1 hour has passed. Effectively the day starts at 0. In fact in 24-hour time that is how it's depicted, 00:00 with midday being depicted as 12:00, so it isn't confusing

[–] demunted@lemmy.ml 5 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

As a programmer I'd rather it start at 0

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 points 5 hours ago

Yeah but now you can't enjoy the delights of python

[–] Danquebec@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 hours ago

Which is also why I hate that our calendar starts at year 1.

[–] demunted@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 hours ago

Also see this: https://gist.github.com/timvisee/fcda9bbdff88d45cc9061606b4b923ca

It amazingly explains all the insanities for handling dates and times.

[–] Iheartcheese@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago

6 means 30 is some toilet paper math

[–] teslasaur@lemmy.world 13 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (2 children)

It's the same logic that was used by ancient astronomers to arrive at 360 degrees for a full revolution.

The math is easier if you have to do it by hand.

[–] hakunawazo@lemmy.world 4 points 10 hours ago

You've gone 360 on me.

[–] nialv7@lemmy.world 10 points 14 hours ago (2 children)
[–] Hobo@lemmy.world 6 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

It's also the one advantage Imperial has over metric. It's easier to do mental math in a lot of cases in base 12 rather than base 10.

Now excuse me while I bar my windows and doors from the mobs of angry people that show every time I point this out.

[–] teslasaur@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

True, but why does volume/length/weight have to be separated? I honestly wouldn't mind a base 12 system if they were connected logically.

[–] Hobo@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago

I should have been more precise, I was really just talking about length measurements and less so on the holy fuckshit of everything else. I, too, would be super on board with a base 12 measurement system...

If we invent it we can have 3 competing standards!

[–] frezik@midwest.social 3 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

Let me jump in until the mobs show up. "Noooooo, it's just what you're used to lalala. When is dividing by thirds ever useful, anyway?".

I've also found that if you make this point without any reference to metric vs imperial, people tend to accept it.

[–] Hobo@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

That's a good tip. I'll keep that in mind next time this topic comes up.

[–] ultracritical@lemmy.world 6 points 11 hours ago

Only really counts for feet and inches. But yes, having your base unit be divisible by halves, thirds, quarters, sixths, and twelths with whole numbers of sub units is highly useful when fabricating objects when you don't have access to modern tooling and supplies. In fact I would argue base 12 is the superior numerical system that was abandoned for metric and we have lost something in the meantime. Though Jan Misali might disagree with his love for sexinal.

Imperial units do have another advantage to this day, though. When talking about machining bolts and threads Imperial use threads per inch or threads per unit length while metric uses the pitch of the thread, so mm in-between threads. This decision means that when machining imperial nuts and bolts we by default pick whole numbers of threads per inch which due to the circular nature of lathes means that a simple clock dial can keep the lead screw synchronised with the head. Since metric uses pitch we pick numbers like 1.25mm pitch which does not always synchronous well with the lead screw and head and requires some odd gear ratios to cut specific threads.

[–] teslasaur@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

Poor 70. Imagine being the objectively "weird" one out of a hundred.

[–] ParadoxSeahorse@lemmy.world 8 points 17 hours ago

Well it’s because noon means nine because the day starts at six o’ clock, so three is noon, but we use it to mean twelve which is closer to midday, obviously

[–] PieMePlenty@lemmy.world 9 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

Hour hand -> hour = n
Minute hand -> minute = n * 5
It makes sense, there's just an algorithm attached to each pointer.

Hour -> 3 = 3
Minute -> 3 = 3 * 5 = 15

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 4 points 14 hours ago

The first clocks didn't have a minute hand though.

[–] ssfckdt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 22 points 22 hours ago (8 children)

Somebody never had a clock with roman numerals and it shows

I remember getting into an argument with a grade school teacher over IIII because most such clocks put that for 4 instead of IV because of some fuckin reason

[–] Opisek@lemmy.world 16 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (2 children)

I despise these so so much. IIII was historically NEVER correct. Some doofus decided to put that on a clock because it looks more symmetrical with the VIII on the other side. Terrible reasoning.

[–] some_random_nick@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

"However, even though it is now widely accepted that 4 must be written IV, the original and most ancient pattern for Roman numerals wasn’t the same as what we know today. Earliest models did, in fact, use VIIII for 9 (instead of IX) and IIII for 4 (instead of IV). However, these two numerals proved problematic, they were easily confused with III and VIII. Instead of the original additive notation, the Roman numeral system changed to the more familiar subtractive notation. However, this was well after the fall of the Roman Empire."

https://monochrome-watches.com/why-do-clocks-and-watches-use-roman-numeral-iiii-instead-of-iv/

[–] mhague@lemmy.world 3 points 10 hours ago

IIII was the way Romans usually wrote 4. It's associated with simplicity / illiteracy. But also depended on era, region, intended audience, or practicality. I think the most famous example is the coliseum using LIIII.

There's still variation even now; standardization is relatively new, and it's not common knowledge. And dates... it's like every 50-100 years people decided to write them differently.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] LanguageIsCool@lemmy.world 18 points 23 hours ago

The 6 means 30, both of which also mean 1/2

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 8 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Relatively funny but gets worse the more you think about it.

The 6 stands for 6, not 30.

When we have AM and PM it would be dumb to have 1-24.

1 is the end of the 1st hour. 2 the end of the second. This is why it starts at 0.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Corn@lemmy.ml 59 points 1 day ago (16 children)
load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›