• netvor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • TwilightKiddy@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      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”.

      • 0ops@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I kind of brought this up in another comment, that “first” and “1st” aren’t really the same thing. Which is confusing when you extend that to fourth/4th five/5th. I don’t generally see someone write “zeroith”, but I’ll see “0th”.

        • psud@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          First and 1st are certainly different symbols for the same concept

          The spelling for the index before the first is zeroth, no need to insert an extra vowel

      • lad@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        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

    • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

    • PolarisFx@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      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

  • tunetardis@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    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”.)

      • affiliate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        i wish the people making buildings around here knew that. some start at floor 3, others at 5. some start at 0. others at 2. every building has its own story. you need to understand the building before you can understand your position in it.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • Godnroc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

          • xthexder@l.sw0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            It really depends on what you’re measuring. Good luck measuring the distance from a corner if you can’t get 0 to touch the end.

            Tape measures are almost always designed with this in mind, so you can hook the end over an edge, or butt it up against something and the measurement will be accurate both ways, since the metal end can slide in or out by just the right amount.

      • NateNate60@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

      • gallopingsnail@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Your job is to move apples from one bin to another. You pick up the first one and set it in the other bin, and say “zero.”?

        • absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          When playing games with the kids, we start at 0 being the position you are currently in, then count from there.

          e.g. in snakes and ladders, if you are on spot 30 and roll a 5, tap spot 30 and say “zero”, then spot 31 is “one” etc… till you are at spot 35 saying “five”.

          Teaches the kids about zero and avoids miss counts from the younger ones counting their current position as “one”

        • spikespaz@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          There’s another way to think about it which I actually use. Look in the empty bin and say “zero”, then move an apple and say “one”.

    • OneCardboardBox@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      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).

  • Fat Tony@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    No, NO! She said the FIRST table. Not table ONE. Why are women like this??? /s