No, NO! She said the FIRST table. Not table ONE. Why are women like this???? /s
this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024
1469 points (98.6% liked)
Programmer Humor
32461 readers
578 users here now
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
- Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
- No NSFW content.
- Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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.
load more comments
(4 replies)