this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2024
1170 points (99.1% liked)
Programmer Humor
32483 readers
361 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What a fun idea!
Is it on purpose that all clocks in this are coupled at the 3 o'clock position? I assume all the clocks go the same speed. Then the large clock and all the smaller clocks at the 3 o'clock position (there are 13 of them) would show the same time. E.g. in one hour, the 12 o'clock position would show 1 o'clock, but the large clock and all the clocks on the 3 o'clock position would show 4 o'clock.
Oh and why is it a clock squared if you have three layers of clocks? Isn't it cubed then?
I was mainly thinking of making some recursion hence why all the subclocks mirror the parent clock (for that given hour). Also I called it clock squared because I didn't think the resolution would be high enough for people to actually notice the 3rd level of clocks.
You might notice that some dials don't really align with the hours they're supposed to show. That's because I had to place a bunch of clocks at varying hours with a viewport rendering the parent clock at an angle that probably made it difficult to spot the errors. I rendered it once and didn't bother re-rendering it once I saw the errors :)
Haha yes, recursion is always fun!
Although I'm still confused on what the clock would show in an hour. Because if the subclocks mirror the parent clock at the given time, then they would all be stuck to the hour they are positioned on? Or if they can move then the sublcocks are coupled to 3 o'clock of the main clock. But well, it is all hypothetical anyways :D
Idk maybe the sub clocks are static and never change :3