this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2024
872 points (92.7% liked)

Science Memes

11130 readers
3068 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cizra@lemm.ee 131 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (10 children)

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.

[–] 0ops@lemm.ee 38 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

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

[–] MisterFrog@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Imagine how boss a culture would be being able to count up to 31 on a single hand, and 1023 with two hands.

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 32 points 2 months ago (6 children)

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.

[–] cizra@lemm.ee 31 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, 4 is tricky socially and 8 is tricky anatomically. I touch it to something, as an alternative to holding it up.

[–] m4xie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] Mac@mander.xyz 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

17 is 🤙 right?

[–] kn33@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] procrastitron@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

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.

[–] notabot@lemm.ee 6 points 2 months ago

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.

[–] procrastitron@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

Try bending at the first finger joints instead of at the knuckles.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] 48954246@lemmy.world 21 points 2 months ago

Help! I was counting and somehow hit negative 15. Is there a bug?

[–] skittle07crusher@sh.itjust.works 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

In American Sign Language you can sign at least up to 999~10~ with one hand

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Well at that point you can also draw any number in air, no?

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Or use a piece of paper, as long as you don't steady it with your other hand.

[–] Num10ck@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RandomVideos@programming.dev 9 points 2 months ago

You can technically count to 6000000000 with one hand and a way to measure angles

[–] dankm@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 months ago

0..16 if you add fingertips.

[–] rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

You can count up to 99 with your hands if you use them like a Japanese abacus.

[–] daddy32@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago

Up to 1023 if you use binary!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] CynicusRex 55 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] astrsk@fedia.io 22 points 2 months ago (2 children)

When did dramatized tv become misinformation? It wasn’t a documentary…

[–] CynicusRex 29 points 2 months ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SomethingBurger@jlai.lu 16 points 2 months ago

Since idiots reference it as if it were a documentary.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sramder@lemmy.world 48 points 2 months ago (6 children)

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…

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] sramder@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] FozzyOsbourne@lemm.ee 45 points 2 months ago

Did we bring 'pointing out comedy homicide' over from reddit? Because a giant reaction face to point out a joke is peak that.

[–] Renacles@lemmy.world 39 points 2 months ago (6 children)

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 65 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

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 26 points 2 months ago

I really wish they made that clear though, the show tries very hard to make you believe that's the real story.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago

It was never supposed to be more than the broad strokes though. Even those were largely unknown in the West.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] yamanii@lemmy.world 31 points 2 months ago (4 children)

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.

[–] daellat@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago

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.

[–] CptEnder@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That's a pretty narrow way to cut yourself off from a LOT of great storytelling.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 14 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FinishingDutch@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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 5 points 2 months ago

The wood chipper scene in Fargo was inspired by a thing in Connecticut.

That’s about as accurate as it really is.

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 29 points 2 months ago

are we talking about the HBO show? The one that's not a documentary?

yeah, i too like that documentary.

[–] Arcka@midwest.social 23 points 2 months ago (7 children)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 21 points 2 months ago

The real Children Of The Atom.

[–] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)
[–] CptEnder@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Literally went over like everyone in this thread

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] duckduckohno@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (6 children)

You can't just leave it there and not elaborate what the inaccuracies were.

[–] tetris11@lemmy.ml 27 points 2 months ago
  1. The reactor's kill switch worked fine, but another reactor reacted to it
  2. None of the Soviet's spoke fluent BBC english at the time
  3. All the scientists were squashed into a single organism called "supafrique" who was the main antagonist
  4. The level of radiation blasted into the atmosphere was greatly exaggerated by captain planet
  5. Superman sealed up the hole in less than 10 minutes
  6. Chernobyl is actually pronounced "Churro-nob-yell"
  7. Everyone who was underwater and worked to kill the reactor actually gained telepathy later on
  8. It was actually hard to write this list. This was a great tragedy.
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] SweetCitrusBuzz@beehaw.org 8 points 2 months ago

Hand generated by LLM, of course.

load more comments
view more: next ›