ickplant@lemmy.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 3 months ago5 tomatoeslemmy.worldimagemessage-square116linkfedilinkarrow-up11.19K
arrow-up11.19Kimage5 tomatoeslemmy.worldickplant@lemmy.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 3 months agomessage-square116linkfedilink
minus-squareBahnd Rollard@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up3·3 months agoThe feet to mile conversion is still in base-10… Its the ratios between the units that are seemingly arbitrary. Come on…
minus-squareGustephan@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·3 months agoThis comment brought to you by a complete and fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to use a different base numeral
minus-squareBahnd Rollard@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up4·3 months agoYou dont write the number of feet in a mile as 14A0 (base-16 for this example). Your complaining about ratios used for unit conversion, not base numeral systems… Fuck, this feels like a slashdot comment.
minus-squareGustephan@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·3 months agoYou count up in incremental numbers until you reach 5280 and then finally increment from 0 to 1 miles. That’s base 5280. Just because we didnt invent more symbols to easily represent that does not mean its not a different numeric base.
The feet to mile conversion is still in base-10… Its the ratios between the units that are seemingly arbitrary. Come on…
This comment brought to you by a complete and fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to use a different base numeral
You dont write the number of feet in a mile as 14A0 (base-16 for this example).
Your complaining about ratios used for unit conversion, not base numeral systems… Fuck, this feels like a slashdot comment.
You count up in incremental numbers until you reach 5280 and then finally increment from 0 to 1 miles. That’s base 5280. Just because we didnt invent more symbols to easily represent that does not mean its not a different numeric base.