fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 16 hours agolab toysmander.xyzimagemessage-square50fedilinkarrow-up1648arrow-down111
arrow-up1637arrow-down1imagelab toysmander.xyzfossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 16 hours agomessage-square50fedilink
minus-squareaffiliate@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·10 hours agoexactly! and i am always in favor of counting with fingers. we were given them for a reason, might as well make the most of them. counting is hard enough as it is
minus-squareDragon "Rider"(drag)@lemmy.nzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·7 hours agoNo, counting with fingers is bad. Count with phalanges instead. It’s more efficient
minus-squareCrazyLikeGollum@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·17 minutes agoJust be sure to do it in binary. You gotta squeeze all of the value out of those phalanges.
minus-squaresomeacnt_@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·7 hours agoCounting cohomology has done to me a numbers x_x
minus-squareaffiliate@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 hour agoyeah cohomology can be particularly rough. look on the bright side though, at least you now have the tools to answer this question:
exactly!
and i am always in favor of counting with fingers. we were given them for a reason, might as well make the most of them. counting is hard enough as it is
No, counting with fingers is bad. Count with phalanges instead. It’s more efficient
Just be sure to do it in binary. You gotta squeeze all of the value out of those phalanges.
Counting cohomology has done to me a numbers x_x
yeah cohomology can be particularly rough. look on the bright side though, at least you now have the tools to answer this question: