Or is it 3 2 4 1
Comment on gotdamn
Zozano@lemy.lol 10 months ago
Twitter formatting sucks ass.
Reading order:
4 2 1 3
Tier1BuildABear@lemmy.world 10 months ago
at_an_angle@lemmy.one 10 months ago
The formatting on Twitter is what kept me from using it.
Hadriscus@lemm.ee 10 months ago
What ? No, it’s 3 2 4 1
If you’re talking chronological that is
Zozano@lemy.lol 10 months ago
What?
The posts have times on them.
3
blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 10 months ago
This diagram helps to show that you and Hadriscus agree on the order of the posts, but not on how to describe it. That’s pretty interesting to me.
Zozano@lemy.lol 10 months ago
The fact that we have gotten this confused is all the evidence I need to change how how this works.
bitwaba@lemmy.world 10 months ago
The fact that neither can agree on how to describe it yet agreeing on what is so wrong in the first place is just an additional data point on how stupid Twitter numbering is. I find that fascinating.
Hadriscus@lemm.ee 10 months ago
hhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnn
You’re right
Fades@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Exactly haha, they are both arguing the same point because they used different numbering scheme!
LPodyssey07@lemm.ee 10 months ago
I don’t understand
spujb@lemmy.cafe 10 months ago
@Hadriscus@lemm.ee
if you assign a number 1-4 from top to bottom, reading order is then the indices 3, 2, 1, 4
alternatively, if you assign 4, 2, 1, 3 to each element top to bottom, reading order is then 1, 2, 3, 4
different algorithms, same result. in permutation this looks like:
versus
ikidd@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Instructions unclear, dick caught in semi-colon.