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.
Comment on gotdamn
blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 2 months agoThis 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.
- 4, 2, 1, 3 – labeling the posts from top to bottom with which order they should then be read. So the first post is read forth, the second post is read second, etc.)
- 3, 2, 4, 1 – listing the order that the posts should be read if they were understood to be labelled in 1-4 top-down. So we should read the third post first, the second post second, forth post third, …
bitwaba@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Hadriscus@lemm.ee 2 months ago
hhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnn
You’re right
Fades@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Exactly haha, they are both arguing the same point because they used different numbering scheme!
Zozano@lemy.lol 2 months ago
The fact that we have gotten this confused is all the evidence I need to change how how this works.