• 0ops@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • kn33@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 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.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        you can cheat it quite easily, just hover your hand over a table or surface, and touch your fingers to the surface to indicate a 1, and dont to indicate a zero, works on your leg, or someone elses, if you felt like it i guess.

    • Num10ck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • 0ops@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        Or you could just use the 10 fingers, 2^10 is 1024, so you can count from 0 to 1023

    • RandomVideos
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

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

      • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        I was able to get to this number: 1 048 576 by using base 4 and making each finger a different “10” s place using each finger segment and the tip of the palm below it but you have to keep track of how many of each order of magnitude you have by yourself. Alternatively, just use a piece of paper.

    • astrsk@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

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

      • Cynicus Rex@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • CptEnder@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          I mean misinformation isn’t the correct term either if a work of fiction never intended to disciminate any real information in the first place.

          • Cynicus Rex@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            “I mean misinformation isn’t the correct term either if a work of fiction never intended to disciminate any real information in the first place.”

            Which was intended in the case of the Chernobyl miniseries:

            Mazin’s interest in creating the series originated when he decided to write something that addressed "how we’re struggling with the global war on the truth right now".[23] Another inspiration is that he knew Chernobyl exploded, but he did not know why. He explained, “I didn’t know why, and I thought there was this inexplicable gap in my knowledge … So, I began reading about it, just out of this very dry, intellectual curiosity, and what I discovered was that, while the story of the explosion is fascinating, and we make it really clear exactly why and how it happened, what really grabbed me and held me were the incredible stories of the human beings who lived through it, and who suffered and sacrificed to save the people that they loved, to save their countrymen and to save a continent, and continued to do so, against odds that were startling and kept getting worse. I was so moved by it. It was like I had discovered a war that people just hadn’t really depicted, and I became obsessed”.[24] Mazin said that “The lesson of Chernobyl isn’t that modern nuclear power is dangerous. The lesson is that lying, arrogance, and suppression of criticism are dangerous”.” —https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_(miniseries)#Development_and_writing

  • sramder@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 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.

    • skittle07crusher@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      Does the female aspect really matter because if not you could just leave it out… I’m sure many would still agree with you.

      • sramder@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        3 months ago

        Um… I don’t think it matters to me what the characters gender was, but it seemed like the least I could do since I wasn’t going to go back and look up the characters name.

        I think you’re reading something into my comment I don’t intend? Strictly referring to a character Ulana Khomyuk from the HBO miniseries here.

        • yamanii@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 months ago

          They thought you were mad there was a woman scientist and not that they reduced 50 people to 1.

          • sramder@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            Ooooo… okay, somehow I was getting like a “did you really have to gender the example?“ vibe… so hopefully that explains my confusion/response.

    • Wanderer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yea they really shoehorned her in. Would have been more accurate to make that character a man.

      Oh well, could have been worse. Could have been made by Netflix.

  • FozzyOsbourne@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    3 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
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      66
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      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.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

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

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Oh. People from English-speaking countries don’t sink you with downvotes immediately for criticizing that show anymore. Nice.

      Even the broad strokes are, eh, how do you say it, eh … worse than Tom Clancy and that’s an achievement I’m not sure everyone is capable of measuring.

      It’s funny though how such series about “USSR” talk in fact about something American. Reminiscent of the “17 moments of spring” series which were about a Soviet spy in Berlin in the last months of WWII, but mostly explored Soviet ideology and morality issues.

  • yamanii@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • CptEnder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

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

      • yamanii@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        There’s enough original fiction and documentaries that I can live fine with not watching some director’s fanfiction on screen.

    • daellat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      3 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.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • Dasus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        “Inspired by” is way more loose than “dramatization of historical events”. The former can be pretty much anything even loosely based on some idea, but the latter has a more strict set of rules, although still rather subjective.

        Chernobyl was definitely a dramatization, not just “inspired by”. It really did tell the events much as they happened, only taking liberties in things that truly required it for the show to work as drama. Like one thing they did was replace what was a large panel of scientists with one character who made the points the panel did. Does that take away from the veracity of the events? I think not much at least.

    • FinishingDutch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

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

        That’s about as accurate as it really is.

    • tetris11@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 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.
      • nyctre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        That’s a historical drama, not a documentary, tho. Like complaining about vikings or gladiator or whatever.

        • repungnant_canary@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          You are indeed correct, some artistic freedom is definitely expected from that kind of series. But relying on Russian propaganda sources and making Legasov a hero doesn’t qualify as artistic freedom but misinformation. Also the representation of the soviet reality was at least inaccurate - my dad who was raised in the former soviet block summarised it as “representing how Americans think it was not how it truly was”.

          Chernobyl is a good and very interesting series and it’s good that it raises at least some awareness about the catastrophe. But imo it could be more technically and historically accurate without losing its attractiveness.