Using binary with bent/straight fingers gets you up to 31. There are other ways - like touching your thumb to different phalanges of different fingers, for 0…12.
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
Imagine how boss a culture would be being able to count up to 31 on a single hand, and 1023 with two hands.
Help! I was counting and somehow hit negative 15. Is there a bug?
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.
Or you could just use the 10 fingers, 2^10 is 1024, so you can count from 0 to 1023
Doesn’t work for people with connected muscles for pinkies😔
If you watched the series Chernobyl I highly recommend the Titans of Nuclear podcast’s five dedicated episodes expanding on the misinformation it contains.
Nevertheless, excellent miniserie.
Absolute master class in filmmaking.
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…
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.
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.
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.
Did we bring ‘pointing out comedy homicide’ over from reddit? Because a giant reaction face to point out a joke is peak that.
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.
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.
That’s a pretty narrow way to cut yourself off from a LOT of great storytelling.
There’s enough original fiction and documentaries that I can live fine with not watching some director’s fanfiction on screen.
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.
“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.
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.
The wood chipper scene in Fargo was inspired by a thing in Connecticut.
That’s about as accurate as it really is.
It’s a great show but it’s also all bullshit pretty much, it only follows the broad strokes of the real story.
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.
I really wish they made that clear though, the show tries very hard to make you believe that’s the real story.
I counted 3.6 on one hand
3.6. Not great, not terrible.
It was never supposed to be more than the broad strokes though. Even those were largely unknown in the West.
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.
It wasn’t as bad as I thought: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_(miniseries)#Historical_accuracy
Lemmy won’t let me link this properly. Is there an escape character for brackets? This is the link I’m trying to post: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_(miniseries)#Historical_accuracy
TIL I can just post the link and, maybe it’s my Lemmy client (Sync for Lemmy) but it’s automatically hyperlinked (for me, at least)
The real Children Of The Atom.
Ummm
whats this?
Galaxy Quest! It’s a comedy film that equally spoofs and homages Star Trek. Timeless classic by now. Worth seeing if you never have. :D
thanks, i might just do that 😎
No might. Only do. It is frequently ranked as the best Star Trek movie even though bits not Star Trek. Patrick Stewart didn’t like the very idea of it and then Jonathan Franks made him watch it. Patrick Stewart had to admit that he was wrong. He loved it.
Guarantee you’ll walk away with a new vocabulary of delightful one-liners and inside-jokes you might have once encountered, that will suddenly make sense. :D
I’ve been wanting to watch it again for a while now haha.
Is this a Chernobyl joke?
Literally went over like everyone in this thread
I saw it. But huh. If you use knuckles/phalanges you can get to 12 without any multiplication. (With multiplication- each knuckle is worth the last finger- you can get to 81.)
You can’t just leave it there and not elaborate what the inaccuracies were.
his hand had 8 fingers
Check out this YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/@thatchernobylguy2915
That’s a historical drama, not a documentary, tho. Like complaining about vikings or gladiator or whatever.
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.
Her mate Paul?
Is this meme appropriate to use when
?
