And then he texts back ‘where are you?’ And then she texts back ‘the first table’ and he replies ‘umm I’m here too. But I don’t see you’ confused she asks him ’ table 0p?’ And then ‘01*?’ He says ‘no, 00.’ Releaved she says ‘lol I am at table 01’ he chuckles ‘I am at 00, I’ll go find you’
Later they get married and have kids. But relationship collapses and it ruins both of them and they cannot find the heart to love anyone again. Their children grow up broken and struggle through life. Some get arrested end up in prison, all of them repeatedly fall into a series of toxic relationships for the rest of their lives.
username checks out
Or… or… hear me out… one of them turns around on their chair, and says “hey there”.
They were at the corner
Nonbinary
IS THIS Love Advice From the Great Duke of Hell??
(it’s a webcomic, I loved the story)
I love how they’re looking at each other
God yes, you can clearly see from the background scene that while at different tables they can clearly see each other. All this bickering is madness
Wouldn’t it be nice if documentation used the words index and offset consistently?
Aren’t those two the same thing? At least in C-style arrays, which might not be how they’re handled under the hood, but is at least how most languages present it to the programmer.
Yes they are presented in the programmer wrong. The first thing in memory should have offset 0 and index 1
in my understanding offset is technically the “relative index”, or how much you have to go further
The problem is that they both are contextual and can mean any position in a list/array. The starting index or starting offset is generally zero, but could be one, depending on the language used.
i wonder why people haven’t made a language that starts indexing at 2 yet. maybe some day
Maybe this could be a feature in brainfuck or COBOL.
god i hope so
Dreamberd starts array indexing at -1 instead of 0 or 1.
what a beautiful language
What more can I say
In the UK it’s called a ground table.
do you also have minced tables there?
So it was a spelling mistake? They’re actually The Knights of The Ground Table!
They dance whenever they’re gable?
When you get off an airplane, do you say
“Its great to be back on solid first floor of the earth.”
?
If the walkway goes inside the building, then yes. And the walkway usually leads directly to the second floor, because the airplane door is 3 metres above the ground.
OK but what about going onto the ground?
Like, in your garden, is that the first floor of the planet?
Inside the building it’s the first floor, even if it’s exactly at the sea level altitude. Outside the building it’s the ground. Basement levels start at minus one, there is no zeroth floor.
Exactly, the idea that you go up a floor because there’s a roof over your head is very silly.
It’s for the best
1st table is not equal to table 01 because there no 0st table
0th (only first gets the -st ending; only second gets its end)
Hey, if she thinks 1 is 1st index then you
doggeddodged a bullet and deserve better.Happy now all you English majors.
you dogged a bullet
😳
🐕🐕🐕
Why the fuck would you spell it “1st” if it’s not 1?
Edit: Which is not pronounced “onest”. I think people might be missing the point here; I’m actually a fan of zero indexing.
Interestingly, we’ve got the same glitch in the Gregorian calendar, where the year 0 doesn’t exist. So the 21st century started in 2001…
Yup. We should really zero-index century names and years AD/BC as well, but we don’t. If we were still using Roman numerals it would be no big deal, but we rarely do, so there’s a confusing clash. I’m not sure if it was this programming humour community or another where I had a big exchange on the topic before.
I suppose you could have some kind of positional system that’s one-indexed, so 999AD = 1111999AD, and 2000 would be written 2111, but you’d have to completely redo the way arithmetic works, and that defeats the point a bit. And, the new 999 would not be our 999, because it’s effectively base 9.
I feel like the joke would’ve landed better if it said “first”. I know it’s pronounced the same way, but I’m gonna argue anyway that there’s a subtle difference. I’ve heard 0th used in cs to describe what was at the 0-index, so in that context 1st would be"second", but “first” generally means “nothing before it”. English is weird. I wonder if anyone knows whether the word “first” or “1st” came 1st (lol)?
Ordinal vs. cardinal. It’s “first” not “onest”, right? Even the ancient proto-Germanic speakers could tell there’s a difference. (In fact, it’s basically a contraction of “foremost”, and has nothing to do with numbers; their weak numeracy was an advantage on this topic)
If we weren’t implicitly choosing 1-indexing it would be 1nd for “second” (and still not “onend” or something). That breaks down once you get to third and fourth, though.
programmer linguistigs is certainly something to behold.
Fun fact, Noam Chomsky’s linguistic theories were and are the foundation of parsing.
They said 1st as an abbreviation of first (it’s a normal abbreviation 1st, 2nd, 3rd … 7th abbreviate first, second, third … seventh)
Sure, but you have to see how it’s an own goal if you’re showing up to table 0.
It clearly says 1
Easy solution: Switch to table UUIDs.
they were never meant to be together, they would confuse the hell out of each other. Imagine they have two kids and she says pick kid[1] from the school, then what?
I think children go in dictionaries so you can look them to via name (key).
Child Overflow ErrorEdit: oh wait you said two kids, nvm
Hol’ up!
One kid’s getting garbage collected either way
DROP TABLE 01;
Dangit Bobby!
