• Anna
    link
    fedilink
    26
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Hey, if she thinks 1 is 1st index then you dogged dodged a bullet and deserve better.

    Happy now all you English majors.

  • @yesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    3010 months ago

    The real punch line is that in a cafe run by programmers, esoteric rules are in full force, but tables 0 and 1 are no where near each other.

  • @netvor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    5410 months ago

    Don’t wanna state the obvious, but it looks like they still ended up staring at each other for the rest of the evening.

    They have shown that they still love each other, so hope they can work with their one irreconcilable difference.

    • @TwilightKiddy@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      28
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      There is no such thing as “zeroith”. Does not matter which numbers you slap on the tables, the one with the lowest number will always be the first. The word “first” has nothing to do with indices, it’s just an antonym for “last”.

      • @0ops@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        610 months ago

        I kind of brought this up in another comment, that “first” and “1st” aren’t really the same thing. Which is confusing when you extend that to fourth/4th five/5th. I don’t generally see someone write “zeroith”, but I’ll see “0th”.

        • @psud@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          410 months ago

          First and 1st are certainly different symbols for the same concept

          The spelling for the index before the first is zeroth, no need to insert an extra vowel

      • lad
        link
        fedilink
        English
        6
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        There’s no such thing as “zeroith” because it’s called “zeroth — being numbered zero in a series”

        This works for building storeys, this would work equally well for tables. The only reason this is not used often is because the series are rarely zero-based in anything that doesn’t also want to equate index and offset.

        You’re right that first may be read as “opposite of last”, that would add to the confusion, but that’s just natural language not being precise enough.

        Edit: spelling

        Edit2: also, if you extend that logic, when you’re presented with an ordinal number, you would need to first check all the options, sort them, and then apply the position you’re asked, that’s not really how people would expect ordinal number to be treated, not me, at the very least

    • @xmunk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      310 months ago

      Yes, and if he texted “Hey, I’m at the zeroith table” and the woman replied with the sibling comment then you know to run far and run fast.

    • @PolarisFx@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      410 months ago

      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

  • Chev
    link
    fedilink
    1410 months ago

    1st table is not equal to table 01 because there no 0st table

  • @iAvicenna@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    3510 months ago

    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?

    • @OneCardboardBox@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      810 months ago

      A much better idea than when I tried to organize my restaurant with hashtables.

      It was too much for the waitstaff, who had to reindex the floor plan every time they added or removed a plate.

      On the plus side, delivering the right food was always O(1).