this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
1380 points (100.0% liked)

196

16574 readers
1875 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're so close to getting it - why is it not a fraction of 10, but a fraction of 100?

[–] Sagifurius@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because base 60 was too useful for a bunch of French fuckwits couple hundred years ago

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So we use fractions of 100 instead of fractions of 10 because base 60 was too useful? How does that make any sense? The question wasn't why we use base 100 instead of base 60.

[–] Sagifurius@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not really knowledgeable bout history either, are you?

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not really able to lead a conversation without non-sequiturs, are you?

[–] Sagifurius@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not a non sequitur. You'd know that if you ever read a book.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, it's a full-on non-sequitur. As I said, the question wasn't why we use fractions of 100 instead of fractions of 60, but why we use fractions of 100 instead of fractions of 10. What you're saying doesn't relate at all to my question.

But I'm done here, you're either arguing in incredibly bad faith, or you're not capable of understanding my questions. Either isn't something I'll spend more time on.

[–] Sagifurius@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Just cause you don't understand doesn't make it a non-sequitur