weird@sub.wetshaving.social to memes@lemmy.world · 1 年前At least we're not mixing in letterssub.wetshaving.socialimagemessage-square203linkfedilinkarrow-up11.26Karrow-down149
arrow-up11.22Karrow-down1imageAt least we're not mixing in letterssub.wetshaving.socialweird@sub.wetshaving.social to memes@lemmy.world · 1 年前message-square203linkfedilink
minus-squarenaticus@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up9·1 年前Weird, I’ve seen many analog clocks with Roman numerals but always IV for 4.
minus-squaretopherclay@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up20·1 年前It’s actually called the “clockmakers four” or “watchmakers four.” it’s a thing.
minus-squarenaticus@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·1 年前Yeah I looked it up and saw it is a thing, and it’s interesting. I wonder if the clock I’m thinking of was just a really cheap one that was labeled as you’d expect based on Roman numerals or whether some just didn’t follow it.
minus-squarerumba@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5·1 年前To be fair, Google searching Roman numerals clocks give you about a 50/50 distribution. I wasn’t aware of this either and I suspect we’re not alone. It’s not highly noticeable and if there’s a 50-50 chance won’t even see it…
minus-squareChadus_Maximus@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up2arrow-down9·1 年前False. I had a clock that used IIII instead.
minus-squarenaticus@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up10·1 年前Your clock having it doesn’t change that mine didn’t.
Weird, I’ve seen many analog clocks with Roman numerals but always IV for 4.
It’s actually called the “clockmakers four” or “watchmakers four.” it’s a thing.
Yeah I looked it up and saw it is a thing, and it’s interesting. I wonder if the clock I’m thinking of was just a really cheap one that was labeled as you’d expect based on Roman numerals or whether some just didn’t follow it.
To be fair, Google searching Roman numerals clocks give you about a 50/50 distribution.
I wasn’t aware of this either and I suspect we’re not alone. It’s not highly noticeable and if there’s a 50-50 chance won’t even see it…
False. I had a clock that used IIII instead.
Your clock having it doesn’t change that mine didn’t.