This diagram helps to show that you and Hadriscus agree on the order of the posts, but not on how to describe it. That’s pretty interesting to me.
4, 2, 1, 3 – labeling the posts from top to bottom with which order they should then be read. So the first post is read forth, the second post is read second, etc.)
3, 2, 4, 1 – listing the order that the posts should be read if they were understood to be labelled in 1-4 top-down. So we should read the third post first, the second post second, forth post third, …
The fact that neither can agree on how to describe it yet agreeing on what is so wrong in the first place is just an additional data point on how stupid Twitter numbering is. I find that fascinating.
What ? No, it’s 3 2 4 1
If you’re talking chronological that is
This diagram helps to show that you and Hadriscus agree on the order of the posts, but not on how to describe it. That’s pretty interesting to me.
Exactly haha, they are both arguing the same point because they used different numbering scheme!
The fact that we have gotten this confused is all the evidence I need to change how this works.
Simplest solution is to change the layout from:
To
The fact that neither can agree on how to describe it yet agreeing on what is so wrong in the first place is just an additional data point on how stupid Twitter numbering is. I find that fascinating.
hhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnn
You’re right
I don’t understand
@Hadriscus@lemm.ee
if you assign a number 1-4 from top to bottom, reading order is then the indices 3, 2, 4, 1
alternatively, if you assign 4, 2, 1, 3 to each element top to bottom, reading order is then 1, 2, 3, 4
different algorithms, same result. i had chatgpt help me out with some fancy ass notation for those interested:
Instructions unclear, dick caught in semi-colon.