Inaccuracies

Using binary with bent/straight fingers gets you up to 31. There are other ways - like touching your thumb to different phalanges of different fingers, for 0..12.

131

I never thought about doing it that way, so I counted in binary with my right hand... Tricky but oddly satisfying

Edit: shit, I'm getting faster at this. I might have to convert

38
- Imagine how boss a culture would be being able to count up to 31 on a single hand, and 1023 with two hands.
  
  6
I'm physically unable to make 8 in binary with my fingers.

My finger just refuses to go up by itself, it will just go up with its friends.

32
- Yeah, 4 is tricky socially and 8 is tricky anatomically. I touch it to something, as an alternative to holding it up.
  
  31
- I can do it but I have to hold down the other fingers with my thumb or by pinching them into the palm of my hand.
  
  8
- Bend them the other way. Start with all fingers open for zero, and curl them as needed. You only need to move them a bit, so even twenty (thumb and ring finger back, the others curled) isn't too hard.
  
  6
- Try bending at the first finger joints instead of at the knuckles.
  
  5
- Flip your hand around
  
  Then its a different finger
  
  3
- you can cheat it quite easily, just hover your hand over a table or surface, and touch your fingers to the surface to indicate a 1, and dont to indicate a zero, works on your leg, or someone elses, if you felt like it i guess.
  
  2
Help! I was counting and somehow hit negative 15. Is there a bug?

21
In American Sign Language you can sign at least up to 999₁₀ with one hand

16
- Well at that point you can also draw any number in air, no?
  
  8
great point.. and if after the 12 you start touching your thumb to the other side of those phalanges, you now have 24. now each time you go through the 24 cycle, your other hand can tick along the same cycle like an hour hand. now you are counting to 550+ with 2 hands.

11
- Or you could just use the 10 fingers, 2^10 is 1024, so you can count from 0 to 1023
  
  4
You can technically count to 6000000000 with one hand and a way to measure angles

8
0..16 if you add fingertips.

7
You can count up to 99 with your hands if you use them like a Japanese abacus.

6
- Up to 1023 if you use binary!
  
  12
- I was able to get to this number: 1 048 576 by using base 4 and making each finger a different "10" s place using each finger segment and the tip of the palm below it but you have to keep track of how many of each order of magnitude you have by yourself. Alternatively, just use a piece of paper.
  
  2
Can get to 14 by counting knuckles.

1
Doesn't work for people with connected muscles for pinkies😔

1

If you watched the series Chernobyl I highly recommend the Titans of Nuclear podcast's five dedicated episodes expanding on the misinformation it contains.

Nevertheless, excellent miniserie.

56

When did dramatized tv become misinformation? It wasn’t a documentary…

22
- Misinformation, not disinformation.
  
  Also, many if not most people take “based on a true story” on TV at face value. Therefore it's important to point out the inaccuracies.
  
  32
- Since idiots reference it as if it were a documentary.
  
  16
Absolute master class in filmmaking.

1

Couldn’t hide my disappointment at the end when they were like [strong female character] was created from the stories of over fifty different scientists…

49

That's how many historical movies and contemporary shows work though. Like, we all know CSI techs aren't clearing rooms like SWAT in real life. But the story is far easier to follow if we keep it to a few characters the audience knows.

17
- For sure. And ultimately they gave credit where it was due, which is nice but it was a bit jarring. I think that means the filmmakers did their job well and crafted a character I could identify with.
  
  7
Does the female aspect really matter because if not you could just leave it out... I’m sure many would still agree with you.

3
- Um… I don’t think it matters to me what the characters gender was, but it seemed like the least I could do since I wasn’t going to go back and look up the characters name.
  
  I think you’re reading something into my comment I don’t intend? Strictly referring to a character Ulana Khomyuk from the HBO miniseries here.
  
  9
Yea they really shoehorned her in. Would have been more accurate to make that character a man.

Oh well, could have been worse. Could have been made by Netflix.

1

Did we bring 'pointing out comedy homicide' over from reddit? Because a giant reaction face to point out a joke is peak that.

45

It's a great show but it's also all bullshit pretty much, it only follows the broad strokes of the real story.

41

If we're talking about the HBO show, then calling it a documentary is just straight up wrong in the first place.

It's a "based on real events" TV drama that never claimed to be a rigorous retelling of the catastrophe.

There are a ton of immediate differences to reality that anyone even vaguely familiar with soviet history would notice.

66
- I really wish they made that clear though, the show tries very hard to make you believe that's the real story.
  
  29
- I counted 3.6 on one hand
  
  2
It was never supposed to be more than the broad strokes though. Even those were largely unknown in the West.

13
Oh. People from English-speaking countries don't sink you with downvotes immediately for criticizing that show anymore. Nice.

Even the broad strokes are, eh, how do you say it, eh ... worse than Tom Clancy and that's an achievement I'm not sure everyone is capable of measuring.

It's funny though how such series about "USSR" talk in fact about something American. Reminiscent of the "17 moments of spring" series which were about a Soviet spy in Berlin in the last months of WWII, but mostly explored Soviet ideology and morality issues.

5
It wasn't as bad as I thought: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_(miniseries)#Historical_accuracy

2
- Lemmy won't let me link this properly. Is there an escape character for brackets? This is the link I'm trying to post: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_(miniseries)#Historical_accuracy
  
  1

Ever since my father told the teen me that "based on a true story" doesn't mean it's a documentary I stopped watching those things altogether, since then I only engage with historical fiction if it's so out there it's obvious it's not real.

35

Chernobyl still is one of the best shows I've ever watched. Not a documentary but it doesn't try to be. It tries to be good historical drama and it is. Very gripping.

16
That's a pretty narrow way to cut yourself off from a LOT of great storytelling.

16
- There's enough original fiction and documentaries that I can live fine with not watching some director's fanfiction on screen.
  
  3
Yeah, that wording is so misleading. "Inspired by real events" is the more accurate wording, but I feel like I haven't seen anything with that in ages.

14
- "Inspired by" is way more loose than "dramatization of historical events". The former can be pretty much anything even loosely based on some idea, but the latter has a more strict set of rules, although still rather subjective.
  
  Chernobyl was definitely a dramatization, not just "inspired by". It really did tell the events much as they happened, only taking liberties in things that truly required it for the show to work as drama. Like one thing they did was replace what was a large panel of scientists with one character who made the points the panel did. Does that take away from the veracity of the events? I think not much at least.
  
  4
Some works will outright lie about it. For example, the TV show and movie Fargo specifically tell you it’s a true story, and even that names have been changed but ‘the rest has been told exactly as it happened’.

To me that’s weird. It doesn’t really add to the end result in my opinion, but would breed distrust when people discovered it was wholly fictional.

Still, even with things that are meant to be accurate portrayal of an event, it’s always good to check the facts. Hollywood just can’t help but fiddle with reality to tell a more interesting story, even when it doesn’t need it.

10
- The wood chipper scene in Fargo was inspired by a thing in Connecticut.
  
  That’s about as accurate as it really is.
  
  5

are we talking about the HBO show? The one that's not a documentary?

yeah, i too like that documentary.

30

Ummm

23

whats this?

2
- Galaxy Quest! It's a comedy film that equally spoofs and homages Star Trek. Timeless classic by now. Worth seeing if you never have. :D
  
  4

The real Children Of The Atom.

22

Is this a Chernobyl joke?

13

Literally went over like everyone in this thread

9
- I saw it. But huh. If you use knuckles/phalanges you can get to 12 without any multiplication. (With multiplication- each knuckle is worth the last finger- you can get to 81.)
  
  1
He counted 8 inaccuracies on one hand

Implying he has at least 8 fingers on a single hand

It's a joke about radioactive mutations

1

You can't just leave it there and not elaborate what the inaccuracies were.

11

The reactor's kill switch worked fine, but another reactor reacted to it

None of the Soviet's spoke fluent BBC english at the time

All the scientists were squashed into a single organism called "supafrique" who was the main antagonist

The level of radiation blasted into the atmosphere was greatly exaggerated by captain planet

Superman sealed up the hole in less than 10 minutes

Chernobyl is actually pronounced "Churro-nob-yell"

Everyone who was underwater and worked to kill the reactor actually gained telepathy later on

It was actually hard to write this list. This was a great tragedy.
27
his hand had 8 fingers

4
Here's a podcast from the show writers on the compromises and consolidations they needed to do for the mini series.

https://youtu.be/rUeHPCYtWYQ

1
Check out this YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/@thatchernobylguy2915

0
- That's a historical drama, not a documentary, tho. Like complaining about vikings or gladiator or whatever.
  
  5

Hand generated by LLM, of course.

8

Is this meme appropriate to use when

?

5

Her mate Paul?

3

Amateur

2