this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2026
988 points (98.8% liked)
Funny
13389 readers
647 users here now
General rules:
- Be kind.
- All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
- Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
- No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
- Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
12 is better than 10, I'll give you that. But 100 is better than 144, and 1000 is way better than 1728.
And that doesn't even get to 0.1 versus 1/12, or 0.01 versus 1/144.
So 12 might be a better standalone number, but it's a terrible base to work in.
But 144 is better than 100, for the exact same reason that 12 is better than 10?
There's a reason measured angles go to 360ths, then subdivided by 60 or even by 60 again.
100 is as terrible a base as 10, and you run into it all the time if you're designing something in metric; you can't divide by 3 evenly.