For reference

919 points · 15 comments · view on lemmy.world

15 Comments

muhyb@programming.dev · 53 pts · 1y

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml · 37 pts · 1y

henfredemars@infosec.pub · 27 pts · 1y (5 replies)

How do I know it's not two halves of the same fig?

tabris@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1y (1 reply)

Yeah, it should be "fig 1", "also fig 1, but the other half".

zarqie@feddit.nl · 1 pts · 1y

fig 0.5 and fig 1.0

TachyonTele@lemm.ee · 4 pts · 1y

Because... Science!

FuglyDuck@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y

The shape and internal structure are different.

BodilessGaze@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 1y

Do you have a justified true belief they aren't the same fig?

TheGiantKorean@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 1y (1 reply)
[ removed ]
Klear@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1y

Not a lie per se, more of a fib.

dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 1y

Hrmf, figures.

Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1y
[ removed ]
JayJay@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1y

Damn, black and white figs look like demons. The paradolia is real.

BotsRuinedEverything@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1y

They're both fig 1

MadMadBunny@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 1y

Damn you.

captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 1y

Are these sig figs, or just the regular type?

HylicManoeuvre@mander.xyz · 2 pts · 1y

Ceci n'est pas une figue.