Cash machine WTF
-
@dkf said:
The UK (highly relevant, given the location of the ATM in question) typically numbers floors “Ground, First, Second, …” where the Ground Floor is the one conventionally entered into from street level.
Son of a bitch, they're using zero-indexing!
@dkf said:
As a programmer who has used zero-based indexing for years, I like that.
NOOOOOO!!! tearfully loads rifle "I'm sorry, dkf, this is going to hurt me more than it's going to hurt you.."
-
@ender said:
@dkf said:
Mind you, some buildings have crazier numbering schemes. One of the buildings at work (and it's a flat site) has at least 3 different first floors. Yes, wholly different levels; there's one stairwell where you can go in at first, go up one floor to third, and then another floor back to first again; it's quite mad. Construction and building management have plenty of their own WTFs…
In the house I live in, you have to go up some stairs (11 to be precise) to reach the ground level. 1st level is another 22 stairs higher.Mother's basement, eh? I dig that.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@dkf said:
As I understand it, this is typical throughout Europe (and possibly other places). The explanation I heard – don't know if it's really true or not – is that it dates from when buildings generally had dirt floors, so the first real floor was the second story/storey.The UK (highly relevant, given the location of the ATM in question) typically numbers floors “Ground, First, Second, …” where the Ground Floor is the one conventionally entered into from street level.
Son of a bitch, they're using zero-indexing!
-
@HardwareGeek said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@dkf said:
As I understand it, this is typical throughout Europe (and possibly other places). The explanation I heard – don't know if it's really true or not – is that it dates from when buildings generally had dirt floors, so the first real floor was the second story/storey.The UK (highly relevant, given the location of the ATM in question) typically numbers floors “Ground, First, Second, …” where the Ground Floor is the one conventionally entered into from street level.
Son of a bitch, they're using zero-indexing!That's too cute of an explanation for my tastes and it's too dependent on people adhering to strict literal meanings of words. It's probably something more along the lines that the ground floor in many buildings wasn't for occupation, but instead just a lobby or a business of some sort.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@bstorer said:
So they cut the hole in the building and noticed the ground was a couple feet above them. At this point, they apparently shrugged, shoved the ATM into place, and called it a day? And then whoever hired the contractors paid them for a job well done? Oh, yeah, that sounds totally adequate to me...
European work ethic: coming soon to an America near you!
Unions.
-
@mahlerrd said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@bstorer said:
So they cut the hole in the building and noticed the ground was a couple feet above them. At this point, they apparently shrugged, shoved the ATM into place, and called it a day? And then whoever hired the contractors paid them for a job well done? Oh, yeah, that sounds totally adequate to me...
European work ethic: coming soon to an America near you!
Unions.
Knock-off version of bstorer is right!
they're coming soon
-
@Ben L. said:
gigantic fucking image
Jesus, have you people never posted images to the Internet before?
As for the image, have you ever noticed there's never a catastrophic structure fire when you need one?
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ben L. said:
gigantic fucking image
Jesus, have you people never posted images to the Internet before?
I swear I set the width to 100%, not 600! Did Community Server fuck it up?
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Filed under: Old Yeller would have been better if the dog had come back to life as a zombie and teamed up with Lassie and some some hippies to solve crimes.
I want there to be a zombie movie where all the dead people come back to life but they don't realize they're zombies so they're just walking around doing normal people things like driving to work and going to school and collecting organs and grocery shopping.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Mother's basement, eh? I dig that.
Basement is 13 steps down (but they're slightly taller steps than those that lead to apartments). It's just used for storage, despite the previous managing company reporting an apartment there to the taxation authorities (which didn't matter until this year, when they tried to install property tax, but the law was written so badly it was struck down).
-
@Ben L. said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ben L. said:
gigantic fucking image
Jesus, have you people never posted images to the Internet before?
I swear I set the width to 100%, not 600! Did Community Server fuck it up?
Yes, it was 100%, which was massive. A mod must've edited it to make it smaller.
-
@Ben L. said:
Knock-off version of bstorer is right!
Y'know, I noticed that same thing when I realized I hadn't been in the forums for several years and came back. I prefer to think of bstorer as an improved me.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ben L. said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ben L. said:
gigantic fucking image
Jesus, have you people never posted images to the Internet before?
I swear I set the width to 100%, not 600! Did Community Server fuck it up?
Yes, it was 100%, which was massive. A mod must've edited it to make it smaller.
What kind of crazy expensive monitor do you have with more than 600 horizontal pixels?
-
@Ben L. said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ben L. said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ben L. said:
gigantic fucking image
Jesus, have you people never posted images to the Internet before?
I swear I set the width to 100%, not 600! Did Community Server fuck it up?
Yes, it was 100%, which was massive. A mod must've edited it to make it smaller.
What kind of crazy expensive monitor do you have with more than 600 horizontal pixels?
Protip: If you use style="max-width:100%;", it will shrink the image iff necessary but never expand it.
-
@joe.edwards said:
@Ben L. said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ben L. said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ben L. said:
gigantic fucking image
Jesus, have you people never posted images to the Internet before?
I swear I set the width to 100%, not 600! Did Community Server fuck it up?
Yes, it was 100%, which was massive. A mod must've edited it to make it smaller.
What kind of crazy expensive monitor do you have with more than 600 horizontal pixels?
Protip: If you use style="max-width:100%;", it will shrink the image iff necessary but never expand it.
I have a userscript that does that anyway, but I usually include the max-width just for the sake of everyone else.
-
@joe.edwards said:
@Ben L. said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ben L. said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ben L. said:
gigantic fucking image
Jesus, have you people never posted images to the Internet before?
I swear I set the width to 100%, not 600! Did Community Server fuck it up?
Yes, it was 100%, which was massive. A mod must've edited it to make it smaller.
What kind of crazy expensive monitor do you have with more than 600 horizontal pixels?
Protip: If you use style="max-width:100%;", it will shrink the image iff necessary but never expand it.
The original image was 1936x2592. Here's a pro-tip: if you're posting a drive-by image and I have to hit page down twice to get past it, it's too damn big.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@joe.edwards said:
@Ben L. said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ben L. said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ben L. said:
gigantic fucking image
Jesus, have you people never posted images to the Internet before?
I swear I set the width to 100%, not 600! Did Community Server fuck it up?
Yes, it was 100%, which was massive. A mod must've edited it to make it smaller.
What kind of crazy expensive monitor do you have with more than 600 horizontal pixels?
Protip: If you use style="max-width:100%;", it will shrink the image iff necessary but never expand it.
The original image was 1936x2592. Here's a pro-tip: if you're posting a drive-by image and I have to hit page down twice to get past it, it's too damn big.
Sounds like you USAians need bigger monitors to go with your half-assed socialised healthcare.
-
@drurowin said:
Sounds like you USAians need bigger monitors to go with your half-assed socialised healthcare.
What are you talking about, man? Over here we complain about socialized healthcare. It's bad enough we are getting the crazy European policies - don't give us your crazy spelling too!
I do want more castles, though.
-
@too_many_usernames said:
I do want more castles, though.
They're cold and draughty. Overrated unless you've got proper license to crenellate.
-
@drurowin said:
Sounds like you USAians need bigger monitors to go with your half-assed socialised healthcare.
My monitor is pretty big (2560x1440) but if the image is 2600 pixels tall then that's two screens, buddy.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@drurowin said:
16 by anything monitors are what's wrong with the world, unless it's 16:12.Sounds like you USAians need bigger monitors to go with your half-assed socialised healthcare.
My monitor is pretty big (2560x1440) but if the image is 2600 pixels tall then that's two screens, buddy.
-
@drurowin said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@drurowin said:
16 by anything monitors are what's wrong with the world, unless it's 16:12.Sounds like you USAians need bigger monitors to go with your half-assed socialised healthcare.
My monitor is pretty big (2560×1440) but if the image is 2600 pixels tall then that's two screens, buddy.
Your monitor is only 16×12? I have ten times that many pixels on the top row of my screen.
-
@Ben L. said:
@drurowin said:
Poor boy. Aspect ratio. The old "square screen" monitors. I've got a second-hand IBM T210 2048x1536 LCD.@morbiuswilters said:
@drurowin said:
16 by anything monitors are what's wrong with the world, unless it's 16:12.Sounds like you USAians need bigger monitors to go with your half-assed socialised healthcare.
My monitor is pretty big (2560×1440) but if the image is 2600 pixels tall then that's two screens, buddy.
Your monitor is only 16×12? I have ten times that many pixels on the top row of my screen.
-
@drurowin said:
@Ben L. said:
@drurowin said:
Poor boy. Aspect ratio. The old "square screen" monitors. I've got a second-hand IBM T210 2048x1536 LCD.@morbiuswilters said:
@drurowin said:
16 by anything monitors are what's wrong with the world, unless it's 16:12.Sounds like you USAians need bigger monitors to go with your half-assed socialised healthcare.
My monitor is pretty big (2560×1440) but if the image is 2600 pixels tall then that's two screens, buddy.
Your monitor is only 16×12? I have ten times that many pixels on the top row of my screen.
You have a strange definition of "square".
-
@Ben L. said:
You have a strange definition of "square".
4:3 looks square next to a 16:9...
-
@drurowin said:
@Ben L. said:
You have a strange definition of "square".
4:<dfn class="dictionary-of-numbers">3 looks square next </dfn>to a 16:9...Incidentally, if you square 4 and 3, you get 16 and 9.
-
@Ben L. said:
@drurowin said:
And if you cube 4 and 3 you get 64 and 27. Can I call them 1.34:1 and 1.78:1 to shut you up?@Ben L. said:
You have a strange definition of "square".
4:3 looks square next to a 16:9...Incidentally, if you square 4 and 3, you get 16 and 9.
-
@drurowin said:
Can I call them 1.34:1 and 1.78:1 to shut you up?
You cannot.
You may do it, but it will not have that result.
