this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
909 points (96.2% liked)
memes
14835 readers
4802 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
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
Somebody never had a clock with roman numerals and it shows
I remember getting into an argument with a grade school teacher over IIII because most such clocks put that for 4 instead of IV because of some fuckin reason
I despise these so so much. IIII was historically NEVER correct. Some doofus decided to put that on a clock because it looks more symmetrical with the VIII on the other side. Terrible reasoning.
Weird, I've seen many analog clocks with Roman numerals but always IV for 4.
It's actually called the "clockmakers four" or "watchmakers four." it's a thing.
Yeah I looked it up and saw it is a thing, and it's interesting. I wonder if the clock I'm thinking of was just a really cheap one that was labeled as you'd expect based on Roman numerals or whether some just didn't follow it.
To be fair, Google searching Roman numerals clocks give you about a 50/50 distribution.
I wasn't aware of this either and I suspect we're not alone. It's not highly noticeable and if there's a 50-50 chance won't even see it...
False. I had a clock that used IIII instead.
Your clock having it doesn't change that mine didn't.