Mac programming.dev1Hide 1 replyTriggered due to incorrect handling of LaTeX. Original answer on the page was 10^80 which ended up getting the exponentiation ignored by google120
FFooBarrington replylemmy.worldLudicrous. Nobody has the time to count 10^80 particles. You may think you're fooling us, but I'm not having NONE of it.15
SSnuggleSnail ani.social2Hide 2 repliesThe reason is that we don’t need more. 1080p is what you can observe on a fullHD screen, so there is no need for more.45
EEcho Dot replyfeddit.uk1Hide 1 replyWell have you counted them? I don't seem to have any particles around here I do have an awful lot of stuff but no particles.4
Deebster replyprogramming.devI started counting, but my 10-bit counter maxed out. My answer was quite close to Google's though 👍2
morrowind lemmy.mlA disturbing number of people trust this little and even cite it "according to google"3
Triggered due to incorrect handling of LaTeX. Original answer on the page was 10^80 which ended up getting the exponentiation ignored by google
Ludicrous. Nobody has the time to count 10^80 particles. You may think you're fooling us, but I'm not having NONE of it.
The reason is that we don’t need more. 1080p is what you can observe on a fullHD screen, so there is no need for more.
The eye can't see past 1080p, clearly
4k is a marketing scheme
1080p is enough for everyone
Google is getting better and better!!
Well have you counted them?
I don't seem to have any particles around here I do have an awful lot of stuff but no particles.
I started counting, but my 10-bit counter maxed out. My answer was quite close to Google's though 👍
Bad news for foxes.
LMFAO
A disturbing number of people trust this little and even cite it "according to google"