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 google120Reply
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.15Reply
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.45Reply
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.4Reply
Deebster replyprogramming.devI started counting, but my 10-bit counter maxed out. My answer was quite close to Google's though 👍2Reply
morrowind lemmy.mlA disturbing number of people trust this little and even cite it "according to google"3Reply
12 replies
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"