I see the problem, the artist forgot the rest of the sentence:
“Four-sided objects, of which there are three.”
Boom. Done. EZPZ. Do better, artist.
Rectangular prisms have 6 sides though.
0-based indexing vs. 1-based indexing
What? The first ordinal you start counting at doesn’t change the total count, and alternatively the last item would be indexed at 2 if you used 0-based indexing.
1-based indexing vs. 2-based indexing
I don’t know why there’s even a debate over that. The answer is clearly “Yanny.”
Instructions unclear, I got my dick caught in the number 8.
'bout tree fiddy
Goddammit, Loch Ness Monster, I ain’t gonna give you no tree fiddy
I can’t see four. I’m sure it’s there, it just doesn’t appear to me.
Do you not see four? Your really missing out. I think some guys even started worshiping it. We even started selling a book about four. Once you see it, you can join out super cool club and four based economy.
THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS
Tea. Earl Grey. Hot.
We should build a wall around four, and make three pay for for it
At least there are no centrists in here claiming it’s 3.5
Or that we should agree on “throur”
Goddamn cardies…
What it feels like having a conversation with conservatives
and tankies*
And liberals
(Just trying to be inclusive)
And my axe
Once again the anarchists are the only correct group
it’s like the curse of Nostradamus
More like the curse of nostradumbass
lemmy user DESTROYS the philosophical tendency of anarchism with FACTS and LOGIC and EXTREMELY mediocre WORDPLAY
Are anarchists actually practicing anarchism if they form groups?
Iff they’re not hierarchical
Iffs in the wild make me happy.
Actually yes. As long as the group only acts in a way that all members approve of, and members are free to leave or join.
“Anarchism is when there’s one guy alone in the forest.” -Mikhail Bakunin
Did Mikhail Bakunin think that women could not be anarchists?
Of course not, if there were women in the forest they would be clearly accompanied by the Internet Argument Bear and therefore it wouldn’t be anarchism.
This thread is basically what modern politics feels like
Too real.
9
Is there a way to see this as four? I’m assuming so but legitimately can’t see anything other than three. Is that the joke and I’m overthinking‽ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It’s a riff on an old meme.
alternative interpretation: it’s only possible to be neither right nor wrong on something when the object is physically impossible
No, one! Lol
I am very pluralistic so I’m ok with many numbers, except one, the singular is where I draw the line!
deleted by creator
What about 1+(n/∞) where n is a finite integer
It’s an impossible object optical illusion but edited to be possible
The original is one of those MC Escher type things where all the lines are connected and it actually does have four “ends” on one side
The original used XI where it was 9 or 11 depending on the side.
edit: Nope I was wrong. That post links this one, lol.
I can think of a few ways, but considering where this is posted, there’s no need to overthink. Just keep it simple.
18
Is it though?
Big if true
Typical. Both sides think theirs is the only correct answer, and that the other side is just wrong.
But in this case, the other side is wrong!
Do you even hear yourself? You sound just like them. /s
Maybe you’re right and the truth is in the middle. Next time, someone will claim there are only two, I will say there are six, so we land at four, the true truth
Got it, helping satanic anarchistic sex cult rise to rival Maga republicans
Maybe you’re right and the truth is in the middle
The rectangles sure are. They have an untrustworthy look to them, though…
It might be.
It could possibly go either way.
There are four lights!