Triggered due to incorrect handling of LaTeX. Original answer on the page was 10^80 which ended up getting the exponentiation ignored by google
this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2023
218 points (99.5% liked)
Software Gore
965 readers
1 users here now
A community for posting software malfunctions
Deliberately bad software or bad design is not software gore, it must be something unintentional
Icon base by Delapouite under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient and shear it
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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"