• Beryl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    106
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    There’s a typo in the title. If you go back to the original source (in french), they actually retain 79,5 % of their original efficiency, so even better than the article’s title would have you believe.

      • Whitebrow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        People seem to be angry at you for not knowing how the French count. My condolences. I found it funny tho. Have un upvote

        • einkorn@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Well, I DO know how the French count and compared to English it IS highly confusing. You can hardly convince me that saying “Four times twenty and ten” is as straight forward as saying “Nine tens”.

          And just to be clear: I’m not some Yankee or Brit with a superiority complex, no, I am German, and we have our own shitty version of this: Instead of moving along the digits from highest to lowest, as in “Four hundreds and two tens and nine”, we do “Four hundred and nine and two tens”.

      • Beryl@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        It supposedly comes from originaly counting in base 20 ( a.k.a : vigesimal system) in some proto-european language. There are traces of it in breton, albanese, basque and danish for example. Even in english, there is a reminiscence of vigesimal, in the “score”, see for example Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address which famously starts with : “Fourscore and seven years ago…”, meaning 87 years ago.