You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Bits are grouped in sets of 4 or 8, from the LSB up. i.e. 11110 (proper form 00011110)
is more commonly viewed as 1,1110 (1E) than 1111,0 (F?).
The Binary Cards interactive uses a simple container and so groups cards like the latter. In this example the face-up cards form a standard 8-bit group but instead the 8 MSBs are grouped instead:
Similarly, even the opposite doesn't seem right; it appears like the 256 card belongs to the group of 8 cards, with 1 left over at the bottom. If you were to ignore the actual number of dots on the card and just read each line like binary, it is 10000000 i.e 0x80 on one line, and 0 on the other
When the screen is smaller this problem is expressed differently, with cards grouped in sets of however many fit next to each other on the screen.
Instead, I propose that the number of cards shown is forced into sets of 4 or 8 (depending on screen size). If the url parameter expresses a number of cards greater than a threshold (say 6) yet not a multiple of 4 or 8, face-down cards should be prepended to make even sets of 4/8
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Bits are grouped in sets of 4 or 8, from the LSB up. i.e.
11110
(proper form00011110
)is more commonly viewed as
1,1110
(1E
) than1111,0
(F?
).The Binary Cards interactive uses a simple container and so groups cards like the latter. In this example the face-up cards form a standard 8-bit group but instead the 8 MSBs are grouped instead:
Similarly, even the opposite doesn't seem right; it appears like the 256 card belongs to the group of 8 cards, with 1 left over at the bottom. If you were to ignore the actual number of dots on the card and just read each line like binary, it is
10000000
i.e0x80
on one line, and0
on the otherWhen the screen is smaller this problem is expressed differently, with cards grouped in sets of however many fit next to each other on the screen.
Instead, I propose that the number of cards shown is forced into sets of 4 or 8 (depending on screen size). If the url parameter expresses a number of cards greater than a threshold (say 6) yet not a multiple of 4 or 8, face-down cards should be prepended to make even sets of 4/8
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: