4 ms·
That’s an absurd take... the article’s first paragraph is quite clear he’s going to tell you exactly where that 32 ran off to, and despite your random arithmeti
by setr 6y ago
That’s an absurd take... the article’s first paragraph is quite clear he’s going to tell you exactly where that 32 ran off to, and despite your random arithmetic that happens to find the number with no double-checking whether it works on any other font-size or font (equivalent to finding your birthday in license plates, by arbitrary manipulations of the numbers available), it turns out the 32 is in fact missing from any visible artifact of the font.
- exporectomy 6y agoThe author could have also mentioned, among the other not-32 heights, the distance from ascender to descender being 31.19 and explained how that's not it either. Instead, he just didn't mention it, as if he was trying to hide it because it was inconvenient to his narrative.
- setr 6y agoHe could have also mentioned that floor(cap-height + x-height + descender) also equals 32, but isn’t the answer either. And probably a few other arbitrary arithmetic combinations would work as well. But it seems it me it’d be much more efficient to just explain the real answer instead of telling you all the ways you could misinterpret it... which is exactly what he goes on to do.