Hacker News Reader

Comment by syrrim | Hacker News Reader

Can we agree that roman numerals suck? I seldom put the effort in to decode even short numbers like xi, let alone the year encoded in roman numerals. I personally read such a thing as "echs aye" in my head. If you intend your numbers to be comprehensible, you'll use arabic numbers. Hence, the fact that screen readers stumble on roman numbers is in fact a benefit, and we should be careful not to break this important feature.

View on HN

Yes, go back in time and tell the Elizabethan playwright whose work you need to study for your Literature class that they shouldn't use Roman numerals as is the custom, because it might cause you problems in a few centuries. Sure.

There's really no excuse for any Unicode symbols not to be properly read by a screen reader, except developer cluelessness or carelessness.

I've seen it argued that we ought to replace antiquated terms in shakespeare with modern ones as well. I was at pains to disagree. Replacing the numbering system would be easy by comparison.

Oh god you want to inflict the punishment of localization on to Shakespeare? Not that I care for his works that much but on principle I object.

Because you don't like Roman numerals disabled people should be unable to read then? Is this some supervillain origin story?

It was meant humouressly. Not bothering the blind with such a silly anachronism is of course a good thing. In fact, we ought to get ligatures in fonts to protect the seeing from them as well.

Because you don't like Roman numerals disabled people should be unable to read then? Is this some supervillain origin story?

It's typical 2020's internet moaning: "Stop liking things I don't like."

Here's a weird thing about human culture—when something requires effort, it's viewed as more formal or special, even and especially if that effort serves no empirical purpose.

Why do people wear suits and dresses to fancy events? Formal clothing is no more functional than casual wear, it's merely more annoying to put on and harder to move around in. People wear formal clothing because of the effort required—if everyone is willing to get dressed up for a party, the party must be special enough to be worth dressing up for!

Roman numerals are similar; they confer an additional sense of prestige precisely because they are more difficult to read. The XXI Olympic Games must be something really special, because you went through the effort to decode "XXI".

I've always found it funny that books use Arabic numerals for copyright dates, but movies, where you often have just a second to see the number, usually use Roman numerals. Did that just say "MCMLXXVIII" or was it "MCMLXXXVII"?

I do not think we can agree on that. I learned to do math in Roman numerals in grade school which is stupid simple and really beats it all into your head, for addition just pile all the numerals together brute force and reduce.

  XIV+XXIII = XXXVIIII = XXXIX

To multiply just break up one numeral and use the other to say how many . of each you have then add them.

  VI*VI = VI*V+VI*I = VVVVVVIIIIII = XXXVI

That is to say VI*VI is six Vs + six Is.

Subtraction is a little tricker since you need to convert numerals first but it is very simple to do in your head once you get it down and is easier to do in your head than on paper, same with multiplication and addition.

  XXII-IV = XVIIIIIII-IIII = XVIII

Division is not much fun with Roman Numerals unless you have an abacus which work quite naturally with the system and when doing addition, subtraction and multiplication in your head you quickly realize you subdivide and reduce the numerals in your head as you go in the exact same way and abacus works.

I bet you love both Roman's and their numeral system now. Next up, Vernier and his wonderfully accurate scale that lets your eyes see a difference of microns or even thousandths of an inch.

> XIV+XXIII = XXXVIIII = XXXIX

14 + 23 = 39?

This is a good example what makes roman numerals bad: sometimes a I means 1, sometimes it means -1.

No system makes up for editing mistakes. I originally had gone into how the Romans did not use the backwards numbers like IV, they used IIII and originally started with those examples and elaborated, messed up when reworking the examples.

You will have no luck asking Europeans to ever start using arabic numerals for titles used by the royalty. Numbering centuries would be a much more approachable endeavour.

Bloody French.

The French managed to solve the problem of royalty titles, though.

Not before exporting the idea over the whole continent.

Maybe. But not in the way you are probably thinking. Executing Louis XVI didn't get rid of their royalty. They came back again after the revolution/Napoleon. And Napoleon's nephew Charles Louis reigned as Emperor Napoleon III from 1852-1870. They haven't had any (recognized) monarchs since 1870, but even to this day there are descendants of both the Bourbon kings and the Napoleons who (semi-seriously) claim to be the rightful monarch of France and given themselves numbers.

The French still have monarchs. Four (ish).

1. The President of France is also, ex-officio, Co-Prince of Andorra, so their president is a monarch, though he's not a monarch of France.

2. The Wallis and Futuna Islands, which are an overseas collectivity of France, is still divided into three kingdoms with recognised kings.

There is also a viceroy of Pheasant Island, governing a 0.007 km² island for 6 months each year in the name of a monarch that does not exist.

That's an excellent addition.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com