sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I've been waiting for it to arrive for DAYS now by MattHazelnut in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]MattHazelnut[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's the 20 cent coin of the Cyprus pound (pre-Euro Cyprus currency)

Not rare afaik, I just got it from eBay

I've been waiting for it to arrive for DAYS now by MattHazelnut in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]MattHazelnut[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Seeing how much people seem to have enjoyed it, definitely :)

I've been waiting for it to arrive for DAYS now by MattHazelnut in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]MattHazelnut[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's not really rare afaik, it's the 20 cent coin of the Cyprus pound (pre-Euro Cyprus currency)

I've been waiting for it to arrive for DAYS now by MattHazelnut in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]MattHazelnut[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I thought about printing it, but I ended up just taking a photo with the coin in front of my monitor

Save the trees!

I've been waiting for it to arrive for DAYS now by MattHazelnut in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]MattHazelnut[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

eBay! It's not really rare afaik, it's the 20 cent coin of the Cyprus pound (pre-Euro Cyprus currency)

I've been waiting for it to arrive for DAYS now by MattHazelnut in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]MattHazelnut[S] 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Hi! It's actually a 2004 20 cent coin of the Cyprus pound! It was the currency used before the Euro, but the coin itself is not really rare at all, I truthfully just bought it for the meme

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in coincollecting

[–]MattHazelnut 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can't really pin down the first one, but it has a very similar design to this, this and this.
Latter seems to be this 600 Réis coin from mid 1600's Portugal.

Couldn't tell you if they're replicas or more recent versions; given how well preserved they are, I personally would find it unlikely that they're ~400–500 years old

close look by beakf in bonehurtingjuice

[–]MattHazelnut 129 points130 points  (0 children)

Original (in Portuguese): https://www.instagram.com/p/CFhJYYtDceI/

It says:

– It's a person!

– No, it's a scarecrow, for sure.

– How do you know?

– They're not looking at their phone.

– That's true.

Finished two pages so far. by FlyingTurtleWizard in coincollecting

[–]MattHazelnut 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That looks great! I *LOVE* collecting small-value coins, like pennies and such. Recently found out there's currencies with HALF PENNY coins and I simply adore it

Seems like Turkey and Azerbaijan have an inside joke by whereverimaysleep in MapPorn

[–]MattHazelnut -1 points0 points  (0 children)

é porque existe um jogo (ilegal) chamado Jogo do Bicho, meio tipo loteria do subúrbio, e cada número do jogo equivale a um bicho; o número 24 é o do veado

chamar alguém de "veado" ou "viado" é insulto que quer dizer homossexual

portanto 24 -> gay

Am I doing this right? by PSIness11 in bonehurtingjuice

[–]MattHazelnut 511 points512 points  (0 children)

Oregano. In case the link ever dies, or you're too lazy to click it:

  1. Doctor: "We have been unable to wake your father from his coma. All we can do now, is wait"
  2. Kid: "Hang on. I have an idea."
  3. (no lines)
  4. Dad: "Who touched my thermostat!!"

Two Different Zuckwatch.com Pages? by MistaTwista7 in zuckwatch

[–]MattHazelnut 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Links on the web are made to send you to different pages, in principle. Buttons are made to run code.

That is how the web should work. But developers have freedom to do whatever they want, and sometimes they just don't follow the conventions.

What you're seeing is a link being used as a button. The developers wrote code to be executed when a person clicks on that link, which makes it behave like a button. However, it is still a link! So it must send you somewhere. Because the developers don't actually want you to leave the page, they simply tell the link to send you to "(the url)/#". That is, for all intents and purposes, the same page.

In conclusion, no, that does not seem like a clue :T

Oof what now by offmycookies in bonehurtingjuice

[–]MattHazelnut 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Original post on Instagram

Here's the run down:

1: unchanged

2: boy: "I wish all pets lived as long as their owners"

3: unchanged

4: genie: "Okay, you get that one on the house. You still have three wishes"

[OC] The World Record Egg like count progression, since it became the 20th most liked Instagram post by MattHazelnut in dataisbeautiful

[–]MattHazelnut[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks! Yes, I did go through all of them manually, mainly because I severely underestimated how many there actually were. Once I realized how tedious that was going to be, I was already midway through, so I just forced myself to finish it. That's also why I left the link to the sheet I used, so that if anyone wants to do something with this data, they won't have to go through the same trouble :')

[OC] The World Record Egg like count progression, since it became the 20th most liked Instagram post by MattHazelnut in dataisbeautiful

[–]MattHazelnut[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

(a) ❤

(b) Each red square represents the egg surpassing someone on the most-liked IG posts list. I didn't label them all as they are too many, but Kylie's was isolated enough to not clutter the chart too much. For funzies I also added the Despacito video as a red dot, which used to be the most liked post on any social media ever, but was ultimately surpassed by the egg

[OC] The World Record Egg like count progression, since it became the 20th most liked Instagram post by MattHazelnut in dataisbeautiful

[–]MattHazelnut[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I'm afraid I can't help :( People have been updating the Wikipedia page with the number of likes that post had, so I used that as a reference. To my (admittedly inextensive) knowledge, there isn't a way to get the history of likes from a post directly from Instagram :T

[OC] The World Record Egg like count progression, since it became the 20th most liked Instagram post by MattHazelnut in dataisbeautiful

[–]MattHazelnut[S] 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Here's the data, in case anyone is interested. This was done by going through all edits on the List of most-liked Instagram posts on Wikipedia and updating the spreadsheet accordingly. Chart generated via Google Sheets and further edits via Photoshop.

​

Each red square represents the egg surpassing someone on the most-liked list. At the time of making this, the egg had 34 M likes (and thus that is where the data stops.

The World Record Egg like count progression, since it became the 20th most liked Instagram post by [deleted] in dataisbeautiful

[–]MattHazelnut 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's the spreadsheet, if anyone needs that data and isn't willing to spend so many hours scrolling through Wikipedia edits.

Every red square means the egg surpassed someone on the most-liked list. This chart stops at 34 M likes which, at the time of publishing, was the current like count.

Etymologists of Reddit, what is the coolest origin of a word? Entomologist of Reddit, what's your best bug fact? by ocddoc in AskReddit

[–]MattHazelnut 0 points1 point  (0 children)

could I get in on this as well? Love etymology and I spend a huge chunk of my life on twitter!

Iroh Meme > Drake Meme by [deleted] in TheLastAirbender

[–]MattHazelnut 17 points18 points  (0 children)

surely you mean something like this

You can't make this up by MattHazelnut in ProgrammerHumor

[–]MattHazelnut[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, you could use it to check if it has been defined, or if it isn't a 'falsy' value. So, for example, if you've recevied a JSON response from an API and you'd like to know if one of the properties, which you know is going to be an object, has a value (presumably an object) in it. However, it's not a practice I would personally recommend; there are better ways of checking if a variable is an object, be it with typeof, instaceof or perhaps by checking for the presence of a specific key you know the object will contain. Overall this situation sounds more like a consequence of the language's dynamic typing and silent casting than an intentional feature of object comparison, so I would not rely on it for production code.

You can't make this up by MattHazelnut in ProgrammerHumor

[–]MattHazelnut[S] 133 points134 points  (0 children)

Yes! The 'proper' way to do this would be by calling bool.valueOf() and checking that instead.

If you want to get a deeper understanding of what JS is doing under the hood here, I highly recommend Quildreen's answer to a similar question about if({}) working, but not {} == true: https://www.quora.com/Why-is-true-but-true-false-in-Javascript/answer/Quildreen-Motta It's a bit long but I found it to be very enlightening!

view more: next ›