It should go
4:20:59
4:20:60
4:20:61
4:20:62
4:20:63
4:20:64
4:20:65
4:20:66
4:20:67
4:20:68
4:20:69 Nice
4:21:10

  • litchralee@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    I should point out that for the hour counter, it’s only a 5 bit counter, since the max value for hours is 23, which fits into 5 bits.

    So 566 is not quite the devil’s work, but certainly very close.

    • vane@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Yeah but isn’t it cheaper and less error prone to put only 6 bit counters instead of maintaining 5 bit counter stockpile in the factory ? Maybe it’s all robots right now so it doesn’t matter.

      • litchralee@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        It can be, although the example I’ve given where each counter is a discrete part is probably no longer the case. It’s likely that larger ICs which encompass all the requisite functionality can do the job, at lower cost than individual parts.

        But those ICs probably can’t do 4:20:69, so I didn’t bother mentioning that.