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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 9 months 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.

  • source
  • parent