| ▲ | Skunkleton 6 days ago |
| Its weirdly incorrect to zero index stuff like this. The zero index refers to the start of the first thing, which is not what numbered lists are supposed to indicate. |
|
| ▲ | F3nd0 6 days ago | parent [-] |
| If I recall correctly, there were originally three freedoms, but then a fourth one was thought of and put at the front to give it prominence, numbering it as zero as not to disturb the original numbering. |
| |
| ▲ | fkyoureadthedoc 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Unless you think they'd add a "Freedom -1" in the event that they add a 5th even more important freedom, then this is clearly just selected because 0 indexed lists are cute to programmers | | |
| ▲ | F3nd0 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I think it’s most likely a combination of both: Freedom 0 was later added in the first place, and newly numbering the first place with 0 could likely only have been thought of by a programmer. |
|
|
