this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2025
707 points (98.9% liked)

Political Humor

1976 readers
566 users here now

Welcome to Political Humor!

Rules:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 44 points 6 months ago (5 children)

I don't really understand freedom units but 40x60 feet sounds very wrong

[–] fartographer@lemmy.world 41 points 6 months ago (3 children)

No, 40x60 is correct. Vertical feet are shorter than horizontal feet due to gravity.

[–] taiyang@lemmy.world 23 points 6 months ago

Don't give imperial units any ideas!

[–] SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

So you're saying I'll be much taller if I just become an astronaut? I'm moving to the moon, baby!

[–] fartographer@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

Much? No. But noticeably! I mean, until your eyeballs stop working...

I know this is about microgravity, but I gotta find some sort of sand to kick in your face for having dreams.

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 months ago

Ah, that makes sense.

[–] KickMeElmo@sopuli.xyz 25 points 6 months ago

I would assume 20x60

[–] ReputedlyDeplorable@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Could be, but my dad would get old billboards to use as tarps for hay. The hay barn roof leaked so we had to cover the stacks inside. The hay barn was 60x100ft and we would get tarps that spanned the width, so at least 60ft.

[–] onslaught545@lemmy.zip 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I think they're meaning the aspect ratio is not correct for 40x60. The sign would need to be taller for those measurements to make sense.

Ahh, yes, I did not catch that. Thanks!

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

yeah that looks like a 4:1 ratio or close to it

[–] Psythik@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] Dicska@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I think it's about the ratio. 40*60 is 2:3, and this looks more like a 1:3 (3:1, if you like). It's much thinner than 2 squares * 3 squares.

[–] Psythik@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

Yeah okay I see what you're getting at now.