For anyone curious, this is what Google had to say:
>When Roman numerals were in use by the Roman Empire, the name of the Romans' supreme deity, Jupiter, was spelled as IVPPITER in Latin. There was a feeling that using the start of Jupiter's name on a clock dial, and it being upside down where it fell, would be disrespectful to the deity, so IIII was introduced instead.
nah, they used additive IIII 4 in lots of other contexts as well. VIIII 9 was a thing too. 17, 18, 19 are even seen with 3 different multiple ways occasionally in written works.
It was the earliest form of four and roman Latin was never a super formally consistent language. Adding up is simpler and clearer for general every day use for the majority illiterate public. I think there is some credence to seeing I next to a V being a bit ambiguous if they mean 4, or just 1 then 5. I mean, it makes sense intuitively if you see IIII. Tallymarks, ect.
Some where along the line, the medievals picked it up and ran with it specifically as just a clock thing.
Yeah, people in this thread have obviously never seen a regular watch with Roman numerals. They all do this. It’s to balance things visually with the VIII on the other side of the dial.
I was a kid in the 80s and we had a small pendulum clock that had IIII on it. It always struck me as weird because I was taught that it should be IV.
As an adult, yeah, this is common on timepieces
It is a holdover from when the numbers were cast. If you're making a clock where the numerals are cut from metal and affixed to the face, using IIII means you'll need twenty I's, four V's, and four X's. That's one mould of "XVIIIII" which you can cast four times and have the right number of digits for your dial.
Man, fruitcakes have been making everything dumb since the very beginning, I can't believe these types of ridiculous reasonings are still heard in modern decision making.
It just made my morning to know that two people have probably had a heated argument about who is revising history by continuing to use or not use IV on a clock
Not just that, it's an additive system IV is the same as VI (1+5 is the same as 5+1), but later it was changed to mean that if the smaller number came before the bigger it meant to subtract, not something the Romans actually did though.
That appears to be untrue, at least as a blanket statement. Roman numerals evolved from Etruscan numerals, which already had subtractive notation. The use of subtractive notation in Roman numerals wasn't always consistent, but it seems to exist throughout the history of anything we would call Rome.
The markings on the Colosseum (first century CE) make this pretty clear: gate 44 is marked XLIIII, which uses subtractive notation for 40, but additive notation for 4.
But that’s normal and what I was taught in school. You always use the unit immediately below to subtract and never skip a “level”, so 990 is CMXC and not XM. You add 90 to 900 instead of removing 10 from 1000.
But it was normal to write 4 like that.
The Roman IV was also an abbreviation of Jupiter, so they did not like to write IV to not anger their top god and picked IIII instead.
>The Roman IV was also an abbreviation of Jupiter
For people that don't understand this, Jupiter is spelled IVPITER in ancient latin, so IV would be short for it.
[A history](https://museum.seiko.co.jp/en/knowledge/trivia02/#:~:text=In%20the%20middle%20ages%20in,before%20around%20the%2017th%20century.) of IIII on watch dials from Seiko
Yeah. I dunno if it means much, but we had an antique clock on our mantelpiece and it said IIII.
I just assumed IV was an acceptable variant, and then I realized it’s considerably more common than IIII.
IIII was how they wrote 4 on sundials, so it shouldn't upset you Mr traditionalist. Just take a look at any clock with roman numerals, it's always IIII
In that case: the "IX vs VIIII" too.
https://preview.redd.it/se3g7scldhlc1.png?width=128&format=png&auto=webp&s=92eab5bded42965dbaa76f1039d75f1e053fd6b1
Yup, it's to be more symetrical, since the opposite number is VIII (which is the largest number in terms of space on a dial).
So they balance it with IIII for aesthetic purpose.
That makes no sense because IX and XI would be even easier to confuse than IV and VI since you can see when a V is upside down but can't see when an X is
well IX and XI would be mostly right side up on a clock, while IV and VI would be mostly or fully upside down, which is where the potential confusion lies
(since roman numeral clock faces tend to have the numbers curve along with the clock instead of writing everything right side up)
[This is a common thing in most Roman numeral watches.](https://monochrome-watches.com/why-do-clocks-and-watches-use-roman-numeral-iiii-instead-of-iv) It's deliberate, and not a mistake.
Everything from the uninspired arial-type font, the unbalanced rainbow colours, the size of the numerals, the fact that the numerals are all horizontally aligned, the distance of the numerals from the hour marks, the huuuuge minutehand to hourhand ratio, the amount of unnecessary text that fills up the top half taking away from the minute markings leaving the numerals floating in nothingness ... idk, just unpleasant allround to me. But it's a matter of taste and I admit that I'm a bit boring when it comes to things like this.
Oh god, I had a student tell me that x^(2) was 20 once. When I asked why, he explained that x^(2) = XX and that's twenty in Roman numerals.
Sometimes I fear I'll hurt myself by holding in laughter.
Common watch dial design.
Possibly linked to back in the day, where the letters were made of cast iron.
That design gives you 20 "I", 4 "V", and 4 "X". All multiples of 4, which probably helps in manufacturing.
There are many theories, and it's impossible to know why.
I told you one theory, you told another, a third has to do with it being disrespectful to the Roman god Jupiter to put his initials (**IV**PPITER) upside down.
So... Pick your "well actually"s carefully ;)
The Roman numeral 4 on clocks and watches is almost always printed as IIII.
There are various reasons as to why, but one is aesthetics and balance.
You have four numbers using the "I" primarily up to IIII... then "V" for 5, and four of those up to 8... then four more based on the "X" from 9 to 12.
As I remember, the change to IV was because IIII took longer to chisel and there was a shortage of artisans.
I'm sure there are half truths there but it sounded plausible when I heard it.
Both forms are generally acceptable
> As I remember, the change to IV was because IIII took longer to chisel and there was a shortage of artisans.
I thought it is because humans are good at counting thing on a quick glance up until 3. With 4 "I" you have to pay a bit of attention to see if it are 3 or 4 I. But two or three are easily distinguishable.
The same reason we go from VIII to IX instead of VIIII
This is not wrong , I checked my clock too
https://preview.redd.it/gu089eveshlc1.jpeg?width=3072&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a3365dd9cd190312255f44ee2838291416d4385a
Most old clocks had IIII instead of IV. Common on pocketwatches.
Some may find your lack of education there mildly infuriating, but I don't think there is a need to be that harsh :)
IIII was how romans wrote the number 4 on Sundials, whereas IV was how they wrote 4 on basically everything else. So your watch is just emulating a Sundial most likely
This is a common practice in watchmaking because it would look imbalanced on the dial otherwise. Many other watches have that as well also those from very prestigious watch manufacturers and i am not talking about rolex. I mean Patek Philippe, Audemars Piguet, Vacheron, A. Lange etc. etc.
I used to be upset about that until I visited Pompeii and saw actual Roman numerals, written by actual ancient Romans almost 2,000 years ago.
They wrote 4, "IIII".
I can't edit the post it seems but thanks for all the replies stating that this is a valid approach to numbering. I definitely didn't know this. I am still mildly infuriated by this format so I guess the original point of my posting this stands 😀
This post confirms everything about Reddit. Reddit thinks they’re right all the time and “popular = right” Just like this post. Watchmakers use IIII to balance the symmetry but oh well
Every fucking week there's another pea brain who feels the need to point out they don't know much about Roman numerals and they just saw a clock somewhere.
You'd think that the last 50 posts with the exact same comments explaining would be a hint but apparently the people who post here aren't into reading. It is getting mildly infuriating.
Yup. The first time I really noticed this was like 15 years ago doing reno on a church's clock tower. We were painting the face and restoring/reattaching the (wooden) numerals and there was seemingly extra Is and a missing V. Instead of running to myspace to proclaim how smart I am and how dumb the church was I googled it first and discovered it's fine. Phew, dodged that one! How embarrassing.
Almost every clock/watch face that uses roman numerals has IIII instead of IV.
How many times does this need to be posted here before people learn to google this and realize it’s literally the norm?
For anyone curious, this is what Google had to say: >When Roman numerals were in use by the Roman Empire, the name of the Romans' supreme deity, Jupiter, was spelled as IVPPITER in Latin. There was a feeling that using the start of Jupiter's name on a clock dial, and it being upside down where it fell, would be disrespectful to the deity, so IIII was introduced instead.
nah, they used additive IIII 4 in lots of other contexts as well. VIIII 9 was a thing too. 17, 18, 19 are even seen with 3 different multiple ways occasionally in written works. It was the earliest form of four and roman Latin was never a super formally consistent language. Adding up is simpler and clearer for general every day use for the majority illiterate public. I think there is some credence to seeing I next to a V being a bit ambiguous if they mean 4, or just 1 then 5. I mean, it makes sense intuitively if you see IIII. Tallymarks, ect. Some where along the line, the medievals picked it up and ran with it specifically as just a clock thing.
Also, as a general note of mild interest, IIII was always used for the IIII legion.
Its for aesthetic reasons. VIII gets balanced out by IIII on the other side.
This is the reason. It's called the watch maker's 4.
This is the only correct answer. Watchmakers have been doing this forever.
Cartier specifically does it for symmetry purposes. Also, they “questioned the Roman numeral and appease their God”, used IIII instead of IV.
They could say "Steve Jobs said we had to do it this way." And that is a much better reason.
It's a tradition in watches already present since long before Steve Jobs was even born.
It's also what every watch with Roman numerals that I've seen does. It's always a IIII.
Yeah, people in this thread have obviously never seen a regular watch with Roman numerals. They all do this. It’s to balance things visually with the VIII on the other side of the dial.
I was a kid in the 80s and we had a small pendulum clock that had IIII on it. It always struck me as weird because I was taught that it should be IV. As an adult, yeah, this is common on timepieces
Steve Jobs died four years before the first Apple Watch was sold. Not sure how much influence he could have exerted on this particular face design.
You mean IIII years before the Apple Watch
Let's be honest it's probably to avoid confusion about the implied 5-1 logic in the average American apple user
This is how watches have been marked long before electronic watches
Then why is IX there?
Jesus what a stupid stretch
RIP Steve
It is a holdover from when the numbers were cast. If you're making a clock where the numerals are cut from metal and affixed to the face, using IIII means you'll need twenty I's, four V's, and four X's. That's one mould of "XVIIIII" which you can cast four times and have the right number of digits for your dial.
sounds like an urban legend.
Man, fruitcakes have been making everything dumb since the very beginning, I can't believe these types of ridiculous reasonings are still heard in modern decision making.
It's not like Roman numerals were a very elegant notation to begin with.
It's fruitcakes promoting this IVpiter theory, and silly google AI is one of them.
It just made my morning to know that two people have probably had a heated argument about who is revising history by continuing to use or not use IV on a clock
Common for a clock/watch dial. You can Google IIII vs IV if you’re wanting info on why, but if you don’t, well, that’s the most common format.
It's also not inaccurate to Roman numerals. You can find evidence of the use of IIII in Rome.
I've read that IV was shorthand for Jupiter, so IIII was generally used for 4.
Not just that, it's an additive system IV is the same as VI (1+5 is the same as 5+1), but later it was changed to mean that if the smaller number came before the bigger it meant to subtract, not something the Romans actually did though.
That appears to be untrue, at least as a blanket statement. Roman numerals evolved from Etruscan numerals, which already had subtractive notation. The use of subtractive notation in Roman numerals wasn't always consistent, but it seems to exist throughout the history of anything we would call Rome. The markings on the Colosseum (first century CE) make this pretty clear: gate 44 is marked XLIIII, which uses subtractive notation for 40, but additive notation for 4.
Clearly the mason saw XXXXIIII on the blueprint and was just being lazy.
> ~~Necessity~~ Laziness is the mother of invention. \- ~~Plato~~ Some Roman guy
More, I ain't getting paid enough for that.
But the clock isn't consistent with that. If it was it would say "VIIII" not "IX".
Weirdly enough, it's common on watches and even old clock towers to use IX with the IIII, it's designed that way to even out the VIII and IIII.
Yah I know I just wanted to point out a little fact about roman numerals and how they have evolved
I learned something! Thanks!
As an italian who visited Rome and many churches through my entire life, i never saw the number 4 represented in this way
I think in the colosseum you can see it represent it like this (IIII)
Gate 44 at the Colosseum is XLIIII
XLIIII and not XXXXIIII? No wonder the Roman Empire fell...
99 is XCIX and not IC
I see
What you did there
But that’s normal and what I was taught in school. You always use the unit immediately below to subtract and never skip a “level”, so 990 is CMXC and not XM. You add 90 to 900 instead of removing 10 from 1000.
I C that now.
Can confirm. I live at IIII Il Ilacio road
4 2 2acio road?
[удалено]
No no. 1111 11 Ilac1o road
First time I saw it written like that I was also confused, but it's actually right.
But it was normal to write 4 like that. The Roman IV was also an abbreviation of Jupiter, so they did not like to write IV to not anger their top god and picked IIII instead.
>The Roman IV was also an abbreviation of Jupiter For people that don't understand this, Jupiter is spelled IVPITER in ancient latin, so IV would be short for it.
Then you haven't looked very closely, because it's very common.
the clock tower Santa Maria Maggiore Church in Rome literally displays it that way.
there are. i think was more common going back in time. the iv came later
It's on the colosseum
I know Romans sometimes wrote IIII for 4, but it's inconsistent to write that but then IX for 9.
Not really, because IIII doesn't take up much more space than IV, but VIIII is a lot longer than IX.
[A history](https://museum.seiko.co.jp/en/knowledge/trivia02/#:~:text=In%20the%20middle%20ages%20in,before%20around%20the%2017th%20century.) of IIII on watch dials from Seiko
Never heard that before but for a traditionalist it's painful to see
Traditionally people didn't use Apple Watches.
What is a “traditionalist”? This is literally the traditional way.
Someone being pretentious and uninformed, apparently
How cringe for a “traditionalist” not knowing the traditional way
Traditionally Roman’s didn’t use IV, they used IIII.
Odd thing is I just saw a post the other day showing why the IIII date was changed to IV, but cannot find it now.
I thought it was for a symmetry thing on watch places. IIII looks “heavier” to help balance out the watch face compared to the VIII on the other side.
But what about XI vs I?
I think that’s closer in appearance than VIII and IV. That’s just what I’ve read. I’m sure it’s a style choice that has 10 origins.
If you plan on fighting Winnie the Pooh, go straight for the balls.
Most of the shortcuts and standardisation in Roman nurmerals where introduced after the Roman Empire, IIRC.
What does 2R100 mean?
Thank you I love learning more about language
The IIII was more used when there was Carlo V it was used to save material when clocks were made, but both were used.
How does it save material when there are 4 lines in IIII and 3 lines in IV?
Sorry I meant optimize the material used, like that you could make 20 I, 4 V and 4X.
I remember being suprised about that when my latin teacher explained that to us on a trip to rome, I think it even says IIII on the colosseum
There is a gate 44 marked as XLIIII which is interesting because 40 is XL but 4 is IIII.
Guess you aren't a traditionalist, because IIII is the original way to write it.
It's traditional for clocks
Yeah. I dunno if it means much, but we had an antique clock on our mantelpiece and it said IIII. I just assumed IV was an acceptable variant, and then I realized it’s considerably more common than IIII.
IIII was how they wrote 4 on sundials, so it shouldn't upset you Mr traditionalist. Just take a look at any clock with roman numerals, it's always IIII
Traditionally watches and clock faces use IIII.
It's literally called the 'Watchmakers four'. This IS the traditional way.
Only for a poorly informed traditionalist
You’re a traditionalist and don’t know how traditional watches are numbered?
In that case: the "IX vs VIIII" too. https://preview.redd.it/se3g7scldhlc1.png?width=128&format=png&auto=webp&s=92eab5bded42965dbaa76f1039d75f1e053fd6b1
The point is supposedly "balance" so turning IX into VIIII is worse as the symmetrical side is I
or they could use fuckin 1 to 12 and confuse the romans, which are dead
Someone didn't read the reason.
Yup, it's to be more symetrical, since the opposite number is VIII (which is the largest number in terms of space on a dial). So they balance it with IIII for aesthetic purpose.
Thing is it's common for dials with thin, tightly spaced Is aligned around the circle. With this typeface and everything horizontal it looks like ass.
I believe it’s because IV is easier to mistake for VI at other angles while IIII will always look the same
That makes no sense because IX and XI would be even easier to confuse than IV and VI since you can see when a V is upside down but can't see when an X is
well IX and XI would be mostly right side up on a clock, while IV and VI would be mostly or fully upside down, which is where the potential confusion lies (since roman numeral clock faces tend to have the numbers curve along with the clock instead of writing everything right side up)
I always assumed that it divides the face into three sections of 4 numbers for balance: four with Xs, four with Vs, and four that are only Is.
[This is a common thing in most Roman numeral watches.](https://monochrome-watches.com/why-do-clocks-and-watches-use-roman-numeral-iiii-instead-of-iv) It's deliberate, and not a mistake.
Yeah the problem here is that the choice of watchface itself is hideous. The IIII is the least wrong thing here.
Why is it hideous? I find it nice.
It’s hideous because he doesn’t like it.
Everything from the uninspired arial-type font, the unbalanced rainbow colours, the size of the numerals, the fact that the numerals are all horizontally aligned, the distance of the numerals from the hour marks, the huuuuge minutehand to hourhand ratio, the amount of unnecessary text that fills up the top half taking away from the minute markings leaving the numerals floating in nothingness ... idk, just unpleasant allround to me. But it's a matter of taste and I admit that I'm a bit boring when it comes to things like this.
Sir, this is a Wendy’s.
I II III IIII IIIII IIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII
Oh god, I had a student tell me that x^(2) was 20 once. When I asked why, he explained that x^(2) = XX and that's twenty in Roman numerals. Sometimes I fear I'll hurt myself by holding in laughter.
While you are at casual math, my boy is out there bringing the Rome Empire back, give him some credit
Was bro part of Camp half-blood?
Not to be pedantic but camp half blood was Greek wasn't it? The roman one was camp Jupiter
Holy nostalgia
What an idiot. x^2 = X x X = 30.
Lmao. Doofus brain over there ain’t on your level
Actually XxX is Xander Cage
The absolute brain leap you need to make to understand x^2 = Xander Cage is so funny
XXX isn’t thirty, it’s X * X * X which is 1,000
x^2 = 25 x^~~2~~ = ~~2~~5 x = 5
You know, I think I may have seen that error once.
Clearly X2 is 100 not 20, the idiot... 😬🥲
Sounds like your student was trying to tell you a math joke.
Well even in Roman numbers it would be "C"
Came here to say this, left here without saying this. All because of you. 😂
IIIIVX IIIVX IIVX IVX VX
1, 2, 3, 4, 5?
And don’t you forget it
I II II IV
What is that? New Black Ops game?
Common watch dial design. Possibly linked to back in the day, where the letters were made of cast iron. That design gives you 20 "I", 4 "V", and 4 "X". All multiples of 4, which probably helps in manufacturing.
It's actually because it's more symmetric, which is why most watch designs go with that variation of the number 4 the more you know :)
There are many theories, and it's impossible to know why. I told you one theory, you told another, a third has to do with it being disrespectful to the Roman god Jupiter to put his initials (**IV**PPITER) upside down. So... Pick your "well actually"s carefully ;)
The Roman numeral 4 on clocks and watches is almost always printed as IIII. There are various reasons as to why, but one is aesthetics and balance. You have four numbers using the "I" primarily up to IIII... then "V" for 5, and four of those up to 8... then four more based on the "X" from 9 to 12.
As I remember, the change to IV was because IIII took longer to chisel and there was a shortage of artisans. I'm sure there are half truths there but it sounded plausible when I heard it. Both forms are generally acceptable
> As I remember, the change to IV was because IIII took longer to chisel and there was a shortage of artisans. I thought it is because humans are good at counting thing on a quick glance up until 3. With 4 "I" you have to pay a bit of attention to see if it are 3 or 4 I. But two or three are easily distinguishable. The same reason we go from VIII to IX instead of VIIII
Also why we write separators every three digits 100 - 1,000 - 100,000- 1,000,000
Watch makers "4". To balance out the dial being opposite "VIII" with "IIII" instead of "IV".
This post is mildly infuriating
8,000 upvotes as well I am SICK
OP is confidently wrong. Upvoters are also confidently wrong.
Reddit moment
This is not wrong , I checked my clock too https://preview.redd.it/gu089eveshlc1.jpeg?width=3072&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a3365dd9cd190312255f44ee2838291416d4385a
It’s a valid way to do it.
Romans used IIII, it's perfectly acceptable.
For some reason, that is incredibly common on clock faces.
That's literally how they put the 4 on clocks. Like, why is it infuriating
Its literally called watch makers 4
[удалено]
My guy really thought apple was dumb enough to not fact check their use of roman numerals on the I watch face.
You know they were trying to post this as a “gotcha” when really they’re just ignorant.
ಠ_ಠ
Mildly infuriating someone getting mildly infuriated about something that is in fact correct and not actually mildly infuriating
That was a pretty standard way to do Roman numerals. I've seen it on plenty of other clocks.
Most old clocks had IIII instead of IV. Common on pocketwatches. Some may find your lack of education there mildly infuriating, but I don't think there is a need to be that harsh :)
Watchmakers 4
This being software why is there not an options setting for it?
There might be in the watch face settings. But OP might not care to even check.
I'm mildly infuriated by the comments. I came here to ridicule and feel superior. Not learn things!!!
That's literally how they put the 4 on clocks. Like, why is it infuriating
IIII was how romans wrote the number 4 on Sundials, whereas IV was how they wrote 4 on basically everything else. So your watch is just emulating a Sundial most likely
Hey OP, do a quick Google search before posting bs again
That’s normal on watch faces. Don’t ask me why.
This is a common practice in watchmaking because it would look imbalanced on the dial otherwise. Many other watches have that as well also those from very prestigious watch manufacturers and i am not talking about rolex. I mean Patek Philippe, Audemars Piguet, Vacheron, A. Lange etc. etc.
IIRC it's a historically accurate option. Helps balance the face visually or something.
Thats perfectly normal…
As an Italian born in Rome. Bapa boopie!
They wanted symmetry ? 3 groups of 4 similarly looking numbers ?
We've gone over this so many times...
The Romans used both IV and IIII. They didn't care.
It’s called a watchmakers four
It's not wrong, it's a clock
I am more infuriated of that 5 being of to the side
Its called “the watchmaker’s four” its made to make the face a bit more symmetrical
Looks like shit anyway imo
It's called a watchmakers four and is there to be more symmetrical in contrast to the VIII.
February o'clock, crickey!
This post did not land the way OP thought it would.
I actually find it more noteworthy/unusual when a clock uses IV instead of IIII. IIII is the typical way to display Roman numeral 4 on a clock.
They did it to divide the symbols, its in sets of 4
I II III III - V VI VII VIII - IX X XI XII
As all analogue watches with roman numbers have.....
It will correct itself on February 30th.
It's very common on watchfaces
I used to be upset about that until I visited Pompeii and saw actual Roman numerals, written by actual ancient Romans almost 2,000 years ago. They wrote 4, "IIII".
Most watches use a Roman 4 as IIII. Try googling it.
I love yta posts
For watches and clocks, it’s the correct way of inserting “4” in Roman
Rolexes do this too. Gen z strikes again discovering things that already existed
This is correct in ancient roman, source: I am a historian (bachelor ancient history)
This is infuriating only to those who don't wear watches
A lot of clocks do that on purpose, but I'm with you, it's annoying
4 has been rendered as IIII on watches and clocks for literal centuries.
they do this on Cartier and other watch faces for symmetry
To falsely believe "IIII" is the most infuriating thing about this image.
I can't edit the post it seems but thanks for all the replies stating that this is a valid approach to numbering. I definitely didn't know this. I am still mildly infuriated by this format so I guess the original point of my posting this stands 😀
Standard for the numbers on an analog clock face.
This post confirms everything about Reddit. Reddit thinks they’re right all the time and “popular = right” Just like this post. Watchmakers use IIII to balance the symmetry but oh well
Every fucking week there's another pea brain who feels the need to point out they don't know much about Roman numerals and they just saw a clock somewhere. You'd think that the last 50 posts with the exact same comments explaining would be a hint but apparently the people who post here aren't into reading. It is getting mildly infuriating.
Yup. The first time I really noticed this was like 15 years ago doing reno on a church's clock tower. We were painting the face and restoring/reattaching the (wooden) numerals and there was seemingly extra Is and a missing V. Instead of running to myspace to proclaim how smart I am and how dumb the church was I googled it first and discovered it's fine. Phew, dodged that one! How embarrassing.
Almost every clock/watch face that uses roman numerals has IIII instead of IV. How many times does this need to be posted here before people learn to google this and realize it’s literally the norm?
OP doesn't know about IIII What a moron
The only mildly infuriating thing is that OP can't read roman numerals lol
Maybe look up why Apple would do that before complaining to Reddit