The Official Funny Stuff Thread™
-
-
-
@blakeyrat said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Normal rail running the wrong way over a switch: nothing happens, maybe a slight bump.
That's not entirely true. There are switches with spring-loaded points that are designed to allow running through in the trailing direction. However, the vast majority are quite rigid, and the "slight bump" is enough to very possibly lift the wheel flanges onto the rails — i.e., the wheels are now free to go their merry way instead of staying on the rails. It's not as obviously catastrophic as a monorail derailment, and they typically occur at low speed, so the severity tends to be low. (Switces incorrectly lined for facing point movements, in which trains are directed onto the wrong tracks, are unfortunately an all too common cause of horrendous accidents.) I was not very successful in finding statistics for derailments caused by improperly lined trailing switches; there were 769 derailments caused by improperly lined switches, accounting for some $50M in damage, in the US since January 2008, but these are not broken down by direction. It's likely most were facing movements. https://sites.google.com/site/howdidwegetofftrack/home asserts that trailing movements through improperly lined switches almost always causes derailments, but without providing a source for that particular statistic. (Their experiment was done with model trains, and their result of 100% derailment matches my personal experience.) Although the incidence of derailments is not readily available online, such an incident is, however, virtually certain to damage the switch, which, if not properly repaired, greatly increases the risk of a future derailment at that switch.
-
@hardwaregeek Wikipedia seems to suggest that if most any rigid switch is run through (backwards, when set for the other track), the flanges on the train's wheels should force the points into the correct position, because even though this damages the switch it's preferable to damage it rather than derailing the train.
A model train probably wouldn't have enough weight to force a switch open when running through it, though.
-
@anotherusername said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@hardwaregeek Wikipedia seems to suggest that if most any rigid switch is run through (backwards, when set for the other track), the flanges on the train's wheels should force the points into the correct position, because even though this damages the switch it's preferable to damage it rather than derailing the train.
That makes sense, but I couldn't find any information on whether or how often it caused derailments, other than the unsubstantiated claim in the Google Science Fair project.
A model train probably wouldn't have enough weight to force a switch open when running through it, though.
Exactly, although it depends on the design of the operating mechanism and the direction the train is going. The locomotive may, but if the train is backing through the switch, it's far more likely to derail (whichever way the switch is lined).
-
@anotherusername No but you see I posted a thing to this forum so he has to tell me I'm a stupid wrong idiot moron. It doesn't matter if I'm right or not, the only thing that matters is telling me what a moron I am all the time forever.
-
@anotherusername said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
The ordinary railroad switch won't result in a catastrophic derailment if a car goes over it backwards from the wrong direction.
It'd only be a problem for that monorail because it is elevated.
-
@karla said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Blech...all this mayo is not funny.
-
@blakeyrat said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@anotherusername No but you see I posted a thing to this forum so he has to tell me I'm a stupid wrong idiot moron. It doesn't matter if I'm right or not, the only thing that matters is telling me what a moron I am all the time forever.
I'm not the one calling you a stupid wrong idiot moron. Heck, I like you, even if I don't always agree with you.
My post had nothing to do with you, personally; I would have made exactly the same post in response, no matter who I was responding to. It's not about you; it's about my obsession with ic dickweedery.
-
@masonwheeler said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Plural?
They finally got around to installing that second rail
-
@hardwaregeek said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
it's about my obsession with ic dickweedery.
I thank you for your obsession; it saves me from having to supply nearly so many annoying corrections.
-
-
-
@magus said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
My Immortal (1/3) | Sundance Rejects – 38:26
— Internet HistorianI have this open in a tab and I'm watching it now and then.
Among all the cringe there are some moments which have made me LOL.
"How did you know?"
"I have telekinesis"
-
@zecc My friend linked it, and it is completely horrific. But there are just some moments that you just can't help laughing at.
-
@rhywden said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
our resident "news"paper for morons named BILD
Are there enough morons named BILD to make it worth having a paper just for them?
-
@dkf said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@anotherusername said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
The ordinary railroad switch won't result in a catastrophic derailment if a car goes over it backwards from the wrong direction.
It'd only be a problem for that monorail because it is elevated.
It'd be a bigger problem because it is elevated. Literally running off the rails of your average at-grade train track is not exactly no big deal; trains tend to be extremely heavy and their wheels have to be supported on the rails or else it's pretty likely to cause things like the train accordioning and cars toppling over, increasing the likelihood of damage to cars, track, and anything nearby, and resulting in much more difficult and expensive cleanup.
-
@anotherusername At the very least it means a long inspection for damage, and calling in a crane to get the thing back on the tracks.
Strangely a Seattle-style monorail might weather that better than a traditional light rail, because its bottom is just mostly a flat sheet of metal. (If it weren't elevated.)
-
@anotherusername And potential deaths.
-
@rhywden Yeah... that'd be the "anything nearby" that I mentioned getting damaged.
-
@topspin said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@karla said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Blech...all this mayo is not funny.
-
-
@topspin said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@karla said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Blech...all this mayo is not funny.
Nope thread is
-
Why do y'all keep posting that image.
-
@topspin said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@karla said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Blech...all this mayo is not funny.
I like mayo on burgers but that's a tad excessive.
-
@mott555 that's a McChicken, not a burger.
-
@anotherusername How the hell are we supposed to tell without a highlighted version of the image?
-
@anotherusername said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@mott555 that's a McChicken, not a burger.
That's hard to tell through all the mayo.
-
@mott555 said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@anotherusername said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@mott555 that's a McChicken, not a burger.
That's hard to tell through all the mayo.
It's like that old joke: "Might I get some more fries for my mayo?"
-
@mott555 Less so if you look at the wrapper, mainly near the top. ;)
-
@erufael Seems like coincidence. I've never actually seen it correspond with what's in the wrapper, and I've seen some wrappers that say one thing on top and another on the bottom so I always thought it was just advertising.
-
@erufael
I think this helps.
-
@mott555 If you're not convinced, see following:
I'd say this confirms McChicken. Breading. And the patty has no correspondence to the bun.
-
-
@anotherusername That's not true, in each of 3 cases at least one letter is obscured:
,
see?
-
@mott555 said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@erufael Seems like coincidence. I've never actually seen it correspond with what's in the wrapper, and I've seen some wrappers that say one thing on top and another on the bottom so I always thought it was just advertising.
They wrap it so that the correct label is on "top"; one wrapper can be used on 4 different products that way. But that wrapper seems to be entirely McChicken: Spicy McChicken (top), Hot 'n Spicy McChicken (bottom), something else McChicken (left), and completely covered by mayo (right). Unless maybe that one on the right is Filet o Fish and that just happens to be what the sandwich is.
-
@gribnit said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@anotherusername That's not true, in each of 3 cases at least one letter is obscured:
,
see?That bottom-most label could easily say "Not Spicy McChicken" since the first letter is obscured.
-
-
Someone made a Markov chain Twitter bot combining 50 shades of grey and cryptocurrency whitepapers with very sexy results:
-
@topspin said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@karla said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Blech...all this mayo is not funny.
Ah, I see they ordered the McBukakke.
-
-
-
-
-
@topspin said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Wait... did they censor the emoji but left the word
fuck
in?
Filed under:
What the fuck?
-
@onyx The first one wasn't even a finger emoji.
-
@obeselymorbid now I'm even more confused...
-
@onyx It's an off-by-one error while doing the censoring
-
@onyx said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
now I'm even more confused...
Perhaps it was an Apple iCensor getting rid of them Just In Case they were really talking about T****n (henceforth the B*****m of the East…)
-
@onyx Sites like 9gag equate emojis with cancer. They'll repost screenshots from Twitter and "scratch" out the emojis, often commenting "now with less cancer"