The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!)
-
I forgot to link the original of this to this thread? Shame on me.
https://what.thedailywtf.com/t/amazon-introduces-lambda/4886/115?u=scholrlea
-
1, 2, and 3 entered a competition.
2 won against all odds.
-
Did the Bookies class it as an even bet?
-
I think the joke would be better if it went "the prime numbers entered a competition".
-
-
That last panel makes me happier than it should
-
This post is deleted!
-
Father and son don't appear phased at all.
-
1 is not a prime
-
Regardless, 'against all odds' punchline would still work.
-
Neither is fifteen, or twenty-seven, or an infinite number of other integers, if that's the interpretation of "all odds" you're choosing.
-
1, 2, and 3 entered a competition.
the joke would be better if it went "the prime numbers entered a competition".
1 is not a prime
Neither is fifteen, or twenty-seven, or an infinite number of
15 and 27 were not in the joke, and I do not have anything against all the odds, just the first 1 that is not a prime. You are afraid of including 1 in the game.
-
15 and 27 were not in the joke, and I do not have anything against all the odds, just the first 1 that is not a prime. You are afraid of including 1 in the game.
I don't get this one. Can someone explain it?
-
a little pedantry
@obeselymorbid said:1, 2, and 3 entered a competition.
2 won against all odds.
there is no mention of 15 or 17, and 1 is not prime, so
I think the joke would be better if it went "the prime numbers entered a competition".
would be a different joke that excludes 1
-
Well, at the risk of ruining it: It's a classic bait-and-switch. The implied “well, actually” at the start is intended to provoke an “here we go again” reaction in the listener. So by the time the last line is read, and the post turns out to be not the expected pedantry, but incoherent nonsense, the reader basically has to re-process the entire thing, which moment of confusion and then realization can produce an almost euphoric sensation in the brain that might lead one to exclaim “hah!”, or something along those lines. This is basically the same thing as a pun — you thought you were reading one thing, but then it turns out to be something else entirely — just the effect is a lot more subtle.
-
The optimist sees a glass that's half full. The pessimist sees a glass that's half empty. An engineer sees a glass that's twice as big as it needs to be; and that if it were correctly sized, there would be enough material to make a backup glass.
-
At the place I worked before, we commonly refer the thing as just "rubber".
-
if it were correctly sized, there would be enough material to make a backup glass.
False, walls of the glass would be twice shorter, but the bottom would still take the same amount of material so there wouldn't be quite enough material to make 2 glasses both half as tall as the original one.
-
False, walls of the glass would be twice shorter, but the bottom would still take the same amount of material so there wouldn't be quite enough material to make 2 glasses both half as tall as the original one.
It's a joke, Mr. Pedantic.
-
I think I've already shown I appreciated the joke by liking your post.
Mr. Pedantic
Isn't that what this site is about?
-
Also, I hoped someone even more pedantic would say that since the expected volume of liquid is twice smaller, the bottom of the glass can be made less thick.
-
Isn't that what this site is about?
For some people, apparently. But that's part of the fun, isn't it: some are pedantic, some complain about pedantry.
Also, I hoped someone even more pedantic would say that since the expected volume of liquid is twice smaller, the bottom of the glass can be made less thick.
This, after the original pedantry. Pathetic. Just pathetic.
-
-
False, walls of the glass would be twice shorter, but the bottom would still take the same amount of material so there wouldn't be quite enough material to make 2 glasses both half as tall as the original one.
Assuming a cylindrical glass.
Or at least one where the surface area is linearly proportional to the volume.
-
The optimist sees a glass that's half full. The pessimist sees a glass that's half empty.
And the optometrist asks if you see the glass as more full like this? Or like this?
-
Why assume the class is not a regular cylinder?
The major function of a "thick bottom" is to lower the centre of gravity, it also provides some measure of strength for those that are prone to slamming it down.
Glass is a generic term for something that is not a "cup", "mug" or a "beaker" - it describes a functionality (mostly ase there are those that would ask for a cup of wine).
So, take a modern acrylic "glass": Base of often no thicker than the walls.
Nobody stated that the sum of the height of the two glasses had to equal the hight of the original glass.
However, they did imply that the sum of the volume had to equal. And here my reasoning breaks down. Because, as you correctly say, you have to make an extra base. This could be offset in a couple of ways:
- Because the glasses are smaller, they could be made thinner.
- Equally, there may be a combination of dimensions that will allow for each smaller glass to contain exactly half of the original glass.
- Nobody fills the glass right to the top.
- No tolerance was specified, + /- 5% could make all the difference.
Is this "more pedantry" enough?
-
Is this "more pedantry" enough?
Oh God, what have I started... :)
Why assume the class is not a regular cylinder?
class Glass : regularCylinder
?However, they did imply that the sum of the volume had to equal.
The words 'backup glass' kind of did. Ah wait, that's what you are saying, right? Ignore me, I just don't want to erase this sentence I've just carefully typed.
Nobody fills the glass right to the top.
I see you don't go to the same drinking parties I do.
-
After consideration, I think all this pedantry could be murdered by rewording the joke a bit:
The optimist sees a glass that's half full. The pessimist sees a glass that's half empty. An engineer sees a glass that's twice as big as it needs to be; and that if it were correctly sized, the excess material could be used in the making of a backup glass.
-
twice as big
Does this measure the height of the glass?
As discussed earlier depending on the shape it might not be correct for half full glass (which probably refers to volume).pedantry could be murdered
YMBNH
-
class Glass : regularCylinder ?
No,
Glass
should be the parent class andRegular_Cylinder
should be... I don't remember if C++ programmers have a specific name for mixin/trait classes or not, they are for sort of thing you'd use generally an interface for in Java or C# (though mixins are usually full classes and can have method implementations, they just don't override existing methods, whereas in languages that support traits, IIUC they are a special type of class that can be inherited from but cannot be instantiated directly).(defclass Collins-Glass (Glass Regular-Cylinder-Mixin) ; ...class Collins_Glass: public Glass, public Regular_Cylinder { // ... };
Or maybe
Regular_Cylinder
should be a decorator? No, I guess not - a decorator is used to add on additional functionality without changing the class properties, while in this case you want to specify a property but not change the behavior.Maybe a template of some kind... /me blathers on for a long time and completely steps on the joke
-
An engineer sees a glass that's twice as big as it needs to be; and that if it were correctly sized, there would be enough material to make a backup glass.
Not a very GOOD engineer.
-
refer the thing
A suffix, please? If you're going to discuss semantics, I would suggest that you at least ensure the correctness of your own.
-
Not a very GOOD engineer.
It's no fun if I have to explain it, but he's a very GOOD engineer. Because GOOD engineers always think about backup support...what if the first glass fails?
-
what if the first glass fails?
That would be because some amateur-hour jerkwad went hacking on a perfectly functional live product, removing redundancy from the original system to provide resources for a backup system that has approximately zero chance of ever being safely failed-over (failovered?) to. :troubleshooting:
-
a backup system that has approximately zero chance of ever being safely failed-over
In context, the the backup glass wasn't needed because the primary User had fallen over - backwards.
-
That would be because some amateur-hour jerkwad went hacking on a perfectly functional live product, removing redundancy from the original system to provide resources for a backup system that has approximately zero chance of ever being safely failed-over (failovered?) to. :troubleshooting:
Well, duh, you build the failsafe glass to contain the glass that contains the water. That way, if the...forget it.
A wife asks her husband, a software engineer, "Could you please go shopping for me and buy one carton of milk, and if they have eggs, get 6!"
A short time later the husband comes back with 6 cartons of milk.
The wife asks him, "Why the hell did you buy 6 cartons of milk?"
He replied, "They had eggs."
-
He replied, "They had eggs."
Wife, who's also an engineer: "So where's the seventh carton then? I didn't tell you "or if they have eggs, get 6!" "
-
Implied "then"
Which, on reflection, don't mean squat.
Yes, there should be 7.
-
Two mathematicians in a pub/restaurant/whatever. Mathematician 1 goes to the whatever-you-call-it. Mathematician 2 tips the waitress generously and tells her, "When I'll ask you a mathematical question, please answer '1/3 x³.'" Mathematician 1 comes back. Mathematician 2 bets with mathematician 1 that ordinary people know much more about mathematics than you'd suppose. Then, he calls the waitress and asks her, "What is the integral of x² dx?" She answers as instructed, "1/3 x³." While mathematician 1 is baffled and trying to figure out how she could have known that, she turns around, and says, "+ C."
-
-
John?
As this is a male name, that requires mathematician 1 to be male, otherwise it would be gender discrimination.
-
I...think the joke is on Mathematician 2.
-
What about the Lieu?
-
<insert pun about tenant here>
-
-
-
@cheong said:
refer the thing
A suffix, please? If you're going to discuss semantics, I would suggest that you at least ensure the correctness of your own.
At the place that I worked before, people refer the thing people called "TrackPoint(TM) Style Pointer", "nub", "nipple mouse" or "clit mouse" in the pic.Am I clear enough?
-
-
what if the first glass fails?
That's when they find out someone had found the unused failover glass lying around and filled it
-
Helium walks into a bar and orders a beer, the bartender says, "Sorry, we don't serve noble gasses here." He doesn't react.