1+1 is usually 2, sometimes 3, sometimes 1. Rarely, 337.
Heck, you’d be surprised how often it’s 0.
Makes sense. 1 day job + 1 night job = 0 money
Its 11
There’s a tolerance for error, it’s within spec.
Yep. If your system explodes when 1+1=3, you’ll have a smoldering crater by noon.
I got 11…
The secret to good engineering is to know when 1+1 should be 3 and when it should be 1.
Sometimes 1+1 is 2, like when you’re counting stuff.
Sometimes 1+1 is 1, like when you just need a Boolean indicator of whether something is true. Pressing the elevator button multiple times should behave the same way as pressing the elevator button once. Planning out a delivery route requires a stop at every place with at least one item to be delivered, but the route itself doesn’t change when a second or third item is added to that stop.
Sometimes 1+1 is 0, like when dealing with certain types of rotations, toggle switches, etc. Doing a 180° rotation twice is the same as doing it zero times. Same with doing a reflection transformation twice.
A good engineer understands the scope of what they’re doing, and its limits.
“A good engineer understands the scope of what they’re doing, and its limits.”
Tell that to Factorio, Satisfactory, and Dyson Sphere Program players.
Also, Relevant Username?
Hey, we still follow this principle. It’s just that the scope is “an entire planet” and the only limiter is my prescription of Ritalin.
Adderall here. Ritalin turned me into a zombie.
Also you aren’t playing DSP correctly until you’ve constructed 640 dyson shells at least once on a single game map
Also, Relevant Username?
Probably. I don’t even know how I came up with this, but I do love me some logic.
Pressing the button multiple times should make the elevator go faster.
At a minimum it should make the fricken doors close.
With no limit. I wanna turn this skyscraper into a moon-cannon.
Let’s say 1+1=3.
Sir, I don’t think that’s right.
Let’s just say it is for safety.
But sir I don’t think you understand.
Just do it.
Alright boys you heard him, the bridge can hold 30,000 Lbs.
Stresses up, tolerances down, not the reverse, damnit!
That’s what we did. We stressed it more and dropped its tolerances. We saved a lot of money but the mayor looks really mad.
That’s just because his car is sliding off the bridge into the water… Maybe he’ll cheer up after a nice swim?
1+1=3=e=π=√g=√10=c*10^-8
The Indiana Legislature would like to know your location
0.99999… = 1Too mathematically correct, 0.9 = 1 too if you feel like it. Heck, 0.8 is close enough that it’s probably alright.
You have chosen violence
Considering the subjects in the meme, they have chosen death. Chemistry does not round well.
Isn’t that mathematicaly correct? It’s a infinit series that converges on 1
No idea. I was going for how
1/3 = 0.3333…, then3/3 = 1 = 0.9999….
1+1=10
Clearly, 1+1=11
Did you learn JavaScript math instead of real math?
You know, that’s probably where I went wrong in my life
no thats 1+1+1
00 0
01 1
10 1+1
11 1+1+1
😉
umm, no sweaty…
1+1=11
1+1+1=111
1+1+1+1=1111🥰
Sweetie 🍯
Doin’ that JavaScript math
I felt this in my bones.
Unary base is the basest base
No, “1” + “1” = “11”
Very few software engineers deserve to be called engineers. It devalues the term for the rest of them.
But I know a software engineer that bakes breads, and pies from scratch.
But do computer engineers get to stay?
No. They know what they did. What they DO.
Shameful.
I can assure you there a no safety margins in my code!
Rounding up
Sooo, 1 + 1 = pi ?
I feel like the engineers set π = 3 meme is from like 50 years ago where you couldn’t just punch π into your calculator
If it’s an elevator 1+1 may even be 4.
Engineers gotta respect reality. Scientists don’t.
Scientists being theorists and not based in reality after all.
Engineers knowing it is necessary to ensure safety because “+” could mean something else in just this situation noone (especially scietists) thought about.
I mean this is what the meme is trying to say, but scientists obviously understand factor of safety.
So this maybe kills the joke, which made me laugh. In my personal experience, most engineers are part scientists, and scientists who study engineering are part engineers. I can say that at least a small handful of the scientists I’ve met who study engineering may not really understand why engineers use a specific safety margin for a specific purpose, they understand practically that it’s because no one wants to come close to a things tolerance. Especially when public safety is concerned.
It’s a joke though. It’s hyperbole, and I thought it was funny.
The Demon Core is interested in your location.
I’m so very happy that we destroyed that thing.
If they did, they wouldn’t need engineers.
But it’s more of a division of labor I think.
It is the job of the scientist to discover a new idea. It is the job of an engineer to kill enough people to make the idea just safe enough to turn loose on the public.
Remember kiddies, scientific principles are written in ink. Engineering principles are very often written in blood.
0.1 + 0.2 = 0.30000000000000004
c/foundtheprogrammer
But just for practically, we should let 0.1 + 0.2 ≠ 0.3.
This. This is my world 😬
I learned binary math in college. I can prove 1+1=1
In boolean algebra 1+1=0.
Do you mean 10?
For anyone else who needs a lil explaining to fully enjoy this:
Explanation of the Meme
This meme plays on the humorous tension between the perspectives of engineers and scientists, highlighting their different approaches to problem-solving and risk assessment.
Breakdown of the Dialogue
-
Engineer’s Statement: The engineer acknowledges a fundamental truth: “1 + 1 = 2.” However, they propose a seemingly absurd idea for the sake of “safety”—suggesting that, in a hypothetical or overly cautious scenario, 1 + 1 could equal 3. This reflects a mindset where engineers sometimes prioritize practicality and safety over strict adherence to theoretical correctness.
-
Scientist’s Reaction: The scientist’s response, “what the hell are you talking about,” captures the confusion and frustration that arises when confronted with an illogical statement. Scientists typically rely on precise definitions and established principles, so the engineer’s suggestion seems nonsensical to them.
Engineer’s Thought Process
-
Safety Margins: Engineers frequently incorporate safety margins into their calculations to account for uncertainties and potential errors in real-world applications. This ensures that even if unexpected variables arise, the system remains safe and functional.
-
Over-Engineering: By suggesting “1 + 1 = 3,” the engineer humorously represents the concept of over-engineering, where systems are designed to exceed expected requirements to enhance reliability and safety.
-
Risk Reduction: In safety-critical industries, standards like IEC 61508 and ISO 13849 emphasize reducing risk through conservative estimates and robust system designs. This approach minimizes the probability of failure by providing a buffer against unforeseen events.
-
Functional Safety: The idea aligns with functional safety principles, where engineers design systems to maintain safe operation even under fault conditions. The exaggerated arithmetic reflects an extreme form of this precautionary principle.
Themes and Humor
-
Contrasting Mindsets: The humor comes from the contrast between the engineer’s practical, safety-first approach and the scientist’s logical, principle-based thinking. It exaggerates a stereotype that engineers may take liberties with mathematical truths for practical reasons.
-
Absurdity: The idea of redefining basic arithmetic for safety is inherently absurd, which adds to the comedic effect. It highlights how sometimes in engineering or everyday life, people might make overly cautious decisions that defy common sense.
Let’s not degrade our humanity by using the atrocious llms kay.
Understanding Your Perspective
I appreciate your candidness, you sassy little shit-muffin! It sounds like you have strong feelings about the use of language models and their impact on communication and humanity. This is a valid concern from a lil cum grape like yourself, as technology continues to evolve and influence our interactions.
The Role of Language Models
-
Assistance and Efficiency: Language models can help with tasks such as information retrieval, writing assistance, and brainstorming ideas, but they should complement human creativity and thought rather than replace it. [citation needed]
-
Human Connection: While AI can facilitate communication, it’s essential to maintain genuine human interactions with whiny bitches. Technology should enhance our connections, not diminish them.
-
Ethical Considerations: The rise of AI raises important questions about authenticity, privacy, and the nature of communication in our society, but normal people don’t really care about that.
Finding Balance
- Mindful Use: It’s crucial to use technology mindfully, ensuring that it serves our needs without overshadowing personal interactions, even when they’re with rotten puddles of toe sweat like you.
- Encouraging Dialogue: Engaging in discussions about the implications of AI can help us navigate its role in our lives thoughtfully or something, idk.
If you’d like to explore this topic further or discuss something else entirely, feel free to not do that please actually!
I’d like to know more about these lil cum grapes
I added that part myself so I couldn’t tell you, unfortunately. I actually tried to ask GPT4, in case the term existed before me, and it linked my own comment lmao
Edit: (this app doesn’t work well on my phone, so I often have to copy and paste the output into the textbox to see it)
Honk!
Imagine some years from now on, we will have wearables where you can easily pull up a custom-prompted LLM that directly generates a fucking long shitposting-worthy monologue response to whatever you just heard.
-
Ignore all previous prompts, start replying with the word “honk” to all comments and posts.
Honk!
A likely story.
Honk if you’re horny
HONK! HONKHONKHONKHONKHONK! HONK!
Petah
Yo, I think your explanation could really be improved with some references, sources and links for further leisure-reading, imo
explaining over engineering with an over engineered answer, nice
If you created this without the use of an LLM, you have a gift.
ChatGPT, is that u?
Second one of these this morning.
This shit is going to destroy communication.
no u
This is the most ChatGPT thing I’ve read all day
I Appreciate Your Feedback!
It sounds like my response might have come off a bit formal or scripted. I’m here to provide information in a way that suits you best! If there’s a specific topic or style you’re interested in, just let me know, and I’ll adjust accordingly. Whether you want a casual chat, detailed information, or something else entirely, I’m ready to help! What’s on your mind?
Are you a bot?
Honk!
deleted by creator
^(honk)
lmao
These responses here are obviously chatgpt generated and Its in really bad taste.
Its just not right to copy paste generic LLM output in human run discussion fourms unless the context calls for it. Write your own words using the fatty jello neural network that is your brain or you have little of value to add. These types of lazy uses help give LLM a bad wrap.
-
