The fact that there’s no buckets means that you can’t then usefully draw any further conclusions about the ratio of buckets to things. In your first two examples we can take the results and use them to work out further things like how much might the buckets weigh, what happens if we add more buckets or more things, etc.

In the divide by zero answer, we know nothing about the buckets, and the number of things becomes meaningless. But worse of all is that it’s easy to hide this from the unwary, which is why you occasionally see “proofs” online that 1=2, which rely on hiding divide-by-zero operations behind some sneaky algebra.

When we say we “can’t” divide by zero, we mean ok you can divide by zero, but you’ll get a useless answer that leaves you at a mathematical dead end. Infinity isn’t reversible, or even strictly equal to itself.

I’m amazed at how after 50 years, over 100,000 top-tier software engineers, and $3,500,000,000,000, Microsoft are still so bad at making operating systems.

It’s almost as if Capitalist rhetoric about innovation is bullshit.

I’ve got a pet theory that a hypothetical alien species’ music would be more recognizably similar to humans’ than their biology would.

There’s a certain amount of discourse in KotH fandom around exactly how all four childhood friends came to buy houses on The Alley behind Rainey Street. Apparently the canon is hazy and inconsistent, though I can’t remember the details.

🥱 Brick

☺️ Brick with built-in sling for maximum control and power

I think OP’s meme illustrates Feynman’s point very well; there comes a stage where if the number of incorrect statements in your explanation outnumber the the correct ones, it’s no longer a meaningful explanation.

Look at that young whippersnapper. I had one for my discman.

Commerce isn’t the same thing as capitalism.

All bases should be quoted in Base-1, the basedest of bases

Your life can be so much better if you get over the notion of having to own things. Almost every luxury out there can be enjoyed without having to own it, as long as you’re able to discard the consumerist propaganda that you’ve not enjoyed it properly unless you can take it home.

The giant jpeg square artefact on the side of Homer’s head in the first frame undermines the message somewhat.

I usually screenshot it in place with alt-print screen, paste it into paint, crop it to size, and save

I got into a long debate with someone who wouldn’t accept my claim that pi is 3.

My reasoning was that 3 is accurate to the number of decimal places it’s quoted to, which is all you ever can say of any given value of pi. Like, pi might not be exactly 3, but it’s not 3.14159265358979323846 either, because both values still have infinity digits missing.

You may

Big burgers should just be two burgers

Everyone has that one moment when they realize just how expensive a good box is if you need to go out and actually buy one with money.

Came here to post the exact same thing

The frustrating thing working in a big company is wanting to pay for something that costs 0.0000001% of the company’s annual revenue, but not being able to because big companies are always divided up in hundreds of small teams with their own budgets, and your boss is already over-budget for the quarter because the team’s cloud bill was 20% higher than predicted.

This is, of course, working exactly as designed.

I don’t get the hate. If a game is fun to play, then I’d much rather have the option of playing it with better graphics. People ITT are acting like the existence of remasters prevents new games from being made, which I don’t believe is actually the case. The bulk of the work on Oblivion Remastered wasn’t even done by Bethesda developers, but by an external company that specialises in art production.

I wish they’d do a proper remaster of Might & Magic VI in a modern game engine.

Glinner is the biggest argument I’ve seen against Death of the Author, because once you know you’re supposed to be laughing at the marginalised character and with the characters mistreating them, it’s impossible to find it funny.

There’s lots of examples of it too. The first time watching the theatre trip episode where a judge in drag opens the play, I’d read Roy’s discomfort with the show being “too gay” as a joke on Roy being out of his element; we were supposed to laugh at his discomfort. But on rewatching it’s hard to shake the idea that actually Roy’s defence of “I don’t want his sexuality rubbed in my face” is meant as something the audience is supposed to identify and agree with, and that far from being a knowing playful nudge at gay theatre the whole thing was a mean-spirited caricature of it. The meaning does get changed whether Roland Barthes likes it or not.