• Hugin@lemmy.worldEnglish
    40·
    1 day ago

    The secret to good engineering is to know when 1+1 should be 3 and when it should be 1.

    • booly@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      33·
      1 day ago

      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.

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        1 day ago

        “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?

        • djsoren19@yiffit.netEnglish
          4·
          1 day ago

          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.

          • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            1 day ago

            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

        • booly@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          3·
          1 day ago

          Also, Relevant Username?

          Probably. I don’t even know how I came up with this, but I do love me some logic.

  • neonred@lemmy.worldEnglish
    233·
    2 days ago

    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.

      • InputZero@lemmy.worldEnglish
        5·
        1 day ago

        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.

      • bluewing@lemm.eeEnglish
        52·
        1 day ago

        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.

  • stupidcasey@lemmy.worldEnglish
    281·
    2 days ago

    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.

  • TʜᴇʀᴀᴘʏGⒶʀʏ@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    6127·
    2 days ago

    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

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    • frosch@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      11·
      2 days ago

      Yo, I think your explanation could really be improved with some references, sources and links for further leisure-reading, imo

    • SurpriZe@lemm.eeEnglish
      151·
      2 days ago

      Let’s not degrade our humanity by using the atrocious llms kay.

      • TʜᴇʀᴀᴘʏGⒶʀʏ@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        2711·
        2 days ago

        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

        1. 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]

        2. 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.

        3. 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!

        • frosch@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          10·
          2 days ago

          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.

          • TʜᴇʀᴀᴘʏGⒶʀʏ@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
            51·
            2 days ago

            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

            1000006743

            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)