Author Topic: Programming/Coder humor (Read 154402 times)

mwb1100 · « **Reply #100 on:** March 31, 2015, 05:08 AM »

Make the 8 a 10 and break down the 5 into 2 and 3, with the 2 going into the 8 to make 10, then add 3 to the 10 to get 13.

Who thinks like that?
-Renegade (March 30, 2015, 09:16 AM)

I didn't watch the youtube, but I will admit that this is the kind of logic that my mind goes through for a lot of arithmetic. It works for me, but I'm not sure I could explain it well to someone else. And I am certain that it's not a mechanism that works for everyone.

A possibly better example than solving 8+5 might be how would you solve 97*3 in your head? I think that many people would juggle the numbers so that it's 100*3 - 3*3, which is easy to work out in your head (or mine at least) as 300-9 = 291. I know that how I'd do it, and it's a similar transformation to 8+5 being the same as 8+2 + 3 = 10 + 3 = 13. It's just that the 8+5 problem is pretty simple by itself, so there's probably less need for the transformation 'trick'.

I think that there are different ways of approaching arithmetic, and that there's not 'one-true-method' that works for everyone. Each person should find their own best way to working out basic arithmetic, and I think the best elementary math teachers are the ones who are able to somehow guide different students to the different ways that work for them.

TaoPhoenix · « **Reply #101 on:** March 31, 2015, 05:17 AM »

A possibly better example than solving 8+5 might be how would you solve 97*3 in your head? I think that many people would juggle the numbers so that it's 100*3 - 3*3, which is easy to work out in your head (or mine at least) as 300-9 = 291. I know that how I'd do it, and it's a similar transformation to 8+5 being the same as 8+2 + 3 = 10 + 3 = 13. It's just that the 8+5 problem is pretty simple by itself, so there's probably less need for the transformation 'trick'.
-mwb1100 (March 31, 2015, 05:08 AM)

This is exactly what I was saying earlier.

I think there's a "goldilocks" theme here.

"Everyone" knows that 8+5=13. And then in a later class they teach you "estimating" so that if you're quickly glancing at (97*3)-3 and it's not "sorta around 290" then you have a problem.

And then everything else gets handled with combinations of calculators and software so most people don't need to pull the final answer to (97*3)-3 by hand unless they're in a special situation. Even if I think I could get that one, I'd just do it on a calculator because it's not worth the risk of getting it right 9/10 times and then the last time you're just wiped and botch it and the error travels along with your data and really wrecks something. You get zero credit for doing the other nine "the cool kid way" if your last one then causes $1000 in implicit damages like the value of people's time, then plus reputation dishonor damage when for example you're signing a contract and your change order has a math blunder in it!

Renegade · « **Reply #102 on:** March 31, 2015, 11:11 AM »

I didn't watch the youtube, but I will admit that this is the kind of logic that my mind goes through for a lot of arithmetic. It works for me, but I'm not sure I could explain it well to someone else. And I am certain that it's not a mechanism that works for everyone.
-mwb1100 (March 31, 2015, 05:08 AM)

I think in the same way for math, but then again, I tend to get a lot of flak from people for the way I think.

However, my guess is that math classes were boring for you because they were easy. Am I right there? The beginning of boredom with math for me was in grade 1 because it was all too easy. I caught Hell for working ahead in my math book.

I think that there are different ways of approaching arithmetic, and that there's not 'one-true-method' that works for everyone. Each person should find their own best way to working out basic arithmetic, and I think the best elementary math teachers are the ones who are able to somehow guide different students to the different ways that work for them.
-mwb1100 (March 31, 2015, 05:08 AM)

That seems like sage advice!

One of the things that I love in this thread, is how those numbers, frequencies and patterns can turn into a laugh.

And I'll stand beside the 6-pack theory for counting! It's as valid as any!

Or, once you can actually count in hex, it's pretty easy!

MilesAhead · « **Reply #103 on:** April 11, 2015, 07:41 AM »

Q: If Jesus was a programmer what tools would he use?

A:

Cross Compilers

ewemoa · « **Reply #104 on:** April 17, 2015, 07:19 PM »

What does HDD stand for?

Spoiler

Apart from the obvious, a couple of answers at:
https://dlutzy.wordp.../driven-development/

ewemoa · « **Reply #105 on:** April 24, 2015, 09:02 AM »

https://camo.githubu...732f746167732e706e67

Renegade · « **Reply #106 on:** April 25, 2015, 12:07 AM »

^ That was cute />

TaoPhoenix · « **Reply #107 on:** May 14, 2015, 08:58 AM »

Yahoo via Bing is never wrong.
If you think they are wrong, see above.

1. Yahoo via Bing is getting pretty desperate to serve ads on top of their searches. Google just gives you results. This cannot be yet another reason Google has the market share.

2. Ads "related" to something describe what you are. If you code, then you are a car. Proof:

Programming/Coder humor

Yahoo couldn't think of a single ad related to coding!

Fortunately, Adblock Latitude eats these, but it does take half a second, and I was wondering what the flashes were.

x16wda · « **Reply #108 on:** May 14, 2015, 08:12 PM »

2. Ads "related" to something describe what you are. If you code, then you are a car. Proof:
-TaoPhoenix (May 14, 2015, 08:58 AM)

Yes, but where do fractions and Elvis impersonators fit in??

Renegade · « **Reply #109 on:** May 14, 2015, 10:00 PM »

2. Ads "related" to something describe what you are. If you code, then you are a car. Proof:
-TaoPhoenix (May 14, 2015, 08:58 AM)
Yes, but where do fractions and Elvis impersonators fit in??
-x16wda (May 14, 2015, 08:12 PM)

/dev/null? But Elvis is probably at your local 7-Eleven right now. By the time you get there, he'll have left the building. Really. Trust me. We don't want to have suspicious minds now, do we?

app103 · « **Reply #110 on:** May 21, 2015, 01:14 PM »

This is a screenshot of a recent support ticket I received at work. I made sure I snatched it before one of the lower level agents marked it as spam.

Screenshot - 5_3_2015 , 1_19_59 AM.png

MilesAhead · « **Reply #111 on:** May 21, 2015, 01:22 PM »

We don't want to have suspicious minds now, do we?
-Renegade (May 14, 2015, 10:00 PM)

Hmm, you going to change your avatar to a hound dog?

ewemoa · « **Reply #112 on:** May 29, 2015, 01:51 AM »

There are only 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't.

There are only 10 types of people in the world: those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those who mistake it for binary.

More fun here... https://en.wikipedia...ki/Mathematical_joke

MilesAhead · « **Reply #113 on:** May 29, 2015, 05:55 AM »

There are two sets of people in the world. Those who pigeonhole people and enlightened. Unfortunately, the enlightened set is a singleton.

x16wda · « **Reply #114 on:** May 29, 2015, 08:00 PM »

There are two sets of people in the world: one that can extrapolate from incomplete data,

MilesAhead · « **Reply #115 on:** May 30, 2015, 06:06 AM »

There are two kinds of people in the world. Those who live in a hemisphere named after Amerigo Vespucci and those who don't.

app103 · « **Reply #116 on:** June 02, 2015, 05:55 AM »

There are two kinds of people in the world. Those who live in a hemisphere named after Amerigo Vespucci and those who don't.
-MilesAhead (May 30, 2015, 06:06 AM)

And which hemisphere would that be? Northern, southern, eastern, or western?

MilesAhead · « **Reply #117 on:** June 02, 2015, 07:26 AM »

There are two kinds of people in the world. Those who live in a hemisphere named after Amerigo Vespucci and those who don't.
-MilesAhead (May 30, 2015, 06:06 AM)

And which hemisphere would that be? Northern, southern, eastern, or western?
-app103 (June 02, 2015, 05:55 AM)

A literalist in every crowd.

TaoPhoenix · « **Reply #118 on:** June 02, 2015, 01:39 PM »

There are two sets of people in the world. Those who pigeonhole people and enlightened. Unfortunately, the enlightened set is a singleton.

-MilesAhead (May 29, 2015, 05:55 AM)

Ra and Buddha got to talking...

MilesAhead · « **Reply #119 on:** June 02, 2015, 01:45 PM »

Ra and Buddha got to talking...
-TaoPhoenix (June 02, 2015, 01:39 PM)

Buddha may provide illumination. But only Ra can give you a great tan.

panzer · « **Reply #120 on:** June 03, 2015, 03:39 AM »

http://crashworks.or...uages_were_vehicles/

MilesAhead · « **Reply #121 on:** June 03, 2015, 05:50 AM »

http://crashworks.or...uages_were_vehicles/
-panzer (June 03, 2015, 03:39 AM)

Heh heh heh.

app103 · « **Reply #122 on:** August 01, 2015, 04:13 AM »

a collection of collective nouns
a school of fish
a murder of crows
a laxness of JavaScript devs
a verbosity of PowerShell devs
a smugness of Ruby devs
a grumble of Perl devs
a frustration of C devs
an ICollection<DotNetDevs>

Edvard · « **Reply #123 on:** August 01, 2015, 02:21 PM »

How about a 'crust of Pascal devs'?

They're usually thinly layered on top of a deeper substrate, often older and fragile if stressed, but quite stable if left alone.

app103 · « **Reply #124 on:** August 01, 2015, 07:38 PM »

How about a 'crust of Pascal devs'?

They're usually thinly layered on top of a deeper substrate, often older and fragile if stressed, but quite stable if left alone.

-Edvard (August 01, 2015, 02:21 PM)

Reminds me of one of my favorite IRC quotes:

<mouser> app is coded in combo of php and perl
<mouser> plus a delphi front end gui
<mouser> and she runs quite well and reliably
<mouser> except if you try to organize her with gtd
<mouser> then she crashes with giant memory fault