Probability Could Go Wrong

The perfect illustration of observation bias in scientific studies. On the left, we have the "cameraman never dies" trope from action movies—implying the observer is somehow immune to danger. On the right, survivorship bias in its purest form—we only see data from subjects who lived to tell the tale. The rest? Dead in a statistical ditch somewhere. Next time you read a groundbreaking paper, remember all the failed experiments that never made it to publication.

The most honest physics textbook introduction ever written! Centuries of brilliant minds and we're still stumped by quantum mechanics, general relativity, fluid dynamics, and time itself. Physics in a nutshell: "We've figured out the easy parts, but the rest? Total mystery." That's why physicists drink coffee by the gallon—they're trying to understand why their field is simultaneously the most precise science and also completely baffling. The best part? This textbook probably costs $300 despite admitting they don't know what's going on.

The perfect summary of scientific research doesn't exi— That sign perfectly captures the beautiful disaster that is real-world science. Textbooks make it seem like scientists gracefully waltz from hypothesis to conclusion, but reality is more like stumbling through a dark room while wearing roller skates. I've spent countless hours calibrating equipment only to get readings that defy the laws of physics. My personal favorite was getting negative mass readings on a sample. According to theory, that's impossible. According to my lab equipment, I'd apparently discovered anti-gravity. The gap between theoretical perfection and experimental chaos is where the true essence of science lives—in that magical place where both knowledge and function have abandoned us completely.

The greatest mathematical troll in history strikes again! Pierre de Fermat famously claimed to have a proof for his Last Theorem (that no three positive integers a, b, and c can satisfy a n + b n = c n for any integer n > 2), but wrote in his notes that the margin was too small to contain it. Mathematicians spent 358 YEARS trying to solve it until Andrew Wiles finally did in 1994! And here's "Fermat" polling Twitter about whether to reveal his proof with 17 MILLION votes! The kicker? Even with a 57.5% "yes" vote, that proof is STILL missing! Mathematicians everywhere are having simultaneous heart attacks at this fictional scenario. The margin is STILL too small, apparently! 📝➕➖✖️

Ever had that moment when your theoretical knowledge hits a practical roadblock? The poor mathematician with a PhD couldn't mentally calculate 68×74 on a date! The irony is delicious - spending years proving complex theorems and writing dissertations, but freezing up on basic arithmetic. It's like having a Formula 1 car but forgetting how to turn the key. Mental math and theoretical math are completely different beasts - one requires quick calculations, the other deep conceptual understanding. That Kermit plush perfectly captures the shame spiral of realizing you've just undermined years of academic credibility with one missed multiplication problem.

The eternal mathematical crisis of notation! The poor mathematician is faced with two completely different definitions of the interval [a,b]. One button says it equals "ab - ba" (which would be zero if a and b commute), while the other defines it as the set of all real numbers between a and b. This is the mathematical equivalent of finding out your favorite restaurant has two completely different dishes with the same name. No wonder our friend is sweating bullets—imagine building an entire proof only to realize you've been using the wrong definition the whole time!