Engineering Memes

Humanity's climate solution: "Let's just spray stuff into the sky!" The meme perfectly captures our desperate approach to geoengineering - like trying to fix a leaky nuclear reactor with duct tape. Scientists propose injecting aerosols into the stratosphere while that robot is basically saying "sure, what could possibly go wrong with modifying Earth's atmosphere?" Spoiler: probably everything. Next brilliant idea: giant space umbrella? Maybe we should try reducing emissions first, but that would require actual effort.

Engineers panicking about AI stealing their jobs while the AI is just trying to understand electrical engineering fundamentals is peak irony. The diagram shows complex power factor calculations with phase angles and reactive/real power - stuff that mediocre engineers themselves probably struggle with. Meanwhile, ChatGPT is still figuring out if it should apologize for not being able to make you a sandwich. Your job security isn't threatened by artificial intelligence; it's threatened by your artificial competence.

Behold! The ultimate real-world physics demonstration! That building is clearly trying to teach us about inertial reference frames in the most dramatic way possible. When your textbook examples just aren't cutting it, Mother Nature steps in with a tilted building and some wooden poles going "not today, gravity!" For those who slept through physics class: an inertial frame of reference is basically any framework that isn't accelerating. This poor building decided to challenge that concept by nearly accelerating toward the ground! Those wooden beams are the unsung heroes keeping Newton's first law from becoming a very expensive lesson in structural integrity.

Engineering students everywhere just felt a disturbance in the force. Taking g = 10 m/s² (instead of 9.8) and π = 3 (instead of 3.14159...) are the classic "good enough" approximations that make calculations easier. But the consequences? A bridge that doesn't quite connect! This is what happens when you round numbers too aggressively in structural engineering. That tiny 5% error compounds into meters of misalignment. The construction workers on either side are probably wondering which calculator-cutting engineer is getting fired today.

Nuclear engineers turning up their noses at "submissive and breederable" thorium, but nodding approvingly at "fissile and breederable" thorium. The distinction matters when you're trying to sustain a nuclear chain reaction. Thorium (Th-232) isn't directly fissile, but it can be bred into uranium-233, which absolutely slaps in a reactor. It's like rejecting someone's mixtape then vibing hard when they use slightly different terminology.

Content (corea BA StOr CANG (9177 CANG AMG SHO (Sta Sinter ANG OHESICOAL BANG TES Содо (Sta Care

Content Springfield Department of Engineering 573 a

Content immune syster surgeons transpla organ How's it feel? immune system surgeons transpla Like it's someone dises. surgeons transplant organ It isn't.

Content If the proof of a theorem is not immediately apparent, it may be because you are trying the wrong approach. Below are some effective methods of proof that might aim you in the right direction. Proof by obviousness: "The proof is so clear that it need not be mentioned." Proof by general agreement: "All in favor?.. Proof by imagination: "Well, we'll pretend it's true. Proof by convenience: "It would be very nice if it were true, so.. Proof by necessity: "It had better be true, or the entire structure of mathematics would crumble to the ground." Proof by plausibility: "It sounds good, so it must be true." Proof by intimidation: "Don't be stupid; of course it's true!" Proof by lack of sufficient time: "Because of the time constrait, I'lI leave the proof to you." Proof by postponement: "The proof for this is long and arduous, so it is given to you in the appendix." Proof by accident: "Hey, what have we here?!" Proof by insignificance: "Who really cares anyway?" Proof by mumbo-jumbo: Wo ф, 3,830*8=8, Proof by profanity: (example omitted) Proof by definition: "We define it to be true.! Proof by tautology: "It's true because it's true." Proof by plagarism: "As we see on page 289,..." Proof by lost reference: "I know I saw it somewhere....' Proof by calculus: "This proof requires calculus, so we'll skip it." Proof by terror: When intimidation fails Proof by lack of interest: "Does anyone really want to see this?" Proof by illegibility: E GED Proof by logic: "If it is on the problem sheet, it must be true!" Proof by majority rule: Only to be used if general agreement is impossible. Proof by clever variable choice: "Let A be the number such that this proof works.." Proof by tessellation: "This proof is the same as the last." Proof by divine word: " And the Lord said, 'Let it be true, and it was true Proof by stubbornness: "I don't care what you say- it is true." Proof by simplification: "This proof reduced to the statement I + 1 = 2." Proof by hasty generalization: "Well, it works for 17, so it works for all reals." Proof by deception: "Now everyone turn their backs. Proof by supplication: "Oh please, let it be true. Proof by poor analogy: "Well, it's just like...' Proof by avoidance: Limit of proof by postponement as it approaches infinity Proof by design: If it's not true in today's math, invent a new system in which it is. Proof by authority: "Well, Don Knuth says it's true, so it must be!" Proof by intuition: "I have this gut feeling.

Content Romba Romba with blade Romba with shelves Romba with printer Romba with plough Romba with legs Dynamics

Energy storage comparison gone hilariously wrong! That dam cap is holding back 7000 joules per kilogram of potential energy, while your car roof can barely keep the rain out. 😂 Engineers design massive concrete structures to contain incredible amounts of energy in hydroelectric dams, and then there's your vehicle's roof - defeated by a shopping cart in a parking lot. Next time someone asks about impressive energy containment systems, just point to your car and say "not this!" 💦🚗

Gravity has entered the chat! 🌎 This meme brilliantly captures that moment when someone thinks they've solved climate change with a "just put the pollution in space" solution. If only physics worked that way! Even if we built a chimney tall enough (which would require materials that don't exist and would collapse under their own weight), gases don't just float away into space. Earth's gravitational pull would simply bring those pollutants right back down, spreading them across the atmosphere anyway. It's like trying to throw your trash "away" by tossing it up in the air and expecting it to never come down. Physics: 1, Oversimplified Solutions: 0.