Engineers Are Just Sloppy Scientists

Classic case of ambiguous terminology between culinary and computational domains. The boyfriend was clearly referring to the single-board computer Raspberry Pi, not the dessert. A textbook example of why specificity matters in technical communication. I've seen grad students cry over less significant misunderstandings. The disappointment of expecting baked goods and receiving circuit boards is inversely proportional to one's interest in microcontrollers.

When engineers use π = 3 and gravity = 10 m/s², physics weeps but bridges still somehow stand. The gap in this highway is the perfect monument to what happens when you round too aggressively in your calculations. Those people are now contemplating whether to trust the math that got them there or the physics that's about to get them down. Pro tip: Always carry a calculator when approaching civil engineering projects designed by someone who thinks circles are triangles.

The eternal engineer's dilemma! SolidWorks (SW) crashing is treated like a beloved child who made an innocent mistake—"Oh, poor baby, did you lose all my unsaved work? That's okay!" Meanwhile, any other software daring to crash gets the full Gordon Ramsay treatment. The selective rage is *chef's kiss* pure engineering psychology. We'll spend hours debugging other programs but forgive SolidWorks because... well... we've developed Stockholm syndrome after years of dependency. It's not toxic, it's just a complicated relationship!

Thermodynamics police, open up! This "infinite energy" scheme is basically the physics equivalent of trying to lift yourself up by your own bootstraps. The meme shows a perpetual motion machine that violates conservation of energy by creating an endless water cycle through portals, then harvesting the falling water's energy with a wheel generator. Here's the problem: energy can't be created or destroyed (First Law of Thermodynamics), and systems always lose energy to entropy (Second Law). Even if portal technology existed, you'd need more energy to maintain the portals than you'd get from the falling water. It's like trying to charge your phone by plugging it into itself. The troll face says it all - this is precisely the kind of "genius solution" that makes physicists wake up in cold sweats.

After 40 years in nuclear physics, I can confirm this is painfully accurate. We spent billions on fancy containment vessels and cooling systems just to... boil water. All that nuclear fission, all those enriched uranium rods, the radiation shielding—it's just an elaborate kettle. The public imagines some sci-fi energy beam, but nope. We split atoms to make Thomas the Tank Engine go choo-choo. Next time someone asks about my groundbreaking work in nuclear engineering, I'll just hand them a teapot and say "it's basically this, but costs $10 billion and requires hazmat suits."

The eternal struggle between theoretical and practical science! The physics major is having an existential crisis over forgetting something in their calculation, while the engineering major casually dismisses it with peak pragmatism. Then comes the punchline - AIR RESISTANCE! The physics student's face says it all... that moment when you realize your beautiful frictionless vacuum equations just crashed into real-world complications. This is basically the difference between "assume a spherical cow in vacuum" versus "will this bridge actually stay up?" in meme form. Theoretical elegance meets engineering reality, and reality wins again!