D/Dx Hydra: When Calculus Fights Back

The ultimate academic mic drop! This brilliant footnote about T.J. Kaczynski being "better known for other work" is the scientific equivalent of saying "Oh, that elegant mathematical proof? Just a side hustle before becoming the Unabomber." Academia in a nutshell: spend years crafting perfect proofs and publishing papers nobody reads, while history remembers you for something completely different. That tiny footnote is basically saying "Sure, he solved this complex mathematical problem... but that's not why he's in the history books!" Next time you're stressing about your publication record, remember that your CV might not be what defines your legacy. Sometimes it's your "other work" that steals the spotlight—hopefully not in the Unabomber way though!

When statistics meets insecurity! This guy's deep dive into why his 6/10 rating feels inadequate despite being "above the mean" is peak overthinking. He's literally questioning if we should use mean, mode, or median while pondering the philosophical limitations of ordinal data scales. Nothing says "I'm totally not bothered by this rating" like a 200-word statistical analysis justifying why the rating system itself must be flawed. The transition from basic stats to measurement theory is the scientific equivalent of saying "I'm fine" while clearly not being fine.

The mathematical equivalent of a bar fight. The little brother commits the cardinal sin of mathematics by calling π rational, and big bro swoops in with Lambert's proof like he's been waiting his whole life for this moment. Spoiler alert: π is transcendental, not just irrational. It can't be expressed as a fraction or as the root of any polynomial equation with rational coefficients. The ratio of circumference to diameter is an endless decimal that never repeats or terminates—much like this conversation at family gatherings.

This is a classic case of someone trying to apply mathematical set theory to social concepts without understanding how logical implications actually work! The notation in the title (A ⊇ B ⇒ A ⊆ B) is mathematically incorrect - if A contains B (superset), it doesn't imply that A is contained in B (subset). That's like saying "if all squares are rectangles, then all rectangles are squares" - which is demonstrably false! The tweet confuses subset relationships with categorical statements. In set theory, "trans women are women" would be expressed as "trans women ⊆ women" (trans women are a subset of women), but that doesn't logically imply the reverse statement "women ⊆ trans women" (all women are trans women). The person clearly slept through their discrete mathematics class and now thinks they've made some profound logical discovery. Next time, bring coffee to those 8 AM math lectures!

The crushing disappointment when you discover that your beloved SI units aren't actually based on universal constants but are just as made-up as imperial measurements! That adventurer spent 15 years searching for the ultimate measurement truth only to find out we're all just playing a cosmic game of "let's agree these numbers make sense." The meter was originally defined as 1/10,000,000 of the distance from the North Pole to the equator—which is basically saying "we picked a random fraction of an arbitrarily-sized planet." Even with modern redefinitions using light and quantum mechanics, we're still just picking convenient reference points. Metric zealots in shambles right now.

Engineers see a problem and immediately apply a practical solution. Fire? Extinguish it. Mathematicians, however, identify the theoretical solution but never actually implement it. "This fire extinguisher is the solution" followed by "Now back to my email!" while the office continues to burn. Pure mathematics in a nutshell—elegant theories with zero concern for real-world application. The gap between theoretical brilliance and practical implementation has claimed many offices... and research grants.