Vector Projection Of My Priorities

Nothing disrupts my commute quite like someone trying to philosophically invalidate zero. Look, zero literally represents "nothing" while simultaneously being something. It's the numerical equivalent of a quantum superposition state. Mathematicians spent centuries formalizing it precisely because counting "nothing" is actually pretty important. Next time someone tries this argument on the subway, just whisper "empty set" and watch them implode.

Ever thought our number system was too complicated? Welcome to Base 1, where everything is beautifully simple... and endlessly tedious! 🤣 In normal number systems like Base 10 (what we use daily) or Base 2 (binary), we have different digits. But in Base 1? You only get ONE digit: 1. That's it! So the number 7 becomes "1111111" - literally just counting 1s. And poor π? It's an infinite string of 1s that would take over 1.4 million digits just to start! This is basically the mathematical equivalent of trying to write a novel using only the letter 'A'. Technically possible, practically insane! Mathematicians call this "unary notation" - the most inefficient yet conceptually simple number system possible. And notice how zero is just... nothing? That's actually perfect - in Base 1, zero is represented by an empty string. Mind blown yet? 🤯

The ultimate scientific Venn diagram of insecurity. Physicists mock engineers but secretly wish they could build something useful. Mathematicians can't win Nobel Prizes (because there isn't one for math) but take solace in their theoretical superiority. Engineers just want respect while building everything society depends on. And in the middle? The shared delusion that chemists are somehow inferior despite them literally creating new matter. The academic hierarchy is just high school with lab coats and grant funding.

The eternal divide between theoretical and practical engineering in four panels. First panel: innocent bystander asks buff engineer how they achieved such physique. Second panel: engineer responds with the most engineering answer possible - "I approximate." Third panel: reality hits when they admit they did exactly one push-up. Fourth panel: shocked observer's reaction says it all. This is precisely why engineering textbooks say "assume a frictionless surface" and then somehow build actual bridges that don't collapse. The gap between theoretical calculations and practical implementation is where engineering nightmares are born.

The classic data science struggle! Someone asks if there's a pattern to the crime distribution, gets told "no, it's everywhere," but our brilliant data scientist spots the obvious cluster on the map that everyone else missed. This is basically every data meeting ever—management sees random dots while you're staring at a statistical significance that's practically screaming. Next time your boss says "there's no correlation," just point dramatically at your scatterplot and whisper "I have a hunch..." Trust me, statisticians get goosebumps from this kind of revelation. The real crime here is how long it takes non-data people to see what's right in front of them!

The eternal battle of theoretical physics in one image! Time-independent perturbation theory is the hot date you bring home to your parents—simple, well-behaved, and solvable before dinner. Meanwhile, time-dependent perturbation theory lurks in the shadows like that homework problem that made you question your life choices. For the uninitiated: perturbation theory is how physicists solve problems they can't actually solve. Time-independent versions let you calculate stuff without worrying about that pesky fourth dimension. Add time dependence? Suddenly you're drowning in partial differential equations while questioning why you didn't just become an accountant. The face transformation is every grad student halfway through their quantum mechanics final. Pure emotional damage.