Yup, that’s just Murphy’s Law.
Reddit chess
Submitted 3 weeks ago by Cantaloupe@fedioasis.cc to [deleted]
https://fedioasis.cc/pictrs/image/722d9458-12c8-4d1e-94f2-49f643eb8b5d.webp
Comments
Bruhh@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
jballs@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
No that’s not Murphy’s… oh you sly son of a bitch. Almost got me!
a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
You are correct. It is Occam.
trollercoaster@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
WereCat@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
And this is how reddit AI gets its training
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
thats what bots do anyways on reddit.
chillpanzee@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
There’s a software dev parallel… tell an engineer “it can’t be done.”
MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Fuck Reddit and Fuck Spez.
red_bull_of_juarez@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Um, actually…
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Twitter user discovers Cunningham’s law. More at 11.
(This, by the way, is one of the main engines behind massive collaborations like Wikipedia, OpenStreetMap, etc.)
daannii@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
This is also what drives like 90% of scientific research.
Many see a study published and think: ." No, I don’t think that’s how it works. I’m going to do my own study and prove them wrong. "
Scientists are all just petty know-it-alls.
Pettiness can be used productively. There is a right place for every type of person. 🙃
ouRKaoS@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
The study I read said that only about 37% of scientists are petty know-it-alls, 60% are waiting for funding, 2% are waiting on peer review, and 1% are actively doing research.
They then said there was a 82% margin of error and a bunch of overlap in the groups, so you probably shouldn’t cite their research even though they published it.