this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2026
423 points (99.3% liked)

Science Memes

19468 readers
1181 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] witty_username@feddit.nl 16 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Thanks now someone must redo the optimisation for 16:9 blocks

[–] lemmyartistforhire@lemmy.world 6 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

Here you go. 22 16:9 monitors.

I chose 22 monitors, because all other numbers have very expected results:

spoiler17 monitors:

[–] ulterno@programming.dev 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

So what's that gap for?
You can clearly either fit a few more, or make the total area smaller.

[–] lemmyartistforhire@lemmy.world 5 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

You are right, actually. I blindly trusted the computer to figure this one out, but just looking at it I found a better solution by hand. Maybe there really are some better solutions for the 22 monitors problem.

spoiler

This better not end up in any scientific papers, ever.

To answer your question: fitting more monitors into these gaps would not result in the optimal placement for that amount of monitors. 23, 24, and 25 monitors all have "expected" results.