this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2026
221 points (99.1% liked)
Funny
14611 readers
235 users here now
General rules:
- Be kind.
- All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
- Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
- No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
- Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Carl Sagan said that you need a universe first.
Well they didnt ask him, did they?
That never bothers Neil deGrasse Tyson either
This is a physics problem not a philosophy problem
Spherical cows in a vacuum?
Imagine the universe as a spherical cow.
How thick of a universe ༼ ͡⚆ل͜ ͡⚆༽
Physics would be a lot simpler if all cows were spherical
Me, an engineer: They aren't?
I'd imagine milking them would be somewhat more complex though
Yeah, that's why I prefer cubic cows. They're much easier to pack, too.
I can't believe we're having this argument again. Hexagonal cows when two dimensional. Uh, regular icosahedral cows in three, I don't know the names of the shapes in four but you'll put your eye out
Efficiently packing 17 square cows.
I do not like this
This is the Superwaffle Debacle all over again!
flips syrup table and leaves
No, that was to bake a pie. He didn't say universe before cow.
Therefore, cow is infinite.
Obviously when discussing milking cows, we assume a spherical cow universe.
Why not cow-shaped universe?
Asking for a friend.
Right. The kid was saying the same thing, in a way. The question presupposed the existence of the cow. Making an apple pie "from scratch" presupposes the existence of apples. Both presuppose the existence of the universe.
The only person who could be more smarmy in that regard than Neal deGrasse Tyson.
Carl said this, in response to "from scratch", to make the broader point that we shouldn't assume the universe has always existed in its present state. Nothing smarmy about it. And, it worked very well. The quote is well-known 50 years later, the point is taken.
Neal, yeah, a smarmy egotist, no doubt.
You’re not wrong, and it wasn't really a knock against either of them.
It is being smarmy, because that’s not how people normally think or talk. IMO, Sagan has earned the right. Tyson has not.
Reminder that "smarmy" necessarily implies insincerity, not just a funny way of talking.