this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2025
829 points (98.8% liked)

Science Memes

15548 readers
2955 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 49 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 21 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Is this a hard limit we’ve proven or can we still keep trying?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] selokichtli@lemmy.ml 20 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Do you know how inspiring documentaries describe maths are everywhere, telling us about the golden ratio in art and animal shells, and pi, and perfect circles and Euler's number and natural growth, etc? Well, this, I can see it really happening in the world.

[–] JoeTheSane@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago

I hate this so much

[–] schnokobaer@feddit.org 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That tiny gap on the right is killing me

[–] friendly_ghost@beehaw.org 2 points 2 days ago

That's my favorite part 😆

[–] Zerush@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 days ago

It is one prove more, why it is important to think literally out of the box. But too much people of this type

https://i.vgy.me/UVG654.gif

[–] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 days ago

I love when I have to do research just to understand the question being asked.

Just kidding, I don't really love that.

[–] RustyNova@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Not complete without the sounds

[–] nebulaone@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

~~To be fair, the large square can not be cleanly divided by the smaller square(s). Seems obvious to most people, but I didn't get it at first.~~

~~In other words: The size relation of the squares makes this weird solution the most efficient (yet discovered).~~

Edit: nvm, I am just an idiot.

[–] Zwiebel@feddit.org 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

The outer square is not given or fixed, it is the result of the arrangement inside. You pack the squares as tightly as you can and that then results in an enclosing square of some size. If someone finds a better arrangement the outer square will become smaller

[–] Lionel@endlesstalk.org 2 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Unless I’m wrong, it’s not the most efficient use of space but if you impose the square shape restriction, it is.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago

But there are 7 squares in the middle with 10 around it, surely that counts for something

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›