wanna maximize syrup? just make it a giant one-square cup.
this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2026
775 points (99.4% liked)
Science Memes
19388 readers
3495 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
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- 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
- !abiogenesis@mander.xyz
- !animal-behavior@mander.xyz
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !arachnology@mander.xyz
- !balconygardening@slrpnk.net
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !biology@mander.xyz
- !biophysics@mander.xyz
- !botany@mander.xyz
- !ecology@mander.xyz
- !entomology@mander.xyz
- !fermentation@mander.xyz
- !herpetology@mander.xyz
- !houseplants@mander.xyz
- !medicine@mander.xyz
- !microscopy@mander.xyz
- !mycology@mander.xyz
- !nudibranchs@mander.xyz
- !nutrition@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
- !photosynthesis@mander.xyz
- !plantid@mander.xyz
- !plants@mander.xyz
- !reptiles and amphibians@mander.xyz
Physical Sciences
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !chemistry@mander.xyz
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !geography@mander.xyz
- !geospatial@mander.xyz
- !nuclear@mander.xyz
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !quantum-computing@mander.xyz
- !spectroscopy@mander.xyz
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and sports-science@mander.xyz
- !gardening@mander.xyz
- !self sufficiency@mander.xyz
- !soilscience@slrpnk.net
- !terrariums@mander.xyz
- !timelapse@mander.xyz
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
My nephew just drinks the syrup from the bottle.
I'm pretty sure that waffle could easily fit 5 rows of 5, am I crazy?
It's still funny
Where does this picture come from? Is it real? Ive just thought at how absurd an orangutan on a bike chasing a kid actually is.
What makes the lower suboptimal?
Probably more unused area
The squares are the same size...
The bottom square is slightly larger than the top square.
To be honest I would love a waffle maker like this where some parts of the waffle are a little undercooked and other parts crispy.
Oh my God, I fucking love this. I mean, I absolutely hate that this is the optimal way to pack 17 squares into a larger square such that the size of the larger square is minimised. However, I love that someone went to the effort of making a waffle iron plate for this. High effort shitposts like this give me life
I fucking love this. I mean, I absolutely hate that this is the optimal way to pack 17 squares into a larger square such that the size of the larger square is minimised.
There's a brain echo in here.
It's only more efficient when the containing square is large enough that there would be wasted space on the edges if the inner squares were lined up as a grid. The outer square of the waffle iron is almost but not quite large enough to fit a 4x5 grid. People losing their minds over this weird configuration being "more efficient" think it's because it's more efficient than a grid where all the space is used, which is not what this would be.
the joke is about achieving max density of the squares, density as in square per area of the waffle
of course you can make the whole waffle bigger, but it would decrease the density
a better solution is adding smaller squares though
Yeah, if you have extra space but not enough for another row or column, just adjust the size of the inner squares.
Yeah, there's a lot of unused space there. Or just look at the gap in the middle of that row of 4. A slightly smaller square could have fit a 5x5, even.
It's a novelty, not an optimization.
I wonder how many people would have understood both references just a few years ago. Yet today, not only someone made a meme out of this, but it also gets a good deal of updates. That's the internet culture I love!
What's the other reference, for someone not much into Resident Evil?
Oh just that square packing thing from the post. There have been many posts/jokes about it being a mathematically optimal solution that feels irritatingly wrong.
I find the whole thing funny because it's a very niche scientific concept that somehow made it to popular culture to the same level as a zombie game.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The Resident Evil games (at least the few I've watched/played) have an inventory management system where each item takes up a certain amount of space, and you have to organize it efficiently in order to maximize how much stuff you can carry.
load more comments
(3 replies)
For the uninitiated: this is the current most-efficient method found of packing 17 unit squares inside another square. You may not like it, but this is what peak efficiency looks like.
(Of course, 16 squares has a packing coefficient of 4, compared to this arrangement's 4.675, so this is just what peak efficiency looks like for 17 squares)
Edit: For the record, since this blew up, a tiny nitpick in my own explanation above: a smaller value of the packing coefficient is not actually what makes it more efficient (as it is simply the ratio of the larger square's side to the sides of the smaller squares). The optimal efficiency (zero interstitial space) is achieved when the packing coefficient is precisely equal to the square root of the number of smaller squares. Hence why the case of n=25, with a packing coefficient of 5, is actually more efficient than this packing of n=17, with a packing coefficient of 4.675. Since sqrt(25)=5, that case is a perfectly efficient packing, equal to the case of n=16 with coefficient of 4. Since sqrt(17)=4.123, this packing above is not perfectly efficient, leaving interstices. Obviously. This also means that we may yet find a packing for n=17 with a packing coefficient closer to sqrt(17), which would be an interesting breakthrough, but more important are the questions "is it possible to prove that a given packing is the most efficient possible packing for that value of n" and "does there exist a general rule which produces the most efficient possible packing for any given value of n unit squares?"
But you can fit 25 squares into the same space. This isn't efficiency, it's just wasted space and bad planning.
You raised the packing coefficient by ⅝ to squeeze one extra square in with all that wasted space, so don't argue that 25 squares has a packing coefficient of 5. Another ⅜ will get you an extra 8 squares, and no wasted space.
You're misrepresenting the problem though, it's not about maximising efficiency of an area, but packing the targeted amount of squares inside the smallest square, who's side lengths are some multiple of the packed squares.
If you posted this under OP then I would agree with you, obviously this is bad efficiency for the waffle for the purposes of syrup filled in holes, but for the definitions of the problem the person you replied to is correct in their explanation.
Precisely. That's why I wrote the parenthetical about the greater efficiency of 16 as a perfect square. As the other commenter pointed out, this is a meme. This is only the most efficient packing method for 17 squares. It's the packing efficiency equivalent of the spinal tap "this one goes to 11" quote.
load more comments
(21 replies)
For 25 squares of size 1x1 you'd need a square of size 5x5. The square into which 17 1x1 squares fit is smaller than 5x5, so you can't fit 25 squares into it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Isn't this only true if the outer square's size is not an integer multiple of the inner square's size? Meaning, if you have to do this to your waffle iron, you simply chose the dimensions poorly.
The optimisation objective is to fit n smaller squares (in this case, n=17) into the larger square, whilst minimising the size of the outer square. So that means that in this problem, the dimensions of the outer square isn't a thing that we're choosing the dimensions of, but rather discovering its dimensions (given the objective of "minimise the dimensions of the outer square whilst fitting 17 smaller squares inside it)
Specifically, the optimal side length of the larger square for any natural number of smaller squares 'n' is the square root of n (assuming the smaller squares are unit squares). The closer your larger side length gets to sqrt(n), the more efficient your packing.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
I am sad because these squares look very out of place, unlike hexagons which are beautiful and perfect and never cause problems whatsoever, ever ever!
Hexagons are the bestagons.
Im a dipper. You put the syrup where you want it yourself. Do not rely on some fancy designed skillet to feed you the way you deserve.
load more comments
(11 replies)
view more: next ›