this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
578 points (98.0% liked)

Funny

6581 readers
72 users here now

General rules:

Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 61 points 9 months ago

See, if we just removed students, the school would function perfectly!

[–] Stanwich@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago

I think the millwrights in our plant went to this school.

[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 17 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

This gets pointed out everytime a variation on this graphic gets posted, but it can work if the gears are on different planes, like they’re not all grinding up with one another. So maybe two gears are actually touching, but you’ve got a shaft going from the center of one of those connecting to another gear that’s actually touching the conflicting gear. Or it could be one of the gears is actually wide enough that it’s spinning two of the other ones, but those two aren’t touching.

[–] RattlerSix@lemmy.world 30 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I would argue that we have to be constrained by what is actually shown by the illustration and what is implied by it. It is implied that they all work together at the same time and if we're just making up things that aren't shown like an extra plane, we can make up anything.

[–] Peppycito@sh.itjust.works 7 points 9 months ago

A planetary gear set would have illustrated the point without breaking the laws of assumption.

[–] ech@lemm.ee 11 points 9 months ago

Because the point of the illustration is that all of the gears are directly interacting with each other to achieve something. That gears don't work that way either didn't occur to the original creator, or they just didn't care.

[–] 0x4E4F@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago

Why not just use a chain to circle them all 🤷... it's even more fun to see that than this.

[–] Chakravanti@sh.itjust.works 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You're missing that metal jam rod labeled "republicans" who have blatantly claimed to do exactly that.

[–] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 20 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

That's the gear labeled "parents."

It should absolutely be the role of public education to give kids a fighting chance at escaping crazy at home. Some kids will have parents who are more qualified on certain topics than teachers, but an effective education system should not assume that all or even most parents are competent. That should be a bonus, not a requirement to educate children.

[–] Chakravanti@sh.itjust.works 3 points 9 months ago

Parents should be an addendum not blatantly jamming the whole thing by setup from...yeah...done said enough all ready. Anyone that don't understand gear but old enough to be hear needs to go back to a school that wasn't sabotaged.

[–] Crow@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (2 children)

True, with a good education system and good teachers, the parents should not be involved.

[–] hessianerd@lemm.ee 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You are absolutely insane. You can't drop your kid off at school like they are a car in need of an oil change. There are 1000 things parents do or don't that effect if the kid can even listen in class, let alone learn.

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

I hate to break it to you, but most American parents are not fit to parent and kids would by and large have better outcomes just living in boarding schools throughout their childhoods.

You're welcome to look at the statistics on child abuse, neglect, domestic violence and extreme poverty if you don't believe me.

[–] ech@lemm.ee 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

What are you talking about? Home life is incredibly critical to a students success in school and life. With literally no communication, that situation would deteriorate fast.

[–] propaganja@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

With literally no communication, that student has bigger things to worry about than grades, like why are Mommy and Daddy shutting me out?

[–] ech@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Way to completely miss the point of discussion here.

[–] propaganja@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

I wasn't trying to be serious, if that wasn't clear.

[–] DanglingFury@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Believe it or not, a heart looks very different from how it is typically drawn. It wouldn't function at all if it looked like how we drew it

[–] naeap@sopuli.xyz 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

A drawn "heart" is a reference to either a female ass, breasts, or vulva - at least something I currently vaguely remember tells me that

[–] Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca 4 points 9 months ago

It's evocative of those things for sure. There's also the theory that the heart symbol is shaped like a mildly poisonous seed that induced infertility. This might be a myth though, as the plant doesn't exist today.

The heart symbol may also actually be a simplified representation of a real heart. A heart is a complex shape that you alnost never see. If priests can be so bad at drawing cats, I can totally believe that the heart was simplified so much.

[–] spudwart@spudwart.com 6 points 9 months ago

It would be so funny, if it weren't so sad.

[–] Luke_Fartnocker@lemm.ee 6 points 9 months ago

There should be a lever in that diagram labeled "engineering instructor".

[–] lntl@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 months ago

it works as designed!