The thread centers around sharing and enjoying lame jokes, with participants contributing various humorous quips and puns. The discussion explores the nature of humor, particularly focusing on jokes that are intentionally corny or groan-inducing.
There is no clear consensus on what constitutes a "lame" joke, as participants express a range of opinions on the humor shared. Some jokes are appreciated by certain individuals while others find them lacking, indicating a diversity of taste in humor.
Some jokes rely on specific cultural references or wordplay that may not be universally understood, leading to varied interpretations among participants.
WWGD said:
How did that note come from a radio station?fresh_42 said:
No pooper without an internet appearance these days.WWGD said:
When my wife was pregnant we noticed that every baby in every catalogue was smiling and happy. The only exceptions were the babies in the National Health Service "why is my baby crying" leaflets ("usually they're hungry or tired, but here's how to recognise meningitis" kind of thing). So when our baby cried we used to joke that we should have ordered a baby from the catalogue, not got one of the NHS ones.dextercioby said:
They were also doomed, because without a symbol for zero they couldn't terminate strings in C.dextercioby said:
I won a bet against someone, that they could multiply any numbers of length 2 ( contrived, but necessary*) in less than 3 minutes.dextercioby said:
Easier than DF times A5.WWGD said:
Or Z_n , when n>26, so you've run out of letters of the alphabet.fresh_42 said:
Mathematicians know only five numbers: ##-2\, , \,-1\, , \,0\, , \,1\, , \,2.## ##3## is already ##n##. And it is more than just a joke. There is a subtle change between two and three. E.g. the tensor rank (minimal number of generic tensors) is easy for two, but it starts to become quite difficult for three and higher degrees.WWGD said:
There was a film short (from Dust?) a little while ago about a guy who discovered a secret integer hiding between 3 and 4. No one believed him until after he died and one man saw a collection of four objects on a table, picked one up, and looked back down and noticed that there were still four objects on the table!fresh_42 said:
There are two there: ##\pi## and the sum of all reciprocal Fibonacci numbers.topsquark said:
There's a Greg Egan short story with a related premise. It turns out that the rules of arithmetic aren't completely settled for very large numbers, and somebody manipulates that so that temporarily the rules aren't completely settled for small numbers either, leading to a situation where three groups of two objects and two groups of three objects don't have the same number of objects.topsquark said:
OMG!! That's the reason they won't teach commutativity of multiplication in the US school system anymore! I never understood why.Ibix said:
Obligatory reference:topsquark said:
It was hard to watch, but I love that episode.DaveC426913 said: