Yeah, we were singing it a long time before the internet was a thing accessible to children. It was passed down by those who went to camps along with such songs as “da moose da moose”

I mean, in human terms, that tomato is a bloated uterus, already filled with zygotes and amniotic fluid.

Actually, that’s a really good point to which I really want to know the answer. We have to assume that, since it’s effectively fermented meat, the prion would survive, but maybe they’re really efficient at turning all of the protein into unbound amino acids?

Ah, yes, whatever would we do if nobody was stopping international conflicts from getting out of control? If the UN werent there to stop them, we might have the most-heavily-armed nation in the history of humanity actively funding genocide by a client state (with the actual diplomats saying their goal was to start literal Armageddon), kidnapping heads of state, assassinating heads of state, and suborning the second-most-nuke-filled country’s annexation of another country by lifting embargoes! Man, could you imagine if the headquarters of the United Nations were in THAT country, and everybody just… Did nothing? Man, what a crazy world we would live in.

It sure is a good thing that that same country doesn’t also refuse to sign any of the treaties meant to “save us from hell”, like the one saying “we won’t use land mines”, or the one saying “genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are bad, and we should send people who do them to be punished”, or, oh yeah, all those treaties that are meant to actually make it so we don’t boil ourselves alive on a gods-forsaken world? Man, that would be wild.

Don’t get me wrong: many UN organizations do really good work. Look at the WHO! Man, it’s a good thing that that same country understands the important work of preventing and reducing the impact of the next Pandemic! What an awful world we would live in if they, say, decided to stop funding the WHO!

But it reduces the usable space in the middle, as any rectilinearly-designed webpages will have areas on the far left and right that aren’t viewable except in small parts while scrolling.

Sharks are older than the current rings of Saturn, and I’ll bet that the e-ring (the one which is primarily made of ice spewed out of enceladus) has been around for significantly longer than we give it credit for.

I was just finishing the Card Against Humanity:

“The fleshy fun bridge”

Padme meme: “you mean all the availableram in the computer, right?”

Anakin:

Padme: “you mean all the available RAM in the computer, right?”

Ah, no, it’s that the more efficient packing takes up less space, so the less efficient square is actually slightly larger than the other, compared to the smaller squares.

If the smaller squares are identical in both sets, then the larger square in the less-efficient set will be slightly bigger than the larger square in the more efficient set.

Since a link to a wiki article does not an explanation make:

The optimal efficiency (zero interstitial space) is achieved when the ratio of the side length of the larger square to the sides of the shorter squares (let’s call it 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 the packing of n=17 given in the waffle iron, with a packing coefficient of 4.675. Since sqrt(25)=5, that case is a perfectly efficient packing, equivalent to the case of n=16 with coefficient of 4. Since sqrt(17)=4.123, the waffle packing (represented by the orangutan) above is not perfectly efficient, leaving interstices. However, the packing coefficient of the suboptimal solution (represented by the girl) is actually 4.707, slightly further from sqrt(17), and thus less efficient, leaving greater wasted interstitial space.

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.

I was just answering your question of why someone would want to arrange a prime number of squares. The waffle is clearly a meme.

Precisely. Wilhoit’s Law

That candy crush story is, as the commenter said, a lie. I don’t know why they would suggest that adding on a lie is in any way good, since we know that this packing was discovered in the late 1990s. It’s on the wikipedia article for square packing (with sources) but I don’t feel like looking it up again.

I would still say it was a country of laws, but that is not the same thing as a country of justice.

The united states has not been a society of laws since at least 2020, and anyone telling you otherwise is either blind, stupid, lying, or some combination of the three

(I count the supreme court overturning settled law and all branches of government abetting treason as the actual final point of breakdown of the rule of law in this country)

I mean, the actual answer is severalfold: “sometimes, when you need to fill a space, you don’t end up with simple compound numbers of identical packages” is one, but really, it’s a problem in mathematics which, were we to have a general solution to find the most efficient method of packing n objects with identical properties into the smallest area, we would be able to more effectively predict natural structures, including predicting things like protein folding, which is a huge area of medical research. Simple, seemingly inapplicable cases can often be generalised to more specific cases, and that’s how you get the entire field of applied math, as well as most of scientific and engineering modeling

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.

Exactly. It is the length of the side of the bigger square, relative to the sides of the smaller identical squares.