Programmers: false
59 0 Replytrue
15 0 Reply0
10 0 Reply
1 0 Reply
Is it me or is the top text uncentered to be on the boobs 🤨
40 0 ReplyNot sure what you mean by that, boobs are clearly the center of the picture
27 1 Replyof every picture
13 1 Reply
This is why fonts and kerning are so very important. But then again, the text in the boobs looks like it has extraneous spaces deliberately to look like that. There is a noticeable visual difference between
2! = 2
and2 != 2
when spaced properly.26 0 ReplyCan confirm. Am a programmer and my first thought was that mathematicians had recently come up with one of their wacky proofs that 2 does not equal 2, like how 1 is equal to 0.
25 0 Reply1 == 0.9999999…
4 0 Reply
I don't get it, why would 2! = 2 ? Can a mathematician explain it to me ?
16 0 Reply2 != 2 is the statement that 2 is not equal to 2.
2! = 2 is the equation that two(factorial) equals 2
48 0 ReplyDamn, I'm so dumb it hurts
20 1 Reply2 != 2
But what if it's true? Perhaps the 2 on the left is integer and the right one is character.
7 0 ReplyThe second part is the one I don't understand. 4 doesn't equal 2
2 0 Reply
"!" in math is the factorial symbol, and 2 factorial is just 2 times 1, which is 2.
12 0 ReplyWhereas != is commonly used in programming as "not equal to".
So the mathematician see two factorial equals two, which is true.
The programmer sees two is not equal to two, which is not true.
2 0 Reply
factorial
1 1 Reply
Damnit. Got me. I’ve been a programmer for the better part of nearly 20 years but I was a math-heavy engineer first and I still freaking read that as “two-factorial”.
4 0 ReplyP! = NP sounds like a fun find.
4 0 ReplyWhat do the breasts have to do with anything?
4 2 ReplyThey help you focus on what's important
13 1 ReplyI can find breasts 24/7, math problems not written on top of em
3 1 Reply
This is actually a great interview question
1 0 ReplyIt really depends on where the methaphorical comma is.
2 1 ReplyIf both are horny enough, they won’t even see the characters and only see the cleavage.
2 2 ReplyWouldn't mathematicians also see this as false?
4 = 2 is not correct.
3 10 ReplyFactorial is not the same as exponentiation.
15 0 ReplyNow I look stupid, but I promise, I'm just too tired to think straight.
10 0 Reply
It's not 4. Wiki has a table and more info
5 0 Reply