/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3569003]

Lame science puns? Post 'em! I'm dumping the ones I find in my Lame Pun Raccoon folder.

[Anonymous No.3569005]

[Anonymous No.3569007]

I enjoy this one.

[Anonymous No.3569019]

>>3569003

Lakatos intolerant?

That is not an adequate punchline for the preamble.

You need to set it up with Lakatos in the focus, otherwise it does not convey enough funny

[Anonymous No.3569034]

>>3569019
Didn't come up with it.

[Anonymous No.3569039]

[Anonymous No.3569040]

Math jokes are the first sine of madness.

[Anonymous No.3569043]

>>3569034

bu7t u chose it as the first image to share

implying that you think it is one of the better ones, unless you put it up as the first image on a whim

so which is it funny man:

poor sense of humour

or

poor planning

[Anonymous No.3569053]

>>3569040

[Anonymous No.3569055]

Why did the atom visit the hooker at night?

Nitrates are cheaper.

[Anonymous No.3569074]

>>3569034

>NA.
>.

[Anonymous No.3569082]

hey guys, what is that meme called?

[Anonymous No.3569083]

[Anonymous No.3569088]

>>3569043
Or picking the first one in my folder tagged with "science." I wasn't aware some ulterior motive was needed.

[Anonymous No.3569093]

>>3569082
OP said it in his first post.

[Anonymous No.3569097]

[Anonymous No.3569115]

>>3569088

so poor planning it is.

i hope you weren't planning a career in science, funny man.

[Anonymous No.3569116]

Three staticians went hunting. When they came across a deer, the first raised his rifle, took aim, and fired. However, his shoot fired too far to the left. Before the dear ran off, the second one took aim, but he also missed, as his shoot went too far right. The third statician jumped up in the air, and cheered, yelling, "YAHOO! WE GOT HIM!"

[Anonymous No.3569120]

>>3569115
You must be a libtard, huh?

[Anonymous No.3569126]

>>3569120

uh no.

u need planning skills to make sexy time with science. otherwise dont bother.

[Anonymous No.3569132]

>>3569126
Well, I hope you aren't going to try and be a scientist. You need to have a basic understanding of the English language and its grammar and spelling.

[Anonymous No.3569147]

Oh man, this thread... why am I laughing?

[Anonymous No.3569156]

>>3569132

lolololol tell that to all the german, swedish, russian, french, japanese etc etc etc scientists lololololol

[Anonymous No.3569161]

>>3569156
>mfw they all know English.
Lolololol

[Anonymous No.3569168]

>>3569161

>mfw u either imply that they have perfect english, or that the english im using as a native speaker of the language is less than adequate for conveying ideas

[Anonymous No.3569178]

>>3569161

also

>mfw u cannot observe that i already possess a basic understanding of grammar and language sufficient for the requirements of science

>mfw you lack both planning AND observation skills lolololololol

[Swedfag No.3569183]

>>3569156
Please get your shit straight, we get taught english when we are around 9 years old, sometimes some start teaching themselves even earlier.
G-to the-tfo

[Anonymous No.3569202]

>>>3569168
>>3569178
>says someone lacks ability to plan
>follows up post with additional comments

[Anonymous No.3569212]

>>3569168
>>3569156
Foreign scientist here, pic is my face when most (serious) foreign scientists have:

A) Better grammar because they were taught the language formally
B) Better vocabulary (read some papers brah)
C) Better ability to express themselves due the perspective multilingualism gives
D) No exposure to colloquial, degraded English

[Anonymous No.3569228]

>>3569212

>foreign scientists have:

means

>ALL foreign scientists have

>mfw u dont realise the fundamental error u have made

[Anonymous No.3569233]

>>3569228
>u
>doesn't understand how to use his native language effectively
Thank you for proving my point!

[Anonymous No.3569242]

>>3569228
You clearly can't read nor can you write (Properly).
Him:
>most (serious) foreign scientists have:

You:
>foreign scientists have:

means

>ALL foreign scientists have
.
No.exe

[Anonymous No.3569244]

>>3569228
>replies to post, misses select word, inserts own.
>claims to be observant
You best not do science yourself, son.

[Gravemind No.3569255]

>>3569228
>has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

[Anonymous No.3569270]

>>3569212

>>No exposure to colloquial, degraded English

If you're not speaking the colloquial version of a language, you're going to sound like a retard. Just because a sentence is grammatically correct doesn't mean it's what people really say.

Japanese is an excellent example. You can put sentences together that are very similar to English, but no native speaker will have any idea what you're saying. It'll sound like you're speaking gibberish.

[Anonymous No.3569275]

>>3569255
You’ve got to be kidding me. I’ve been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It’s just common sense.

[Anonymous No.3569294]

How many Mexicans does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

[Anonymous No.3569300]

>>3569294
Que?

[Anonymous No.3569308]

Why did the chicken cross the Mobius strip? To get to the other side.

[Anonymous No.3569323]

>>3569270
I was thinking of primarily presentations on their science, where pretty much every scientist sounds as good as the most educated native anglophone. If they live in a non-anglophone country, they don't really need colloquialisms that much.

Yeah, often people who haven't spoken to native speakers in colloquial contexts much have trouble with those contexts, but it hardly impacts their ability to present well.

Besides, I was talking about things such as "like", "ain't" and so on- things that are really more effort than speaking properly but native speakers learn to do anyway because everyone else does it. For ESLs, it's still harder than speaking properly.

[Anonymous No.3571024]

Let epsilon be less than zero.

[Anonymous No.3571045]

>>3569308
I think it might be funnier "to get to the same side

[Anonymous No.3571061]

Guys stop being fagots and arguing about nothing. Post some more fucking jokes instead.

I like these two
>>3569007
>>3569034

[Anonymous No.3571138]

Pioneering Calculus:
<span class="math">\int \frac{1}{cabin} \dif cabin[/spoiler]

[Anonymous No.3571144]

>>3571138
<span class="math">\int \frac{1}{cabin} d(cabin)[/spoiler]

[Anonymous No.3571177]

Anyone have any good ones?

[Anonymous No.3571182]

[Anonymous No.3571195]

[Anonymous No.3571197]

Semi-related.

[Anonymous No.3571207]

[Anonymous No.3571211]

[Anonymous No.3571214]

[Anonymous No.3571223]

[Anonymous No.3571233]

>>3571229
log(cabin) also works.

[Anonymous No.3571230]

[Anonymous No.3571229]

>>3571144
ln(cabin)

[Soni No.3571244]

>>3571233
see >>3571229

[Anonymous No.3571250]

[Anonymous No.3571254]

>>3571244
he did see it, thats why his post linked to that post

[Anonymous No.3571255]

>>3571244
You link a post to a post that the post you linked is all ready linking to. Good times.

[Anonymous No.3571260]

[Anonymous No.3571266]

>>3571260
Better one.

[Anonymous No.3571270]

[Anonymous No.3571276]

[Anonymous No.3571283]

[Anonymous No.3571292]

[Anonymous No.3571296]

[Anonymous No.3571318]

[Anonymous No.3571322]

Eh, I'm done. Let the thread die.

[Anonymous No.3571343]

I enjoyed those images. Thanks!

[Anonymous No.3572642]

Enjoyed the punz.