Comment on Efficency

• Enkers@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

  This is the most efficient packing of 17 unit squares inside a square. If you’re asking why it’s like that, that’s above my math proficiency level.

  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_packing

  source

  • Colonel_Panic_@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

    It’s like that because the universe wants us to suffer.

    source

    • MisterFrog@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

      If God was real / or is real and cared, we would have a perfect 336 day year.

      source

      • Colonel_Panic_@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

        If God was real the boxes would all fit in a nice grid for any square container. But the OP already has the conclusion for that one.

        source
    • intensely_human@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

      No, suffering would be if it were always the same predictable pattern in everything all the time.

      source

      • Colonel_Panic_@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

        True. You can’t have joy without suffering, light without dark, cars without an extended warranty.

        source
  • tooLikeTheNope@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

    Thanks I’ve lost 30 sanity points now, and I’m now sure with a number of squares sufficently high s is gonna equal to cthulu.

    source
• Artyom@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

  We’ve figured out optimal packing methods for any number of squares inside a big square. When a number is below and near a square number like 15, you just leave an empty box, but when it’s far from the next square number, you’ll be able to pack them more efficiently than just leaving empty squares around. Turns out this kind of stuff is hilariously hard to prove that it’s the most efficient method.

  source
• nephs@lemmygrad.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

  Mathematics actually hates humanity, and it likes to remind us of it, sometimes. That’s why.

  source