The Picard Maneuver@lemmy.worldM to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 7 days agoHe's an arboristlemmy.worldimagemessage-square131linkfedilinkarrow-up1646
arrow-up1646imageHe's an arboristlemmy.worldThe Picard Maneuver@lemmy.worldM to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 7 days agomessage-square131linkfedilink
minus-squareFinjaminPoach@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up6·7 days agoTHIS ia getting philosophical… i mean, first of all, things don’t need to be cut perfectly in half every time they’re cut. But then your answer is probably an estimate/approximation. HOWEVER… when you cut one piece of wood into two, is not 100% of the wood cut into? So either this carpenter measures 50% of his wood aimlessly, or you, sir, are a LIAR
minus-squaretryitout@infosec.publinkfedilinkarrow-up9·7 days agoI believe they were alluding to “measure twice, cut once”
minus-squareBaŝto@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·6 days agoThis isn’t about measuring it so wrong that the number gets larger than it sheuld be?
THIS ia getting philosophical… i mean, first of all, things don’t need to be cut perfectly in half every time they’re cut.
But then your answer is probably an estimate/approximation.
HOWEVER… when you cut one piece of wood into two, is not 100% of the wood cut into?
So either this carpenter measures 50% of his wood aimlessly, or you, sir, are a LIAR
I believe they were alluding to “measure twice, cut once”
🫠 I concede
This isn’t about measuring it so wrong that the number gets larger than it sheuld be?
Measure twice, cut once