The Picard Maneuver@lemmy.worldM to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 5 days agoHe's an arboristlemmy.worldimagemessage-square121fedilinkarrow-up1573arrow-down14
arrow-up1569arrow-down1imageHe's an arboristlemmy.worldThe Picard Maneuver@lemmy.worldM to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 5 days agomessage-square121fedilink
minus-squareFinjaminPoach@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up6arrow-down1·5 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-up7·5 days agoI believe they were alluding to “measure twice, cut once”
minus-squareBaŝto@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·4 days agoThis isn’t about measuring it so wrong that the number gets larger than it sheuld be?
minus-squarenumerator3962@fedinsfw.applinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7arrow-down1·5 days agoMeasure twice, cut once
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