Programmer Humor

33167 readers

539 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
No NSFW content.
Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

cat_programmer@lemmy.ml

1704

When a real user uses the app (lemmy.ml)

submitted 10 months ago by roon@lemmy.ml to c/programmerhumor@lemmy.ml

209 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] CanadaPlus 10 points 10 months ago (3 children)

I think if they can score 100 on an IQ test, they can figure out any reasonable trash can eventually, assuming the moving parts are visible. Many people would rather just litter.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 18 points 10 months ago (2 children)

100 is the average, implying half the population is lower than that, but otherwise, sure

[–] CanadaPlus 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Yup. The ranger did say "stupidest", I guess, but I feel like at 70 or something you still know to pull on stuff in a few set ways until it moves.

[–] Sotuanduso@lemm.ee 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

And bears around 130 probably know that too.

[–] CanadaPlus 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

That makes me wonder what designs they were considering. The ones I've seen use a sort of pinch motion under metal hood. Maybe the idea there is to require dexterous forelimbs, rather than any intellectual ability.

[–] RustyShackleford@programming.dev 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

100 is the average, implying half the population is lower than that

At the risk of pedantry, if 100 is the average (the mean), we're saying "most people are at 100". If it were the median, then we're implying "100 is the middle score of those sampled". A subtle, but important difference.

[–] affiliate@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

i’m not really sure what IQ has to do with this. it was originally designed to measure people’s proficiency in school. it was not designed to be a general measure of intelligence. that was something that was co opted by eugenicists.

here’s a quote from Simon Bidet, the original creator of the IQ test, about his thoughts on the eugenicists using his test:

Finally, when Binet did become aware of the "foreign ideas being grafted on his instrument" he condemned those who with 'brutal pessimism' and 'deplorable verdicts' were promoting the concept of intelligence as a single, unitary construct.

you can read more about this stuff on his wikipedia page. (the quote is from wikipedia)

even to this day, there is quite a bit of doubt as to how accurately IQ measures “general intelligence”

[–] CanadaPlus 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I know. It's a shorthand quantitative measure everyone's familiar with, though, so it's useful for communicating. Thanks for adding a disclaimer for me.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Yah, that's possible too. But I can't say I'd figure anyone that litters is much smarter than a bear either.

[–] CanadaPlus 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Ecology (or just waste management) is even more complicated and boring than a garbage can.

It's apathy all the way down.

[–] Scrof@sopuli.xyz 1 points 10 months ago

Stupidity is a moral flaw after all.