this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2025
844 points (99.2% liked)
Science Memes
17373 readers
1258 users here now
Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- Infographics welcome, get schooled.
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Research Committee
Other Mander Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- !abiogenesis@mander.xyz
- !animal-behavior@mander.xyz
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !arachnology@mander.xyz
- !balconygardening@slrpnk.net
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !biology@mander.xyz
- !biophysics@mander.xyz
- !botany@mander.xyz
- !ecology@mander.xyz
- !entomology@mander.xyz
- !fermentation@mander.xyz
- !herpetology@mander.xyz
- !houseplants@mander.xyz
- !medicine@mander.xyz
- !microscopy@mander.xyz
- !mycology@mander.xyz
- !nudibranchs@mander.xyz
- !nutrition@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
- !photosynthesis@mander.xyz
- !plantid@mander.xyz
- !plants@mander.xyz
- !reptiles and amphibians@mander.xyz
Physical Sciences
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !chemistry@mander.xyz
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !geography@mander.xyz
- !geospatial@mander.xyz
- !nuclear@mander.xyz
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !quantum-computing@mander.xyz
- !spectroscopy@mander.xyz
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and sports-science@mander.xyz
- !gardening@mander.xyz
- !self sufficiency@mander.xyz
- !soilscience@slrpnk.net
- !terrariums@mander.xyz
- !timelapse@mander.xyz
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
FWIW I heard the show was extremely bad, and I had to see for myself.
It is very, very bad.
One of the worst parts of it is that Scooby Doo has had tons of successful series and they've all been pretty good. Yet they somehow managed to fuck this up despite it being an incredibly simple formula for a show.
It was never about Scooby Doo. IIRC, this was supposed to be an original show, but latching it to a successful 90s franchise must have looked like a sure money maker.
Edit: did some fact checking, this was a theory. The show actually was an unfortunate reimagining of Scooby Doo since its inception.
Regardless of what the official story is, that's probably what really happened. Same thing with the Halo tv show.
I don’t know. Seeing how modern shows like Foundation, The Witcher, or Star Trek Discovery, to name a few, have gratuitously walked over their own canon, I can understand how the producers thought Velma was a good idea for a new Scooby Doo show.
I think Discovery is a little different. They had way too many producers and writers on that show, all trying to get their little ideas in so when they moved onto a new project, they could get a sexy "By the creators of Star Trek" tagline on it. The situation Walter Mosley described when he left STD made the writer's room sound like a viper pit.
Plus the first two seasons basically had the producers get fired, and a new person brought in partway through.
That would be bad for any show.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
A negative boy was unsure about a radical party.
The boy was a square, so he missed out on four awesome chicks.
And the whole thing was over by 2am...
This is beautiful, as a mathematics major it brought me to tears. I’ll be reading this at my wedding
I was just taught it to "pop goes the weasel".
Thanks
load more comments
(1 replies)
Coming from someone that memorized it in high school and hasn't used it since, I am enraged.
It's a formula very useful for a tone of engineering fields, electronic, mechanics, automatic control and probably a bunch more. I used it a tone in my early carrier, including the imaginary flavor.
Yeah if your field uses anything beyond basic math this bitch is hiding somewhere
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
I'm terrible at making math jokes, but I don't have any proofs.
Same here, but I'll suck it up and make one if I halve two.
When stupid people try to make a show about smart people.
Such an strange error. I'm not saying it's AI but here's my prompt:
Generate a picture of someone thinking and, to symbolize their thought process, show math symbols and equations around their head, these symbols have to include the quadratic formula
Here's the pic:
I suspect it’s an OCR error.
I'm guessing a typesetter was too lazy to add another textbox and although they knew how to type "√", didn't realize "²" is in Unicode too. They added a horizontal line as separate graphics to extend the square root symbol but only realized too late the whole thing is in a fraction: maybe someone reminded them and they misinterpreted the advice, or just decided not to split the text box to put the nominator higher.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I stared at the square of the square root of the squared square root for far too long...
that I almost missed the obvious E = / * A. Where would the field of mathematics be without that good old E = / * A? :-D
Did they use AI to generate that?
Neural Network (bad one)
didn't get an animation job for the math skills
Yeah. Those guys all work on Futurama.
... Why not just copy the meme they're referencing? It's like they're intentionally trying to screw this up.
why is she even thinking about this?
I feel for Velma. I am so bad at math that sometimes I go into a corner by myself so I can hide what I'm working on from my coworkers while I scribble down very complex maladaptive strategies I've learned to solve simple calculations.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Wrong formula aside, what is the meaning of dividing an entire equation? (x = b) / a
quotient equivalence under an equivalence relation "a" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotient_type
load more comments
(3 replies)
Animation software didn't have superscript, so no power ofs.
If you told me the creator of that show didn't get the equation right because they had no idea what it was even called to look it up, I would believe you.
You know, I remember the formula, but I don't remember what a, b, and c are
They're the coefficients of a quadratic equation! Y = ax^2 + bx + c
0 = ax^2 + bx + c
Oh true!
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›