The secret to good engineering is to know when 1+1 should be 3 and when it should be 1.

Engineers gotta respect reality. Scientists don't.

0.1 + 0.2 = 0.30000000000000004

1+1=10

1+1 is usually 2, sometimes 3, sometimes 1. Rarely, 337.

Scientists being theorists and not based in reality after all.

Engineers knowing it is necessary to ensure safety because "+" could mean something else in just this situation noone (especially scietists) thought about.

Let’s say 1+1=3.

Sir, I don’t think that’s right.

Let’s just say it is for safety.

But sir I don’t think you understand.

Just do it.

Alright boys you heard him, the bridge can hold 30,000 Lbs.

Sooo, 1 + 1 = pi ?

For anyone else who needs a lil explaining to fully enjoy this:

Explanation of the Meme

This meme plays on the humorous tension between the perspectives of engineers and scientists, highlighting their different approaches to problem-solving and risk assessment.

Breakdown of the Dialogue

• Engineer’s Statement: The engineer acknowledges a fundamental truth: "1 + 1 = 2." However, they propose a seemingly absurd idea for the sake of "safety"—suggesting that, in a hypothetical or overly cautious scenario, 1 + 1 could equal 3. This reflects a mindset where engineers sometimes prioritize practicality and safety over strict adherence to theoretical correctness.

• Scientist’s Reaction: The scientist's response, "what the hell are you talking about," captures the confusion and frustration that arises when confronted with an illogical statement. Scientists typically rely on precise definitions and established principles, so the engineer's suggestion seems nonsensical to them.

Engineer's Thought Process

1. Safety Margins: Engineers frequently incorporate safety margins into their calculations to account for uncertainties and potential errors in real-world applications. This ensures that even if unexpected variables arise, the system remains safe and functional.

2. Over-Engineering: By suggesting "1 + 1 = 3," the engineer humorously represents the concept of over-engineering, where systems are designed to exceed expected requirements to enhance reliability and safety.

3. Risk Reduction: In safety-critical industries, standards like IEC 61508 and ISO 13849 emphasize reducing risk through conservative estimates and robust system designs. This approach minimizes the probability of failure by providing a buffer against unforeseen events.

4. Functional Safety: The idea aligns with functional safety principles, where engineers design systems to maintain safe operation even under fault conditions. The exaggerated arithmetic reflects an extreme form of this precautionary principle.

Themes and Humor

• Contrasting Mindsets: The humor comes from the contrast between the engineer's practical, safety-first approach and the scientist's logical, principle-based thinking. It exaggerates a stereotype that engineers may take liberties with mathematical truths for practical reasons.

• Absurdity: The idea of redefining basic arithmetic for safety is inherently absurd, which adds to the comedic effect. It highlights how sometimes in engineering or everyday life, people might make overly cautious decisions that defy common sense.

I learned binary math in college. I can prove 1+1=1

If it's an elevator 1+1 may even be 4.