I’m kind of getting tired of hearing the word ‘optimal’ all the time. Who is to say what my optimal level is? Can you see inside my body and say that I was 13% from optimal?
Rant over.
Yeah! I agree!
The word ‘Optimus’ is MUCH more awesome
[quote]Extremepain wrote:
I’m kind of getting tired of hearing the word ‘optimal’ all the time. Who is to say what my optimal level is? Can you see inside my body and say that I was 13% from optimal?
Rant over.[/quote]
Yes. Yes I can.
Optimal what? You have to specify what you’re measuring against to find an optimum. That’s one of the first things you learn in Operations Research.
Imagine you’re in a tough interview for a job you want. The interviewer asks:
“Would you rather optimally synergize, or synergistically optimize?”
What do you say?
[quote]PimpBot5000 wrote:
Imagine you’re in a tough interview for a job you want. The interviewer asks:
“Would you rather optimally synergize, or synergistically optimize?”
What do you say?[/quote]
The later!
[quote]PimpBot5000 wrote:
Imagine you’re in a tough interview for a job you want. The interviewer asks:
“Would you rather optimally synergize, or synergistically optimize?”
What do you say?[/quote]
Clearly one should optimally synergistically optirgize, sheesh
While your motives are admirable, I feel that focusing your vitriol on a single word is flawed - and, if I may be so bold - rather unscientific. A more general critique of the inclusion of overused and unnecessary words for the purpose of making a bland post sound more interesting would have increased the efficacy of your thread by approximately 9000 %.
[quote]roybot wrote:
While your motives are admirable, I feel that focusing your vitriol on a single word is flawed - and, if I may be so bold - rather unscientific. A more general critique of the inclusion of overused and unnecessary words for the purpose of making a bland post sound more interesting would have increased the efficacy of your thread by approximately 9000 %.[/quote]
I don’t think 9000% would be optimal.
[quote]roybot wrote:
While your motives are admirable, I feel that focusing your vitriol on a single word is flawed - and, if I may be so bold - rather unscientific. A more general critique of the inclusion of overused and unnecessary words for the purpose of making a bland post sound more interesting would have increased the efficacy of your thread by approximately 9000 %.[/quote]
God your pedantic!
As Forer prez GWB would have said, “This thread has now officially been Optimatrized” “I mean it’s Optmizationed all the way heh” “heh heh”.
V
You have a valid point. My initial calculations showed 9000.45336287 % to be the optimal level for this thread to be operating at. Yet, as my primary concern was to express myself in the simplest terms possible, some measure of accuracy was inevitably going to be compromised for the sake of making my point in layman’s terms.
It is apparent that I have failed in creating the perfect post.
It seems I need to retract my opening post and return it to my laboratory for rigorous testing.
[quote]roybot wrote:
You have a valid point. My initial calculations showed 9000.45336287 % to be the optimal level for this thread to be operating at. Yet, as my primary concern was to express myself in the simplest terms possible, some measure of accuracy was inevitably going to be compromised for the sake of making my point in layman’s terms.
It is apparent that I have failed in creating the perfect post.
It seems I need to retract my opening post and return it to my laboratory for rigorous testing. [/quote]
I promise not to run you out of academia as of yet. Not many people understand the implicit difficulties of optimally calculating for optimization.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
As Forer prez GWB would have said, “This thread has now officially been Optimatrized” “I mean it’s Optmizationed all the way heh” “heh heh”.
V[/quote]
LOL! The little “heh heh” at the end got me!