Allows you to find the answer to any question by simply dividing the correct answer with your answer. The number received is Nerm’s Inconstant. You then use the Nerm’s Inconstant to multiply your answer to find the correct answer.
by Big brain boiiiii November 09, 2020
"The CNN just reported Russia bombed civilians"
Gynters law proves that it didn't happen and it is in fact likely the Ukrainians bombed civilians
Gynters law proves that it didn't happen and it is in fact likely the Ukrainians bombed civilians
by Lampost88 April 21, 2022
"Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong".
From an inventor's viewpoint, this is ultimately an argument for keeping things simple and focused on a single task. The simpler an invention is, the less scenarios need to be considered and tested.
Another way to understand it is as though you are living in the future looking back at a problem that occurred:
"If something went wrong with your invention, it's because you didn't do anything to prevent that scenario from happening".
Examples of things you could have prevented but didn't, and thus went wrong:
- The electrical cables burned the house down because the load was too hot. This could have been prevented by adding a fuse, but you didn't.
- The water heater exploded because it didn't have a pressure release valve, which it could have had, but didn't.
- The door fell off the plane when it went upside down because the hinge pin didn't have a lock, which it could have had, but didn't.
- The Earth shifted and caused cracks in the clay pipes under the house, which could have been prevented if flexible piping was used, but it wasn't.
Again, ultimately this is a reminder to keep your invention as simple as possible. It's often tempting to keep throwing new features into it, to make it appeal to a larger audience or solve more problems, but every new feature creates new, untested possible outcomes which can be hard to predict. Hard to predict that is, until they've happened, which they will.
From an inventor's viewpoint, this is ultimately an argument for keeping things simple and focused on a single task. The simpler an invention is, the less scenarios need to be considered and tested.
Another way to understand it is as though you are living in the future looking back at a problem that occurred:
"If something went wrong with your invention, it's because you didn't do anything to prevent that scenario from happening".
Examples of things you could have prevented but didn't, and thus went wrong:
- The electrical cables burned the house down because the load was too hot. This could have been prevented by adding a fuse, but you didn't.
- The water heater exploded because it didn't have a pressure release valve, which it could have had, but didn't.
- The door fell off the plane when it went upside down because the hinge pin didn't have a lock, which it could have had, but didn't.
- The Earth shifted and caused cracks in the clay pipes under the house, which could have been prevented if flexible piping was used, but it wasn't.
Again, ultimately this is a reminder to keep your invention as simple as possible. It's often tempting to keep throwing new features into it, to make it appeal to a larger audience or solve more problems, but every new feature creates new, untested possible outcomes which can be hard to predict. Hard to predict that is, until they've happened, which they will.
Inventor 1: I created a lightswitch! It has 2 possible states: on or off. I'm aware all of the scenarios that could exist!
Critic: Great, except I see you used iron on the connector pins. Did you account for the corrosive reaction if copper wire is used against the iron? Murphy's Law dictates that it will happen at some point, because it could.
Critic: Great, except I see you used iron on the connector pins. Did you account for the corrosive reaction if copper wire is used against the iron? Murphy's Law dictates that it will happen at some point, because it could.
by pjayyy April 11, 2019
by Smalltowngirl20 June 05, 2020
My stepbrother-in-law is a good person.
by Wonbig October 13, 2021
There is nothing that the right or the centre of UK politics won't try to evade responsibility for by blaming Corbyn. Named after LBC shock jock James O'Brien.
by Corbynista March 27, 2021
Person 1: “well actually if you think about it, that’s really hypocritical”
Person 2: “You know, this is a perfect example of Gurtinkurt’s law”
Person 2: “You know, this is a perfect example of Gurtinkurt’s law”
by Queella February 10, 2021