“Less is more” is extremely disingenuous. People always want more. The implication is that having less leads to higher quality, but that is ‘more’ quality. You’d never say “I want both less quality, less quantity, and less satisfaction.”
I think it was a regrettable figure of speech. What it was intended to convey is that less of this (for example, complexity) can lead to more of that (for example, ease of use), but it was way too easy to take the shorthand version of it literally as applying only to the “this” in both cases, which of course is completely illogical.
In this case, I would agree that less should (at least) be more. Given that Caulfield delights in doing less work on his schoolwork than the other kids, while constantly feels the need to make his teacher feel less of a human each day, then he should get to look forward to more of the same next year when he’s held back a year.
But of course not – whenever he’s caught cheating, lying, or being obnoxious, the strip always ends with him sitting there unpunished, with a self-aggrandizing smile on his face, proud of his “accomplishments”.
I remember, or at least I’ve manufactured and fully bought into the memory, learning about math’s Commutative, Associative and Distributive properties and thinking they were pretty slick, if mostly kind of obvious. (The Distributive Law did seem a little magic.) I suspect I’d have been happy to study those properties all year, because they seemed like a way to study math without actually doing math. This affinity for going on about stuff without actually committing any of it would prove to be a lifelong pattern; sometimes I’m surprised I don’t have a PhD or two.
If I had gone on to get whatever PhD you get in math without being any good at it, my dissertation would have been on the Obfuscatory Property of numbers, which is that the more numbers you throw at a person, the closer you get to that person understanding zero of them. More = less. Sure, I made it up, but tell me it’s not a real thing. I experienced it just yesterday morning at swim practice, when coach Kelli included a set of all 50s* that went like this:
3X50 @:55
2X50 @:45
4X50 @:50
1X50 @:40
5X50 @:45
No way was I going to remember that under the best of circumstances, let alone tired and trying to maintain good form. But I’m pretty sure I hit all my splits, and I’m pretty sure that the last six 50s were all touch and go or just screw it and do a flip turn and keep going. Pretty sure, but not 100% sure, and it doesn’t matter because of the Obfuscatory Property of Numbers. Because I am 100% sure that I swam at least the prescribed 750 that set, and swam it hard, harder than if I’d just been trusted to hurry to the other end of the pool and back 15 times, and that when I had zero laps to go I had zero left in me. And that’s the ratio that matters.
(*Here I am applying my second dissertation topic, the Omittatory Property, in which you casually leave out a key detail like practice being in a yards pool and not a meters pool so there’s at least some hope a few people will think you’re a little faster than you really are.)
Bilan over 6 years ago
If less is more, then you aced the test by getting a 50.
wecatsgocomics over 6 years ago
“Less is more.” — Mies van der Rohe
“Less is a bore.” — Robert Venturi
Reaven over 6 years ago
“Less is more” is extremely disingenuous. People always want more. The implication is that having less leads to higher quality, but that is ‘more’ quality. You’d never say “I want both less quality, less quantity, and less satisfaction.”
More is more.
I was FRAMED!!!!!! over 6 years ago
The ‘less is more’ thinking is what made us to let Russia install our FAKE President Trumpette.
Fido (aka Felix Rex) Premium Member over 6 years ago
Who is this Les Moore people keep talking about?
Richard S Russell Premium Member over 6 years ago
I think it was a regrettable figure of speech. What it was intended to convey is that less of this (for example, complexity) can lead to more of that (for example, ease of use), but it was way too easy to take the shorthand version of it literally as applying only to the “this” in both cases, which of course is completely illogical.
Ubermick over 6 years ago
In this case, I would agree that less should (at least) be more. Given that Caulfield delights in doing less work on his schoolwork than the other kids, while constantly feels the need to make his teacher feel less of a human each day, then he should get to look forward to more of the same next year when he’s held back a year.
But of course not – whenever he’s caught cheating, lying, or being obnoxious, the strip always ends with him sitting there unpunished, with a self-aggrandizing smile on his face, proud of his “accomplishments”.
Scott S over 6 years ago
Interesting how Caulfield expends more thought, effort, & brain energy attempting to evade schoolwork than he would have by simply completing it.
Night-Gaunt49[Bozo is Boffo] over 6 years ago
Frazz11 hrs ·
I remember, or at least I’ve manufactured and fully bought into the memory, learning about math’s Commutative, Associative and Distributive properties and thinking they were pretty slick, if mostly kind of obvious. (The Distributive Law did seem a little magic.) I suspect I’d have been happy to study those properties all year, because they seemed like a way to study math without actually doing math. This affinity for going on about stuff without actually committing any of it would prove to be a lifelong pattern; sometimes I’m surprised I don’t have a PhD or two.
If I had gone on to get whatever PhD you get in math without being any good at it, my dissertation would have been on the Obfuscatory Property of numbers, which is that the more numbers you throw at a person, the closer you get to that person understanding zero of them. More = less. Sure, I made it up, but tell me it’s not a real thing. I experienced it just yesterday morning at swim practice, when coach Kelli included a set of all 50s* that went like this:
3X50 @:55
2X50 @:45
4X50 @:50
1X50 @:40
5X50 @:45
No way was I going to remember that under the best of circumstances, let alone tired and trying to maintain good form. But I’m pretty sure I hit all my splits, and I’m pretty sure that the last six 50s were all touch and go or just screw it and do a flip turn and keep going. Pretty sure, but not 100% sure, and it doesn’t matter because of the Obfuscatory Property of Numbers. Because I am 100% sure that I swam at least the prescribed 750 that set, and swam it hard, harder than if I’d just been trusted to hurry to the other end of the pool and back 15 times, and that when I had zero laps to go I had zero left in me. And that’s the ratio that matters.
Night-Gaunt49[Bozo is Boffo] over 6 years ago
Continued::
(*Here I am applying my second dissertation topic, the Omittatory Property, in which you casually leave out a key detail like practice being in a yards pool and not a meters pool so there’s at least some hope a few people will think you’re a little faster than you really are.)
Nuliajuk over 6 years ago
This kid is so annoying. He’ll either be a con artist or a politician when he grows up. Or maybe both.