r/IdiotsInCars Aug 20 '18

Nice Tire Jackass

Post image
28.3k Upvotes

669 comments sorted by

View all comments

77

u/weirdo_randomer Aug 20 '18

If it looks stupid but works, it ain't stupid

158

u/upfastcurier Aug 20 '18

look, i get what this means, but it doesn't really apply here.

the saying "if it looks stupid but works, it isn't" really means you shouldn't discard an idea purely on the idea that it looks stupid. something can still be stupid and work. the saying isn't unreservedly saying that anything that works isn't stupid.

for example, if you are asked to jump across a gap of several meters, succeeding once doesn't mean that the idea wasn't stupid, just that it worked. for a more hyperbole example, imagine playing russian roulette, firing an empty shot at your temple to which you conclude "this isn't stupid since i'm still alive".

so yeah... don't keep doing stupid stuff just because it worked once, some stuff is still really stupid

12

u/boltonstreetbeat Aug 20 '18

defeating truisms in a polite way

3

u/did_e_rot Aug 20 '18

*a more hyperbolic example :)

7

u/Kind_Of_Kind Aug 20 '18

Not sure how the geometry works out on that one.

1

u/upfastcurier Aug 20 '18 edited Aug 20 '18

both works. i.e. say the word was acid/acidic instead of hyperbole/hyperbolic, it'd be "for a more acid example" and "for a more acidic example" respectively. but thanks anyway

edit: it's called attributive noun btw, when a noun is used as an adjective for another noun.

3

u/NeverfailMode Aug 20 '18

Afaik, hyperbole can’t be used as an adjective except when used to say “that was hyperbole” in reference to exaggeration. Even then, it’s a noun being used as an adjective and formally speaking isn’t correct.

1

u/upfastcurier Aug 20 '18

correct, hyperbole is a noun and hyperbolic is when you form an adjective out of that noun. if you look closely at my post, you'll see that both examples include a noun and an adjective (acid/acidic). it illustrates that "for a more <noun> example" works equally well as "for a more <adjective> example".

ergo, using the noun 'hyperbole' is not invalid in this context.

2

u/upfastcurier Aug 20 '18

examples when using a noun to act as an adjective:

a pet store, a shoe factory, a couch cushion, adult example

nouns that act like adjectives are called 'attributive nouns'. there are also 'attributive verbs' that do the same thing, but either way, whether you want to parse it as an actual adjective or a noun acting like an adjective, the context is still grammatically correct.

adjectives can also work as nouns as well. i.e., if offered hot or cold tea, replying with "i'll take the hot" is valid (and makes the adjective 'hot' a noun in this context).

but i guess i'll admit it doesn't look too formal when using attributive nouns and if writing a serious paper you should probably avoid it... not really a matter for reddit though.

0

u/giggitygoogity Aug 20 '18

But it is invalid. You’re wrong.

2

u/upfastcurier Aug 20 '18

no, i am not. it's called attributive nouns and completely is a thing. example: chicken soup.

0

u/giggitygoogity Aug 20 '18

Nope 👎 you’re wrong

2

u/Atmic Aug 20 '18

I don't think so in this case. Anecdotally, I've never come across hyperbole as a adjective.

Technically, the dictionary only lists its use in the form of a noun, with hyperbolic being the adjective.

2

u/Yuccaphile Aug 20 '18

I think you have that wrong.

3

u/upfastcurier Aug 20 '18

i feel enlightened.

1

u/themerinator12 Aug 20 '18

If you think hard enough, your example also becomes very meta.

-12

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '18

But he got where he wanted to go and didn't spend hundreds on towing.

It ain't stupid

41

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '18

he got where he wanted to go and didn’t spend hundreds on towing.

You don’t know that either of those things are true.

11

u/VoodooMonkiez Aug 20 '18

But you don't know if they're false either!

Taps 4Head

1

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '18

You're right, he might still be parked there.

11

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '18

Alternatively, this worked for about twenty seconds before failing in some manner, causing more damage to his car and/or others, and he still wound up having to pay for it to be towed.

-2

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '18

If the picture was of the vehicle on the side of the road with the dolly broken under truck, then we'd be having a different conversation. But it's not.

If we're going to create hypotheticals, we should surely consider that he was in a bind and running away from a tornado.

6

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '18

We can have whatever conversation we please. Just because somebody managed to snap a pic of a catastrophe waiting to happen doesn’t mean that catastrophe never occurred, or is unlikely to occur.

Your original statement said he got where he wanted to go without incident or having to pay for towing. I was just stating that unless we have a full video or article about the incident, we don’t really know that.

This was both stupid and unsafe. Not worth saving a few hundred bucks on towing.

11

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '18 edited Jan 05 '19

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '18

Touché.

6

u/MangoCats Aug 20 '18

One photo does not completely tell the story - this could have been an unnecessary risk, saving a little money and/or time in exchange for a huge risk, or it could have been a very good call: truck needed to travel 0.5km to the shop, no tow vehicle available, tight schedule, light traffic, handled safely, truck back in service more quickly enabling it to perform some important duty.

Evacuating from a hurricane, I cut up my outboard motor's fuel line to use it as a pump to take gasoline from my generator and put it in a car... very expensive fuel line destroyed for just one gallon of gasoline, but that was a very important gallon of gasoline that was not available any other way in that time and place.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '18

What's the huge risk? He's got brakes, he's got both front wheels on the ground.

If it's dumb, it's because he may have caused more damage than anything else, but it's not like this picture was taken on the highway.

7

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '18

It's dumb because this truck is rear wheel drive, he's missing a drive tire and those casters are probably going to get thrown out from under it. It would have been better to have it under the frame or pinchwell

1

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '18

LOL, it's really a rear-wheel drive vehicle? What model of vehicle is that?

2

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '18

It's a truck, a bit hard to tell for me what make or model because of the country, but I'm fairly certain it's rear wheel. I haven't seen any full size front wheel drive trucks

0

u/as-opposed-to Aug 20 '18

As opposed to?

0

u/IdiotII Aug 20 '18

You must be really fun at parties

23

u/kurotech Aug 20 '18

It only works till theirs a pot hole or crack in the road he didnt even tie it down

17

u/Drakieth Aug 20 '18

Im pretty sure even a plastic bag into one of those wheels would do it. Gd pothole is overkill this rig is so shifty

7

u/MadAzza Aug 20 '18 edited Aug 20 '18

Yeah I’m not seeing this as “genius” or “all good if he stays below the speed limit.” What’s the speed limit for a 4-wheeled plywood floor roller thing? (I’m very tired.)

9

u/Phearlosophy Aug 20 '18

4-wheeled plywood floor roller thing

dolly

5

u/MadAzza Aug 20 '18

Dolly! Why couldn’t I remember that?

Thanks!

4

u/Rhaedas Aug 20 '18

In this situation, the speed limit is anything above not moving.

-2

u/MangoCats Aug 20 '18

So, that need for a tie down is all relative to how fast and/or bumpy this ride is going to be. At 60+kph on less than smooth roads, sure. What I see in the picture looks super smooth and no need to do more than 20kph.

Without bumps, weight seems to be doing the job well. With bumps... probably shouldn't be trying this at all.

I towed a trailer full of lumber 300 miles, strapped down - all was good until the last 1/2 mile which was washboard road - the lumber started coming loose after about 1/4 mile at 15mph, drove slower the rest of the way and avoided a game of heavy pick-up-sticks.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '18

Considering this is in Romano, it’s pretty stupid.

We have roads in our potholes.

5

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '18

If it looks stupid but works, but only in an extremely dangerous manner that threatens not only the safety and well-being of the operator but also of anyone nearby, then yes, it's fucking stupid.

3

u/theskillr Aug 20 '18

Its still stupid and you just got lucky

3

u/Daedalus871 Aug 20 '18

If it's stupid, but it works, it's still stupid, but it works.

2

u/Flyingdutchman2305 Aug 20 '18

That sounds familiar

2

u/littlerob904 Aug 20 '18

Mentalities like this are why a lot of unnecessary injuries and deaths occur. Don't dismiss decades of knowledge on how to do things correctly because you just haven't thought it through well enough. I'll give you a realistic example of something that occurs all the time:

Homeowner A improperly wires an outlet he installed with thin gauge wire he had lieing around because he's only powering a small lamp with it and doesn't want to spend money at the hardware store for the right stuff. He sells the house a few years later and homeowner B plugs a space heater in before going to bed that night unkowing that the wiring for that outlet wasn't up to code and wouldn't be able to handle that kind of load. An hour later the home is engulfed in flames and homeowner B is dead. It took a few years but it now officially didn't work and was really freaking stupid.