The Watson & Crick one really needs Franklin eating both of them, Darwin fish style.
I was going to add that, Twitter being Twitter, a lot of the replies are annoying nitpicking. Boy, it's a good thing I left that part out.
There are great.
I agree with Heebie that Leibniz is less good because it doesn't play on the meaning of the mathematical symbols, just their appearance.
On the other hand, I really like Euler, and that's debatably similar.
1: off you go, read the Nature letters, come back and tell us who deliberately failed to credit whose work on DNA structure. Because I bet it isn't who you think it was.
4: I don't understand the Einstein one. I feel like it should at least be (((mc2)instein))).
Someone needs to tell the anti-Semites that concatenation binds more tightly than other operations on characters (or groups written in multiplicative notation).
I don't get the Euler one.
God, nitpicking is the worst. Dumb anti-nitpicking jokes are thus automatically funny, though. A woman put up a clip on Twitter of her playing the new Zelda game, captioned "Dammit, Zelda what are you doing" when she fucked up. The main character's name is Link, which is impossible to not know when you play the game. I have no idea if she was making a joke, or blaming the game, or just slipped up, but there were immediately a million dudes correcting her that the main character's name was Link. She immediately put up replies saying that's stupid, that the game was named Zelda, so obviously the main character's name is Zelda, not the princess who does nothing. As she put it "Zelda is the boy." This is now a whole meme, and any "Zelda is the boy" meme automatically makes me laugh, no matter how stupid.
I don't get the Euler one.
I meant Euclid.
In the spirit of Walt's free association on the subject of nitpicking: Steven Jay Gould recalled talking to his autistic son about the turn of the century/millennium, and the fact that some regarded the actual transition to take place on Jan. 1, 2001, given that this was the 2,000th anniversary of the Year 1, and there was no Year 0.
His son explained that no, Jan. 1, 2000 was correct, because the first decade only had nine years. Gould found this wise.
10/11: I don't think there's really anything to get in the Euler. If the horizontal lines are in fact parallel (they aren't labeled as such, but let's assume), those two angles are congruent, so alpha = beta.
Euler. Euler. Euler.
The Bohr one is good, if a bit obvious. Looks like it would be for super high end electronics in the 1970s
I assume Euclid is referring to the parallel postulate. (To pre-nitpick, it actually shows the converse of the parallel postulate.)
It's so cool. Great Thinking. Personally, I Love them.