Oh but something can be VERY efficient at doing nothing. If a (failed) 'solution' costs billions of dollars and several days to 'work' before it does, well.., NOT solve the problem, it is very inefficient. If it causes a lot of damage while not working it's even more inefficient.
If it's really inexpensive and once you try to use it it's instantly clear it doesn't work, I guess it can be pretty efficient at what it does, certainly compared to the inefficient 'thing' I just mentioned.
Discussion (4)
Oh but something can be VERY efficient at doing nothing. If a (failed) 'solution' costs billions of dollars and several days to 'work' before it does, well.., NOT solve the problem, it is very inefficient. If it causes a lot of damage while not working it's even more inefficient.
If it's really inexpensive and once you try to use it it's instantly clear it doesn't work, I guess it can be pretty efficient at what it does, certainly compared to the inefficient 'thing' I just mentioned.
uh, what?
it still isn't efficient as a solution. it's efficient as a test of a solution, because it does work for that purpose.
That's not efficient. That's less inefficient.
I remand you to a middle school physical science course and a definition of "efficiency".
D'A