It's alright. I got bored. Forwarded through a bit and the baseball smash was super like totally wow cool. Smashing a baseball. I think I did that with an electric vice. Used to smash shit all day smoking pot, whiskeyed out, at least 6 beers into an LSD trip.
Was there music then? Not sure. Might have been real.
Anyway, what is reality these days? I think it's
4 hours of sleep, 6 hours of driving, 12 hours
of working, and 2 hours for divided by all
the entertainment leading to such a
density of complexity the grey
matter in my head has
liquidized and oozed
out through my
ears, dripping
drip
drip
drip
drip
drip
dr
i
p
.

At least near the centre of London it can also be quicker to just walk instead of taking the tube for a few stops. The density of stations must be part of the slowness.

In Melbourne the fare for travelling anywhere as far as the end of zone 2 (about 30 kms out of the city) is $A3.90 (£1.94/€2.55 today) although there is also a one off $A6 charge for our inferior oyster card equivalent (called Myki)... but even that $A9.90/€6.46 euros/£4.92 is closer to German prices than London.

We've secretly decreased the density of the water in this pool, let's see if Andreas notices a difference...

As a fellow introvert, I took a job as a bouncer when I was in college specifically because it's exactly the opposite of the kind of person I am. It was worth it.
I was in a major urban center though, so most slow nights were about like this in the video. The only really big difference being the density of people (and thus, about 100x more exchanges with drunk idiots like those shown above).
Very interesting experience.

electoral college is fine. It's gerrymandering and "winner take all" that fuck it up. The founders are right about direct democracy not being good in situations like this.

Eliminate those two things and the electoral college is fine and it would eliminate swing states as well.

Popular vote would totally fuck over any area that doesn't have a high population density. I'd be fine with tweaking the voter-to-electoral vote proportions though and get rid of the "electors" That would be reasonable.

It may need tweaks and refinements, but the overall concept is still valid.

Beats the hell out of me.

Just to noodle around a bit, the only extreme I can think of about the scales would be to substitute an extremely low density object for the wood. Say, a helium filled balloon? But that assumes that she did in fact mean equal mass for the two objects, and wouldn't actually give valid readings on a scale in atmosphere anyway.

Extreme cases are a rather specialized approach, as I remember...its not really a common, or easy way to get answers. I got the feeling this was kind of a "wannabee" presentation. Like she wanted to do "Smarter every day" stuff but isn't quite able to find and explain interesting non-intuitive problems well.

In the opening question she blew it. What if the rock is lava rock, which is LIGHTER than water? That means you can't figure out the answer without knowing the density of the rock.
Archimedes equation is only useful in figuring out weight for things that are buoyant. Anything more dense than water (or whatever medium you're in) will only displace it's own volume in water, not it's mass.
That's why I think the wood block should weigh more in a vacuum. It displaced more air, so was more buoyant, and so had more buoyancy to lose. It seems to me she set it up poorly again, because if they weigh the same in air, but are different densities, they would seem to need to have different masses to achieve balance, but she said they have the same mass, but I think she should have said 'they weigh the same'....just as @Barbar and @Stormsinger indicated above.

The density and sealed-under-vacuum aspects of that one make it more interesting than the previous (Na and K) videos, to me at least. Quite cool!

Why have they bothered lying about this? I don't get it.

Obviously fake, as was pointed out, you have to breath helium for it to change your voice It's a function of sound waves traveling through a different gas density, the same reason your voice goes lower when breathing nitrous oxide. The gas doesn't change your vocal chords as some people seem to think.

Sweet Bastard Zombie Jesus!
This guy claims that global warming is happening because the core is hotter that it used to be, not because of anything people did or the atmosphere at all, then he goes on to contradict himself by saying this bit of cranial rectosis inspired insanity....

Climate Myth VS What the Science Says
"the warming trend over the Northern Hemisphere, where virtually all of the thermometer data exist, is a function of population density at the thermometer site."

30 March 2012 (Source)
Urban and rural regions show the same warming trend.

What a brain dead tool, followed only by others of his ilk.

Not many people know this but a foam noodle is the same density as a grown man's torso.

What did they say they wrapped the handle with? Was it ray skin?

I'll just say I must expect if you're so certain, you must put your money where your mouth is, and are looking seriously into buying as much beach front property in Vanuatu as possible. Your mind is made up that there's no issue of ocean warming, rising, and/or acidification, so of course you will be taking advantage of those islanders that have been 'tricked' by the climate change frauds (oh, and also tricked by that water in their homes, the loss of snails, shellfish, fish, and the destruction of their reefs), and you'll be buying their properties at reduced rates, because the ocean rising is a fraud and you'll make a mint when everyone sees the 'truth' in 30 years...right? I have put my money where my mouth is, I have solar, I grow (most of) my own food, and I'm building a water catchment system.
Pay attention to what the scientists say, yes...but don't put too much stake in any single statement by any single group. Take the science as a whole, discard the crazed outliers, then examine and compare the remainder. After doing that, I always find that things are getting worse faster than nearly any study suggested it would, certainly more than the public 'consensus', in numerous ways that often re-enforce each other, and in ways that often were hidden under older study methods (such as the Greenland ice sheet, which is not only moving far faster than expected, but is also losing density much faster than expected, meaning older methods of measuring glaciers by size no longer apply...or the heating of the ocean where so much heat was 'hidden' in deep water, not found until recently so claimed to not exist, or the theory that certain diatoms might do better in acidic CO2 saturated water, but they found that that was wrong because in reality low light due to turbidity more than erased any positive effect.)

Today, one can find a 'study' to show anything one wishes, complete with scientists, data, conclusions, and affluent backers. The study you quote actually claimed that there will not be a loss of ice cover in Greenland and/or Antarctica, contrary to current conditions where there already IS loss of ice cover and it's accelerating exponentially. If you wish to believe that simply slowing the rate at which we increase the amount of CO2 we create by 2050 is going to solve the issues, (issues that will be totally disastrous by then by most estimations, for tens of millions it already IS disastrous) I've got some swamp land to sell you in Florida. The same goes for if you believe China and India are going to DECREASE their emissions. To date, they have done nothing but ignore their own additions to climate change as far as their energy production is concerned, they have not put extra money into 'clean' energy, but instead consistently go for the cheap, but dirty methods. There's no reason to believe this will change in the next 35 years as they ramp up their energy use to first world levels, that goes double if people are convinced (as you seem to be) that there's really no big problem with the climate, nothing to worry about, and any small inconvenience will be solved by technology and intelligent governments doing the right thing, even though it's the more expensive thing that they normally avoid like the plague. Unfortunately, history does not show that this is how people or governments operate.

Given the muscle density on that bastard, he can be shaped however he wants to be... = |

@ant This happens pretty frequently. It works when the market is big enough (demand) to support both of them.

Taking it back to the video - a very crowded beach could support two vendors right next to each other.

This is why retailers love good population density.

Sugar is sucrose. Sucrose is glucose and fructose combined and it is immediately separated in the body by the saliva in your mouth. Glucose is fine for your body, it is the energy storage system that metabolizes into glycogen in the liver. Fructose, on the other hand, is a toxin that is metabolized in the body similarly to alcohol, as ChaosEngine said. Essentially it is treated as a toxin and turned into numerous by-products which do things like: delay your leptin response (you feel full later, thus making you eat more), increase your high-density lipo-protein (increasing your cholesterol and storing fat in your liver), and decreasing your sensitivity to insulin (leading to type-2 diabetes).

As to what artician said, high-fructose corn syrup and sugar are treated exactly the same in the human body. In fact, here is a list of all of the things that companies call sugar to hide it when it is the exact same thing: brown sugar, caster sugar, fruit sugar, organic sugar (in fact sometimes they just put organic in front of any of these things to make it seem better for you but trust me, it isn't), evaporated cane juice, evaporated cane syrup, high fructose corn syrup, sucrose, glucose-fructose, brown sugar, honey, molasses, golden syrup, high glucose corn syrup, agave/agave nectar, corn sweetener, fruit juice solids, cane syrup solids, fruit juice concentrate, invert sugar, maltodextrin and even fruit juice.

All of the studies done in the last 15 years have shown that sugar is sugar and calories are not calories. All of the kinds of sugar that have quantities of fructose are bad for you, except when they have fiber. This is why fruit is still good for you while fruit juice is the same thing as soda.

The only things that you do not have to avoid as a sugar are these: brown rice syrup, dextrose and glucose. All of these things are completely glucose, no fructose whatsoever. Therefore, they are largely safe. However, large quantities of glucose can give you a large liver because of the stored glycogen.

Some links if you don't believe me:

Comparison: http://www.foods4betterhealth.com/what-evaporated-cane-juice-sugar-vs-evaporated-cane-juice-8645

Aspartame: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4127 ; http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/are-artificial-sweeteners-safe/

HFCS vs Sugar: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4157

Dangers of Fructose: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/high-fructose-corn-syrup/