Studies show droplets from sneezing actually travel up to 27 ft, not 6. He needed a super soaker full of gasoline to simulate real sneezes, not a 1/2 full can of starting fluid.

You could recreate this with the exception of 3D. http://www.algodoo.com/.

Been playing with program for years and it's fairly simple once you play with it for a while.

Algodoo is a physics-based 2D sandbox freeware from Algoryx Simulation AB as the successor to the popular physics application Phun. It was released on September 1, 2009 and is presented as: a learning tool, an open ended computer game, an animation tool, and an engineering tool.

Hahaha.. Cancels out. OK, yep. It's basic math here not a complex collision simulation...

Did you even read this bit,

"The partial rollover presents an additional injury risk beyond what the standard crash test criteria are intended to measure"

I'm only discounting some things it because it's irrelevant to the point which is you stating rolls or "flops" are better than an arbitrary situation that generally doesn't exist and certainly isn't the other option to a roll in this test.

This really is very fascinating isn't it.

*quality

Gives credence to the possibility that we really are living in a simulation.

Clade X Pandemic Simulation 2018

Your video, Upper Big Branch Mine Disaster Simulation, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

@newtboy,
"Actually, I'm selling their audience short. When real scientists present the real data dispassionately, I think the average person gets quickly confused and tunes out."

I'd argue bored maybe more often than confused. Although if we want to say that most of the problems society faces have their root causes in human nature, I think we can agree.

"I had read the published summaries of the recent U.N. report saying we had 12 years to be carbon neutral to stay below 1.5degree rise, they were far from clear that this was only a 50% chance of achieving that minimal temperature rise"

Here is where I see healthy skepticism distinguishing itself from covering eyes, ears and yelling not listening.

Our understanding of the global climate system is NOT sufficient to make that kind of high confidence claim about specific future outcomes. As you read past the head line and into the supporting papers you find that is the truth underneath. The final summary line you are citing sits atop multiple layers of assumptions and unspecified uncertainties that culminate in a very ephemeral 50% likelyhood disclaimer. It is stating that if all of the cumulative errors and unknowns all more or less don't matter. then we have models that suggest this liklyhood of an outcome...

This however sits atop the following challenges that scientists from different fields and specialities are focusing on improving.
1.Direct measurements of the global energy imbalance and corroboration with Ocean heat content. Currently, the uncertainties in our direct measurements are greater than the actual energy imbalance caused by the CO2 we've emitted. The CERES team measuring this has this plain as day in all their results.
2.Climate models can't get global energy to balance because the unknown or poorly modeled processes in them have a greater impact on the energy imbalance than human CO2. We literally hand tune the poorly known factors to just balance out the energy correctly, regardless of whether that models the given process better or not because the greater run of the model is worthless without a decent energy imbalance. This sits atop the unknowns regarding the actual measured imbalance to hope to simulate. 100% of the modelling teams that discuss their tuning processes again all agree on this.
3. Meta-analysis like you cited usually sit atop both the above, and attempt to rely on the models to get a given 2100 temperature profile, and then make their predictions off of that.

The theme here, is cumulative error and an underlying assumption of 'all other things being equal' for all the cumulative unknowns and errors. You can NOT just come in from all of that, present the absolute worst possible case scenario you can squeeze into and then declare that as the gold standard scientific results which must dictate policy...

Edit:that's very nearly the definition of cherry picking the results you want.

What was waiting for was to find out that "God" was actually the soul diver after the end of the simulation and he was creating himself.

Your video, Microsoft Flight Simulator - E3 2019 - Announce Trailer, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I hope they rebuild it with non-flammable stuff textured and painted with a simulated wood grain.

I have asked math teachers about this and they seem to be behind the line that it helps kids understand how they got to a solution. I am yet to see any credible research that illustrates that this improves skills or thinking or critical thinking.

I will admit, I do THINK about numbers this way. If I come across a problem that's too difficult to do immediately, I start breaking things up in my head.

Sometimes when I'm bored and walking I whistle, sometimes I recount the digits of pie, sometimes I recite the To be or not to be speech from Hamlet, sometimes I start multiplying (really)

2x2 = four
4x4 = sixteen
16x16 = uhhhh <<<< and this is where I start breaking it up --->16x10= 160
----->10x6= 60
------>6x6= 36

Then I have to remember the 36 as I add up the 6 n 6 for 12 dont forget the zero so it's 120 + 100 + 36
so it's 256

256 x256 is like 250x250 or 25x 25 (at this point it's helpful to think of quarters and money) and then add 36 (6x6)
so if there are 4 quarters in a dollar or 100, 25/4 = $6.25
then i need the zeros still

62500 + 360??? = 663? no that's not right, 65? Im losin' it somewhere in there, cant keep track a whole lot further without some paper in my hands or digital transcription (I'm trying to simulate what I actually think of)

>>>>>>>> 65k? estimation <<<<<<<<<
ALL that said, I do that but I learned math the old way and worked as a cashier for 5 years. I never would do regular calculations this way all the time, it's just handy for some fast math. It was easier to commit to memory a lot of my multiplications tables than it would have been to think through this stuff when i didn't know anything about it.

a lot of the education community shits all over the idea of memorization, but I think there's something to be said for it and would be interested if anyone had any studies of memorization as a teaching method and its efficacy.

skeet
/skēt/
NORTH AMERICAN
noun: skeet;
noun: skeet shooting
a shooting sport in which a clay target is thrown from a trap to simulate the flight of a bird.

I think you're getting confused between the sport, the windowwww, and the wallll.

OK, hold the fucking phone here. This video is just a disaster. It is flippant and glossing over the facts of what actually happened. This story is a favorite of mine, so I have done a lot a reading on it.

This happened in 1983 (36 years ago).

>> Do planes seriously not have a fuel gauge?

There is specifically a digital fuel gauge processor on that plane, and it was malfunctioning. There was an inductor coil that wasn't properly soldered onto the circuit board. At that time, planes were allowed to fly without a functioning digital fuel gauge as long as there was a manual check of the fuel in tanks and the computer was told the starting fuel.

The problem is that fuel trucks pump by volume and planes measure fuel by weight. The fueling truck converted the volume to kilograms and then converted to pounds. He should not have used both. In 1983 ground crews were used to converting volume to pounds. The 767 was the first plane in Air Canada's fleet to have metric fuel gauges.

The line in the video "the flight crew approved of the fuel without noticing the error" glosses over how it is actually done. The pilot was passed a form that contained the numbers and calculations from the ground crew that stated that 22,300 kg of fuel was loaded on the plane. The math was wrong, but unless the pilots re-did the numbers by hand, there wouldn't be anything to jump out at them. He accepted the form and punched those numbers in to the computer.

The 767 was one of the first planes to eliminate the Flight Engineer position and replace it with a computer. There was no clear owner as to who does the fuel calc in this situation. In this case, it fell to the ground crew.

>> I would hope there is a nit more of a warning system than the engines shutting off.

If there was a functional digital fuel gauge, it would have showed them missing half their fuel from the start, and the error would have been caught. Because there wasn't, the computer was calculating and displaying the amount of fuel based on an incorrect start value.

That is another problem with this video. It states that "they didn't even think about it until ... and an alarm went off signalling that their left engine had quit working."

Fuck you, narrator asshole.

In this case, low fuel pump pressure warnings were firing off before the engines shut down. They were investigating why they would be getting these low pressure warnings when their calculated fuel values (based on the original error) showed that they had enough fuel.

>> I can't believe the pilot's were given an award for causing an avoidable accident.

The pilots did not cause it. They followed all the proper procedures applicable at that time, 1983. It was only due to their skill and quick thinking that the pilots landed the plane without any serious injuries to passengers.

They ran simulations in Vancouver of this exact fuel and flight situation and all the crews that ran this simulation crashed their planes.

"Bad math can kill you." Flippant, correct, but still not quite applicable to this situation. Air Canada did not provide any conversion training for dealing with kilograms and the 767. Not the ground crew, nor the pilots, were trained how to handle it. They were expected to "figure it out". That, and the elimination of the Flight Engineer position, set these situations up for disaster.