Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Check your email for a verification code and enter it below.Don't close this box or you must fill out this form again.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
Did Robert Johnson really sell his soul to the Devil?
On the other hand, Johnson clearly got the better deal. If I could sell my soul to play like that, the ink wouldn't even have time to dry.
Well, seeing as the devil doesn't exist, I'm gonna go ahead and say "no."
RAY MANZAREK-RIDERS ON THE STORM
Man the sound of that organ..... what a great instrument.
Canada's New Shipping Shortcut
At current levels, yes, but I wonder if they were projecting forward to 2100.
It's not unreasonable to expect that US GDP would be 10 times bigger in 2100. That would only require an average growth rate of >3% per annum (historically, GDP Growth Rate in the United States averaged 3.21 percent from 1947 until 2017)
When they talk about $1.7 trillion of economic loss per year, I think they mean 10% of U.S. GDP, not 1%.
The California Roll Was Invented in Canada
You're not kidding. In fact, all the sushi looks terrible... the fish looks.... off
that's some of the ugliest california rolls i've ever seen.
The Science Guy Vs Twitter Twits
Why? What about the answer do you disagree with and more importantly, do you have evidence to the contrary?
Science doesn't exist to validate our beliefs.
Too bad for that last one on organic food... kind of lessened my trust in the previous answers.
4 Revolutionary Riddles
Ok, so every video I've watched on this still seems to take the view that both laps are the same distance. If that's the case then it's impossible (T2 = 0, etc).
)
But a lap is just a revolution of the track, you don't have to run at a fixed radius (and therefore a fixed circumference).
If you increase the distance (even by a tiny amount), it is possible.
If the 1st lap is 100m and you run it in 100s, then you get 1m/s. If the second lap is 200m, then you would need to run that in 50s (V1 = 1m/s, Vavg = 2m/s, 300m @ 2m/s = 150s, 150s - 100s (for the lap you've already run).
So if you double the distance, you need to run 4 times faster.
If you triple the distance, you need to run 3 times faster.
If you run 10 times the distance, you need to run 2.2222m/s
Basically the bigger your lap the slower you can go approaching 2m/s.
Conversely, the smaller the difference the faster you need to go (e.g. for 101m, you would need to do the 2nd lap at 202m/s or around 450mph
Oh, and the bike CAN go forwards, you just need a ridiculously low gear.
4 Revolutionary Riddles
This line is incorrect Vavg = (V1+V2)/2. That only applies if you run at V1 and V2 FOR THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME.
)
Speed is Distance divided by Time, so the formula for calculating average speed is Dtotal / Ttotal.
The problem is that that only works if your second lap can be longer than the first lap.
If they are the same distance, the maths are undefined.
V1 = D1/T1
V2 = D2/T2
Vavg = (D1+D2)/(T1+T2)
if (D1 = D2) then
Vavg = 2D1/(T1+T2)
if Vavg = 2V1 then
2D1/T1 = 2D1/(T1+T2)
then T2 = 0
therefore V2 = D1/0 .... cannot divide by 0 (and no, it's not infinity
The track question seems really straightforward. The question is how fast do you have to run the 2nd lap such that the average of the two laps (Vavg) is twice the velocity of the 1st lap (2V1); so Vavg = 2V1 (says right in the video). Unless I'm missing something, V2 has to equal 3V1:
Since the problem states that Vavg must be 2V1, we can substitute that in the average calculation below:
So, Vavg = (V1+V2)/2 becomes 2V1 = (V1+V2)/2
Now solve for V2:
V2 = 4V1-V1
of
V2 = 3V1
i.e. your 2nd lap must always be 3x faster than your 1st lap so that the average of the two laps is twice the velocity of the 1st lap.
No?
For example:
V1 = 1 m/s
V2 = 3 m/s
Vavg = 2 m/s
2m/s = 2V1
V1 = 5m/s
V2 = 15m/s
Vavg = 10m/s or 2V1.
4 Revolutionary Riddles
I just realised. I'm wrong about the lap question.
The trick is that it's a LAP of a track... the distance can change between lap 1 and 2, depending on how far from the centre you run.
4 Revolutionary Riddles
I think we all just copied @L0cky.
Side note, how did you all get the numbers mixed up? #2 is the bike, not the track.
4 Revolutionary Riddles
Are you sure about that? Let's say the track is 100m for simplicity's sake and you run it at 1m/s (so 100s).
If you ran the second loop 3 times faster, you run it at 3m/s and it would take 33.3s.
So, total time and distance is 200m in 133.3s at an average speed of 1.5m/s.
I think it's impossible.
Even if you ran the second loop 100000 times faster, your total time would be 100.001s and average speed would be 1.99998m/s.
It would only ever approach 2V1.
Unless there's something about rotational velocity (as opposed to speed) that I'm missing. Quite possible, given it's been a long time since I did any physics.
2) 3x faster (this one seems too simple)
Quantum Mechanics (Now with Added Ducks) - exurb1a
And more importantly, you have no control over the state of the duck.
So you can look at 1120 ducks (enough information to encode an SMS in ascii), but you can't change them.
Because you look at your duck, you see that it's feet are sticking out of the water and you say to yourself, "aha, that means the other duck's head is out of the water."
And you're right, but, that's all you know (which is neat, but not useful). Moreover, it's not until either you or your buddy with his duck in Andromeda actually looks at their duck that the ducks actually take on their state. So you unfortunately cannot attach any significance (and thus information) to the state of a couple of ducks.
Quantum Mechanics (Now with Added Ducks) - exurb1a
*quality explanation of quantum something or other...
The Bayesian Trap
How so? I would have thought that Bayesian probability is more maths than anything else.
*philosophy
Why This “Zero Calorie Sweetener” Isn’t Zero Calories
To play devils advocate... the average calorie intake for an adult is between 2000-3500 depending on age, gender and activity level. Let's take the low bound of 2000.
So 4 calories is 0.2% of your recommended daily calorie intake. In other words, you'd need to eat 500 packets of splenda a day to maintain your body weight (sidenote: REALLY don't do this).
Basically, when a meal is 6-800 calories, the difference between 4 and 0 is almost meaningless.
That said, saying it has ZERO calories implies that you can have as many servings as you like, which is obviously not a good idea.
In conclusion, drink your fucking coffee black. Anything else is just being a pansy.
How are these rules created, and why are people always surprised by them? I imagine there's an argument made around margin of error, and then where the line should be is lobbied for. Is the "under five equals zero" rule reasonable or shady?
I feel like I'm arguing for the five second rule.
Binging with Babish: Cubanos from Chef
Yo chef dude... I am willing to turn gay for you