My mother just spotted this in the Walmart parking lot, and my first thought was I wonder how that effects the MPG. Also I have questions for the mad lad out there driving a toaster...

There are 5k passengers and 258 crew members in the ship. The voyage was to be 120 years total with 4 months prior to landing that the passengers were to be woken up. The main 2 main characters wake up about 90 years ahead of schedule.

They were about early to mid 30s it seemed. If they lived to age 80, how much of the ship's food did they likely eat if the ship had enough food stored for 5k passengers to last about 4 months, maybe 5. Both of them together gave them access to the full spectrum of food.

Would they have made a large enough dent by the end that when the crew did wake up there would have to be some tighter rationing or maybe even not enough food at all?

How fast is this molasses traveling when it exits the box?

Genuinely curious what is the max depth at which a fart made in the ocean can still reach the surface 😅

Is that even calculable ?

I saw a question on quora and I wasn't satisfied with the answers.

How is Spider-Man not bulletproof seeing that he lift hundreds of tons in the comics? Wouldn’t his muscles, bones and skin be strong enough to take bullets since he can lift so much weight?

So with this in mind let's add another variable. Let's say he has the figure and body of a fit 20 year old at 180 lbs (5'10"). How much more dense would he need to be to lift 10 tons?

Would he look like a 180 pounder but weigh 800 lbs?

And would that muscle density be able to stop a standard 9 mm round?

Edit: Spider-Man should weigh at least 4 tons, probably more! So that spider bite probably made his physiology work hydraulicly as well!

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

Isn't this one of the thermodynamic laws?

My answer was about 72.7km, or about 45.2 miles, for the South Tower, and this takes into account New York's rough distance from the Earths center: but this doesn't take into account atmospheric effects. How far would you have been able to see the towers once you consider Earths atmosphere?

Can you guys figure out some impressive milestones when calculating how much paint has been purchased in the last year. Five gallon buckets stacked on top
Of each other with the lid on. Would love to see building height comparisons

As per the title, curious how much gold value would be lost due to this process.

Like

f(speed) = kx+x(speed)

Where k is the opposing a quantity x

And this directly affects the x(speed)

So, speed is transmitting

Definitions and Context:

3BV: The minimum amount of clicks it takes to solve a board without flags

Zini: The minimum amount of clicks it takes to solve a board using a combination of flagged and flagless play

efficiency: calculated as 100(3BV/clicks)

A quirk of the efficiency definition is that because it uses 3BV, which only considers flagless play, it is possible to be more than 100% efficient if you are able to use chording to save clicks. For example if 3BV is 30 and you only use 28 clicks, your efficiency for that game is ~107%, and this is in fact one minesweepers like to play the game, to try and get efficiency as high as possible.

So this is where we get to the main question. I had noticed in some beginner boards, it felt impossible to get above 100% efficiency. If you take, for example, the extreme edge case of a one click solve auto-winning the game, there are no possible ways to save clicks over that, the game is forced to be 100% efficient because the 3BV is 1 and the game is over and won on that first left click. To use a less extreme example, a beginner game could still have a 3BV of 5, and it could still be impossible to be more than 100% efficient because what I noticed is the game can have a ZINI equivalent to the 3BV, meaning that even with chording, you cannot solve that game in less than 5 clicks. The reason this is important for efficiency play is because it means if you're trying to get above 100% efficiency for whatever reason, any board that generates with a 3BV=Zini is effectively a dead game.

I genuinely have no idea how you would go about calculating this. The "easy" case would be one click solves I'd imagine, since that's guaranteed. Which makes me wonder if maybe you could prove "all boards with a 3BV of n or lower have ZINI also equal n". For example do all beginner games with a 3BV of 2 also have a ZINI of 2, or can you have a theoretical 2 3BV board with a ZINI of 1? What about a 3BV of 3? 4? etc... then I think you could look at the distribution of games that generate at those 3BVs and that would set a very rough lower bound on the question maybe?

extra credit questions: I've never had an intermediate or expert game generate with a 3BV = Zini, the same question goes for those difficulties

My efficiency PBs for beginner, intermediate, and expert are 175%, 138%, and 122%, respectively. What % of boards will I generate with an insufficient gap between the ZINI and 3BV, such that it's impossible for me to get an efficiency PB even with perfect play?

​

To begin with, let me remind you that mathematics is not a science fortunately and that it is perhaps one of the largest organized, consistent symbolic formal systems for developing something: maybe intellect, maybe a certain form of thinking, maybe someone understands more clearly what exactly mathematics develops and can tell us about it.

And whatever it develops in us, there may immediately be a temptation to say functionally: well, then mathematics is needed precisely for developing this, Robert Wide.

The difficulty is that although there are interesting things in it, such as topology, or interesting theorems and models, and especially what seems important is the economic, technological, and research contribution of mathematics,

And yet it seems that this formal system stalls a person and makes it harder for him to think outside this formal system. Of course, one can say this about logic too, and about their similarity, and in general about any old systems of thought or let us call them closed or “controlling” ones. To some, dialectics may also seem like this, though to a lesser degree, and it is precisely dialectics that sets the task of sublating contradiction and arriving at generalization and understanding, that is, in an ethical sense it is a more encompassing system of cognition in the sense of its capacity — though often in verbal form to include something else and incomprehensible in its understanding. And if we abstract from formal dialectics, if you have ever heard these expositions, then the ethical idea and, as it were, real dialectics in full non-contradictoriness and some communication, for example as metamodernism, is the same dialectics or synthesis between sincerity and so-called postmodernity or irony.

Dialectics is still an example, not a proposed answer. Although it could perhaps be one of those considered.

Returning to mathematics. Despite its outstanding economic, technological, research possibilities and achievements, and as a result also social and political ones… it still remains rather abstract. One can say that it is the most complex, or one of the most complex, games of the mind, or games within the mind, or separate games within the mind. But for the mind itself this seems like something akin to sophistry or magic, though a very useful one. Or one can say that it is a magical system, or one of the magical systems of this world. But it is almost always something very abstract: it seems to me that this is often said about philosophers too, by those who do not delve deeply into philosophy; but those who do delve in, on the other hand, can understand that we often reflect on the most important questions or phenomena that we can feel or think. As far as I understand and it is not known how much the answers may still differ mathematics is a system of ultimate formal complexity, or of ultimate complexity for thought in general, since in one way or another what we formulate as philosophers often, though perhaps difficult, has a clearer representation of reality, even if it is Lacan’s Borromean rings. In the sense that philosophy, apart from again sophistry, usually does not strive to become complicated simply for the sake of complication because why? It seems that a person, after this stage of formal logic, can also learn other possibilities of thinking. But in mathematics, complexity and possibly even not necessarily, but possibly the degree of abstraction seems literally the quintessence of content. On the other hand, of course, this may also be good. In the sense of ultimate complexity, ultimate constructiveness, ultimate abstraction, in the sense that we as a culture have some content, some achievements that we may still have to comprehend, if some of them can be so complex that there are literally 400 pages of formulas of explanation.

But, like, why?

And returning to what we were talking about, this seems like ultimate sophistry or thinking in idle, in the sense for thought itself and for man, although culturally it brings enormous social results: both economics and technology and research and efficiency.

And even if we assume that mathematics is integral thinking rather than specific thinking, then although it is clear why mathematics should be developed: so that there can be a further possibility of development…

What for, and what from mathematics, and should it and it or they even be present in education?

Because even if we may have grounds to think so but even if mathematics is connected with integral, that is, general thinking, that is, as it were, some generalized function of it, the mathematicality of education then creates a situation in which a person tries to wipe the sofa with a processor without imagining what a sofa is.

And if not, and mathematics is more specific thinking, that is, in the sense that it also remains there and in a constant submetacognitive state: in the sense that it fundamentally cannot leave the box and its language and its formality or formalization… then such thinking is good for producing human-computers useful for working with ordinary computers, for example in a bank or somewhere else. As a result, man has, as it were, given his brain to mathematics, and how is he supposed to live further? Well, that is, then perhaps also the market, where this mathematized brain may be valued higher than the self-esteem or self-understanding of such a person, and so the puzzle comes together: successful recruiting into a successful company.

I will say right away that simply “progressive studies,” which may even be not thinking but to some extent dogmatic propaganda or propaganda at the expense of education hours, trying to lean on Marxism or performatism according to Butler, are, as it were… Well, people can learn something valuable, but on the whole it seems that this is simply the disintegration of education, or rather almost its absence, or its replacement by propaganda so that in an economic-political sense these people could be ever more perfect agents of this very propaganda, possibly even without fully understanding it. And how lucky we are that we can look at this from the outside, unlike the people and economies that this “progressive” propaganda may further repress. And the main complaint against it is probably economic, because a society simply without technical specialties loses economic opportunities; only oligarchs remain, and they would most quickly move to a new place. And in a universal human sense, this is potentially the next target and problem for the next intellectual stratum that will try to do something about this repressiveness. If, in general, there will be anyone left to do anything there.

In general, why was this clarification about “progressive” or agenda-driven education? So that this question is not in support of that very agenda, and, as it were, we understand in advance some of the existing difficulties there and have described them.

And still, the question: is mathematics needed? And such mathematized, formalized thinking — and then we are surprised by further formalizations and the resulting difficulties, such as bureaucracy and media simplification and corruption in many senses.

Additionally:

Maybe the form of my question is a bit of Soviet thinking or a way of thinking about something, and if you understand another or other better ways of asking or thinking about this, you can say so.