EPTClearly, other people need to try harder to get to the sheep-tier level of questions.
Here's a question: What is the reference for "whatisthisasheep"? And what is something that could easily be mistaken for a sheep?
Ask and answer stupid questions here! - Page 349
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46592 Posts
Clearly, other people need to try harder to get to the sheep-tier level of questions. Here's a question: What is the reference for "whatisthisasheep"? And what is something that could easily be mistaken for a sheep? | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18479 Posts
On September 27 2015 14:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: That awkward moment where asking about adjusting your spaceship headlights near a black hole is the least stupid question you've read in this thread in the past 48 hours. Clearly, other people need to try harder to get to the sheep-tier level of questions. Here's a question: What is the reference for "whatisthisasheep"? And what is something that could easily be mistaken for a sheep? A really woolly goat? A llama with a short neck? | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On September 27 2015 13:32 KwarK wrote: Is your spaceship magic? I'm going to go with your whole life flashing before your eyes. I read somewhere that if the black hole is small enough or has some event horizon ratio of something It won't necessarily rip you apart (thinking about it actually I think it was a huge black hole with a small gravitational force). I really have no idea though | ||
|
whatisthisasheep
624 Posts
| ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On September 27 2015 15:20 whatisthisasheep wrote: Why did scholars like Socartes mistake animal bones for giant human bones? They thought mammoth bones belonged to gods, titans, and other mythical beings instead of realizing they were from a different species. Seems like quite a thing to overlook. It's not hard to rearrange mammoth bones to make a giant... in fact, if you were used to people and unused to elephants, that would be the obvious arrangement. Edit: Also, where did Socrates address this? | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On September 27 2015 11:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think it's both on a relative scale and on an absolute scale, the latter occurring when families start to realize that they can't afford as much as they used to be able to, need to make cuts in their spending, etc. You're also assuming that there's necessarily a nice bell curve all the time when it comes to family income, and so even on a relative scale, as skewing to the right starts to occur, more people would be more likely to feel poor. The shape of the curve is irrelevant in my example, as all curves have a "middle." "Feel poor" is a relative term because people compare themselves to others in their group to determine what they are. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On September 27 2015 15:20 whatisthisasheep wrote: Why did scholars like Socartes mistake animal bones for giant human bones? They thought mammoth bones belonged to gods, titans, and other mythical beings instead of realizing they were from a different species. Seems like quite a thing to overlook. first of all the scientific method hadn't really been developed yet, nor had naturalistic approaches to science. They certainly didn't have any type of physical anthropology. They also (in general I think) took their religion to be historically accurate. Most skeletons aren't found that intact and sometimes bones can mix. they could have been cobbled togethor from different animals. when you find a giant pile of bones and your history tells you giants walked the earth its pretty easy to arrange them in a manner that fits your scientific paradigm so to speak. At least that's what I'd guess | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On September 27 2015 13:11 Epishade wrote: If I drive my space ship 10ft away from a black hole's event horizon and turn on the headlights, what do I appear to see? You'd see whatever is in front of you. Which most likely will be mostly empty space and then a black hole. So not much to take photos off. The event horizon isn't some magical boundary that you can see, it's only the point of no return. A sensible society would put a sign saying "last exit before spaghettification" or something though. | ||
|
Marcinko
South Africa1014 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany12059 Posts
On September 27 2015 14:55 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: I read somewhere that if the black hole is small enough or has some event horizon ratio of something It won't necessarily rip you apart (thinking about it actually I think it was a huge black hole with a small gravitational force). I really have no idea though That sounds like a really weird idea. Do you have any sources for that? Usually, the size of the event horizon is directly related to the mass of the black hole. And really small black holes are not stable and just kind of evaporate. As for the original question, that is really interesting and sadly i don't know enough of general relativity to answer the question reasonably well. My guess would be "Something behind the black hole distorted by a lense effect", but i am really not certain about that. Or of course the lazy answer "The really bright shine of the accredition disc", which should be all around you at that point. Black holes are usually surprisingly shiny due to their accredition discs. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On September 27 2015 17:42 Marcinko wrote: If I fart when I bungee jump, will I smell it on the way up again? I'd say it is very unlikely to hang around in the air and then you happening to pass by the exact sane spot (adding in wind etc) and happening to inhale at just that point, and not being too caught up in the jump to notice. If you are wearing some kind of closed pants the fart will stay around in your pants for a while, and you (or others) may very well small that though. Depends on the exact shape of what you are wearing I guess. I could ask why you ask, but I can't really imagine any answer that I actually want to know about.  | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46592 Posts
On September 27 2015 15:41 Thieving Magpie wrote: The shape of the curve is irrelevant in my example, as all curves have a "middle." "Feel poor" is a relative term because people compare themselves to others in their group to determine what they are. You're literally just repeating what I'm saying now lol. I said exactly that... that feeling poor is on a relative scale. You're not accounting for the absolute scale though... you keep ignoring that part. I'm not sure why you think that all curves have as large of a middle as all other curves. The shape does matter in this discussion. Different distribution curves can lead to different absolute (and relative) personal conclusions drawn by the individual subjects, based on how they see themselves in the overall curve... as well as different statistical conclusions drawn by researchers. Here's a skewed right distribution, which could indicate what the spread of family income might look like if the middle class doesn't increase in wealth as quickly as the upper class (and so the middle class starts to slide down to the left): http://sites.stat.psu.edu/~ajw13/stat200_notes/01_turning/graphics/skew_3.gif Even if the families at the median have a 50/50 shot of finding a family less wealthy, notice that they're going to be closer in wealth to the less wealthy families than the rich ones, because the distribution is stacked more on the left (poor) side than the right (rich). And so they're going to identify more closely with the struggles of the poor person than with the luxuries of the rich, because the mode (most frequent earnings) has decreased and pushed to the left from a normal curve like this one: http://revisionworld.com/sites/revisionworld.com/files/imce/Distri1.gif | ||
|
Marcinko
South Africa1014 Posts
On September 27 2015 20:13 Cascade wrote: I'd say it is very unlikely to hang around in the air and then you happening to pass by the exact sane spot (adding in wind etc) and happening to inhale at just that point, and not being too caught up in the jump to notice. If you are wearing some kind of closed pants the fart will stay around in your pants for a while, and you (or others) may very well small that though. Depends on the exact shape of what you are wearing I guess. I could ask why you ask, but I can't really imagine any answer that I actually want to know about. On September 27 2015 14:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: That awkward moment where asking about adjusting your spaceship headlights near a black hole is the least stupid question you've read in this thread in the past 48 hours. Clearly, other people need to try harder to get to the sheep-tier level of questions. Here's a question: What is the reference for "whatisthisasheep"? And what is something that could easily be mistaken for a sheep? That's why.  | ||
|
whatisthisasheep
624 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46592 Posts
On September 28 2015 00:01 whatisthisasheep wrote: Why did hitler honor his agreement that he made with the Vatican city to not invade them? Presumably because the Pope tried to remain as neutral as possible? Here's a nice overview of this issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City_in_World_War_II | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On September 27 2015 20:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: You're literally just repeating what I'm saying now lol. I said exactly that... that feeling poor is on a relative scale. You're not accounting for the absolute scale though... you keep ignoring that part. I'm not sure why you think that all curves have as large of a middle as all other curves. The shape does matter in this discussion. Different distribution curves can lead to different absolute (and relative) personal conclusions drawn by the individual subjects, based on how they see themselves in the overall curve... as well as different statistical conclusions drawn by researchers. Here's a skewed right distribution, which could indicate what the spread of family income might look like if the middle class doesn't increase in wealth as quickly as the upper class (and so the middle class starts to slide down to the left): http://sites.stat.psu.edu/~ajw13/stat200_notes/01_turning/graphics/skew_3.gif Even if the families at the median have a 50/50 shot of finding a family less wealthy, notice that they're going to be closer in wealth to the less wealthy families than the rich ones, because the distribution is stacked more on the left (poor) side than the right (rich). And so they're going to identify more closely with the struggles of the poor person than with the luxuries of the rich, because the mode (most frequent earnings) has decreased and pushed to the left from a normal curve like this one: http://revisionworld.com/sites/revisionworld.com/files/imce/Distri1.gif But here's what you're not understanding. That graph you're showing is meaningless in discussing the perceptions of people. Lets take a real world example. You're at the grocery aisle, you see four people and you. Where in the graph do those people land? The answer is that you have no fucking clue. Same with if you're walking back to your car and you see 10 people walking back to their car and 10 people walking to the store from their car. That graph is invisible. So people simple have their immediate perceptions. If they know people who are poorer than them, and if they know people who are richer than them, then they will feel middle class. And it doesn't matter if they live in slums or if they live in mansions. So when you turn on the TV, and you see the media talking about "the middle class" EVERYONE feels like its talking about them. CEO's feel that, welfare folks feel that, everyone feels that. And so they feel connected to that idea, to that perception of the idea of the middle class experience. If the person themselves have either a large amount of actual money or is in a state of poverty--that is when they start throwing around arbitrary words like "upper" or "lower" middle class as if it means anything since they don't actually know where in the graph they are. This is why the graph is meaningless when it comes to the experiences of people. No matter what country we are, no matter what the economic state you are in--there will always be the group that does the worst, does the best, and the ones who get by in between. As an extreme example--think of how people discuss the hierarchy of Field Slaves, House Slaves, and Masters. One guy has all the wealth, the rest are composed of two social groups with one group being perceived as having more than others. As such, in that environment, there is an upper class, a middle class, and a lower class. The truth is that the whole "middle class" bullshit is just a holdover from Victorian era dialectics of social class. The end result is that its just a way for people to (as nicely as possible) tell themselves that they're not lower class citizens more than it is a way to define where they land in a theoretical graph put together by some academic. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On September 28 2015 00:01 whatisthisasheep wrote: Why did hitler honor his agreement that he made with the Vatican city to not invade them? The same reason he honored Switzerland's? Spain's? And everyone else who did not participate in the war? | ||
|
whatisthisasheep
624 Posts
On September 28 2015 00:18 Thieving Magpie wrote: The same reason he honored Switzerland's? Spain's? And everyone else who did not participate in the war? What about Belgium? | ||
|
Simberto
Germany12059 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46592 Posts
On September 28 2015 00:16 Thieving Magpie wrote: But here's what you're not understanding. That graph you're showing is meaningless in discussing the perceptions of people. I disagree, because on a relative scale, when you compare yourselves to those around you, your perception depends on how other people are doing financially. It's as simple as that. If the financial stability of other families start to change, your relation to them will start to change too. You seem to be assuming that no one else's change in wealth matters when people form an opinion of their own wealth, and yet want to insist that it's all relative. These two points are fundamentally at odds with each other. For example, if you make $100/ day and are around 10 people who make $80/ day and 10 other people who make $120/ day, you'd naturally think you're in the middle (because you're the median, and your income actually is the mean). On the other hand, if you make $100/ day and are around 10 people who make $80/ day, 5 people who make $150/ day, and 5 other people who make $200+/day, it's far less likely to feel like you're right in the middle, because you're at the median still, but the mean is much higher. You may identify more closely with that bottom set of 10 people, because your earnings are closer to that group than anyone way higher. This is what it means to view skewed data relatively as a subject, as opposed to viewing normally distributed data. Lets take a real world example. You're at the grocery aisle, you see four people and you. Where in the graph do those people land? The answer is that you have no fucking clue. Same with if you're walking back to your car and you see 10 people walking back to their car and 10 people walking to the store from their car. That graph is invisible. So people simple have their immediate perceptions. If they know people who are poorer than them, and if they know people who are richer than them, then they will feel middle class. And it doesn't matter if they live in slums or if they live in mansions. If a person lives in a vacuum of ignorance and has no idea what anyone else's financial situation, what the average cost of living is, how much his employees or friends or colleagues make, how much he should be making, and hasn't ever looked up any information on general salaries or costs... then I think your argument makes sense. But just because I don't know how rich a particular other customer at the store is doesn't mean I can't have a more accurate idea of where I fall in the broader spectrum of financial comfort, because there are far more contexts and environments in my day-to-day experiences that grant me more information. I think it's rather circular to say that if someone has no relative knowledge of something, their relative opinion will be ignorant. So when you turn on the TV, and you see the media talking about "the middle class" EVERYONE feels like its talking about them. CEO's feel that, welfare folks feel that, everyone feels that. And so they feel connected to that idea, to that perception of the idea of the middle class experience. If the person themselves have either a large amount of actual money or is in a state of poverty--that is when they start throwing around arbitrary words like "upper" or "lower" middle class as if it means anything since they don't actually know where in the graph they are. I don't think so, at all. I'd be interested in seeing some statistics about this statement you're making, because speaking anecdotally, I work with some really, really rich families and I also work some really, really impoverished families, and while both groups may act certain ways or do things differently, when I've talked to both groups about how they think they measure up financially, both groups tend to be relatively aware at how they stack up against the country. The millionaire families I've worked with recognize that they're in the top 1% (or damn close), and the impoverished families who can't make ends meet know that most people in the country don't have it quite as bad as they do. Neither group considers themselves in the middle class, especially when they compare their financial situation to actual national data. I don't think they're particularly oblivious if they have some general knowledge. It would certainly be useful to have stronger definitions of what constitutes upper/ middle/ lower class, and surely subjectivity is always going to be an issue unless we set up hard mathematical intervals and say something like "upper/ middle/ lower = thirds of the population" or "middle class = middle 50% (IQR) of the population while lower and upper constitute the bottom and top quartiles respectively" or something like that. | ||
| ||
