Dumb Questions Thread

[Liquid]

[snip]

Thanks for this, by the way.

so Data's storage capacity is 100,000,000 TB, or 100 EB (exabytes). That's quite a lot, and roughly equivalent to ten Googles, allegedly, or about 20,000 human brains

So what I gather from this is that his 800 quadrillion bits stored in one small, portable unit is still impressive through the lens of 2020 but factoring in Moore's law of computer storage capacity doubling, will be less impressive the closer we approach the actual 2300s. Of course, they can always change these things within a show's fiction or a character's conceit through upgrades or maintenance but it now makes me wonder what our computational storage spaces will be in the 2300s compared to Data's fictional quoted storage space.

60 trillion computations per second is a little more difficult to quantify, because they could be mathematical operations (MOPS) or floating points (FLOPS), but 60 trillion FLOPS is 6^16 FLOPS, or 60 PFLOPS (petaFLOPS). We beat that with a single supercomputer in 2016, and Folding@Home has 30 times that

Which means that through a 2020 lens Data has a huge amount of storage capacity for his physical hardware mass but his ability to access and recall it has already started to sound less impressive within 30 years.

Lots of storage capacity but a bit slow. Making him... more like B-4... in... reality....

Awkward.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Each linguistic microcosm has its own quirks and looks in bewilderment at how others don't do it the same way.

Often attributed to laziness and poor education, to which there is some merit, what you describe is actually a linguistic phenomenon called Th-fronting.

Many people this side of the water would ask why do people in North America mispronounce so many middle Ts as Ds?

What You Say
Battle
Kettle
Pattern
Data
Later

What We Hear
Baddle
Keddle
Paddern
Dada
Lader

To us, there is no difference in the North American pronounciations of grater grader. Try and say paddle/pattle without deliberately overstressing the T. Most Americans I have spoken to about this are seemingly unaware of the phenomenon, which is called flapping.

T'S ARE HARD!

Edit: Just had an unnecessarily long flapper-word-off with my non-native-English-speaking girlfriend. I learned that she's better at English than me.

 

[MatskiMonk]

To us, there is no difference in the North American pronounciations of grater grader. Try and say paddle/pattle without deliberately overstressing the T. Most Americans I have spoken to about this are seemingly unaware of the phenomenon, which is called flapping.

I had a friend in college here in England that had spent a while living in Seattle when he was younger. Occasionally he'd pronounce t's as d's and it used to get right on my nerves. I remember pulling him up on it when he referred to a girl as 'preddy', his defence was.. 'that's just how it's pronounced', I wasn't having any of it, it stuck out like a sore thumb in his otherwise very average English accent. The slightly odd part was whenever he referred to Seattle, he very much over pronounced the t's... guess this is why... TIL.

 

[Liquid]

I had a friend in college here in England that had spent a while living in Seattle when he was younger. Occasionally he'd pronounce t's as d's and it used to get right on my nerves. I remember pulling him up on it when he referred to a girl as 'preddy', his defence was.. 'that's just how it's pronounced', I wasn't having any of it, it stuck out like a sore thumb in his otherwise very average English accent. The slightly odd part was whenever he referred to Seattle, he very much over pronounced the t's... guess this is why... TIL.

It's rare but not impossible to hear it in England, the south especially. It's even been referenced in classic TV shows as a deliberate affectation and a lame Americanisation of the language. Both instances I can think of both involved radio DJs and their "radio voice".

In series one of I'm Alan Partridge, Alan picks up on his colleague for saying splidding hairs and says he doesn't speak like that off air. Based off that, Alan calls him a did, a dwad and a cund.

Smashy and Nicey often spoke about how much work they do for charidy. Smashy and Nicey's entire premise relies on them speaking in a deliberately overexaggerative, affected way.

Just by the by, Australians and New Zealanders are also prone to flapping but neither in the same way nor to as much extent as the United States and Canada.

 

[TexRex]

overexaggerative

overexaggeradive

United

Unided

radio

ratio



Wait...

 

[TexRex]

Why do carbonated beverages seem to be more effervescent when heated short of boiling?

Edit to add the italicized bit.

 

[BobK]

Because a warm liquid cannot dissolve as much gas as a colder liquid. Which is the exact opposite of solids dissolved in liquids.

 

[HenrySwanson]

How do spiders know how to spin a web?

 

[polysmut]

How do spiders know how to spin a web?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct

 

[Liquid]

I would still like any thoughts on this, if anyone has something to contribute:

Do blind people have extramarital affairs at the same rate as those with vision?

 

[TexRex]

I would still like any thoughts on this, if anyone has something to contribute:

Do blind people have extramarital affairs at the same rate as those with vision?

If unhappiness in a relationship is the driving force behind infidelity rather than physical attraction, as I suspect it is, I wouldn't expect a meaningful difference.

That isn't to say that unhappiness is the sole cause or that physical attraction is inconsequential; I suspect an individual's character is also a major factor in making the transition from desire to action.

 

[TheGeologist]

Why do carbonated beverages seem to be more effervescent when heated short of boiling?

Edit to add the italicized bit.

Why are you trying to nearly boil carbonated beverages?

 

[TexRex]

Why are you trying to nearly boil carbonated beverages?

A friend told me she'd read that blanching vegetables in sparkling water instead of still water helped to retain the color. The aim wasn't to nearly boil, rather I thought it pertinent to specify nearly boiling as the water was obviously going to be excited at boiling.

If anyone's curious, the difference wasn't meaningful, and certainly didn't justify the additional cost of the sparkling water. It's very possible there was no difference at all.

 

[ryzno]

A friend told me she'd read that blanching vegetables in sparkling water instead of still water helped to retain the color. The aim wasn't to nearly boil, rather I thought it pertinent to specify nearly boiling as the water was obviously going to be excited at boiling.

If anyone's curious, the difference wasn't meaningful, and certainly didn't justify the additional cost of the sparkling water. It's very possible there was no difference at all.

If one knows how to properly blanch, whatever you are blanching should maintain its color.

 

[TexRex]

If one knows how to properly blanch, whatever you are blanching should maintain its color.

I agree. I think the reasoning for using sparkling water is that the carbonic acid works to tenderize the vegetable so that the cook time is reduced and the color isn't leeched out. I didn't observe this.

The best additive in the water that I know of to retain color when blanching is a generous helping of salt. Plus it seasons the vegetable.

 

[Liquid]

The speculative statement of "[Name] discovered the Americas" is somewhat ethnocentric with the implication that the Americas were somehow non-existent until Europeans went there, although the term is not always unjustified. Japan isn't described as having being "discovered" by the Portuguese to the same extent even though they were the first Europeans to go there and they too, found that there were people already there. It all depends on the context.

But let's flip the question around:

Who was the first native American to discover Europe?

I doubt that there is much information on the topic but I would be curious to read anything.

 

[Blitz24]

The speculative statement of "[Name] discovered the Americas" is somewhat ethnocentric with the implication that the Americas were somehow non-existent until Europeans went there, although the term is not always unjustified. Japan isn't described as having being "discovered" by the Portuguese to the same extent even though they were the first Europeans to go there and they too, found that there were people already there. It all depends on the context.

But let's flip the question around:

Who was the first native American to discover Europe?

I doubt that there is much information on the topic but I would be curious to read anything.

Would you count any Native American that was sent back to Europe as discovering Europe?

 

[TexRex]

Oof!

 

[Joey D]

The speculative statement of "[Name] discovered the Americas" is somewhat ethnocentric with the implication that the Americas were somehow non-existent until Europeans went there, although the term is not always unjustified. Japan isn't described as having being "discovered" by the Portuguese to the same extent even though they were the first Europeans to go there and they too, found that there were people already there. It all depends on the context.

But let's flip the question around:

Who was the first native American to discover Europe?

I doubt that there is much information on the topic but I would be curious to read anything.

Oh hey, something I can speak to thanks to my archaeology degree.

There are two theories, both involving the Norse culture. There's some genetic evidence that Native Americans were in Iceland around 1,000 AD. Researchers figured this out by looking at the DNA of modern-day Icelanders that have ancestors dating back to that time period. It sort of makes sense too considering that's around the time the Norse set up shop at the L'Anse aux Meadows in eastern Canada and Newfoundland isn't that far away from Iceland. The Norse also probably encountered Native Americans in Greeland and Northern Canada too as they sailed around exploring.

The other theory is that roughly around the same time, Norse explorers brought back (either through kidnapping or willingly) some Native Americans from the Dorset culture to Norway. The Norse called them "skræling" which roughly translates to "barbarian" and is chronicled in the Íslendingabók.

If those theories are incorrect, then we'd probably pin it on Columbus bringing the first Native Americans to Europe. On his first voyage, he kidnapped something like 50 Native Americans and sailed them back to Europe because he was a terrible person.

 

[PeterJB]

I've always taken discovered to mean "revealed the outside world". The aborigines may have first discovered and settled in Australia, but for 40,000 years nobody else knew it existed.

 

[Joey D]

I've always taken discovered to mean "revealed the outside world". The aborigines may have first discovered and settled in Australia, but for 40,000 years nobody else knew it existed.

I think the best evidence we have of a Native American going to Europe and then coming back to America to tell about an "undiscovered" land is Squanto of the Patuxet tribe. He was kidnapped by an English explorer, sold in Spain, bought by monks, taught English and about Christianity, then made his way to England, hopped on a boat, and ended up back in America around 1620. Shortly after making it back to America, the Mayflower landed and then we get the whole American Thanksgiving story.

 

[Liquid]

The other theory is that roughly around the same time, Norse explorers brought back (either through kidnapping or willingly) some Native Americans from the Dorset culture to Norway. The Norse called them "skræling" which roughly translates to "barbarian" and is chronicled in the Íslendingabók.

If those theories are incorrect, then we'd probably pin it on Columbus bringing the first Native Americans to Europe. On his first voyage, he kidnapped something like 50 Native Americans and sailed them back to Europe because he was a terrible person.

I think the best evidence we have of a Native American going to Europe and then coming back to America to tell about an "undiscovered" land is Squanto of the Patuxet tribe. He was kidnapped by an English explorer, sold in Spain, bought by monks, taught English and about Christianity, then made his way to England, hopped on a boat, and ended up back in America around 1620. Shortly after making it back to America, the Mayflower landed and then we get the whole American Thanksgiving story.

Really interesting, thanks. I had a reasonable suspicion that either Erikson or Columbus took people back with them whose stories we won't know but just wondered what info was out there.

I've heard of Squanto before. I think he actually met the Mayflower passengers and surprised them when they arrived by speaking perfect English and asking for beer. That must have been quite a surprise for the new settlers.

His story is similar to that of Henrique of the Philippines, a slave who was captured by Ferdinand Magellan, taken to Europe and given the Portuguese name. He joined Magellan and Elano on their circumnavigation of the globe, which went westwards from Portugal towards the Americas instead of eastwards towards the Philippines. Having already made the westward journey from the Philippines to Europe, by the time Magellan and Elano reached the Philippines from the east, Henrique had already done the last leg and he became the man who was the first to circumnavigate the world and not Elano, who did make it back to Portugal, and not Magellan, who died halfway round.

 

[Danoff]

Who was the first native American to discover Europe?

I've seen this one... the answer is Pocahontas in Pocahontas II

 

[Liquid]

How do vegetarians or vegans who undertake the lifestyle for moral reasons deal with the existence of carnivorous plants?

Not just several similar species but several types of carnivourous plants; pitfall, bladder, flypaper, snap trap and pot trap.

 

[RacingGrandpa]

How do vegetarians or vegans who undertake the lifestyle for moral reasons deal with the existence of carnivorous plants?

Not just several similar species but several types of carnivourous plants; pitfall, bladder, flypaper, snap trap and pot trap.

The same way as they deal with carnivores I guess? Not att all. Carnivores,be it animals or plants doesn't have a choice.

 

[Liquid]

How true is this?

 

[GranTurNismo]

How true is this?

View attachment 978549

I'd love to hear Danoff's answer, LOL

 

[polysmut]

I'd love to hear Danoff's answer, LOL

I think there'll be mention of a pie.

 

[Famine]

How true is this?

View attachment 978549

Given how expensive their houses, cars, helicopters, and yachts are... eh.

Also, they don't just grab their dollars and stuff them under a double-king mattress in a mansion on a private island. They invest them, or slap them into a bank on the Caymans... which invests them. "Investment" isn't "hide it away", but spending money on other businesses in the hope of getting more back by helping that business grow (and employ more people). Sometimes it's even something like government bonds, which enables governments to spend money on things like public services, with guaranteed returns on investment.

$10 invested might do $10.01 of work, or $1,000 of work.


The reality of the example above is that the original $10 has... for want of a better term... run out by the time it gets to the babysitter.

Let's assume you're paid $10 net (and you can see in part where I'm going with this already), and give the hot dog man $10 for a mystery-meat-and-bun lunch. The hot dog man has to give $3 of that to the state, for tax and his hot dog licence. Probably around $2 goes on buying his food from the wholesaler, and the consumables required to make it hot. So he's got $5 out of it.

Anyway, with your two lunches, he takes a taxi ride home. The taxi driver has to pay $2 of that to the state for his licence, and around $4 for general vehicle running costs (if he's in the UK), so he's got $4 out of it.

Anyway, with 2.5 fares, he can pay the babysitter $10. That's a cash-in-hand transaction, and as long as the babysitter isn't making bank off this gig, nobody takes anything off him or her. Yay.

With that $10, she buys groceries... but $2 is tax. If we assume it's a giant multinational megastore run by evil billionaires, probably another $1 goes on stock and premises expenses, going up to about $3 if it's an independent or local place.

Finally, let's assume the original guy works at the grocery place, and they pay him $10 gross... which is $7 net because of taxes on income, yay!


This isn't a single $10 amount that goes from person to person to person and back to the original guy. Of the $10 put in at the start of the loop, only 70 cents makes it back to the guy's pay packet. He'd need to buy $143 of hot dogs to get his $10 back.

$5.70 goes to the Exchequer in various taxes, and $3.60 goes to supply chain businesses. Delving into that $3.60 further, you're likely to see something like 30-50% heading out in taxes, depending on how many steps there are in the chain, with the rest going to the people who grow the food and pigs (who also consume things, paying other people and also tax... but then also get government subsidies to do that, paid by the taxes), or the enormous multinationals that dig out the oil and raw materials required to fuel the car, heat the hot dogs, or build the homes and supermarkets.


Ultimately I'm going to come down on "not".

 

[zocker_16]

It´s partly correct. But it´s not the velocity of the money itself that generates the economic value it´s the work of people.
You give the 10$ to the vendor and gives you food. So the vendor works by converting large orders from his wholesaler into smaller pieces for you and other people. When he get´s into the taxi, the driver also starts to work. Every time someone works you generate economic value.
You chop down a tree, give this to someone who makes planks out of it and he gives it to the next person who builds a table with that. Each step adds economic value as the product gets more complex with every step and the work that goes into it. This even works without adding money into the equation.
Higher velocity of money has the same effect as printing new money and can cause inflation. The only difference is that you can´t accelerate this velocity up to infinity.
To make this clear the top 1% don´t leave their money on the banks, they invest it and so the money is back in the circle. They don´t spend it for consumer goods but buy companies/stocks, real estate and luxury goods which also add economic value.
So this topic is far more complex than it looks first.

EDIT: As Famine said. If you add taxes, etc. it won´t work that simple any more.