Comments by "Mikko Rantalainen" (@MikkoRantalainen) on "Veritasium" channel.

@20firebird I think the cat is an important part of the thought experiment because it's used to extend the dynamics from the single atom to macroscale. As a result, the cat observing its own state is a huge problem for the experiment.
1
Are you saying that if he had been American, he would been called e.g. "Oliver Stone" instead?
1
Great video! Not only it told an interesting story about history of blue LEDs, it also helped me to understand the band gap, well, and the hill used in blue LEDs.
1
Honestly, I was expecting at the start that you're going to allow the concrete to harden and then demonstrate that since humans are softer than concrete, you can break the concrete around you without breaking you.
1
1:20 "We are not astrology majors." I wouldn't been able to not respond "That's cool because this is an astronomy question."
1
2:20 A great demonstration of a chess master figuring out the pieces on the board can be found in YouTube video titled "Magnus Carlsen's Mind-Blowing Memory! World Chess Champion tested". The idea is to who arrangement of pieces from middle of the game from various chess master games over decades. For example, Magnus Carlsen (born in 1990) was able to idenfity "24th game Kasparov vs Karpov from Sevilla 1987" before all the pieces were even positioned on the board.
1
I think the examples you provided at the end were definitely legitbait – show the most interesting thing about the video as the title and thumbnail. A clickbait (for me) is when the title or thumbnail intentionally witholds the only real piece of information provided just to get people to click it, or the title or thumbnail is intentionally misleading and promises stuff that the content cannot deliver. That said, I'd prefer longer titles with more details. For example, you could have used "The simplest math problem no one can solve: the Collatz conjucture" where the start of the title tells what's it about for most people and mathematicians can skip it if the already know everything about the collatz conjucture. I think the thumbnail with "3x + 1" was definitely legit. And as your videos nearly always explain "why" I think it should be included in most titles. For example, I think "Why backspin basketball flies off dam? Magnus effect!" would have been more descriptive title and I would guess that this kind of QA style would work for video titles, too, similar to Quora or Stackoverflow.
1
Great video! It really makes me think that normal CPUs would need a couple of analog matrix multiplication units where loading the matrix constants would be a slow operation but computing output for a big array of input would be fast. Because normal CPUs already run fully digital otherwise, it would make sense to return to fully digital domain after each such analog operation. In addition, the variable resistors wouldn't need to be accurate but only stable – you could compute calibration values for each resistor by inputting known input arrays with known output values and compute the suitable calibration values (basically input identity matrix multiple time with rows and columns mixed for each retry).
1
Very interesting riddle and I definitely wasn't able to figure out the correct solution. However, as you can change the loops simply by offsetting the box numbers, would following be a better or worse strategy? After opening 26 boxes, do not follow the sequence. Instead go to your own box and add 1 to the number in the slip and open that box. Continue doing that for the next 24 boxes. If you end up with a box number that you've already opened, add one to the slip inside that box. Is the probability of being in a loop shorter than 26 boxes in two different loop configuration higher or lower than being in a single loop shorter than 50 boxes?
1
Did your computer use ECC memory? Most common problem for random crashes is slightly faulty memory and without ECC RAM you only see the consequences instead of getting a warning or error message about faulty RAM module.
1