Comments by "geemy" (@geemy9675) on "Veritasium" channel.

what about asteroids triggering giant avalanches. or asteroids triggering earthquakes triggering avalanches?
35
@papalegba6759 yeah this is why boats can't go faster than the wind oops they can
16
@RHLW a tsunami sending an asteroid back into space, no way. but falling into a volcano, triggering a massive eruption....🤯
5
@Photosounder depends if you counted just human lives or every living organism billions doesn't soundthat crazy. of course not every single people living in those countries would have died instantly, but countless large cities would have been leveled, and the radioactive winter, it could have been near human extinction NATO population today is about 1 billion all communist countries population 1.7 billion in 1989
4
I couldn't believe my eyes too, until I heard that fans were allowed. Gravity and ground/tire friction are the two biggest limits for going very quickly around a track (it's basically a one way track with many wrong branches) aero down force is one way to break the limits but with big aero drag penalty and only works at high speeds. fans can be extremely efficient if road surface is quite flat. the tighter the "seal", the less airflow you have to extract, and the less power you're losing. of course active aero is a big step forward that has been banned too. it would be fun to see micro mouse with active aero, don't know if the speeds are high enough to make a difference though...especially compared to a fan that allows 6Gs
3
@bunniesforlife719 first aero drag grows to the square of speed so it will definitely not accelerate forever. eventually the drag on the propeller rotating and the car moving forward will overcome any propulsion power. then I guess the propeller also has some sort of optimal rpm where it works the best. like boats can go faster than the wind but only 3-4 times faster. by the way the propeller is operated by the wheels, so the more the propeller pushes, the more the wheels are slowing down the car too and the torque it also going probably increasing like the square of the rpms.
3
the conspiracy is not planned obsolescence, it's pure unregulated capitalism as a system to improve people's life 😜 as in valuing profit over everything else. planned obsolescence is just one of the many consequences
2
@Tysca_ also french rail union is very powerful. driving the high speed train is a carreer achievement and comes with benefits, I don't think they'd like to see those high paid jobs which are pretty much the only promotion you can get as a train driver, disappear. Some train crash (remember a very bad one in Spain) are 100% due to driver speeding and overriding speed limits in corners with limited speed, so a bit more safety and automation could be nice but having a driver is probably not a bad thing as safety, also having a human onboard that can. communicate to the passengers and is not an operator in a call center. probably easier and makes more sense to remove people checking tickets inside the trains
2
it's nice to have affordable, and mostly reliable public transport considered as a basic public service like in many European cities. it also has a big (positive) impact on public health (better air quality, less obesity and all associated health issues) but I don't think it's incompatible with "robotaxi"
2
@mostinho7 I would say in maths, definitely. especially considering the most powerful/universal theorems. like Fermat's conjecture. there are not many unproven conjectures that can be expressed as simply. maybe AI, quantic computing will push the boundaries further, but it's still diminishing returns
2
also if you think the boat/car going fastze than the wind breaks physics, you should first think that wind is a huge source of energy. it's powered by heat provided by the sun so there is no perpetual motion or energy creation. also what those fast sail boats and this car have in common is they leverage a large surface of sail/wing to power a smaller vessel/ car, meaning they slow down/remove energy from a large amount of air. you realize it it you are down the wind from another boat and try to overtake. you I'll notice a very strong decrease in wind strength when you pass into the turbulence area of the sail. this is air with much less energy, that was removed by the sail and put into kinetic energy of the boat and pushing the water. so the first pas is acknowledging it's not breaking any fundamental physics law. the the second part is understanding how efficient a wing or propeller can be when it's moving faster than the air. the weird part is the wind is initially pushing the propeller backwards but because it's also pushing the car forward and because of the gearing, the propeller will still move against the air instead of with it. if you look at the propeller it's easy to see it's rotating in the opposite way a windmill would
2
@frankdimeglio8216 only reduction of SPACE that happened was in your brain
1
lighting accounts for 5% carbon emissions. home heating 20% I guess cutting most of those 5% will increase home heating by a significant portion of those 5% ? depending on your electricity mix heating with bulbs could be generate less emissions than burning fossil fuels for heating I don't think transitioning to led should slow down but maybe it should be redirected to countries which don't require heating or with clean electricity speaking about heating, considering how sun makesyou feel much warmer, is it possible to have colder air in your house and infrared beams targeted at you? could be done roughly by detecting human presence in a room or more precisely with tracking system and something similar to matrix headlights
1
it's not only about psychology. if $10 is what's going to let you eat for a week, you probably shouldn't take the chance of a single 10/12 or 10/15 toss. same if the value of the bet is all your retirement's savings. (you have much more to lose than to win, losing your retirement will make your life completely miserable while x2.2 or x2.5 will just make it way more comfortable)
1
never thought you would get back to 1825! 😂
1
in a 1998 study, researchers placed small molds in the ears of a group of participants changing the shape of there p*nis talking about audio illusions 😂
1
if you believed in stats you taught you'd be willing to take the chance with less than 95%😄 let's say not even 90/10 because the average loss if you ever fall in the 10% chance would be much less than average earning in the 90%.
1
people who spend hours or even days at casinos are not oversensitive to lisses
1
@onatarslan3515 it would be useful it it both reduced battery drain AND reduced "preload time" for the next jump. landing on the feet and storing the energy would also make for a much "softer" landing with less damage to the jumping robot and less impact on the ground to. on a soft ground (not ideal for jumping, but for instance moon has a lot of dirt on its surface) the pointy end of the robot could get stuck. but I don't see an easy way. you would need to land perfectly, so different aero and weight distribution and have another motor (or a different gearing) very quickly spool the slack in the cable, and lock the cable as soon as the spring reaches its max compression and starts extending again... maybe the very quick spooling of the cable could be done by a secondary spring that could be preloaded too? or even better...reload a spring while it's jumping and trigger it as soon as landing has recovered as much energy as possible, and chain the jumps 🤪 like a 🦘
1
the best jumper in the animal kingdom is the... flea: Am I a joke to you? meanwhile I use to have an indoor cat, not particularly athletic/young/energetic that would usually never jump higher than 3 ft but would sometimes suddenly jump to the 8'2 ceiling trying to catch flies/spiders... never forgot the first time I saw her do that
1
low tide low tide low tide
1
@ntray3729 I think he was merely pointing out that IF the progress slows down, robots converge and competition starts becoming boring because everyone has similar algorithms and hardware and just beat each other by microseconds depending on a spec of dust being in the way or not, or having a fan that gives you 5% better suction force, there are possibilities to make slight adjustments to the rules that would make the problem even more complex and bring new ideas. (curved) corners, ramps, levels, or even drones in a 3d maze... The cool thing is that even with a different problem like lapping around a miniature track, with not so many changes, they could probably be very good and quickly beat any mini rc car. The fan trick has been banned from all racing classes but it's coming back in an EV (speirling) that is both road legal and can beat Formula one around a track while being 10x less expensive, and would destroy a formula E
1
at least you got the like/unlike right for the algorithm...
1
the fun thing is that almost all the critics he has against the experiment are still mostly valid. it was just a bad proof of a true statement. but the logic error is thinking a bad experiment proves something wrong. he just followed his gut feeling which can be misleading it's not that crazy though, since we know for a long time that sail boats can go both against the wind (not straight but with an angle) and faster than the wind (ice boats are way more efficient and can even go 6x the speed of wind!) using only the wind force, it's not. this modern version of a land yacht only improves the behavior when facing or backing the wind which are the worst directions for any sail boat or land yacht. the large (moving) propeller creates an apparent wind that is not straight like a traditional boat would do by zigzagging instead of facing or backing to the wind
1
my wife thinks she's doing 100% of the housework and I do 100% of the mess. I can now prove her she's wrong
1
imagine if atmospheric hydrogen (1ppm/1 atm) could start a self sustained fusion reaction with an A-bomb. if that was true, A bomb would have never been made (hopefukky), and civil fusion would have been mastered long time ago but if hydrogen was this unstable atmosphere could have iginited itself with lightning, meteorites etc..
1
you didn't watch the video till the end right? 110ft is already crazy high, but a 10x bigger, 1000x heavier version, way taller than a human, although much more complicated to make would only (theoretically) jump 15-20% higher thanks to less air resistance/mass. even if they can hypothetically make it and not break at every landing,if you expected it to jump ~10x higher, no luck, for that it would need to have initial speed x sqrt(10) and total energy x10000 or 10x more energy/mass which is limited by the spring material energy/mass. lighter motor /battery could only allow 20% higher jump, and scaling the robot only 25% so hard limit if you optimized every paramater is maybe somewhere ~170ft from there, any incremental improvement would face difficulties to increase the size and air resistance limiting the gains whatever the size and whatever the motor/battery weight until we find materials that can store much more energy than carbon fiber/rubber. Although a completely different problem, it's a bit like wheel driven streamliners even packing 5000hp, super efficient aero, kinda hit a wall around 500mph because they can't send more power to the ground without losing too much speed because of the drag you'd need different tire compound , or to run it on a track instead of salt flats. by the way, the moon/mars version could have a different design because air resistance wouldn't count
1
imagine finding dark matter in your backyard...
1
this is the reason why nice strategies beat the nasty ones. if you cooperate like against another nice strategy, you are sharing 50% of the cake (6 points), every time, instead of fighting and smashing 16.6% (1point) or 66%(4 points) of the cake, and getting 83%, 16.6% or 0%. if you start alternating defections, with around 50/50 distribution, and no strategy manages to outsmart the other, you are basically getting (5+0+1+3)/4 so 37.5% the idea for tit for tats is to make every nasty strategies losing strategies. there are always important differences with real life situations that are more complex, but also a surprising number of analogies that are relevant.
1
 @ares395 it's easier to recognize the lion's claw when there's only a couple lions (as the number of physicists/mathematicians potentially capable of solving a problem)
1
@mostinho7 maths haven't evolved as much as physics because math research only builds upon existing knowledge whereas physics builds upon existing knowledge + new expirementation. instruments of measures and experimental systems like telescopes, particle colliders, etc. maths have made some progress thanks to computers but not nearly as much as physics. the other aspect is the more things are discovered, the less things are left to be discovered. even if the pool of potential discoveries is still large, it's still getting smaller. also as amount of knowledge increases, it takes more and more time for one human to become aware of the state of the art and as a result researchers have to become more and and more focused on a narrower field.
1
what about if you have only one universe, wether it's head, or tails. you ask the question to one person if it's head, or to billions of people if it's tail I think it's more accurate analogy. you're just asking the same question again and again which doesn't change the answer. so if you were to bet with same amount to win/lose on head or tails then you should bet tail for higher expected value. but if anyone is asked what is the probability of head or tails, it's still 50/50 as long as you have no information about the result. it's like making people vote to determine if something is true or false. it's like having two teams that are just as good, and making a survey to know who's going to win, but you interview 1 fan of team A, and 1000 fans of team B. survey says B is going to win 99.9% but the outcome is still 50/50. 1000 wrong answers don't "beat" one good one.
1
so, rhe trick. to get people to guess 37...how oftendoes it fail? and whats the plan B when it does
1
then the super villain takes the experience to next level and releases the super evolved bacteria crafted for 33 years to kill 99% of humanity and help human race evolve from the 1% survivors. by the way, this experiment helps understand how aging, dying is a desirable characteristic for any species. your "goal" from a DNA perspective is 1/ multiply and have an offspring to let your race survive 2/ mutate, be the living experiment to test these mutations positive or negative effect you and your offspring survival this means once you have given life to your offspring and raised it, you are not useful anymore except your ability to help the next generations, and you are using resources that could be used by them. this aging, eating less and eventually dying.. we evolve much slower than bacterias but we have added culture/knowledge/science to the legacy we leave to the next generations and we are progressively freeing ourselves from the environment pressure by reducing infant/youth mortality to a very low rate, wether it's from disease, starvation, predation, so our DNA evolution is probably going slow down a lot, but the amount of knowledge/information we leave to the next generation gross exponentially..the only mutations that are selected are those that make individuals have more children, which has always been the case. are we eventually. humanity has to reinvent itself regarding what's ou goal besides surviving.
1
why wait 16 minutes to state that there is no absolute "best strategy" since the results depend on the other strategies?
1
37 years would have been a good time to stop collecting 37's
1
the biggest misery is how are you going to make 18min on this subject 😂
1
last thing, boats are perfectly capable of going against the wind (although not straight) so it might look like breaking some physic law although it's not. it would be interesting to see if this car is also capable of going against the wind ? although because of the placement of the propeller it could probably do it in reverse. facing the wind it would probably tip backward. if you think it's crazy, just imagine a thread mill on wheels. with all the e power generated by the wind mill, provided you use a gearing that is low enough you will definitely be able to move against the wind
1
Are you an expert YouTuber according to this definition?
1
brings back so many backcountry memories...best ski/snowboard conditions being worse avalanche conditions is so true and nails the problem
1
 @32shumble that's how lot of things were discovered. gravity, relativity, quantum physics and a lot more..
1
no 42? I'm a little nit sad cause you just ruined the random number between 1-100 question for me..and so many people
1
the simulation is assuming that 1% size gives you force / mass ratio that is 100x stronger, giving you 100x stronger acceleration (300G), extending your legs 100x quicker (velocity when leaving rhe ground 2.86m/s, duration of the impulse, 1ms) and jumping about 100x higher relative to your size, but it doesnt say whether your muscles are able to achieve that extension that fast. would your neurons be able to mobilize 100% of your strength from 0% within such a short time frame(1ms)? would you rupture your ligaments or rip them from your bones? would your brain get permanent damage? would you be able to perfectly time your landing and absorb most of the energy with your muscles during the ~1ms that you have. landing with you legs straight or without dampening I can see the scaling work for maybe 2-3x reduction, but 100x there is a lot of things that could go wrong. we are the result of millions of year of evolution and natural selection/optimization relative to our size, nature doenst like waste. so I would assume our body, bone/muscle structure is not designed to work optimally at 1/100 scale. obviously scaling down is way easier than scaling up. tallest human ever was only ~1.5x taller than an average male and barely viable. a 180m human would crush under his own weight, wouldnt be able to pump blood to his head etc. smallest human recorded was 1/3 of the average size and lived 70+ years. I think our body would work fine at 1/100 scale, I just think we wouldnt see quite 100x improvements in performance . maybe in static strength, but not speed/acceleration. like forninstance running 10x faster (cadence) would be impossible to control our muscle accurately at that speed. Probably if you were born and grown up that size, and your brain had same nulber of neurons/connections, your brain could adapt to take advantage of an important part of those performance improvements, like for instance imagine you grow up on moon planet with 1/6 the gravity, you might be able to train to jump 6x higher but I didnt see neil amstrong jump 3m vertical on the moon
1
"I challenge you to think of a better way" define better? getting people (especially kids) to spend all their free time on youtube because low quality content with clickbaity thumbnails that people just cant help clicking? I think at least giving the option to the viewers to choose recommandations based on different criteria instead of forcing one single way? trending/most liked Looks like they have found a worse since. youtube shorts with people scrolling constantly like tiktok/snapchat. I mean not every content is trash, but it definitely pushes more low quality content relying in just addiction.
1
the tcar that does regenerative braking could go further if the car with the simple freewheel reaches speed where air resistance is generating more losses than the electric system is. basically if you have a very long hill the car will reach a terminal velocity and then will completely stop storing any energy in the flywheel (energy lost to air resistance = potential energy lost) while the one with Regen will reach a slower terminal velocity, will have lesss air resistance losses and will keep storing more and more energy in the battery/accumulator. as it gets full it will accept less current, Regen braking will be reduced and the car will progressively accelerate. at the end of the hill the car with Regen will go much further
1