Comments by "John Gottschalk" (@JohnGottschalk) on "Veritasium" channel.

This is called "Shorting the Bet", betting on the fact that a different bet will go a certain way. Also of course its the joke Tarantino tells in Desperado. Although he tells it better.
5
@Living_Connectedness you could have extra limitations on top of multiplying by 2. It's a multiple of 2 AND (fill in the blank) Options: - all need to be even numbers - all below 100 - all have to have an equal number of digits to eachother - each number has to be at least 2 bigger than the last - etc They weren't trying to disprove multiple of 2, they were looking for additional limitations. It's more an operations thing, they should have first checked that non multiples of 2 also worked or never worked, and made sure to do it by changing as few factors as possible (preferably only 1, but that's quite hard) before looking for additional rules. Then again many puzzles have trained people to look for pedantic exceptions, rather than simple alternatives. (See dumb facebook math puzzle posts.)
4
Inescapable Justice oh god, if he had made the task about what base the numbers were in, people would have thought he was pedantic, not understood or just gotten angry and left, his was definitely the simplest example that could prove his point to people.
3
That last statement: "As flawed as our science may be, it is far more reliable than any other way of knowing" Do you have research to back that up? If science is getting things wrong 30-90% of the time, it would be interesting to see how accurate other ways of determining the truth, or divining knowledge are. Who knows! Perhaps philosophy, or common sense, or the tarot actually do more consistently give the correct answer. And if its not the case, maybe we can just p-hack a study in order to say they are xD
2
@RGC_animation i was wondering this as well. Perhaps he does know how to cheat, but he just cheats in their favor to make a feel good video :b
2
Wait the designer described it as 2 boats with sails that are being pushed around an axis. But then the host describes the vehicle as a bluff which is catching wind, so the car itself is the sail, and the force created by that oushes the car up to speed, then the wheels turning, turn the propellor. Are these 2 descriptions really matching, or was the first description just there to get people to fall into a theoretical trap which isn't how it actually works?
1
Also if the body of the vehicle is catching wind, is there any reason not to make it a better sail? Does it have to be this slick shape, or can it be all kinds of shapes?
1
Also can I just attach a chain driven propellor to my bike? If I then pedal, would it be more or less efficient generally than just using the regular wheels and tire-road friction to push the bike? (regardless of wind)
1
Yeah I remember doing this in physics class with lasers through slits! Since we used a red laser, we only had 1 wavelength, so all the spots were truly spots. We could even go out and measure the distance between the slit an the wall, and the distance between the dots and calculate the wavelength I believe. We also tested light polarisation that day, and I learned how 3D glasses work. Enioy science class kids, it can be really fun!
1
Could you throw a generator on the wheels (like a bike light uses), and then instead of using the excess force to go faster than the wind, just store it for later when there's no wind to push you?
1
Would you guess the same side every time?
1
So why don't we have chain-driven propellors on bikes. If you can just pedal them up to speed, then wouldn't the wheels and the propellor do the rest? And you just have to brake? They say it could even go forward in a head wind right? (assuming the initial speed is fast enough, I suppose) so if you were pedaling (or powering in some other way) what's stopping you getting up to that speed and making use of this?
1
It's very rare that you get the same bet presented multiple times though 😅
1