Yep, this question is wide open. Teach me something, anything you find interesting.
The site is so full of editorialized opinions, and you know what else. Yet there are many of us who want to learn. Not just about each other, and the opposite gender, but about the world, life. So those are your only requirements for this question. Share your knowledge, on any topic (other than sex and the superficial.) Bonus points for science, technical, philosophy, sociology, etc.
... but this is funny. And it came to mind. Which contradicts what I just said, a little bit. It's word association. Don't get too sidetracked here. But here's a little eye candy anyway...
No, let's get serious here.
This is more what I'm after. I want to know what this guy knows, has seen, experienced.Dave Gandy
Feel like I'm kinda repeating myself so think ill just quote myself about a few thingies I wrote on some other questions cause I think many people probably don't think about these things.
"I dont think most people can even phantom a fraction of the concepts that is possible about like anything. Like a more common/simple one, is if time travel can exist future wise, it exist now. If mankind invents time travel 400 billion years into the future, that means anyone of us here could be from the future, even unaware. We all could be hooked up into a matrix like system where our more evolved self reduce ourselves into humans of today to see how life is to live in this era" . Can add, this could be the essence of what many feel like is their soul. A higher state of mind of yourself. Although endless of possibilities with that as well, of what is a soul.
"We are also what, considered 3rd or 4th dimensional beings? yet it's possible that like 9th dimensional beings exist where basically time don't exist, where past, present and future is all the same thing, that things aren't linear. "
Another thing I always thought was kinda funny is that science joined religion long ago. You always hear talk about science vs religion, particularly when it comes to the creation of the universe. Science are all about the big bang creating the universe, religion believing either God created the big bang or that God just created the universe. The less known thing apparently is that the Big bang theory was created by a catholic priest who wanted to explain creation by God through science. The theory at the time when this happen was that the universe did not have a beginning nor and end, which didn't sit well with religion, cause religion needed the creation by God. Which is why the theory got created. So science uses a theory aimed to prove the existence of God through science as proof that God did not create the universe. It's honestly so dumb and funny at the same time.
Another funny thing is that if you zoom out of the universe, it looks identical to neurons in your brain, so technically we all could be living inside the mind of some super being, although in order for this formation to happen naturally the universe would need several 100 billion years, so age of the universe would be insanely wrong if so.
If you’re going to wipe out a wasp nest, don’t do it in the morning or afternoon. Half of the wasps will be out marauding. Wipe out the nest in the evening or night. You’ll get them all when they’re sleeping.
Around 1900, the director of the US Patent Office said that the office should be closed, because everything that’s ever going to be invented has already been invented.
When the Bismarck sank, the captain chose to go down with the ship, holding on to the bridge railing as he saluted.
Donating one's body to science is not easy like it may sound. Potential recipients often disqualify those with certain conditions (being significantly overweight or underweight is one of them). Even prearranged donations may not work out because the facility/facilities may not be accepting them at the time of death. Families who lose a relative and say "just donate the body to science" quickly realize more often than not, that just doesn't work out.
It isn't going to be free. It's not like calling Salvation Army to pick up old furniture you're donating. Plan on spending $2,000-3,000.
In 1940 they parachuted beavers. Ok so when whales die the gas in there body builds up to the point where it'll explode (you can die if you're too close to it). In 2004, there was this dead sperm whale that was being transported in a city in Taiwan and it exploded. Pelicans are pieces of shit. Vampire Ground Finch peck at larger animals to drink there blood
So, this was after the WW2 and when people were going out more and things were progressing. The areas people were moving into was where a lot of beavers were living so that became a problem. And you can't just kill beavers to get rid of them because they have a large impact on the environment. This guy was figuring out a way he could move at least some of them to a different area. Beavers are actually really good at setting up new colonies if they have the right environment, and this is in Idaho so there were series of mountains and thick forests that didn't have any roads, so they couldn't just drive them there. They came up with parachuting beavers.
They tested it out on the beaver named Geronimo, and I think it was 76 beavers that they got down safely. One kept trying to get out and he did get out midair so he didn't make it. But the others did and they safely grew the beaver population in less harmful areas.
They actually did try moving the beavers by horse but beavers can't be out in the sun and heat without water for long and they smelled really bad to the horses.
I love this. So good. Very unique! (Especially the part about how the horses didn't like the smell. lolol) In Canada in the 1700s the Hudson's Bay Co. began on trading beaver pelts. They were quite valuable. They were trapped almost to extinction. But they are quite the nuisance, what they do to the environment. I've even seen this first hand. I have seen a beaver (or maybe it's more than one) three times now, just a 20 min walk from where I live, making a mess of a lagoon, cutting down all these trees. I keep wondering if the city is fine with what he is doing. Further in, there's even a Beaver Lake, but it's more isolated and not disrupting such a busy area.
Thanks you <3 Are they still endangered or have they grown back to the size it was before? I personally haven't experienced living close to a beaver, but that sounds pretty annoying. Has he caused any accidents?
Nope not endangered anymore, repopulated. We had a coyote problem here, in the same area. They went on a bit of a rampge biting over 100 people. They became too accustomed to people and not scared of them at all anymore. They ran up and bit joggers, people sitting on benches just talking. Apparently it happened because people were feeding them too much. There was a report of someone/people actually bringing raw chicken into the park and hand feeding them so that they could post it on their social media! It went on for close to a year I think. They closed the park down, even. Trapped them. Some were relocated, but the ones who were too vicious were killed. It caused a bit stir here, with people on two sides. Coyotes, raccoons, rats... they're all very successful, and thrive living off of humans. Just like in nature without humans, animals battle it out, some grow and some shrink in numbers.
Here's a couple beaver pics I took. Not a good pic at all, very poor resolution, but at least I saw him! Was fun. And here's some of his work.
Thats kinda good And thats why they say don't feed the wild animals They do thrive off of humans and its kind of impressive Those photos aren't too bad, he looks like he's a hard worker.
Oh Amanda. This is too hard. I need some cue what to focus on. LOL It reminds me of when I bought a gun safe at a gun show and they asked what color I wanted. I thought I'd get a choice of a few basic colors. But they said I could have ANY color. It took me a month of going through paint chip books at autobody shops before I decided on 1979, Nissan, iridescent, dusky rose.
I don't want to get into anything political or what some would consider conspiracy theory.
I'm interested in history and culture. DizzyDesii recently asked "Does anyone remember phone numbers by heart anymore?" (I can't remember how to copy and share the link to questions or I would have done that.) After my comment, she asked if I had a rotary-dial phone. LOL At that point, I share some into about phones, including two interesting articles that included videos that I found. I, myself, learned some stuff from those links. Geeky stuff, but interesting.
Thinking of old timey things like rotary phones, I just thought of something else. My dad was a WWI aero historian, even though he served in the infantry in WWII. He belonged to a club that met in Hollywood once a month. They would host a speaker and then show a movie. There weren't a lot of movies about WWI aviation. So two that I saw many times were Hell's Angels (1930), produced and directed by Howard Hughes, and The Dawn Patrol (1930 and remade in 1938).
I am struck by how much movies about war have changed since then. Those movies showed human frailty and tenderness. The characters displayed emotions, unlike portrayals of machoness in modern times. I don't know how to explain it. Society, itself, seemed more genuine, innocent and less ruthless then, too. Granted, those are movie portrayals and not necessarily real life, but it shows how much audiences and society has changed.
I could give many other examples of how society has changed over the years, including since I was a kid. I find the topic fascinating. But I leave it here.
I'm horrible at teaching anything outside my narrow field of expertise. I prefer to resort people to experts and reference material on other subjects since they can do a far superior job than I can.
Well, for something that might relate to both our fields although you might already know it, suppose you are experimenting with the saturation of a design and you're trying to find the perfect balance.
Your initial attempts look too desaturated to your eyes. So you make a second attempt and the result looks too saturated. Yet you are unable to quantify how much it's too saturated, but you know it's too much. What is the optimal strategy to try next to reach the desired result?
The solution, at least from a robotic perspective, is halfway between the overly-desaturation level and the overly-saturated level. If you repeat this process by choosing things halfway between each other, you are applying a binary search as we call it in computer science.
It's actually kind of common sense if we stop thinking. Yet very often we tend to search for the desired result in a linear back-and-forth fashion, like "make this a teeny bit more saturated, no wait, a teeny bit more, a teeny bit more, no wait a touch less, oh wait, that's still too much less." That can waste a lot of time with many, many iterations. So the binary search is a way to arrive at results faster on average.
This is very odd to me. It makes me wonder about the technical aspects of building environments/art online, and what the constraints are. This feels so rigid to me, when colour is so nuanced in so many ways. (Not to mention the issues with different hardware etc. which is used to view them.) If we are talking compatibility with other colours, I can somewhat understand it then. But when deciding on colours as isolated entities, I wonder why a set amount increase or decrease would result in the best/better outcome. I understand the inefficiency of indecision can waste a lot of time. (Is that partly because of rendering time, or pushing it out to other departments and changes are made on top of it?)
I think for design it might be most applicable in cases where we're in a time crunch. A difference between a binary search algorithm applied robotically is that the robot knows the precise solution it's seeking. It just doesn't know how to get there.
I think in many design cases, we might not know exactly what we want and need to tweak and fiddle a bit while reevaluating what we want.
Yet if we have to plow through a boatload of design decisions quickly like fiddling with dials for hundreds of parameters, constantly seeking halfway between too much and too little and repeating until we arrive at a good result to our eyes, not perfect, might save enormous time.
I think I might be the most horrible teacher though! I use loosely-applicable analogies all the time.
Back when I taught CS 101/102, I did get my students to excel back then (all students in my courses passed while we had only about a 70% dropout rate on average). Yet I didn't see the goal as teaching them the material. I saw it as about making the material fun to learn! :-D
Then after they're having fun, I'm like, "Now read your textbooks!"
You are like my man over here. What is this thing you both do... ask a question and then immediately give the answer (he does that, not you), or say you're bad at something but then give an example otherwise. I am struggling to see this as something other than false modesty! Are you both genuinely conflicted... hmm... grumble grumble (When I challenge him on this, he says, "No, really, I didn't know. I wasn't sure. I wanted confirmation." And then it will be something obscure which I won't know, like a date (I tend not to remember dates.)
"A difference between a binary search algorithm applied robotically is that the robot knows the precise solution it's seeking. It just doesn't know how to get there." It knows? Uh...
Oooooh, maybe I missed the volume/quantity element. That would be arduous if done another way. But I'm still struggling with whether things are linked or not; or how linked, the colours. Repeating, sure. But many different ones? Why would they all change, unless they were all the same, and all changed to the new one? This is making my head squint. (Yeah, head, not eyes.)
I don't think it's false modesty since I was sort of bragging at the same time about how all my students passed! :-D I have a vanity on the ability to make subjects fun to most people in person (not over text). But I have found that when I'm trying to directly teach subjects, rather than just provide enough incentive for people to learn for themselves, I've rarely succeeded without creating confusion. So I figure I'm not very good at it.
It might be a sort of trained response in my case. I find when I say I'm horrible at things, most people say I'm not to try to cheer me up. But I think I have reasonable accuracy in evaluating myself, but they might just think I have a low sense of self-esteem. So perhaps that's why I tend to throw in a bit of bragging and show-boating about what I believe I'm good at to reassure the person in advance that I do recognize where my strengths lie.
Oh, I thought it's more in the realm of self-acceptance. Like I don't want anyone to think I'm modest in the first place.
As an example, I used to get so many compliments about how I'm the best at art growing up. Yet I wasn't. That's not modesty. Has anyone ever done a Google search and looked through the galleries of the greatest in the world? Then they look at my drawings and think it's anywhere close to that level? So I just see that as an accurate acceptance of myself, not low self-esteem, when I say I was far from the best artist. I might have been a big fish in a small pond at best. Enough to impress the untrained eye but not someone knowledgeable about the field.
Meanwhile, if we take sprinting, I think I might have stood a chance at Olympic world records if they had height classes! :-D I'm very vain about that. 10.3 secs for 100m at 5'7 might be far short of Usain Bolt's 9.58-sec world record, but he's ~6'4! So there I never refuted people saying I was a really great sprinter.
It might be a reflex I developed. Since as a boy, I noticed lots of adults were complimenting me for just being able to tie my shoes correctly. Yet I looked around and every kid could my age! So I became allergic to flattery for something I'm not actually exceptional at.
heh heh. Hand me my chip (or certificate.) I'm pretty sure I've graduated to SM410 or something now. You're not low self-esteem. It's a tactic. Genuine humility mixed with false modesty. But it's all right, I don't mind. But I do have to call you on it once in a while. 😛
What do you suspect is the tactical goal? I think I have a tactic behind everything but I was thinking it was just to be on the same page with people. I could be wrong though and it might be buried in my subconscious.
Above all else, I would wish other people to see my truest self. Yet that can be difficult when I can only see the blurriest reflection in the metaphorical mirror.
This is funny. You're funny. For one, because this is divergent from the original topic, but mostly because of your boldness to discuss such things publicly. I have a huge grin on my face. I like how your analytical nature knows no bounds. (I'm the same, that magnifying glass can be turned two ways.) You do it because humility is a likeable trait. And from many it will elicit support. And who doesn't like support. However I also leave the door open for the fact that you are aware of some limitations, and challenge yourself to reveal them frequently. Thus, it is up to the receiver/reader to attempt to differentiate. Which is part of what makes you a fun riddle. Do you remember, in my early first months here, that I made up a question, and boldly assigned nicknames to some users? I gave you RiddleWrappedEnigma, if my recollection is correct. It is these [almost deliberate] inconsistencies that make you a fun puzzle. Nah, you don't want to be arrogant. That's the wrong tactic. 'False' doesn't sound great, but it's more eloquent and nuanced than arrogant.
So, you don't want to be seen as inauthentic. But you also don't want to be seen as having low self-esteem. You like praise (everyone does) but are repelled by exaggerated praise you don't deem objectively accurate. Maybe there is some arrogance there, because those examples of art and running are being measured against the best in the world. That brings up the whole idea that everything is relative. To what? By you measuring yourself against such a tiny number of the best (as objectively as that can be done), you are putting yourself in a very small and coveted class. Your standards for yourself may be higher than someone else's, but if they deem you to be much better than they could achieve, then are they wrong in their assessment of you? I like overachievers, and think people should be the hardest on themselves. That drive and self-critique is appealing to me. I like to be the one to buoy them, but there is a happy medium between all of that, where it is both modest and true. There is no subjectivity when it comes to racing. Aside from doping, it's indisputable. Maybe the interesting question here is why you prefer not to be seen as modest, and prefer arrogance. Is it a sign of weakness, in your mind? P. S. I actually do dislike analogies. I just re-read and saw that. So it's amusing. I cannot argue the opposite side on that one. I prefer no-or-few analogies and staying on point, on the specific subject. I agree with you about over-praising children. It's a parenting style, widely-adopted right now. Yet, is it the best method to raise children? This is an article I have yet to finish, but I like the concept of it - exaggerated praise creates later-life attention-seeking behaviour. I think we are in a world of this right now. This + the internet has created an absolute haven for narcissists. www.theatlantic.com/.../
I see! Apologies, the whiskey got the better of me and I ended up passing out for a bit!
One thing I am still confused about is exactly how my statements count as false modesty. I do have my share of vanity and I don't want to be seen as too obnoxious for it, yet at least in this context, I'm confused. Might it have to do with the ambiguity in the concept of "teaching"?
If someone said, "I am not a great mathematician, but I've never been beaten by anyone yet at arm-wrestling," that is not false modesty, is it?
If not, perhaps it appeared as though I am saying I am not good at teaching while suggesting that I am in a simultaneous fashion. I think there I explained it poorly due to the ambiguity in "teaching". I want to distinguish "teaching" from "inspiring".
For example, if I was an art teacher and I successfully inspired my students to study some great masters like Leonardo and Rembrandt, then from my point of view I am hardly teaching anything. I am simply inspiring them to learn. So I think I am actually a pretty decent teacher in the sense that I can engage and refer students to those who can actually teach. Yet I am not teaching by doing that.
So from my perspective, it is no different than saying something like, "I'm not very good at cooking, but I'm great at washing the dishes!" Technically that's all part of being a home cook, but two very different components of it.
>> Maybe the interesting question here is why you prefer not to be seen as modest, and prefer arrogance. Is it a sign of weakness, in your mind?
On this point, I would prefer to be seen as modest rather than arrogant, but I am vain about my biggest strengths. I might have too much pride and be too much of a showboat to ever pass as overall modest.
Yet the worst thing I would ever want to be perceived as is fake and manipulative since I'm exhaustively trying to find ways to discover and share my truest thoughts (although it's like navigating a fog with the clunkiest of tools).
So for me, in order of appeal: 1. modest 2. arrogant yet highly competent 3. fake (either arrogance without competence or falsely modest)
Above all else, I want to strive to avoid #3. I'd very easily settle for #2.
>> Your standards for yourself may be higher than someone else's, but if they deem you to be much better than they could achieve, then are they wrong in their assessment of you?
On this point, I actually think so. It depends on whether it is expressed more relatively or in terms of absolutes. For example, take a case of a 4-foot tall man and a 5-foot tall man. If the 4-foot tall man says, "If it's, "You are so much taller than me," then I think that's perfectly fine.
If instead, he says, "Wow, you are so tall! You are a giant," ... then I neither think the taller man is being modest nor being unreasonable by saying, "Actually, I'm not," and perhaps even pointing out national statistics about men's heights.
If the 5-foot tall man starts to get into the habit of not refuting such compliments, he might start to get it in his head that he's actually a giant at 5-feet tall! Then we gain the problem of a person who becomes egotistical about something he's not even exceptional at, and now he may set himself up for epic disappointment and heartbreak when the boy in the crowd shouts that the emperor has no clothes.
So I think it's better that he resist such compliments to a degree in favor of trying to cultivate the most accurate self-image in his mind.
This is why, although you might have a difficult time believing me, I genuinely do dislike praise of a sort that's trying to boost my ego. Now I can like the affection behind such praise, for sure. Yet I am allergic to the flattery aspect.
What I love most are observations about me that no one else has noticed before but are extremely keen or observations about me that I might not have even noticed before yet seem extremely accurate. That is a million times better to me than flattery. It's helping me to build a more accurate self-image and not simply an ego.
Now on the flip side, if a 6-foot man claims he's short just because he falls short of Shaquille O'Neal, then I think he also has an accuracy problem with self-image! So we might need to point out the national height statistics to him in the same way and show him that he's actually on the taller end of the spectrum.
So I'm in favor of correcting inaccuracies in self-image both ways. The ultimate goal is to try to form the most accurate self-image possible as I see it.
If I let the incessant praises my mother showered me with as a child, then I would have been set up for some epic disappointments and endless embarrassment until I'd probably want to shy myself out of the world and contemplate suicidal thoughts all day while seeing all my hopes and dreams shattered.
Yet I resisted her compliments at every turn, constantly doubting their accuracy as the ultimate and rather obnoxious skeptical child, and that helped me enormously to achieve some of my biggest goals and also form goals that I could actually achieve.
I might as well have tried to become a rock star if I let my mother's compliments get to me and I would have certainly failed. She was trying to teach me to play the guitar and take vocal lessons and really trying to raise me into some sort of pop idol or rock star. Yet I am not being modest when I say that my musical abilities for someone who put in as much practice as I did are far below average; I'm being accurate.
Yes, it was the simultaneous-ness of two similar things within the same context/realm. There's little point in mentioning or comparing disparate skills.
A good teacher does inspire. I don't think that means they are a great inspirer but not necessarily a great teacher.
I'm not sure if false modesty should be tied to the words 'fake' and 'manipulative', but all right, I understand, you feel strongly about this and those words feel appropriate in your mind. Here's a definition: "A vain or hypocritical pretense of holding a low or humble opinion of oneself, one's abilities, or one's circumstance so as to encourage others to say the opposite." It's pretty common and it's not the worst of sins, but I understand you don't want to be seen as doing this. Maybe I am wrong and if so I apologize for the misinterpretation. I have thought it before though. It's either this, or you have extremely high standards for yourself in this way/realm, and so it could be more a perception than a quantifiable fact. Take your writing, for example. You know how I feel about it, and I personally think it is indisputable, yet you continue to deflect such comments from me.
Anyway, I'm getting uncomfortable with this level of dissection, especially publicly. You know I like you and am impressed by you, and I can at times sound firm yet later decide I was wrong, so I just want to wrap this up now. (Pm me if you want to continue though.)
But for the record, I really dislike false praise as well. I did not enjoy this exchange below, but am sending it to you as an example of how you and I are actually on the same page here. I really dislike inuathenticity. To the point of being potentially seen as dull in terms of my lack of desire for fantasy. But they are closely tied, in my opinion. Have a gander... I like being told I'm big down there even though I'm not? Your thoughts on this (long paragraph ahead)? ↗
Cheers! It's very possible that I might be trying to give off the sense that I'm modest as well in some way. I will have to reflect more on it. It caught me a bit off-guard since I thought myself a braggart in terms of how I come across on this site! :-D It might be the Japanese side that does encourage modesty clashing with a more showboating side I learned to be helpful and important to be respected in the US.
On what you mentioned before about loose analogies to refrain from further dissection of me publicly, I think that's where the more "F" side of me might be clashing. What I'm often striving to do even if I reluctantly take on the role of trying to teach something is not to teach how it works so much, but to share what I find to be the beauty of it.
That's been a perpetual clash in my workplace with engineers though. When I innovate a new technique, they want the most precise details of how it works down to every last detail stated in the most precise of ways which I'm very bad at and lazy about. Their curiosity about the technical side is endless. Yet I find their curiosity of what inspired me a bit lacking. I think if they understood the inspiration and beauty I found behind the techniques, not only would the technical details become crystal clear, but they might be able to come up with far superior techniques that satisfy the same goal drawing upon their own technical expertise.
So I often want to try to explain the inspiration behind things rather than how they work. For that, I find it very difficult without figures of speech. It's like trying to explain how my favorite food tastes and what I find so appealing about it as opposed to simply compiling a list of its ingredients.
I don't know what you know, but here is something I used a lot fighting fire, and find interesting: how wind works, esp near a a large body of water.
In the morning, the sun hits both the land and the water, but the water takes longer to heat up because it is always mixing, while the land heats up faster due to it being solid:
wikimedia commons pic
So during the morning/day, warm air rises off the land and pulls cool air off the water. At night, the land cools off faster, while the water retains heat and stays warmer, longer. Warm air rises off the water and pulls cool air off the land.
This same principle is how fire pulls in more oxygen to feed itself: The hot air rises, and creates a vacuum that is filled by cooler, fresh air coming in to feed the base of the fire. On larger fire events, you can feel the wind rushing in to feed the flames. Visible in the photo below, you can see how the air/wind is rushing toward the rising column of smoke at the center and hottest part of this conflagration. This creates an effect as if a giant were blowing on the edge of the fire:
If you pay attention, next time you are on the beach and take note of the time of day. In the morning, expect to have the wind coming from the ocean, in the evening, it should be headed out to sea. There may also be a calmer portion of the day when the shift takes place. (This isn't always the case, as there may be some other factors causing events such as a foehn wind or microburst, but that's a whole other lecture :)
Lions don't rule the pride. I love zoology and this is a world wide myth so I will debunk it here and now. Come at me with all you have this is a National Geographic documented and filmed fact. Some animals live in matriarchies, like elephants and others in patriarchies, like camels. Lions... they have a matriarchal society. Why? Don't they rule the pride? Well no. Lions only stay in the pride for about three years. Lionesses on the other hand are born and die on the same one.
Of course this is not enough to define it has a matriarchy. Who runs the shots? The lionesses do. On 1vs1 lionesses have no chance, but that's the thing, they lived with each other since birth and they don't tolerate the lion hurting one of them. What they want goes and if the lion tries to impose his will he will be ganged up on. This can end on him expelled or even killed. Yes, there is footage of this.
Now the fun part. Why does he eat first? Why doesn't he hunt most of the time? He does look like a king on his throne while the subjects do all the work. On fact it's their way to keep their sperm machine healthy. They can risk him getting hurt while hunting and he needs to be well feed to be able to perform.
"Oh but he protects the pride." As we have established lionesses gang is way stronger than one lion. They don't need him to protect the pride from hyenas or leopards. He certainly does it, but so do the lionesses. The only thing he has to fight alone are other lions. And if he loses they get a better sperm dispenser.
Hmm I've watched a lot of nature documentaries over decades and never heard this. There's even one series just about lions. I have always wondered why the females are more the hunters. Never heard or could come up with a logical explanation for this. A similar thing can be said of horses. The head mare is really in charge, and stallions get exiled when they can no longer fend off others. But then I thought that was the case with all species' head males. Their days are numbered. I wonder why with this species they evolved this way, when theoretically others could. I like big cats but not lions so much. It's a combination of the landscapes they live in, the pride/pack structure, and their colouring (which is of course based on their environment.) They seem to lie around a lot, unlike others. I like lone cats a lot, ambush killers, with patterned coats. They have no one to rely on, just themselves, and their hunting skills have to be top notch or they perish. Snow Lynx's, Eurasian Lynx's... they're almost enigmatic. And poor cheetahs, they get their kill stolen by stronger cats. That speed comes at a cost. And leopards are fun, the ones who climb trees and stash their kills up there so they won't be stolen. Anyway, interesting, thanks!
If you ever need to distribute free certificates to people for webinar, or any other such program, then you can use a software known as PDF Machine Merge. Very easy to use.
My mom recently conducted a webinar and I was in charge of technical things. We were to distribute certificates. Over 300 people.
In this software you just need the email id, compulsory and any additional details that will be put on the certificate in a. csv file. For certificate template, you need to have a pdf template and then convert it into. pptx format. After that you can follow the software steps. Very easy to use. Tutorials are available on YT.
What I have come to know is that--- The API gets completely refreshed if you close and restart the software again and then continue on with your task from previous point, before you closed the software.
If you send emails in bunch without the above step, then you need to wait for 5 minutes and then too only 5 emails get sent. I sent over 50 emails at once with this trick.
NOTE: - Since the free version is freely available, a very very small promotion on the certificate and the email body can be seen. I found it ignorable. Very small font is there. Not even noticeable.
I forgot to say that there are many methods of sending the emails. We can also write email body for all the people. We can also add elements that can make an email personal.
Just like the emails that we receive from banks for our birthday and all. The body is same for all people but the name changes for every person, making it a personal email for that person. A very strategic and advantageous method to attract customer if you ask me.
I hope I told something helpful. Even though it can be applied to very specific need.
There are techniques you can learn to fall right off of your feet and land safely. I can't show you through text obviously but all you need to do is look up break falls, judo teaches them a lot.
If your urine is not close to being clear, you are dehydrated.
If you find yourself underwater and do not know which way to swim, follow your air bubbles if you want to reach the surface. If you are stuck in an avalanche, see where your spit goes.
No matter how strong somebody is, it only takes four PSI to rip off their ear.
If you talk to somebody and hand them something while you are talking, they are more likely to accept the object.
If you are respectful to others they are more likely to listen to you but talking too quietly can lead to others talking over you.
Male seahorses end up carrying the young inside of them. A male praying mantis will get its head chopped off after meeting and similarly male spiders can be eaten by the bigger female a lot.
You can split the human brain into two hemispheres and that will essentially give you two minds in one head.
There are currently more autistic people in the USA than there are black people.
@zeitgeist057 your consciousness is made up of several different parts that work in tandem and form a whole, much like how the cells in your hand collectively form your hand right?
Well if you cut the brain in half in a very certain way, your right brain and your left brain are now two separate consciousnesses that were once part of the same hole.
Take a Reese's peanut butter cup and attach it to the center of a Fudge Stripe cookie, using chocolate frosting as an adhesive. Then grab a Hershey's kiss and cut it in half, vertically. Frosting it on to the cookie, below the cup, so that the point is pointing toward the center of the cookie (and thus the cup). Next, attach a piece of candy corn horizontally onto the top of the cup, so that the corn is pointing towards the half-kiss. Finally, tilt it upwards (ominous chanting is optional, but I find it helps), and boom! You've got yourself a desert turkey. It even stands up, unless you put the half-kiss too high up on the cookie and it overbalances.
And there you go, a perfect example of a seasonal treat... in nine and a half months' time. Hmm... something more timely... Okay, here we go: if you're under the age of 35, go to your local thrift store and pick up a cassette tape. It doesn't matter which one. (If you're over 35, just grab one of your cassettes). Take the tape out; you'll only be needing the case for this one. Open it all the way up, as far as it'll go, then place the outer part of the casing on the table with the inner part atop it, like so:
Not my tape case, but I like the "wait, WHAT?" aspect of the pattern.
You now have a phone stand, and just in time for, um, Selfie-mas, which is traditionally celebrated a week after Belated Chinese New Year.
Hear is something interesting for you too know. The Earth 🌎🌍🌏 is egg shaped. That's right, egg shaped. NASA will confirm this fact, since they are the ones who discovered it in the first place. 🥚s gave a geometry that is very strong in supporting weight from all sides. Try putting an egg in the center of your palm and squeeze as hard as you can. If you do it right, you won't be able to break it. Eggs are efficient at distribution of pressure evenly throughout the structure of the egg. The 🌏🌍🌎🥚core is molten metal, like the yoke of an egg, and the mantle and crust support that dense yoke with egg shaped efficiency. Isn't that cool 🤔 too know 🤗
Most planets in this solar system are dead bodies with no molten activities in the center. Europa might be an exception to the rule because it is made up mostly of water or so it's believed.
You are one of the smartest people on GaG so I think it would be hard to teach you anything. I think this might be something you do not know. Motion pictures work because humans display a phenomenon called Persistence of Vision. It is when an image that is seen remains on the retina after the light source has been discontinued. It usually lasts about 1/30th of a second. So in motion pictures, frames are shown at 32 frames per second. To the human eye it looks like there is actual motion.
xoxo I didn't know that and I love it! You've combined film, light, and technology all in one. Colour, light, and movies, are some of my favourite categories of all so thank you. 🙇♂️
When we have the winter/summer solstice, the shortest/longest day. The word ‘Solstice’ is Latin for sun standing still. As in ‘Sol’ meaning sun and ‘Sistere’ To stand still. Ancient astronomers came to know the day where the sun appeared to stand still.
- ... :) ... ;) ... We say that something's on fire, but actually fire is on things ;) - Some firefly females will mimic the flickering of other firefly species, luring in the male of that specific species to eat it - The Siphonophore is a creature in the sea that's actually a conoly of organisms that are attached to eachother. They're like hundreds or thousands mini jellyfish working together - You don't just need to go to therapy if you're depressed or have big issues. You can go way earlier than that. The majority needs therapy, if not, everyone - Some birds of prey like the eagle will lift a turtle up take with into the sky and drop it to break the shell. Some would even grab a mountain goat and try to toss it off a cliff.
Tommorow is never promised, so live each of your moments to its fullest and enjoy every bit of it. and try living with no regrets later.
and stop procrastinating things. learn to love yourself and do daily self care, get enough sleep, eat healthy, workout, etc. drink lots of water, stay hydrated it helps with like a lot of your health, skin issues give your parents respect and love as they've been taking care of you since you were born, so now they deserve to be treated right by you. give them daily huggies and kisses on cheeks or forehead, bet they'd feel much better
We're on the verge of so many scientific breakthroughs. The next couple decades are really going to be amazing. For instance, we recently learned that cancer cells catch immune cells and rob them of their mitochondria, giving cancer a huge advantage over the body. So now, it's looking like it's possible to send in engineered 'trojan horse' immune cells to deliver treatments directly to the cancer itself.
Take everything you have ever learned from books and throw it out the window. Take what you have learned from experience, THEN study everything you can about your experiences. Mine won't mean anything because they aren't your experience. I can tell you not to accept a friend's request to tire test in a car you've never driven for a crew that doesn't hold the same standard of excellence for maintenance as your own. I could tell you that a thoroughly satisfying career would to dedicate yourself to saving others, but you might not have the physical acumen to perform the duties needed. Nope, seek your own council to learn all you can.
I find the best method of teaching is to let the person work through a problem. A chord of a circle is a straight line whose endpoints lie on the arc of the circle.
Now imagine an inscribed equilateral triangle in a circle. Suppose I choose a random chord. What is the probability that this chord has a length longer then the edges of the inscribed triangle?
Use the symmetry of a circle to simplify assumptions.
I can visualize, but do not understand how to calculate, the probability.
If the equilateral triangle had points (A, B, C), then any chord from AB to AC or in between, or likewise with BC to BA, as well as with CA to CB (and all chords in between, originating at points A, B, or C, respectively). they would all be longer than AB (which is equal to BC and AC). The only chords shorter than these lines would be those you could construct without crossing the triangle at any point (in the three outer half moon areas), and any similar chords you could construct if the inner triangle were rotated.
But I still have no idea how you would calculate the probability.
ok. But there are infinite possible chords so how does one answer the question "What is the probability..."? Maybe I'm a little confused what you're asking, since although I am familiar with the symmetry of the equilateral triangle and corresponding angles and arcs, I don't see how it fits into a function that solves for probability.
Suppose I have a dart board. The inner circle has a radius of 1/2 and the outer circle has a radius of 1. What is the probability that throwing a dart at the dartboard, my dart will land inside the inner circle? There are certainly infinite places a dart could land, but there is a reasonable answer to this.
ok outer circle area = pi - inner circle area, inner circle area = 1/4 pi. So outer circle (non inclusive of inner circle area) is 3/4 pi and inner is 1/4 pi. Probability of hitting the inner circle, assuming all throws must magically land ON the dartboard, and that there is an equal probability of each throw hitting any particular spot on the dartboard (i. e. not dependent on thrower skill), would be 25%.
I'n relation to the original problem, if we bisect the triangle three times through it's angles, through to the edge of the circle, then the radii of the "inner circle" would be 1/2 that of the larger circle. So we have the areas being 0.25 and 0.75, respectively. And a random chord that was "longer than the edges of the inscribed triangle" would necessarily have to cross that inner circle (all chords that did not would be equivalent to or smaller). So 25% probability is also the answer to the original question.
Thanks for the middle step explanation! (that is assuming I've followed correctly?)
@zeitgeist057 Well there are three methods that actually could be used. 1. Random endpoints: Since the circle is rotationally symmetric, without the loss of generality, fix one end to one corner of the circle. The other end can be any other point on the circle’s arc. The equilateral triangle partitions the circle into three arcs of equal length. Hence the probability that choosing a random point along this arc lands into a given arc is 1/3. The points arc which is the furthest from the corner of the triangle, when a chord is formed with it, results in a chord with a length longer than the equilateral triangle. It follows that the probability by the random endpoints is 1/3.
2. Random radial method. Consider the fact that every chord can be uniquely described by radial line segment and a distance (except the diameter, the diameter has two separate choices, but it doesn’t affect the calculation). The way to do this is to have the radial line be the perpendicular bisector of the chord and the point of intersection be the specified distance. Using the symmetry of a circle, we only need to consider the radii that bisects one of the triangle edges. Now simple high school geometry would tell you the distance from the center of the circle to point of intersection is half the radius. Points that lie between the center and the point of intersection are associated to chords of length greater than the edge of the equilateral triangle, while points between the point of intersection and the circular arc itself is associated to chords of length shorter than the edge of the triangle. Picking a point randomly along the radii, the probability the chord has length longer than the side length of an equilateral triangle is 1/2.
3. The random midpoint method. Choose a midpoint of a chord in the circle. The chord has a length longer than the side length of the equilateral triangle if it lies within a concentric circle of radius half of the circle’s radius. This means the probability of picking a point inside the concentric circle is 1/4.
I'm a little more confused now because my understanding of the question, there is only one correct answer, so we can't say the answer is 33% or 50% or 25%. Or maybe I didn't understand what you were asking originally. But there's a lot to address so I'll just leave it for now. Math is fun, though!
@zeitgeist057 Well the answer is it depends on how you choose a random chord. For instance, if I told you to pick a random cube between one of volume 1 m^3 and one of 8 m^3, there are several way you might choose it. You could choose one whose side length is between that of the two cube, one whose surface area is between the two, or one whose volume is between the two. The choice of which variable is uniform means the others variables won’t be. For instance, if we go by the side length method, the average side length is 1.5 m, but the volume of such a cube is 3.375 m^3, which is not the average of the volumes.
A whole Fritos corn chip will burn for 90 seconds so use the lighter sparingly and have lots of bags of Fritos corn chips around for survival events. And some dip to boost morale...😉
Roman markets, selling pottery. Sometimes if the makers didn't fire the pottery correctly then the pottery would crack. So to sell it some makers would fill in the cracks with wax and then paint over them. Once this tacky technique became common the marketing for the quality pottery started. Quality pottery makers would make signs and tell potential buyers that the pottery was "without wax". Without in latin= sin. Wax in Latin = cera. So the pottery makers/sellers would use the word "sincera" to emphasize the genuine quality and lack of falsity in the product. From that word we derive our word of "sincere".
My, Andres, you certainly redeemed yourself with that second one. What polarities. I absolutely love this, thank you. It is near and dear to my heart but I suspect you suspected this. It is similar to the Japanese Kintsugi. You've given me an idea...
It's a Disney cartoon. My kids watched it all the time. They dedicated a whole episode just to that, the aglet. Made songs about it. I figured that's where you got it from. That's all.
@Andres77 A long time ago & I think it was on the tonight show a guest in the audience won a prize & they won aglets & I laughed & seemed to remember that & what an aglet was.
Orcas have different “languages” based on the region they’re in. And even then, there are different dialects from different pods of orcas. Other pods can understand each other, but their communication within themselves different slightly (or dramatically if from far away, they can’t understand each other at all!).
Umm if you are sat at a computer screen all day, it's useful to be sat facing a window. That way at various times when taking a break, you can look outside which apparently relaxes the eye muscles.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions