I bet you didn't know that this thread would have a part 2

New Home · 23-05-2021 10:14am

I also hope he never attemped it again....

23-05-2021 11:36am

Why 4?!

How could you observe all 4 at once? Why not start with one?

mikhail · 23-05-2021 3:59pm

https://web.archive.org/web/20000815202738/http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_190.html

Maybe the discussion in the past page or so of this thread was inspired by some earlier post along the same lines. If so, and I'm repeating an earlier discussion, apologies. There's evidence that cats often survive (perhaps with serious injuries) ridiculously high falls unaided by parachute. The article linked above discusses a report of survival stats of cats falling from skyscrapers. Pretty much anything over around 7 stories seemed to survive because their terminal velocity is around half of ours and they're able to right themselves.

Also, here's an utterly bizarre video of cats being dropped under weightless conditions:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/transcoded/a/a1/BIOASTRONAUTICS_RESEARCH_Gov.archives.arc.68700.ogv/BIOASTRONAUTICS_RESEARCH_Gov.archives.arc.68700.ogv.480p.vp9.webm#t=00:03:37,00:04:09

Adyx · 23-05-2021 8:35pm

mikhail wrote: »

https://web.archive.org/web/20000815202738/http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_190.html

Maybe the discussion in the past page or so of this thread was inspired by some earlier post along the same lines. If so, and I'm repeating an earlier discussion, apologies. There's evidence that cats often survive (perhaps with serious injuries) ridiculously high falls unaided by parachute. The article linked above discusses a report of survival stats of cats falling from skyscrapers. Pretty much anything over around 7 stories seemed to survive because their terminal velocity is around half of ours and they're able to right themselves.

Also, here's an utterly bizarre video of cats being dropped under weightless conditions:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/transcoded/a/a1/BIOASTRONAUTICS_RESEARCH_Gov.archives.arc.68700.ogv/BIOASTRONAUTICS_RESEARCH_Gov.archives.arc.68700.ogv.480p.vp9.webm#t=00:03:37,00:04:09

Bizarre or hilarious...

cdeb · 23-05-2021 11:06pm

Fred Davis first played the World Snooker Championships in 1937. He lost a qualifying round to a guy called Bill Withers, and his brother Joe - who had won every title to that point - considered this a family embarrassment and duly beat Withers 30-1 in the first round proper.

Fred was still playing professionally in 1993 at the age of 79, and lost 5-1 to a teenage Ronnie O'Sullivan in qualifying for the Grand Prix event.

seagull · 24-05-2021 12:37pm

Candie wrote: »

Friday night saw the 21st hour
of the 21st day
of the 21st week
of the 21st year
of the 21st century.

21st day of the week?

Capt'n Midnight · 24-05-2021 12:43pm

LarryGraham · 24-05-2021 12:49pm

Candie wrote: »

We're leaving out the month. It's the 21st week. And if that's not good enough for you I just don't know what to say.

This is why we can't have nice things.

I HOPE YOU'RE HAPPY!

/flounce

Yeah, mea culpa. I just can't help myself.

At least I didn't erroneously suggest it's the 22nd year of the 21st century. To keep the the thread on track, there was no Year 0. Our year numbering system was "invented" in Europe in the 6th century. The number zero didn't "arrive" in Europe until a few hundred years later.

fergiesfolly · 24-05-2021 12:51pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Also works with Guinness and curries.
Don't ask me how I know, I just do.

LarryGraham · 24-05-2021 1:07pm

And on the subject of zero. While as a number, zero is a useful concept it's as a digit it comes into its own. Without it we couldn't use our numbering system as you would not be able to differentiate between 12,102 and 120, say.

Our numbering system is amazingly efficient. 45 + 54 = 99. Relatively easy! Would have been a nightmare in a Roman primary school. XLV + LIV = XCIX

I can't even begin to put my head around how they did simple addiction.

jasonb · 24-05-2021 1:08pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Scuba divers kinda* do that too. If you get yourself neutrally buoyant while scuba diving, so that you're neither sinking or ascending, then breathing out can help you descend and breathing in can help you ascend. Basically you should be gently bobbing up and down as you breathe in and out.

*ok, so it's not the same really, but I still think it's interesting...

ohnonotgmail · 24-05-2021 1:47pm

LarryGraham wrote: »

And on the subject of zero. While as a number, zero is a useful concept it's as a digit it comes into its own. Without it we couldn't use our numbering system as you would not be able to differentiate between 12,102 and 120, say.

Our numbering system is amazingly efficient. 45 + 54 = 99. Relatively easy! Would have been a nightmare in a Roman primary school. XLV + LIV = XCIX I can't even begin to put my head around how they did simple addiction.

they didn't use roman numerals that way. If they wanted to do addition they did it on an abacus. they only used roman numerals for recording the result.

ohnonotgmail · 24-05-2021 1:48pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Why 4?!

How could you observe all 4 at once? Why not start with one?

Not the first problem with the experiment that occurred to me.

LarryGraham · 24-05-2021 2:38pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they didn't use roman numerals that way. If they wanted to do addition they did it on an abacus. they only used roman numerals for recording the result.

From my understanding, it is believed that they converted the Roman numerals into the abacus did the sum and converted back to the numerals. The Indo-Arabic numbering systems does this without the converting.

Despite their impressive engineering feats the Romans didn't contribute much to mathematics.

silliussoddius · 24-05-2021 2:49pm

LarryGraham wrote: »

And on the subject of zero. While as a number, zero is a useful concept it's as a digit it comes into its own. Without it we couldn't use our numbering system as you would not be able to differentiate between 12,102 and 120, say.

Our numbering system is amazingly efficient. 45 + 54 = 99. Relatively easy! Would have been a nightmare in a Roman primary school. XLV + LIV = XCIX I can't even begin to put my head around how they did simple addiction.

Does anyone know why a species with ten fingers and thumbs ended using 12 times tables in maths class instead of something more base 10 orientated?

New Home · 24-05-2021 2:54pm

Because in some countries they don't use whole digits to count, but every phalanx of each finger and other parts of their hands, too.

Evade · 24-05-2021 3:25pm

I saw a video a while ago, I'm pretty sure it was on Numberphile, and part of it was about a tribe of people that counted using finger and thumb joints including knuckles on one hand > wrist > elbow > shoulder > neck then back down the other arm finishing on the finger joints. That comes to 35 but if I remember correctly their count came to 37 so I've left out something they counted on.

So, for example, if they caught 17 fish one day they'd say something like "I caught a left shoulder of fish."

Professor Moriarty · 24-05-2021 3:28pm

Evade wrote: »

I saw a video a while ago, I'm pretty sure it was on Numberphile, and part of it was about a tribe of people that counted using finger and thumb joints including knuckles on one hand > wrist > elbow > shoulder > neck then back down the other arm finishing on the finger joints. That comes to 35 but if I remember correctly their count came to 37 so I've left out something they counted on.

So, for example, if they caught 17 fish one day they'd say something like "I caught a left shoulder of fish."

Women could count to 37 and men to 38.

cdeb · 24-05-2021 3:35pm

silliussoddius wrote: »

Does anyone know why a species with ten fingers and thumbs ended using 12 times tables in maths class instead of something more base 10 orientated?

More flexible I think?

6 is a perfect number. 12 is divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. 10 is harder to work with in terms of dividing things out.

(That's in addition to the counting your knuckles rather than fingers bit)

ohnonotgmail · 24-05-2021 3:43pm

LarryGraham wrote: »

From my understanding, it is believed that they converted the Roman numerals into the abacus did the sum and converted back to the numerals. The Indo-Arabic numbering systems does this without the converting.

Is that not what I said?

Oink · 24-05-2021 3:46pm

cdeb wrote: »

More flexible I think?

6 is a perfect number. 12 is divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. 10 is harder to work with in terms of dividing things out.

(That's in addition to the counting your knuckles rather than fingers bit)

I normally blame the Brits as a reflex, but it works out wonderfully in this scenario.

LarryGraham · 24-05-2021 4:09pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Is that not what I said?

Apologies if that's a misinterpretation from me.

Anyway my point is about the efficiency of the Indo-Arabic numbering system when it comes mathematical operations. This system only works because someone came up with the simple idea to use zero as a positional digit. The clunkiness of using Roman numerals is just something I'm using an an example to explain good the Indo-Arabic system is (and we're only talking addition here, forget about long division using Roman numerals without the abacus).

Capt'n Midnight · 24-05-2021 8:19pm

silliussoddius wrote: »

Does anyone know why a species with ten fingers and thumbs ended using 12 times tables in maths class instead of something more base 10 orientated?

Imperial measures use lots of prime numbers. 12 is one of the saner measures.

there are NOT 12
pints in a gallon
ounces in a pound
pound in a stone
stone in a hundredweight
feet in a yard or fathom or furlong

BTW 1 rod is 16.5 feet.

Base 60 has the advantage that it can be easily be divided by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30

cdeb · 24-05-2021 8:34pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Imperial measures use lots of prime numbers.

Does it? I don't think it does. None of the examples you gave are prime for example except for feet in a yard, and 3 is a fairly small number and not that hard to work with.

Capt'n Midnight · 24-05-2021 8:55pm

cdeb wrote: »

Does it? I don't think it does. None of the examples you gave are prime for example except for feet in a yard, and 3 is a fairly small number and not that hard to work with.

11 is in the 22 yards in a chain

cdeb · 24-05-2021 9:25pm

Well in that case 5 is in the 100cm in a metre?

Capt'n Midnight · 24-05-2021 10:40pm

When the Romans left Britain there were 5,000 feet in a mile. 1,000 five foot long paces.

A mine is now 5280 feet = 2x2x2x2x2 x 3 x 5 x 11 because of how good oxen are at ploughing.

Capt'n Midnight · 24-05-2021 10:41pm

cdeb wrote: »

Well in that case 5 is in the 100cm in a metre?

How many digits do most people have at the end of each limb ?

silliussoddius · 24-05-2021 10:48pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

How many digits do most people have at the end of each limb ?

Holds up two fingers to give Roman response.

Capt'n Midnight · 24-05-2021 11:32pm

silliussoddius wrote: »

Holds up two fingers to give Roman response.

Fingers crossed eh ?

cdeb · 25-05-2021 7:09am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

How many digits do most people have at the end of each limb ?

Not sure what the point is?

You can't say Imperial uses a lot of prime numbers and then give a factor in reply. Every number can be broken down into prime factors. Why not point out that a metre is = 2*2*5*5 for example?

(And don't forget we've also seen that fingers weren't the only counting methods)

Capt'n Midnight · 25-05-2021 11:57am

cdeb wrote: »

Not sure what the point is?

silliussoddius wrote: »

Does anyone know why a species with ten fingers and thumbs ended using 12 times tables in maths class instead of something more base 10 orientated?

If we only counted on fingers. We'd have octal and computers would be more intuitive. And binary maths means multiplication and division and logs are way easier.

And blame the fish. Early tetrapods had more digits than we have, smaller ones lost their digits and they conquered the land. And that's why we use base 10.

And grass is green because it was green algae that conquered the land. Not the purple-sulphur bacteria, not the golden or red or brown algae or the blue-green cyanobacteria etc.

cdeb · 25-05-2021 12:14pm

I have honestly no idea what you're on about now!

ohnonotgmail · 25-05-2021 12:48pm

cdeb wrote: »

I have honestly no idea what you're on about now!

me neither. says that imperial measurements are based on prime numbers when that is clearly not true. when pressed for an example says 22 rods in a chain because 22 divided by 2 is 11 and 11 is a prime number.

New Home · 26-05-2021 2:33pm

New Home · 26-05-2021 2:37pm

New Home · 26-05-2021 5:59pm

Realt Dearg Sec · 26-05-2021 6:56pm

New Home wrote: »

Were there other foods that weren't rationed though? Like I don't see bread there, but presumably they were eating some of it.

My dad was born a couple of years after the war and rationing was still ongoing in Ireland. He said his birth was very welcome in the house because it entitled them to an extra ration book.

ohnonotgmail · 26-05-2021 7:12pm

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Were there other foods that weren't rationed though? Like I don't see bread there, but presumably they were eating some of it.

My dad was born a couple of years after the war and rationing was still ongoing in Ireland. He said his birth was very welcome in the house because it entitled them to an extra ration book.

fruit and veg were never rationed. Bread was never rationed during the war though bread rationing was introduced after the end of the war.

Sleepy · 26-05-2021 7:15pm

Plenty, and most families would have produced some amount of their own food whether from keeping livestock or fowl, growing veg etc.

cdeb · 26-05-2021 7:30pm

Spuds in particular were far more a staple food than usual.

Problem for Britain is that it couldn't (and still can't) feed itself. We don't have that problem here - yet we nearly had a famine here in 1946. Heavy rains meant the harvest very nearly failed, and with shortages in Europe from the east, we couldn't import either. Tens of thousands of people from the city went to volunteer on the farms and help as best they could. It was a national emergency; even sporting events like the League of Ireland were postponed so the players could help out with the harvest.

You can watch a bit about it (including contemporary colourised film, remarkably) on the RTÉ archives - https://www.rte.ie/archives/exhibitions/2257-on-the-farm/642282-harvest-emergency/

roosterman71 · 26-05-2021 7:32pm

cdeb wrote: »

Tens of thousands of people from the city went to volunteer on the farms and help as best they could. It was a national emergency; even sporting events like the League of Ireland were postponed so the players could help out with the harvest.

Would that happen today? I'll stick my neck on the line and say it wouldn't.

Gloomtastic! · 26-05-2021 7:56pm

roosterman71 wrote: »

Would that happen today? I'll stick my neck on the line and say it wouldn't.

They were probably Dubs who had come from the country originally and went to help out parents/relatives.

The mechanisation of farming since probably means they wouldn’t need us.

roosterman71 · 26-05-2021 8:24pm

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

They were probably Dubs who had come from the country originally and went to help out parents/relatives.

The mechanisation of farming since probably means they wouldn’t need us.

True in a lot of farms I guess. Would still need fruit pickers, etc.
I wasn't having a go at Dubs or city people there. I'd reckon the majority of people not directly involved in farming would be very reluctant to help out

cdeb · 26-05-2021 8:32pm

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

They were probably Dubs who had come from the country originally and went to help out parents/relatives.

The mechanisation of farming since probably means they wouldn’t need us.

Yeah, this alright.

I think people were worried they'd be more hindrance than help back then too though, which is reassuring to see.

LostinBlanch · 27-05-2021 1:43pm

I heard a radio programme about the Clement Atlee (labour) government elected to power in in the UK in July 1945. The entire cabinet decided to come here for their holidays and one of the reasons given was the lack of rationing compared to the UK.

I wasn't aware that there was any rationing here after WW2, but it must have been a lot less than across the water.

mikhail · 27-05-2021 6:54pm

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

They were probably Dubs who had come from the country originally and went to help out parents/relatives.

The mechanisation of farming since probably means they wouldn’t need us.

I think part of the problem was that there'd been so much rain that what little mechanisation that was there was making a mess of any field it was put into. I don't know if modern farms have better drainage, but I'd guess they probably somewhat do on average.

The switch from hay to silage made a big difference to how much animal fodder depended on good weather - it took days and days of dry weather to save the hay, while you can bale silage in the rain if you want to. I don't know if there's anything similar with food crops; my relatives didn't grow any when I was a kid.

Capt'n Midnight · 27-05-2021 11:40pm

cdeb · 28-05-2021 12:21am

You'll have heard of the Rwandan genocide in 1994 of course, but maybe quite how bad it was.

For three months, around 8,000 people per day were killed, in a country the size of Munster. That's about twice the daily rate of deaths during the Holocaust, which was across the whole of Europe of course. Or about five times the rate in Cambodia. More than 10% of the country's population were butchered, and it messed around with life expectancy stats, which dropped to 23 years.

The population of Rwanda now is almost twice its pre-genocide peak.

joujoujou · 31-05-2021 12:56pm

I bet you didn't know that this thread would have a part 2

Comments