Is this a rope hanging under a helicopter?
(midwest.social)
Silverchase
Science Memes0 is a constant speed.
The loss virus is only triggered when the picture makes no sense. So this one took a while
Fuck!!! It took me waaaaay too long to get this shit. I'm at a loss as to why I didn't see it immediately.
Why would they even put D ... ah fuck!
The answer is D because there's no indication that the rope is untied. The helicopter starts his trajectory but loses control and spins out and crashes, this is the hidden frame
Sounds like that could lead to loss. Of life.
~~:.|:;~~
Dammit
~~Why are there two images for B, C and~~
goddammit.
Oh goddammit.
Im glad my own path to despair has been walked by others.
šš®āšØ
?
Loss
This one was still over my head, but you gave me just enough to look it up. For anyone similarly confused.
I commend you for making it this far on the internet without encountering it.
why is she wearing glasses without, eh... glasses? š
Fucking ell...
Daaaaamn
I lost the game
I'm at a complete loss.
Fuuuuuuuck.
C
Which C?
C(2) since it is stated that the cable of uniform construction. unfortunately, i have to assume forward motion of the helicopter and that it is not in a vacuum
One has to assume the body of the helicopter is a perfectly spherical cow.
~~Both~~. The first c when the heli is flying at a constant speed. The 2nd one when it's accelerating.
Edit: problem description said constant speed, so that means the first one.
I'm gonna say 1st. The propeller blows downwards so it would have that effect on the upper portion of the rope.
That's a fair point but its also unclear how that would actually affect the rope. The rotor blades spin faster on the outside of their sweep, so they are driving the air downwards more powerfully there, although the rope is farther below the blades.
For people wanting the answer this was the subject of a Veritasium video.
::: spoiler for people who don't want to click the link It's B. :::
there are 2 answers depicted under the option you claim to be correct. one of those answers is indeed correct, but it is not really clear which one from your comment.
::: spoiler clear answer it is the straight diagonal. :::
Donāt support Veritasium
What's the story? What'd they do?
I hate this so much,
Someone is mentioned on Lemmy and there is always a drive by comment saying don't support X or X is a bad person with no context whatsoever. No mention of what specifically they are accused of doing/saying, no way to figure out if that clashes with your values or not, no documentation etc.
And subjectively it feels like half the time I research why this might be true it's debatable at best, I assume because if there was compelling evidence the person doing the drive by would have linked it.
I should start replying to random shit with "don't support X" with no context or followup
Don't support u/Agent641
Lemmy sometimes feels like one big ball of barely seething social outrage.
That's most of the internet these days
Personally I've noticed topics covered by smaller content creators, explaining almost the exact same thing (minus maybe a few details like some random guy's age), uploaded a few weeks before, and then suddenly Veritasium decides to cover the topic with basically the exact same info over a longer time span.
Not to mention the clickbait titles and thumbnails, less focus on the technical side of topics and more on the emotional/personal side, and the whole selling out to private equity thing.
Aren't they also bought out by private equity?
Veritasium themselves has a video on the topic, they've indeed sold parts to investors
Sold out to some venture capital firm.
I didnāt know he did that. He was shit long before that. Hereās my comment:
He created fake science experiments to sell products and slipped them into normal videos, like the video where he claimed wet wipes are flushable, then created a fake experiment āprovingā they were flushable. Heās incredibly untrustworthy and also, not a scientist! Heās an art major or business, canāt remember which.
He created fake science experiments to sell products and slipped them into normal videos, like the video where he claimed wet wipes are flushable, then created a fake experiment āprovingā they were flushable. Heās incredibly untrustworthy and also, not a scientist! Heās an art major or business, canāt remember which.
According to Wikipedia
In 2004, Muller graduated fromĀ Queen's University inĀ Kingston, Ontario, with a Bachelor of Applied ScienceĀ in Engineering Physics. Muller moved to Australia to study film-making; however, he instead enrolled for a PhD in physics education research from theĀ University of Sydney, which he completed in 2008 with the thesis,Ā Designing Effective Multimedia for Physics Education.
He himself claimed heās not a scientist so /shrug
you yourself said he is an art or business major, so, you know, fuck off and stop trying to spin your lies.
Iām not trying to spin anything. He literally made a video where he states he is a liberal arts or business major. Iām not going to go find it cause Iām not going to support him. You can either support the liar or not, I donāt give a fuck. You can also either believe Wikipedia or his own mouth.
He is correct: Having a Bachelor in science does not make one a scientist unless actively pursuing research. He has a solid science background but like many others with science diplomas, he's not a scientist. He is an entertainer, like all YouTube science channel figureheads unless their daily job is at a lab ( and even then: they are not necessarily talking about subjects they know well, science is a wide area of knowledge).
He is an entertainer
I'll preface this by saying I don't particularly like the direction the channel has gone. He's sold out big time, as described by many comments above (both literally, by selling the channel to VC, and metaphorically, by selling out whole videos and the integrity of their content to advertisers as the Tom Nicholas video explains). And his ties to grifters like Colin Grey and Philipp Dettmer (of CGP Grey and Kurzgesagt fame) definitely don't work in his favour.
But that said, I think this comment you made is a bit reductive. He has a PhD in effective science communication. He can legitimately claim expertise in communicating science to the public via YouTube in a way most popsci content cannot. Obviously not the same as doing scientific research himself, but he also doesn't claim to be doing that.
To be fair some wet wipes are flushable (as in they disintegrate when flushed), the problem is that not all of them are and there's no standard they have to adhere to, so even the ones that shouldn't be flushed are allowed to advertise themselves as flushable.
No thatās literally the experiment that Derek did. He āshowedā that the wet wipes ādisintegratedā. What they actually did was break apart under a large weight he put on top of them. Thatās not what happens in a sewage system. Along with that, unless they completely dissolve they will still cause issues as the broken up strands.
Unless you are a civil engineer you should not be deciding what goes in a sewer. And no one making wet wipes are civil engineers.
I haven't seen his experiment and don't really care what he did. Other independent experiments have shown that some wet wipes do disintegrate. The reason authorities recommend against their use is what I said: there is no standard for what constitutes "flushable" and the industry is rife with false advertising.
Here's some plumbing YouTube guy testing a bunch of them and finding some that do disintegrate while others do not: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVijZZ2yAtc
Of course the best option is a bidet, but this is as of yet unknown technology to most Americans.
So I just watched that video and Iām sorry, but that dude is just as bad as Veritasium.
Letās cover some of the bad science:
- What is this 24 hour time limit for these wipes sitting in water? Clogs happen in sewage systems immediately, not 24 hours later. And it doesnāt even take that long for sewage to move through a proper system anyway, so any clogs would happen at the processing facility where they are worst, not in ātwists and turnsā like this guy says
- He literally hides what happens to the toilet paper when he flushes it, but he didnāt hide it very well. You can see in later shots (like at 8:26 in the top right) that the toilet paper literally broke up by the time it made it to the concrete. That is how itās supposed to work. The rest failed by the time they hit the concrete.
- He shakes the mason jars before opening them, then claims it is to āsimulate the twists and turnsā. This dude is just lying out his ass. Do you know the number of turns before you get from a toilet to the street? Itās like 3. I think every toilet in my house actually only has 1 or 2, depending on which floor. Shaking these up is so badly messing with the experiment. And guess what! Theyāre still completely intact! But the toilet paper one he barely shakes and yet itās completely dissolved.
And hereās where we find out what heās looking for: 12:20. Heās seeing whether these will make it through a house plumbing system. NOT a city sewer system.
Guess what. That same guy has this video from 4 months ago: https://youtu.be/6CQ5rMRvn8I. The title: āThe Lie of Flushable Wipesā. He proceeds to say no flushable wipe is safeā¦wait for itā¦except the brand heās selling. And he directly refutes all the bits of the exact tests he ran two years ago. He even says āyour sewer system doesnāt agitate the wipes, itās like a lazy river, slowly turningā.
Think of it this way. The wipes are wet in the package theyāre sold to you in. If they havenāt disintegrated in the packaging, theyāre not disintegrating in the sewage system. Else they would just sell you wet toilet paper.
There's no standard they have to adhere to, but there are certifications you can look for that guarantee they break up properly.
Dont know if theres anything else, but I've seen the criticism covered in this Tom Nicholas video. I still watch Veritasium though.
I know they've been wrong a couple times. Take anything the channel says with some salt.
like you hopefully do with all things you see online, right?
Right right. Point being they've been proven wrong.
And why would that be?
Personally, I just don't like the guy and his vibes. But I wouldn't tell random people online to avoid him, he's not that bad.
There was also that self-driving car video which turned out to be really scummy.
He created fake science experiments to sell products and slipped them into normal videos, like the video where he claimed wet wipes are flushable, then created a fake experiment āprovingā they were flushable. Heās incredibly untrustworthy and also, not a scientist! Heās an art major or business, canāt remember which.
people are annoyed that he sold to a venture capital business
but then not realizing that so far, their quality improved, while also releasing more videos
production value increased, quality took a nose dive.
i liked his older videos far more, so quality is definitely subjective. it was one guy's channel about physics with specific vibe, now it is just general channel about everything, indistinguishable from all the other science channels...
which is funny because that's most established content on YT, whether you realize it or not.
people still think that youtubers with 100k+ subs do all the work themselves
Edit: sorry people, santa is also not real
absolutely not, but not all are owned by venture capital
Don't support shitty youtube. It sucks since googol bought it.
Thatās the number not the company.
Don't support shitty youtube. It sucks since googol bought it.
It's a meme.
Don't support shitty youtube. It sucks since googol bought it.
You are literally 20 years late with this opinion.
Donāt tell me what to do.
Especially, donāt tell me what to do, without a functional alternative, and most certainly without giving me a good reason to do it.
And absolutely donāt tell me what to do without giving me a reason or functional alternative multiple times in low effort copy pasta comments.
those are actually not helicopters those are spherical cows
riding skis!
friction-less skis with zero thickness
Got me good there.
B
^
Letter D is perfect for what's being described thereby: D for "Disaster", "Dying", "Drowning" if the helicopter is flying next to the sea. It could be letter S, too, for "stall", "smashing onto the ground" or, if this acute pitch exerted onto the aircraft was deliberately maneuvered by the pilot themselves, a seven-letter word starting with the letter S.
