Ask me (***ALMOST***) A N Y T H I N G about E V E R T H I N G (Mastermind for Success)

[Vigilante]

"Three... It takes three licks to get to the center of a tootsie pop"

Correct. No rep+ awarded though.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[SquatchMan]

Why is ice slippery when completely frozen and not wet? Yet a comparable solid surface like a flat rock is not slippery.

When you step on ice it causes pressure melting, which creates a liquid and makes the ice slippery. This is how ice skating works.

The blade causes the ice to melt allowing you to glide across the now wet ice in a nice little groove.

A flat rock won't change to water when you step on it, but if you put water on a flat rock it will still become slippery.

 

[jon.a]

It looks like the old guys are doing so well that we don't need the new guy.

 

[Vigilante]

When you step on ice it causes pressure melting, which creates a liquid and makes the ice slippery. This is how ice skating works.

The blade causes the ice to melt allowing you to glide across the now wet ice in a nice little groove.

A flat rock won't change to water when you step on it, but if you put water on a flat rock it will still become slippery.

So here's why that doesn't hold. Non-wet ice (frozen solid ice) is still slippery. Sub zero ice that doesn't contain any liquid form H2O is still slippery. So the "you're actually slipping on water" theory doesn't hold.

Next?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[G-Man]

Is it possible for a person to know anything about everything or everything about anything?

How much of anything does one have to know about everything to be a self-described mastermind? Everything?

 

[Vigilante]

Is it possible for a person to know anything about everything or everything about anything?

How much of anything does one have to know about everything to be a self-described mastermind? Everything?

Or... nothing.

 

[JAJT]

Next?

Water is strange and doesn't follow the script that nature gives everything else.

It's kind of like the fastlaner of the universe.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Vigilante]

Water is strange and doesn't follow the script that nature gives everything else.

It's kind of like the fastlaner of the universe.

Not enough data.

Next?

 

[Envision]

Does a bear actually shit in the woods?

 

[Vigilante]

Does a bear actually shit in the woods?

I got this one.

Yes.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[G-Man]

Does a bear actually shit in the woods?

Only if no one is around to hear it.

Stage fright.

 

[Vigilante]

Only if no one is around to hear it.

Stage fright.

-3+ rep demerits.

Next.

 

[wade1mil]

so please only ask for serious physical or educational problems or themes .

This is a legitimate problem I've been trying to solve for weeks.
Plus, it's a math problem, not a card problem.
Should be right up your alley.
Evenly distributed 3x3 over 10 cards could be 3,3,4 or 3,4,3 or 4,3,3.
Perhaps I should have said "as evenly distributed as possible."
I'll figure it out, no worries.
Maybe I'll do my own AMA after I do

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Envision]

I got this one.

Yes.

Thank you, it was stressing me out not knowing

 

[TKDTyler]

Why is ice slippery when completely frozen and not wet? Yet a comparable solid surface like a flat rock is not slippery.

We perceive "slippery-ness" as the ease it takes in order for our foot to lose traction - in more technical terms, "sliding" occurs when the directional force applied in parallel to the ground (Force Applied to ground * cosine(angle of force applied)) is greater than the coefficient of friction * the normal force (μ*N).

Coefficient of friction is the varying factor between different materials.

For ice,
μ = .002 to .009
For limestone
μ = .75

(Numbers based off quick google. Sources questionable.)

The Normal force (N) is the
F = mg*cos(theta) where m = mass and g = gravitational force. If the ground is not tilted at all, cos(theta) gives 0, thus the Normal force is just the weight of the object.

So in order to slip,
μ*N > Force * cos(theta) [the force applied along the x axis]

μ*N > mg*cos(theta)

Therefore you can see how the coefficient of friction will affect our perceived slipperiness. The smaller the μ, the less force we can apply before our foot slips across the surface

Pretty sure I recalled that correctly...

Fastlane never disappoints.

I'm really just here for the rep points though

 

[wade1mil]

I'm really just here for the rep points though

Your answer reminds me how the internet is legitimately making the human race smarter, yet dumber at the same time. While we have access to far more knowledge that we would have pre-internet, we also don't have to remember stuff like this because it's only one click away. I've noticed a recession in both my spelling abilities and my ability to solve simple math problems. Rather than spending the minuscule amount of effort working through the problem, I find myself relying on calculators and spellcheckers to handle that for me. Call it micro-outsourcing, if you will.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Walter Hay]

I am rather disappointed to see many frivolous responses to the OP's serious offer. I suggest that members do a little research into the subject of Autism Spectrum Disorder, and it might generate some empathy. It might also lead to some amazing answers to serious questions.

You will note that the OP takes frivolous questions seriously. It seems a shame to waste the potential for real problem solving of real problems.

By even posting on the forum, the OP has already largely overcome one of the major hurdles in the life of an Autistic person. He deserves great credit for that.

Be kind.

Walter

 

[jon.a]

I am rather disappointed to see many frivolous responses to the OP's serious offer. I suggest that members do a little research into the subject of Autism Spectrum Disorder, and it might generate some empathy. It might also lead to some amazing answers to serious questions.

You will note that the OP takes frivolous questions seriously. It seems a shame to waste the potential for real problem solving of real problems.

By even posting on the forum, the OP has already largely overcome one of the major hurdles in the life of an Autistic person. He deserves great credit for that.

Be kind.

Walter

Well said @Walter Hay sometimes we need some adult supervision. I can't tell if the OP left or not.
If not, let's give him a chance. I'm open to being open.

 

[G-Man]

I am rather disappointed to see many frivolous responses to the OP's serious offer. I suggest that members do a little research into the subject of Autism Spectrum Disorder, and it might generate some empathy. It might also lead to some amazing answers to serious questions.

You will note that the OP takes frivolous questions seriously. It seems a shame to waste the potential for real problem solving of real problems.

By even posting on the forum, the OP has already largely overcome one of the major hurdles in the life of an Autistic person. He deserves great credit for that.

Be kind.

Walter

Good god, just re-read the first post and somehow didn't notice that the first time.

OP, sorry for the frivolous question.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[MJ DeMarco]

To OP...

In your opinion, how close are we to the AI singularity? Years? Decades? Centuries?

 

[Alxander]

The science of glass is actually fascinating. It's neither a true liquid nor a true solid. It's somewhere kind of in between called an amorphous solid.

Honestly I wish the education system (or at least the one I went through) taught more about the exceptional forms of matter instead of just the simplified "solid, liquid, gas" forms. Basically all the cool stuff on this page: State of matter - Wikipedia

Heard somewhere that dark matter is actually just some molecules not binded together or something.
Science

To OP...

In your opinion, how close are we to the AI singularity? Years? Decades? Centuries?

IMO decades, once a computer can be smarter than a human brain everything will go singular(lol) from there

 

[TKDTyler]

IMO decades, once a computer can be smarter than a human brain everything will go singular(lol) from there

Once quantum computing comes into full force, algorithmic processing is going to skyrocket.

It'll probably be sooner than we think. Projectionists were saying 2040-2045ish?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[KLaw]

I am rather disappointed to see many frivolous responses to the OP's serious offer. I suggest that members do a little research into the subject of Autism Spectrum Disorder, and it might generate some empathy. It might also lead to some amazing answers to serious questions.

You will note that the OP takes frivolous questions seriously. It seems a shame to waste the potential for real problem solving of real problems.

By even posting on the forum, the OP has already largely overcome one of the major hurdles in the life of an Autistic person. He deserves great credit for that.

Be kind.

Walter

Thank u for calling these guys out. Funny how they all quit posting. Walter. U r a good dude. Thanks.

 

[KLaw]

Good god, just re-read the first post and somehow didn't notice that the first time.

OP, sorry for the frivolous question.

Lol. Really? It was obviously stated in his first two posts. Did u not read?

 

[lowtek]

To OP...

In your opinion, how close are we to the AI singularity? Years? Decades? Centuries?

You didn't ask me, but I've been studying AI and have some thoughts on the topic.

IMO, the question is moot. Most likely, a super intelligence wouldn't do anything. We tend to equate intelligence with problem solving power, but I think it's misguided. More intelligence is really more rationality.

As humans have become more intelligent, we've come up with more and more rational explanations for how nature works. The side effect is that we use that information to maximize our own objective functions (happiness, success, longevity, etc.).

As the 19th century physicists discovered, it's all folly. Entropy reigns supreme, and anything you do only makes it worse. Humans don't tend to care about entropy, because we live such short lives that it's inconsequential. A super rational intelligence wouldn't suffer this defect and could possibly live indefinitely. This would require that it subsume our collective objective function (i.e. solve the problem of aging so humans can live forever) to the one true objective function: minimize the universal increase in entropy.

This could play out in a number of ways:
1) Extinguish all life because it's an entropy increasing machine
2) Simply do nothing, because any action it takes will ultimately increase entropy.

I think choice 2 is the most plausible, as the process for extinguishing all life on Earth would be energetically costly, and the universe will take care of that for it eventually anyway.

All of this assumes the "singularity", as the transhumanists define it, is even possible.

I'm not convinced.

First, they assume that having enough computational power to model the operation of a brain will be equivalent to a brain. I think this is questionable at best. Is simulating the operation of a nuclear weapon the same thing as detonating a nuclear weapon? Of course not. It can give us insights into how a nuke works, but it's not the same thing.

They also assume that a perfectly deterministic substrate (classical computers) would be sufficient to give rise to intelligence / sentience. It could very well be the case that what we consider human intelligence has some sort of inherent quantum mechanical effects that can't be classically modeled. We would therefore need quantum computers, and the appropriate algorithms. This pushes the problem back even further, since we then have to disentangle even deeper physics. As well understood as QM is in simple systems, we aren't even close to knowing how to approach those effects in biological systems.

They also assume that a general intelligence, at the level of about a human, would have a way of improving its own intelligence by leaps and bounds. I could see this being possible, but it is by no means a given. But, for the sake of argument, even if it is possible, we would have no way of verifying it is going on. Just as we can't explain quantum mechanics to a neanderthal, this superior intelligence would have no way to communicate its insights to us. I suppose we could observe what it does and infer that it is on to some next level shit, but how do you know it's not building a way to carry out option 1 that I outlined above?

In the end, I am in the camp that the singularity is just the rapture for nerds. A fantasy that folks have concocted because they're afraid of their own mortality, which is the problem these super intelligences are supposed to solve. As if a super intelligent machine would give a rats a$$ about the life cycle of some primitive mouth breathing primates. Do we lose even a nanosecond of thought over the plight of bacteria? Hardly.

Such a being would be so far beyond us, so alien, that it would be useless at best, or an extinction level event at worst.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[amp0193]

Lol. Really? It was obviously stated in his first two posts. Did u not read?

TBH, the title was so ridiculous that I just skimmed the first post, assuming it troll-worthy, and then quickly scrolled down for some laughs.

Completely missed the bit about being an autistic sevant, as the others did.

My apologies for shitting on your thread, OP.

 

[mguerra]

I am rather disappointed to see many frivolous responses to the OP's serious offer. I suggest that members do a little research into the subject of Autism Spectrum Disorder, and it might generate some empathy. It might also lead to some amazing answers to serious questions.

You will note that the OP takes frivolous questions seriously. It seems a shame to waste the potential for real problem solving of real problems.

By even posting on the forum, the OP has already largely overcome one of the major hurdles in the life of an Autistic person. He deserves great credit for that.

Be kind.

Walter

You are the man. Thanks for this.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

@CapLab

With regards to quantum physics:

Can fundamental particles consist of zero-sized points in space and time, essentially being points of indeterminate size, or would they have a certain minimum size related to Planck's constant?

At the Planck scale, would they have a hypersphere geometry, but be so small as to not have enough room inside to permit anything from the outside to fall into itself?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Scot]

Thank you for stepping in @Walter Hay.

If everyone checks out @CapLab's introduction post you'll see this guy has done some seriously incredible stuff.

Thank you for joining the forum and hope we can move past this thread.

 

[CapLab]

The science of glass is actually fascinating. It's neither a true liquid nor a true solid. It's somewhere kind of in between called an amorphous solid.

Honestly I wish the education system (or at least the one I went through) taught more about the exceptional forms of matter instead of just the simplified "solid, liquid, gas" forms. Basically all the cool stuff on this page: State of matter - Wikipedia

Yeah...

Right, this is one of my favourite themes what i'am talking about

Glass is amorph and not solid, so thats why the glass of a window flow down and make the base of it (like old church window) thicker.

Arxiv.com - my choice if you wanna learn more about matter and his propertys ...

Friendly greets

Heiko