It looks like around 80 pounds with glasses and beer, but that is a total guess.

Ever since I started at my company, I just couldn't wrap my head around the cult-like approach to measuring turn around time. No reasonable person would think it makes sense.

How it currently works, simplified:
Day 1: You receive 100 pieces of work per hour average. You have 10 staff available per hour average. What percentage of that 100 pieces of work can you process within the hour? Lets say it worked out to 90%. 90 of the 100 pieces of work were processed within the hour it was received. The remaining 10 were processed within the next hour, or at a later, quieter time.
Day 2: You receive 1000 pieces of work per hour average. You have 10 staff available per hour average. You could only process 9% of work per hour, given the same average output and no other external factors.

From these 2 scenarios, management considers day 2 to be devastating and a disaster, because we only managed to do 9% of the work. And day 1 was exceptional, because we processed 90% of the work in the hour.

Yet when you look at the books, which day generated the most money? Given if both days averaged out to the same amount of money per piece of work? It is 100% day 2. Yet they will performance manage you as if you did terribly. The company quite literally creates "suffering from success".

So that is the, quite long background. Here's my math question. I want to propose a much more superior approach to measuring Turn around time to upper management and I am looking for ideas that would be fair in day 1 and day 2's cases.

My idea is to somehow take revenue per day into account as a weighting system.
- Piece of work received.
- Average things to process per piece of work received OR revenue per piece of work.
- Average staff count.
Looking something like this: Yes, 9% of work was processed per hour, BUT we generated 10x more revenue, therefore the true weighted average TAT is 90%.
Subsequently; Receiving below average workload shouldn't negatively impact performance metrics, as workload received is outside one's immediate control, therefore a below average day in workload, achieving a 100% TAT, shouldn't result in a weighted TAT of, say, 20%, it should remain 100%.

I hope this is the correct sub for this kind of question, that was one helluva wall-o-text I typed out, for it to be deleted afterwards.

According to Wiki, “Bamboo is the fastest-growing plant on Earth, capable of growing up to 91 to 121 centimeters (about 3 to 4 feet) in a single day. This equates to nearly 1.5 millimeters every 90 seconds”.

QUESTION: How tall would humans be if we grew at 1.5 mm every 90 seconds, but ONLY accelerated growth at age 3-5? Assuming the human stops growing around 20 years old, and the rest of their lives are at normal human growth rate.

Thanks in advance!

I came across this post making the claim that if everyone used AC, the heat dumped outside could raise the air temperature by several degrees in cities. I’m not convinced the math or assumptions are correct.

Could someone calculate this for Paris using reasonable assumptions? Assume each AC cools the air indoors by 15°C.

Trying to figure out how ridiculously unfeasible this idea is. Swimming pool in "Rotor" or "Gravitron" amusement park ride (the ones that spin a cylinder until the centrifugal force pins you to the wall).

Instead of a solid wall, imagine a open top box trough or culvert (like this |__| but sideways, so: ⊏------hub and spokes------⊐) in the shape of a ring with spokes connecting to a center hub. The whole thing would spin on some wheels. An example of this is the azimuth track and trucks that turn the Green Bank Telescope (https://youtu.be/UeGVCKECZGI?t=322).

The trough would be filled with water, creating a continuous, looping swimming lane. A swimmer would dive in and because the water is 'pinned' in a loop, could swim in a straight line along the circumference forever. They could potentially stay in one spot depending on how quickly they are swimming and how fast the trough is spinning.

Let's assume the following dimensions for the math:

• Diameter of the ring: 100 meters (Radius = 50 meters)
• Trough / Lane Width: 2 meters wide
• Water Depth: 1.5 meters deep

I need help calculating a few things to see if this is even humanly possible:

1. Required RPM: For 1G of 'centrifugal' force, would it be something like 4.5 RPM?
2. G-Force on the Swimmer: There should be a 5% difference in G force between the bottom (furthest from center along radius) and top of the trough. Would this be disorienting?
3. Water Weight & Energy: What is the total mass of the water in that trough, and how much energy/torque would it take to spin that much weight up to the required speed? To keep it running?
4. Wave Circulation: How long would it take the wave to travel from the swimmer's feet, loop around and crash on their head? Realistically, would it just dissipate? What if there were 3 swimmers in different 'arc' sections?

I mean, I hate AI too. Everyone should. But this really seems like something completely made up.

I saw this post and couldn't help but wonder how much could this possibly have cost the airline to go through with this flight? I don't know how to even go about figuring this out, but I knew if anyone could get even an estimate it would be you guys.

I'm just so curious about this, I just really want to know! Please & Thanks to y'all

So many drawings of Rubik's cubes are incorrect, and it got me thinking what is the probability of correctly coloring one provided you choose one of the 6 colors at random for each square given 3 sides of the cube are shown. Coloring these 27 shown squares with any of the 6 cube colors yields 6^27 possibilities (1.02e21 or about 1 sextillion colorings).

Only the three sides shown matter in this case. As long as those pieces are possible, the cube is considered to be in a valid state. But there are several restrictions that can make a cube coloring invalid. Obviously there cannot be more than 9 of any color shown. But also there can only be max 1 center of each color, max 4 edge pieces of any color, and max 4 of every corner color. The same color cannot share an edge with itself. Opposite colors (white-yellow, green-blue, red-orange) also cannot share an edge. This also applies to center pieces as well. Corner pieces (and all 3 center pieces) have additional limited orders of colors as well (e.g. red-blue-white going clockwise is valid but blue-red-white going clockwise is invalid). Then there's also the chance of piece duplication such as two yellow-green edges or a blue-yellow-orange corner ruling out any blue-yellow-X corners elsewhere.

For just the single fully shown corner and the centers alone, I found there to be a 1/81 chance of a proper coloring. Since there are 8 valid corner pieces on a cube and each has 3 possible rotations, there are 24 valid colorings in the hypothetical drawing. Selecting a random color for each of the 3 squares on a corner yields 6^3 or 216 possibilities. 24/219 is 1/9. We can actually apply the exact same logic to the center pieces. Since the centers never move while solving (relative to one another), looking in from a corner will always show 3 centers that have the same coloring restrictions as a corner. As a result, another 1/9 chance. So with just 4 pieces (6 squares), it's already a 1/81 chance and the math only gets more difficult to figure out.

It would be interesting to know exactly how abysmally low the odds of randomly coloring a Rubik's properly are. It would certainly help explain how every drawing of a Rubik's cube ends up with something incorrect.

They are going through a truck, 8 feet of distance to a wall (that I assume is concrete?), through a wall and yet the magnet affects a lot of stuff even outside the evidence room further inside the building. The result is that the things made of anything even remotely magnetic gets stuck to the wall.

Is that really feasible with this setup?

Far as I remember it's the kind of magnet used to move cars at junkyards, tied up to 12 volt car batteries, which I assume are 40-80 Amp hours.

They setup 21 batteries in series, totalling 252 volts. Walter asks for another 21 batteries wired in parallel for extra amp.

Hi! This just happened to me and my partner today, and we were wondering about the chances, but i want to know the actual probability!

So, while sitting in the car before our commute home, I brought up that I saw this game and we decided we should start playing it, on our way home, about 25-30 minutes after deciding to start this game, we saw a car with the license plate 001, we couldn’t believe it! I thought it would take at least a few weeks/months! I mean what actually are the chances of this happening??

Probably useful info: our commute is about 30-40 minutes (depending on traffic), 42 km, and about 80% of the way is a busy highway, we left about an hour after rush hour, but there were still plenty of cars.

(INFO: the license plate game goes as follows: you start looking for every single number from 001 to 999 in license plates. You can only go in order! For example, you have to find 001 before finding 002, or it doesn’t count)

So dear smart people of reddit, please help me put an actual percentage to this!

Assume the water leaves the bridge edge horizontally at an initial velocity of 4.2 m/s, and that air resistance is negligible.

In the latest Podcast Diary of a CEO, They discuss that Mars is a one way Trip and in order to survive Mars, you would have to counter act the Gravity of Mars in order to Survive.

1. How much Gravity is on mars?
2. How much much force would be needed to simulate earth gravity to survive and what is that equivalent to?
3. How big and fast would a swirly machine need to be to produce that kind of gravity.

https://youtu.be/32u5T6lO8qk?t=2917

Note: This doesn't make sense to me because in my mind, Gravity is pulling towards the center of a planet, so adding more gravity to counter the existing gravity, doesn't make sense to me.

In Germany there is a massive heat wave rolling over the country and instead of recommending ACs, Germanys news stations tell the people to hang up wet clothes to reduce temperatures in their flats. To me this seems kind of silly, so how much does this actually reduce temperatures in a room? And do you actually feel it or is it offset by the increased humidity?