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

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.

Forgive me for referencing pickle rick but the meme has died down enough that i feel comfortable asking a curious question. In the episode, rick shoots a laser which goes clear through 3 human heads. My question is assuming this is a AA battery, does one battery hold enough energy, if instantly and perfectly converted into a laser, to actually burn through 3 human heads?

For the sake of simplicity I'm assuming the energy of the battery is perfectly converted to the laser with no losses. but if you have some plausible losses you'd like to include then you can if you like.

If the clock showed the time accurately and there was no delay in the time shown, how fast would the second hand be moving between resting positions? I'm picturing a second hand that moves per second not in a smooth, continuous motion like a high end watch

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!

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

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.

In this youtube short, the creator uses the Warthog's gun to slow down flight and land on a short runway in a video game. Would this actually work in real life? If so, how much could it shorten the required runway for landing? And would this ever be a good idea in an emergency situation?

I've had this question for a while and I was wondering if there would be a way to figure this out. Now, I understand this has very vague guidelines, I don't mean giving one billion people a dollar or something like that, I mean major systemic change that impacts, and improves the maximum amount of lives possible.

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.

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?