Stupid things I've seen on Yahoo! Answers (but I repeat myself)

https://www.quora.com/Do-American-recipes-taste-better-or-worse-because-they-use-the-imperial-system

There is some argument that using the Imperial system makes cooking easier due to being able to calculate things in your head easier

Someone got dropped on their head as a child.

To be fair, that same person does go on to say

But that is really stretching. In all practical terms, any measurement system will give them same results long as it is used consistently.

• Mobile phones have always existed, haven't they?

• @scarlet_manuka I love how you start off the reply!

• use calories for ... food

Food energy measurements usually use the Calorie, which is 1000 calories or 1 kilocalorie.

• @dcon Thanks! I just added a comment, because I decided to do a search for 1984-era cellphones and found this:

"Somewhere in either Chicago, Baltimore or Washington, someone plunked down \$3,995 to buy the Motorola DynaTAC 8000X, the first handheld cellphone, on March 13, 1984.... We don't know who that first cellphone buyer was."

The article is actually quite interesting.

• @scarlet_manuka Can you edit the Yahoo answer? adding that would link would be funny - at least to us get-off-my-lawn types...

• Food energy measurements usually use the Calorie, which is 1000 calories or 1 kilocalorie.

Which is why, the few times food energy content comes up in conversations I have, I make a point of talking about it in terms of (kilo)joules, just so all the people who think they’re fat, learn.

• Do stupid questions on Quora qualify too?

https://www.quora.com/Shouldnt-C-and-C++-converge-According-to-calculus-when-C-tends-to-infinity-C-C++-C-C+1-tends-to-1-which-means-that-as-both-languages-grow-they-should-converge-Why-hasn’t-it-happened

I'm hoping it's a joke... of course, all the answerers know that QUORA IS SERIOUS BUSINESS so they either miss the joke or intentionally ignore it.

• Do stupid questions on Quora qualify too?

https://www.quora.com/Shouldnt-C-and-C++-converge-According-to-calculus-when-C-tends-to-infinity-C-C++-C-C+1-tends-to-1-which-means-that-as-both-languages-grow-they-should-converge-Why-hasn’t-it-happened

I'm hoping it's a joke... of course, all the answerers know that QUORA IS SERIOUS BUSINESS so they either miss the joke or intentionally ignore it.

`C/C++` is just 1 in most cases. You'd need to do `C/++C` in order for it to actually need the calculus bullshit.

• @antiquarian I wouldn't say it's so bad. There's a huge amount of the 'If evolution is real why do we still have monkeys? Checkmate, atheists!' type questions, which get tirelessly rebutted, but generally it's pretty good.

I can't remember ever telling it what I'm interested in but it sends me good questions about Unity every week, and there are quite a few answers by actual game devs.

If evolution is real why do we still have evolution deniers? Is there some evolutionary advantage to denying evolution?

• Is there some evolutionary advantage to denying evolution?

Too soon to tell. There's not really been enough generations of inheritable evolution denying yet given that it (or its converse) obviously isn't a major heritability factor (unlike a belief in castration at birth, which would be expected to die out rapidly).

• If evolution is real why do we still have evolution deniers? Is there some evolutionary advantage to denying evolution?

In the rest of the world, no. In the US it seems to be a good way of getting tax dollars or fleecing the gullible.

• Do stupid questions on Quora qualify too?

https://www.quora.com/Shouldnt-C-and-C++-converge-According-to-calculus-when-C-tends-to-infinity-C-C++-C-C+1-tends-to-1-which-means-that-as-both-languages-grow-they-should-converge-Why-hasn’t-it-happened

I'm hoping it's a joke... of course, all the answerers know that QUORA IS SERIOUS BUSINESS so they either miss the joke or intentionally ignore it.

`C/C++` is just 1 in most cases. You'd need to do `C/++C` in order for it to actually need the calculus bullshit.

Ehm, no. I'm pretty sure in both C and C++ that is undefined behaviour.

• Do stupid questions on Quora qualify too?

https://www.quora.com/Shouldnt-C-and-C++-converge-According-to-calculus-when-C-tends-to-infinity-C-C++-C-C+1-tends-to-1-which-means-that-as-both-languages-grow-they-should-converge-Why-hasn’t-it-happened

I'm hoping it's a joke... of course, all the answerers know that QUORA IS SERIOUS BUSINESS so they either miss the joke or intentionally ignore it.

`C/C++` is just 1 in most cases. You'd need to do `C/++C` in order for it to actually need the calculus bullshit.

Ehm, no. I'm pretty sure in both C and C++ that is undefined behaviour.

`upvote++`

• I'm pretty sure in both C and C++ that is undefined behaviour.

It's defined in C#…

• @dkf I didn't want to call that out as I wasn't sure, and I don't think C# is too relevant in a C/C++ discussion.

• However, you can be fairly certain that it goes into the water bill, at least...

Not really. No water bill here, since we use well water.

• Did you shoot anything?

Already told you didn't he: he missed

That's irrelevant to the question. If he was shooting, then he hit something. He could have also thrown something. There's several ways someone could miss. Besides, missing just means he didn't hit what he intended to.

Not necessarily. If you aim right, you might never hit anything. Getting that far into space in the first place could be a problem, though.

• A different kind of stupidity, mostly because the question is too vague:

Simple: make a slice in it somewhere. Doesn't matter where, exactly, anywhere will do. End result: two parts the same size.

• A different kind of stupidity, mostly because the question is too vague:

Simple: make a slice in it somewhere. Doesn't matter where, exactly, anywhere will do. End result: two parts the same size.

But how do you identify a specific place in an infinite object?

• A different kind of stupidity, mostly because the question is too vague:

Simple: make a slice in it somewhere. Doesn't matter where, exactly, anywhere will do. End result: two parts the same size.

But how do you identify a specific place in an infinite object?

Put your hand on it. Place found! You don't really need a specific place, anyplace will do, unspecifically.

Although I am assuming it's infinite in both directions. If it's a ray instead of a line, things get trickier as you're going to have to cut it in half lengthwise, and that takes forever.

• that takes forever.

• A different kind of stupidity, mostly because the question is too vague:

Simple: make a slice in it somewhere. Doesn't matter where, exactly, anywhere will do. End result: two parts the same size.

But how do you identify a specific place in an infinite object?

Somebody doesn't subscribe to the axiom of choice?

• axiom of choice

Tried reading the wikipedia article; not enough resources available to make heads or tails at this time.

• axiom of choice

Tried reading the wikipedia article; not enough resources available to make heads or tails at this time.

The axiom of choice says you can pick one element from an infinite set (possibly also an infinite subset of an infinite set). It is somehow essential in formulating recursive proofs and proofs from contradiction.

• axiom of choice

Tried reading the wikipedia article; not enough resources available to make heads or tails at this time.

The axiom of choice says you can pick one element from an infinite set (possibly also an infinite subset of an infinite set). It is somehow essential in formulating recursive proofs and proofs from contradiction.

Huh... But we're not talking about an infinite set, we're talking about a finite set of an infinite Sunset...

• End result: two parts the same size.

Or one finite part and one infinite part, if it has one definite end.

Infinity is fun

• End result: two parts the same size.

Or one finite part and one infinite part, if it has one definite end.

Infinity is fun

• @dreikin etc.

• I don't think C# is too relevant in a C/C++ discussion.

I could have said “Java” instead, to much the same effect. The point is that the syntax is valid there, and the semantics are defined because the logical value evaluation order is specified. (Compilers are naturally free to reorder if they can prove that the differences are not observable; it's about defining the meaning of the expression, not the exact way it is computed.)

• A different kind of stupidity, mostly because the question is too vague:

Simple: make a slice in it somewhere. Doesn't matter where, exactly, anywhere will do. End result: two parts the same size.

But how do you identify a specific place in an infinite object?

Same as like you do in anything else: Relative to a fixed point.

• you're going to have to cut it in half

Nobody said that was a requirement. It's not even possible. An infinite object doesn't even technically have a midpoint, because the definition of a midpoint is that there's an equal length on both sides, and to determine equality you need finite, measurable numbers. You can't just take two infinite objects and say that they're the same size because they're both infinite.

• You can't just take two infinite objects and say that they're the same size because they're both infinite.

You can say if they're the same cardinality or not, which leads to some weird results. For example, all of these sets are the same size

• the set of whole numbers
• the set of positive whole numbers
• the set of positive numbers greater than 4325632434531
• the set of whole numbers divisible by 6357453
• the set of rational numbers
• the set of rational numbers between 1 and 1.00000000000000000000000001

• @jaloopa sure, but that requires knowing something additional about the two infinite sets that you're comparing.

For instance, you need to know that "the set of positive numbers greater than 4325632434531" is mathematically defined as such, and doesn't simply look like it but coincidentally also happen to contain all of the numbers between 999 and 999+1 (rational and irrational -- making this now an uncountably infinite set).

Just knowing that they're both infinite doesn't tell you the cardinality of the sets. And really, saying that they're the same "size" is sort of a misnomer, as it implies that you can measure it. You measured the cardinality... the size is still infinite.

• Somebody doesn't subscribe to the axiom of choice?

Maybe they choose not to.

• @jaloopa sure, but that requires knowing something additional about the two infinite sets that you're comparing.

For instance, you need to know that "the set of positive numbers greater than 4325632434531" is mathematically defined as such, and doesn't simply look like it but coincidentally also happen to contain all of the numbers between 999 and 999+1 (rational and irrational -- making this now an uncountably infinite set).

Just knowing that they're both infinite doesn't tell you the cardinality of the sets. And really, saying that they're the same "size" is sort of a misnomer, as it implies that you can measure it. You measured the cardinality... the size is still infinite.

"Size" is ambiguous, so I chose a definition that's well known and specific when talking about infinities: cardinality. Underspecified question gets arbitrary valid answer.

you're going to have to cut it in half

Nobody said that was a requirement. It's not even possible. An infinite object doesn't even technically have a midpoint, because the definition of a midpoint is that there's an equal length on both sides, and to determine equality you need finite, measurable numbers. You can't just take two infinite objects and say that they're the same size because they're both infinite.

Sure it's possible. If it's a rod with finite cross-section extending infinitely in both directions, any point you choose to cut it at will result in two rays with the same cardinality. Cardinalities are comparable. Because of that, I can say two rays with the same cardinality are equal in size. Of course, that they are equal in size is just a bonus: like you said, it's not a requirement. And that requirement is still met, even if we start with a ray extending infinitely in one direction: there was one part. Now there are parts.

• This one is just for @Karla

• This one is just for @Karla

Atemi waza technically exists in judo but is rarely taught. As per this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judo
It is not allowed outside of kata.

Ill fuck you up with some ne waza and shime waza. though.

• judo

Praise Joko

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.