Random but Not Dumb Videos Thread
-
I've always liked the B-58 Hustler. It's one of my top military aircraft.
- SR-71 Blackbird (amazing capabilities, despite having zero offensive weapons)
- P-51 Mustang (freaking sexy and timeless lines)
- B-1 "The Bone" (successor to the Hustler)
- B-58 (groundbreaking aircraft well ahead of it's time, predecessor to "The Bone", also it's named "The Hustler", that's a cool name)
- Tupelov Tu-22 (Russia's answer to The Hustler, and it was nicknamed "The Supersonic Booze Carrier", what's not to love?)
-
@Polygeekery I had a model of one of those as a kid. Good looking plane, even if it didn't serve its purpose very well. I thought I remembered that it was fly-by-wire, because human pilots couldn't react fast enough to its instability, but since neither the video nor the Wikipedia article mention that, I guess either I misremember or the source of that information was wrong.
-
@Polygeekery I thought that for a gun nut BRRRT (....wrrrt) would have been on the list for even more reasons than it is for the rest of us. Unless it's too obvious to even mention?
-
@Applied-Mediocrity I wrote that last night after hanging out with the neighbors again so my memory was even more muddy that usual.
Giving it further thought, the A-10 would tie the P-51 for #2.
Other notable mentions:
- Vought F-8 Crusader, nicknamed "The Last Gunfighter"
- Grumman X-29, revolutionary experimental jet with "backwards" wings and sort of a contender for @HardwareGeek's statement about:
@HardwareGeek said in Random but Not Dumb Videos Thread:
I thought I remembered that it was fly-by-wire, because human pilots couldn't react fast enough to its instability,
The X-29 was literally unflyable without computer assistance, but was more maneuverable than possibly any aircraft ever made. It's extreme instability paired with forward canard control surfaces were amazing uses of aircraft design and technology.
- F-106 Delta Dart, which had a notable incident known as "The Cornfield Bomber" where a pilot ejected from his F-106 when he was unable to recover from a flat spin and it seems that the ejection forces caused the aircraft to recover on its own and then continue on its way to land wheels-up in a cornfield and was repaired and returned to service
- B-17 bomber, which I also love because of the tale of "The Ghost Bomber" https://historybyday.com/human-stories/the-tale-of-the-ghost-bomber-that-landed-itself-or-did-it/
I like a lot of military aircraft.
-
@Polygeekery
we know you like it big, expensive and with a massive bang
-
@Polygeekery said in Random but Not Dumb Videos Thread:
B-17 bomber
My uncle, for whom I'm named, was a flight engineer on one of those. He was shot down somewhere in the Pacific, but survived.
-
Reddit story about a guy's first IT job after graduating from tech school. I'd search for the original story on Reddit and post that, but then I'd have Reddit on me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1f3kC-OAzoTL;DW (spoilers):
Guy gets mistaken for new IT employee who no-showed on his first day. He's ordered to get to work. He does. He gets hired in place of no-show guy. He works there 20+ years.
-
@HardwareGeek Is this one of the uncountably infinite videos where people rip off stories posted on other social media? Fake edit: Yep. At least it's got stock footage and an actual person reading it out, unlike some of the "videos".
I mean all social medias rip each other off (and not just in posted content), so I don't know why those kinda videos rub me especially wrong. Maybe it's the ad monetization.
-
@coderpatsy said in Random but Not Dumb Videos Thread:
an actual person reading it out
Yeah, I don't watch the text-to-speech videos.
Maybe it's the ad monetization.
YouTube has ads?
-
Come for the pedantry, stay for the views:
-
@HardwareGeek said in Random but Not Dumb Videos Thread:
Reddit story about a guy's first IT job after graduating from tech school.
I don't feel like giving this narrator any extra views. Is it this story? "How I started my career."
I'd search for the original story on Reddit and post that, but then I'd have Reddit on me.
Well, you're not wrong.
-
@JBert said in Random but Not Dumb Videos Thread:
Is it this story? "How I started my career."
From the first 2 or 3 paragraphs, yes, it appears to be that story. And now I have Reddit on me anyway. Eww.
-
@JBert said in Random but Not Dumb Videos Thread:
Come for the pedantry, stay for the views:
He's often got good stuff, even if you never end up going there.
-
-
@dcon said in Random but Not Dumb Videos Thread:
@Zecc said in Random but Not Dumb Videos Thread:
Foiled by the Latter Day Saints
Not sure how... It's a clip from Penn & Teller.
Yeah. IIRC if you get struck for LDS content it's by "Intellectual Reserve Inc.".
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBHbLV7xEhc
tl;dw:
quite possibly, yes.
-
I really like his content. He gets down to the nitty gritty fine details. It is something that I've missed out on in my journey. He stops just shy if explaining how electron theory affects bus signals.
Give him time. It will happen.
-
For the regulars: please do not be alarmed when the presenter starts with "... about an essay I wrote for The New York Times last year..."
-
I've always thought the old hit or miss diesels were super cool. I'd never considered that with a large enough bore, large enough flywheel, and a fuel delivery mechanism capable of being tuned low enough that a two-stroke diesel could run at 0rpm.
No, that's not a typo. Running at zero revolutions per minute.
-
@Polygeekery said in Random but Not Dumb Videos Thread:
Running at zero revolutions per minute.
Yes, it's not technically making a full revolution, and technically since the shaft is teetering back and forth the average angular velocity is basically zero, but it is still moving...
-
@Tsaukpaetra I said zero rpm, I meant zero rpm.
-
@JBert said in Random but Not Dumb Videos Thread:
For the regulars: please do not be alarmed when the presenter starts with "... about an essay I wrote for The New York Times last year..."
That was pretty interesting.
-
-
Every video I've seen has always been from Captain Sully's point of view. Here's a lecture from FO Jeff Skiles.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiI_Ohee65s
Bro compiles a cross-compiler for Solaris, then uses that cross compiler to compile the compiler, then uses that compiler on the target system to compile nethack!Masochist!
And then the mad compiled and ran chocolate doom on freaking solaris!
-
-
Thunderf00t video about something that's not Elon Musk!
-
@Gąska said in Random but Not Dumb Videos Thread:
Thunderf00t video about something that's not Elon Musk!
Right?! Sometimes it's easy to forget he's a nuclear physicist...
-
@JBert said in Random but Not Dumb Videos Thread:
Mark Rober wants to surprise a kid who beat brain cancer by throwing a scienc-y birthday party, shows off with more dangerous variant of elephant's toothpaste:
And now he wants to surprise a kid who fought blood cancer, and used his make-a-wish wish to buy an ATV for another kid with cancer, with an even bigger elephant toothpaste explosion.
-
-
An optical mouse that's actually a modified ball mouse.
-
"The world cup final, which started in July of 2012, finally ended in February. Of 2016."
-
Not too surprised that embedding doesn't work, but there are 7 live cameras streaming bears hunting for salmon, as well as a couple of highlight videos. (Also, links to other animal-themed cameras.) Also, vote for the fattest bear.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckcdqlo3pYc
Maths comedy.
-
-
-
-
TLDR friendship is stronger than asshole!
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHIhgxav9LY
Not sure if this is the right thread, but it's a veritasium video so that part fits here.
Anyway, he explains that it's not the moving electrons in a wire that transmit energy but the EM field generated by it. So far, so good.
The part that bothers me: He also starts with this thought experiment setup with a ligh-bulb connected to battery over wires that are a light-second long. He explains that since the battery/switch and bulb are only 1 m apart, it only takes 1/c seconds for the bulb to turn on, as the energy doesn't actually have to travel down the wires. But, um, there do have to be wires for this to work, right? And if the wires were not actually connected at the farthes point 1/2 a light-second away (or alternatively, if that was where you put the switch), then the bulb wouldn't light up at all. But since information also cannot travel faster than light, then the fact the wires are actually connected all the way through cannot have an effect sooner than 1/2 s after flipping the switch (something something causality and light cones).What do our physics people think about this?
-
@topspin said in Random but Not Dumb Videos Thread:
Anyway, he explains that it's not the moving electrons in a wire that transmit energy but the EM field generated by it. So far, so good.
Indeed, electron drift velocity is generally on the order of a fraction of a millimetre per second. EM fields (that cause the drift) propagate magnitudes faster, causing waves of current and voltage.
If I understand your description right, the situation is akin to this, right?
the energy doesn't actually have to travel down the wires.
That’s just wrong. The conductor is instrumental to carrying a meaningful potential over to the load, which happens along the wire. The field generated by a battery in free space 1 metre away is useless – and whatever shift in charges it could effect would be one-time only.
Thus the conductor is even more crucial for providing a constant supply of charge/energy carriers to and through the load. Even though the charges move very slowly through the wires, that’s mostly because there are simply so many which still supply a significant movement of charge itself through the wires, supply and load. Just 1 mA is 6.242 × 1015 electrons per second moving past any part of the circuit, even if they average only 1 nm/s each.
Which is basically all to say, having not watched a second of it, the video clearly belongs under “Dumb Videos” :P
What do our physics people think about this?
Oh. Forget I said anything then >_>
-
@kazitor said in Random but Not Dumb Videos Thread:
If I understand your description right, the situation is akin to this, right?
Well yeah, basically what he shows 15 seconds in.
-
I get the part about little colored balls not actually being involved. That's easy. The story about electrons moving about is a very popular misconception. As soon as one learns about electrons in chemistry, usually well before learning about any fields in physics (if ever), clearly them's the little fuckers that have all to do with electr-on-icity.
The field thing is not so clear to me. PCB traces of any high-frequency parallel bus are all squiggly-loopy for a reason - so that they're precisely the same length. I'll stop there, because...
...I'm needed elsewhere... yeah
-
@topspin hetes a longer explanation
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VQsoG45Y_00
TL:DW: there's capacitance between the wires and that gives the lightbulb its initial power
-
@homoBalkanus said in Random but Not Dumb Videos Thread:
@topspin hetes a longer explanation
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VQsoG45Y_00
TL:DW: there's capacitance between the wires and that gives the lightbulb its initial power
So basically my error was already in the initial assessment:
@topspin said in Random but Not Dumb Videos Thread:
there do have to be wires for this to work, right? And if the wires were not actually connected at the farthest point 1/2 a light-second away, then the bulb wouldn't light up at all.
Apparently no, the wires don’t have to be connected at all, they work more like a transformer / antenna.
That they’re connected at a ridiculous distance is a red herring.
-
@topspin
Antennas and capacitors only pass current when the field is changing. A battery next to a light with infinite wires on each won’t do much for long. (You are free to try putting a battery next to an LED.¹ There’s no magic length where it suddenly sustains continuous current.)Again, the wires are full of electrons and that complete connection is necessary to get anything beyond a transient out of it. And it will take appreciable time for that effect to propagate even if the electrons themselves do not.
¹: Hell, you could put an actual capacitor, battery and LED in series. Whatever values you want!
-
@kazitor The information that the current is flowing moves at the (local to the material) speed of light. The energy carried by the current does not. LEDs don't light up without actual input of energy. The capacitance and inductance of the circuit don't change that fundamental.
-
I'm reading and watching and reading and watching and I'm still not sure exactly what's happening.
The more I think about it, the more I believe it's because "lighting the bulb" is ill-defined. I was assuming at least a few hundred lumens are needed for it to count, but why would a clickbaiter youtuber play fair? He may have meant "there is non-zero voltage on the bulb at one instant, but exact values of current and voltage can be arbitrarily small".
So I'd slightly rephrase the question. The experimental setup is the same, but the lightbulb is specifically a 600-lumen bulb, and the question is how long does it take for the bulb to reach its nominal brightness? (inb4 never because packaging is lying)
1/2 second? Then Verisatium is full of shit.
1m/c? Then this is super interesting although I wonder what's the point of the circuit at all.
Something in between? Then it's even more interesting and I'd like to hear more.
-
@Gąska said in Random but Not Dumb Videos Thread:
1/2 second? Then Verisatium is full of shit.
Seems so. The magic keywords to research here are “transmission line” and perhaps “telegrapher’s equations,” FYI. Just be careful because a lot of what you might find deals with AC conditions where the steady state will still have waves moving around and average drift velocity will be zero.
It’s not like pop-sci-type youtube personalities are renowned for rigorously getting all of their facts in order, mind you (linked almost solely for the title alone).
-
@kazitor you'll never live down that color debate, eh?
Anyway. The way it's presented, Verisatium's video is likely to make people even more wrong about physics than before. When you spend 10 minutes talking about how the power flows through space rather than through the cable, "actually it's only a tiny fraction of power that goes this way, the rest goes through the cable as you'd expect" is a pretty important thing to mention. And Eevblog's video is exactly what you'd expect from a preachy engineer type - a lot of "this is exactly how it works" that actually means "this isn't how it works at all". He is in the sense the words he's saying are not false - but he skips over the most important piece of information, presumably because he thinks it's so obvious it doesn't need mentioning (but then why did you even make the video, you said yourself that it's all very obvious).
The world would be so much better place if there were less Veritasiums and more CGP Greys. And not just because there would be less YT videos.
-
@Gąska said in Random but Not Dumb Videos Thread:
but why would a clickbaiter youtuber play fair
Interestingly enough, he even has a video analyzing click-bait and explaining how catchy titles are required to reach a large youtube audience. And he's probably right about that in general, as shown by empirical evidence.
But damn, his titles are more click-bait than he admits with this excuse.
I don't really have a problem with the content of his videos. They're soft pop-sci, but there's a place for that. This one in particular just feels somewhere between and plain wrong.