Jump to content
studiot

The useless facts thread.

Recommended Posts

Another useless - but actually interesting - fact: start at any random Wikipedia page, and click on the first link that appears on the page. This will bring up another Wiki page - do the same here. And again. And again...

For over 95% of all Wiki pages that you start with, within about 20 link-clicks on average, you will arrive at the same page - Philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

Another useless - but actually interesting - fact: start at any random Wikipedia page, and click on the first link that appears on the page. This will bring up another Wiki page - do the same here. And again. And again...

For over 95% of all Wiki pages that you start with, within about 20 link-clicks on average, you will arrive at the same page - Philosophy.

Man you have waay more click stamina than I do.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

Another useless - but actually interesting - fact: start at any random Wikipedia page, and click on the first link that appears on the page. This will bring up another Wiki page - do the same here. And again. And again...

For over 95% of all Wiki pages that you start with, within about 20 link-clicks on average, you will arrive at the same page - Philosophy.

There must be a law for that, Markus...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, zapatos said:

Speciation occurred in the female parent. The egg is built after fertilization. Therefore the chicken came first.

You can be superstitious but you cannot be a little bit stitious. 

What does "stitious" mean?

If speciation occurred in the female parent, was the female parent not a chicken at first, but after the critical mutation occurred which resulted in a true chicken, the parent changed into a chicken?

Edited by Airbrush

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, studiot said:

Man you have waay more click stamina than I do.

:)

Lol...I haven't actually tried this myself, it was in a presentation on information theory and data science by the mathematician Dr Hannah Fry. 

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

There must be a law for that, Markus...

I don't think so, but it is interesting in the sense that it shows that encyclopaedic information has a tree-like structure, and the concept of 'philosophy' sits pretty far down, basically at the roots of that tree of knowledge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People will yell crude references to sex acts out of anger.  What does sex have to do with anger? 😲

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow !

Wiki pages have 20 ( on average ) degrees of separation.
But celebrities have 6 degrees of separation !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MigL said:

Wow !

Wiki pages have 20 ( on average ) degrees of separation.
But celebrities have 6 degrees of separation !

Surely celebrities would have eight or nine degrees of separation now, given social distancing. :) (Except for those celebreties who think the rules don't apply to them.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MigL said:

Wiki pages have 20 ( on average ) degrees of separation.

I don't think that follows logically :) They have 20 degrees of separation on average from the Philosophy page, but not necessarily from each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it only uses the first link, not the “best” so it only specifies an upper bound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tested it and it doesn't work for me. Plus there's a considerable amount of looping. Could account for the remaining 5%.

I need a clicking tutorial. The thing is it kind of make sense to me that philosophy is an attractor. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, joigus said:

I tested it and it doesn't work for me. Plus there's a considerable amount of looping. Could account for the remaining 5%.

I need a clicking tutorial. The thing is it kind of make sense to me that philosophy is an attractor. ;) 

It would be quite easy to write a script to test this. (But I’m not going to!)

It reminds me of the Collatz Conjecture, which has been described as the most dangerous idea in mathematics 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, joigus said:

I tested it and it doesn't work for me.

Lol...I given no guarantees, this is second hand information. Coming from what I would consider a reliable source, I simply assumed it's true ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

That explains it in detail, thank you! :D

I particularly like the example of the soldier who uses the F word in one sentence like seven times, except to refer to the sexual act! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Democrats vote by mail much more than Republicans do.  DeJoy has removed over 600 vote sorting machines without prior notice.  When questioned he said "Ok we will suspend."  Questioned again, he said he ain't putting them back "No sir!"

Edited by Airbrush

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Ants can’t die from falling

Because of their body proportions and tough exoskeleton, an ant’s terminal velocity isn’t enough to kill or hurt it on impact. They can survive being dropped from the Empire State Building and walk away unharmed.

2) You can't kill yourself by holding your breath

At the very worst, voluntary breath-holding will only lead to unconsciousness. 

3) You can't tickle yourself

----------

1) and 2) make a lot of sense.

Why 3)?

Edited by joigus
Addition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, joigus said:

2) You can't kill yourself by holding your breath

Tell that to a free-diver. 😉

19 minutes ago, joigus said:

1) Ants can’t die from falling

Depends on what they fall onto. 🤒

sorry, I coudn't resist...

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

sorry, I coudn't resist...

I know.  🙄

But you only took up the questions having to do with death. ;) 

Any insights into the question having to do with laughter? :D 

What makes you tick (or tickle)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, joigus said:

But you only took up the questions having to do with death. ;) 

Any insights into the question having to do with laughter? :D 

What makes you tick (or tickle)

I laugh in the face of death, but only if it's ironic... 😊

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Why 3)?

What's the fun in that???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, joigus said:

What makes you tick (or tickle)

Good question.  Maybe when you tickle yourself, you already know exactly the location and the kind tickle you intend.  When somebody else tickles you, you cannot anticipate location and kind of tickling?

After my answer I googled "why can't i tickle myself" and I got this:

"...basically comes down to your cerebellum having the ability to predict the tickle, therefore cancelling it out before the sensation takes over.

"Our studies at University College London have shown that the cerebellum can predict sensations when your own movement causes them but not when someone else does," Blakemore explained to Scientific American. "When you try to tickle yourself, the cerebellum predicts the sensation and this prediction is used to cancel the response of other brain areas to the tickle."

https://www.sciencealert.com/the-scientific-reason-you-can-t-tickle-yourself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

Good question.  Maybe when you tickle yourself, you already know exactly the location and the kind tickle you intend.  When somebody else tickles you, you cannot anticipate location and kind of tickling?

After my answer I googled "why can't i tickle myself" and I got this:

"...basically comes down to your cerebellum having the ability to predict the tickle, therefore cancelling it out before the sensation takes over.

"Our studies at University College London have shown that the cerebellum can predict sensations when your own movement causes them but not when someone else does," Blakemore explained to Scientific American. "When you try to tickle yourself, the cerebellum predicts the sensation and this prediction is used to cancel the response of other brain areas to the tickle."

https://www.sciencealert.com/the-scientific-reason-you-can-t-tickle-yourself

Good answer. +1 It must be some way in which your nervous system (autonomous or otherwise) cannot "not know" that you're about to get tickled. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, joigus said:

Good answer. +1 It must be some way in which your nervous system (autonomous or otherwise) cannot "not know" that you're about to get tickled. 

Indeed, the last time I was tickled and laughed out loud, was when my dog clearly thought that the duck-weed covered canal was a solid surface and tried to run on it; she didn't die...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salvador Dali was famous for saying "I know what I eat, but I don't know what I do."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.