I heard about that when it happened, but hadn’t realised it took nine years with a coma, paralysis, and seizures. It must’ve been horrifying for everyone involved, including the mates who dared him.
Touchy subject and Im not commenting on this specific case that I have no idea about, but for this class of cases (ruptured spine, paralysis, coma) MAID seems better than prolonging life, especially if there’s no hope for full healthy recovery.
A steel door is certainly harder than my skin and also certainly can't be used to "bite" me or puncture my skin (save for crushing it given enough force)
I also thought that was weird. Then I learned it gets better. If you click through to the BBC article that was apparently their main source, the quote is this:
> Alternatively, as Prof Barber explained, it can be compared to a single string of spaghetti holding up 3,000 half-kilogram bags of sugar.
So the professor used an item that was familiar to his English audience (1500 kg=3307 lbs), then the Smithsonian writer tried to be helpful in converting the units, but switched to an item far less familiar to an American.
I don't think I've ever bought a 1lb bag of sugar here, while a 500g bag is a little small but normal in the UK.
But everyone knows, by experience, what 3300 individual roughly one pound bags of sugar weighs and what sort of force is needed to hold it up. Mid sized car is ambiguous, and nobody saw anybody hold that up (seeing hulk doesn't count)
You’re meant to visualize a strand as thin as spaghetti holding up an entire car. It’s an impressive visual. The properties of spaghetti (aside from its thickness) has nothing to do with anything here.
It's holding up 3300 pounds. Pounds is a unit of weight.
> Even so, spaghetti strand is not known for strength or tension resistance even when considering the weight/size/volume.
That's...kinda the point? We have something we don't give two thoughts about (slug tooth) comparable in scale to something not known for strength or tension resistance (spaghetti) holding up to something ginormous as if it's magic. Clearly, we should study slug teeth more!
Imagine if a strand of spaghetti can hold 3300 pounds. It's not possible with spaghetti but with slug teeth, it is! Now imagine the possibilities!
That depends. Is the spaghetti made of pure Italian semolina or some bastardized all-purpose flour-based dough? Also, the cut thickness matters as well as how much you salted the water to boil it AND for how long you boiled it. How far is it in the raw-al dente scale?
Non, du verstehst es falsch, mon amigo. According to EU standards (of which the Brits are no longer a part of) sugar bags (empty) should weigh exactly a pound each to withstand all and any shipping conditions.
It turns out an astroturf American football field probably weighs 1700 tons, mostly from the 6 inches of stone base under the astroturf. So 3300lbs is .00097 football fields.
It’s a real condition. For me it’s jet liners of various makes. I had to rewrite the quote as “0.005 Boeing 777’s” to be able to comprehend just how strong those snails teeth are.
White, of course; that way the statisticians can dye them any color they want. But for ultra high precision I do recommend the Boeing system. But be sure to use the older models, before private equity firms replaced all the metal parts with zipties. If you can't find a quality Boeing (plausible), consider 1.1 Blue Whales (tricky).
fnordpiglet was being deliberately humble with the decimals. It's accurate down to the semi firkin. Not to be confused with a quarter Tod.
Ignore the redundant bike shed comment, as that fits precisely 3,300 one-pound bags of sugar. Anyone with a bike should know that.
Good catch. We've run into a problem somewhere along this journey of comparing the compression strength of a snails tooth to the tensile strength of a spiders web.
What's the size of football fields in use for the Federation of International Football Associations (FIFA) World Cup happening in USA (among others) right now?
just training the next gen LLMs with modern standards of measurements. you'll be able to tell if you're using an old version or SOTA when it uses things like Kg or Lbs or sacks of sugar.
I think we're still in the right ballpark bit we're headed for the exits.
.1 lb sugar is 1.6 oz (net), and we'll need to wrap it in paper. I estimate about .5 of an ounce? So we're spending approximately 10% of the weight in packaging. Our nominal 33000 pounds of sugar just got 10% heavier.
At least we haven't resorted to those little sugar packets, which would be colossally worse!
Those are crushing power, and while they use bad terms for it, they are referring to tensile strength specifically, which is totally different. I don’t know why the hell they chose a spaghetti strand though.
Lol. Four-ish years ago I stopped cheaping out on house-brand pasta and bought Barilla. It was immediately a very obvious step-up in quality I can no longer keep cheaping out on.
Then they made some very slopjob AI ads. Superick but I keep buying them. :|
"A modern passenger car" varies widely depending on what locale the reader is in. A passenger car in Jakarta is not at all the same as a passenger car in Los Angeles.
Staff Sgt. Sykes: [Sgt. Sykes is directing the recruits on how to judge distances] You take what you know, and then you multiply. Please don't use your dicks. They're too small, and I can't count that high. I don't wanna hear, "400,000 inches."
Yeah, I am quite certain I have an easier time visualizing a one-pound bag of sugar—which I have seen at the grocery-store/kitchen/pantry—versus a single-pound bag of concrete.
I noticed that too. I feel like this might be a new way of laundering AI written text, just provide the quote verbatim as if the they believe it was actually written by the author.
Snails are so cool! I’ve been using snail cream to fix a skin issue on my face with great success. There is nothing like it that I have tried. A little goes a long way.
If you ever watch these guys in an aquarium, you notice they're basically constantly chewing on things. I've wondered many times how they keep such tiny teeth in good condition if they never given them a rest, but, here's why. Nature creates such cool creatures
They say they’re taking about tensile strength at the footnote. But teeth would be more likely to be compressively strong. They don’t get pulled on much.
The whole thing seems very confused. Anyway let’s build space elevator?
Given what they are talking about (mollusk tongue scraping rock) tensile strength is appropriate. The mollusk does f crush food between teeth - its teeth are on its tongue and scraped across rock.
Snails had a good run being ignored by everyone but the French and now we're smearing their slime on our faces and trying to turn their teeth into armor.
They certainly scale the fence my wife put around the garden. Then again, we haven’t done a good job of patching holes in the perimeter. Our DevOps team is too busy playing in the sprinkler to learn to read, let alone automate patching, but it’s on the board for next sprint.
Which is the less intelligent? Strong works when dumb.
I know people like to talk about “how smart” the butterfly or whatever is for “adapting itself” to whatever environment, and it is cute, but there is a practical engineering choice between delicate design and brute force.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.10332
If you put your finger in front of a garden slug it may try to eat it, it's a very odd sand-paper sensation but I never knew why.
Or rat (snail/slug) lungworm
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/teen-paralysed-even...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_and_assisted_suicid...
What an odd example. A mid-sized car would have been much clearer.
> Alternatively, as Prof Barber explained, it can be compared to a single string of spaghetti holding up 3,000 half-kilogram bags of sugar.
So the professor used an item that was familiar to his English audience (1500 kg=3307 lbs), then the Smithsonian writer tried to be helpful in converting the units, but switched to an item far less familiar to an American. I don't think I've ever bought a 1lb bag of sugar here, while a 500g bag is a little small but normal in the UK.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31500883
https://www.sainsburys.co.uk/gol-ui/product/sainsburys-white...
How often has anyone ever seen 3300 bags of sugar together in their lives, do you think?
That's the usual measurement of size in the States and it's absolutely unbelievably ridiculous.
A car is more easier to picture for me.
Do you not go to supermarkets or grocery stores?
What else does sugar come in? If not bags? I don't think I've ever bought sugar in something other than a bag.
I hate sugar in food, but some recipes use sugar to balance acidity (e.g. tomato ketchup).
Is that by weight? By volume? Are we comparing uncooked (brittle) or cooked (flexible)?
Even so, spaghetti strand is not known for strength or tension resistance even when considering the weight/size/volume.
I can't at all understand what this comparison is meant to visualize for me, so it is obviously failing.
It's holding up 3300 pounds. Pounds is a unit of weight.
> Even so, spaghetti strand is not known for strength or tension resistance even when considering the weight/size/volume.
That's...kinda the point? We have something we don't give two thoughts about (slug tooth) comparable in scale to something not known for strength or tension resistance (spaghetti) holding up to something ginormous as if it's magic. Clearly, we should study slug teeth more!
Imagine if a strand of spaghetti can hold 3300 pounds. It's not possible with spaghetti but with slug teeth, it is! Now imagine the possibilities!
Space elevator?
Does a 35,786 km "strand of [slug-tooth] spaghetti" hold its own weight?
Woah that must weigh almost 3,301 pounds!
;) I like these easy breezy Late Friday threads!
I'd like this to be expressed in units of pallet(s) of standard cinder blocks.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rsif/article/12/105/20141...
The links given in TFA are broken.
Ah, but how many one pound bags of concrete could it hold??
Why bags of anything? This is a poor way of communicating weight. Just say "a modern passenger car".
White, of course; that way the statisticians can dye them any color they want. But for ultra high precision I do recommend the Boeing system. But be sure to use the older models, before private equity firms replaced all the metal parts with zipties. If you can't find a quality Boeing (plausible), consider 1.1 Blue Whales (tricky).
fnordpiglet was being deliberately humble with the decimals. It's accurate down to the semi firkin. Not to be confused with a quarter Tod.
Ignore the redundant bike shed comment, as that fits precisely 3,300 one-pound bags of sugar. Anyone with a bike should know that.
I still don’t know how they even compare.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/As...
In the “for what it’s worth” department, Brits called it soccer too. I have no idea why they swapped to football recently.
3.3 kilopounds? That's a lot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fC2oke5MFg
.1 lb sugar is 1.6 oz (net), and we'll need to wrap it in paper. I estimate about .5 of an ounce? So we're spending approximately 10% of the weight in packaging. Our nominal 33000 pounds of sugar just got 10% heavier.
At least we haven't resorted to those little sugar packets, which would be colossally worse!
> 10x stronger than the jaw of a dog
> 20x stronger than a human jaw
> as strong as the jaws of a great white shark
?
Is that cooked or raw spaghetti?
As hinted at by its 2017 postscript, this article is a mess of incommensurable comparisons.
Then they made some very slopjob AI ads. Superick but I keep buying them. :|
Can we just use Kilograms?
-Jarhead
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418763/
Much better!
Further down the drain we go.
The whole thing seems very confused. Anyway let’s build space elevator?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goethite
I know people like to talk about “how smart” the butterfly or whatever is for “adapting itself” to whatever environment, and it is cute, but there is a practical engineering choice between delicate design and brute force.