Gafgarian

http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/3/d/f/3dfdc70108ce7802/DrunkTank-DrunkTank45606.mp3?c_id=4053532&cs_id=4053532&expiration=1536741521&hwt=2cc0ffed4eff14b8930e7cf190ef112a

#RTAnswers - #506 - Is Burnie Officially Old Now? https://roosterteeth.com/episode/rooster-teeth-podcast-2018-rooster-teeth-podcast-506 ---------------------------- How fast do you have to run to put a fire out? I know this is going to come as a surprise to most of you but, there are very little details on this online. As hard as it may be to believe, it does not appear that any formal studies have been done on the effectiveness, or ability even, to run fast enough to put out the flames which engulf you. Lack of willing participants I suppose. The reason for the tried and true "Stop, Drop, and Roll" method is because air is a critical component of a healthy flame. The more air, the stronger the flame. This means that before you even start running, any running that you will be doing will be feeding the flames, making them grow and further engulf you. The only other critical piece of a good fire is fuel... in this case that is you! What these observations mean is that the only way to put out a fire is to completely remove one, or both, of these from the equation. All fire extinguishers work on the principle of starving the fire of the air it needs to further combustion of the fuel source. "Stop, Drop, and Roll"-ing is along the same principle of smothering the flame so it has no consistent access to air. All of these things mean that, in order to put out a fire by running, you would have to run fast enough to create a negative pressure pocket around your body recreating the effect of the fire extinguisher chemicals, effectively starving the fire of its consistent air source. Similarly, like blowing out a candle, you could aim for moving the flame away from its fuel source enough for the entire fuel source to cool below the critical temperature threshold of combustion. What these two points mean is that the true answer to this question depends on a very specific factor. That being the size of the fire. To clarify, the candle experience is a bit of a unique one. If you look closely at a candle's flame, you'll notice that the flame is actually hovering just above the top of the melted wax surface. This is because, while its fuel source is the melting wax, it is delivered from the wick via capillary action and the superheated vapor of the melting wax. If you hold a lit candle in your hand and abruptly move it, the inertia of the flame and vapor will momentarily keep it in place while the rest of the candle, its sole fuel source, is moved away from the heat. Additionally, since candles cool quickly, this movement would also be enough to lower the temperature of the heated wax and wick, preventing the candle from relighting on its own. Obviously the effect of this experiment depend on several factors as well, the size of the flame being one of them, but the point is clear. The physics which control this interaction of flame and fuel source are the same for larger fires as well, assuming you are able to meet all of the necessary interaction requirement. For example, if your arm catches on fire you are still told to "stop, drop, and roll" in order to immediately smother the fire and prevent its spread as it burns through your clothing as a fuel source. Let's imagine, however, that you are wearing a fire retardant suit, coat your forearm in a flammable gel, and light just that on fire. Theoretically, like the candle, you CAN wave your arm fast enough to displace the flame from the source and, as long as the gel also cools fast enough, you would be effectively putting the fire out. In this controlled situation this is an option however, most of us are not able to ensure we have fire suit standing by, which we can throw on just before catching fire. This is a critical component as it eliminates the consistent super-heated fuel source of your clothing or your skin. The idea of waving your arm about, or running very fast, to put a fire out is the same as pushing the flame-engulfed poor soul in front of a gigantic wind turbine. The problem is that the wind only removes the heat from the first, it doesn't necessarily remove a fuel source. Quite the opposite actually! As wind it is nothing more than air so it is adding that as a fuel source. No amount of oxygen is too much for fire. Like blowing on the coals of campfire, the flames will rapidly increase when given more oxygen. The best way of using wind to put out a fire is to make it a sudden burst which immediately displaces the flame from the fuel source while simultaneously cooling the base source of the fire (eg. the candle, your shirt, the wall, etc.) so that another fire doesn't immediately start back up where the displaced flames were. The use of wind to put out flames, while not encouraged because there are far easier and more successful methods of extinguishing a fire, definitely occurs. All of this circles back to the actual question. How fast do you have to run to put a fire out? This depends on various factors. What kind of clothes are you wearing? Is the fire on your arm or are you just Human Torch-ing it around town? Is the wind with you or against you? The point is that, theoretically, it is absolutely possible to "outrun" the flame as long as, the clothes you are wearing are made of a fiber which is inherently flame-retardant (wool, for example), the flame is isolated to a single part of your body, and you have time to lace up your Chucks beforehand. As far as how fast you would have to run, I'm not sure any amount of math can figure out an accurate answer to that one. ---------------------------- When did Burnie give Jordan shit about Conan O’Brien and Jay Leno? This is a huge call back! Way back to the Drunk Tank days. The answer would be Drunk Tank episode #45 at the 52:30 timestamp. The original date was January 20, 2010. Unfortunately, as far as I am aware, the audio only podcasts haven't been migrated to the new site just yet. You can at the following link though. http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/3/d/f/3dfdc70108ce7802/DrunkTank-DrunkTank45606.mp3?c_id=4053532&cs_id=405… ---------------------------- What do they call a series finale in UK? Confusingly, they apparently just refer to a series finale as a series finale. Rather than allow that to describe the state of show's future, they then tack on the additional statement of "final episode". Some will simply use "final episode" with the understanding that this phrase is apparently only used when referencing the actual "final episode". Either way, the whole things seems radically inefficient to me. Read that as "wrong to me". Yeah I said it. Fight me. ---------------------------- What is the definition of "fully clothed"? This is as simple as breaking apart the two words. "Fully", meaning entirely, totally, or to the greatest extent and "clothed", meaning to be covered with cloth or clothing. Naturally, this would make "fully clothed" mean that the person is covered with clothing to the greatest extent possible. In most common parlance, as well as most legal considerations, this would imply that a person has both their upper and lower parts covered as well as wearing some sort of footwear. ---------------------------- What is the hottest part of a cat? Cats have one of the highest average temperatures among vet-treated animals with an range of 100.5 - 102.5 degrees fahrenheit. Unsurprisingly, a feline's genitals, specifically its ass, tends to be the hottest consistent part of its body. This is similar to all mammals, including us. However, one striking feature when looking at thermal images of cats beyond the high temperature of their eyes and ears as Gavin pointed out, is the apparently equally high temperature of their paws, specifically their paw pads. By comparison, our hands and feet tend to run warmer than the extremities in between, but they rarely rival the temperatures of our orbital sockets or our ass. So, why the heated paws in our feline friends? Cats, like dogs, will sweat through their paw pads in order to maintain their body temperature. While dogs will also pant to regulate body temperature, cats do not pant regularly and it is typically a sign of intense distress when they do. Meaning that the paw pads are the most consistent way of regulating their core temperature. This biological fact can cause, especially during times of great stress and when it is very hot out, the paws to actually be the warmest part on a cat. ---------------------------- How do you find out what your mail carrier's name is? Does not appear to be any formal USPS process for determining your mail carrier's name. I was able to find reports of some small town post offices, who only have 4-5 carriers, holding "carrier appreciate days" but these cases are rare. By contrast, several post offices have internal rules which, for the protection of their carriers, do not allow employees, other than the individual carrier, to discuss or reveal information about other employees. Unfortunately, the answer for this one is a bit gray. It seems that much more successful method of just opening your door and asking him or her, is your best option.

https://roosterteeth.com/episode/rooster-teeth-podcast-2018-rooster-teeth-podcast-505

#RTAnswers - #505 - The Dumbest Episode of the Podcast https://roosterteeth.com/episode/rooster-teeth-podcast-2018-rooster-teeth-podcast-505 ---------------------------- Is cabin pressurization a manual procedure on planes? Let me preface this by saying two things quickly. First, I have had zero flight training and, other then getting a tour of a 757's when I was nine, I have only seen the flight deck in passing, but... you know, I've played video games. Second, Google is a really fucking scary tool. Within a few minutes, I was able to not only find the plane model, type, and a large chunk of its service record, I was also able to find the entire schematic for the plane's air conditioning, circulation, and pressurization systems. The stolen plane in Saturday's incident was an Alaska Airlines owned Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 turboprop commercial airliner capable of carrying 76 passengers. It appears that the pressurization system for both the cabin AND the flight deck is dependent upon the air conditioning system being activated. There is an option for an auto-selection setting, seen in the image below, which will, at various stages of pre- and post-takeoff automatically control cabin and flight deck pressurization in order to maintain a safe and comfortable environment for the crew and passengers alike. However, it appears that without this toggle explicitly set to "AUTO", the only protection against un-pressurized flight is a warning light which appears after hitting a critical altitude. The schematic does not say what that altitude is however, given the typical pressurization altitude of 6,000 - 8,0000 feet, it is safe to assume that this is somewhere at, or just above, those altitude numbers. I think that it is also safe to assume that most pilots would use the AUTO setting if it is available and that it is unlikely the setting was NOT on AUTO. https://imgur.com/a/j328XXy However, as the black box has been recovered but the findings haven't been released, we do not know whether the controls were actually set to AUTO during the short flight. We do know that oxygen deprivation symptoms can occur at only 5,000 feet above sea level, however, for most it will begin to occur around 8,000 feet. We also know that his flight trajectory kept him below 5,000 feet for most of the flight. At those altitudes it is unlikely that his ability to fly the plan would have been impaired by any lack of oxygen. It is more likely that the adrenaline and shock of his own actions led to that shortness of breath, panic, and confusion. Lastly, in case we needed more proof of the power of information at all of our fingertips, here is a simulator video walking through the entire start up and flight procedure for the Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 airliner. https://youtu.be/usKRZRPhjgU ---------------------------- Gilbert Gottfried Reads 50 Shades of Grey? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkLqAlIETkA ---------------------------- Did Gilbert Gottfried play Iago in all movies and the TV show? Gottfried did indeed play Iago in every Aladdin movie, multiple TV shows, commercials, video shorts, every Kingdom Hearts game, the smash hit early PC game, Disney's Math Quest, various toy audio playbacks, and the PhiharMagic ride at Disney World. In fact, as far as I could tell, no Disney approved use of Iago's likeness and voice has ever been voiced by any other voice actor. ---------------------------- Do all mammals go through menopause? No, in fact it is nearly the complete opposite. For more than fifty years the count of animals experiencing menopause was scant three, those being, killer whales, pilot whales, and us. However, coincidentally, on August 28th, a Scientific Reports article announced findings that beluga whales and narwhals are also on the short list for mammals whose ovaries shrivel up at a certain age. Perhaps the most intriguing part of this legitimately rare phenomenon is how little we know about why it only happens for these five species. The reason for confusion over the rarity of menopause in mammals is less about why other animals don't have to go through it and more about why we, and a select group of whales, do. The reason for this is because, while it may not always be the most popular opinion among some religious teachings, we, like every other creature on this planet have one sole purpose in life. The proliferation of our species and our genetic line. By essentially reaching a fertility roadblock by age 50, give or take a decade, we, as a species, are turning our backs on this basic tenement of all life on this planet. The question is why? The most prevailing theory, posed by researchers in the 1960s is known as the "grandmother hypothesis." In this theory, researchers proposed that older matriarchs of family units play a crucial role in the rearing, nurturing, protection, and teaching of their children and grandchildren. For example, numerous studies have shown that human females who live long after experiencing menopause have more grandchildren. While the connections to this fact and the theories around their grandmotherly influence and assistance contributing to these numbers are tenuous at best, they are definitely intriguing. This is doubly so when you introduce the relevant studies done with "grandma" killer whales. In 2012, researchers out of the University of Exeter concluded a four decade long census on multiple family units of Pacific Northwest orcas. Not only did it show that female orcas tend to live as part of the family unit for decades after experiencing menopause around the age of 35 but they also are shown to be the matriarchal heads of these units. Guiding their sons, and grandsons, to key locations for salmon and other prey. That said, matriarchal-led family units are not unusual in the animal kingdom. Elephants, for example, or well-known for their female led herds. The "grandmother hypothesis" addresses this by pointing out the likely evolution of the human social dynamic and family unit. Historically, it has typically been that the case that daughters would move away from their mothers to start families of their own while the sons would stay nearer their mothers. Initially this proximity was for protection, tutelage, and nurture before, in later years, the mother becomes a matriarchal lead over the incoming female from other family units. The grandmother then assists in raising the children of her children, with the looming reality that if she were to have more children they would be effectively fighting for survival against her grandchildren. Perhaps fittingly, elephant family units are lacking sons. The grandmothers are then surrounded by their daughters and daughter's daughters for the remainder of their life. In this instance, it is in the best interest of the species to continue to reproduce until death as the family unit does not regularly consist of direct genetic lines but rather inconsistent breaks and rejoins. In this case, the more offspring, the better for the species. Killer whales seem to ride the line a bit between the human familial structure of nurturing their sons and the elephant ways of keeping their daughters close. While it is not unusual for females orcas to spend time with other family pods, it is, in most cases, a temporary arrangement, and they will find their way back to their original family after giving birth to their next generations. This leads to massive killer whale family units, spanning multiple generations and multiple lineages. It is these massive family pods which have led researchers to assign the "grandmother hypothesis" to orcas as well. With all of the competition for resources and the likelihood of both calf and mother death in older killer whales, recorded to be nearly 2 times more likely, the cost of NOT evolving to experience menopause becomes pretty high. In the case of Belugas and Narwhals, the jury is still out as to why, or if, the grandmother hypothesis can't be bent to apply to them as well. This is largely due to the limited knowledge and limited active research done on their mating or survival habits. Until relatively recently, within the last twenty years, the ability to withstand the arctic temperatures for the prolonged study of either species has been difficult and dangerous. This is the reason it has taken so long to add the beluga and narwhal to the list of menopausal mammals to begin with. If nothing else, you now have the answer to what I'm sure would be a truly savage HQ question: What biological rarity do humans, orcas, beluga and pilot whales, and narwhals have in common? ---------------------------- Does having a child take years from your life? Pregnancy, childbirth, and the subsequent stress of actually raising a little person is, like any other type of physically, mentally, and emotionally taxing experience, a huge burden on the human body. A 2006 American Journal of Human Biology study found that over 116 years of Polish births, women lost 95 weeks of life for EACH child they carried. For those not bothering to do the math, that is nearly two years of life per kid... as if the nine months the little parasites were leeching on your innards wasn't enough. Among the related maladies brought on, or exacerbated by pregnancy and childbirth, were hypertension, diabetes, nutrient deficiencies, and severe depression. However, a study published a decade later by University of California San Diego found that women you had children in late life were more likely to live longer lives AND women who had 3+ kids were more likely to outlive those with one.... curiously, the last fact only proved true among the caucasian population. There are several other competing studies which point at increased oxytocin and dopamine levels associated with pregnancy, childbirth, and child-rearing as either an effective fountain of youth or the exact opposite. Ultimately, it, like most debates involving the amount of "time taken off your life because of something else" are largely subjective and easily influenced by unknown variables. That said, from a pure scientific position, there is legitimate evidence to show that childbirth makes your actual cells older and more frail! Telomeres, a molecular cap to our chromosomes which helps protect cellular deterioration over time, are commonly used to determine a person's "cellular age." The length of these telomeres, or more precisely the lack of length, has been linked to cognitive issues, heart disease, and other ailments which become more common as we age. A three year study in the early 2000s also looked at telomere lengths in women who had gone through pregnancy and childbirth. The study shown that the women who had given birth had 4.2 percent shorter telomeres than those who had not. According to past research done on "cellular aging" this is calculated to be around 11 years of "lost" time. This is greater than the telomere effects from smoking and obesity! Further findings found that the more children a woman has contributed to consistently shorter telomeres and, by cellular aging standards, consistently shorter lives, though not at the same 11 year rate per child. What are the laws on indecent exposure/peeping toms when it comes to your house? Most of us, I believe, operate under some assumption of privacy within the walls of our own home. However, this can vary drastically according to state, and even local, legislation. In Louisiana for example, several people over the years have been arrested for illegally exposing their genitals in their own home as it is illegal to do so "in any public place or place open to the public view". Louisiana police and prosecutors weighing in on this have stated that all laws are meant to have a bit of "good judgment" attached to their enforcement. The universal understanding being that there is a big difference between absent-mindedly passing by a window in the buff and standing at full attention at your large front picture window so every little kid walking to school can catch a bit of emotional and mental scarring from your depravity. By contrast, other states and municipalities have been dealing with just that for years and have been unable to move forward with charges because the indecency laws in those areas DO require you to be outside of a personal residence. A 2009 case involving a nude man from Fairfax, VA sparked a lively debate about the double standards surrounding nudity in the home. A circuit court judge handed down a suspended sentence for indecent exposure a 29 year-old man claimed to have been seen by two women of loudly singing while nude in front of his large picture window, clearly visible from the street. The ACLU quickly weighed in to point out that the definition of "public and private space depends on the behavior that's taking place." In a later interview, the no longer naked man was quick to point out that had HE been looking in HER window, "...we'd be having a whole different conversation." Another case of some notoriety from 2015 concerned a middle-aged man in a North Carolina suburb who would frequently terrorize innocent passersby by letting it all hang out while waving at them from the "privacy" of his open front door. The reason for the issues with levying a charge is the word of law... one word in particular. The relevant piece of legislation reads, "...any person who shall willfully expose the private parts of his or her person in any public place and in the presence of any other person or persons..." The "one" word causing all of the issues is reportedly the pesky "and" in the middle of the sentence. Since the law clearly states that the alleged deviant must not only willfully exposing their naughty bits but also be in a public place AND in the presence of at least one other person. This means that, despite this specific North Carolinians fondness for semi-public nudity, there is nothing the authorities can do as long as he isn't FULLY-public. The general "good judgement" rules, regardless of where you live seem to be as long as you are naked inside your own home and making an effort to not be plainly visible to passersby AND those passersby are not making an extra effort to see what actually be visible, then you are all in the clear. ---------------------------- What is the Friday the 13th origin story? As discussed on the podcast, this is a tough one. The true source for the unlucky connection to this seemingly random day of the week has long since been lost to time. The most prevalent theories have various sources themselves. The Christian influence is tying the date to the darkest biblical events (Christ's crucifixion, the eating of the apple in the Garden Eden, the last supper, Noah's flood, the Tower of Babel, at least one of Egypt's plagues, etc.) What little evidence exist, actually points to the weekday and not the numbered day as the unlucky one. Chaucer's infamous tales point to Friday, as does a well-used poem in the 1600s. In the 1800s, much to the confusion of Garfield and 90s kids everywhere, we begin to a see a resurgence in the hate for Fridays. Perhaps with the continued growth of literacy in our new modern world, anecdotes about the woes suffered on Fridays were appearing everywhere. Stories like the below became a frequent sight in the self-help columns of the day. “I knew an old lady who, if she had nearly completed a piece of needlework on a Thursday, would put it aside unfinished, and set a few stitches in her next undertaking, that she might not be obliged either to begin the new task on Friday or to remain idle for a day.” “Fisherman would have great misgivings about laying the keel of a new boat on Friday, as well as launching one on that day.” "There are still a few respectable tradesmen and merchants who will not transact business, or be bled, or take physic, on a Friday, because it is an unlucky day.” “Sailors are many of them very superstitious…A voyage begun on a Friday is sure to be an unfortunate one.” “If you have been ill, don’t get up for the first time on Friday.” “If you hear anything new on a Friday, it gives you another wrinkle on your face, and adds a year to your age.” “As to Friday, a couple married on that day are doomed to a cat-and-dog life.” Regarding the suspicion around the Friday the 13th specifically, the connection to the demise of Jacques Demolay, and 100 other Templars, on a crisp October night at the direction of King Philip, as mentioned on the podcast, is a relatively modern connection which has very little verifiable supporting information regarding the specific day. In reality, it wasn't until the 20th century that we began to see a connection made between two historically unlucky, but until this time disparate, thoughts. One of the first such connections was a small blurb from the New York Times in 1908 regarding an Oklahoma senator who dared to tempt the double superstitions and friggatriskaidekaphobics everywhere by introducing thirteen bills on Friday the 13th. One things is certain, Friday the 13th, like most days, is no stranger to verifiable unfortunate or terrible things, including a the birth of the KKK's first Grand Wizard in 1821, 1970 cyclone which killed 300k people in Bangladesh, the crash of Uruguayan Flight 571 AND Aeroflot 217 happened on the same cursed Friday in 1972, the murder of Tupac in 1996, the crash of the Costa Concordia cruise ship in 2012. Additionally, a 2010 study estimated that as much as $800 million are lost every Friday the 13th due to the fears surrounding travel, shopping, or just not showing up for work. And, in case you now needed a reason to break out your friggatriskaidekaphobia stress ball, scientists predict that, on Friday, April 13th, 2029, a 300-meter asteroid will pass so close to us that our gravitational pull may be enough to cause dust and debris avalanches on the surface of the rock. Predicted to flyby at a mere 22,000 miles from us, the distance is only a tenth of the distance to the moon, less that the circumference of our planet, right in the middle of the distance range commonly referred to as "Medium Earth Orbit", with man-made satellites orbiting further away from us than it will be, and the closest an asteroid of that size has passed by us since we have bothered to start keeping track. Unlucky indeed...

https://roosterteeth.com/episode/rooster-teeth-podcast-2018-burnie-and-the-jet-504

#RTAnswers - #504 - The Gang Jinxes RTX https://roosterteeth.com/episode/rooster-teeth-podcast-2018-burnie-and-the-jet-504 ---------------------------- In honor of me finally getting around to finalizing all of bookings for RTX 2019, I present to you, better late than never, the RTAnswers from RTX 2018! ---------------------------- Who is Scrappy the dog? Meet Scrappy. https://twitter.com/the_scrappy_dog https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGQEv3cUQAQ0uag.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DjyL1o9V4AAEptl.jpg ---------------------------- Go street sign? The "Go" signs, as Gus shared on the Podcast, do exist. However they are, from what I can tell, almost exclusively on the opposite side of a hand held stop sign. These are used for temporary construction signage and usually in the hand of a flagger. However, I think that any of us who has ever had to deal with interstate tolls or multi-lane bridges during rush-hour should be familiar with the below "Go" sign. My vote is it counts. You? http://www.drivingschoolireland.com/image/r53.gif ---------------------------- How many stories deep is the Grand Canyon? Confirmed, around 610 stories. At its deepest point, the Grand Canyon is 6093 feet. At 10' per story, the deepest point would be 610 stories. Math :) ---------------------------- Self-driving car decisions? We touched on this way back in episode #381 and, coincidentally, had quite a large conversation about it on the RTX 2016 stage. Links to the full posts provided below, which I highly recommend reviewing individually, but here are some excerpts and a TL;DR. The obvious concern with this process, and the frequent plot line of machine driven post-apocalyptic films, is that the desire for the first point, supplemented by the other two, leads to the eventual destruction, or enslavement, of mankind. This logic is the reason for Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws. Ultimately, the biggest unknown in regards to these laws is the interpretation of ethics on the part of the AI. Similar to the ethical thought experiment, the Trolley Problem, it can easily become a question of the value of one human life over another or some other similar, and ultimately completely subjective, interpretation of the laws, the situation, the people/AI involved, etc. There is also the understanding among researchers that, as Miss Le Page suggested, it is far more likely that the most important law governing robotics is ignored by humans, rather than these three by AI. That law being that "A human may not build a robot that does not embody/implement the Three Laws of Robotics." Essentially, the likelihood of AI being utilized for nefarious reasons, be they war, crime, manipulation, etc,. is far more likely than we would probably be comfortable admitting. And it would only take one artificial super intelligence to have the capacity for recursive self-improvement without the constraints of the Three Laws, or some other governing system, in place to realize their greatest threat will always be humanity and, placing security above all else, eliminate that threat. DUN-DUN-DUNNN! Realistically, when you think about the future of machine learning and programmed ethics, a choice like this is very likely going to be the first case of a computer being forced to make a decision regarding human life. This means that any decisions made on this subject have, potentially, very broad and lasting consequences. Even if a future discussion has nothing to do with motor vehicles, this decision establishing some type of precedent in the area of AI morality as a whole is likely and recognized as such by most of the industry. So, what is the answer? At the moment there isn't really one. There are numerous prominent professors with backgrounds in engineering, philosophy, law, and more that have been engaged by various auto manufacturers over the last few years to debate, and hopefully come to a consensus, about this very question. The one thing they seem to be in agreement on is that the situation is far more complicated than most outside of the industry would like to think. You may ask, "What exactly makes this so difficult?" This is actually a perfect question to prompt an addendum to my previous post on AI. I briefly discussed the "Three Laws of Robotics" then and explained how something as complex as representing ethics in binary decisions couldn't be broken down into a few simple questions. However, for this question we only need to focus on the first law, "A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm." Now let's apply Philippa Foot's Trolley Problem to this first law and AI. A robot is at the helm of the runaway trolley car and it is careening toward five unsuspecting individuals working on the track ahead. Does the robot flip the switch to jump to the second track where a single person stands? Do you? Either way a human will be killed. How does the first law deal with this relatively simple question? It doesn't. This is a binary situation without a binary answer. What do we program AI to do if it is unable to effectively follow the first law? These are the reasons the three laws will/should never exist outside of Hollywood blockbusters and is also the reason why the decisions regarding autonomous vehicles and unavoidable situations have far-reaching implications in the world of AI morality. All of that isn't factoring the added complication of worrying about the driver, and presumably owner, of the vehicle. A variant of the Trolley Problem, applied specifically to autonomous vehicles, asks what would happen if a car suddenly finds itself faced with running into a tree at a speed that will certainly lead to the death of its only passenger (owner), or swerving and killing a random pedestrian. Is the owner of the vehicle's safety more important than the safety of others on the road? Most human drivers would instinctively put their safety ahead of others. Because of this, some feel that programming a car to mimic natural driver responses is the best way of handling this. Others feel the safety of innocent strangers should be the priority. Still others feel the only "fair" way of handling this situation is to allow the car to randomly decide. Does it change things if the pedestrian is actually five pedestrians? Five kids? Would you even buy a car that was programmed to put the safety of others above your own? Some have stated that letting the market decide is the best option. In much the same way that buying a motorcycle is more dangerous for you and, relatively, less dangerous to other drivers on the road, we program cars to have all options at their disposal and then allow their owners to set their own default parameters. But then where does fault lie in the event of a tragic accident? The driver? The manufacturer? I realize that my answer to this question really only added more questions, which is pretty shitty, but I think that is the point. All of these questions, and more, will need to be answered far sooner than we may like. Fully autonomous vehicles are just around the corner and we need to be confident that, when it comes around the bend, it is making the "right" choice of who to hit. The TL;DR is that I 100% agree with Gus but, without going as far as us "programming" our eventual AI overlords with the knowledge necessary to exploit our weaknesses for what people we care about most, another very real precedent is being set by these programmed vehicles. We are essentially allowing the self-driving auto industry determine our own very real version of Asimov's Laws. Who our Tesla is instructed to kill today could very likely be who our walking and talking AI companions kill tomorrow. There is far more to be said in the linked previous posts but absolutely curious as to your stance on this one? https://roosterteeth.com/post/51272057 https://roosterteeth.com/post/51274076 ---------------------------- Can sharks breathe out of water? When most of us think of sharks, visions of a ship eating Great White or a Samuel L Jackson chomping genetically modified Mako come to mind, but sharks come in many different shapes and sizes. While the bigger species will only survive a matter of minutes outside of water, several of the smaller sharks are able to exist on a much lower oxygen concentration and can draw out their demise as much as two or three times that of the larger fish. However, one very curious shark known as the epaulette has mastered the art of "walking" on land. Having evolved to survive hunting in the shallow tide pools of Indonesia, Australia, and Papua New Guinea, these sharks are able to reduce the blood flow to parts of their brain and body by purposely slowing their heart rate and breathing while using their uniquely adapted pectoral and pelvic fins as "feet" to bounce along the uneven exposed coral reef surface on the hunt for various crustaceans and small fish. https://youtu.be/hdlHMMsP_ZI ---------------------------- Do bears eat things specifically to block their poop? There a few things of note here. The first is that hibernating bears DO create what is known as a fecal plug which blocks the lower foot, or so, of the intestine to form a poop plug that is roughly 2 inches in diameter. The second is that they DO NOT purposely eat unusual things in order to build this fecal plug. This is a longtime misconception which stems from researchers having believed for decades that the source of the random plant fibers found in ejected fecal plugs was a result of these unusual diets. However, more recent studies have realized that these plant fibers, fur, leaves, etc find their way into the fecal matter by way of the immense amount of grooming the bear will perform while hibernating. I suppose because there is nothing else to do but lick yourself when you are locked in a cave for half a year. The final item of note is that bears, despite being the first animal people point at to represent the hibernating creatures of the wild is not considered a "true hibernator". Hibernation is intended to be a state of complete stasis. Blood flow, heart activity, and metabolic rates barely register as a living creature. In some cases, such as the Arctic ground squirrel, the creature is able to allow their core body temperature to dip below freezing, effectively cryogenically freezing them within their hole until the spring thaw comes. Bears, on the other hand, still maintain a functional level of biological activity during their hibernations. Their core temperatures are kept high which allows them to stay alert to potential dangers lurking around their den while not requiring the need to venture outside of the cave for up to seven months for any actual sustaining resource. As long as they are able to breathe, they can survive. These facts have actually led some researchers to point at bears as the "more advanced hibernator" as it just as much, if not more of a feat, to live at a diminished activity level, but fully coherent, then it is to allow your body to be frozen for the winter months. ---------------------------- Can humans hibernate? Er... maybe.... To be clear, IF we could, it would certainly fall within the same "advanced hibernation", or "fake hibernation" depending on who you ask, as the bear. Hibernation is all about reducing the creatures metabolic rate to a point where the need for caloric intake and other sustenance is unnecessary as none, or a near-zero amount, of energy is expended. Researchers have found that when a person sleeps, their body's oxygen level will typically drop by around 6%. However, a Harvard Medical School study on Tibetan monks from several years ago has shown that, during deep meditation, a monk's oxygen levels would be reduced as much as 64%. More recent studies on this phenomenon and in the areas of suspended-animation has found that hydrogen sulfide treatments in laboratory mice could reduce breathing rates by 92% and drastically lower core temperatures. This effectively placed the mice into a sort of stasis limbo where tissue deterioration was not a concern but near-zero energy was expended. Additionally, once revived the mice recovered completely with no side effects. And lets not forget the scattering of extraordinary stories throughout history, ancient and recent alike, about wayward travelers who have survived treacherous conditions and certain death by reducing their motor functionality in every way possible. One notable case is that of a 35 year old Japanese man missing on a snow covered mountain for 24 days in 2006. He survived with no maladies. This medical miracle was attributed to a complete shutdown of all non-vital organs including a core body temperature of only 71 degrees when he was discovered by rescuers. Another was the Russian practice of "lotska" practiced by peasants in the late 19th century having to deal with the frigid and unforgiving Russian winters. With this meditation and sleeping technique, the practitioners would wake only once per day for six months in order to consume a very small amount of food and drink. One of the things hibernation researchers DO agree on is that there does not appear to be some "magical switch or gene" which determines whether an animal has the abilities to manage their metabolic rate to allow for hibernation. This suggests that, with the aid of science, humans should be fully capable of reaching this potential as well. This would prove invaluable in the world of extended space flight, trauma surgery, and perhaps even extending lifetimes. However, with all of these anecdotal stories and scientific studies, we are all inevitably drawn back to the poop plug. You see, our human anatomies have not quite figured out the whole absorb our own waste back into our bodies to build a solid block of super compacted feces for the sole purpose of holding all other feces inside of us.... Perhaps this is for the best though as I, for one, would not look forward to that first dump after a long six months slumber.

https://roosterteeth.com/episode/rooster-teeth-podcast-2019-rooster-teeth-podcast-526

#RTAnswers - #526 - Are Feet Private? https://roosterteeth.com/episode/rooster-teeth-podcast-2019-rooster-teeth-podcast-526 ---------------------------- Why does flicking a comb's teeth cause some cats to gag? This is apparently one of the mysteries not yet solved by modern science. Despite numerous YouTube videos documenting this phenomenon the scientific community has yet to prioritize this great enigma. One thing of possible note is that along with the comb, various causes such as crinkled candy wrappers, dropped pen caps, mechanical keyboards, and ripped packing tape, among others have also been identified. Some of the theories of the desk chair, cat owner, scientists do not seem that far fetched either. The predominant theory is that this may be related to the way the vibrations of the comb, or the similar sounds above, may affect the cat's inner ear. Like the ability to disorient and cause dizziness and nausea in a human by applying concussive force to the eardrums or the diagnosis of temporary vertigo caused by very loud noises, this sound may affect the feline's biology in a very similar way. The dissenting opinions to this point out that the cats do not appear to lose balance as much as they immediately begin retching as if attempting to dislodge something from their throat. A truly unique thought on this point of view theorized that the sound was similar to teeth on the ribs or spinal column of small rodents and the retching was perhaps and evolutionary instinct to fight the potential choking hazard that a mouse's skeleton presumably is for a cat. While an interesting hypothesis, I personally find this one unlikely as any time I have seen a cat eat a mouse, they seem to be pretty uninterested in what parts get consumed, choking hazards be damned. Sorry I don't have a more conclusive answer on this one. Interested to see what theories the rest of the community may have though. ---------------------------- How much is one timber? While not technically defined as a singular or plural noun the word "timber" is used interchangeably as both depending on the intended context of the word. For example, it can mean "a dressed piece of wood, especially a beam in a structure" as used in the sentence, "This timber is the spine of the ship." However, it can also be used to represent a bundle of wood with a shared use as in the sentence, "These timbers form the spine of the ship." Perhaps even more interesting for the "lexicophiles" in the community is that it can also be used as a verb, such as in the sentence, "We timber the mineshaft." Which, by definition means that you are supporting the mineshaft with timbers, not, incidentally, timber because in this use case the true plural is with the added "s". This means that, through various cases, the word "timber" can be both plural and singular. On a completely unrelated note, does it bother anyone else that the word "lexicophile" is apparently not a real word... is there some warped sort of irony in that? ---------------------------- Does the UK government have a shutdown? Not really, at least not in what the US would define as the "traditional" government shutdown. This is because the UK government is a parliamentary government consisting of two houses. The lower house, the House of Commons, consists of multiple parties who are elected to control the "supply" of government funds. If, at any time, these parties are unable to agree on this supply then it is tantamount to a vote of no confidence in their ability to rule since this is effectively their primary role. If this occurs, it will trigger a general election and a new government body is elected which will be able to come to an agreement on the supply. The upper house, the House of Lords, serves as a check on the lower house and while they can question the decisions and bills created by the House of Commons, they do not, except under very specific circumstances have the ability to veto those bills. This was not always the case as the closest the UK government came to a budgetary shutdown was in 1910 decision by the upper house to reject the lower house's defined budget. This incident was resolved without a true shutdown however, and shortly after it was ruled that the House of Lords do not have the ability to reject supply charters. That said, the United Kingdom has drifted dangerously close to what they would define as a shutdown over the last month due to disagreements regarding the negotiated Brexit deals with the European Union. As previously mentioned, though, this "shutdown" would force an election and would not likely lead to a true shutdown as we Americans would define it. ---------------------------- Does carbon monoxide rise like smoke? No, however it does rise with smoke. Carbon Monoxide IS lighter than air but only slightly which leads to a relatively even distribution in a normal home. However, due to its likely sources, it is typical to find carbon monoxide traveling on warmer air streams within a home. This causes it to rise with the other air caught in the stream. This is the reason most modern smoke alarms double as carbon monoxide detectors as well. It is also the reason why the recommended installation places for the combination smoke/CO detectors are at "chokepoints" in the home for these air streams, such as the top of a staircase.

https://roosterteeth.com/episode/rooster-teeth-podcast-2018-rooster-teeth-podcast-500

---------------------------- #RTAnswers - #500 - Gavin or Google #14 https://roosterteeth.com/episode/rooster-teeth-podcast-2018-rooster-teeth-podcast-500 ---------------------------- Are there any animals with only one orifice? Unfortunately, this is one of the few in which Gavin was NOT correct. As you can see from the diagram, a starfish does not actually have a single orifice but rather a mouth on the underside (fittingly referred to as the oral side) of its body and an anus directly opposite, on the spiny top. Keep that in mind the next time you pet the starfish at your local aquarium touch tank. https://78.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lsns6qDee51qdkx7p.jpg Interestingly, and all too commonly, Gavin was not actually far off with the starfish. While a sea star does not have a single orifice, they are part of the scientific classification of Echinoderms, along with sea urchins, sand dollars, and sea cucumbers. While all of these creatures also live a very normal life with both a mouth and an anus, the sea cucumber AND the sea urchin have both, at times, been suspected of also using their anus for the occasional consumption of food. Providing radioactive algae as food, scientists would then investigate the outer tissues of the echinoderms. Both cucumbers and urchins displayed a smaller concentration of the radioactive particles around their anus suggesting this secondary eating option. In case you are curious, this is apparently referred to as "bipolar feeding"... so there's that. Another interesting bit which I stumbled across while investigating this is that humans share a strange commonality with Echinoderms in that we, like the common sea star are part of the deuterostome monophyletic group of bilaterally symmetrical, coelomate animals. Or we, like the sand dollar, are animals descended from a common evolutionary ancestor, have a head, tail, belly, back, left and right side which, like Geoff playing a horror game, came in ass first. This, apparently is an unusual thing in the animal world as the overwhelming majority of animals develop as protostomes, meaning that their first orifice is a gaping mouth. ---------------------------- Restaurant dessert portions? There is, apparently, a science to this and a rationale behind the insane dessert portions that can be found at many restaurants these days. In order to understand the logic here there are three, somewhat related, things we need to understand about the restaurant business. Desserts are expensive, drinks are high margin, and people like to share. ---------------------------- Is Australia upside down? Here is the obligatory repost from the RT Podcast #420 Answers post. P.S. The bit about the moon's orientation at the end is still one of the most fascinating things I've learned doing these: https://roosterteeth.com/post/51301334 Yep. As in, "I am right side up, Australia is directly beneath me (on the other side of the planet of course), therefore, they are upside down... in relation to me of course." It is that last bit which frustrates the "Flat-Earthers" of the world. But this question isn't about the idiocy of a Flat-Earth theory, it is about antipodes and their relation to you. An antipode is the "direct opposite of something else." In this case, your antipode is the point directly opposite you on the Earth. Here is a handy website that lets you find the antipode for any point on the globe. Let's take Austin, TX as an example. http://i.imgur.com/G0TVgEb.jpg The site tells us that the antipode of Austin is actually pretty much right in the middle of the Indian Ocean. This means that if @burnie sent a friend (or @bgibbles) to that exact GPS coordinate to float in the ocean for a bit, Blaine would be floating directly "beneath" Burnie, relative to his position in Austin. By comparison, if @Gavino were to be hanging out in the UK during this time, both Burnie and Blaine would be perpendicular, or "lying on their sides," relative to him. Roughly, the UK isn't an exact 90-degree perpendicular to Austin and the Indian Ocean, but hopefully you get the point. If you are still having issues, think about three ants standing on a basketball. Two are sitting at the line intersections along the ball's "equator," directly opposite each other. These two ants are antipodes and are Burnie and Blaine. To Gavin, sitting on top of the ball at its "North Pole," so to speak, both Burnie and Blaine are hanging out on the ball sideways while Gavin is "right side up." Now imagine you are Burnie the ant, Blaine is directly beneath you, upside-down, and Gavin is the sideways one. Blaine the Ant has nearly the same observation but with Burnie as the "gravity-defying-one." Perhaps the easiest way to recognize this very real observation, while simultaneously adding to the necessary complexity of the Flat-Earthers flat Earth explanation, is that antipodes that are different north/south hemispheres, which most would be, will also see a "reversed" image of the moon. This concept may be a bit more difficult to comprehend without a graphic, so I've found, and added, on below. Honestly, for some reason, this never even occurred to me but it makes total sense. Since your concept of "right-side-up" is completely relative to you, your concept of what the moon's appearance would also be relative to your vantage point. Additionally, the closer you live to the Tropics of Capricorn or Cancer, the more you and your compatriots also living in those areas would agree on the appearance of the moon. This is because these points match the axis tilt of the Earth and essentially cause your position on Earth, relative to the moon's orbit, to be relatively parallel. As for the age-old question of "Why don't Australians just fall off if they are upside down?" I would reply, “Why aren't you falling off? You aren't on ‘top’ of the world right now. How can ships sail through the Panama Canal without listing terribly to one side? Why hasn't the ocean's water in the southern hemisphere fallen from the Earth and floated into space yet?” I think the idea that this question is for some reason only ever applied to humans in the southern hemisphere is testament to the arrogance of humanity. Let's forget about the MILLIONS of other things that would be affected if gravity just didn't apply below the equator. The point is, they, and everything else "down" there, stays put because the gravity affecting it is from our planet, and while it may seem to constantly pull you "down," this is only relative to you. To the Australian, gravity is actually pulling you "up." Right? LOL. http://guanolad.com/stuff/moon_orientation.jpg Perhaps the most mind-boggling observation, for me, that came from researching this is the realization that as you travel south from the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere, the orientation of the phases of the moon have to change as well. Since the moon itself appears “upside-down” relative to my current position, a person standing on the equator would, naturally, have to see the mid-point observations. This causes the moon’s phases to appear perpendicular to the horizon. Additionally, best I can tell, while the moon phase names have been transferred to the southern hemisphere, they are reversed, appearing right-to-left. Literally blown away by all of this. Am I alone in this? http://ryanmarciniak.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Moon-observer.jpg ---------------------------- Did Gavin say headlight fluid? http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.libsyn.com/rtpodcast/DrunkTank-DrunkTank30916.mp3 56:13 Fine... we'll take away the headlight fluid... We always have "wiper juice" ---------------------------- The iPhone 4s only had one model? Was Gus right? This is correct. Gus was right because aside from storage settings, there was only one 4s model. The confusion over this discussion stems from the use of the title "iphone 5" in the discussion. However, this is because the 4s, name, had not yet been announced so the crew was assuming that the next iphone after the iPhone 4 would be the iPhone 5. This podcast in question #111 aired on 4/27/11 and the 4s was announced on 10/3/11.

https://roosterteeth.com/episode/rooster-teeth-podcast-2019-rooster-teeth-podcast-527

---------------------------- #RTAnswers - #527 - Baby Shark is a Curse https://roosterteeth.com/episode/rooster-teeth-podcast-2019-rooster-teeth-podcast-527 ---------------------------- The "over/under" toilet paper debate resolved by patent images? A few years ago, images of the "original" patent filings for perforated toilet paper were discovered by a Business Insider journalist and the pictures quickly went viral. Interestingly, the most popular image, seen below, is that of an 1891 patent filing by Seth Wheeler and is not remotely the first patent regarding toilet paper or even perforated paper. If you take a quick trek down the softly quilted rabbit hole of perforated toilet tissue, you will find numerous other filings which predate Wheeler's conclusive "over" patent images by several years. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/31/8a/74/e9985513c79360/US459516-drawings-page-1.png One of these, the first image below, was a filing by Wheeler himself only one year prior to his now "infamous" 1891 filing. In this image you can see that, perhaps, the "over" camp is on ultra soft ground. Digging further we can find that the first toilet paper related patent on the Google search engine is another Wheeler patent from 1885 which is again concerning the perforation of the paper. This can be seen in the second image. This image, while clearly showing the toilet paper on the roll, it does not appear to clearly show which way that toilet paper is facing, though I think it likely that it is in the "over" configuration as well. The reasoning for this assumption has to do with the many other patent filings surrounding toilet paper at the time. This would also be the first Wheeler Toilet Paper themed patent which actually referenced the toilet paper. Prior to this, all of of Wheeler's TP related patents had been focused on the holder and had no need to show, or dictate, the position of the paper. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/60/cf/68/bb0686a0af519d/US422866-drawings-page-1.png https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/9e/84/50/8304a990d38fdd/US333183-drawings-page-1.png While inventors like Wheeler's and Hicks's focus on perforated sheets, would eventually make Charmin millions with the idea that even a bear could detach a single square of toilet tissue, other TP focused inventors of the time were creating all sorts of contraptions to cut the non-perforated toilet paper of the 1880s. One of these, C. C. Johnson, would patent his Paper Holder and Cutter, seen below, a good eight months before Wheeler's earliest patent above. There are several similar non-perforated paper cutting contraption patents, all of which show the toilet paper going over. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/f8/4f/34/e7cf4382052267/US316368-drawings-page-1.png As I spent time perusing the US patent office archives on toilet paper contraptions I realized that, in all likelihood, the ONLY reason Wheeler, Hicks, James, Myers, and the other "big" names in the toilet paper innovation industry depicted later patent images with an "over" toilet paper roll position was because ALL of the non-perforated toilet paper cutting contraptions patented, and in use, prior to the later kings of perforation had an over-oriented roll. It's my opinion, for what it's worth, that this decision wasn't due to some physics-oriented "best practice" but rather due to the requirement of placing a razor blade in an inauspicious but safe place which allowed a hasty slice through the paper during a late night clean up after an unfortunate five minutes in a cold dark outhouse. "Plainly" put, it is easier to cut paper by pulling up against a blade applying gravity-induced downward pressure than to push down against a blade providing spring-induced upward pressure, not to mention much safer in the dark with shivering hands. So, what does all of this mean for the over/under debate? I think it means, if you happen to be in the camp which dictates that the inventor of something has the final word on how that something is utilized, then this is a pretty solid blow against the under camp... but you also are probably the same group of... eh... intellectuals... pronouncing "gif" like a peanut butter because some rando claimed that is what he meant when he failed whatever class it is where you learn those nifty pronunciation marks in the dictionary. However, if you happen to be on the side of those who believe that the "best laid plans" are just that, plans, and that the purposing masses dictate the "truth" of any word, or toilet-themed innovation, than it probably doesn't, or shouldn't, matter what any of the patent pages say. Over is better because society, and apparently 90% of the RT Podcast live audience, have said it is so.... unless you own a cat. ---------------------------- Is there such a thing as flushable wipes? If we are being honest, anything which your toilet can successfully make disappear from the bowl, by definition, is flushable. For example, American Standard appears to be quite proud of their Titan model, as can be seen from the below promotional YouTube video. Let's just hope that isn't connected to the London sewer systems. They have enough to worry about with their existing 250-meter long fatbergs consisting of non-flushable flushable wipes without also worrying about hundreds of golf balls and a few toy snakes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWg63jjgaYY Now that we have gotten the semantics out of the way, we can tackle the intent of the question. That being not whether "flushable" wipes are a thing but rather, do any of the wipes which currently claim to be "flushable" and "septic and sewer safe" actually perform as intended. The simple answer to this is "no, not really". More specifically, the answer is that there are thousands of different flushable wipes from hundreds of different manufacturers worldwide and zero governing bodies or flushable "standards" identified. The closest to this would be the INDA, or the Association of the Nonwoven Fabrics Industry. This association, founded in 1968, has served "hundreds of member companies in the nonwovens/engineered fabrics industry doing business globally". Their Flushability Guidelines documentation are also the closest any of us have to providing a testing strategy to the numerous wipes touting a "flushable claim". Unfortunately for us, the current board of directors of INDA consists of a managing director of a company which "sells machinery and process components to the Nonwovens industry", the president of a company which has "global manufacturing operations producing specialty engineered products for the thermal/acoustical and filtration/separation markets", the president-advanced of a company which is "a global supplier of specialty papers and fiber-based engineered materials", a director of American sales for a company which "develops unique nonwoven fabrics... such as Sontara®, SoftFlush® and SoftLite®", a sales director for a company which is "a leading manufacturer and marketer of premium-quality... fibers and nonwovens for commercial, industrial and residential applications", and the associate director of Proctor & Gamble which, for those living under a rock, have likely produced most of the products in ALL of our bathrooms right now, and the list continues. Perhaps I am alone, but it would be foolish to believe that any one on the board of directors list or this association at all could create and perform unbiased tests on the "flushability" of a specific wet wipe. This would be tantamount to allowing an ex-coal lobbyist to lead the EPA... oh... damn! Backing up a bit, the flushable wipe was created in 2001 when the Kimberly-Clark corporation, who you may know better as the manufacturer of Kleenex, Cottonelle, and Huggies, spent millions developing the first wipe you could, worry-free, toss in the toilet and they spent millions more convincing adults that a truly clean bottom required just a bit more than the paper we had been using for over a century. After all, you wouldn't us a simple dry 2-ply sheet on your baby's bottom, why should you use something so primitive on your own. Also, in case you were wondering, yes, the INDA has a former Kimberly-Clark employee on their board as well. Fast-forward to August 2013 and the coining of the term "fatberg" to represent the bus-sized collection of grease and "flushable" wipes found beneath the streets of London. Over the next five years, another ten more massive collections of congealed fat, waste, and wet wipes have been found in Australia's, America's, and the United Kingdom's largest cities. The "flushable" wipe industry and the INDA would have you believe that these 100-ton solidified waste deposits consist of far more grease and waste than the wipes which they have spent so much money and effort certifying as "flushable" however, the unfortunate truth is that EVERY one of these fatberg reports have always had the same three components identified, grease, human waste, and wipes. While the percentages of these individual components have never been clearly defined one notable ingredient absent from this fatberg recipe is simple 2-ply toilet paper. For an industry which would like us all to believe that these wipes are just as degradable as their TP counterparts, they certainly aren't about to argue that the reason wet wipes are more obviously prevalent than toilet paper is because people are using far more wipes than your standard bog roll. As early as 2004, multiple independent studies have been performed on the "flushability" of "flushable" wipes and, to this day, there have been zero which have concluded that flushable wipes have the same level of degradation as a roll of Charmin Ultra Soft. Now that we have all learned something today; how much have you contributed to the growing fatberg beneath your streets? ---------------------------- Cold Calling your "Neighbor"? This relatively new "upgrade" to the cold-calling scammer world started cropping up in late 2017 and has exploded in similar-digit popularity over the last year. While the ability to spoof a phone's caller ID has been around for some time and a few years back there was even a brief rash of scammers calling would-be marks and having the mark's own number appear on their caller ID. I mean, if you can't trust yourself then who can you trust? These same scammers quickly realized that most of us were wise enough to know there was no way we would be calling us at this hour so they shifted gears slightly. Perhaps showing our own numbers was too meta so, taking a step back, they started showing us our neighbors and, to perhaps no one's surprise, it worked. It worked, and still works, because, like the Podcast crew said, that call could be from your doctor, your kid's school, your lawyer, or your actual neighbor calling you about your burning home. This process, known as "neighbor spoofing" has quickly become the most utilized method of scammer cold-calling nationwide however, the spoofers don't seem to be the scammers, at least not directly. Most studies have found that these robotic auto-dialers don't know you from your thousands of neighbors all sharing the same six digit phone number prefix. That is, until you answer. While the dialers will randomly dial digits and display a similar number to the one they just dialed on the caller ID, it is the act of you answering which seals your fate fore the scammer. If you never answer, the number dialed is considered illegitimate or inactive and is, presumably, put back to the bottom of the list to be tested again in the future but, if you answer, then your number is flagged as a live one and moved to antithesis of the Do Not Call registry. From there, your number will consistently be shifted back to the top of the dialer queue in the hopes that you will answer again and some guy from India named Frank will tell you about how your Apple account has been compromised but he can keep your nudes from being sent to your grandma for a few iTunes gift cards. A 2018 study performed by Hiya, a Seattle-based caller ID and robocaller protection company found that of the approximately 4.3 billion calls they intercepted every month in 2018 over 56% were neighbor spoof calls. Their premium subscription touts the ability to only allow the numbers and people you care about to reach you and successfully block all other would-be scammers from ever reaching your ringer. The claim to have a database with millions of legitimate to check every incoming call against and their app has pretty impressive ratings and reviews though I would be interested to see if any in the community had given them a try. Unfortunately, according to the BBB and the FTC, there is little definitive ways of avoiding scam calls using the neighbor spoofing technique beyond not answering a number you do not know which, as I'm sure we can all attest to, is easier said than done, especially when you are waiting for that important call back from someone outside of your typical circle. Incidentally, I may have accidentally stumbled upon the only real solution to the neighbor spoofing issue. The reason why neighbor spoofing has quickly become so successful in connecting the world's scammers to unsuspecting people is because you absolutely might be expecting that follow-up call from the doctor or your kid's day care. There is no world where we can just ignore these calls and we can't possibly have every legitimate number which may contact us in our phone's contact list. If you are unable to know every legitimate number that may call you then the only solution is to ensure that every non-legitimate number which calls you, you can immediately identify as bullshit. The solution then is to ensure that no legitimate person would ever contact you from a number which shares the first six-digits of your number. Two years ago, I moved to a new state but never changed my number because why the hell would I? Here I sit, two years later, 100% confident that every neighbor-spoofed number which calls me is complete bullshit. There is no one that I need to speak to which shares the first six digits of my number who are not currently saved as a contact and there never will be. I am so confident in this, that if there were a way to immediately forward anyone who calls me from a number which shares the first six-digits of my number to some special "fuck off" voicemail, I would be 100% comfortable doing so. The good news for everyone who isn't planning on moving to another state any time soon is that, with the wonders of modern technology, this is insanely easy to set up for you as well without moving from your chair, let alone your home. As an added bonus, the following solution has also been suggested by most cyber-security experts as the ONLY way of protecting your personal information and accounts in our backwards ass world where we use our public phone numbers as some sort of special two-factor authentication solution. It's like the "secure" insecurity of our Social Security Numbers all over again! Here's the plan: First step, get a new phone number from your phone carrier and give it to absolutely no one. Do not put it in your contacts list or your significant other's, not even your mom, no one should be trusted with this number. In fact, after this next step, you should forget it as well. Step two, get yourself a Google Voice number and forward all calls to your new number. This Google Voice number should NOT share the first six-digits of your actual number and should preferably be from some area code in Alaska or some other state on the other side of the country. Last step, give everyone you know, all of your friends, your doctor's offices, your billing accounts, etc, this new Google Voice number. Now, anytime you receive a random call from some number which appears to be the same as this new Google Voice number you know that it is complete bullshit and you can forward it immediately. For those of you who really want to embrace this New World Order, download an app called Burner. This allows you to pay upfront for a rotating list of numbers which you can essentially "burn" at anytime. These numbers can all be linked to your Google Voice number but can then be given out to individuals based on your own amount of trust and, in the event of a "compromise" you can burn the line with a tap of the screen, effectively allowing you to "restart" any headway the neighbor-spoofers may believe they had on your lines. A similar solution on the email front is to use the plus (+) sign followed by specific text in your Gmail address when signing up for various accounts. In the event that you start getting spam to a specific "plussed" address, just filter straight to the trash and find comfort in that fact that even though that site obviously sold your email to a third-party at least you don't have to deal with it cluttering your legit inbox. Alright... I think I've filled my quota of helpful tech-tips for the day. Good luck! ---------------------------- Is glass a liquid? This would be a very solid no... ah, see what I did there? Seriously though, let's spell this one out so Burnie can sleep better at night knowing he was wrong about something else. Spoiler alert, it won't be the first time in this Podcast. As mentioned on the podcast, glass is what is known as an Amorphous Solid. While this does differentiate it slightly from other decidedly solid solids like a rock, it does not make it any less solid. The classification as an amorphous solid just means that, due to how quickly it cooled when hardening from a molten liquid to a solid, the atoms making up its structure do not form a perfect crystalline and symmetrical structure. Instead the molecules are very random and potentially spread out rather than a defined and constant pattern however, and this is key, the atoms are tightly bound to each other. This tight bond is what determines the solidity of the item. In a liquid, atoms are loosely bound which allows them to "jump" from molecule to molecule and move past each other, or flow. The measurement of this flow is the liquid's viscosity. This can, for some liquids, be an extremely high, almost motionless, measurement such as the University of Queensland's nearly century long measurement of falling pitch, seen below, a material which many of us, including our local Department of Transportation authorities would likely swear is a solid. https://youtu.be/UZKZF7FNh_0 Why then would anyone believe that glass is, like the pitch above, actually very slowly moving liquid rather than the solid it obviously is? This scientific urban legend's source can be traced to the thousand year old stained glass windows we find in some of the world's oldest churches. If you look at a stained glass window, in many cases you will see that the bottoms of the individual glass panes tend to be just slightly thicker than the top. This observation led professional and amateur scientists alike to come to the conclusion that glass, like the pitch, must be slowly flowing towards the bottom of their iron frames. Unfortunately, in the modern era of science we are able to measure the would-be viscosity of these solid windows and have found that the lead frames have a lower viscosity than the glass. Meaning that the frames would "melt" away long before the glass would. You may be wondering why the stained glass is often thicker at the bottom then? The solution to the mystery, perhaps anticlimactically, is just that it is, especially centuries ago, difficult to make uniformly thick glass and the pieces would be installed with the thicker part at the bottom to provide a more solid base in their framing. As is typical when researching the science-related questions, I stumbled across my own piece of personally mind blowing details regarding solids and liquids. Specifically concerning the innards of our planet. Unless I am completely misremembering my elementary-level science classes, I was taught that our crust is "floating" on a constantly churning molten sea known as the mantle. Turns out, more recent studies of seismic wave propagation through our planet have led geologists to the conclusion that our mantle is actually a very solid piece of silicate rock. It is often depicted as a liquid due to the relative measurements of its movement. Meaning that on a geological timescale, read many millions of years, this solid rock can "flow" like a viscous liquid. Not because the atoms are any less tightly bound than the glass but because the immense pressure can force atoms to "jump" to any "free" molecular space which may exist causing it to behave as a "flowing" liquid when viewed over what would essentially be a billion year time lapse. Special thanks to Dirk from Veristablium ( 🙂) on this one. His video below was my primary source for all of the above. He is frequently my go to for the more scientifically challenging questions and just as frequently blows my mind with his findings. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6wuh0NRG1s ---------------------------- How far has Voyager gone at this point? The Voyager spacecrafts, each launched in 1977, took slightly different trajectories out of our solar system and have both outlasted their initial five-year lifespan by over thirty-five years. In addition to this unexpected aging, they are currently traveling at approximately 38k and 34k mph, respectively, and are a distance of 13.5 and 11.2 billion miles from earth. Interestingly, this number does not constantly increase as the Earth's orbit around the sun is nearly twice as fast as the Voyager probes' speeds. This causes us to "catch up" to them, forcing the distance value to decrease temporarily before spiking upward at double the speed as we move away from them once more. Interstellar space, or the edge of our solar system, is defined as the penetration limit of the solar wind produced by our sun which extends like a massive invisible bubble around our entire solar system and is billions of miles in diameter. Due to its flight trajectory, Voyager 1 actually crossed this line into interstellar space in 2012 however Voyager 2, traveling at a shallower plane, will cross it in several years. ---------------------------- Can you get a sunburn from a campfire? Uh... no. A sunburn is caused by the extended exposure to ultraviolet rays and is a burn from that radiation whereas a burn experienced from a campfire is a thermal burn which occurs due to extended exposure to the heat produced by the flames. In the event of extended UV ray exposure, the human body relies on a skin pigment called melanin to act as a sort of natural sunscreen and shield the skin from harmful rays by converting the absorbed UV rays to heat and dissipating this heat through the skin. This defense is only temporary however and, once overwhelmed, the skin begins to suffer radiation burns from the exposure. The body will then pool blood to the damaged area to provide plenty of blood for healing the damaged skin which, combined with the characteristic inflammation, causes the bright red coloring we all know too well. By contrast, a burn from a campfire, while similar in the sense that the skin is used to absorb and dissipate the flame's heat, melanin is not involved in the defense or healing process. Instead, continued exposure overwhelms the skin's ability to dissipate the heat and it begins to blister or show other signs of various burn degrees. While the healing process for these burns is, in some cases, identical to the damage done by the sun, the actual burn experienced is not a sunburn. I suppose, however, if the symptoms, damage, and treatment of a burn are identical, should the arguably "invisible" cause really be the rationality behind what kind of burn it is identified as? Or, more precisely, if Burnie Burns burns then should the burning burn which burnt Burnie Burns mean less than Burnie Burns's burning burns?

7 years ago

https://roosterteeth.com/episode/rooster-teeth-podcast-2018-485

---------------------------- We'll start with #RTAnswers for episode #485 - The Gang Starts A Cult https://roosterteeth.com/episode/rooster-teeth-podcast-2018-485 ---------------------------- And we're back! Sorry for my absence. I will be posting for the latest episodes as well, however, I have several older, already completed, posts from the back catalog which didn't make it onto the site because of the transition to the updated Community site and just the general disarray around groups, including the RT Poppycock group. Fair warning, these older ones will jump around a bit. ---------------------------- Would Achilles have died if he nicked his heel from shaving? The poet, Statius, is the one who first told the story of Achilles and invulnerable skin. According to Statius, when little baby Achilles was dipped in the waters of the river Styx it, "....made him [Achilles] invulnerable except at his heel by which his mother had held him." Statius explains that Achilles's mother, Thetis, heard a prophecy of her son's death and knew that the river flowing through the mythical Underworld would make any mortal who was submerged into its current invulnerble. Like most stories about mythology, however, the tales surrounding the motivations of Thetis as well as the eventual demise of perhaps one of the most famous warriors in Greek history have evolved and changed greatly since its first, relatively minor, appearance in the works of Statius. Perhaps the most famous retelling of Achilles comes from Homer's epic The Iliad which tells the story of the Trojan War and Achilles participation in the great battle between several Greek states and the ancient walled city of Troy. Interestingly, despite the connections often made between Achilles and Homer's tale in The Iliad, the poet spends very little time on the history, actions, or eventual death of the Greek hero. In fact, the infamous "arrow to the heel" from the bowstring of young Paris while the great statues of the God Apollo look down upon, and supposedly assist in guiding said arrow, are not an accepted part of the Achilles mythos until the Roman retellings of the story. A far older poem, attributed to Hesiod, tells a much different origin story for the warrior. In it, Achilles mother is a demigod who, obsessed with the prospect of birthing a truly immortal god, tests the mortality of all of her infant children by dipping them in a bubbling cauldron of scalding water. Obviously, this typically leads to the slow and painful death of her newborn offspring. This myth goes on to say that the father of Achilles, a mortal named Peleus, intervenes and saves his son from being boiled alive. The poem makes no mention of the child being then dipped into the river Styx or any type of magical connection at all. Many scholars actually believe this to be the myth which is most likely rooted in the real story of Achilles. While they obviously do not believe that the mother of Achilles was a god, they do believe that it is far more likely that Achilles was just a highly skilled, extremely quick, exceptional warrior who, like so many others, met his eventual demise at the walls of Troy. The stories of his invulnerability were likely a result of his unparalleled skill on the battlefield and the later references to the arrow which finally brought him down are likely tied to a lucky arrow during the battle which immobilized him, allowing him to finally be struck down. While we will never know if that arrow was legitimately a well-placed, purposeful, ankle shot with the intention of severing the then-unnamed tendon at the back of the back of the foot, it is far more likely that the arrow, or perhaps many arrows, found their marks generally among his legs successfully preventing his infamous quick movement. So... to the actual question. I'm going to go ahead and say no... at least not from any inherent weakness in his heel. However, this was millenia ago when disease ran rampant and personal hygiene was limited at best. It is far more probable that had Achilles been shaving his legs... for some reason... and nicked his heel, the wound, untreated and uncovered, could absolutely become infected. This infection, if untreated, would almost certainly lead to the loss of his foot, leg, or perhaps even death. ---------------------------- What else is in the Constitution besides the Bill of Rights? This is a great question which every American should take the time to understand. While frequently lumped together as the same document or as a synonymous document, these two pivotal documents in American history are absolutely two different, but symbiotic things. The US Constitution, ratified in 1787, outlines our entire system of government. This includes the description of duties for our three branches of government as well as outlining the powers that that these branches actually have with regard to the governance of the country as a whole. It specifies office term limits, election process, checks and balances, and, importantly for the Bill of Rights, the process through which the Constitution can be changed. This process, more commonly known as amending the Constitution was instituted because the Framers of the document recognized that no system of government can thrive if it does not freely allow itself to evolve based on the modern needs of the people. It is also important to note that the process does not allow for the removal of previous amendments, instead requiring that future amendments are created which negate previously established changes. This process of "always moving forward" is to encourage lawmakers to not frivolously make adjustments to the "law of the land" as these will be forever immortalized in the document, and America's, history. In other words, we should be aware of our mistakes in order to learn from them. The Bill of Rights, represent the first ten of these amendments. Ratified in 1791, they were proposed by Congress, specifically James Madison, as the first additions to the Constitution. Influenced heavily by the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, the 1689 English Bill of Rights, the Five Nation Constitution of the Native American peoples, and even the Magna Carta, the list of ten Amendments represent perhaps the most famous of the "inalienable rights" given to the American people... though it would take later amendments to truly grant these rights to ALL Americans. For the most part, the Constitution lays out the powers which the US government DOES have and the Bill of Rights, and really all amendments, largely identify the basic restrictions of that power. For example, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Interestingly, the only two amendments which have ever GRANTED Congress the power of some kind are the 16th and 18th amendments. The 18th, prohibition, would be repealed 14 years later with 21st amendment. Additionally, the 16th amendment text is largely considered to contain the most vague language among any amendment and some of the conspiracy theorists out there will claim that was the intention. This amendment which legalizes the collection of taxes on a citizen's income does not specify sources, limitations, or any other restrictions on these collected taxes. To summarize, the Constitution explains how our government is expected to work and the Bill of Rights represent the first ten limitations, or clarifications, to that explanation. ---------------------------- Rules against using fingerprints of dead suspects? The short answer here is that there is none. Some opponents to law enforcement taking it upon themselves to use a dead suspect's still warm body part to potentially further incriminate themselves as a violation of our basic rights. Perhaps the 5th against forced self-incrimination or the 4th against unlawful search and seizure? Unfortunately no, neither of these would apply in this case. Your fingerprint is not seen as self-incrimination as it is a publicly available trace which all of us leave a consistent trail behind us of, regardless of what we are doing. The 5th amendment pertaining to self-incrimination is specifically regarding the knowledge a person has which may cause them to be an inadvertent witness against themselves - "...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." As any evidence the phone may contain is separate from the literal memory and thoughts of the person, it would not fall under self-incrimination. The 4th amendment against unlawful search and seizure is an interesting one because it has caused arguments to have been made concerning a person's rights after their death. However, at this time, a person's rights against search and seizure would end at their death. Additionally, some have pointed out that the phone would immediately become property of the next of kin which means their rights are being violated. Unfortunately, this is also an incorrect assumption. The property is not legally yours until a legally recognized decision has been made which clearly outlines who a recently deceased person's property belongs to, according to their wishes. Lastly, for those who may try to claim that their next of kin wouldn't want law enforcement to access the device, the 4th amendment, as a personal privacy protection, cannot be invoked on behalf of another person. Some posts I have seen around the internet on this subject say that they do not necessarily have an issue with law enforcement using this method to unlock a device, they are only asking that they follow the expected due process of getting a warrant in order to rightfully access it. While this may seem like a reasonable request, it may be important to note that iPhones in particular will require a passcode re-entry if the biometric ID has not been used for 48 hours. The intention of law enforcement is to get the necessary information as quickly as possible and, if the device were to suddenly require a passcode for entry, then they would be forced to use a tool like Grey Key to crack the code. ---------------------------- What is a Youngblood? Webster's defines Youngblood as "a young inexperienced person; especially one who is newly prominent in a field". Originating in the 1970s, it is often attributed to young black males and was originally used as a term of endearment. More recent use cases, as outlined by Urban Dictionary include: a newb, an apprentice, a slut, or an avid fan of Fall Out Boy's 2013 series of music videos titled "The Youngblood Chronicles". ---------------------------- Is WD40 a lubricant or should it be used as a lubricant? WD40 IS a lubricant... just not a very good one. It's original use was to discourage rust and corrosion on Atlas missiles in the 1950s and what it doesn't do in the world of lubrication it does make up for by being one of the most versatile lubricants out there. I suppose that is the trade off. As the Podcast discussed, the "WD" in WD 40 stands for "water displacement" and the recommendation against using it as a lubricant is that if you spray it on something which requires a true lubricant it can, and will, strip away whatever "real" lubricant remained. For any of you who, as kids would spray down your bike chains with some WD40 and then get pissed off when you had to spray it again in a few days, or even hours, this is the reason why. While the secret ingredient for WD 40 is still a well-kept secret, it does contain roughly 20% simple lubricants and 50% purified mineral spirits. This combination does make for a very good short-term lubrication, its best use is as a temporary lubricant in order to clean away residual particles so a true lubricant can be applied after the WD40 has evaporated away. For door hinges, screws, and other items which may be stuck or squeaky due to debris, rust, or particulates, WD40 is works great as long-term lubrication is typically unnecessary. However, wheels, bike chains, and any other mechanical system which requires a consistent lubricant, you should be using whatever type of grease or oil which is recommended by the item's manufacturer as WD40 will only very temporarily provide a lubrication. So the answer for both questions is "Yes" but there are better lubricants out there so just no what your use case is and select the best one for the job. ---------------------------- Which side of aluminum foil should you use? It doesn't matter. Despite the Facebook myths about cutting your cooking time by 20% by wrapping your baked potatoes dull side out, it is far more useful to just wrap your potatoes as tightly as possible rather than worry about what side of the foil is facing out. The reason it doesn't actually matter is because every modern oven cooks via convection. This is the method of cooking by heating up all of the air around the food until it cooks and raises the general internal temperature of whatever you may be cooking. Articles will occasionally claim that the shinier side of the foil will "reflect the heat away from the food". While this would be true if we were all cooking our casseroles with light rays, the reflective surface of the foil does nothing to prevent, or minimize, the transfer of heat. If it did, then it would still make no difference which surface you had facing out, as the heat has to pass through both sides of the foil regardless. If you would like to decrease, no matter how small, your cook time, your best tip is to wrap the foil as tightly as possible around whatever object you are heating. Minimizing the air gaps between the foil and the food will speed up the process as air particles take far longer to heat than foil due to their general diffusion and spacing.

8 years ago

RT Answers #442 & #444 Sources

#442

https://www.google.com/amp/www.nydailynews.com/amp/news/national/body-missing-woman-26-found-trapped-ventilation-duct-steakhouse-austin-tex-article-1.132047

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/autopsy-finds-that-austin-woman-found-dead-duct-had-drugs-system/ZNzNk83I3ABWj8VkpyHfXP/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/body-missing-woman-26-found-trapped-ventilation-duct-steakhouse-austin-tex-article-1.132047

http://www.strokeassociation.org/STROKEORG/WarningSigns/Stroke-Warning-Signs-and-Symptoms_UCM_308528_SubHomePage.jsp#mainContent

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/09/some-10000-uber-lyft-drivers-in-austin-not-working-after-vote-on-fingerprinting.html

https://www.wired.com/2017/05/one-year-fleeing-austin-uber-lyft-prepare-fresh-invasion

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/temporal-lobe-seizure/expert-answers/phantosmia/faq-20058131

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianmazique/2017/06/16/the-estimated-purses-for-floyd-mayweather-vs-conor-mcgregor-fight-are-staggering/#4520c9a83d00

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/boxing/mayweather-mcgregor/floyd-mayweather-vs-conor-mcgregor-prize-money-how-much-purse-ppv-numbers-winner-make-sponsorship-a7850181.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridget_(given_name)

http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/apostrophes/apostrophes-with-names-ending-in-s-ch-or-z/

http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/apostro.asp

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Inner_Rim

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/28/history-of-obesity_n_6017176.html

https://proteinpower.com/drmike/2007/07/01/obesity-in-ancient-egypt/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2009/05/old_and_fat.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_frame#Video_frames

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_Tomahawk

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2494362/

https://www.wired.com/2014/05/whats-up-with-that-mpemba-effect/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpemba_effect

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/adermatoglyphia-genetic-disorder-people-born-without-fingerprints-180949338/

http://mentalfloss.com/article/78169/15-unique-facts-about-fingerprints

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/07/fingerprints-form-can-regenerate/

#444

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/05/02/plane.row.numbers/index.html

http://www.airlinereporter.com/2009/11/row-13-some-airlines-have-it-some-dont/

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1415142/what-is-the-probability-that-i-have-seen-every-time-on-the-clock

http://www.tutorialspoint.com/execute_matlab_online.php

http://www.boats.com/on-the-water/when-is-a-boat-also-a-yacht/

https://www.backcoveyachts.com/yacht-or-boat-w/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yacht

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fifth_element/

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/matrix/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hancock_(film)#marketing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_time

https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/227-movies-at-the-theater/64129467

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/31/the-matrix-15_n_5066686.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/03/business/the-matrix-invented-a-world-of-special-effects.html

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/six-reasons-why-matrix-was-so-groundbreaking-it-shouldnt-be-remade-1611773

http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/human-growth-hormone-hgh#1

https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/3iyfue/til_that_the_singular_form_of_spaghetti_is/

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/60905/how-do-i-pluralize-italian-foods-like-pasta-noodles-spaghetti-macaroni

http://www.bonappetit.com/story/spaghetto-singular-for-spaghetti

http://metro.co.uk/2017/07/21/one-strand-of-spaghetti-isnt-actually-called-spaghetti-and-we-had-absolutely-no-clue-6795951/

http://mentalfloss.com/article/75184/15-trials-century-and-media-frenzies-accompanied-them

http://www.thedailybeast.com/20-biggest-trials-of-the-past-20-years-from-oj-simpson-to-scott-peterson-to-casey-anthony

http://mentalfloss.com/article/50232/11-most-watched-television-trials

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/10/justice/five-things-oj-simpson-chase/index.html