Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I’d rather ask you all than google it

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    I’d rather ask you all than google it

    Place for a questions that google can’t answer or are more interesting to ask in a group.


    1) Is there a standard name for characters in fiction like Forrest Gump or Uhtred in The Last Kingdom who are fictional characters but always seem to be near the center of historically important events? They can serve as a kind of framing device for the story or a way to offer an interesting perspective on real events. I was thinking about this because it seems to also be a thing in science fiction or fantasy where even though none of the events are historical in reality, they are historical important in the world of the story. James Holden in the Expanse series is this guy and I suppose Han Solo is like this in Star Wars. Indeed, so is Indiana Jones. Near the action, and sometimes helping to move it, but they are never the usual drivers of history like Generals, Queens, Inventors, etc.

    Is there a name for this “trope” or convention?


    2) Lately, my philosophical musings have led me to conclude that one can be much more certain that a statement is false than that one is true. Something that’s false like “homeopathy works” is pretty easy to show because it doesn’t fucking work any mor often than random chance. Whereas, when trying to show something is true, there’s always a chance that random luck caused the result - p-values show the chances that that the effect your study appeared to show could have been shown despite the null hypothesis being true. So there’s always a chance that they apparent true thing you found isn’t true at all.

    Plus, whenever some hypothesis works, it just raises even more hypotheses, so there’s always something else that can be said about a subject. Like, Newtonian Physics works, but physics goes on and on and into stuff that I don’t get about waves and strings and it never seems to have an end. Our models and language can always get better and clearer, or so it seems. Even if we do get to the “end” of physics, it will have been really hard to do, much harder than showing that what isn’t true isn’t true, you know? Or, another example is that Edison once said he didn’t fail, he just found hundreds of ways not to make a lightbulb, but after he did, engineers have continued to find ways to upgrade and improve on that original idea. Something about wandering drunk and gutters, etc.

    Am I talking sense at all? And if so, what’s this principle called? I recall Bradley - I forget his first name - said something about how language never completely captures reality and something something post-modernism, but I can’t quite recall? Any help?


    3) So i’m trying to declog the bathtub drain. It drains, but slow. I got the screen bit at the top off with a single screw, but it’s looks like I could have an easier time getting the snake down in it if could remove that other metal part in the hole. Is that glued in ther or is there a way to get it out to give myself more room and visibility to maneuver?


    I’m feeling a bit delirious.

    #2
    Originally posted by Hot Pepsi View Post
    Place for a questions that google can’t answer or are more interesting to ask in a group.


    1) Is there a standard name for characters in fiction like Forrest Gump or Uhtred in The Last Kingdom who are fictional characters but always seem to be near the center of historically important events? They can serve as a kind of framing device for the story or a way to offer an interesting perspective on real events. I was thinking about this because it seems to also be a thing in science fiction or fantasy where even though none of the events are historical in reality, they are historical important in the world of the story. James Holden in the Expanse series is this guy and I suppose Han Solo is like this in Star Wars. Indeed, so is Indiana Jones. Near the action, and sometimes helping to move it, but they are never the usual drivers of history like Generals, Queens, Inventors, etc.

    Is there a name for this “trope” or convention?
    It's usually referred to as 'Zelig' or 'Zelig-like', which was a Woody Allen mockumentary about a guy who always seemed to show up at pivotal moments in history.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by Hot Pepsi View Post
      3) So i’m trying to declog the bathtub drain. It drains, but slow. I got the screen bit at the top off with a single screw, but it’s looks like I could have an easier time getting the snake down in it if could remove that other metal part in the hole. Is that glued in ther or is there a way to get it out to give myself more room and visibility to maneuver?
      I’m feeling a bit delirious.
      Mine is exactly like this. I take a metal coat hanger, straighten it so that it's a length of strong 'wire' and bend a small hook in the end. Then I put it down and twirl the fuck out of it. I usually extract a hair clog that's slightly larger than a dead rat. My wife retches a bit and says "wonder where that all came from".

      Comment


        #4
        4) We all know that when the big hand of a clock points to the two, and the small hand points to the ten, it's roughly ten minutes past ten. But why is that? Why is it not ten minutes to two instead? You see, when the minute hand points at the twelve or the three, this does not typically make much of a difference to me. Conversely, when the hour hand points at the twelve, I want to have lunch, and when it points at the three, I most decidedly do not want that. So by far the most relevant information on a clock lies in the hours, not in the minutes. Why is it, then, that we use the bigger of the two hands for the less relevant of the two pieces of information?

        Convention, sure, I know. But it would make much more sense to swap the function of the big and the small hand around. So why did this convention grow the way it did?

        Comment


          #5
          HP, your 2) is highly related to Karl Popper's theory of falsification. You can't fundamentally prove a statement in empirical science, you can only disprove it. That implies that how easy a theory could potentially be proven false is directly proportional to how trustworthy it is.

          I myself take a Bayesian approach to finding empirical truth: we all are born with a certain set of beliefs, and through experience our beliefs evolve. If we are presented with sufficient evidence for a specific theory, then we can incorporate it into our belief system. What constitutes "evidence" and "enough" in that sentence can be different for everybody, and therefore, what is true can be different for everybody. This last thing is a bit of a snag, if you believe in science; ideally something can be conclusively proven to be true. But we're not living in a world that is made up of pure mathematics alone, and that means that we have to settle somehow.

          Under this framework, disproving something is indeed much easier than proving something.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by WOM View Post
            It's usually referred to as 'Zelig' or 'Zelig-like', which was a Woody Allen mockumentary about a guy who always seemed to show up at pivotal moments in history.
            I've always thought that the are more people who would refer to things as Zelig-like than ever saw Zelig itself, me included cos I've never seen it but would still use that phrase.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by WOM View Post
              Mine is exactly like this. I take a metal coat hanger, straighten it so that it's a length of strong 'wire' and bend a small hook in the end. Then I put it down and twirl the fuck out of it. I usually extract a hair clog that's slightly larger than a dead rat. My wife retches a bit and says "wonder where that all came from".
              Same here.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Wouter D View Post
                HP, your 2) is highly related to Karl Popper's theory of falsification. You can't fundamentally prove a statement in empirical science, you can only disprove it. That implies that how easy a theory could potentially be proven false is directly proportional to how trustworthy it is.

                I myself take a Bayesian approach to finding empirical truth: we all are born with a certain set of beliefs, and through experience our beliefs evolve. If we are presented with sufficient evidence for a specific theory, then we can incorporate it into our belief system. What constitutes "evidence" and "enough" in that sentence can be different for everybody, and therefore, what is true can be different for everybody. This last thing is a bit of a snag, if you believe in science; ideally something can be conclusively proven to be true. But we're not living in a world that is made up of pure mathematics alone, and that means that we have to settle somehow.

                Under this framework, disproving something is indeed much easier than proving something.
                I like the Bayesian idea, but I can’t quite get my head around the math. I only ever took “intro to statistics” and have just been faking it otherwise.

                Philosophically, I regard myself as an American pragmatist.

                The “nothing can be proven, only falsified” seems to fit into my political stance too, though maybe it’s just a conincidence. I know that capitalism is the cause of so many of our problems, but I’m not really sure socialism is the solution.
                Last edited by Hot Pepsi; 01-03-2018, 21:55.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Walt Flanagans Dog View Post
                  I've always thought that the are more people who would refer to things as Zelig-like than ever saw Zelig itself, me included cos I've never seen it but would still use that phrase.
                  I was hoping we wouldn’t have to give Woody Allen credit for anything.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Wouter, you eat lunch at twelve noon? Is that not a bit ... early?

                    Comment


                      #11
                      For 2) I normally find that "Because I fucking say so!" tends to work

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Sam View Post
                        Wouter, you eat lunch at twelve noon? Is that not a bit ... early?
                        Depends what time you had breakfast.

                        On most traditional clocks I’ve seen, the hour hand is shorter but fatter, so it’s easier to see from a distance.

                        There may have been mechanical reason for all this.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          But it would make much more sense to swap the function of the big and the small hand around. So why did this convention grow the way it did?
                          Not at all. The numbers are round the outside. You need to be far more accurate with seeing what minute you're pointing to than what hour. So you want the longest hand for the smallest unit, so you know exactly where it's pointing. That's why the second hand is also long. It's easy to see where a hand is pointing somewhere within a twelfth of a dial if you only need to know within 60 minutes. If you need to know within 5 minutes, you want a point over a mark, not halfway towards one.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Wouter, you eat lunch at twelve noon? Is that not a bit ... early?
                            Not everyone goes to be at 5 in the morning Sam.
                            (Don't get me wrong, I'm with you. Sometime after 14:00 is my lunchtime.)

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Single handed clocks used to be a thing, there's one on the church at Coningsby between Scunny and Lincoln.

                              http://englishbuildings.blogspot.co....colnshire.html

                              Comment


                                #16
                                Oh I know, but even when I had a job and had to get out of bed in the morning and go into work, I'd make a point of not having lunch before 1pm unless I was made to. Otherwise I'd be absolutely famished by the end of the day.

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  Originally posted by Sam View Post
                                  Wouter, you eat lunch at twelve noon? Is that not a bit ... early?
                                  Depends on your culture. Most people over here would consider that to be, if not a little late then definitely towards the back end of the time window. Lunch around here would typically be from 1030 to 1200.

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    Originally posted by Hot Pepsi View Post
                                    3) So i’m trying to declog the bathtub drain. It drains, but slow. I got the screen bit at the top off with a single screw, but it’s looks like I could have an easier time getting the snake down in it if could remove that other metal part in the hole. Is that glued in ther or is there a way to get it out to give myself more room and visibility to maneuver?
                                    Use Putkimies or whatever your local drain unblocking product is called.

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      Originally posted by Muukalainen View Post
                                      Depends on your culture. Most people over here would consider that to be, if not a little late then definitely towards the back end of the time window. Lunch around here would typically be from 1030 to 1200.
                                      Wow. I didn't know that. Here 2pm is considered about the earliest possible lunchtime and the window is about 2-4. It does my kids' heads in when we visit my parents and they start lunch at noon

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        I guess that it must be, at least in part, driven by the timing of the working day. We typically start at 0800, some even earlier.

                                        Comment


                                          #21
                                          Here the working day is (or used to be prior to globalisation) 7-2. People had a small breakfast or just a cup of coffee before work, then a "tízórai" literally a "ten o'clock thing" (best translated as elevenses) , which was a snack/meal to keep you going, and then you had lunch once you got home from work sometime around 2.30. (This dates from the time when the husband would be working and the wife at home, meaning that the lunch was cooked and waiting (and very much the big meal of the day)

                                          Comment


                                            #22
                                            Originally posted by hobbes View Post
                                            Not at all. The numbers are round the outside. You need to be far more accurate with seeing what minute you're pointing to than what hour. So you want the longest hand for the smallest unit, so you know exactly where it's pointing. That's why the second hand is also long. It's easy to see where a hand is pointing somewhere within a twelfth of a dial if you only need to know within 60 minutes. If you need to know within 5 minutes, you want a point over a mark, not halfway towards one.
                                            But how often do you really need to know the minutes with that accuracy? In my life this is not very often at all.

                                            Comment


                                              #23
                                              Originally posted by Sam View Post
                                              Wouter, you eat lunch at twelve noon? Is that not a bit ... early?
                                              Not for me. It does help that my dinner is probably also relatively early, starting at about six.

                                              Comment


                                                #24
                                                When getting any transport connection, knowing the minutes accurately is very important. It's what lead to standardised time during the 19th century when trains had to follow a timetable.

                                                Comment


                                                  #25
                                                  But how often do you really need to know the minutes with that accuracy? In my life this is not very often at all.
                                                  That may be the case for you dear boy, but don't forget clocks and watches became ubiquitous because of the need for timetabling trains across countries. So accuracy was paramount. The modern world is designed around accurate timekeeping.
                                                  And your original question was about why it is as it is. And that's why. Your own relationship with the vagaries of time were presumably overlooked when clocks were being designed. Which while it may seem unfair, is probably understandable given you presumably weren't yet born.

                                                  Comment

                                                  Working...
                                                  X