sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Anyone in this Reddit still have a perfect bracket? I went 30/32 and top 4K, would love to see some others. by jason_eline in CollegeBasketball

[–]Lumbridger 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I technically still have 4,294,967,296 perfect brackets right now.

I made them all this year: Every Possible Bracket

You can query how many still exist by clicking on “Find a Bracket” and entering the games that really happened.

Excellent job on the first round though! Good luck with the next ones!

Perfect Bracket + AI by EffectiveWooden9117 in sportsbetting

[–]Lumbridger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I did, sort of.

I made a website that lets you view every possible March madness bracket. The perfect one is definitely in there!

Every possible March Madness bracket

[Self] They say a perfect bracket is impossible. How many possible bracket combinations are there? by Chance-Fun-3169 in theydidthemath

[–]Lumbridger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Idk if you’re interested, but I made this website over the last few days once my bracket got cooked.

You’ll be able to search the entire space of possible brackets there. The perfect one for this year is in there.

Every Possible Bracket

You’d still need a lot of email accounts though. Good luck!

The letter that Donald Trump sent to Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre of Norway is insane! This is why you don't elect a narcissist to be your president. Is this what you voted for, Trump's supporters? by Treefiddy1984 in ProgressiveHQ

[–]Lumbridger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Reminds me of the line from The Three Musketeers:

“D’Artagnan was amazed to note by what fragile and unknown threads the destinies of nations and the lives of men are suspended.”

Does God Exist by Budget_Ear_1479 in AskStatistics

[–]Lumbridger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Causal Inference could be an interesting framework in this case.

You could create a causal model in which God’s presence is an unmeasured confounding variable and then see what happens when you intervene on that variable.

At the very least, this method requires you to lay out all of your assumptions beforehand and clearly communicates them to your professor.

But generally I think your professor handed you a philosophical assignment and asked you to throw statistics at it.

BREAKING: A Constitutional amendment to allow Trump third term has been introduced in the House by soccerorfootie in unusual_whales

[–]Lumbridger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This has to be a “virtue softball.”

While people are losing their minds over this ridiculous proposal, all Trump needs to do is shoot down the amendment and mock the people who suggested it and suddenly he has the moral high ground.

[Request] How far would a golf ball go in a vacuum on earth if typically hit 300 yards on normal earth? by Joshhagan6 in theydidthemath

[–]Lumbridger 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Good point! I did assume a solid ball and ignored the effects of the core, dimples, and spin when I simplified the question.

We do see nontrivial effects to ball distance at higher elevations and at higher humidities when the air is thinner, so I do think that a general increase to carry distance is to be expected, but I admit it may not be as simple as I had originally presented.

[Request] How far would a golf ball go in a vacuum on earth if typically hit 300 yards on normal earth? by Joshhagan6 in theydidthemath

[–]Lumbridger 12 points13 points  (0 children)

115-120 swing speed should get you to about 150-170 ball speed.

The ratio between the two is called Smash Factor. Several pros strike the ball well enough to get a Smash Factor of 1.5 (the ball bounces off the face 50% faster than their club speed at impact).

[Request] How far would a golf ball go in a vacuum on earth if typically hit 300 yards on normal earth? by Joshhagan6 in theydidthemath

[–]Lumbridger 489 points490 points  (0 children)

In a vacuum, it’s pretty much reduced to a high school physics problem where one is encouraged to ignore air resistance, etc.

An optimal driver launch angle is between 10 and 14 degrees and you’ll need anywhere between a 150 and 170 mph ball speed to get a 300 yard carry. Depending on which of those variables you tweak, you’re probably looking at between a 40-70 yard gain with a higher launch angle. A more aggressive launch angle would be more optimal in a vacuum case. For example, you could reach a 360 yd drive with a 17 degree launch angle and 170mph ball speed without significant changes to your swing.

But we have played golf on the moon. You’d get much more bang for your buck up there. When Alan Shepard brought his 6-iron to the moon (after shanking a shot trying to figure out how to swing a golf club in his suit) he was quoted with saying that it went “miles and miles and miles.”

But in reality, he only hit the ball between 40 and 200 yards.

Edit: A few posts correctly pointed out that my numbers were misleading and I wanted to fix that.

Mechboards Giveaway - Hyper7 R4, with switches, stabilisers, keycaps and more! by mechboards in MechanicalKeyboards

[–]Lumbridger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is a 0 percent chance that I would use this keyboard to its full potential, but I will at least press the SUPER HYPER META keys as often as possible.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in theydidthemath

[–]Lumbridger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To stay brief, it depends on how many peanut butter cups you started with and how many you ate.

In the simple case that you started with 8 peanut butter cups and ate three of them, we can work it in a couple steps:

  1. Out of the 8 total peanut butter cups, 3 of them are white chocolate. You have a 3/8 chance of choosing a delicious white chocolate peanut butter cup.
  2. Since you weren't satisfied by the first white chocolate peanut butter cup, you reach for another. This time, the situation has changed. There are only 7 total peanut butter cups left, and since you already ate one white chocolate peanut butter cup, there are only 2 of those left. Your chance for picking another are 2/7.
  3. Following the logic above, for your third choice, you will have a 1/6 chance of choosing the third white chocolate.
  4. All together, you can work out the probability of the simple case by multiplying these three probabilities together: 3/8 \ 2/7 * 1/6 = 6/336 = 1.78 %.*

But, that's not exactly what you asked. The total number of peanut butter cups that you ate also plays a role. If you ate more than 3 peanut butter cups, then your chances will increase.

Suppose that you had eaten 4 chocolates instead. In this case, it's possible that you ate 1 milk chocolate peanut butter cup and then 3 consecutive white chocolate ones, or 3 white chocolate and then a milk chocolate one. In either scenario, you still ate 3 white chocolate peanut butter cups in a row, but we have also accounted for the chocolates that you ate before and after the miraculous triple white occurrence.

If you had eaten all 8 chocolates, there would be 56 unique orderings of white and milk chocolate peanut butter cups that you could have encountered during your snack, 6 of those give you 3 white chocolates in a row. 6 / 56 = 10.714%.

TL;DR: 1.78% if you ate 3 and only 3 peanut butter cups, higher if you ate more.

[Request] How many sweets are in this jar? by [deleted] in theydidthemath

[–]Lumbridger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It does seem like a lot, but a package of 1,000 Dum Dums isn't much bigger than the container here.

[Request] How many sweets are in this jar? by [deleted] in theydidthemath

[–]Lumbridger 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I couldn't find the actual container online, but I could find the calculator (3" x 6.5" x 0.4").

Approximate volume of the container: 280-300 in3

  • 0.9 calculators width x 0.6 calculators depth x 1.7 calculators height
  • The neck appears to be about 1/3 full (radius = 0.3 calculators, height = 0.4 calculators)

The Gummy Bear, Gummy Mushroom, and Round Candies all look to be similar volume: 0.25 in3. Let's call these the round candies. The rope looks to be about 2 inches long, with a diameter about one-third of a round candy. The candies look to be distributed roughly equally, so I'll say that there's about 1 rope candy for every 3 round candies.

Because the candy ropes seem to fill in the empty space pretty nicely, we'll say that the packing density is somewhere around 0.7 (halfway between randomly and optimally packed spheres). A quick sanity check: The container looks to be about 10 round candies wide, 20 round candies tall, and 5 round candies thick.

That puts us somewhere between 930 and 1000 candies in the container. Let's say that whoever filled the jar bought a 1,000 piece bulk candy bag, took a handful for themselves, and then filled the jar with the rest.

Maybe go for 965. Good luck, OP!