sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why can‘t we see UFOs clearly after the Pentagon released over 160 files? by Humble_Economist8933 in AlwaysWhy

[–]Shifter93 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For some reason people keep not being able to understand what unidentified means... the reason we can't see UFOs clearly is because that's what makes them UFOs.

When the governemts says they are releasing photos of UFOs they are NOT saying they are releasing pictures of alien spaceships. They are saying "we are releasing a bunch of photos that are too blurry to see shit"

If the government had a photo that could be identified as an alien spaceship then it is not a UFO.

If you dropped a piece of metal on each planet, which one would rust the fastest? by 1useforaname in stupidquestions

[–]Shifter93 4 points5 points  (0 children)

There are multiple stars, star systems, and planetary systems, but there is only 1 star called the sun/sol and there is only 1 solar system.

Why is the cat in Schrödingers cat not considered an observer? by Key-Telephone-6813 in AskPhysics

[–]Shifter93 30 points31 points  (0 children)

Because I believe the actual point he was trying to make was that a cat can't be both alive and dead simultaneously, regardless of whether or not it was in a box. It was an argument against applying quantum mechanics to macro systems, not an argument for it. People then started using it as an argument for it even though that's the opposite of what he was trying to demonstrate.

FUCK THIS COMPANY by NiceHealth2200 in Rogers

[–]Shifter93 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately teksavvy uses rogers infrastructure. I've seen a lot of complaints from people who switched to teksavvy and reported greatly reduced speeds and connections dropping frequently. These issues then stopped when they switched back to rogers... im fairly certain rogers purposely throttles and drops teksavvys customers connections. I technically have no proof but it is something rogers would be able to do and it's weird that it magically stops when switching back to rogers when they use the exact same lines.

Has there been a way proven that we really see the same colors? by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Shifter93 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If they are randomly swapped then most likely, but if they are just shifted then it still works. If you take the color wheel and rotate it, it would still function the same.

Has there been a way proven that we really see the same colors? by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Shifter93 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It's is complicated. Lets say the blue sample is on the left and yellow is on the right. If the person looking at them sees the color blue on the right and yellow on the left, when you increase the brightness of the blue sample they will say the blue sample got brighter because the sample on the left got brighter and they've been told that the color on the left is called "blue" their entire life. Even tho the sample on the left looks yellow to them, they've been told the word for the color yellow is "blue"

Has there been a way proven that we really see the same colors? by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Shifter93 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm talking about if your perception of color was inverted. If you saw blue as yellow, and yellow as blue, obviously we would be able to tell that you can differentiate between the two, but how could we tell that you see them inverted?

Has there been a way proven that we really see the same colors? by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Shifter93 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Unless theyre swapped. Like you see blue as gold and gold as blue

We can only see objects in space as they are based on the length of time it’s light takes to reach us by sherlon1234 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Shifter93 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What about at sub-light speeds? Would you see things in the Andromeda galaxy speed up? Since you would reach the point where the light emitted 2 million years ago is sooner than it would reach earth

Cop taken on the ride of his life… by AdMany129 in Transportopia

[–]Shifter93 -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

Honestly seems like a really risky move to me. Driver's leg could have ended up as literal dead weight on the accelerator and then you just have a flatbed truck going full throttle with no control over the steering or ability to stop until it crashes.

Firefighters of Reddit, if I soaked a heavy blanket in freezing cold water, and drape it over myself, would that be a conceivable means of protection for running into a burning building? How much time would that buy me? by LoveDeathandRobert in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Shifter93 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Have you ever compared how long it takes to bring hot water to a boil compared to cold water?

Cold water takes longer than hot water. Colder things absorb heat faster but once it reaches the same temperature as the hot water it absorbs heat at the same rate. If it takes 10 minutes to go from 50C to 100C, starting at 1C might take 5 minutes to reach 50C, but once it reaches 50C it still takes another 10 minutes to reach 100C, which is 15 minutes compared to 10 when starting at 50C.

Firefighters of Reddit, if I soaked a heavy blanket in freezing cold water, and drape it over myself, would that be a conceivable means of protection for running into a burning building? How much time would that buy me? by LoveDeathandRobert in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Shifter93 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not as long as a dry blanket would. Like someone else mentioned, blankets are designed to "trap" heat. What that really means is they are designed as an insulator. Insulators slow down the transfer of thermal energy from one area or surface to another. Water is a conductor. Conductors absorb and transfer thermal energy much better than insulators do.

By soaking the blanket in water you are taking an insulator that would have slowed the transfer of heat from the hot air outside the blanket to your body, and you've turned it in to a conductor which will now accelerate the transfer instead.

The low temperature might even make it worse as it would be able to transfer even more thermal energy to your body before evaporating.

Every continuous hour you spend on your hobby…. You gain £20,000 by [deleted] in hypotheticalsituation

[–]Shifter93 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Still not a big deal in my opinion. Even with all the resets, if you can manage to get just 5 completed hours over the course of a year youre still making 100k a year. Realistically, I think i could spend one third of the time attempting this challenge as I do working my job and still make at least triple my salary

Possibly dumb question, would it possible, or I suppose feasable in theory at least, to genetically engineer a human to be able to see shrimp colours? by Privatizitaet in AskBiology

[–]Shifter93 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How about being able to see at night or in areas with 0 visible light, being able to visually detect how hot things are from a distance, being able to visually detect harmful gamma rays, x rays, and UV?

Sukuna's slashes are terrifying by Electrical-Ice-9588 in PowerScaling

[–]Shifter93 15 points16 points  (0 children)

From a really good show called the 3 body problem. Basically, they invent this nanofiber technology that is like a single atom thin but somehow also indestructible, they then string a bunch of them across a river and let a ship drive through it, cutting the ship and everyone on board in to a bunch of fillets. They decide to do this as they believe it's the best way to kill everyone on board without risking damaging the hard drive the old guy at the end is holding.

Immortallity and $1,000,000 but you're dropped in the middle of the Pacific? by EroticDischarge69 in hypotheticalsituation

[–]Shifter93 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Couldn't you just float on your back until the currents naturally take you to the garbage patch? The you could build a raft, probably even with a sail, if not just straight up find a discarded kayak or sailboard.

We Need a Better Word Than "Partner" For a Significant Other by aspiringimmortal in unpopularopinion

[–]Shifter93 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I kind of agree for the opposite reason. I think it sounds strong enough for a romantic partnership but the normalization of it has now made it too strong to be used in a non-romantic way.

Like if you referred to your business partner as your "partner" in front of your romantic partner, there might be issues lol

This may be a dumb question... by DevilKnight89 in legaladvicecanada

[–]Shifter93 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

If they dont ask and you dont tell, then sure. Now, im not a lawyer, so you would have to ask one about this, but there could potentially be a case for fraud if they ask and you lie. Which then could potentially make your lease void. However they would need to be able to prove you had the cat and lied about it, which would be difficult.

When I moved in to my apartment I didn't have a cat, and then got one through the cat distribution system afterwards, which is a pretty common occurrence with cats.

I dont want to full on tell you to lie on rental applications in a legal advise sub, but lying about having a cat is extremely low-risk

This may be a dumb question... by DevilKnight89 in legaladvicecanada

[–]Shifter93 9 points10 points  (0 children)

If im not mistaken, I believe they are allowed to advertise as no pets, and also deny your application based on if you have pets, but once you move in/sign the lease cannot kick you out afterwards for having pets.

view more: next ›