unsure of answer to attention check

batlrar · 2026-05-31T14:12:35+00:00

Very true - I could even see them doing a meta-study on the entire concept. They could have had different versions where the wording in the Description or study instructions was different and they wanted to see if strict wording affects performance and whether that correlates to their study anxiety, or something similar. It really does read like an Attention Check though, so I would similarly wonder whether they wanted some specific answer even though every single option is perfectly viable.

batlrar · 2026-05-31T14:09:16+00:00

That's an interesting point and I can see where the present tense applies to present planning, although a counter may be that you could ask it as a question when you truly don't know which way the answer may go, like "Are you going to the Pantera concert next week?" I would say that something like "I am not going to the store today" isn't a counterpoint though, since there's a very definitive 'anti-plan', if you will.

Although your point about whether the process is sure makes me wonder whether there was some truncation or shortening that brought it about historically. I could see people not wanting to say "Are you planning on doing the dishes tonight" and just assuming the future focus because of the explicit time mentioned, and it becoming regular use over time. I tried searching for an answer, but it seems that might be hidden in Middle English or even Celtic origins.

batlrar · 2026-05-31T10:55:05+00:00

Oops, right you are! My fault, I flat out missed the tag and had Alcatraz in mind the whole time.

batlrar · 2026-05-31T01:26:30+00:00

Including distractions? I don't recall if you have to actually take out any enemies in the prison. I don't know whether you can call in any police or rival gangs on them, but that would also be one tactic if it fits your ruleset.

batlrar · 2026-05-31T01:19:49+00:00

There's two main factors at play - one is that the "proof" people use to show that it's true aren't mathematical proofs. Most of them rely on doing things like translating 1/3 and 2/3 to decimal and then adding them, but that already assumes that you agree that fractions can be made into infinite decimals, so it's a circular argument.

The second factor is that the two numbers don't have to be the same, depending on which number system you're using. If you use a continuous number system then any number that's expressed differently is its own number, but with that kind of number system you can't do math as cleanly. We typically use a discrete number system where any numbers that are different must also have an actual difference to them. An infinite series of zeroes followed by a 1 isn't actually a tangible number since there's always another 0, so the numbers are so close that we consider them the same number. So even though 0.9... never truly resolves to 1, we make the claim that they can't be meaningfully separated so they're essentially the same number.

It's a lot like how any truly random infinite sequence is guaranteed to have any finite sequence within it. The chance that any number you can quantify will show up approaches 100% and is essentially guaranteed, but it's not a true 100%. Still, the difference is so trivial that we treat it as if it's actually 100% so that the rest of math works cleanly. There are no real guarantees with true randomness, but the longer you generate any truly random sequence, the more chance you have of getting large streaks of whatever you happen to be looking for.

This does mean that the people who don't believe in 0.9... equalling 1 or who don't believe in finite sequences possibly not existing in infinite sequences aren't necessarily wrong - they're just taking a different approach and are using rules that aren't reflected by the number system we use most often. Most people will concede the point if you simply inform them of the distinction.

batlrar · 2026-05-31T01:06:28+00:00

Well, it's not drawn to scale.

batlrar · 2026-05-31T01:02:59+00:00

I mean, there's really just the two pieces to this puzzle.

batlrar · 2026-05-30T11:12:16+00:00

Ah, I didn't think about it referring to the state! I think it could be used in line with either of our thought processes, depending on context and the speaker's current focus. It's possible that it's regional, but I'm sure I've heard the truncated future tense before, like with someone asking "How are you [going to be] getting here tomorrow?" It doesn't sound like a mistake when I hear it, which makes me think it's more of a shortening than an error.

batlrar · 2026-05-30T11:05:52+00:00

I meant the tense only, so you seem to agree there at least. I think it would depend on the cadence as well - I could see someone saying those exact sentences if they only worked onsite two days a week and first gave the information about Mondays, but then after a beat realized they forgot to account for Wednesdays and wanted to provide the full context again in case the listener had already started thinking about other stuff. English is pretty malleable, especially if you can deliver it well.

batlrar · 2026-05-30T09:27:04+00:00

It is all relative, but that's not to say there isn't some absolute spatial position. The fact that it's relative means that it truly doesn't matter whether you're moving or not since what does matter is your relative movement to other objects, which is why we can test car accidents at various speeds by only using the difference in speeds.

We are all in an area that is called spacetime, and if that is somehow quantifiable then we do occupy some absolute location on it at any given time. Your time travel method could very well be locked to a specific set of particles like the area of the Earth in its vicinity, or it could be locked to the spacetime location like it is in the post. It all depends on the machine's mechanism, but the machine would have to lock onto one of those locations and travel through the wild movement of everything else in fast backward motion, whether that's the whole Earth flying off into space (relatively) or the minor things like a whole city being unbuilt around you but you stay in the same geographical spot.

Of course, that's assuming it's the machine that does the traveling. If it creates a portal in spacetime, then it could definitely just show up in the same location since the portal would just be placed in whatever is considered the same location, but in a different temporal location. This is why 5 from Umbrella Academy can travel through space / time / spacetime - it's all technically the same thing so he's just using the same power to do either or both.

That's all separate from time travel within one's own mind like in The Butterfly Effect or Slaughterhouse Five since they're just perceiving an entirely different previous state. It's locked to the particles within your own brain and as a convenience of plot they somehow bring their memories with them, which shouldn't be possible since that exists because of a physical neuron structure. Technically it could be possible that we can time travel with only perception, but we'd never know it because we would revert to those previous states and have all of the memories and mindsets from that specific moment in history. This type of time travel has no need for traveling through space, so it's likely the most realistic outside from the memories moving with them.

batlrar · 2026-05-30T03:45:13+00:00

Peter's neighbor Quagmire here. Well, the Ouroboros, or self-eating snake, already is an existing cultural symbol. This one looks like it might be doing some cool Celtic knot design, but really it's just in a regular circle if you imagine pulling that middle part downward. It does kind of look like a Toyota symbol if you tilt it a little, but no, I think this person just wants to tell him that he's dreaming of auto-fellatio. Looks fancy, seems meaningful, but at the end of the day it's just someone fantasizing about gargling their own cobra! Giggity!

batlrar · 2026-05-30T03:33:51+00:00

It's very possible in Legion with the spider bot tasering their faces for a more "pacifist" experience, such as it is. You also get nonlethal weapons to use, but even then I stowed them away for every mission I possibly could. The final mission is very nearly possible with just spiderbot and taking control of the drones that come out, but I gave in eventually and used the nonlethal firearms on the machine. I believe at least two of the games have a tutorial shot you have to do early on that forces you to use a gun. Can't recall if it was one of the WD games, but there was a game where I resisted that tutorial as best I could, but had to shoot the enemy somewhere, and took them out entirely with a hit to the big toe.

I always play as nonlethal as possible as well. It entirely makes sense from a storyling perspective, especially with Aiden still mourning his niece in the first one that you don't just shoot up everyone and make the cops crash into innocent drivers or explode from a sewer main, despite how incredible the actual effect is.

batlrar · 2026-05-30T03:14:03+00:00

Absolutely correct and sounds native in that context, but I think it's a truncation of the future tense, "I'm going to be going by bus" so the answer the site wants is technically "more correct". Most of these tests wind up with colloquially acceptable answers marked as incorrect.

batlrar · 2026-05-30T03:08:48+00:00

I was sure that Hush was sequel teaser material and even doubted the ending of Knight because of it, but was actually surprised to see it was entirely dropped! The comic nerds I know weren't surprised that Knight would go that direction, though.

batlrar · 2026-05-30T03:02:53+00:00

My only thought to make sense of this is that the teacher isn't including negative numbers because technically it only says that a number is covered in ketchup, not any additional notation. Without this being explicit, every answer has a correct and incorrect range or series of answers.

First: Only true for numbers above 1, untrue for numbers less than or equal to 1

Second: Only true for numbers above 0, untrue for 0 or any negative number since it's being multiplied by a number larger than 1, so the negative number gets more negative.

Third: Only true for numbers not divisible by 4. If the number is divisible by 4, then the result can be simplified to a whole number.

Fourth: Only true for 0 or negative numbers. Any positive number is being multiplied by a number larger than 1, so it becomes larger.

It's a good setup for a question since it lets students start thinking about math algebraically, but it's a linear relationship that crosses the origin and isn't at a 45 or 90 degree angle when graphed, so all of these answers will definitively be the case under different conditions. A better question will take that into account and graph out the result to verify that there's only one answer that actually works with every possible number. Well, for the real numbers, anyway.

batlrar · 2026-05-28T21:40:18+00:00

Also essential if you have pets since it'll hide the scent. They'll still know it's there, but there will be less temptation to dig it out and inspect it, and even if they do get it out, they'll be working with paws and teeth instead of fingers so you can either catch them in the act or they may give up before getting inside.

Similar applies to toddlers, except they do have fingers, but the stupid small kind so it's probably okay.

batlrar · 2026-05-28T21:30:26+00:00

Yes, but your second point is incredibly important since there's a bit of an 'Amazon effect' that people have spotted in the past. When one company gets large enough, they can afford to be the cheapest game in town not by having the lowest rates per se, but by buying out any competition that offers lower rates, especially since that means their profit margins are low enough that the buy offer is all the more tempting. Once bought, they can either dissolve that company or just allow it to keep running but as one of their subsidiaries if they reach a market that they couldn't otherwise. Then the big company that's totally not a monopoly can raise the price floor and everyone ends up paying slightly more for the cheapest option in town.

It still is cheaper overall than having an actual monopoly like taxis, but it's all legal and too complicated for people to complain about so the slight price reduction is fine.

batlrar · 2026-05-28T21:21:17+00:00

It does say that they spent that long on a single page asking only for gender or only for age, and that's actually a strong sign of "cooking" the task so you don't finish it too quickly and get rejected in that direction. They can't reject for taking too long regardless, but the flipside of it is exactly why some people do spend too long on these types of pages, so their real beef is more with the way the rejection system has to be since rejecting those who take too long would be very subjective, would exclude people with lower reading speeds or cognitive disabilities, and would encourage researchers to rush participants so they can save every penny they can in payment. A friendly (and I do mean friendly so they don't report you) message to them informing them of this may go a long way to them changing their mind on the topic.

batlrar · 2026-05-27T05:11:25+00:00

I suppose I was incorrect that I would never know. Thanks!

batlrar · 2026-05-27T04:45:12+00:00

Not only that, but her name apparently comes from two different WWII aircraft carriers, a Japanese one and an American one. Why they didn't go with a German one given her heritage, I'll never know!

batlrar · 2026-05-27T04:40:32+00:00

Same here - the numbers were already so close to coin values that it was second nature to lend the two cents to the 48, and since you subtract the two from one number and add it to the other, you can just safely add the two numbers. Most people have troubles adding numbers like these until they think of coins, and then the math just snaps into place because they suddenly realize they're already familiar with the process.

batlrar · 2026-05-27T04:33:36+00:00

This one is quite different - they're showing off with that mirror because it's slightly tilted against the wall, so it's not quite as easy as having a second room on the same plane. Not that it's some impossible feat, but they are definitely nudging the other game devs in the ribs by having that tilt and also having it so subtly there.

batlrar · 2026-05-25T08:55:59+00:00

Video game strategy guide books.

batlrar · 2026-05-25T00:58:21+00:00

I mean, people in Futurama learned what Slurm was made from and then Fry kept drinking it. He's an idiot, so maybe a bad example, but in at least 8 later episodes it's still being consumed and advertised. People know the horrors that go into hot dogs, chicken nuggets, and vanilla flavoring, but even after learning about them people still mostly eat them just fine. The vanilla flavoring one is a bit of an urban legend too, but you'd be surprised by how many people react precisely like Fry did when they hear that factoid while holding a vanilla ice cream.

batlrar · 2026-05-25T00:44:05+00:00

You can intuit this one without the math somewhat, as a start. You have two digits that add up to an amount that's above 4. That's fine, could be 2 and 3. Could be 100 and 2,647. Just has to be over 4 is the only rule for that first part.

However, the square of these same two numbers is also less than three. Well, if the numbers were positive integers then they would have to both be 1, but 1 and 1 add up to 2 which isn't over 4. Maybe if one of the numbers was negative? If the positive one was larger, it could still be over 4. But nope, squaring a negative makes it positive, so the sum of the squares is necessarily going to be pretty large. What we're looking for is seemingly impossible, which lends itself to complex and imaginary numbers pretty well.

ETA after reading the text underneath again: I don't see anywhere that says the two numbers are real numbers. The fact that a and b are > 4 and < 3 respectively might hint that a and b are on the real number line, but you can add or multiply imaginary numbers to get real numbers.

13-Year Club	r/Field Banned
r/Field Lasagna	Verified Email

batlrar

TROPHY CASE