Muscles could just be opening and closing the valve I guess?

I think the point is that the bladder is above where the pee comes out so gravity could be pulling it out of the body. Aiming upwards wouldn’t change this relationship because the pee is outside the body at that point. By being upside down the bladder is now below where the pee comes out and gravity would be keeping it in. By being able to pee upside down, he demonstrates that gravity is not a necessary component.

I think it can be demonstrated by aiming upwards with some extra pressure though. If gravity were the only thing pulling pee out, i wouldn’t be able to shoot over someone’s head for instance as the pee wouldn’t have enough kinetic energy. Thus gravity is not the only component.

I don’t have thumbnails set on my phone so I only ever saw the full image. That said, I looked at it without my glasses with my arm outstretched and I’m going to guess they saw either buttcrack or titcleft

This particular flavour of survivorship bias is also called the anthropic principle

In Ireland it’s Éire, while Iceland is An Íoslainn, so it doesn’t really work 😕

If we know the values of ln(-1)¹⁰ and pi¹⁰ we hypothetically could calculate their divided result as -1 instead of using strict logic, but it is missing a few steps. Moreover logs of negative numbers just end up with an imaginary component anyway so there isn’t really any progress to be made on that front. Typing ln(-1)¹⁰ into my scientific calculator just yields i¹⁰pi¹⁰, (I’m guessing stored rather than calculated? Maybe calculated with built in Euler) so the result of division is just i¹⁰ anyway and we’re back where we started.

Nope, everything they said is well established and correct

No thank you, I don’t want to imagine this please

I have seen 1 called a trivial factor, but I have never seen it excluded entirely from a factor list: perhaps it’s a cultural thing like how 0 is/isn’t a natural number depending on where you are from.

On further research it seems like my earlier critique about requiring exactly two prime factors is a little off in any case, as it would exclude e.g. 4 (which only has one prime factor). It seems like semi primes must be a product of exactly two prime numbers so I think any definition based on number of factors is doomed to over- or under- define these semi primes as they could have either three or four factors.

Well primes themselves are the product of exactly two (natural) factors, only one of which is prime, so we need to specify semi primes as having exactly two prime factors.

*numbers that are the product of exactly two prime factors

I like the idea that time machines are like phones in that you need a receiver to pick up the signal. A consequence is that you can only travel back to the time that the machine was turned on.

https://youtu.be/ia4YrCShFrQ?si=w5OYNEaNRpG8QvMZ for reference

Oh I’ll admit I’m wrong either way, but yes I do not like my authority to be challenged. It makes the class significantly harder to manage when students feel like it’s OK to dunk on me at any opportunity and provides a bad environment for learning. My preference would be respect, but I will settle for being treated with respect. If a student won’t offer it to me with their questions, then I won’t offer it to them with my response. But I will always admit they are correct (if they are).

Authority that cannot be challenged is authority that cannot be respected. Authority must continually earn the respect of its constituents, or it will lose its power over them.

I sort of agree with this. In a classroom, you can challenge me, my knowledge, my abilities. I like to think I earn the respect of my students with all of these, as well as my compassion, my fairness, my humour.

The reality is that I am an authority however. I wrote the assignments and the exam and I mark them too, and I do it all in accordance with the state-mandated curriculum. If they “know” something because they read about it elsewhere, I should be treated as a equally valid source of information because I am. I know the curriculum inside and out. They dont “need me to admit that I was incorrect, and move forward with the correct information”, they need me to tell them why the thing they “know” is not the thing I’m teaching them. I offer that I was incorrect out of humility, not necessity.

For me it matters how the question is asked. I love getting questions beyond the scope of the curriculum as it varies up my classes from year to year. However, “Actually there are 4” as in the meme is disrespectful, challenging and undermining. “I heard something about a fourth state of matter, what’s up with that?” is a prompt to reasoned discussion.

As a teacher, this type of response is a great jumping off point for the discussion of curriculum vs truth, what is the extent of reality vs what is going to be on the assignment / exam etc.

It’s also a great way to stick it to the know-it-all who is trying to undermine my credibility, and has the added bonus of perking up the rest of the class.