Prunestand OP t1_jc4g376 wrote

> How did you know to do this straight outta womb?

All babies are weighed and monitored here (Sweden). You can see that I have struggled to gain appropriate weight during various periods in my childhood (look at 2004 and 2013), which just prompted more monitoring from the authorities and my elementary school.

It wasn't too hard to get those records.


Prunestand OP t1_jc3ythh wrote

> The rest of the galaxy is obviously using the proper units of random feet, as defined by the great emperor of Mars on the year of the horse 10 millenniums ago.

We shouldn't pretend that the meter is not arbitrary as well. The point shouldn't be that the feet is arbitrary. The point should be that imperial systems are highly inconsistent and isn't "nice" to work with.


Prunestand t1_j44z2it wrote

>You think the money the government took to do the same thing is somehow immune to that? It's value will crash just the same.

The money the government took will certainly have less risk, yes. You may be the unlucky one to choose a bad portfolio, but everyone shares the loss with the money the government took. It's essentially just spreading the risk among the whole economy.

You might lose your savings because your stocks crash, but it takes the whole market crashing to lose the money the government has invested. Governments may also have better leverage to protect assets from crashing than you individually have.


Prunestand t1_j3zzys2 wrote

>if you invest like a moron, you will lose your investment like a moron. If you invest stupid but enough to cover inflation, you're already better off than losing forcefully deducted negative capita.

If the stock market crashes due to an unforeseeable event and it causes all your savings to be wiped out, is that your fault?


Prunestand t1_j3t38pk wrote

> Well... Personally I'd make better saving and investing the deducted amount, but I do like the safety net as well in case something goes wrong.. It just allows a lot of unemployment and abuse, and is not sustainable with growing population. Which means I'm probably paying for pension that I'll never receive, whereas investing it, it would stay mine..

I'd say it is even worse without a safety net. You literally have to work if your savings is somehow wiped out.


Prunestand OP t1_iu9mpy7 wrote

> Also since here mostly the qualitative result matters, it's not a problem that it isn't that precise.

Yeah, I agree with this. The graph is there to make an illustrative point. The exact numbers will depend on the volume of the coffee, the size, shape and material of the mug, the material of the table the mug stands on and various other factors.


Prunestand OP t1_iu9me3t wrote

> Seems to indicate that it doesn't matter when you add

In this simulation: the temperature after 10 minutes was 55.4 °C if milk was added at the end, compared to 56.5 °C if milk was added in the beginning. So adding the milk at the end made it about 1 °C cooler.

So I would say it probably will not make a huge difference, at maximum some degree give or take.


Prunestand OP t1_iu9k2dz wrote

A simulation of a cooling cup of coffee with the following parameters used:

Constants Value
Room temp T0=20 °C
Initial coffee temp T1=95 °C
Milk temp Tm=6 °C
Share of milk b=0.2
Cooling constant k=0.09 per minute

Plotted with Python.

My previous graph had a sign error in the code generating it, and I therefore deleted it. I also think people missed the point with the graph, so I'll add it here. Suppose you want your coffee after, say, 10 minutes. What will make it the coolest: adding the milk directly or wait until the end? The answer is to wait until the very end; that way it will be the coolest.

The reverse is true as well, pour the milk into the coffee at the very beginning if you want the coffee to be as warm as possible.

The answer is kind of obvious when you realize that the cup of coffee dissipates more heat the larger the temperature difference is, but the point of the graph is to illustrate this fact.