danceswithtree t1_j6jqnhc wrote

I'm calling shenanigans. The potato quality video is to hide what's really going on. Those are fake birds attached to the guy somehow. The flapping is impressively real though. There is no way the birds can maintain flight going so slow that a clumsily running guy can keep up. FAKE.


Edit: I find it funny that people are downvoting. Is it because I'm stating the obvious or because you think this is real?!

Another Edit: Thank you u/n-some for the link to the youtube video. I was wrong. Apparently flying parrots on a leash is possible. I'm impressed with the parrots and the owner.


danceswithtree t1_iyiy541 wrote

DNA. This is straying a little bit from your question but there is a picture of earth from far away. This wasn't the original but the same sentiment applies.

On that speck of blue a billion miles away, every person ever born has lived and died, be he a king or a pauper. The almost 8 billion alive today and the billions who have gone before. Life probably exists elsewhere in the vastness of the universe but they will certainly look nothing like us. Us people of the planet Earth.


danceswithtree t1_ixwrdpp wrote

So what does your statement even mean then? Your answer is only good to however many decimal places your least precise measurement/constant is. But what do you mean that mass is only good to three decimal places? You can have as accurate a mass as you want but the answer, a force in Newtons, will only be good to 3 or 6 or however many decimal places in your least precise constant or measurement.


danceswithtree t1_ixwpoei wrote

I don't think that means what you think it means. The equation above gives only the first three digits for the gravitational constant-- because who wants to see it to the millionth decimal point? You can use as many decimal places as you want for the masses but the result (force in newtons) will only be good to 2 decimal places.


danceswithtree t1_iwnnah8 wrote

There are always OH- species in water from the self-ionization of water, i.e. 2H20 <--> H30+ and OH-. This adds a bit more. And this isn't a one way reaction. The reactions that require a proton are balanced out by the reactions that donate protons. Maybe not instant to instant but over the long term.

And you need something the balance out the charges. For example,

NADPH and H+ and acceptor <--> NADP+ and reduced acceptor

You need the OH- to charge balance the NADP+ and the H+. So maybe think

NADPH and H+ (and OH-) and acceptor <-->

NADP+ (and OH-) and reduced acceptor

You can't have loose charges running around all over the place-- that would be mayhem.


danceswithtree t1_iwnij6r wrote

From what I remember the H+ used in chemical/biochemical reactions is shorthand for a "solvated" proton. Nekkid protons don't really occur under normal conditions. For example, take two H20 molecules. One can donate a proton to the other. The first water then becomes an OH- ion and the latter a H3O+ "solvated" species, i.e. water with an extra proton. This species can then donate a free proton into reactions where you see an H+. See

for an in depth discussion.

Edit: wrong charge.


danceswithtree t1_iruxbx4 wrote

I guess that's my point of bringing up the S&P. There are plenty of funds that beat the S&P for any given year. Almost none can do it consistently. That's what made Buffet and Berkshire notable-- the long term performance.

I would imagine that if you plot the distribution of returns for all the funds, it would approach a normal distribution. For the top performers (eg >3 sigma), what is their performance the next year? My gut feeling us that risky investments will increase the variance in returns-- those in the highest returns and highest losses will have risky strategies. So does past performance inform future performance? Maybe? All the commercials for investments want you to think so but explicitly say they don't.

So during the period in question, did Berkshire do better than the S&P?