Life's great mysteries (things that make NO sense)

  • Thread starter Thread starter some bloke
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    News
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around various everyday frustrations and confounding design choices, particularly focusing on touch screens in cars. Participants express concern over the safety implications of touch screens, especially when compared to traditional knobs and buttons that can be operated without visual attention. The conversation shifts to other topics, such as the inefficiency of snail-mail solicitations from charities, the use of QR codes in restaurants, and the perplexing behavior of tourists who prefer hotel pools over the ocean. The dialogue also touches on the complexities of air travel, including the need for arrival and departure screens at airports, and the reliability of airline information. Additionally, there are humorous observations about the absurdities of life, such as the design of paper towels and the peculiarities of fruit classification. Overall, the thread highlights a collective frustration with modern conveniences that complicate rather than simplify daily tasks.
  • #211
jrmichler said:
From today's credit card statement:
Decades ago, I got something like that with a zero balance instead of a credit. I won't say from whom. We'll just call it the Carvard Hoop. Then the second notice. Then the final notice.

So I sent them a check for zero dollars and zero cents.

Shortly thereafter, I got a phone call from BayBank instructing me to stop screwing with them and never do that again. (Unlike the urban legends where the bank computer explodes. The only think at risk of exploding was the banker's head)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #212
Vanadium 50 said:
Decades ago, I got something like that with a zero balance instead of a credit. I won't say from whom. We'll just call it the Carvard Hoop. Then the second noticed. Then the final notice.

So I sent them a check for zero dollars and zero cents.

Shortly thereafter, I got a phone call from BayBank instructing me to stop screwing with them and never do that again. (Unlike the urban legends where the bank computer explodes. The only think at risk of exploding was the banker's head)
Back when I was 18/19 years old and struggling, I learned from a friend's mother [who worked at a bank] that you can put a little tear through the account number on the check to delay processing. The scanner couldn't read it so it got rejected and had to be processed by hand. This added up to three days for processing. This little trick allowed me to float and cash checks at the local store without bouncing a check.
 
  • #213
The moon is just the right size, and at just the right distance from the Earth to completely block the sun during a total eclipse.

The physical constants have just the right values so that matter and the universe as we know it, can exist. The best explanation I've heard for this depends on the notion of an infinite number of universes; with universes constantly bubbling up from the quantum foam. Given an infinite number of universes, we are guaranteed to get some universes where the physical constants are just right, like ours. I recall that the Heim Physics crowd once thought that Heim managed to predict the values of the physical constants. But that did not prove to be true and to my knowledge this is still a big mystery: Why do the constants have just the right values so that we can exist?
 
  • #214
Ivan Seeking said:
The moon is just the right size, and at just the right distance from the Earth to completely block the sun during a total eclipse.
Or so the flat-earther's say. The truth is that the distance varies and that the moon is sometimes too big, sometimes too small and sometimes adequately close.

In my book, this doesn't rise to the level of a coincidence that needs further explanation.
 
  • Like
Likes Monsterboy, collinsmark and Bystander
  • #215
jbriggs444 said:
Or so the flat-earther's say. The truth is that the distance varies and that the moon is sometimes too big, sometimes too small and sometimes adequately close.

In my book, this doesn't rise to the level of a coincidence that needs further explanation.
I've never seen an example of that. Do you have a photo where the moon was too small or to big? All the photos I've seen seemed to be almost a perfect fit.
 
  • #216
Ivan Seeking said:
I've never seen an example of that. Do you have a photo where the moon was too small or to big?
Search for 'annular eclipse'.
 
  • Like
Likes Ivan Seeking
  • #217
Ivan Seeking said:
I've never seen an example of that. Do you have a photo where the moon was too small or to big?
No, I do not have a picture. But we should be able to find evidence by Googling for "annular solar eclipse".

Yep. Try it.
 
  • Like
Likes Ivan Seeking
  • #218
Ivan Seeking said:
too small
..., or, "Diamond Ring."
 
  • Like
Likes Ivan Seeking
  • #219
1631980908405.png
Still close but not a perfect fit.

BTW, what does this have to do with flat earthers?
 
  • Like
Likes Hamiltonian and PeroK
  • #220
Ivan Seeking said:
BTW, what does this have to do with flat earthers?
The flat Earthers will say that it is an impossible coincidence, therefore the heliocentric model is nonsense. [Though they will tend to say it in a much less coherent and much more boisterous fashion].
 
  • Like
Likes Ivan Seeking
  • #221
jbriggs444 said:
The flat Earthers will say that it is an impossible coincidence, therefore the heliocentric model is nonsense.
Well I don't see how one thing has anything to do with the other but given the source, who cares. LOL!
 
  • #222
Ivan Seeking said:
The moon is just the right size, and at just the right distance from the Earth to completely block the sun during a total eclipse.

The physical constants have just the right values so that matter and the universe as we know it, can exist. The best explanation I've heard for this depends on the notion of an infinite number of universes; with universes constantly bubbling up from the quantum foam. Given an infinite number of universes, we are guaranteed to get some universes where the physical constants are just right, like ours. I recall that the Heim Physics crowd once thought that Heim managed to predict the values of the physical constants. But that did not prove to be true and to my knowledge this is still a big mystery: Why do the constants have just the right values so that we can exist?
The second "coincidence" stands. Maybe a true Theory of Everything would predict these values?

Are they random or could they eventually be calculated?
 
  • #224
And of course, the mystery of the Jeremy Bearimy.

 
  • Like
Likes Hamiltonian
  • #225
Ivan Seeking said:
Well I don't see how one thing has anything to do with the other ...
You're not going to try to bring logic to the Flat Earth Society, now are you?
 
  • Like
Likes Ivan Seeking and BillTre
  • #226
jbriggs444 said:
Or so the flat-earther's say.
jbriggs444 said:
The flat Earthers will say that it is an impossible coincidence, therefore the heliocentric model is nonsense.
So no sources? You bring up a forbidden subject on PF, that you don't even believe in, as an answer to a question that clearly doesn't require such comment.
Ivan Seeking said:
Well I don't see how one thing has anything to do with the other but given the source, who cares. LOL!
phinds said:
You're not going to try to bring logic to the Flat Earth Society, now are you?
And now the proof that Flat Earthers said it is that it doesn't make sense, therefore everyone agrees that they've said it! :doh:

That is the weirdest discussion I've witnessed on PF until now: A discussion about Flat Earthers using the type of argumentation that is reproached about them! :confused::rolleyes:o0)
 
  • #227
jack action said:
So no sources? You bring up a forbidden subject on PF, that you don't even believe in, as an answer to a question that clearly doesn't require such comment.And now the proof that Flat Earthers said it is that it doesn't make sense, therefore everyone agrees that they've said it! :doh:

That is the weirdest discussion I've witnessed on PF until now: A discussion about Flat Earthers using the type of argumentation that is reproached about them! :confused::rolleyes:o0)
That was more an afterthought. The point is that my original impression regarding the size and distance of the moon was in error.

I really don't care what flat earthers say. That is moot by definition.
 
  • #228
Ivan Seeking said:
The point is that my original impression regarding the size and distance of the moon was in error.
I know, that is why I'm so baffled as to how the discussion steered in that weird direction.
 
  • #229
jack action said:
I know, that is why I'm so baffled as to how the discussion steered in that weird direction.
I could write pages and pages about your objection. Trust me! Objectivity is subjective. LOL!
 
  • #230
I have seen people argue for years debunking UFO reports that clearly they have never read. :doh:
 
  • Like
Likes jack action
  • #231
Can't read them in the original Martian?
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes russ_watters, strangerep and BillTre
  • #232
jack action said:
I know, that is why I'm so baffled as to how the discussion steered in that weird direction.
Umm,... you did read the title of this thread, right?
 
  • Like
Likes Monsterboy and jack action
  • #233
russ_watters said:
Seriously? Did you not know that printed menus were done away with due to COVID? Even still, I can't fathom why the prospect of looking at a menu on your phone would cause you to leave a nice restaurant!?
If the issue was that printed menus were done away with due to COVID, why did the they lie and say the printer was out of paper. Why didn't they just explain the menus were gone due to COVID. It sounds to me the they did not want to "bother" with the customer. Sound's like they need an attitude adjustment to stay in business.
There are probably many restaurants which would prefer customers to leave their phones at home and enjoy the meal. Customers sitting nearby probably don't need to hear private matters discussed on the phone.
 
  • #234
Vanadium 50 said:
Can't read them in the original Martian?
Sorry, just reports like this declassified report from the National Security Agency; you know, that went to the White House and Joint Chiefs of Staff.
https://www.nsa.gov/Portals/70/docu...ified-documents/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf

Or like this from the then deputy commander of a nuclear weapons base
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading Room/UFOsandUAPs/dep_ba1.pdf?ver=2017-05-22-113454-777

I actually spent an hour on the phone with Col Halt, who wrote the second report.

On a more personal note, an uncle was once the commander of Camp Pendleton. Before that he spent a fair number of years in Vietnam during the war. From time to time he was able to monitor encounters between the USAF and UFOs over Vietnam. That was quite a shock when it came out.
 
Last edited:
  • #235
I don't understand why a jellyfish Is called a jellyfish if it's not a fish! The same thing goes for a starfish...
 
  • #236
BravesGirl1010 said:
I don't understand why a jellyfish Is called a jellyfish if it's not a fish! The same thing goes for a starfish...
But a seahorse is a fish.
 
  • #237
BravesGirl1010 said:
I don't understand why a jellyfish Is called a jellyfish if it's not a fish! The same thing goes for a starfish...
It identifies as a fish.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes epenguin, Hamiltonian, strangerep and 2 others
  • #238
The lay fish designation is an older term than the fish as defined by biology.
Its seems to just refer to some animal living in the water. This meaning has been around for a long time.

Shellfish is another good example: molluscs and crustaceans (and maybe some other things).
Neither are anything like a fish (to biology), and they aren't even closely related to each other.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes Ivan Seeking and phinds
  • #239
BillTre said:
Its seems to just refer to some animal living in the water.
What about silverfish? They live on land.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes BillTre, Ivan Seeking and Bystander

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
4K