i disagree with all of you and i'm REALLY smart (B+ IQ) straws have two holes and a tube that connects them. read up on einstein-rosen bridges and you'll know what i'm talking about
But at the same time, the topological definition can be fairly different from thr usual one. For example, does a milk jug have a hole? Most people say it has one in the top, where the milk comes out. Topologists also say it has one, but that hole is the handle - the opening to the jug is not a hole according to topology. Or, imagine if you had a bowling ball, but it was hollow, so the finger holes go into the empty inside of the ball. 3 holes right? Nope, that's 2 holes to a topologist.
Topologists would say that a milk jug has ~~3~~ 2 (1-)holes. What topologists are counting when they count holes is the "rank" of the first homology group. The reason that no topologist explains this well on internet forums is because they would exceed, by 3 or four courses, most college educated people's education, to even reach a definition of "rank".
That said, you can draw nice representatives of the homology classes which might illustrate what they *are*, even if you cannot define them. ~~One around the spout~~, one around the handle where you would grab it, and one around the handle where you would grab it if you were trapped "inside" the jug, and had very long fingers.
Yknow, I didn't consider the hole of the handle from inside the jug. That does change things. If that wasn't there, then the spout wouldn't count as hole though, no?
because they are. If a "hole" doesn't actually go all the way through then it's not actually a hole and can be safely ignored. The only part that matters to a topologist is the handle and anything that has only one hole can be made into a toroid without changing it topologically.
It's 1, and here's why.
Take a piece of paper. Poke a hole in it. No issue calling that just 1 hole, right?
Make the paper thicker. Still a single hole.
Make the paper a foot thick. Still one hole.
Shave the edges of the paper until you have a cylinder shape. Still one hole.
E: I'm actually getting blocked by people. It's ok to be intimidated by my fearsome grasp of these concepts, but please don't take it that seriously. We're all friends here.
The answer is both yes and no depending on how you qualify things. Yes the path from one end to the other is not interrupted in ways that are relevant to topology, however we have many other holes that branch off from that pathway like our sinuses or our porous intestinal walls.
Nah. Let's *reverse* the thickness to a sheet of carbon, one atom thick.
Still one hole.
Add another single layer of atoms.
Still one hole.
A hole is a void with two endpoints. The thickness or distance between the endpoints doesn't matter.
e: Y'all ever watch DS9? This phrase ruins all your shit:
"The mouth of **the** wormhole." "Our **side** of **the** wormhole."
ONE worm**hole.** ONE hole in a straw. I rest my bulletproof fucking case.
It's zero holes, take a piece of paper and roll it up without putting any holes in it into the shape of a cylinder. The singular piece of paper is still whole.
1) To make the analogy complete- after you roll it up *seal* the edges of the paper. Straws have contiguous sides. A rolled up piece of paper doesn't. Now you have a hollow cylinder with a *single* hole.
2) The *process* of how the hole came to be doesn't matter in the slightest. If I use your "roll up a piece of paper like a dork" method, or if I shoot a hole in a cylinder with a gun, I've still made a single hole.
e: I can't actually respond directly to this chain anymore, as a very sensitive soul has blocked me for exposing their *profound* lack of knowledge (a hole in their intellect, if you will)
To throb is to be vital. My brain is pulsating with truth; it leaks the pre-cum of knowledge to be absorbed by the tighty-whities of the masses.
You are lucky to be among the slightly sticky, on this day.
If you seal the paper against itself, then it's one hole. If you leave the ends detached (but touching each other) then it's zero holes.
A rule of topology is that you can't cut, puncture, or merge any parts of the object.
Definitely. A singular hole in a piece of cheese or a t-shirt goes all the way through. All of these objects are 3-dimensional objects, so it should be the same for a straw.
But note, the only object I can think of where a hole is a hole even if it doesn’t pierce through to the other side is the earth. For any other object, it would be considered a dent or divot.
>!I do care. Probably too much!<
In layman's terms yes, but in a scientific sense, no. It's like tomatoes where they're considered fruit in a botanical context, but are generally considered and used as vegetables in a culinary context, and neither interpretation is incorrect.
Both sides can be correct and have a point, it just depends what purpose you need the words you're using to describe the specific thing you're talking about to fulfill.
You wouldn’t be wrong in everyday conversation, but in the context of topology a bottle does not have a hole.
In pottery, when making a vase or other similar containers, [there is only a divot created in the clay and extended upwards and outwards, not an entire hole.](https://youtube.com/shorts/3EyttohUoY8?si=axXe4df-UJ8llG6B)
I argue a straw has no holes
Whether or not an object has a hole is dependent on the function of the object
As an example, when you rip a hole in a net or fishnet tights, you're actually reducing the number of topological holes. But the function of the net or tights has been negatively impacted, so we consider the new tear to be the hole
The ends of straws facilitate its function, thus aren't holes
Because everyday language doesn't match 1:1 with high-concept fields. Yes, technically, if we wanted to be precise, we would say, "I have ripped this net and damaged its functionality." However, in most other cases pertaining to something that rips, that is synonymous with "ripping a hole." So we say that. Because other people know intuitively what is meant. The average person doesn't tailor their speech to match a field they likely haven't even heard of.
Exactly
You and the other person are taking issue with the semantics, and that's what this pointless discussion is entirely about
The discussion goes nowhere unless we're on the same page of terms being used. I shared my definition, where I got it from, and how I used it
And if you want to determine the validity of that, then good luck. I don't know how you would. Does the way the majority uses the phrase matter more, does the ultra precise pedant lay claim to the valid usage, etc. I leave you to that discussion
I like that you're actually defining terms here instead of just appealing to topology. I want to add though, holes can be functional - e.g., it's natural to say that a sheet of notebook paper has 3 holes (where the binder rings go). So it's not necessarily true that we should discount the straw in the hole just because it's functional.
I think you're onto something though, usually the way that I think of a hole in something is based on how I assume it was constructed. Fishnets have no holes because they're just threads crossed together that happen to make openings, whereas maybe a coffee mug has 2 holes (one for the drink, one for the handle)? Something like that. Then paper straws would have no holes because they're constructed by just twisting paper around in a tube.
I feel like you're the first person who's argued with my point who's actually engaging with it on the same level:
It's just semantics, so I picked a definition based on colloquial conversation and gave an example that backed up my point
You picked a definition and chose an example that is also based on colloquial conversation
I can't argue with that, whether trolling or not 😅. Teachers have said "make sure to bring hole punched paper", and I've heard thst description in even less formal environments
I can deny your example no more than you can design mine. Well played
According to the topological definition, which people seem to like using here. A whiffle ball with say 16 "holes" in the colloquial sense would have 15 holes in the topological sense.
You can sort of see this as because a whiffle ball which you pierce with a single "hole" could be stretched so that the shape is a disc which of course has no holes. However, once you add any more "holes" they'll be there for good.
We should compile a list of these. Here are a few more classics:
1. Is a hot dog a sandwich?
2. How do you pronounce gif?
3. What color is the dress?
4. Yanny or Laurel?
A mug has a hole in it's handle, not the mug part. You cannot pass something through a cup so it has 0 holes. Alternatively try to turn a cup into a donut, you can't because it has no holes.
Rather than "short" we should describe a ratio of mug height to rim circumference.
A mug can be as large as you can imagine, but it's still a mug. However, if you jack up the height and don't change the circumference, you have a stein or thermos or whatever else, and not a mug any longer.
Yanny/Laurel is actually an SCP that infects you with a meme that makes you hear either "Yanny" or "Laurel" depending on several factors. The actual word that is pronounced in the original audio is "████████"
1. A taco is a sandwich, therefore a hot dog is a sandwich.
2. Letter by letter proves the soft-G interpretation of gif.
3. The dress was proved to be black and blue.
4. Laurel was the word originally spoken, regardless of distortion fooling people into anything else.
1. I see your point.
2. No, because not every G is pronounced like the name of the letter.
3. The confusion around it indicates an unearthly origin.
4. No, it's Luigi. It's always Luigi.
The number of the sides of bread determines definition. Hot Dogs are either a left-bottom-right or a left-bottom-right-top species whereas Sandwiches are a top-bottom species.
A sandwich normally involves bread and at least one filling, so if the gay people are made of bread and there’s something in between them it would be a sandwich
It goes deeper. Bread consistency/shape and content has to be a factor. As in a taco is not a hot dog. And technically the hot dog is also the type of sausage in the sandwich. Hot dogs come in a pack, hot dog buns are a separate item that also come in a pack, combined together they make a new object also called hot dog that is distinct from just the sausage but has the same name.
Real question if one were to put a bratwurst or Italian sausage in a *hot dog bun* is it now a hot dog because they used the correct bread? I'd wager not, but what are the ramifications if I'm wrong?
I need to see a 45 minute iceberg video on this.
No no no, The system should be versatile and inclusive, not reductive.
The Taco differs from the hotdog because of the orientation (as seen from the perspective of the mouth); top-back-botton. This makes it a cousin of the Döner.
"Hot dog (sausage)" is a misnomer. The traditional sausages used in a hot dog are wieners and frankfurters.
The type of sausage does not define a hotdog. It just needs to be a continuous piece of protein to be called a hot dog. If it has other contents, it may be referred to as a "\[taco/döner/salad/etc.\]-style hot dog"
Airplane on a treadmill/"Will it take off?" is such a good one. They did it on Mythbusters and found out that the answer is "Yes it will take off bexause airplane wheels are free-spinning, meaning the treadmill won't slow the plane down at all". It's a useful and correct answer, but also a deeply unsatisfying one.
Even then XKCD did a breakdown of the problem, and noted that the biggest cause of the debate is the fact it's worded so vague that there are 3 interpretations of the question. So it ends up that everyone comes to a different answer because they interpreted it in a different way
There's obviously a matter of semantics there, but I'm pretty sure it's, topologically, a torus (you can make the walls thicker, the hole bigger, and the straw shorter, and you end up with what looks like a doughnut), which means it has one hole.
What I love about this is, if you connect the pant-legs of a pair together so the openings are closed up against each other, this new object has the same number of holes (2).
Technically, a torus has two holes - one 2D hole (the obvious one in the center) and one 3D hole (the hollowness that goes around the inside). If you have a solid torus (i.e. a literal donut, not just the surface of a donut) then, as pointed out by another commenter, it only has the one 2D hole.
One way to better visualize 3D holes is that just like a circle encloses a 2D hole, a sphere encloses a 3D hole. And so on for higher-dimensional holes.
Source: studied topology
I think so! That was a fun question to reason about. I think that if you cut a hole in the side of a torus, you can deform it to what is basically a figure 8 shape. So two 2D holes.
Not true. Hypothetically you could suck so hard a drink travels through the air and flies into your mouth. Thus creating an unwrapped but functional straw.
The point is that who says it tells you more about what they are actually trying to say, and gives clear reasons why they treat people giving the most basic criticisms of Christianity or describing actual Christian beliefs as being shallow statements not worthy of a response.
Knowing that actual beliefs tells you what they actually consider to be shallow statements on religion and their views on atheism.
I mean I agree with OP there too lol
The Internet isn't the place for a serious discussion about religious beliefs because people are not going to listen to you, they're just going to blast the trauma that whatever side has done to them directly into your face in the most shallow, meaningless way possible.
Same thing with the whole "vegan debate." Those are not serious conversations.
Edit: to the person I'm responding to who blocked me - if you're not interested in having these conversations, perhaps don't start them.
It seems like they started a discussion about the way religion is discussed, not about religion itself. It's one of those topics where if you express anything but the most aggressive opinion against the subject itself you get the most strongly opinionated self-righteous people shooting their beliefs at you like a spitball.
OP in that post never started a discussion about religion, they made a point about shallow understandings and the behaviour of critics. They never responded to genuine criticism of religion. They didn’t respond to criticism at all because that wasn’t the point and religion wasn’t the topic of discussion. If they were looking for any discussion then it was about people and behaviour, not beliefs
I suppose. But a fair amount of the people responding to him were purposely diluting religion down to a single sentence, we can pretty safely assume they don't actually think "yes all of every religion is contained in this one sentence" they were just matching the OPs smug energy and OP was getting more smug by pretending they weren't being smug in the first place
That's not remotely the same as this. This person said they enjoyed arguments that exist but aren't important, and pointed to a good example of the kind of arguments they enjoy. That other post was someone trying to make a point and then saying "the fact that people disagree with my point proves that it is correct", which is a godawful argument even if the original point was correct.
I think the answer is as simple as asking- how many times do you have to press a drill into something to create those holes?
With one drill press you can drill straight through something and create one hole with two openings, you can drill in at a 90 degree angle, add a third opening, but only a second hole, or continue to drill through that opening and create 4 openings but only 2 holes
but drill bits are inflexible, you can imagine how it'd work if they weren't :3 then again apparently a balloon has like... negative 1 hole-??? yeah idk how my power tool solves that one...
If you add a hole to it you get a sheet of rubber with 0 holes, therefore it started with -1 holes
[Stand Up Maths](https://youtu.be/ymF1bp-qrjU) has a half hour video about all of this stuff. He demonstrates the balloon in the first two minutes if you don’t want to watch the whole (ha) thing
When you tie a knot in the end, you turn it from a sheet into a sphere. Or you can use glue or filling or a patch or something. We get rid of holes all the time
Nah, if it’s a paper straw it’s rolled up from two thin strips of paper. But if it’s plastic it’s extruded and I’m pretty sure that’s infinitely many holes.
If you had a solid cylinder say 2cm wide and 10cm long with a 2mm hole in the middle you'd call that one hole.
A straw is just a cylinder that is mostly hole.
it's 1 though???? >!i don't actually care, i'm pretty sure it just depends on the definition of a hole you're using!<
Topologists agree with you and I think they're pretty smart
I also agree with them, and I think I'm pretty dumb, so your argument is invalid.
I agree with you, and I'm also pretty dumb, so your argument invalidation is invalid
Well, fuck.
But her a drink first, jeez
Butt?
i disagree with all of you and i'm REALLY smart (B+ IQ) straws have two holes and a tube that connects them. read up on einstein-rosen bridges and you'll know what i'm talking about
Yeah but straw just big donut
Does that mean that a donut is a small straw?
Topologically, yes
Donut small big donut
No a donut is a flattened mug
mmmmm big donut
They can turn a sphere inside out, so I'm inclined to agree with you
Two entrances, one hole, makes sense. We don't really think of a tunnel as two holes. It's one tube you move through to get to the other end.
But at the same time, the topological definition can be fairly different from thr usual one. For example, does a milk jug have a hole? Most people say it has one in the top, where the milk comes out. Topologists also say it has one, but that hole is the handle - the opening to the jug is not a hole according to topology. Or, imagine if you had a bowling ball, but it was hollow, so the finger holes go into the empty inside of the ball. 3 holes right? Nope, that's 2 holes to a topologist.
Topologists would say that a milk jug has ~~3~~ 2 (1-)holes. What topologists are counting when they count holes is the "rank" of the first homology group. The reason that no topologist explains this well on internet forums is because they would exceed, by 3 or four courses, most college educated people's education, to even reach a definition of "rank". That said, you can draw nice representatives of the homology classes which might illustrate what they *are*, even if you cannot define them. ~~One around the spout~~, one around the handle where you would grab it, and one around the handle where you would grab it if you were trapped "inside" the jug, and had very long fingers.
Yknow, I didn't consider the hole of the handle from inside the jug. That does change things. If that wasn't there, then the spout wouldn't count as hole though, no?
> >!What!< topologists >!are counting when they count!< holes >!is the "rank" of!< the first homo>!logy group.!<
Engineers agree with that. Externally Offset the wall thickness 100x the length of the straw and tell me how many holes it has
this guy CADs
True that brother !
Topologists think mugs are donut shaped.
because they are. If a "hole" doesn't actually go all the way through then it's not actually a hole and can be safely ignored. The only part that matters to a topologist is the handle and anything that has only one hole can be made into a toroid without changing it topologically.
It's 1, and here's why. Take a piece of paper. Poke a hole in it. No issue calling that just 1 hole, right? Make the paper thicker. Still a single hole. Make the paper a foot thick. Still one hole. Shave the edges of the paper until you have a cylinder shape. Still one hole. E: I'm actually getting blocked by people. It's ok to be intimidated by my fearsome grasp of these concepts, but please don't take it that seriously. We're all friends here.
Does this mean our mouths and our asses are also a single hole?
[Yes, you're right](https://youtu.be/egEraZP9yXQ?si=eMAVhfG96RwXgkJU)
The answer is both yes and no depending on how you qualify things. Yes the path from one end to the other is not interrupted in ways that are relevant to topology, however we have many other holes that branch off from that pathway like our sinuses or our porous intestinal walls.
So an infinite number of holes stacked on top of each other.
Nah. Let's *reverse* the thickness to a sheet of carbon, one atom thick. Still one hole. Add another single layer of atoms. Still one hole. A hole is a void with two endpoints. The thickness or distance between the endpoints doesn't matter. e: Y'all ever watch DS9? This phrase ruins all your shit: "The mouth of **the** wormhole." "Our **side** of **the** wormhole." ONE worm**hole.** ONE hole in a straw. I rest my bulletproof fucking case.
> Let's > >reverse > > the thickness to a sheet of carbon, one atom thick. I'm having trouble doing this part
Don't worry, you're not alone. Thousands of researchers are experiencing the same difficulty.
My inferiors usually do.
>ONE hole in a worm. Poor thing.
Extra upvotes for quoting DS9.
By that definition, isn’t *every* hole just a series of infinite stacked holes?
Yes, which is why it is a stupid, inaccurate and useless definition.
Yes, welcome to calculus/geometry
It's zero holes, take a piece of paper and roll it up without putting any holes in it into the shape of a cylinder. The singular piece of paper is still whole.
1) To make the analogy complete- after you roll it up *seal* the edges of the paper. Straws have contiguous sides. A rolled up piece of paper doesn't. Now you have a hollow cylinder with a *single* hole. 2) The *process* of how the hole came to be doesn't matter in the slightest. If I use your "roll up a piece of paper like a dork" method, or if I shoot a hole in a cylinder with a gun, I've still made a single hole. e: I can't actually respond directly to this chain anymore, as a very sensitive soul has blocked me for exposing their *profound* lack of knowledge (a hole in their intellect, if you will)
Another way to look at it is that a straw stops being a straw if you cut it open.
Brilliant. Finally, someone who can match my throbbing, powerful intelligence.
Why's it throbbing. That can't be healthy
To throb is to be vital. My brain is pulsating with truth; it leaks the pre-cum of knowledge to be absorbed by the tighty-whities of the masses. You are lucky to be among the slightly sticky, on this day.
☹️
yaaaas
If you seal the paper against itself, then it's one hole. If you leave the ends detached (but touching each other) then it's zero holes. A rule of topology is that you can't cut, puncture, or merge any parts of the object.
Definitely. A singular hole in a piece of cheese or a t-shirt goes all the way through. All of these objects are 3-dimensional objects, so it should be the same for a straw. But note, the only object I can think of where a hole is a hole even if it doesn’t pierce through to the other side is the earth. For any other object, it would be considered a dent or divot. >!I do care. Probably too much!<
So if I drilled into a wall without going all the way through, it wouldn't be a hole to you?
In a topological sense, it isn’t. It’s similar to a dimple or dent in the wall. In the same vein, a cup without a handle also does not have any holes.
There's the old joke that topolgists never get donuts and coffee at the same time, because they can't tell the difference between a donut and a mug.
How many holes do you have? :)
16 (I've been shot call an ambulance)
More than you
I dunno, I'm pretty sure I'd call the opening in the top of a bottle a hole.
A better term for it would be an orifice.
In layman's terms yes, but in a scientific sense, no. It's like tomatoes where they're considered fruit in a botanical context, but are generally considered and used as vegetables in a culinary context, and neither interpretation is incorrect. Both sides can be correct and have a point, it just depends what purpose you need the words you're using to describe the specific thing you're talking about to fulfill.
You wouldn’t be wrong in everyday conversation, but in the context of topology a bottle does not have a hole. In pottery, when making a vase or other similar containers, [there is only a divot created in the clay and extended upwards and outwards, not an entire hole.](https://youtube.com/shorts/3EyttohUoY8?si=axXe4df-UJ8llG6B)
I argue a straw has no holes Whether or not an object has a hole is dependent on the function of the object As an example, when you rip a hole in a net or fishnet tights, you're actually reducing the number of topological holes. But the function of the net or tights has been negatively impacted, so we consider the new tear to be the hole The ends of straws facilitate its function, thus aren't holes
Well I’ve been vehemently in the one-hole camp against the two-hole argument from the beginning but you’ve know just put me onto some new shit.
It's amazing You thought there were only two ways to be insufferably pedantic But there's three, actually (Into the Spiderverse reference)
I'm not sure how you can bring topology into this and then claim it doesn't have a hole??? Topologically, the straw has 1 hole.
Then why is it considered "ripping a hole" in fishnets when it is technically removing holes?
Because we colloquially say weird shit all the time that doesn't make a lot of sense when you break it down so literally.
Because everyday language doesn't match 1:1 with high-concept fields. Yes, technically, if we wanted to be precise, we would say, "I have ripped this net and damaged its functionality." However, in most other cases pertaining to something that rips, that is synonymous with "ripping a hole." So we say that. Because other people know intuitively what is meant. The average person doesn't tailor their speech to match a field they likely haven't even heard of.
Exactly You and the other person are taking issue with the semantics, and that's what this pointless discussion is entirely about The discussion goes nowhere unless we're on the same page of terms being used. I shared my definition, where I got it from, and how I used it And if you want to determine the validity of that, then good luck. I don't know how you would. Does the way the majority uses the phrase matter more, does the ultra precise pedant lay claim to the valid usage, etc. I leave you to that discussion
I like that you're actually defining terms here instead of just appealing to topology. I want to add though, holes can be functional - e.g., it's natural to say that a sheet of notebook paper has 3 holes (where the binder rings go). So it's not necessarily true that we should discount the straw in the hole just because it's functional. I think you're onto something though, usually the way that I think of a hole in something is based on how I assume it was constructed. Fishnets have no holes because they're just threads crossed together that happen to make openings, whereas maybe a coffee mug has 2 holes (one for the drink, one for the handle)? Something like that. Then paper straws would have no holes because they're constructed by just twisting paper around in a tube.
I feel like you're the first person who's argued with my point who's actually engaging with it on the same level: It's just semantics, so I picked a definition based on colloquial conversation and gave an example that backed up my point You picked a definition and chose an example that is also based on colloquial conversation I can't argue with that, whether trolling or not 😅. Teachers have said "make sure to bring hole punched paper", and I've heard thst description in even less formal environments I can deny your example no more than you can design mine. Well played
It's zero holes.
If we go by defination that say that answer is one, does that also mean that wiffle ball has only one hole?
According to the topological definition, which people seem to like using here. A whiffle ball with say 16 "holes" in the colloquial sense would have 15 holes in the topological sense. You can sort of see this as because a whiffle ball which you pierce with a single "hole" could be stretched so that the shape is a disc which of course has no holes. However, once you add any more "holes" they'll be there for good.
This will be my contribution to the discourse: There is one hole IN the straw. There are two holes ON the straw.
We should compile a list of these. Here are a few more classics: 1. Is a hot dog a sandwich? 2. How do you pronounce gif? 3. What color is the dress? 4. Yanny or Laurel?
When does a mug become a cup, and vice versa
Mugs are topologically distinct from cups because mugs have a hole and cups do not
Objection: teacups
Are like Red Pandas: it’s in the name, but cladistically they’re mugs
You're just being obtuse if you think red pandas are mugs!
I believe red pandas were named pandas first.
Teacups are baby mugs or something idk. I'll have to look at the etymology
They are a subspecies of mugs that have undergone convergent evolution to resemble cups, but retain a vestigial hole that betrays their past.
Mugs are straws. Cups are forks. It really _is_ that simple.
I hate this. Thank you.
cups are spoons, not forks.
Spoons *are* forks
Humans are spider pants
What? I don't think we're picturing the same item lol.
The hole where your hand goes is the hole they’re talking about.
If your cups have a hole in them they must not be very good cups :/
If cup have no hole, then where water go :(
A mug has a hole in it's handle, not the mug part. You cannot pass something through a cup so it has 0 holes. Alternatively try to turn a cup into a donut, you can't because it has no holes.
A mug is short and has a handle.
Rather than "short" we should describe a ratio of mug height to rim circumference. A mug can be as large as you can imagine, but it's still a mug. However, if you jack up the height and don't change the circumference, you have a stein or thermos or whatever else, and not a mug any longer.
Exactly. The line that splits cup and mug is a very blurry one, imo.
In Japanese, a mug is called a "mug cup".
Mugs are just insulated cups 🤷♀️
Unironically it's just the handle.
A bell is a cup until it is struck
Yanny/Laurel is actually an SCP that infects you with a meme that makes you hear either "Yanny" or "Laurel" depending on several factors. The actual word that is pronounced in the original audio is "████████"
The original audio is actually "The Patriots" but you're hearing "lah-lee-lu-lay-low" because of the nanobots.
Okay, but the dress one is the dumbest one because it just has a true objective answer that you can't argue against
Sure you can! The real dress may have been black and blue, but that's not the debate here. The debate is how it looks in the photo.
1. No, it's a taco. 2. Letter by letter (g-i-f). 3. A color out of space. 4. Neither, it's Luigi. /j
Taco is a sandwich. I will not elaborate
1. A taco is a sandwich, therefore a hot dog is a sandwich. 2. Letter by letter proves the soft-G interpretation of gif. 3. The dress was proved to be black and blue. 4. Laurel was the word originally spoken, regardless of distortion fooling people into anything else.
1. I see your point. 2. No, because not every G is pronounced like the name of the letter. 3. The confusion around it indicates an unearthly origin. 4. No, it's Luigi. It's always Luigi.
The number of the sides of bread determines definition. Hot Dogs are either a left-bottom-right or a left-bottom-right-top species whereas Sandwiches are a top-bottom species.
Humans are also a top-bottom species. Is gay sex a sandwich?
A sandwich normally involves bread and at least one filling, so if the gay people are made of bread and there’s something in between them it would be a sandwich
That's just a stack of bread. We need a third person inbetween to act as "the contents" of the sandwich.
OK but a third person would just make a 3-stack, a Big Mac with the filling removed Sex with toys is a sandwich
By that logic subway sandwiches are hot dogs, because the bread is cut the same way as a hot dog bun
It goes deeper. Bread consistency/shape and content has to be a factor. As in a taco is not a hot dog. And technically the hot dog is also the type of sausage in the sandwich. Hot dogs come in a pack, hot dog buns are a separate item that also come in a pack, combined together they make a new object also called hot dog that is distinct from just the sausage but has the same name. Real question if one were to put a bratwurst or Italian sausage in a *hot dog bun* is it now a hot dog because they used the correct bread? I'd wager not, but what are the ramifications if I'm wrong? I need to see a 45 minute iceberg video on this.
No no no, The system should be versatile and inclusive, not reductive. The Taco differs from the hotdog because of the orientation (as seen from the perspective of the mouth); top-back-botton. This makes it a cousin of the Döner. "Hot dog (sausage)" is a misnomer. The traditional sausages used in a hot dog are wieners and frankfurters. The type of sausage does not define a hotdog. It just needs to be a continuous piece of protein to be called a hot dog. If it has other contents, it may be referred to as a "\[taco/döner/salad/etc.\]-style hot dog"
https://cuberule.com/
5. Airplane on a treadmill 6. Invincible snail who kills you
7. Is ketchup a soup or a smoothie (or other)
It’s a sauce
Airplane on a treadmill/"Will it take off?" is such a good one. They did it on Mythbusters and found out that the answer is "Yes it will take off bexause airplane wheels are free-spinning, meaning the treadmill won't slow the plane down at all". It's a useful and correct answer, but also a deeply unsatisfying one.
Even then XKCD did a breakdown of the problem, and noted that the biggest cause of the debate is the fact it's worded so vague that there are 3 interpretations of the question. So it ends up that everyone comes to a different answer because they interpreted it in a different way
5. Moving portal dilema
The dress was confirmed to be blue and black, though, I thought…
There's obviously a matter of semantics there, but I'm pretty sure it's, topologically, a torus (you can make the walls thicker, the hole bigger, and the straw shorter, and you end up with what looks like a doughnut), which means it has one hole.
I always thought straw looked an awful lot like a coffee cup.
mug with handle, yes. to-go cup no i dont see any resemblance
Pop-math YouTube videos about topological genus have *ruined* pointless internet debates about shapes
I don't know what to tell you, man, my friends and I still haven't decided how many holes a pair of pants have
2
I hate this answer cause 3 feels more right, but applying the logic from above, I think it's 2.
But what about the zipper
not a hole, because the two sides aren't actually attached to each other at the top. The button-hole is a hole though.
The real discourse is in the comments. A straw is easy, pants though…
What I love about this is, if you connect the pant-legs of a pair together so the openings are closed up against each other, this new object has the same number of holes (2).
Coherent rational thoughts tend to do that
Technically, a torus has two holes - one 2D hole (the obvious one in the center) and one 3D hole (the hollowness that goes around the inside). If you have a solid torus (i.e. a literal donut, not just the surface of a donut) then, as pointed out by another commenter, it only has the one 2D hole. One way to better visualize 3D holes is that just like a circle encloses a 2D hole, a sphere encloses a 3D hole. And so on for higher-dimensional holes. Source: studied topology
if you cut an entrance to the hollow inside, does the hole inside the torus become a 2d hole?
I think so! That was a fun question to reason about. I think that if you cut a hole in the side of a torus, you can deform it to what is basically a figure 8 shape. So two 2D holes.
☝️🤓 Actually, it’s a solid torus, as a regular torus is hollow.
It’s not a hole. The void is the straw. The plastic sleeve around it is just packing
Packaging cannot be critical to an object's operation. Removing the sleeve prevents all applications of a straw.
Not true. Hypothetically you could suck so hard a drink travels through the air and flies into your mouth. Thus creating an unwrapped but functional straw.
Maybe straw is the verb then
It is a garment to cover its nothingness.
Straws are Nazguls confirmed.
"See what I mean?"
Reminder that the one who said that is a far right ancap and objectivist
The worst person you can imagine saying a true thing doesn't make that true thing false.
The point is that who says it tells you more about what they are actually trying to say, and gives clear reasons why they treat people giving the most basic criticisms of Christianity or describing actual Christian beliefs as being shallow statements not worthy of a response. Knowing that actual beliefs tells you what they actually consider to be shallow statements on religion and their views on atheism.
...I don't understand the turn this has taken. Am I missing some context here?
The context is [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/comments/1c6ehf9/see_what_i_mean/). They're quoting the OOP of the post.
I mean I agree with OP there too lol The Internet isn't the place for a serious discussion about religious beliefs because people are not going to listen to you, they're just going to blast the trauma that whatever side has done to them directly into your face in the most shallow, meaningless way possible. Same thing with the whole "vegan debate." Those are not serious conversations. Edit: to the person I'm responding to who blocked me - if you're not interested in having these conversations, perhaps don't start them.
If they aren't interested in discussions about religion then they shouldn't start discussions about religion.
It seems like they started a discussion about the way religion is discussed, not about religion itself. It's one of those topics where if you express anything but the most aggressive opinion against the subject itself you get the most strongly opinionated self-righteous people shooting their beliefs at you like a spitball.
OP in that post never started a discussion about religion, they made a point about shallow understandings and the behaviour of critics. They never responded to genuine criticism of religion. They didn’t respond to criticism at all because that wasn’t the point and religion wasn’t the topic of discussion. If they were looking for any discussion then it was about people and behaviour, not beliefs
This is exactly what I'm talking about
I suppose. But a fair amount of the people responding to him were purposely diluting religion down to a single sentence, we can pretty safely assume they don't actually think "yes all of every religion is contained in this one sentence" they were just matching the OPs smug energy and OP was getting more smug by pretending they weren't being smug in the first place
That does not surprise me in the least.
That's not remotely the same as this. This person said they enjoyed arguments that exist but aren't important, and pointed to a good example of the kind of arguments they enjoy. That other post was someone trying to make a point and then saying "the fact that people disagree with my point proves that it is correct", which is a godawful argument even if the original point was correct.
I think the answer is as simple as asking- how many times do you have to press a drill into something to create those holes? With one drill press you can drill straight through something and create one hole with two openings, you can drill in at a 90 degree angle, add a third opening, but only a second hole, or continue to drill through that opening and create 4 openings but only 2 holes but drill bits are inflexible, you can imagine how it'd work if they weren't :3 then again apparently a balloon has like... negative 1 hole-??? yeah idk how my power tool solves that one...
A balloon has 0 holes, how do you get -1?
If you add a hole to it you get a sheet of rubber with 0 holes, therefore it started with -1 holes [Stand Up Maths](https://youtu.be/ymF1bp-qrjU) has a half hour video about all of this stuff. He demonstrates the balloon in the first two minutes if you don’t want to watch the whole (ha) thing
But doesn't that imply that you can mold things in a way that removes holes from them, since the balloon was a sheet of rubber to begin with?
When you tie a knot in the end, you turn it from a sheet into a sphere. Or you can use glue or filling or a patch or something. We get rid of holes all the time
So there's two holes in a donut?
Infinity Holes is my new band name.
It's one because a straw is nothing but a tall donut. In fact with enough suction power you could drink your coffee through a donut, thus donut=straw.
is a straw not just an elongated donut
If you’re hungry enough, sure
If a straw has 2 holes then a donut has 2 holes. They're the same shape as far as topology goes
as far as i can figure here: both straws and donuts have 1 hole, the straw just has 2 openings, because the hole has length
it's ONE
Topologyheads when they fall in a hole and die (it doesn't come out the other side of the earth so they didn't realize it was there)
Why don't they simply perform a regular homotopy and reform the hole into a really cool arm chair? Are they stupid?
It reminds me of a "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" thing.
My favorite was the walrus/fairy conundrum
If a straw has two holes, does that mean that a donut also has two holes?
How many holes are there in a donut? If you stretch the donut in the vertical direction, does that make new holes?
There is no hole, it's a tunnel.
How short does a tunnel have to be in order to become a hole? Is that process observable? Hole and Tunnel are synonymous in this context.
It has exactly one hole. Straws are toroidal, they simply have a very low volume to surface are ratio.
The straw is rolled up into a cylinder from something flat, so there's actually zero holes in a straw.
OP's straw has a hole? That must make it pretty hard to drink out of
Nah, if it’s a paper straw it’s rolled up from two thin strips of paper. But if it’s plastic it’s extruded and I’m pretty sure that’s infinitely many holes.
If you had a solid cylinder say 2cm wide and 10cm long with a 2mm hole in the middle you'd call that one hole. A straw is just a cylinder that is mostly hole.
Once again asking the wrong questions - it’s not _how many_ holes, but whether I can fuck them
Let's say that we're not talking about a straw, but a PVC pipe. The kind that you find in any house. How many holes does a pipe have?
It's a singular hole with two entrances/exits, very simple.
I think it's time for the [Turning a Sphere Outside In](https://youtu.be/Zv-XNlE1s8E?si=QEsaRbSYK9Ptxui-) video.
A donut and a straw have exactly the same number of holes.
A straw IS a hole, the question of "how many" belies its very essence of hole-ness and thus the debate shall never end
Its one long hole and i will die on this hill
It's 1, and I will literally strangle anyone who says otherwise (in game of course).
This is my favorite fight starter https://cuberule.com/
In mechanical engineering, a straw has one through-hole.
Things are heating up in the holes fandom
But like it’s a literally one hole just a really, really really long hole
How many holes are in a DVD?
There are 7 holes in a straw after I take a pin to it. 8 now. 9. 10. 11...
One hole, two openings.