LRRcast for cHustle 05 - Street

[Lyinginbedmon]

Wiki!

Now!

[Kdz]

It's Wikied, but I'm gonna need help fleshing it out. Right now all I've got is a couple of things.

Then, of course, we must decide on the formula once and for all.

[Lord Chrusher]

Ok here is an important question. Is manliness invariant under coordinate transform? Does the observed manliness change depending on location, time or relative speed? Is manliness the same in all inertial frames? What about non inertial frames?

[Master Gunner]

Those are indeed important questions that we need to answer.

I vote we wrap a lead ball in styrofoam, soak it in gasoline, light it up, and fire it into space and near-light speed. FOR SCIENCE!

[goat]

Manliness is not inherent in simplicity. Some of the manliest things in this world are also incredibly complex. Automobiles, firearms, nuclear weapons. All three of these are arguably manly, but they are also incredibly complex.

Their complexity can be broken down nicely into constituent forms. For instance: nuclear explosions are high in riskliness and explosions as well as largeliness and denseliness (even of greater densliness than lead).

By breaking a complex idea down into simple parts, one can quantify its manliness and breaking things apart is pretty manly. So I submit that simplicity is inherent in manliness.

Ok here is an important question. Is manliness invariant under coordinate transform? Does the observed manliness change depending on location, time or relative speed? Is manliness the same in all inertial frames? What about non inertial frames?

You bring up a good point, but I think it is obvious that things that go faster are more manly. For instance, take a copy of "The Sound of Music". Not very manly right?

Now fire it out of a cannon. It just got a lot more manly didn't it?

I think we need to establish a base unit for manliness. We obviously can't define it properly while we still debate the theory, but a name should be settled on nonetheless to simplify discussion. I propose, in honor of one of the leading researchers in manliness, that we deem this unit the "vanHumbeck"(abbreviated as VH).

[Kdz]

I second the VanHumbeck as the definitive unit of Manliness, denoted V with a subscript H.

[Doctor Insanovic]

I fully support the vanHumbeck, though possibly a manlier version maybe? Like a MEGA-FUCK-VanHUMBECK! Because capital letters, swearing, and the word "mega" are all quite manly. Also I always imagined manliness being measured in some sort of electrical unit.

[Master Gunner]

VanHumbeck-Volts?

[Lord Chrusher]

I think a vanHumbeck should be abreaviated as vH.

I like the idea of largeliness being a composite quantity of mass and spacial size some what like the moment of inertia of an object.

I propose Chrusher's Theory of Manliness:

M = D L

M - manliness (in vanHumbecks)
D - danger, a combination of factors such as fire and risk.
L - largeliness, a combination of mass and spacial size.

[goat]

I fully support the vanHumbeck, though possibly a manlier version maybe? Like a MEGA-FUCK-VanHUMBECK! Because capital letters, swearing, and the word "mega" are all quite manly. Also I always imagined manliness being measured in some sort of electrical unit.

Capital letters are pretty manly, which is why my proposed symbol is a capital V subscript capital H (VH)despite it being 'vanHumbeck' with a lower case 'v'.

I'd guess that 'mega' could still be applied since it is a metric prefix anyways. Perhaps we should include a colloquial provision that allows for the placement of a manly expletive between prefix and unit. Nothing binding, just available; much in the same way that sulfuric acid can be called "sulfuric acid", "oil of vitriol" or "sulphuric acid". So saying a mega-fucking-vanHumbeck is equivalent to saying a megavanHumbeck or 1 million vanHumbecks.

Which brings up an interesting question, how do we quantify manliness? 1 liter is a kg of water, a light-year is the distance a photon travels in one year, but how do we measure manliness?

If we say 1 unit of manliness is equivalent to an atomic bomb, well that's pretty manly, and all things will be considered as fractions of the unit. If we base it on something not very manly (lets say 'the sound of music' again) then things will be measured in thousands or millions, which sounds more manly, but makes our unit not very manly by itself.

For example, one Pascal is a tiny amount of pressure, and thus things are commonly measured in large numbers of Pascals (or, if you're not into self abuse, in a reasonable number of atmospheres or torr), thus making pascals not a very manly unit. But if you're measuring mass in tons, well one ton is pretty manly, but for practical application you'd have to measure things in fractions of a ton. Fractions aren't very manly either.

Perhaps something universally manly should be considered, like the manliness of a Clint Eastwood movie, or one ounce of molten lead moving at 100 m/s through a crowd of 100 children. Ideas?

[the amativeness]

Standard scientific notation indicates that units named after people should use capital letters, hence V^H (stupid 10-year old pc...grrr...not letting me format </mini-rant>).

[Yukikaze]

I carry the motion of using VanHumbeck as the standardized unit for manliness. I'd prefer an abbreviation Vh, but vH is sufficient, as well.

[Kdz]

Goat: I say we determine the worth of the unit after we finalize the formula and run some calcs.

Newtons still break down into their SI units, you know. That kind of thing. Then we can decide on the benchmark once we're sure of what we're measuring in and what the common numbers are.

I like M = D L

And then we can put the rest of the stuff in under the equation for Danger (as Largeliness is already defined).

That sounds good to me.

[Dutch guy]

Well, if we assume the M=D L formulation (Which is very manly as it expresses a lot of information in a very short and understandable way. Which is very manly indeed)

We need to assume Largeliness is defined by Volume times Denseliness

[Manliness]=[D] [(kg/m^3)(m^3)] => [Manliness]=[D] [Kg]

This shows that the Unit Kg for mass will be a factor in Manliness, just as we suspected. And that the weight of the object is what counts and not its volume, as a cubic metre of styrofoam isn't manly but a cubic metre of Lead is. However, to calculate the units of the D factor, we need to agree on what basic components construct it.

I think: Temperature T (In kelvins ofcourse, as higher numbers are more manly), Height above surface h, sharpness of object, speed of object times mass of object (As we need to take the impuls of the object into account. a one nanogram particle at 7000 m/s isn't manly, but a 10 kilogram lead ball at that speed is) and as a closer I think we need to work the Mach number in there somewhere. Because Mach numbers are manly.

[Master Gunner]

M=D*L works, but only in situations where the Danger has being quantitized or found through experimentation. Thus we need an additional formula to quantify the "danger" quotient.

Going from the last expanded equation (M=[(C^R + d +f)*10^P]*L) we can make a few changes. Facial hair isn't necessarily a component of danger, so we can remove that. Density is really a component of largliness, so that can be separated out for now too. That leaves us with:

Code: Select all

D=(C^R)*10^P

The danger of something is equal to the conquestliness of it, to the power of its riskliness, multiplied by 10 to the power of the amount of fire involved. This works for me, although if anybody else has any ideas, that would be great.

That leaves us with largliness. Presumably mass, volume, and density would contribute to it, but I can't think of a way to put them together at the moment.

EDIT: After reading Dutch Guy's post, I have some additional meanderings on the Danger value.
The Pyro variable can simply be expressed as the highest temperature involved, solving the unit and value for that.

Riskliness is a probability factor, and thus likely will not have any units directly associated with it. It can be calculated as the [probability of something bad happening]*[Amount of bodily harm suffered]. Those can probably be better defined, but I can't do it at the moment.

Conquestliness is a tough one. At this point I'm thinking of removing it completely, since there's no real way to quantify anything psychological (such as besting someone else through bluffing or overcoming psychological urges), and when dealing with something tangible, such as conquering all of Asia, that would be covered under largliness.

So I don't know, that's just what popped into my head.

[Yukikaze]

I was actually considering grouping the components of Manliness into the following:

C^R=T
C=Conquestliness
R=Riskliness
T=Toughliness

That is, Toughliness is equal to the Conquestliness of something taken to the power of Riskliness.

L*d=G
L=Largliness
d=Densliness
G=Greatliness

Greatliness is equal to Largeliness times Densliness. Greatliness in this case is used as a generic catch-all for the concepts of size, bulk, volume, and weight.

f=B
f=the proponent of Facial Hair
B=Beardliness

Beardliness is equal to facial hair. It's just there because all of the variables for Manliness have to have the proper suffix, and to round out the compound variables.

Of course, since Manliness must be in direct proportion to Largliness, that is, M=xL, we can't be raising Largeliness to any power. Densliness, however, has been shown to be at least as important as Largeliness in determining Manliness, thus in the M=xL equation, x=yd, giving M=y*(dL), which simplifies to M=y*G

This, of course, maintains the requirement that Manliness be directly proportional to Largeliness. It's also directly proportional to Densliness.

Tweaking an earlier equation would yield the equation for y above being:
y=(T+B)*10^P

I propose that the measure for manliness is a summation of notable events and aspects of a given person's life. For example, Alexander the Great's conquest of Europe would have a high Toughliness, as it was both a massive conquest, and carried a good deal of risk with it. Alexander is, of course, generally rendered beardless, so f=0, and likewise, B=0. We can be sure there was a certain amount of fire involved, but that's something that only historians would know for sure, so It's still unknown. Add to this that Europe is a continent, and continents are particularly Largely tracts of land, combined with the densliness of Europe's population at the time, which would mean that Alexander the Great's conquest of Europe is represented by:

M=((C^R+0)*10^P)*(size of Europe in square miles)(density of European population in people/square mile)

By contrast, the firing of a gun. There is little or no conquestliness, but there is a certain amount of Riskliness. B is equal to the size of the beard of the person in question, and P is taken from the size of the explosion driving the bullet. Largliness is from the overall length of the gun, and Densliness from the average density of the materials of said gun.

If we apply this to more recent events, each of the Man Cooking episodes has a unique manliness which can be calculated by the degree of conquest over both food and hunger taken to the power of 1.2, as the risk involved in food preparation is the base amount for everyday life plus the additional risk of working with sharp objects and ovens. Beardliness is low for Morgan's episodes, and moderate for episodes involving Alex, P is generally between 0 and 1, though in the 3rd episode wherein Alex barbecues an alien abortion in newspaper, P would be closer to, by my estimate, 3 or 4. Largeliness is equal to the volume of the finished meal, and Densliness is equal to the density of the finished meal.

Note, of course, that in the most recent episode, Conquestliness is larger than usual, due to the larger amount of meat, and Largeliness is increased not only by the increased meal size, but also the increased cast size, making the Swiss Meat Roll the manliest Man Cooking yet.

[goat]

So, considering master gunner's post, it seems our next largest problem is defining conquestliness. Conquestliness is impacted by:
-sex with attractive women (# of women to the # of times)
-time it takes to complete the task vs the time expected for it to take (because doing something that takes a long time is manly, but not if it should've taken 3 seconds, but doing something that should've taken a long time that you do really fast, is super manly),
-blood (volume)
-sweat (volume)
-tears (an inherently negative value)
-loot or profit (in dollars)
-number of people killed (just for discussion, this is people, it could be replaced with burritos eaten or whatever)
-number of people saved
-the total number of people involved
-number of faces melted with awesome

So, blood, sweat and tears naturally go together, so we can say (B+S-T).

The number of people killed and saved are related. Obviously, saving people and killing people is relative to the total number of people involved, and having more people is less manly because you could always just do it yourself. So, ((Pk+Ps-Pt)/Pt)^N, where N is the number of faces melted with awesome.

Now rappers can shed some insight onto the next problem. It is apparent that getting both money and sex with beautiful women makes one 'gangsta' or a 'G'. Now it also must be noted that having lots of money increases your chances of sex with beautiful women exponentially (just look at Larry Flint). So, (W*S^$)+$, or the number of beautiful Women copulated with times the number of times Sleeping with them to the $ earned during the conquest plus the amount of money earned during the conquest (otherwise money is completely dependent on intercourse). This term can naturally be substituted with G.

Combining them we get: C=(B+S-T)*(((Pk+Ps-Pt)/Pt)^N)+(W*S^$)+$

But that's just my theory.

Edit: yukikaze's post went up before mine and I dont have time to go back and read for contradictory information right now.

[Master Gunner]

In a minor modification, I must agree with Yukikaze that refraining from your baser instincts in pursuit of a higher goal is just as manly as getting lots of action. So we if we put "S" in as an absolute value (so that term would be (W*|S|^$)), and every time you willingly give up sex counts as a negative, people like Yukikaze who have a slightly different sense of priorities than the rest of us aren't put at a disadvantage.

Now to calculate units!
so to start
C=(L)+(P*P^$)+$
L=litres
P=people (cancels out the first time it's used, and in the second time, both W and S would be in terms of people)
$=money, obviously. In what units though? Gold Standard? Canadian Dollar? Man Cooking 2 sandwiches?

What should we name the unit for Conquestliness though? Since Litres+people*people^money+money is an awkward unit to say.

Then for Danger (D=(C^R)*10^P), since that's what we use in the new final equation, we have:
C*T
C=Conquestliness
T=Temperature (In kelvin)
Since R is derived from probability and unitless. I've never actually seen an equation where you ended up with units in a logerithmic exponent, so I don't know if there's any difference in the placement of them than normal multiplication.

Any ideas on what we should name the unit for Dangerliness as well?

EDIT: Just realized that the people units in the middle term would actually cancel out! Let me fix that.

[Kdz]

Waaa. Alright, you guys win. I'm officially tired of thinking about Manliness in scientific terms.

Damn. Normally I'm all about this stuff. I'm impressed.

[Doctor Insanovic]

Waaa. Alright, you guys win. I'm officially tired of thinking about Manliness in scientific terms.

Damn. Normally I'm all about this stuff. I'm impressed.

I feel exactly the same way. My brain hurts. I think I'll actually have my manliness the traditional way and wing it, rather than calculate it. Now who wants some Man Stew?

[Unlucky]

I feel exactly the same way. My brain hurts. I think I'll actually have my manliness the traditional way and wing it, rather than calculate it. Now who wants some Man Stew?

Congrats though, your Manliness formula was put onto the LRRwiki. Better achievement than I've managed to do with my time here on the LRR forums. That is to say, a single Desertbus for hope userbar and a SPACE JUMP demotivational.

[Doctor Insanovic]

I feel exactly the same way. My brain hurts. I think I'll actually have my manliness the traditional way and wing it, rather than calculate it. Now who wants some Man Stew?

Congrats though, your Manliness formula was put onto the LRRwiki. Better achievement than I've managed to do with my time here on the LRR forums. That is to say, a single Desertbus for hope userbar and a SPACE JUMP demotivational.

srsly? the formula has been put on LRRwiki? cool... excuse me while I go check this out.

[Lyinginbedmon]

Better achievement than I've managed to do with my time here on the LRR forums. That is to say, a single Desertbus for hope userbar and a SPACE JUMP demotivational.

Have you read the Phail Physics page? What about the Timeline of the LRRd?

If anything it's a miracle we only get the occasional thing like this.

[The Jester]

I would like to contend with Goat that tears are manly, because you must use conquestliness of your fear of social prejudice to let others see you cry. Crying in public is manly, because it means you have conquered your fear and shows that you aren't affraid of ridicule or of showing your feelings.

I would also like to add that creativity is manly.
Consider, if you will, five pounds of lead. That's pretty manly. It's quite large, and it's also really dense. But it takes creativity to make it even more manly than it already is. How about lighting it on fire? Someone had to have that idea, by using their creativity. Could it be made more manly? Sure, just fire it from a catapult, or a canon. But wait, it could be made even more manly than that. How, you ask? By firing it through a High School Musical billboard, causing the billboard to catch fire.
But wait, there's more! It can be made even more manly, by rigging the billboard to explode on impact. That's one manly piece of lead right there. And it was made more manly by creativity.

Thus I posit that creativity is manly.

[Yukikaze]

Ooo, Creativity is incredibly manly.

Now, according to the most recent revisions of the equation, I believe we currently have...

Code: Select all

M=[(T+B)*10^P]*G

or in mildly expanded form

Code: Select all

M=[(C^R)*10^P]*(Ld)

According to Master Gunner's modification to Goat's analysis, Conquestliness is calculated by

Code: Select all

C=(B+S-T)*(((Pk+Ps-Pt)/Pt)^N)+(W*|S|)^$+$

I've moved the $ exponent for Sexliness outside of the parentheses, so that it is the combined Sexliness that gets raised, not simply the total number of events where one has had sex or abstained. Also, I agree with Master Gunner's treatment of Sexliness. As Lyinginbedmon mentioned, Abstinence is only manly if you're giving up sex you could be having.

Risk is, of course, a function of how likely you are to be hurt while doing a given conquest and how badly you are likely to be hurt, and is already well-understood by insurance adjusters.

P is maximum temperature of the event in Kelvins

Largeliness is based on the sum total volume or area of all items worked with in the event

Densliness is based on the average density of all items worked with in the event, measured in "stuff per Largely"(That is, the volume or area units of Largliness are used as the scale for Densliness, causing the units to cancel out.)

It is notable that "Beard" has disappeared from the most recent versions of the equation. I'm not sure this is right, as while facial hair isn't as manly as, say, "capping a hater," it does contribute appreciably to one's manliness.