> Meter isn't random any more. It's specified by the distance light travels in a set amount of time.

Still arbitrary.

> 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.

> 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.

Funnily enough, BMI isn't actually unitless. It has the units of kg/m^(2).

For plotting, I used matplotlib and the XKCD style option to get the hand-drawn vibe.

> Why are you so light? What is you height and gender?

163 cm, male.

I have been tracking my weight since I was born in 1997. I decided to plot it.

I used the journals from my school to get the dates and weights. I was also weighed as a baby and I have records of this. For plotting, I used matplotlib and the XKCD style option to get the hand-drawn vibe of the plot.

>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.

They use the midpoint (50%) as an estimator. This is just the expected cost.

>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?

> And even a normal savings account that hardly caters for inflation will be better than forced safety net that is negative and abused.

So great 80-year olds can't retire?

radical capitalists gonna capitalism

> 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.

> Was it due to unforeseen emergency spending? Or just lack of saving for retirement?

Ah yes, it is the victim's fault.

I mean, it is a simulation after all. Not a study or an experiment.

> Simulation? You didn't do it irl?

This is a simulation based off Newton's Law of cooling, yes.

> 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.

> 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.

Depends if you want the cup of coffee a couple of degrees hotter or cooler. If you like it hot, add the milk asap. If you like it to be a couple of degrees cooler, then wait.

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

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.