When it comes to being in the sack, I like big butts and cannot lie?
/OK, I’ll just grab my hat and go
10 Likes
6 Likes
But what would would that have meant when you were 23? “Stop acting so middle-aged!”
3 Likes
That could be anything between ~10 mm and ~50 mm in diameter, not counting some weird local specialities.
6 Likes
hmm…
if girth matters…
how is that measured in Cuban cigar ring size?
does one knockwurst = a corona? does a bratwurst = a robusto?
is a cigar just a cigar?
if you can smoke a sausage, and you can smoke a cigar…
how many links fill an average corgi? hmm?
how many bananas are we looking at here?
10 Likes
11 Likes
Oh! To have a humidor filled with fine sausages!
10 Likes
ETA Comparison not in one box: weighed as much as two jumbo jets
7 Likes
Whichever one is the fewest corgis?
6 Likes
Here’s a nerdish metric “didna see that com’n”; you know the Fibonacci sequence, right? (y’know 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377 … nᵢ = n₍ᵢ₋₂₎ + n₍ᵢ₋₁₎ …), So to do a rough conversion from miles to kilometers, shift rightwards one. e.g. 89 miles is roughly 144 kilometers (ok ok, it’s really 143.23162 kilometers) and obviously if you go one to the left you can estimate the number of miles given the number of kilometers. How’s that for nigh useless? [dusts hands] Yet, is there any deep reason for this being even an approximately true? (“letsee… miles are 8 furlongs and kilometers are 1/10000 of the distance from the pole to the equator so… nope, i’ve got nuth’n”)
Here’s a reference about this oddity: [link] “Coincidentally, there are 1.609 kilometers in a mile, which is within 0.5% of the Golden ratio.” …yeah but why is it a coincidentally so close to the golden ratio?
11 Likes
3 Likes
The ratio of successive Fibonacci numbers converges on 1.618034… because that’s a solution to the exponential equation ni = ni-2 + ni-1. So you can use them to approximate multiplying by anything close to 1.6, like kilometres to miles.
9 Likes
yes. i managed to get that far [wink]. the question that i should’ve been explicit about (and i bow to that error) is: why is there even an approximate golden ratio relationship between miles and kilometers?
4 Likes
7 Likes
That I’m afraid has to be a coincidence. Miles were originally supposed to be a thousand paces but ended up in lots of different sizes, and we just happen to use one that’s 1760 English yards, each 3 feet. And the French foot happens to be just a little bigger, enough that 3 feet is pretty close to a 40 millionth of the distance around the Earth, which is how metres were set. So the difference comes down to how big different people’s shoe sizes were. 
5 Likes
… a “pace” being either one step or two
guess we’ll pick a random number in between
3 Likes
