Share/Learn a Random Fact

[Moonface]

@Maniakkid25: I never knew we dropped flyers onto Japan warning about the nuke. I thought it was just relayed to their leader(s) via radio or something.
I did know about the guy that was in both nukes though. Hard to say if it was lucky or not since it is definitely some stroke of luck to end up in that situation back to back, but unlucky given what that situation was.


Well, instead of a 900 paragraph post how about you enlighten me with a couple of random facts from those periods instead? I'm curious about what comedic things could've happened, especially in something like WW2 which is only really remembered for all the atrocities and dark things.

[Maniakkid25]

@Maniakkid25: I never knew we dropped flyers onto Japan warning about the nuke. I thought it was just relayed to their leader(s) via radio or something.
I did know about the guy that was in both nukes though. Hard to say if it was lucky or not since it is definitely some stroke of luck to end up in that situation back to back, but unlucky given what that situation was.


Well, instead of a 900 paragraph post how about you enlighten me with a couple of random facts from those periods instead? I'm curious about what comedic things could've happened, especially in something like WW2 which is only really remembered for all the atrocities and dark things.

Yeah, nope, they literally air-dropped leaflets telling the public. Here's a picture of and article about them.

Okay, you're gonna need to narrow that down! Well, in terms of comedies of errors, the best known one is probably the Fall of France. And before you say it, the Maginot Line is the LAST problem with the French defense. In fact, it was one of the BEST parts of France's defense against Germany! See, despite what the general populace would believe, the Fall of France was absolutely NOT a foregone conclusion, but the fact of the matter is that the Allied Chain of Command was such an utter clusterf*** between refusing to believe their air scouts of a literally 4 DAY LONG traffic jam entering the Ardenne to their staunch refusal to use radios out of the paranoid fear that the enemy would send in fake orders through them (not that the radios were any good; a line of trees could cut off the signal)! The Fall of France is proof of the phrase "the winner is the one who makes the fewest mistakes."

A lot of the generals had a demand of refusing to go on ordered missions unless they were in their hands in writing, signed by their higher-ups. The reason for this is LUDICROUSLY STUPID! See, France, between the two wars, was not exactly...the most stable nation. And by that, I mean they went through more than 1 prime minister a year, and more than 2 governments a year! And given that political instability, the politicians, FOR WHATEVER REASON, got it into their heads that a strong military is a coup d'etat waiting to happen, and so regarded the military with suspicion. The military knew this, so their generals wanted those orders so that, if the plan failed, they weren't court martialed. Compare this to the German military, who would often do things that would get you court martialed NOW because they were raised in a military culture that prioritized in-the-field ingenuity over following the orders to the letter (*cough*Rommel*cough*).

Also of note is the HMS Venomous at the Battle of Boulogne (during the Fall of France), who happened to be in the river when a German tank column came into view for them. They made their presence known, and I believe Nicolas "The Chieftain" Moran puts the next part of the story best: "A 4.7 inch shell will do nasty things to a World War 2 tank. Actually, it'll do nasty things to a modern tank, but it probably won't send a modern tank cartwheeling into the air[...]"

Then there's the Butcher of Stonne, a Lieutenant Doumercq, who was in his Char B1 bis when he came upon a group of German infantry. In that moment, he made the snap decision to just run them over, before entering town, tank still covered in blood and entrails.

And this is just one small section of the war. I could literally go on for DAYS about this stuff, because there's just SO MUCH to talk about once you get into the weeds. Operation Crusader, Operation Downfall, Barbarossa, the Phony War, there's just SO MUCH HERE! The war as a whole is a tragedy, and arguably the worst showcase of humanity ever devised, but when you go past the surface, and really get into the weeds, there is a Black Comedy just waiting to unfold, and it would be so much funnier if each event didn't mean that hundreds of people died there. You can probably now see why I didn't want to just dump a massive wall of text now lol!

[Maniakkid25]

I don't usually do this, and sorry for the double post, but this is WAY too much for a simple edit, and speaking on the Japanese nukes has brought this nagging thought in my brain, so I'd better get it out while telling people about the reality on the ground of WWII. There are MANY differing opinions on the nukes on Japan -- what role they played in the surrender, whether they were necessary or even morally right. Make no mistake: there is a Good Faith debate to be had on the nuking of Japan. But what is not in dispute by anyone who knows something about the machinations behind the war is that without the nukes, the result we would have gotten would have been far, far worse. If the Japanese didn't surrender by November, we would have gotten Operation Downfall.

Operation Downfall is, in my opinion, the single most horrifying military plan in the entire war. This was going to be the Allied assault on Kyushu, one of the Japanese Home Islands, fresh off the heels of Okinawa. A 6 million strong force was going to land on Kyushu, and press to the Japanese center of operations. Operation Overlord was 1/3 the size of this force. The only thing standing between them was -- and this was absolutely in the predictions behind the plan -- THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF JAPAN! Based on past experience in the Pacific Theater, the Allies knew that Japan fought to the last man (their surrender rates were 1 in 120, compared to 1 in 3 for the other Axis powers), were fanatically devoted, and willing to use any means necessary to defend their territory. They literally expected more than a million casualties (Killed, Wounded, or Missing) on their side alone, and this is not a modern prediction; that's their prediction AT THE TIME! I cannot help but to put this in perspective: in preparation for this invasion, HALF A MILLION Purple Hearts were made to be awarded to soldiers working in the operation. TO THIS DAY, WE HAVEN'T DEPLETED THAT RESERVE! But believe it or not, this tale gets worse.

The Japanese defensive plan, Operation Ketsugō, predicted pretty much exactly where the Allies planned to land (not that it was a hard guess), and was prepared to throw every last man, woman, and child between them and the Emperor. Some civilians were given grenades, and told to make their deaths meaningful. When they ran out of grenades, they gave some sharpened bamboo sticks and were told to kill at least one invader before being shot dead. Thousands of suicide submarines and Kamikaze fighters were planned to be deployed. This was actually expected so fully, that the idea was tossed around by the Allies to send a dummy wave first, carrying no troops, and a F***TON of Anti-Air weaponry.

The Japanese surrendered on August 14, 1945. Before this point, the Japanese did come to the negotiation table with a conditional surrender: The Emperor must stay. The Allies refused to accept, not out of blood thirst, but out of a misunderstanding; they thought the Emperor was calling the shots, but the Military had been in true control for years, now. This means that they have 2.5 to 3 months extra to change their mind, and agree to an unconditional surrender before an unstoppable force (Downfall) met an immovable object (Ketsugō). Would they have done this without the nukes? It's impossible to say. People far more educated on this subject than I am have wildly different opinions. I'm not going to be the one to settle that debate.

Were the nukes necessary? I can't say; there are plenty of opinions on to whether or not the Japanese would have surrendered in time without such a show of force, from the threat of Soviet invasion to simply seeing the writing on the wall. Were they the better alternative? Absolutely. The nukes killed hundreds of thousands, both from the blast and the radiation. But they indirectly saved nearly 10 million lives (this estimate comes from the extrapolation of Japanese casualties based on their rates in the Okinawa battle. Who knows how many lives it might have truly cost on the Japanese side?).

[Moonface]

Finally got to take the time to read everything you shared, so now I can share some thoughts.

1. How on Earth did people not evacuate after the first nuke got dropped, knowing that their city could be next due to the prior warning leaflets that had been handed out? I understand calling a bluff on the warning before anything happened to prove it was as true as it claimed, but I can't get why proof of that leaflets warnings being true that so many people were still in major cities after Hiroshima.

2. The fake orders thing is hilarious to me. Firstly, wouldn't most of the fake calls be clearly from someone with a German accent? If we assume that people with non-suspect accents were chosen to send fake orders, all it would take is having a codeword in use that wouldn't be known to outsiders unless they were intercepting calls. I know it's easy to criticize in hindsight but I feel like there was easy ways to get around that problem. XD

3. Is the reason for generals wanting orders in writing really stupid on their part or the part of France's leaders? I got the impression they wanted written orders so nothing they did could be misconstrued as something done against the government rather than defending it.

4. I'd never heard of Downfall before. I assume that plan was formulated before it was known what the nukes would be capable of doing? There's surely no way that plan was formulated as an alternative to just dropping another nuke.



To share a fact of my own I just learned, I just learned of something called Refeeding Syndrome, which is a condition where if someone who is starved is given too much food (too much here being what would usually be deemed a regular portion to a non-starved person) that they'll just straight up die. I didn't know you could die from starvation by trying too quickly to resolve it.

[Maniakkid25]

For question 3, it was stupid on BOTH sides part. The government side is in not trusting their own forces (although, given the French Army mutiny in WWI, that might explain a lot), but the military side is because when you know things are falling apart and refuse to do anything about it for fear of being court martialed, then what's the point? The only thing worse than a bad decision is to make no decision at all, because the bad decision at least has a chance of doing something. I can't remember off hand the unit, but edit: it was the 80th Tank Battalion. The unit's patch literally has written on it "Do Something" to remind their troops of this fact.

For question 4, this was indeed formulated before the true understanding of the destructive nature of the bomb was known (edit: and actually, it was formulated before the nukes were known, period! The Bomb was a closely guarded secret to everyone; Truman famously knew nothing of the project until he was sworn in as President), but you have to remember that Japan was never the primary target for that bomb; Germany was. The US and UK had a policy of "Germany first", because that was the threat that was literally at the doorstep for the UK. So if Germany hadn't of surrendered before Japan, Germany woukd have been the first country nuked. And I want you to imagine the HORROR SHOW of a nuke going off in Central Europe, and realize its a good thing the Nazis were incapable of winning that war.

[Maniakkid25]

So, I got a fact that is not doom and gloom. In fact, it shows how humans can be awesome. You -- yes, you, right there -- are capable of solving some of the hardest mathematics ever put to code without having to think about it. The subject is "Inverse Kinematics", and you are actually solving those kinds of equations every day without even thinking about it.

So, to explain the Inverse, I think it's good to start with what the standard version is. This is known as Forward Kinematics, and its basically the answer to this question:

"Given these fixed lengths, in this order, and meeting at these angles, what point in space are you touching?"

Forward kinematics is actually notoriously simple. If you remember "SOHCAHTOA", you can solve a 2D Forward Kinematics question right now. Higher dimensions can all then be broken down into multiple 2D sets of questions, and you'll still end up with the answer. It's the sort of subject that you can reasonably expect a high schooler to be able to solve.

Inverse kinematics is a whole different kettle of fish. Basically, Inverse Kinematics is the answer to this question:

"Given these fixed lengths, in this order, and this point in space, at what angles must the lengths connect to reach that point?"

This is notoriously among the most difficult mathematics commited to code, and it wasn't until relatively recently (i.e. in this century) that computers became powerful enough to solve these equations in a reasonable timeframe, despite it being extremely useful in robotics and computer animation. Inverse Kinematics is legitimately a mathematical nightmare, and is not for the faint of heart.

However, without even knowing it, you can solve an Inverse kinematics equation without even thinking about it. Why? Well, every time you reach your hand out to grab something, you are basically solving an Inverse kinematics equation without even consciously knowing it. Your brain can just do it, and it does all the complex math in the background before sending the signal to move your body in the correct positions. So, if you ever thought that you suck at math, just remember that you are solving some of the most difficult mathematics ever conceptualized, and with a reasonable (90%+) degree of accuracy and repeatability.

[Moonface]

For question 3, it was stupid on BOTH sides part. The government side is in not trusting their own forces (although, given the French Army mutiny in WWI, that might explain a lot), but the military side is because when you know things are falling apart and refuse to do anything about it for fear of being court martialed, then what's the point? The only thing worse than a bad decision is to make no decision at all, because the bad decision at least has a chance of doing something. I can't remember off hand the unit, but edit: it was the 80th Tank Battalion. The unit's patch literally has written on it "Do Something" to remind their troops of this fact.

Ah, I see. Good point on the something >> nothing approach, especially in a war setting. Doing nothing for fear of government backlash sounds like it just makes you a sitting duck because you won't even attempt any form of offense/defense against an enemy unless the government gives you permission first, and by the time that comes it could be too late. Imagine if every civilian fighting in Ukraine had to wait for Zelensky or someone to let them do anything against the Russians; the story with that would be wildly different due to the lack of defense.

For question 4, this was indeed formulated before the true understanding of the destructive nature of the bomb was known (edit: and actually, it was formulated before the nukes were known, period! The Bomb was a closely guarded secret to everyone; Truman famously knew nothing of the project until he was sworn in as President), but you have to remember that Japan was never the primary target for that bomb; Germany was. The US and UK had a policy of "Germany first", because that was the threat that was literally at the doorstep for the UK. So if Germany hadn't of surrendered before Japan, Germany woukd have been the first country nuked. And I want you to imagine the HORROR SHOW of a nuke going off in Central Europe, and realize its a good thing the Nazis were incapable of winning that war.

Oh wow I didn't know Germany was the original target for the nukes or that they were considered for it to begin with. It makes sense since it was used due to Japan refusing to surrender, although wasn't it also in part due to the nuke being the best way to deal with all their forces? Would Germany have even had enough manpower to require a nuke used against it or would it have been used more as a tactic to get forces across Europe to surrender do you think?

So, I got a fact that is not doom and gloom. In fact, it shows how humans can be awesome. You -- yes, you, right there -- are capable of solving some of the hardest mathematics ever put to code without having to think about it. The subject is "Inverse Kinematics", and you are actually solving those kinds of equations every day without even thinking about it.

So, to explain the Inverse, I think it's good to start with what the standard version is. This is known as Forward Kinematics, and its basically the answer to this question:

"Given these fixed lengths, in this order, and meeting at these angles, what point in space are you touching?"

Forward kinematics is actually notoriously simple. If you remember "SOHCAHTOA", you can solve a 2D Forward Kinematics question right now. Higher dimensions can all then be broken down into multiple 2D sets of questions, and you'll still end up with the answer. It's the sort of subject that you can reasonably expect a high schooler to be able to solve.

Inverse kinematics is a whole different kettle of fish. Basically, Inverse Kinematics is the answer to this question:

"Given these fixed lengths, in this order, and this point in space, at what angles must the lengths connect to reach that point?"

This is notoriously among the most difficult mathematics commited to code, and it wasn't until relatively recently (i.e. in this century) that computers became powerful enough to solve these equations in a reasonable timeframe, despite it being extremely useful in robotics and computer animation. Inverse Kinematics is legitimately a mathematical nightmare, and is not for the faint of heart.

However, without even knowing it, you can solve an Inverse kinematics equation without even thinking about it. Why? Well, every time you reach your hand out to grab something, you are basically solving an Inverse kinematics equation without even consciously knowing it. Your brain can just do it, and it does all the complex math in the background before sending the signal to move your body in the correct positions. So, if you ever thought that you suck at math, just remember that you are solving some of the most difficult mathematics ever conceptualized, and with a reasonable (90%+) degree of accuracy and repeatability.

Huh. You make IK sound so simple I'm wondering why computers struggle with it. It just sounds like handing something x amount of sticks and telling them to connect them into an enclosed form, which isn't sounding like a headache in my head at all.

[Maniakkid25]

Oh wow I didn't know Germany was the original target for the nukes or that they were considered for it to begin with. It makes sense since it was used due to Japan refusing to surrender, although wasn't it also in part due to the nuke being the best way to deal with all their forces? Would Germany have even had enough manpower to require a nuke used against it or would it have been used more as a tactic to get forces across Europe to surrender do you think?

If Germany was still somehow capable of gaining ground by the time the nukes were created, then they would have been bombed as a way of saying "Are you sure you want to do this?" That's mainly what I see the nuke's intended purpose, even on Japan: it wasn't THAT it could kill tons of people, but a show of force to show what WILL happen if they keep going like this.

Huh. You make IK sound so simple I'm wondering why computers struggle with it. It just sounds like handing something x amount of sticks and telling them to connect them into an enclosed form, which isn't sounding like a headache in my head at all.

It's not, but you have to remember that a computer has to solve those math equations manually, and if it wants to do it with any reasonable speed, it can't simply guess and check. And when the math on just a two limb problem looks like this:



Yeah, you can start to see why things are difficult. Now, just try to imagine a three-limb problem, and suddenly you have a math problem that, by hand, could take up an entire sheet of paper, if not more.

[Moonface]

Oh wow I didn't know Germany was the original target for the nukes or that they were considered for it to begin with. It makes sense since it was used due to Japan refusing to surrender, although wasn't it also in part due to the nuke being the best way to deal with all their forces? Would Germany have even had enough manpower to require a nuke used against it or would it have been used more as a tactic to get forces across Europe to surrender do you think?

If Germany was still somehow capable of gaining ground by the time the nukes were created, then they would have been bombed as a way of saying "Are you sure you want to do this?" That's mainly what I see the nuke's intended purpose, even on Japan: it wasn't THAT it could kill tons of people, but a show of force to show what WILL happen if they keep going like this.

Do you think the winners of the war would've been different if the nukes had never been invented? Or were the nukes also a way of the side that won from them basically having enough of all the shit and just taking the faster and safer for them approach?

Huh. You make IK sound so simple I'm wondering why computers struggle with it. It just sounds like handing something x amount of sticks and telling them to connect them into an enclosed form, which isn't sounding like a headache in my head at all.

It's not, but you have to remember that a computer has to solve those math equations manually, and if it wants to do it with any reasonable speed, it can't simply guess and check. And when the math on just a two limb problem looks like this:



Yeah, you can start to see why things are difficult. Now, just try to imagine a three-limb problem, and suddenly you have a math problem that, by hand, could take up an entire sheet of paper, if not more.

Is it because it can't quickly identify the points that need to be joined? The image makes it seem it isn't able to determine where to measure the angles or what points to check, since from the look of it neither of the angles shown mean a damn thing. #1 is being measured with only one line and doesn't even result in an angle that can meet the other point, and #2 is including the exterior angle for god knows what reason. If the computer could tell the points apart and which two lack a connection, would it still struggle? I imagine it wouldn't because it would just read the two disconnected points and then plot a straight line meeting them, but I suspect if it was that simple someone would've already fixed the problem a computer has to solve these things.

[Maniakkid25]

The reason why #2 is measured as an exterior angle is because you HAVE to measure both angles in the same direction (in this case, counter-clockwise), or else your math will come out very, VERY wrong! It's kind of like how, back in Chemistry, you had to use Kelvin from some reason when doing Ideal Gas Law problems. I'll be honest, though, I'm struggling to understand your confusion otherwise.

• "Is it because it can't quickly identify the points that need to be joined?"
  Those points are already defined; we are trying to determine the angles.
  
• "The image makes it seem it isn't able to determine where to measure the angles or what points to check, since from the look of it neither of the angles shown mean a damn thing."
  I think you are forgetting how a coordinate grid is defined, here? The start of the problem is at the origin point (0,0), and you move outwards from there.
  
• "#1 is being measured with only one line and doesn't even result in an angle that can meet the other point[...]"
  You don't measure angles from points. You measure them from lines. The dotted line is the X-axis, the angle is the sweep from the X-axis to the body marked "L1"
  
• "If the computer could tell the points apart and which two lack a connection, would it still struggle?"
  That's not the point of the problem. Okay, look at your arm. Reach out for a random point in front of you -- doesn't matter where. Your upper arm is the first length, your forearm is the second length, and your hand is the third length. We know what point the end of your hand is touching; what angles are your wrist, elbow, and shoulder twisted in to reach that point? THAT is the problem we are trying to solve.
  

We are trying to determine the angles, and the math for that is in the lower right corner. Arccosine (the Cos^-1 in the first equation) is a BITCH of a processor intensive problem. Semi-relatedly, this is why stuff like the "fast inverse square root" exists. Sure, a computer can solve those problems one at a time rather comfortably. But to continuously do it eats a LOT of processor time, and if you have, at best, 1/25th of a second to figure it out? That kind of function is way too slow. Nowadays, we can get away with brute forcing this problem, but it was a NIGHTMARE before then.

[Moonface]

I'm used to measuring angles by just measuring the gap between two lines rather than the method shown in the image, hence my confusion. I don't think I ever learned to measure an angle by using an exterior or if I did I forget, but I just don't get how including the exterior part in the image is helpful in figuring out that angle, and the other two could be figured by just filling in the missing line and then checking those interior angles.

In the event I just never fully grasp the above and to also give anyone else something else to look at, I saw this image the other day that was showing a new method of reading called "bionic reading", which involves increasing the font weight on parts of words to result in significantly faster reading:



I wonder if this method would help with anything like dyslexia, or make it worse/no different since the reader wouldn't be seeing the entire word to mistake certain letters. I admit I'm not super versed on the intricacies of how dyslexia works so my mulling is mostly curious shots in the dark here.

[ShiraNoMai]

Yooo that is pretty dope. I presume it would definitely enhance reading in able-reading folk, but probably not reading-impaired folk, considering their issues are specific to word shape and position, rather than weights.

[Moonface]

Oh I understand that font weight isn't the cause of issues for people with reading impairments, but I wondered if having a way to fill in words by having key parts be more noticeable would alleviate some of their problems because they wouldn't be reading the entire word so there would be less shapes and positions to process.

[ShiraNoMai]

True, it might help neuro-divergent folks actually in that case, digesting things in easier chunks for learning purposes. I mean I can already see the benefits from reading it like that. It's pretty damn neat.

[Moonface]

Here's a random fact that I thought of because education came to mind. In England, we do not have the level of freedom in our degree programs like those seen in the US college system. We can not do any of the following:

• Choose what term we start in. You have to start in September, so if you miss the boat you're waiting an entire year to try again.
  
• Choice of class types, teachers, or class schedules. It works basically like how regular school does, in that the school decides the order of the curriculum and the times/days of your classes. If somehow a Wednesday morning class doesn't fit into your schedule due to outside commitments, tough shit. Go to another university. Don't like the teacher? See the previous point.
  

I feel like there's other things we can't do that I wish I had the ability to do when I was in university in the UK, but my mind just drew a blank after that last point.


Oh, actually I did just think of another school fact but it involves pre-college level schooling. In the US students can be held back a year if they perform badly; the UK does not have that to my knowledge. If you're doing poorly, too bad. You'll just be pushed through the system non-stop until graduation and if you fail to pass any GCSE exams, you don't fail to graduate. You just graduate with no GCSE's and get to try and enter a job market with absolutely no skills to show on your resume from school, which basically means kids who struggle have the deck stacked against them to just get completely fucked over.