This is what happens when you divide by zero on a 1940s water computer 

Great video! Love your sense of humour as well! By the way, did you know there's a different word for trickle down economics? You might have heard it before? It's also known as the "golden shower".

I've never heard anyone support the idea of trickle down economics. That is just something leftists say.

or low level learning also has a good vpn video

There's no such thing as trickle down economics. No actual economist/text-book defines it properly. The one who does 99% of the time is either inconsistent or politicized in some form (strawman etc.) Which takes the science out of economics

NordVPN fails to alert customers in a timely manner when they experience a data breach.

*cries in Hebrew*

@@NeatNit How many elections are we on now? 6?

@@nullFoo I've lost count, and I'm pretty sure everyone else has lost count as well.

Truer words may never be spoken again

*cries* *in* *vietnamese* *because* *our* *prime* *minister* *only* *has* *one* *year*

It's unlikely to be an exact 0, though you don't need an exact 0 to demote some cables to useless.

@@kzkaa. Technically, you don't need an exact 0 to demote _any_ cables to uselessness as it's impossible to build infinitely thick cables.

​@@eekee6034Although the existence of infinitely thick electrical/ops engineers has yet to be disproved

I build tube amplifiers as a hobby.. They're about 600v. A LOT of capacitance. I turned an amp on one morning, and there was a bright flash and pop. A thick ground wire between the rectifier and driver tubes, disappeared. I don't recall it being loud, or there being much smoke either. It was just gone. The tube socket pins the wire was attached to, were 1/2 gone and melted. But there wasn't other damage or signs of heat or smoke. I was, and am still amazed that it happened. I'm assuming the wire turned directly into plasma. (Something failed in the rectifier tube.. I replaced it and the wire, and it has been fine for years)

​@@eekee6034not with that attitude!

It had an older name "horse and sparrow" theory of economics. It really highlighted that the theory was full of sh*t.

Interesting footnote, thanks! I'll have to learn more about that now.

Same thing happened with "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps"

@@Vaasref yep as it's physically impossible. Same with meritocracy was written in a book talking about how it is impossible and a l ie. It is word how these terms are co-opted by the people they are mocking, I suppose they aren't intelligent enough to know what's happening.

I take it youre not exactly right wing

One if not my favourite book in the Discworld series.

They refilled the city's gold supply by pouring some water into the part of the machine that represented the bank vault.

Awesome, I wasn't the only other person who immediately thought of Hubert

@@Techdeki0 Don't forget good ol' Igor, cousin of Igor.

Oops. It was Going Postal where Lipwig and Dearborn debuted

It does help rather a lot if you hard-boil them first, though. 😁

@@DrBunnyMedicinal The supply, or the demand?

oh many people talk about it, but they're all full of hot air

nice badlands avatar

its only possible to do that in a capitalistic society (you have eggs because supply meets demand)

Yes exactly. This is actually how we detonate thermonuclear bombs

@@aidanmays7825 :'-D

You're joking, but this actually isn't completely incorrect to my understanding. When you ask a calculator to divide 1 by zero, you're essentially asking it to add zero to zero until it gets to one, and count how many times it had to do so to get there. Or, in other words, "count until you're stopped". Since this is a stupid request that can potentially hardlock your calculator, the calculator is programmed to refuse.

Good point, it sounds like it may be a means of avoiding infinite regress which in traditional logic represents a contradiction, but in fact is better represented as infinity? Just a thought

​@@mcdonelldavidIt's more accurate to say computers have an odd process for doing division usually. For what it's worth, 1/0 does not equal infinity per se, as infinity times zero is still zero. In essence, dividing by zero is kind of like asking the shoe size of a person missing their legs. Or like asking what weapon was used to commit the first murder on Mars. To use a more literal metaphor: Imagine division as being a room with a number of cookies handed out to the people in the room. "Two people with two cookies, so each person has one cookie", 2/2=1. Now, if we imagine 0/0, we get: a room with zero cookies and zero people. How many cookies do the people in the room have? Or 1/0: 1 cookie given to zero people, how many cookies do the people in the room have?

very good.

Pretty slick

oof

Could also be bills and coins being destroyed or lost through heavy use. Not so relevant today, but definitely played a part not too long ago.

@@AFNacapella I think in this model corruption is just a kind of spending.

@@AFNacapella I get the humor, but pedantically, that doesn't work - money that goes towards corruption remains in circulation and is spendable by the receiver. Leaks in the model would represent money that *leaves* circulation, isn't part of the economy anymore, and can't be spent again. This is why Ketsueki Kumori's suggestion makes sense - the money isn't in any bank account, wallet, or drug lord's vault - it's hidden and buried where it is not spent. And to make the metaphor complete - if someone dies without telling anyone where the money is buried, then the money is *definitely* gone.

He should increase the leakage to factor in the middle men in the system as a waste of resources they cause...

@@NeatNit So...this is all because of those PIRATES!

They’ve given up on that, in favor of the “just print more money” model.

Probably due to long distance communication becoming more and more accessible over the 20th century. Economies could offer services instead of trade to foreign entities. As it increased over the decades, trade of actual goods would have become less and less of a sole focus.

Possibly because they realized those are limited terms for understanding how national economies interact with each other.

Because money was actually worth something back then when it was backed by actual gold and countries had to have gold reserves. So it was needed to balance import and export. Now that all currency is essentially worthless. They just print more.

@@axiezimmah What are you talking about? Pretty much the whole world - including the US - went off the gold standard in the 1930's. Decades before the period he's talking about.

Thanks! I love your dog!

Thanks! The PV=NRT vs PV=C/(1+R)^T in particular has always annoyed me

@@AtomicFrontier It has always annoyed ME that economists insist on always putting the price on the vertical axis, at the expense of always putting the independent variable on the horizontal axis

Smart! Yup, plus UK uses 50 Hz electrisity, which was making my indoor shots look all flickery and weird. Don't worry - back to 60fps next episode (and maybe 4K if my computer feels like handeling it)

@@AtomicFrontier Legacy media (TV) is old news, just stick to the internet, there are plenty of successful decumentry style RU-vidrs out there, you are doing fantastic already, if you were to aim for TV, you'd be bogged down with even more rules you'd have to follow.

One would think those PAL and NTSC days were far behind us, but I still see freshly made interlaced video content here and there.

Yes he did.

Duh.

@@qtheplatypus but filled it with goo, and had sliders for L-space

Same! My reaction was just: "It's real? It bloody exists?!?" :D

Same - I thought Hubert was a fictional character!

Oh yeah, he did that all the time. You should read _The Science of Discworld_ sometime, it's chock full of that kind of thing.

I thought the same thing! The glooper is real!?!

He was a Public Relations guy for a nuclear power company. He hung out with very smart people, and knew how the sausage was made. (And, oh boy, does that show in Thief of Time.)

Sadly the theory has no connection to reality

What can I say, I put the "Tor" in "Torrent" ;)

And in reality the economy is even much more complex, that's why these models can't predict it well. Human behaviour is far from the reach of any practical equation.

OMG dad jokes ftw

Infinity is not a number, but a mathematical concept. It's misleading to say 1/0 "equals" infinity, hence we say that it's undefined. You can show that the limit of 1/x is infinity as x approaches 0, but the limit changes depending on whether you approach from positive or negative x.

@@samuelwerley528 That doesn't make it undefined, it still has a clear definition. I'd argue the fact that n/0 is ambiguous or indeterminate before it is undefined. If something is undefined it doesn't have a definition and the definition of n/0 is division by zero. That is clearly defined. The result of the computation is ambiguous or indeterminate. It's the same thing for vertical slope and the asymptotes of some of the trig functions.

@@skilz8098 You can argue over terminology but "undefined" is the standard term here. I think you are taking the word too literally. If I'm being more careful with my wording, we say that given a function of the form: f(x) = n/x, then the function is "undefined" when x equals 0. In other words, our "definition" of f(x) only applies for cases where x is not 0. It is not valid to say that F(0) = n/0 = infinity

Because you have to use limits to get infinity 1/x is undefined. The limit of 1/x as x approaches 0 is infinity.

@@samuelwerley528 Why not? There's either a hole or an infinite amount of possible solutions at that point thus making it either ambiguous or indeterminate.

I second that, best party metal you can find!

oh i just thought for one (count it) second

A lot of the weirdest things in the Discworld are actually drawn from life. Terry Pratchett was well read.

Honestly wouldn't surprise me. Pratchett was a genius always finding weird obscure tech and Diskworldifying it!

@@AtomicFrontier Yea it was in making money. A mad banker and his Igor made it in the basement

Wouldn't be suprised

The one in Wellington can be found in the museum at the Reserve Bank. There is also one in the London Science Museum. A friend of mine who has a degree in economics looked at the one in London for the first time, and concluded: "He's a Keynesian."

Thanks! Not quite... got to level 50 on merchant yesterday though so not long I hope!!

Finished the video amazing, good introduction onto the economy this was. Always new information when I watch your videos keep them up

Yes please....

Just finished it. So good! Finishing up the rest of that "Moist von Lipwig" series

Nixon, Reagan, and Bush are the specific reasons our current day is such a hellscape

@@oldfag_adventures Just say republicans, it's much easier than naming every republican president for the last 50 years.

@@Kogarasumaru you're right but those three are the end game for Republicans

Get your money up. Learn new skills, offer your self to others. Make more money instead of saving. You're ruining yourself by trying to save. Blaming Bush or Clinton won't make you money. Use your brain and make your life better.

@@Mr3344555 This advice brought to you by my 15 year old cousin who just started watching Cramer

I mean great video and so on. I mean I have not forgotten everything after seeing Alestorm record.

Hello there

@@AtomicFrontier You are a bold one!

Don't worry, we get a small american one in there at 5:53

Isn't he Australian

Yup! Thats why all the currency is in aussie and why the "pirate rock concert" is from Alestorm'sAustralia tour. Don't worry, haven't forgotten my roots

An Australian makes British jokes whilst filming in America. What an internationaliz/sed world we live in.

"The trickle-down theory states that tax breaks and benefits for corporations and the wealthy will trickle down to everyone else." This has been the economic mantra of the US since President Reagan in 1980. The theory exists and an entire country is attempting (and failing) to sustain off of it.

Trickle down economics was coined as a term that refers to supply side economics they are the same thing.

@@lo0katmyn4me don't forgot the UK when Liz Truss did it and almost crashed the economy I say almost because the independent bank of England had to spend billions propping up the economy.

@@Alex-cw3rz It's a caricature of it made by people who oppose supply side economics. A strawman.

@@lo0katmyn4me Yes, that's trickle down economics, a theory that doesn't exist, wasn't supported by any economist.

Since a negative amount of water existing doesn't make sense as a concept, you could say that water naturally has only zero or positive values. i.e. move negativity to the unit instead of the number, and it becomes trivially obvious that dividing by zero leads to infinity.

COMMUNISM

Obviously not. Also, the planet may have limited resources but the solar system has literally MILLIONS as times as much resources to exploit, so no. Not likely at all until we reach post-scarcity which will happen because of the abundance of resources in space and automated manufacturing.

I think you need to go back and read up on the original definition of capitalism. Capitalism isn't about the modern conception of corporate greed. It's about the fact that a citizen has the right to keep the fruit of their labors or the profits of their work.

Capitalism doesn't rely on infinite growth. Growth has been a consequence, not a necessary condition. A little bakery business can stay little indefinitely, it doesn't collapse as soon as it stops growing. It would only under competition, but better competition means we have plenty of resources available.

@@skilz8098 I'm sorry but you've got that exactly backwards. Capitalism is the idea that the one with the capital (right there in the name) has the right to keep the fruit of someone else's labour as long as the capitalist supplied the funding, and the capitalist gets to keep the profits. The concept of keeping the fruit of your labour is called usufruct, which is anti-capitalist because it says that the one working with the resources has more rights than the one who owns the resources. i.e. if you own a plot of land and I grow potatoes there, I have a right to the potatoes. Likewise, if you make french fries out of my potatoes you have a right to the french fries. In both cases, the negligence of the owner to use the resource themselves makes them lose the right to it. It creates some obvious conflicts (for example if we both want to make fries from my potatoes but you're faster.), which theories of ownership like capitalism and communism try to resolve. A key concept for forming your own theory of ownership is splitting ownership into four parts: 1. Personal property is stuff you own because you use it, like your clothing and your toothbrush. These are usually goods that you can carry. Using violence against someone messing with your personal property is generally considered a form of self-defense. 2. Private property is stuff you still own even when you're not using it, like your second house. These are usually assets instead of goods. Some people believe you can use violence to protect private property, some say you can't, usually depending on how much they value life. Though sometimes it is simply because they can't tell the difference between personal and private property. 3. Common property is stuff nobody owns but everyone uses, so everyone should protect it. A good example is a public street. Again, defensive violence is generally considered acceptable, if you don't defend it you get the 'tragedy of the commons' problem. 4. Collective property is stuff the entire group owns together, like four friends buying a house together, like a small housing co-op. They need to collectively decide what colour to paint the walls and such. This is more centralized than common property, so stuff like the USSR making a five-year plan can happen here, so when the central control fails, it fails badly. Here too violent defense is generally considered acceptable, depending on whether the individuals value the group higher than their own safety, i.e. how selfish they are. plato.stanford.edu/entries/property/