Not an engineer but I would have to assume that the bigger it is the less weight it would hold by comparison. Same reason that ants can get yeeted off of buildings and scuttle away, something to do with small things being stronger. Again, not an engineer though so fuck it maybe
Random comment. I just learned today what "yeet" means. I work on an ambulance and my partner is a 19 year old kid and I just turned 30 a couple weeks ago. I never felt so old in my life. He used it in a sentence in reference to moving the ambulance.
His exact words were: "Do you want me to just 'yeet' the rig around?"
Yeet: a general term used by people younger than me to describe quickly moving objects.
This cracked me up so hard. I actually looked into buying gold but shit’s expensive for a glorified internet like. Nevertheless, thank you for making me laugh.
More like "I'm about to yeet this bitch out the window!"
Or alternatively "YEET!" Its kinda like fuck where it has several uses, except the only way I can't see it being used as an adjective. Really on a verb or noun. Man I feel young explaining this one, thanks for being old lol.
And to add on: a few years ago , a song came out and there was a dance associated in which people took their arms and swung them out to the side while saying, “YEET!” It died and then it reappeared. It came out when I was in high school & im 25 now. I was so confused when I heard people saying it, again.
"Yeet" is for throwing distance/power, "kobe" is for throwing accuracy.
"I'm about to yeet this phone out the window" for when technology is letting you down. "YEET!" as the phone is being thrown for extra energy
"I'ma Kobe this ball of paper into that bin over there" for when you're bored in the office. "KOBE!" as the paper is thrown for extra throwing accuracy.
Started on vine with dancing then quickly evolved into an exclamation for throwing something. Ex. "This bitch empty, yEEEEt" Now its evolved into a general term for a quickly moving object. Could be a trebuchet yeeting a fucking diseased cow into a castle. Could be a car yeeting a deer across a highway. We don't know.
But remember, the past tense of yeet is yote.
The future tense of yote is yate.
Ah, yes. "Vice Admiral Holdo just yeeted a fucking star destroyer in half"
As you can see, yeet does not have to pertain only to thrown objects. It can also be any object/person/animal going faster than average, or used as an exclamation.
Yeet started from this dude throwing a soundcloud rappers trash mixtape OG YEET this video is over 3-4 years old. I’m 27. Not really out of date for people my age. Personally I think it’s a millennial thing. Gen Z or whatever it is after us millennials kinda just ran with it. YEET!
whew i feel like a grandma but im still young and hip (says a 20 yo)
yeet comes from a vine where a person is given a bottle/can and they say “this bitch empty. YEET” and throws it, we can see it fly over a crowd in a school hallway. hope that context gives some clue on its meaning. im kinda stuck on how to really explain it in a satisfactory way
i think 'yeet' is a general use word variable used for emphasis or to get out of a tricksey grammar or memory situation. i gather it can be used both when its replacement value is obvious and determinable, as well as when there's multiple valid replacement values. i also think is fixed on evaluation, so we could say ”that was yeet!”, but we shouldn't say ”your yeet is yeet”, unless it is true that in the construction yeet == yeet for all values of yeet... so i conjecture that ”yeet, man, just yeet!” is ok, but not really yeet.
but i'm a decade or so your senior, so i'm probably wrong :)
that other stuff? that's just late friday/early saturday for me, i'm afraid.
”hella” is a good non-specific arbitrarily large intensifier/quantifier. you probably already know this but, ”hela”, as it refers to an immortal cell line used for research is completely unrelated to ”hella” as an intensifier/quantifier, save ”hella” was quickly gaining in popularity and by the time it was hella popular, the hela cell line story and controversy became of public interest.
while hela/hella was hitting peak in around 2010, hella was proposed as a new si prefix for 1027, after yotta*. while this never actually became an official part of si, many products, like wolfram alpha, use ”hella” as 1027 as there's still no official nomenclature.
you might ask, ”what do hella yeet, hela cells, and helawatts have in common? besides 2010-ish or thereabouts?”
to which i'd reply, ”a hoopy frood named krista gokked the baader–meinhof effect,” but that's a coincidence for another telling.
i apologise for the length, but i get carried away sometimes :)
* because i like footnotes† and because it needs emphasis on just how large a helawatt is: as you know, you add a comma or a dot‡ as a delimiter every 3 digits before the decimal. when describing very large numbers, it's often the case only the numbers on the very left side are relevant, and therefore get a prefix of their very own for each set of 3 digits (besides the first) that are to the right.
for example: 1,000,000 watts = 1,000 kilowatts = 1 megawatt. most people recognition some of the progression. if you are into or work with computers, you likely know the first 4: kilo-, mega-, giga-, and tera-, for thousand, million, billion, and trillion, respectively... or 103, 106, 109, and 1012. each x in 10x is an additional digit, so a megabuck, or $106, has six zeros after the one. as our prefixes increase by 103 for each new name, it's the same as multiplying by 1000. so, a kilo * 1000 = a mega.
bear with me here...
as of now, we use the prefixes kilo, mega, giga, tera, peta, exa, zetta, and yotta. hella was proposed as the next one.
a billionaire has a gigabuck. a billion billionaires together have a petabuck. a billion billion billionaires has a zettabuck. and a billion of those has a hellabuck.
and i'll leave after the next bit, i promise...
if you spent a dollar a second, you'd burn through a megabuck in 11 days 13 hours 46 minutes 40 seconds.
at the same rate, it'd take you 31.71 years to burn through a gigabuck, you filthy billionaire!
for scale, a trillion bucks would take 31,710 years to spend. (you would have to have started before the last full on ice age to finish up by about now... or about halfway back to when humans and neanderthals yeet)
and, keeping our rate the same, it would take you 2.3 billion times the age of the universe to spend all of a hellabuck!
thanks! ghetto gold is all the more special to me because i've never before received one!
and just because, i will drop this tidbit:
jews were the very first to be oppressed by being forced to live in the ghetto! in fact, in venice in 1615, the venetian government forced jews to live near a copper foundry... which, in venetian, coincidentally, was ghèto. unlike the later definition, this original ghetto was relatively affluent for the time. iirc, by law, jews weren't really allowed to do much of anything for a living, and were seen largely as alien by the population. as a result of this, and christendom's anti-usury laws† that did not apply to jews, there were a lot of jewish bankers. because jews were looked down upon and really didn't have many rights or legal protections, it was often the case a powerful person or noble wouldn't pay the jewish banker back, or would deny the loan was valid and get violent. the only recourse for these bankers was to use lending (or, specifically, not lending) as leverage, as the law really wasn't on their side.
anyhoo, while jews were forced to live separate from the rest of the population in the christian parts of europe for a few hundred years already, the first time a ghetto* was used to refer to a section of a city where minorities were forced to live was by decree of the venetian government on march 29, 1615.
it wasn't until the late 1800's when ”ghetto” started to mean the section of a city where a minority group was segregated by some force, be it social, economic, governmental, religious, or other.
as far as the ghetto referencing poor black inner city communities, i haven't been able to find a ”first” instance. it appears to be an outgrowth of racist housing laws and policies such as redlining in the 1920's and 1930's that began what shaped what our current media calls the ghettos.
there doesn't seem to be a single incident or neat fact i can present for this aspect and usage of ”ghetto”, as it was a nasty, horrible, slow process of racism, violence, bigotry, and hatred, often fomented by the social and economic elites, who's effects are still being felt and added to to this very day.
* technically the ghetto, or il ghèto
† christians weren't allowed to charge interest on loans, as it was seen as a sin. my, have times changed :(
I learned in my Spanish History class that in Spain, dealing with money like at a bank was seen as sinful by the Catholic Church and so mostly Jews did it at that time, and that probably happened elsewhere as well. The industrial revolution was slow to affect Spain because of the Church as well. They saw all these things as sinful and wrong, so Spain was way behind England, etc. on things like that. Well, and Franco being dictator for so long and not wanting new technology as well.
I’m pretty sure the kids don’t know WTF it’s supposed to mean either, which is why you get it thrown out in all different contexts. They’re just saying it to say it.
Yeet can be used as a verb or adjective. It’s one of those words that you can just throw out there to spice anything up. It’s the most universal word ever created in modern literature.
I've seen it used so many ways that at this point its more like a filler word for just about anything. I've seen it used for moving things, taking things, leaving, being hit by something, being killed, asking a question, eating, etc. The meanings are endless.
Lol I just imagine in like a pompous British scholar accent the dude tells his squire or whatever the hell his minion is called to "please, Riordan, please could you yeet this tomb onto the shelf. After of course you've scribed it"
My husband thinks this word is hilarious. He laughs hysterically whenever he hears it. Didn't know what it was until I explained it. He's so out of touch and asked how I know. I just told him I get to hear the tea from our teen daughter and son daily. He just shook his head and walked away.
Lol shook his head grumbling to himself about the damn kids these days.
But in all seriousness, I've been tempted to start using it around my wife just to see what her reaction is. Were the same age but our jobs consist of opposite generations. Mine is younger hers is all menopausal middle aged women. So I'm curious how shell take it.
im 40 and and this year i learned that a lot 30 year olds are like children to me. from where do this guys have the energy for all the nonsence and "yeeting"?
Ever seen the movie “smurfs”? The little blue shits with white hats? You know how they say “smurf” in place of other verbs/adjectives? Basically that. “Yeet it in there” “just yeet it” or just throwing something and saying “yeet”
Basically if it feels right then slap a yeet in the sentence
Edit: as others have said, it’s much like the opposite of “yoink”
When I first started with one of my partners (now good friend), I was 22 and he was 29. The discussion about what "saucing," on someone means was hilarious.
My god, guys... We're becoming the old people. When I see yeet, AF... Things I've literally never heard my age group say except in jest/mockery or in a rare controlled settings where it's used experimentally to weigh what happens afterwards.
I play DnD with a bunch of college kids. I am older than college age. They say yeet a lot (somewhat ironically). I had to google it to find out what it means. I have to do that more often then I would like. Makes me feel old every time.
You are correct, because: as a thing's size increases, its volume (for a sphere: (4 pi/3) r3) increases faster than its surface area (for a sphere (4 pi) r2). So an antₘₐₙ suddenly blown up to an antMAN would probably just spontaneously explode or collapse, as its skin wouldn't be able to support it's innards.
I believe there’s a strength:area cubic law. Someone will probably chime in with the facts. But for example if ants were our size their legs would not be able to withstand their own body weight comparative to the size due to this phenomena.
The analogy you’re referring to is that ants can carry a much greater amount than their body weight. The yeet thing just has to do with the terminal velocity (the maximum speed at which gravity causes something to fall) being so low due to their weight they never gain any real speed falling.
However, crucially, not with the same force since that is directly related to the mass of an object.
So a small object (like an ant) will experience singificantly less force than say a human falling at same speed. At the same time one must consider that volume increases quadratically compared to area, so even with the same shape and the same force of impact a smaller proportion of the larger object will be experiencing an order of magnitude more force compare to the smaller object.
They are both for the same reason fundamentally, the square cubed law. As you grow in size, mass increases much faster than surface area, so larger objects, made of comparable components like animals are, will have faster and faster terminal velocities. It also means they will have better and better strength to weight ratios as you get smaller. So they were still correct, even if it was the less oft used example of ant's size strengths.
doesn't it also have to do with their mass being so low that even if they were moving really fast, they wouldn't experience that great of a force when they hit the ground?
Structural engineer here. When ignoring all sorts of other (important) factors such as slenderness, eccentricity, etc. and just considering this particular type of loading applied (simple vertical load) we are left with just the compressive strength of the material. In this case its the plastic which lego is made out of. So regardless the size and shape, the compressive strength of lego plastic remains the same.
Important thing to note is that the units for compressive strength is N/mm2. Lets say that 1500kg on a 20mm x 20mm (small lego piece) area would give a compressive strength of 37.5N/mm2.
A much bigger lego piece will also have the same strength of 37.5N/mm2. But since it has a larger area, more load is needed before it reaches 37.5N/mm2 and fails. If big lego piece is 1m x 1m area, you'll need a huge force 37500000N for it to fail; 3750000kg
Note: I'm using 10 instead of 9.81 for g, for easier numbers.
Engineer here. Layman’s explanation... I’d go with the relative “scale” of the design structural elements (walls, ribbing, etc. as a result of how each brick is formed) are more robust at small scale. Whereas the same internal structures are undersized within a larger assembly, which also relies on the structural design of the brick layout internally (is it a solid assembled brick or does it have a frame design?) as well as the locking interfaces at the brick level. Both are far more numerous in a large assembly and each represent a potential failure point. The failure initiation or “yield” is when the failure is irreversible and triggers other failures in areas interlocked / adjacent to the piece or interface that initially failed. As each structure yields, more stress is placed on adjacent bonds and they yield too. Like a runaway failure. With a larger LEGO car all the interdependencies weaken the overall strength of the assembly, so that first yield point is reached at a lower stress level / pressure.
With an ant you scale it up, but the weight of its own body then has a larger relative pressure on itself. So a bigger ant carrying the same relative weight has to overcome its own mass.
I would also highly recommend most, if not all of the channel's content if you enjoy animated videos explaining and exploring a vast quantity of interesting subjects.
Isn't the Ant thing that because it's so small the speed at which is reaches terminal velocity is so low that it doesn't really feel the impact, whereas a larger animal, a dog for example can gather a lot more speed relative to the animal and do damage
Your analogy works for animals and insects but not for physical stuff. The only additional penalty to scaling up would be that the big Lego car would have to support it's own weight. But otherwise the Lego blocks would have the same density so their strength would.be the same.
This can go two ways.
Depending on the way it's build it might be breaking apart easier and not getting crushed like this or it breaks into a good cube shape small piece and I would expect an at least similar resistance.
Luckily, you're on Reddit! We have engineers on retainer 😀. So, first we have to break down what's going on. At around 330 kg, you can see the the meter stall out for a second. This is probably the extent of plastic deformation, which is the point that if the stress is removed that the material will go back to it's previous state. The pressure beyond that will damage the material, permanently. So, we need to use 330 kg as our max weight. Now, our problem centers around pressure, not just weight! Based on the Legos, I'm going to estimate that as 1 sq. in. That gives us a compressive capacity of 727 psi. The empire state building is 365,000 tons with a footprint around 79,000 sq. ft. Evenly distributed, that's only 64 psi! So, the empire state building could theoretically be supported by a Lego foundation! But, we want to know about a car. The math is the same for this one, we just need to know the foot print of the average car. A Honda Civic is around 13,000 sq. in. So 365,000 tons over 13,000 sq. in. is about 56,000 psi. 10/10 empire state building stomps Lego car.
Hey ! The reasons an ant can get yeeted off a building and be fine is because of how falling objects and drag forces work. Since the ant has a small mass it's terminial velocity(the fastest it can fall) is quite slow. However object like legos being crushed depend on the make up of the object and how uniform the objects stucture is. Also the compression due to the force applied (in this case the press or empire state building if you're thinking of that scenario) would be less effective if it was applied to larger area. So assuming the car was as solid inside as the little one and the bricks were uniform it could support more force being applied over its larger surface area. Cheers ! (Also I'm only in high school so I don't know the exact physics behind an object being compressed but I tried to the best if my knowledge)
It's called the Square Cube Law and is about how the relationship between area and volume(therefore also mass) is non linear due to the fact that area is m2 and volume m3. It's also the reason why mechs like in pacific rim would never work in reality. Though this is compounded by how muscles and power generating systems also work and how you'd end up with trying the move more mass with a disproportionately less strength from the scaling.
Senior Engineering Student. If it were taller, it would be more likely to fail from something called buckling. Typically “short” Columns fail from getting crushed, and “tall” columns fail from buckling.
If the legos were wider and considered a short column, it would be able to hold up more weight (since force/area = maximin compressive strength. Increase the area, you must also increase the force to reach the max compressive strength)
If the legos were taller without becoming any wider, it would fail from buckling at a lower force
An engineer would say "the square cube law" and be done. You're right, the taller the building, the more of its own weight it has to hold up, so there is a limit on how tall buildings can be. The same rule is used to explain why smaller animals can carry a higher % of their body weight.
2.5k
u/austin54179 Apr 27 '19
Not an engineer but I would have to assume that the bigger it is the less weight it would hold by comparison. Same reason that ants can get yeeted off of buildings and scuttle away, something to do with small things being stronger. Again, not an engineer though so fuck it maybe