Things you always wanted to know the answer to [Vol. 4]

[Flibble]

robbieduncan said:

But relativity tells us energy can be converted to mass. Even looks like it might be possible to do at some point: https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrodgers/2014/05/1...

You can convert them, but once mass is converted to energy its not mass any more. Photons are massless.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

Flibble said:

robbieduncan said:

But relativity tells us energy can be converted to mass. Even looks like it might be possible to do at some point: https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrodgers/2014/05/1...

You can convert them, but once mass is converted to energy its not mass any more. Photons are massless.

Quite. You can convert potential energy to kinetic energy by jumping off a tall building, but that doesn't mean that you are moving with respect to the building before doing so.

[fomb]

SpeckledJim said:

popeyewhite said:

98elise said:

Is there a wealth of undiscovered talent in the general population?

Very possibly, if you believe in nature over nurture as I do.

Yes. There's a good chance Lewis Hamilton isn't even the most naturally talented driver from Stevenage, but between a lot of talent, actual luck, and making his own luck, his natural huge talent could be capitalised upon.

The guy in the class above who had more natural talent preferred football so he's now an accountant.

Except getting to the top of any field isn't just about natural talent. There's a fair dose of mental attributes also required to succeed at the top of any sport and I think the right combination comes around rarely. Saying that, there's nothing to say better combinations out there exist that would have succeeded more than Lewis given the right situations.

'Chasing Excellence' by Ben Bergeron is a really interesting book on the subject of elite athletes and mindset.

[john2443]

droopsnoot said:

Why are laces in trainers so long, or, am I not tying them correctly? I bought a pair of these a few months ago, not the first pair I've bought:

(pic not uploaded as it's not opening properly for now, imagine a cross between a walking boot and a trainer, nothing special)

and the laces are far too long. I've put them through every hook / hole on the shoe, and while I'm walking along I invariably end up catching one of them and pulling it undone, so I have to stop and re-tie them. I can't see what the point of all the extra lace length is. It's not the first time I've had this on this style of shoe.

I always tie a double bow when I'm running, which makes sure they don't come undo - you don't want to have to stop in the middle of a race to re tie them.

There's also a fancy way of looping them in and out, 3:30 in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90yED-bgeyc. I've never tried it, but maybe it uses more lace?

[SpeckledJim]

john2443 said:

droopsnoot said:

Why are laces in trainers so long, or, am I not tying them correctly? I bought a pair of these a few months ago, not the first pair I've bought:

(pic not uploaded as it's not opening properly for now, imagine a cross between a walking boot and a trainer, nothing special)

and the laces are far too long. I've put them through every hook / hole on the shoe, and while I'm walking along I invariably end up catching one of them and pulling it undone, so I have to stop and re-tie them. I can't see what the point of all the extra lace length is. It's not the first time I've had this on this style of shoe.

I always tie a double bow when I'm running, which makes sure they don't come undo - you don't want to have to stop in the middle of a race to re tie them.

There's also a fancy way of looping them in and out, 3:30 in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90yED-bgeyc. I've never tried it, but maybe it uses more lace?

Put them through the bottom-most lace holes twice. Uses up a couple of inches and doesn't cause any issue.

[classicaholic]

98elise said:

Is there a wealth of undiscovered talent in the general population?

By that I mean is it likely that there are loads of people walking around with no idea they in the right circumstances that would have been a world class golfer, driver, actor, academic, scientist etc? It's just that they never picked up that club, or took that subject etc?

Alternatively would you need a natural interest in a particular area to be come the best?

For something like football I would imagine that natural talent would be found as most people kick a ball around at some stage, but something like golf is not something the majority of people have a go at.

During war time the army and airforce found a lot of undiscovered talent for pilots and soldiers etc, I know of a lot of pilots that never knew about flying and were conscripted and became excellent pilots but never flew again after discharge.

[droopsnoot]

SpeckledJim said:

Put them through the bottom-most lace holes twice. Uses up a couple of inches and doesn't cause any issue.

I can see that would do it, but it seems strange that it would be needed. I'll try it.

john2443 said:

There's also a fancy way of looping them in and out, 3:30 in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90yED-bgeyc. I've never tried it, but maybe it uses more lace?

I'll have a go with that. I don't run in them, they're just a bit less formal than normal shoes, but it's really annoying me.

My other solution is to cut them a bit shorter and cover the ends with a bit of heatshrink, but it seems again that I shouldn't have to. I might ask, next time I'm in a place that sells them, as much for the entertainment value as the off-chance of finding anyone who actually knows.

[popeyewhite]

fomb said:

Except getting to the top of any field isn't just about natural talent.

It can be, that is why there's the nature/nurture debate. A very good swimmer might owe his talent to genetics. Now you could argue you might improve his fitness, but that's not skill practice. A very good baseball player might have an excellent eye for ball-to-bat accuracy (acuity and prediction) from childhood etc etc You could fine-tune that skill maybe, but natural talent has got them to the top. I also believe to a degree that someone with a modicum of talent and a great deal of enthuisiasm can become expert with a lot of practice... .

[gregs656]

popeyewhite said:

It can be, that is why there's the nature/nurture debate. A very good swimmer might owe his talent to genetics. Now you could argue you might improve his fitness, but that's not skill practice. A very good baseball player might have an excellent eye for ball-to-bat accuracy (acuity and prediction) from childhood etc etc You could fine-tune that skill maybe, but natural talent has got them to the top. I also believe to a degree that someone with a modicum of talent and a great deal of enthuisiasm can become expert with a lot of practice... .

I am not sure it makes sense to say that natural talent that gets people to the top, because it is never the case that people go from nothing to the top. In all cases, their natural talent is exploited through training and experience to develop mental resilience and skill - usually (but not always) from a very young age.

It is often noted when people start late - and in some sports the pool is small enough to allow for it more easily than others - for example the talent finding for the Olympics that found people with a natural aptitude for the skeleton and so on (although I think even those people had a background in sport).

Natural talent doesn't get people very far, although it does give people the opportunity to.

[popeyewhite]

gregs656 said:

Natural talent doesn't get people very far

Except for Michael Phelps, Jessica Ennis, Usain Bolt etc, eh?

I personally think a really good sportsperson is about 80% natural talent and 20% fine-tuning.

[gregs656]

popeyewhite said:

Except for Michael Phelps, Jessica Ennis, Usain Bolt etc, eh?

I personally think a really good sportsperson is about 80% natural talent and 20% fine-tuning.

Phelps joined a swim team at 7 and was coached soon after, Ennis started atheltics at 10, Bolt was under 10.

Phelps particularly is an odd example because swimming is a skill. No one is born with the knowledge of how to swim.

All of these people were coached extensively. Of course they had natural talent, but it was all exploited with training.

None of them pitched up to an olympics with no prior training or coaching and won.

[SpeckledJim]

gregs656 said:

popeyewhite said:

Except for Michael Phelps, Jessica Ennis, Usain Bolt etc, eh?

I personally think a really good sportsperson is about 80% natural talent and 20% fine-tuning.

Phelps joined a swim team at 7 and was coached soon after, Ennis started atheltics at 10, Bolt was under 10.

Phelps particularly is an odd example because swimming is a skill. No one is born with the knowledge of how to swim.

All of these people were coached extensively. Of course they had natural talent, but it was all exploited with training.

None of them pitched up to an olympics with no prior training or coaching and won.

Phelps does have size 14 feet, which certainly didn't hurt!

[gregs656]

SpeckledJim said:

Phelps does have size 14 feet, which certainly didn't hurt!

His hugely long arms too.

Those things give him a natural advantage for sure, but if his parents never put him into swim school and they chucked him into the olympic pool at 15 those features alone would not have won him gold.

[glazbagun]

Were the Atari ST and Amiga serious competitors to the PC and Apple of their day or were they more budget machines for hobbyists?

[popeyewhite]

gregs656 said:

His hugely long arms too.

Those things give him a natural advantage for sure, but etc...

There's not really any 'but' - certain people are born with a disposition better suited to some sports more than others. Whether they are quick on the field or in the pool, have amazing footie skills at a young age (ask any football scout if natural talent is important), quick reactions, huge power etc etc .

[Clockwork Cupcake]

popeyewhite said:

There's not really any 'but' - certain people are born with a disposition better suited to some sports more than others. Whether they are quick on the field or in the pool, have amazing footie skills at a young age (ask any football scout if natural talent is important), quick reactions, huge power etc etc .

Go on, tell us that black people have a natural sense of rhythm.

[gregs656]

popeyewhite said:

There's not really any 'but' - certain people are born with a disposition better suited to some sports more than others. Whether they are quick on the field or in the pool, have amazing footie skills at a young age (ask any football scout if natural talent is important), quick reactions, huge power etc etc .

Even if I ignore that this is a totally different claim to this one (all of a sudden you are talking about skill, a trained ability....)

popeyewhite said:

I personally think a really good sportsperson is about 80% natural talent and 20% fine-tuning.

I have not disagreed that people are better suited to certain sports (and not just sports, all kinds of things).

It is clear though that unless you have training to unlock the potential of that talent then the talent, or aptitude, or some other kind of physical advantage (I am not sure, for example, that Phelps' unusual proportions and work capacity can be defined as 'talent') then it is neither here nor there.

Phelps' training was not just 20% fine tuning, it was literally the difference between him failing around and drowning and being able to swim at all.

I will say it again, none of your examples, and there must be exceptionally few examples from any sport, vocation or profession have people who just rock up with no training or prior experience and are the top of their field. This, frankly, is evidence enough that your weighting is all wrong - otherwise it would be common for people not to train or learn, but it's not, because it makes a huge difference.

[popeyewhite]

gregs656 said:

It is clear though that unless you have training to unlock the potential of that talent then the talent, or aptitude, or some other kind of physical advantage (I am not sure, for example, that Phelps' unusual proportions and work capacity can be defined as 'talent') then it is neither here nor there.

Natural talent is neither here nor there? OK

Well the nature vs nurture debate has raged for many years in academic circles, coaching academies etc, but someone on a car forum has settled the matter.

Moving on... .

[Dr Jekyll]

glazbagun said:

Were the Atari ST and Amiga serious competitors to the PC and Apple of their day or were they more budget machines for hobbyists?

The ST was originally intended to be a serious competitor, like an Apple Mac but cheaper. The problem was that reliability was a bit dodgy and once it got a reputation as a games machine it couldn't recover. It did have the advantage that it could read discs written by a PC, and vice versa.
I think there was a travel agency in London that used STs as business machines with specially written software.

Price of the ST and Amiga wasn't much different from low end PCs. But non hobbyist buyers wanted a PC to be compatible with the office PC so didn't seriously consider them. What was ironic was that having bought a cheap PC they didn't buy the same software they used at work because it was too expensive, they bought cheaper versions, so compatibility wasn't that relevant. There was one word processor for the PC that was originally written for the Sinclair Spectrum and developed from one for the ZX81.

In pure technical terms they could have been competitors for PCs and Macs, but the PC and to a lesser extent the Mac had critical mass by that stage.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

popeyewhite said:

Natural talent is neither here nor there? OK

Well the nature vs nurture debate has raged for many years in academic circles, coaching academies etc, but someone on a car forum has settled the matter.

And then several others disagreed with him, and then he got a grump on.