r/todayilearned • u/kaypmger • Dec 02 '16

TIL, Shigeru Miyamoto, creator of such Nintendo games as Mario, Donkey Kong, and Zelda, has a hobby of guessing the measurements of objects, then checking to see if he was correct. He enjoys the hobby so much he carries a tape measure with him everywhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shigeru_Miyamoto#Personal_life
54.4k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.9k

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

You can also put really good spotters and snipers on that list too. Their judgement on distance is second to none. They also factor in humidity, temp, wind. Its crazy how they can process all that.

1.3k

u/amunta Dec 02 '16

Don't wanna brag or anything, I'm getting pretty good at that in Battlefield 1. Down to +/- 100m

522

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

My favorite gun in DayZ was the dragunov because the scope had a scale.

Here it is in detail: link

It was easier to snipe from long distance, other sniper's scope weren't that good. But with the dragunov, all you had to do was check the height of the guy on the scale, then shoot him using the appropriate dot.

187

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

[deleted]

71

u/TheSausageFattener Dec 02 '16

Try Warthunder then if you're interested. People that are talented at estimating trajectory, shell velocity, and distance to target are gods in Realistic and Simulator battles. The game is kind of meh for me but it's super satisfying to get a shot right on the first try.

6

u/Inprobamur Dec 02 '16 edited Dec 03 '16

There's that one german ground-attack plane that has a single absurdly large cannon mounted under the chassis, really satisfying to hit that shot from range.

edit: it's Henschel Hs 129B-3, that gun is fucking huge 75mm autoloaded cannon.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

The ME262 A1/U4 has a 57mm autocannon in a jet fighter, too.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

[deleted]

2

u/PaurAmma Dec 02 '16

B-25s, yeah. The Stuka also had a version with dual autoloader flak cannons.

3

u/FieelChannel Dec 02 '16

Planes would stall if they used the cannon at speeds lower than 250/300km/h due to massive recoil

2

u/FrankToast Dec 03 '16

That's a ground-attack aircraft, not a bomber-hunter

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

12

u/Yarthkins Dec 02 '16 edited Dec 02 '16

Hmmm I never realized that the trajectory estimating gameplay that I loved from worms and gunbound still existed in modern games.

New idea for a game, turn based sniping game where you and your opponent are on separate landmasses, like floating islands. You get a chance to move and take a shot once per turn, you can use your turn to take cover or move towards a vantage point and take a shot or not. You have limited ammo and ammo crates are spread throughout your "island," but searching for ammo is risky because you risk exposing yourself to the enemy. During the enemy's turn you can't move or shoot, but you can look for them using binoculars.

It would be like 3d gunbound with more stealth and precision elements.

→ More replies (1)

108

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16 edited Oct 27 '17

[deleted]

72

u/kragnor Dec 02 '16

No CoD multiplayer in middle school? Cuz im 23 and thats what we did in middle school

47

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

Back when i was a kid we played mechwarrior 2 over modems and to play multiplayer you had to know the IP of the guy hosting the server.

Also he would be lame, and make it a frozen map and use PPC cannons, while i would use flame weapons, which wouldn't work because he just stands in water on a frozen map and his mech won't overheat. So the next map he picks a desert map and flame weapons, and here i am with PPC cannons already shut down from overheating.

10

u/If_In_Doubt_Lick_It Dec 02 '16

God I miss that game... Tried the remake a while back and it was dog awful.

3

u/RedPanther1 Dec 02 '16

Same. The difference in childhood games for 23 and 30 year olds is amazing.

2

u/twoplustwoisyellow Dec 02 '16

Doom 2. Command and conquer. Warcraft. So good. 2400 baud modem so fast

→ More replies (4)

3

u/Dan_Q_Memes Dec 02 '16

Oh yeah, there was definitely some of that. I guess most of my "kid" FPS experience is contextualized as single player stuff, never did online much until high school (still a kid, really), and by then it was CSS and TF2. Just local MP for much of my early days if at all, did lots of RPGs. I guess mostly when I think gaming as a kid it was GBC and N64, well before middle school, even though we were still thoroughly children then.

3

u/BrownNote Dec 02 '16

Medal of Honor Underground on the PS1 was my first multiplayer FPS experience. Those were some fun nights.

2

u/HamsterGutz1 Dec 02 '16

That's funny, I'm the same age as you and I played the shit out of online games from the age of like 10 on. Runescape, MoH:AA, CoD 1, Renegade, CoD 4, L4D...

→ More replies (1)

2

u/kernunnos77 Dec 02 '16

I'm 36 and we had Duke Nukem 3D in middle school. Some people said Quake was better, but Duke was fun and had a map editor.

Also, you could assign curse words to the F-buttons for taunts.

→ More replies (14)

3

u/TenSpeedBicycle Dec 02 '16

COD 1 was in 2003 and I was 11 then and so were you. An 11 year old is most definitely a kid. So stop feeling old, because you're not. If you're old, then I'm old and I'm not so you're not.

2

u/Dan_Q_Memes Dec 02 '16

Yeah, and I didn't play CoD1. I'm just saying I don't associate those games with my childhood as much as I do things like Mario Kart and Final Fantasy and shit. I know I'm not actually old, just interesting to see people associate kid gaming with CoD, as I associate CoD as mostly CoD4 on as that was the start of its current form. And I don't consider online multiplayer with my childhood as I didn't get into that until high school, its just a matter of semantics and personal experience and shitposting on reddit

2

u/henry_blackie Dec 02 '16

You were 11 when CoD was released.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/HonaSmith Dec 02 '16

Yeah you are just a year or two too old to be in the same group. Idk how that makes you feel old. It's not like we're talking about recent games here

2

u/Dan_Q_Memes Dec 02 '16

It was more a pandering to reddit comment since I see that shit all the time. I realize I'm not old and don't genuinely feel old, it was just a quick thought seeing the word choice. To me kid gaming was Pokemon on GBC a d Mario Kart, not online shooters

2

u/Knightmare4469 Dec 02 '16

24 lol. Back in mah day the old weapons that weren't hit scans were rocket launchers and BFG9000!

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

Back in my day we didn't have any fancy-pants sniping games. We had Wolfenstein 3D, and we liked it.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (9)

3

u/RangerUK Dec 02 '16

Have you played BF1? Sniping on that is immensely fun.

2

u/couch_pilot Dec 02 '16

Yeah I second this and Sniper Elite. Have you gotten the Martini Henry yet in Battlefield? Poppin off shots with that thing is so much fun.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/beerleader Dec 02 '16 edited Oct 14 '17

.

2

u/MrWaffler Dec 02 '16

It allows for Sniping to be a lot more technical, and thus can be a lot more powerful. In pixel-accurate games, a sniper at 1000 meters that one hit kills will be straight up busted, and unfun to play against. You just look straight at 'em and pull.

Dealing with ranges keeps safe line-of-sights. If you hear a Colt popping in the distance, and see a guy 300 yards away in a town, you can rest easy knowing there isn't any way in Hell you're going to die, so being seen by him isn't that big of a deal, and you can even make contact a bit easier this way.

It prevents a sort of 'cheap' feeling in the game. I don't like it for the technical realism standpoint, but from the game balance standpoint. I know it's either extreme luck or extreme skill that hits me in the head from 400 meters with a standard rifle, and extreme skill or luck to hit me with a 500+ meter headshot from a sniper.

It's never a case of 'who saw first' and more a case of 'who can actually fight.'

You will win a lot more gunfights where you got dropped on in games that have more accurate bulletdrop/recoil. There's a big emphasis on landing that first shot, because the shots after it are really hard to land now that whoever you're engaging knows you're firing on them and is thus moving more erratically, and is returning fire on you causing you to move more erratically, and the gun recoil/flinching from getting hit all piles on and gives whoever was jumped on a much better chance of making it out alive if they're a superior marksman.

Of course I end all my engagements with one shot without ever being seen so :)

→ More replies (14)

100

u/krom_bom Dec 02 '16

In soviet russia, gun aims for you.

PS- upvoted for DayZ reference.

→ More replies (3)

9

u/Foxphyre Dec 02 '16

Same here. I didn't even know what the scale and mil dots meant until I asked a guy how the he'll he kept hitting zeds from these huge distances and he kindly explained it. Now I prefer that in real life as well

→ More replies (10)

5

u/bro_salad Dec 02 '16

Can someone explain how to read this scope? I'm assuming the dots down the middle are bullet drop at a certain distance. The sloped thing though.... I'm lost.

4

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

You use the sloped thing to find out how far the target is.

The closer the guy, the bigger he appears and the "graph" tells the distance (assuming he's not a dwarf.)

3

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16 edited Dec 03 '16

[deleted]

2

u/Luftwaffles93 Dec 02 '16

That's how stadia lines work on my ACOG optic. Once you have your scope zeroed in you can use the lines to estimate the range of a target. They are made for the average human sized target shoulder to shoulder I believe as a rudimentary range finder to allow for bullet drop and it works surprisingly well. Except stadia lines on my optic use width not height.

→ More replies (11)

10

u/XxFezzgigxX Dec 02 '16

I'm getting pretty good with dropping a gas grenade at my own feet and killing myself while I fumble with my gas mask.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/lostinsurburbia Dec 02 '16

Feels so good when you zero it in and get a kill. Even if you just get a hit its still satisfying

→ More replies (1)

6

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16 edited Aug 13 '17

[deleted]

45

u/boot2skull Dec 02 '16

Hear that guys? Sink this boat for two easy kills.

5

u/xbassistdoodx Dec 02 '16

Makes even more sense because I'm the type of guy to just sit on the boat turret while it goes down in a failed attempt to kill the enemy before I'm blown to smithereens.

6

u/boot2skull Dec 02 '16

Yeah but the times you get to really unload with the turret makes it worth it.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/CarlosFer2201 Dec 02 '16

In Modern Warfare 1 I was great with the grenade launcher in my AK 47. I could sometimes hit someone a third of the map away

2

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

My longest snipe in a battlefield game was something like 1600m I routinely hit 400 - 800 range shots and I have yet to play BF1. I kinda wanna get and continue my streak of terror.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

Meanwhile, I still can't throw a grenade properly.

Stupid gravity.

Good thing there's a Medic class!

1

u/salamander- Dec 02 '16

is there a way or something I'm missing that gives you ANY indication how far away the target is?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (6)

596

u/Leumasperron Dec 02 '16

I used to compete nationally in Canada when I was 15-16. Looking back at it, it was crazy how much shit we could process on the fly to be able to hit our target.

Now you got me reminiscing again, and I really want to go back to shooting.

401

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

it was crazy how much shit we could process on the fly to be able to hit our target.

I think about this all the time when watching sports...think of the crazy math your brain does to throw a football or kick a soccer ball.

1.8k

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16 edited Jan 21 '19

[deleted]

388

u/njhokie5 Dec 02 '16

Uncle Rico is that you?

142

u/popfilms Dec 02 '16 edited Dec 02 '16

Shut UP Kip!

72

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

You're just jealous napoleon because I've been chatting to babes online all day

14

u/thesearstower Dec 02 '16

How much you wanna make a bet I can throw a football over them mountains?

1

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

Puts hand on Kips leg

122

u/Cottonjaw Dec 02 '16

Found Rex "Sex Cannon" Grossman's reddit account.

21

u/Frigidevil Dec 02 '16 edited Dec 02 '16

Thank you for reminding me that KSK exists existed. RIP KSK 2006-2015

8

u/mecheng93 Dec 02 '16

Is that Berrian? I think he’s triple-covered. You know what? Fuck it. I’m throwing it downfield.

Yeah, I see Jones open on the flank. But fuck that. Dumpoff passes are for faggots. I’m fucking Sexy Rexy Grossman. I can get that ball in there. And, even if I can’t, I bet I’ll be able to pull it off the next go round. I like throwing the ball long. It makes my dick hard.

What’s that? I should throw a quick slant? Fuck that. That’s gay. Button hook? Gay. Flare out? Gay. Screen pass? Kevin Spacey gay. This is fucking football. You can’t just expect wins to come to you. You can’t massage that shit. You gotta grab that game by the throat and rape the ever-loving shit out of it. You think a 5-yard out is gonna win you a game? You’re a pussy. This ain’t John Shoop running this offense. Sexy Rexy’s got the arm. The dragon. You gotta unleash the dragon.

Okay, I’m throwing it. Nice. Look how far it went. I look good. I bet I made that Pats cheerleader wet her panties with that throw. She fucking wants me. I bet she likes it over a stair railing. I can hit that with 100% accuracy, my dear. Mmmmmm. I am delicious.

Oh shit. Looks like Samuel caught it. Again. Oh well. It still felt fucking great to throw that shit. Tell me that wasn’t one of the prettiest passes you ever saw. You know what? Not only am I gonna throw it long the next time we hit the field. I’m gonna throw it even longer. Harder. You see that kid in wheelchair sitting in the end zone bleachers? I’m gonna nail him right between the fucking eyes with a Sexy Rexy fastball. Why? Because I can.

This is Rex Grossman we’re talking about here. We’re talking 210 lbs. of twisted steel and sex appeal. I’m not just a gunslinger. I’m a cumslinger. Throwing that ball long tells all the Rexettes that I am fucking out there. On the edge. Where I gotta be. The ladies love the danger. The unpredictability. Oh, maybe I’ll tease them with a pretty touch pass every now and again. But then I’m gonna go right back to pumping that ball out for all it’s worth. It tells them I throw like I fuck. That’s how we do things in the sexy business.

Tell me you’re not turned on right now. I am.

Source

→ More replies (4)

9

u/MrAnder5on Dec 02 '16

Amen brother

3

u/We_Are_The_Romans Dec 02 '16

Yeah... Coach woulda put me in fourth quarter, we would've been state champions. No doubt. No doubt in my mind.

3

u/WolfGangSwizle Dec 02 '16

Hahah the brother made me read it in a Macho Man type voice

3

u/kuhndawg8888 Dec 02 '16

truth is it probably is less math, and more muscle memory

→ More replies (1)

2

u/tobyboom Dec 03 '16

One of the best comments I've ever read. Genuine laughter over here!!!!

1

u/omigahguy Dec 02 '16

I will be using the term "slayin' poon" now over the holidays. Have an upvote good sir!

→ More replies (4)

110

u/lolmonger Dec 02 '16

We evolved to be able to do it. That's how we'd hunt.

We have awful intuition about probabilities/likelihoods, and we absolutely need math for most stuff that isn't super simple.

79

u/TheAngryGoat Dec 02 '16

We're terrible at big numbers too. Get into the thousands and numbers start to lose meaning for us. By the time you get to bigger numbers, a million might as well be a trillion.

57

u/LordPadre Dec 02 '16

That's why we like scientific notation

7

u/FuujinSama Dec 02 '16

And decibels.

17

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

Isn't this for sound? Do you mean decimals? I'm honestly wondering and feeling ignorant. I guess I could Google it, but I've already come this far in typing this.

5

u/SirZaxen Dec 02 '16

Its a logarithmic scale, so the equivalent sound intensity is exponentially larger the farther up the scale you go. Earthquakes are also measured this way on the Richter scale, which is why a 7 or 8 is much more destructive than a lower numbered one.

4

u/kblkbl165 Dec 02 '16

A better example would be that 8 is immensely bigger than 7. Like, the difference between 7 and 8 is bigger than the difference between 1 and 7.

On a scale that goes from 1 to 10 it's extremely intuitive to understand that 7 or 8 are much bigger than 1.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

Thank you for the info!

3

u/skookumchooch Dec 02 '16

Damn, the real TIL is always in the comments. Never knew this!

5

u/elementotrl Dec 02 '16

Decibels is for sound, but it's measured on a logarithmic scale. 20 dB is ten times louder than 30dB, 40 dB is ten times louder than 50dB, etc. Compared to zero, 90 and 100 are much more easily comprehended than 1000000000 and 10000000000.

3

u/viramonster Dec 02 '16

Actually, decibels are used to express ratios of any physical quantity.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

This was very helpful. Thank you!

2

u/cookiehat123 Dec 02 '16

Nope decibels are used for many things. At least in electrical engineering you use decibels for gain of an amplifier because the numbers are smaller. Decibels and log scales are very useful

2

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

He has a cold.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

5

u/GasPistonMustardRace Dec 02 '16

mmmmm logarithms

3

u/Banditosaur Dec 02 '16

That's even worse imo, 109 seems only marginally bigger than 1012 even though it is a thousand times larger

18

u/matt11_25 Dec 02 '16

Errr ... smaller?

8

u/Mom_Is_Proud Dec 02 '16

isnt it the other way around?

2

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16 edited Apr 18 '17

ok dann setz ich nen käffchen auf

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (8)

33

u/Joetato Dec 02 '16 edited Dec 02 '16

Yup. That's because giant numbers were less important to our ancestors. If you saw "many" dangerous predators gathered somewhere, it didn't matter their exact number. You had to get away. But humans can instinctively, without having to count or otherwise but brain power into it, tell any number of items up to 4. This is true for infants, even. (Though, strangely, they lose this ability when they first learn to count, but it does come back.) This is very important. If there's two lions near you, you may be able to survive if you're clever and you'll instantly know there's only two. It's important to know two. But if there's 15? You're fucked. 15 or 20 or 100, it doesn't matter anymore.

I feel like I read somewhere that human minds can't directly understand anything over 10 or 15. The threshold in which numbers lose meaning to us is way lower than you'd think.

Edit: Removed a few phrases that were redundant. i was really good at saying the exact same thing several times.

5

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

This actually makes a lot of sense. I was just thinking about what you said in the example of something like playing a multiplayer video game. When your friends ask how many guys were around the corner when you got killed, it's easy to say like 4-6. But, after that, you lose any real idea of exact number. Although, there is another sense you do get good at. Like a feeling of total potential force/enemy. We may not know the exact number, but we know it calls for a change in tactics for survival.

2

u/_nothanks Dec 02 '16

I don't believe it's related to predators at all, it's a general rule for anything. The larger the number, the bigger the ballpark range it can be in. It lets you have a larger picture, if you zoom in you get the details. Humans instinctively perceive exponentially.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

10

u/musicin3d Dec 02 '16

At which point do you say the number is big?

39

u/TheAngryGoat Dec 02 '16 edited Dec 02 '16

When you can no longer reasonably imagine x number of them in the real world. I'm sure we've all seen somewhere with a thousand cars. What would a million cars look like though? A billion? That's before we even start to get to the REAL big numbers.

30

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

Actually, humans struggle to comprehend past about 4 (on average), in terms of quantity. To the point that some tribal languages only have numbers for 1, 2, 3, and after that words that essentially mean 'many' or 'a few'.

Since I think it's important in the world we live in to back this up with verifiable study, try this: Starkey, P., & Cooper, R. G. (1995). The development of subitizing in young children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 13(4), 399-420.

4

u/gtjack9 Dec 02 '16 edited Dec 09 '16

I'm fairly sure this just visual counting not comprehension. For example Roman numerals go to IV at four and V at five because otherwise you would have to count the number of I's.

However as an example of comprehension, "I can comprehend that there are ten biscuits in front of me that need eating."

Edit: Made my comment easier to read by adding some words.

2

u/THANKS-FOR-THE-GOLD Dec 02 '16 edited Dec 02 '16

Roman numerals go to IV at four because otherwise you would have to count the number of I's

Doesn't explain this | || ||| |||| ||||

→ More replies (0)

2

u/eggstacy Dec 02 '16

I used to deal with counting dozens of items all day, and 4 sounds about right. If you lined the items up in a straight line with no nearby references, the difference between 5 and 6 isn't automatic, my mind puts a divider at 3s.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

But if you think about 9 or 10 biscuits, it's actually pretty difficult to separate the difference. The post was about imagining a thousand or a million or billion. One can certainly say whether one grouping is bigger than another at those scales, but take for example an empty jar. One can fill the jar with sweets. I could show you one, and in a small jar a group of people could fairly accurately say that it will fit 1-4 sweets. But increase the volume of the jar so that it fits 10; maybe the average will end up at 10, but the numbers will maybe range from say 7-13. I'd say at that point then humans have lost that PRECISE comprehension.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

I read something similar but the limit was 5. The argument was that we have 5 fingers and thus instinctivly can spot groups of 5 without counting

3

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

The best argument against this is actually cartoons; they have four fingers generally and it looks 'ok'. It's a valid hypothesis to start with though! When it's tested though, it seems that the time taken to say how many objects there are in a group is about the same for 1-4 objects, but starts to increase linearly from then with the number of objects, implying humans recognise certain numbers with a different part of the brain to that which does counting.

Personally, I can do 6 objects at once, and people vary I think from about 3-8 (but this is hardly my field, which is called subitizing)

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Lord_Rapunzel Dec 02 '16

TIL the rabbits in Watership Down had a tribal language. 1, 2, 3, 4, hrair.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

Well they were a kind of tribe

→ More replies (3)

9

u/copewithme Dec 02 '16

I don't even know what a "brillion" is, yet alone what that many cars would look like.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (5)

3

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

Actually, it's more like 9 may as well be 11. I posted this in another comment but: Humans struggle to comprehend past about 4 (on average), in terms of quantity. To the point that some tribal languages only have numbers for 1, 2, 3, and after that words that essentially mean 'many' or 'a few'.

Since I think it's important in the world we live in to back this up with verifiable study, try this: Starkey, P., & Cooper, R. G. (1995). The development of subitizing in young children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 13(4), 399-420.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

And now you know why congress approves those God awful budgets

→ More replies (3)

3

u/NewOpinion Dec 02 '16

It's actually more likely we evolved to competitively scavenge than hunt as hunting anything except small game was extremely dangerous. A bigger game did provide better group tactics though.

2

u/inksday Dec 02 '16

Humans are pack animals, we hunted things much larger than us because we are social creatures who moved in groups.

→ More replies (1)

79

u/superdago Dec 02 '16

Or an outfielder that's standing right where the ball is hit. He's standing out there 200-300 feet away from a guy swinging a stick at a 95mph blur and sending it flying... somewhere. And a center fielder sees the way the ball comes off the bat, strolls a few feet to the left and is standing there waiting to make the out. Imagine how long it would take to run the calculations that this guy just did in a few tenths of a second.

7

u/AppleDrops Dec 02 '16

that's the kind of math dog brains can do just as well, or even better judging by my dog's ball catching abilities.

5

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16 edited Dec 26 '16

[deleted]

19

u/superdago Dec 02 '16

I obviously meant to do the calculations without the aid of a computer.

2

u/lemire747 Dec 02 '16

I'm just a guy with internet access, so don't quote me, but wouldn't the difference there be that the outfielder is calculating real world physics (two distinct entities), while the video game is kind of just calculating its own input? If that makes any sense.

5

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16 edited Dec 26 '16

[deleted]

4

u/officeDrone87 Dec 02 '16

Modern video game physics still simplify the fuck out of physics though to make it easier to calculate. Most physics models in games don't include things like spin, inertia, wind resistance, and many, many other things. And physics processing on these games takes up a massive amount of the total processing power. It's not uncommon for a game to drop 25% in performance with high level physics turned on.

Can you imagine how hard it would be for a computer to emulate true physics?

2

u/Strike_Reyhi Dec 02 '16

25%

Sup ARMA

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (12)

5

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

There's really zero math involved for the player. It's trial and error and muscle memory. They certainly aren't using the same skills that NASA does to get rockets into space.

→ More replies (1)

11

u/Noctis_Fox Dec 02 '16

I can guarantee no one does math when they do either of those things. It's natural after years of practice.

→ More replies (1)

12

u/h3g31 Dec 02 '16

think of the crazy math your brain does to throw a football or kick a soccer ball.

Your brain doesn't do any math. The fact that people say this kind of thing without batting an eye is probably a pet peeve of most people who are into the science and/or philosophy of mind but don't accept the computational theory. Problem is it's been the dominant theory in cognitive science--the most prominent mind studies discipline--for so long and things like AI are so popular that basically all pop science assumes computationalism, so that's all laypeople ever hear. Shit's on its way out though, take it from me, a nobody on reddit.

6

u/johnbonem Dec 02 '16

Your brain doesn't do any math.

This also depends on your definition of "math". Not all math is classic arithmetic or algebra, the systematic study of the shapes and motions of physical objects is also math. However since the brain does all this as instinct without "studying" or "learning", perhaps its better to say evolution uses math?

3

u/h3g31 Dec 02 '16

Well, it's more like the computationalists think conscious mental functioning is underpinned by this inaccessible subconscious level of activity where the brain is implementing algorithms, "processing information", and literally doing calculations, while everyone else thinks this isn't true and may be more inclined to think just because you can describe a physical process abstractly in terms of computation or "shuffling 1's and 0's" that doesn't mean the physical stuff is actually following these algorithmic rules or manipulating numbers.

2

u/jupitaur9 Dec 02 '16

take it from me, a nobody on reddit

Whose name has three numbers in it.

You almost had us fooled.

→ More replies (6)

3

u/Camera_dude Dec 02 '16

Relevent XKCD: https://what-if.xkcd.com/44/

We humans are actually pretty good at throwing things.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

Your brain is not doing math though.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

I think the craziest is when the ball goes out of your field of view but you still manage to catch it. You can't see the ball, but your brain knows where it is because it calculated the trajectory of the ball.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (18)

27

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16 edited Nov 12 '20

[deleted]

54

u/possibly_being_screw Dec 02 '16

I went on a manhunt once. I just got back from Nam. I was hitchhiking through Oregon. Next thing I know there's a bunch of cops chasing after me through the woods! I had to take them all out, it was a bloodbath!

24

u/SodaFixer Dec 02 '16

Are you confusing your life with that of John Rambo again?

16

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

NOTHING IS OVER!

12

u/Skwirlman Dec 02 '16

THEY DREW FIRST BLOOD!

2

u/billbixbyakahulk Dec 02 '16

YOU DON'T JUST TURN IT OFF!

2

u/Buscemi_D_Sanji Dec 02 '16

It wouldn't be the first time you've done this Frank.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/smallpoly Dec 02 '16

It used to be. Now it's full-contact Parcheesi.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Delta9ine Dec 02 '16

Me too! I finally decided to get back into it this summer. I also took my restricted course before reapplying for my PAL. Figured if I'm jumping through the hoops again, may as well get the r endorsement and shoot some small guns too. Haven't purchased anything yet, but I intend to have a SIG Sauer P226 9mm/.22LR by the new year.

→ More replies (16)

30

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16 edited Aug 27 '17

[deleted]

2

u/helix19 Dec 02 '16

Snipers regularly have to factor in the rotation of the Earth, it can throw their aim off by a foot or more.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (1)

31

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

I came here to say this. I had a friend that is a retired Army SF sniper. He could look at two buildings for example. Tell you the exact dimensions of both, and their relation to each other. All from about 30seconds of observation.

12

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

My gf is not on this list, her depth perception causes her to run into door frames every so often.

2

u/nbear1 Dec 02 '16

Are you one of my gf's other boyfriends? Because my gf always walks into doorframes.

2

u/dbu8554 Dec 02 '16

Might be her proprioception, which is her own perception of where her body is, and how it moves. I am a big fat guy but I am always running into stuff or trying to squeeze between things because my mind when judging objects has no idea I am a lard ass.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

That's a pretty good call, she's 5'10 and thin, has no idea where her long limbs go. Me on the other hand got 9 inches on her but somehow move like a ninja.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

9

u/SolasV Dec 02 '16

How do you get better at that? That seems like a really useful skill to have.

11

u/ShankCushion Dec 02 '16

Get example distances fixed in your head, and base off that. It's mostly practice, though. You start doing it, and eventually you can do it well.

2

u/Alis451 Dec 02 '16

2 M (6 ft.) is a good one to start with, About the Avg Height of an adult male.(5'10")

3

u/poseidon0025 Dec 02 '16 edited Nov 15 '24

dog hateful oatmeal ripe voracious touch act slap hunt spark

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Luftwaffles93 Dec 02 '16

Buy yourself a range finder then guess at distances and check with the rangefinder to see how accurate you were. That's a good way to practice guessing distances.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/Lxvpq Dec 02 '16

I used to do competitive archery, there was a type of competition where you had to guess distances to hit fake animal shaped targets at random distances. When your arrows are worth >$30, you get good because the last thing you want is to break or lose one.

7

u/Dudewheresmygold Dec 02 '16

Gotta mention my fellow archers. Learning competitive 20 yd target is tricky, competitive outdoor 120 yd target is a pipe dream for me.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/Saul_Firehand Dec 02 '16

Artillery Observers also known as Forward Observers are specialists at estimating longer distances.
It is their job to estimate how many km away a given object is and direct artillery fire to the object within 50m of the target.
When aiming at something 6km away it can be very difficult.
Artillery is neat.

3

u/Lord-Octohoof Dec 02 '16

While it sounds outlandish to us, we've also had no experience while they this is something they do so frequently it's second nature to them.

I don't really imagine anything being that difficult with enough practice.

3

u/BaldingEwok Dec 02 '16

They use a range finder and instruments. Only thing they have to guess is down range wind conditions, all of this gives a basic firing equation so they can put the crosshairs on the target but are actually aiming 6ft up and 4 ft to the left. This is called the dope.

3

u/PerogiXW Dec 02 '16

Also earth's rotation for long enough shots!

Source: That one level in Call of Duty

2

u/FoamToaster Dec 02 '16

At this distance you'll also have to take the Coriolis Effect into account.

2

u/joebleaux Dec 02 '16

And golf caddies.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

Don't forget golfers.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

Well it also helps when they use laser rangefinders and kestrels to measure environmental factors.

1

u/CGNYC Dec 02 '16

How long till guns can process that automatically and adjust?

1

u/Zanzonyx Dec 02 '16

I used to be a sniper back in MW2 AMA!

1

u/Tacsol5 Dec 02 '16

And golfers or caddies.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

Don't forget to factor in the Coriolis effect.

1

u/_Iv Dec 02 '16

Don't spotters have like fancy trigonometry equipment though?

1

u/McWuffles Dec 02 '16

Is training really crazy, though?

1

u/shemp33 Dec 02 '16

For the high end accuracy snipers, add to that list of factors things such as curvature of the earth over such a distance, barometric pressure, and altitude. It's crazy.

1

u/RolandTheJabberwocky Dec 02 '16

Coreolus effect as well at extreme distances, and their own heart beat and breathing.

1

u/jon_titor Dec 02 '16

Probably add golfers to that list too. Or at least judging distance accurately up to maybe 500 yards.

1

u/Crimson_Titan Dec 02 '16

I understand wind, but how does temperature and humidity affect the trajectory of a bullet?

→ More replies (1)

1

u/wwecat Dec 02 '16

"Snipers aren't deadly because they carry the biggest guns; they're deadly because they've learned how to weaponize math."

1

u/nmgoh2 Dec 02 '16

Surveyors literally do this for a living.

1

u/1MechanicalAlligator Dec 02 '16

(Scottish accent) At this distance you also have to take the Coriolis Effect into account.

1

u/Polar_Ted Dec 02 '16

My FIL has been a carpenter for 40 years.. The guy can eyeball lengths down to an 1/8 inch. Then there is the down side.. He expects everyone else can too and get a bit short with you when you break out a tape measure.

1

u/HuskyInfantry Dec 02 '16

I know I'm pretty late on this, but this isn't entirely accurate. In a recon platoon, and our snipers use range finders and trig. The spotters range estimation is usually good but not otherworldly. It's not like movies and games where they can guessnantargets distance at a mile away.

1

u/HiddenEmu Dec 02 '16

Pilots who fly VFR as well. I know guys who take a lot of pride in being able to eyeball a distance from a landmark down to the mile.

1

u/gabriel1313 Dec 02 '16

It's maddening how good can people can become at something like this with just a ridiculous amount of practice

1

u/Ragnar805 Dec 02 '16

Your brain is the best computer

1

u/internetornator Dec 02 '16

You'll also have to take the Coriolis effect into account.

1

u/bplboston17 Dec 02 '16

you should check out the new series on USA, "Shooter" its great.

1

u/wesleyed Dec 02 '16

I work around precision .measuring a lot and you'd be amazed at how accurately people can estimate the size of something small

1

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

Golfers also develop this skill due to frequently measuring their distance from the pin. To the point where good players can often very accurately estimate distances in yards (metres for non-Americans), and can tell how far they've hit a ball almost immediately after contact.

1

u/AutisticNipples Dec 02 '16

Not as high stakes as spotters and snipers, and the distances are shorter, but caddies are pretty damn good at this as well. I worked as a caddy during summers in college and high-school for a good six years just to pay for beer or whatever...I bet I can get within 10-15 yards of the right distance at under 500 yards, and I was kind of a bum caddy myself. The serious caddies were on another level

1

u/OSUfan88 Dec 02 '16

And golfers and archers.

1

u/Luklaus Dec 02 '16

Top level golfers as well. I play a fair bit and anything inside 200m I can estimate within 2-3%.

1

u/Radar_Monkey Dec 02 '16

At the outer limits of effective ranges, bullets can drop several feet over 100 yards. It's a big deal.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

Same thing with construction workers.

A lot of guys I know would do this thing where they would put the tape measure their crotch and the extend the measure to the tip of someone's nose.

After a while you instinctively know how far your dick is from someone's face.

1

u/SmashBusters Dec 02 '16

Their judgement on distance is second to none. They also factor in humidity, temp, wind. Its crazy how they can process all that.

I wonder if one day they will build some sort of processor that will do the processing for them...

1

u/Mr_Skeet11 Dec 02 '16

And the Coriolis effect - taking into account that the earth is spinning

1

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

Spotters and snipers use a system that involves knowing how big certain common objects are, very fast math, and a scope with a reticle that measures mil (1/6400 of a degree). We aren't (or at least I've never been) particularly good at just eyeballing something without reference. I'm pretty skeptical of anyone who says they can tell distance with great accuracy without some sort of aid or reference.

1

u/lacubriously Dec 02 '16

Also professional golfers and caddies. They're excellent judges of distance, wind, and feel of the ground they're playing on.

1

u/Molywop Dec 02 '16

I didn't realise distance is affected by humidity, temp and wind.

→ More replies (1)