Jump to content

Trivial things that please the ever living shit out of you


Recommended Posts

Posted

lmao... so i had $400 of apple giftcards i redeemed from amex points. turns out, once you close the amex account, you cant access redemption codes on their website. i printed out the codes once, but lost the paper.

so in desperation i searched 'giftcards' in my googledrive to see if i saved a PDF copy.  and in that process, i discovered i had a $500 hotels.com GC from 6 years ago (genuinely dont remember where it came from), and turns out its still active and valid.

and for the apple card, amex was happy to issue a new physical ones sent to the mail.  a $400 loss just turned into a net $500 gain.

  • Like 3
Posted

the reason i was looking for it was to buy a replacement ipad for my kid.

turns out, i had no idea amazon's price on this ipad literally just bounced from 399 to 489 from week to week? the fuck kind of strategy is this. 

image.thumb.png.2f2f2887f8e8c1a205dd65d7e217dd73.png

Posted
On 8/21/2025 at 4:17 PM, 52-80 said:

lmao... so i had $400 of apple giftcards i redeemed from amex points. turns out, once you close the amex account, you cant access redemption codes on their website. i printed out the codes once, but lost the paper.

so in desperation i searched 'giftcards' in my googledrive to see if i saved a PDF copy.  and in that process, i discovered i had a $500 hotels.com GC from 6 years ago (genuinely dont remember where it came from), and turns out its still active and valid.

and for the apple card, amex was happy to issue a new physical ones sent to the mail.  a $400 loss just turned into a net $500 gain.

Wouldn’t it be a $900 gain?  

Posted
On 8/23/2025 at 10:17 AM, 52-80 said:

Depends, do you work for the IRS? (You have to say if you do)

I work my ass off all year long for the IRS.  Unfortunately, I pay them all the money, though.

  • Rage+1 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted (edited)

We were shooting the shit at an impromptu happy hour at the office. Somehow the conversation moved to global warming, and my science denying coworker harumphed and said global warming is a HOAX and scientists are pandering to the politicians for grant money so don't believe a word they say. He somehow got the idea that even if all the glaciers melted, the oceans would only raise about 2"!!!

So we did what geeks do on a Friday night. We googled the data and did the math...

Antarctic glacier area is 5,400,000 miles², with an average thickness of 1.4 miles, so 7,560,000 miles³ of ice.

The area of all the oceans is 139,000,000 miles².

So if the Antarctic glacier completely melted, sea levels would rise about 0.0544 miles, or ~287 feet

 

My coworker, who honestly is a really nice guy until you bring up uhhh.... science, harumphed again and said you can't trust the data.

Anyway. SCIENCE BITCHES!!!

 

Also, doing simple math 3 whiskies in on a Friday night is harder than you think.

Edited by Superhero
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
8 hours ago, Superhero said:

We were shooting the shit at an impromptu happy hour at the office. Somehow the conversation moved to global warming, and my science denying coworker harumphed and said global warming is a HOAX and scientists are pandering to the politicians for grant money so don't believe a word they say. He somehow got the idea that even if all the glaciers melted, the oceans would only raise about 2"!!!

So we did what geeks do on a Friday night. We googled the data and did the math...

Antarctic glacier area is 5,400,000 miles², with an average thickness of 1.4 miles, so 7,560,000 miles³ of ice.

The area of all the oceans is 139,000,000 miles².

So if the Antarctic glacier completely melted, sea levels would rise about 0.0544 miles, or ~287 feet

 

My coworker, who honestly is a really nice guy until you bring up uhhh.... science, harumphed again and said you can't trust the data.

Anyway. SCIENCE BITCHES!!!

 

Also, doing simple math 3 whiskies in on a Friday night is harder than you think.

Okay, but how much of that 1.4 miles of thickness is below the water level currently?  And does that take into account density of ice as a solid vs water as a liquid?  And also that the water basin is not straight up and down, but more conical?  

  • Like 1
Posted
5 hours ago, PvilleStang said:

Okay, but how much of that 1.4 miles of thickness is below the water level currently?  And does that take into account density of ice as a solid vs water as a liquid?  And also that the water basin is not straight up and down, but more conical?  

Did you not read that last sentence about doing simple math after a long week and 3 whiskies?

 

 

  • Haha 2
Posted
6 hours ago, PvilleStang said:

Okay, but how much of that 1.4 miles of thickness is below the water level currently?  And does that take into account density of ice as a solid vs water as a liquid?  And also that the water basin is not straight up and down, but more conical?  

2ffab980-7c29-49f8-9b22-adebd8e9fa6f_tex

Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Superhero said:

We were shooting the shit at an impromptu happy hour at the office. Somehow the conversation moved to global warming, and my science denying coworker harumphed and said global warming is a HOAX and scientists are pandering to the politicians for grant money so don't believe a word they say. He somehow got the idea that even if all the glaciers melted, the oceans would only raise about 2"!!!

So we did what geeks do on a Friday night. We googled the data and did the math...

Antarctic glacier area is 5,400,000 miles², with an average thickness of 1.4 miles, so 7,560,000 miles³ of ice.

The area of all the oceans is 139,000,000 miles².

So if the Antarctic glacier completely melted, sea levels would rise about 0.0544 miles, or ~287 feet

 

My coworker, who honestly is a really nice guy until you bring up uhhh.... science, harumphed again and said you can't trust the data.

Anyway. SCIENCE BITCHES!!!

 

Also, doing simple math 3 whiskies in on a Friday night is harder than you think.

That math isn't even close to accurate but I will say that it is likely far more than 2 feet and far less than 287 feet.

Couple things to consider that Pville didn't bring up:

- It requires exponentially more water to raise the ocean level as you go up. You aren't climbing a 90 degree incline on the shorelines (i.e. the surface area of the oceans increases as sea-level increases).

- If it theoretically got hot enough to melt all the ice there would be a far greater amount of water vapor held in the atmosphere. 

Edited by ztejas
  • Like 1
Posted
55 minutes ago, ztejas said:

That math isn't even close to accurate but I will say that it is likely far more than 2 feet and far less than 287 feet.

Couple things to consider that Pville didn't bring up:

- It requires exponentially more water to raise the ocean level as you go up. You aren't climbing a 90 degree incline on the shorelines (i.e. the surface area of the oceans increases as sea-level increases).

- If it theoretically got hot enough to melt all the ice there would be a far greater amount of water vapor held in the atmosphere. 

Wow, look at the big brain on Brad.

Yes and yes to Pville, and yes and yes to you.

 

And my coworker said 2 INCHES, not feet.

  • Haha 1
Posted

At the glacial maximum 20k years ago it looks like sea levels were about 400 ft lower. So you and your whiskeyed up buddies were absolutely dealing with the right types of measurements.

Now that is of course going in the other direction and the points that I brought up (and pville's point about the water basin being sloped downward - which is the same idea basically) would increase the rate of change in that instance instead of decreasing it. 

Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, Ghost of NMAS said:

The coworker is correct.  As additional water is added to the ocean, the weight of the ocean increases, which pushes the floor of the ocean further down so that the ocean's level doesn't rise.

 

image.png.2618c1119f566a0be7bd43e3590c27f6.png

From that data point alone, the weight of the glacier on Antarctica is causing the earth to be squished in the N-S axis.

If all that ice was equally distributed around the world, and making the assumption (for control reasons of course) that the continents have 250'H cliffs, then the planet would be a real sphere instead of a near sphere.

Good lord!

Superhero

Edited by Superhero
Posted
8 hours ago, Bevo&Pevo said:

IF If's and But's were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas. 

For some reason we always told our kids "If fish had butts and we were all nuts, what a Christmas we would have." Yeah it makes no sense but it made them laugh. 

  • Haha 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...