Real World: Some Revisions

[TugiaTheNarrator]

So this calculation I made was approved, so we should be able to upgrade the Megalodon's KE now.

Another thing I wanna do is upgrade the Portuguese Man O War to 50 m instead of 30 m

Next, I would like to talk about this page.
According to here, the amount would actually be Large Mountain level+ instead of Island level
Potentially, the thing could go all the way to Large Country level

 

[LegendariumOfLies]

So this calculation I made was approved, so we should be able to upgrade the Megalodon's KE now.

Another thing I wanna do is upgrade the Portuguese Man O War to 50 m instead of 30 m

Next, I would like to talk about this page.
According to here, the amount would actually be Large Mountain level+ instead of Island level
Potentially, the thing could go all the way to Large Country level

Based Real Worlds Bros stay wininng

 

[AyOgUyS]

Seems simple enough. Agree.

 

[Osemere]

I think this is fine

 

[Random-Helper323]

Seems to fit in nicely considering that's about where the AP levels of similar real-life creatures are placed.

 

[Antvasima]

So this calculation I made was approved, so we should be able to upgrade the Megalodon's KE now.

Another thing I wanna do is upgrade the Portuguese Man O War to 50 m instead of 30 m

This seems uncontroversial to apply.

Next, I would like to talk about this page.
According to here, the amount would actually be Large Mountain level+ instead of Island level
Potentially, the thing could go all the way to Large Country level

I do not particularly have an opinion about that, but think that we likely need considerably more official and reliable information than YouTube videos.

 

[FinePoint]

So this calculation I made was approved, so we should be able to upgrade the Megalodon's KE now.

Seems fine.

Another thing I wanna do is upgrade the Portuguese Man O War to 50 m instead of 30 m

There's no source listed (and Guinness World Records isn't exactly a good zoological source.)
Wikipedia still has them up to 30m.

Next, I would like to talk about this page.
According to here, the amount would actually be Large Mountain level+ instead of Island level
Potentially, the thing could go all the way to Large Country level

Kurzgesagt is also famously not the most reliable source, so I'm not sure we should just take their word for it.

 

[Apex_Predator_GX]

OP looks fine to me.

 

[TugiaTheNarrator]

Seems fine.

This seems uncontroversial to apply.

Guys I have a question. Can I upgrade the LS of the megalodon to 94 tons as well? that was included and accepted in the calculation

 

[Apex_Predator_GX]

Bump

 

[Antvasima]

Guys I have a question. Can I upgrade the LS of the megalodon to 94 tons as well? that was included and accepted in the calculation

That also seems fine in that case.

 

[TugiaTheNarrator]

That also seems fine in that case.

So may I add it now?

 

[Antvasima]

I think so, yes.

 

[TugiaTheNarrator]

And the last thing would be a large size upgrade which was included in the same study (24.3m)

 

[Apex_Predator_GX]

And the last thing would be a large size upgrade which was included in the same study (24.3m)

Agree.

 

[Apex_Predator_GX]

This thread deserves more attention.

 

[Antvasima]

Has what was accepted here been applied yet?

 

[Antvasima]

And the last thing would be a large size upgrade which was included in the same study (24.3m)

That is also likely fine then.

 

[Apex_Predator_GX]

Has what was accepted here been applied yet?

I think that the Megalodon is 9-B+ now...unless that comes from a different thread.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

 

[KLOL506]

@Flashlight237 @H3110l12345I20 Help in this would be appreciated

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Surprised I'm still legitamate here. Even though I need time discipline to even continue doing stuff on battleboarding again.

Full context on Kurzegesagt (watch full videos for verification):



There's actually nuance to Kurzegesagt's videos, yes they're secondary sources and oversimplify, but I legitimize the videos since they still check with experts and primary sources. That pretty much sets a good precedent on par with a peer-reviewed study despite bias. If anyone has a better primary source, I don't care what alterior motive you have as long as it's more primary than Kurzegesagt, but my final conclusion is the videos are valid.

the 50 m range for the jellyfish thing is fine.

I actually enjoy people doing the work for me regarding KE on whales, but on a realistic calc group perspective, it needs to be comparable to slamming into an immovable wall, 100% surface area with all your mass behind that surface, full-sprint. I legitimize stuff like the Sperm Whale since bulls that can have comparable mass have been known to slam into each other and back in the day, ships several times heavier than itself. But for cases like Megalodon, they ram smaller prey.

Using the same business calcs use for "if a character is sent flying by a car" would only be legit for cases like Megalodon (or X animal ramming into a smaller object in a fluid). If I remember correctly, P = mv -> P/m = v -> ((total mass of the system (both animals))*(velocity of the larger animal))/(mass of the smaller animal) = velocity of the system. Then plug that v into the KE of the smaller animal; the smaller animal's KE is the actually larger animal's AP and durability. Though the latter is debatable considering soft flesh is more prone to absorbing energy than redirecting it back to the animal, you can still argue putting it at the same level as AP by virtue of surface area.

 

[FinePoint]

I shouldn't have to tell you why a video called 'should you trust us?' from the organization in question is practically useless.

Kurzgesagt has a history of incomplete or inaccurate information, and nothing they say should be taken as authoritative. If you wish to simply follow through to the same sources they used that's fine.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

I shouldn't have to tell you why a video called 'should you trust us?' from the organization in question is practically useless.

Kurzgesagt has a history of incomplete or inaccurate information, and nothing they say should be taken as authoritative. If you wish to simply follow through to the same sources they used that's fine.

I said there was nuance. Even then, the point remains in one of the videos. Isn't a lot of the stuff we learn from school or public info also incomplete and inaccurate in the sense a lot of them portray inaccurate pictures in our minds? Like atoms and quarks aren't just some floating microscopic balls lumped together when their actual sizes and appearance are far different in scale.

The video is just there to say "we're a secondary source that takes our sources from the experts, we're transparent" not that we're completely unreliable (as it would be a title fallacy to say otherwise). Otherwise should we even trust our own profiles and many secondary yet credible sources here?

I mean we could discredit Kurzgesagt, but there would be some systems level thinking from the precedent we'd need to take into account.

 

[FinePoint]

I mean we could discredit Kurzgesagt, but there would be some systems level thinking from the precedent we'd need to take into account.

I'm merely saying we can never cite them as our source, and I wouldn't cite my high school physics teacher either.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

I'm merely saying we can never cite them as our source, and I wouldn't cite my high school physics teacher either.

I mean, you're staff, delegitimizing this is fine.

So what do we do with the bajillion secondary sources we use on-site for IRL profiles that do use credible experts if the secondary sources are technically distilled, incomplete and watered down versions of primary sources? You think they're going to be fine and we'd never have to pull a defense like false equivalency, or do we just painstakingly take them out where they're found? That's pretty much a precedent-systems concern problem I'd expect to see addressed from staff volunteering here for awhile.

 

[Dalesean027]

Whats left here

 

[FinePoint]

I mean, you're staff, delegitimizing this is fine.

So what do we do with the bajillion secondary sources we use on-site for IRL profiles that do use credible experts if the secondary sources are technically distilled, incomplete and watered down versions of primary sources? You think they're going to be fine and we'd never have to pull a defense like false equivalency, or do we just painstakingly take them out where they're found? That's pretty much a precedent-systems concern problem I'd expect to see addressed from staff volunteering here for awhile.

The difference is that they're not a credible expert in anything other than making YouTube videos that do well in the algorithm.

I'm obviously not saying we can't use any secondary sources, just that we shouldn't use secondary sources with no real qualifications, a history of avoidable errors, and obvious bias.

Here's some information from a secondary source I generally trust which highlights some of the reasons Kurzgesagt is one I generally don't.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

I'm obviously not saying we can't use any secondary sources, just that we shouldn't use secondary sources with no real qualifications, a history of avoidable errors, and obvious bias.

Ummm, WIkipedia openly presents itself as a secondary source first and foremost and it's a popular mainstream source users on-site often use. That's something we'd need to deal with enroute to removing Kurgezagt from the OP as an argument.

of it is pretty much users editing pages to a quality and credible standard and no matter what any person's side on academia regarding Wikipedia, everyone can agree that it's users aren't really verifiable.

We may need to make a new verse-specific rule regarding Wikipedia since we're going along with this.

 

[AyOgUyS]

Ummm, WIkipedia openly presents itself as a secondary source first and foremost and it's a popular mainstream source users on-site often use. That's something we'd need to deal with enroute to removing Kurgezagt from the OP as an argument.

of it is pretty much users editing pages to a quality and credible standard and no matter what any person's side on academia regarding Wikipedia, everyone can agree that it's users aren't really verifiable.

We may need to make a new verse-specific rule regarding Wikipedia since we're going along with this.

how about we don't use uncited info and just use the info that is reliable and up to date with reliable sources