How long did this take u?

[Richard Burley]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vKA4w2O61Xo" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" frameborder="0" loading="lazy" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Growley]

I guessed it at the 2:00 mark. I won't say why I got it, so others can enjoy too.

 

[APKurt]

I got it when the single guy with the hat gave three single-digit numbers at about the two minute mark as well.   

 

[Stick]

1:14...  :cheers: 

 

[Briar Spirit]

1:06

 

[MichaelM]

Got it about 1:40. I think the guy with the microphone stacked the deck.

 

[BigCasino]

2:33, definitely an over thinker here

 

[Ocelot55]

I figured it out just shy of the 2 min mark.

The thing is, this chap is absolutely right about the wider thought process. In fact, in academia this is a huge problem. Several years ago academic journals published a fairly large proportion of papers where the researcher actually disproved their hypothesis. These days professors and other researchers are under a lot of pressure to produce results, and many times those in authority don't see negative results as real progress. This has led many researchers to deliberately skew the results to fit their hypothesis or only select data that will confirm it. So, while we are publishing more articles than ever in the academic world, breakthroughs have become very rare.

Just some food for thought...

 

[DrT999]

guessed right at 1:11; slightly surpised I was right

 

[Richard Burley]

Never did get it.    

Just kidding.  I suspected the answer earlier, but didn't actually know until about the 2:30 mark.

Anyhow, using this methodology and its inferences, does this mean that Dunhills might not be the best pipe made, ever, ever, ever?

(Sorry. Just spent the afternoon drinking craft IPAs.)

 

[MichaelM]

I figured it out just shy of the 2 min mark.

The thing is, this chap is absolutely right about the wider thought process. In fact, in academia this is a huge problem. Several years ago academic journals published a fairly large proportion of papers where the researcher actually disproved their hypothesis. These days professors and other researchers are under a lot of pressure to produce results, and many times those in authority don't see negative results as real progress. This has led many researchers to deliberately skew the results to fit their hypothesis or only select data that will confirm it. So, while we are publishing more articles than ever in the academic world, breakthroughs have become very rare.

Just some food for thought...

I don't mean to derail this thread, but I've got to jump in here and say I couldn't agree more. I'm in applied research where we have to rely on the academic world to provide the basic breakthroughs. Those breakthroughs have been all but absent in recent years with academic research focusing on the same old ideas that are understood by the funding agencies. I would happily go on about replication and lack of statistics in training programs, but I think I'll put my soapbox away and smoke some Maltese Falcon instead.
Mike.