Imagine you begin a journey in Seattle WA, facing exactly due east. Then start traveling forward, in a straight line along the Earth's surface.
You will travel across North America, and onto the Atlantic Ocean. Eventually, you will hit another country.
What is the first country you hit?
⚠️ Answer below — last chance to make your own guess ⚠️
After pointing due east, and traveling continually forward in a straight line across the Earth's surface, the next country you hit after you leave North America is...
Australia.
Here's the path you travel.
Ok, what's going on here?
Forget about the Earth for a second, and just imagine you're standing on a big sphere.
Point in any direction, and begin walking forward along the surface of the sphere, without changing direction.
You'll loop round and return to where you started.
Notice, just intuitively, how you'll have walked the full circumference of the sphere: a 'great circle'.
In order to trace out a smaller circle than that, you'd need to be constantly veering left or right.
In the original puzzle, you might have been imagining traveling a line of constant latitude — that is, *always* heading east.
But that is not a great circle, and so not a straight line: you'd need to be constantly turning left to maintain that path.
(To give an extreme example: imagine driving in a 10 meter radius around the North Pole. In order to always be traveling east — maintaining the same latitude — you'd need to be steering left the whole time)
Here's a better perspective: looking at Seattle centered on a globe, any straight line from Seattle will look like a straight line to you.
So with north pointing directly up, the path you take is a straight line directly to the right.
Being a great circle, exactly half of the path you travel is in the Northern Hemisphere, and half in the Southern Hemisphere. It swoops under Africa to arrive at Australia somewhere near Perth.
I think part of the trickiness here is that straight lines on the Earth are not straight lines on most 2D projections of the Earth (maps), and vice-versa.
Which is why the shortest flight path between two cities often looks unnecessarily curved on a map.
There are some exceptions: any straight line on a 'gnomonic projection' (pictured) is an arc of a great circle (straight line) on a sphere.
But how natural to think a straight line on a more familiar map is a straight line on the surface of the Earth!
To be pedantic, by 'straight line' here I really mean 'geodesic' — the generalisation of 'straight line' for curved surfaces. but I think it's obvious enough.
If you're placed on a surface and continually walk "forward", by definition you will trace out a geodesic.
Anyway, I hope that's clear!
I first saw this puzzle on Marc Ordower's excellent TikTok page, of all places.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A memorably insane detail from 'The Doomsday Machine' by the late Daniel Ellsberg:
In 1960, the US Air Force would sometimes task the RAND Corporation with assessing new technical proposals. One memo titled "Project Retro" fell to Ellsberg to assess.
The scheme, which had already passed through multiple agencies without being discarded, was prompted by the worry that a surprise Soviet attack with ICBMs could incapacitate US land-based missiles before they could retaliate.
Ellsberg: "[it] proposed in some detail to assemble a huge rectangular array of one thousand first-stage Atlas engines—our largest rocket[s]—to be fastened securely to the earth in a horizontal position, facing in a direction opposite to the rotation of the earth...
Some gradients between two colours look good, others suck. It's easy to tell the difference, but what *is* that difference?
I think @JoshWComeau has figured it out! Here's the thought: gradients trace a line between two points in colour space, but there's more than one way to represent colours in a (typically 3D) space.
One way to pick out a colour is by specifying how much red, green, and blue it contains. These are RGB colour spaces.
Second pic is my phone screen under a microscope, which uses this idea of adding together R, G, and B
You start with a sample space S, and a prior about the likelihood of H. You can think of learning new evidence like placing a smaller frame somewhere inside of S.
The dots ":" are there because if you write in the areas of the left and right sides, you get the fractional odds. In this example we go from about 2:1 to about 1:3 (from the bigger to the smaller rectangle)
Areas stand for probabilities: you thought that H was less likely than not before you placed the smaller frame, and now it looks more likely.
Should settling Mars be a current priority for longtermists? I think no, not by a long shot! (Let’s instead focus on preventing pandemics, decarbonising, making sure AGI doesn’t go terribly...)
Here’s why:
The most compelling argument for travelling to Mars soon is that it’s a hedge against extinction on Earth. Launching some of our eggs into a different basket.
I agree that preventing anything as irreversible as extinction is hugely important!
But on these grounds the Mars strategy looks far less promising than other potential priorities: it’ll likely be hugely expensive for the risk it could reasonably hedge against, and (as far as I can tell) it probably wouldn’t protect against the most concerning risks.