It is a torture device for the modern age. The wheel is spun five times. Each spin selects a myth for them to test and then evaluate which myth is busted. It is time to spin the wheel of misfortu- eh, I mean the wheel of Mythfortune.
They added a parameter that wasn't part of the myth. That was the issue. No one said it inflated the tire forever, nor did they say the maintenance was finished after the seating. You still have to put air in it afterward, which is easily done with a regular manual pump (which all drivers should keep one in their trunk anyway!), so... Yeah.
With the tyre inflation myth, I have seen many people who use this also have an air line hooked up to the tyre before they light it, so once it reseats they can fill it before it cools and makes a vacuum
Definitely some misunderstanding about the purpose of the trick, it was only ever about seating the tyre, which is the hardest part, particularly if you're roadside without a very hefty compressor. Once that's done you can inflate it with as little as a hand pump.
@@Jammanzilla98 You beat me to this, because I was about to say something about that. It doesn't seem that the person doing it in the video is claiming the tire is properly inflated, but that the sudden influx of pressure FORCES it to seat. A moment to let it cool and a handpump (which most drivers really should keep a small one in the trunk anyway), would make this a viable solution.
@@Jammanzilla98 Yeah they misunderstood the why. I would not expect anything else from them :) It's like watching grown children play with fire, guns and explosives.
Yup. The boom juice is just to seat the bead so it will take air. It may be OSHA wrong, but I've done it many times with high profile tires that defied hand manipulation and with anemic compressors at hand.
@@Jammanzilla98Exactly. And they did precisely the same mistake with the grenade myth. The soldier only asked if it would be better to lie down, not whether he´d walk away unharmed. To me, that´s a no-brainer - obviously you wouldn´t lie down besides the grenade or facing it, you´d run or jump away, then lie down. If they made an upright human target, and one of two footsoles, they could count the amount of shrapnel that hit each one.
The loaded car was always gonna work. Even if the load causes some unsafe handling conditions, the way the suspension is designed makes it so it bottoms out without the tire touching the wheel well. There is a physical piece of metal supporting the suspension, keeping it well above the tire, you could never overload a car to the point of the tire being jammed into the wheel well.
The tire bead seating myth was confirmed. The reason they had the fire was because they used way... WAY too much fuel, way too much. I've done this in the bush in situations where a bead was knocked off a rim to reseat the bead and it worked great, then you use a pump to inflate the tire. I still enjoyed the show!
On the monty hall one it was enough to look at the winning pattern of the first test. I expect only a third of the contestant won. That means that if they DID switch they would have won two third of the time
The key point is: The moderator knows where the prize is - and therefore opens an empty door. If it wouldn't be for this very fact - staying or switching wouldn't make any difference.
@@stanislavczebinski994 Another key point is the assumption that the moderator is playing the game honestly, and not a dishonest game of "switcheroo". Suposedly, in the end it is a choice of two doors, therefore, if it is an honest game, the odds must be 50/50.
@@RICHARD-mn3nd Nope, that's the intuition, but look at it from the perspective of the host after the candidate has picked a door. To make it even more intuitive, make it 99 losing doors and still only 1 winning door. If the candidate should have picked the right door (1% chance), you can pick whatever door you want to leave closed since they're all empty. So by switching, the candidate will lose - but only in this 1% of all cases. But if the candidate has picked one of the losing doors (99% chance), you now have _no_ choice in which door to leave closed - the winning door. So if the candidate switches, they'll win - in the 99% of cases where they picked a wrong door at the start.
It was excellent to see the paradox laid out like that. The gangsta stance was done incorrectly since they used the sights. In the movies, the shooter always has the gin lower, and is looking at the "target", being completely indifferent to the gun.
We trained one arm on the 1911ACP and other hand guns. No body armor in those days and presenting the whole torso squared on was not a good idea. High marksmanship was achieved. I could reliably put 8 in the Bulls eye. The Colt 45 is heavy but in that pose with recoil and relaxed fire rate, deadly accurate.
The issue with their test parameters is that they're looking to dump the full mag at 15 feet quickly, which causes issues. I've seen guys go akimbo (two guns for those who don't know) and get tight groupings in a silhouette. All about drilling and breaking the technique down.
That's kinda weird cause the 1911 was intended to be used with 2 handed shooting which was unusual as one handed shooting was the norm at the time. Many at the time were dismissive of the 1911 ACP because it was too heavy and had too much recoil for effective one handed shooting.
@@AdeptusCaeiusIII The main problem is they were comparing it to a shooting style they were trained in vs ones they are trying for the first time, it's like a sketch artist picking up a paintbrush for the first time and saying that painting is busted because they couldn't paint a good picture. they needed to practice with the other styles or gotten complete novices in all styles to see how effective they are
@@lesvernornvienas8232 So you haven't truly disproven my statement. Merely presented an alternative outlook with the hopes it produced the same results. The outlook is the same. Whether you are looking at a NOVICE usage of one vs another or looking at DRILLING one vs another, the question remains the same: Is drilling one method vs another better? Is one NOVICE usage of one vs another better? Either way, a truly objective test has not been done. Delta mandate learning to fire without aiming (a method I have named 'intuitive aim') to enter the operations group (my point). They did not test absolute novices on the differences between the stance types (your point). My original point stands. This test proves almost nothing, other than what drilling stance types provides to accuracy. They have learned the Weaver, and thus have been taught that Weaver is best, and therefore created testing parameters that mandated that they use what they have drilled to get best results. Most special operations groups learn particular stances for 'best results', but my argument is that VERY RARELY does drilling only one shooting stance provide good results. I do appreciate you providing your own input. Never give up on learning and seeking knowledge.
I know that the body target was what things were scored off, but you can see a LOT of head hits on some of the poses that did badly on the body target. And head shots are generally "disabling" shots in a real gunfight. This may mean some of the 'losing' poses are more lethal than they seem.
I do find it interesting that the ganster style did worse than shooting from the hip. You can at least see the gun so you should have a rough idea of where you are aiming.
Having never fired a gun in my life, I immediately guessed it would be the worse. When you fire a handgun normally, your arm is line with the direction of the gun's recoil, meaning you can counter-act the recoil with the entire strength of your arm. When you tilt it sideways, the forces are now moving in a direction where the only thing you can use to counteract the recoil is your wrist, which isn't very strong.
@@jordanberndt4157 That affects the time to shoot all of them, not accuracy. The original poster talked about the accuracy, which logically speaking, should be higher than a hip-shot. The problem here is that there is a fixed correlation between the sight and the path of the bullet due to gravity. They shot as if the sight was up top, while it was on the side. It's like shooting with a sight that shows totally different spot. The weavers hold is most certainly the most stable and accurate, but the problem with this testing is that...they were actually trained in it, which they admitted themselves. They tried to shoot in accordance with the rules of shooting with it even when they didn't use it. They also did much better with it for obvious reason. They were on the other hand total rookies with all the others, so they should have compared it to a total rookie weaver-shooting. THAT is what a point of reference means. Where only the factor tested is the difference. As proof, there are quick-shot tournaments where people shoot more accurately than either Adam or Jamie, faster than them, from hip, all the while adding pulling out the gun from the holster into the mix.
@@MrMarinus18…even with rookies like Adam & Jamie, I might add. I’m positive I could hit maybe 1 shot out of 8 on gangster & straight arm, while with Weaver, I could hit 7-8 out of 8. I have shot only BB gun in the near past, real guns has been a while, BUT in both cases it was the 1911, and I am quite the marksman when it comes to shooting beer cans with BB-1911. 😂 I mean, I can hit them very reliably at 5 meters… what is that, 10 feet? (That’s actually due to space constraints at the place I tend to use that BB gun, so…)
@@MrMarinus18 Slightly worse. It's also the one most similar to the weavers stance. It just has a little bit less stability, so it's no surprise it's close. Its mechanics of shooting are pretty much identical.
The flame is NOT intended to INFLATE the tire especially an old tire with a hole. Only use that trick to seat a TUBELESS type tire (Only) to the rim... Don't use too much accelerant. And make sure to check the tire pressure before installing it back...😊😊😊
The simplest explanation for the Monty Hall Problem (not Paradox, because it isn't) is Jamie's first suggestion of using cards. Of course, it wouldn't be nearly as much fun. Take 99 sets of Ace, King, Queen. Ace wins, King and Queen lose. Randomize each set so it's a true test. Pick one card from each set, and before you turn it over, ask your test subject how many of the choices are going to be winners. Anyone with even the most basic understanding of probability will say 1/3, or 33. Set those cards aside, and ask how many winners there are likely to be among the unchosen cards. Answer is 66, of course. Flip over one non-winner from each set of two unchosen cards, then remind the person that they already know there are probably 33 winners in the chosen cards, so there are probably 66 winners among the unchosen, unflipped cards. Now do they want to switch? My problem with the gun test is that they are comparing their scores in a method they've both trained in against methods they've never used before. It would be like a basketball player shooting free throws the way he always has and then trying the Rick Barry-style underhand technique without ever having practiced it and concluding it doesn't work.
Also, was anyone surprised that Jamie's spin didn't even go all the way around once (as far as I could tell), as if he didn't care and just wanted to get on with it; and Adam's spin had considerably more oomph?
Make it worse in the stance test: They tested with TIME as a variable. Time is never a variable. You cannot miss fast enough to win a gunfight or shooting match. If the doubled ammunition was an issue for scoring, cut each Akimbo (double guns) score in half, then average Adam and Jamie. Then, you take your time on each shot and you see that (with all shots allowed the time to make the shot) you disincentivize haphazard shooting for measured shots, and all the stances (but for the hip shot) would have scored marginally well. After that, it is all drilling and depth perception. I know guys who can put 20 rounds in Zone A(the center) of a silhouette at 15 feet. 20/20.
@@MrMarinus18 A paradox has to be logically insupportable. "Less is more" is a paradox. "I travelled back in time and killed my grandfather but then I wasn't born so I couldn't go back in time to kill my grandfather but then my grandfather survived so I was born so I went back in time..." is a paradox. "I didn't understand how numbers work quite as well as I thought I did"* is not a paradox. Puzzle, conundrum, stumper, mathletics... but not a paradox. * I'm not taking a cheap shot at anyone - the first time I heard about it, I thought it was 50-50, too.
For the Monty Hall Problem, there's a pretty easy way to make it very intuitive: For one, make it 100 (or 1000 or so) doors with only one "winner" door. Second, look at it from the perspective of the host, about which door(s) he can open. There's two scenarios: (1) The candidate has actually picked the right door (1% chance in case of 100 doors). The host can pick any of the other 99 doors to leave closed and open all others. So if the candidate switches, they'll lose - but the chance of being in this situation is that 1%. (2) The candidate has picked a "losing" door (99% chance). Now the host has only *_one_* door he can leave closed and must open all others. No choice whatsoever, the one remaining closed door is the winning door. And the chance of being in this situation is that 99%. So, by switching, the candidate would lose only in 1 out of 100 cases, win in all 99 other cases.
I have a big problem with that tire myth. First of all it’s mostly used for tires that are rather difficult to seat the bead. Mechanics almost always have compressed air on hand so this trick is meant to seat the bead and then you quickly put the air chuck on and fill it up
Adam and Jamies hip shooting test needs further testing. I believe this style is for really close quarters shooting where the target is in the range of 3 to 6 feet at the most. Their test was done static standing at a distance of about 15 feet apart. And the 3 young peoples tire inflating test had some issues. Firstly, too much starter fluid was used especially on the first attempt. Secondly the area where they were testing was windy and the starter fluid did not spread evenly around the rim of the tire. Thirdly, the tires they were using seemed rather crumbly and old. A reasonably decent tire should have been used. However, I do enjoy the myth busting series thoroughly...
Bob Munden proved that its possible to train hand to eye coordination so you dont have to line up the eyes with the sight.. Bob Munden was able to hit as accurately from the hip as with two hands. I saw a video where Bob Munden shot a revolver from the hip making two shots against two balloons. He was able to shoot accurately and so fast that the two shots sounded like one shot.
For sure, but there is an enormous difference between what a top level professional shooter can do and what a normal shooter can do, and anyway the test was on the difference in performance between styles, Munden himself could surely make a better score on a target using a good technique than shooting from the hip.
As a firearms instructor for over 40 yrs., Yu can shoot from the hip, however you lock your wrist to your hip using that brace an shoot(with practice Yu can bullseye every time) movie shooting is in another world
Makes perfect sense that the straight-arm stance works; it's exactly how they did it back in the day before anyone was particularly worried about an optimal position.
In the first game show test, since everyone stuck with their choice, you could have looked at if there was a 50/50 distribution of wins and losses. That would have told you something at least.
The Monty Hall Paradox is actually very simple if you think about it. You know whichever door Monty opens will have nothing behind it, leaving you with what seems like 50/50 odds, but it's not, because that third door still applies. Regardless of the number on the door, from the start of the game, your choices boil down to: [$] - you stick, you win; you switch, you lose. [0] - you stick, you lose; you switch, you win. [0] - you stick, you lose; you switch, you win. Ergo, because there's 1/3 chance to win and 2/3 to lose, switching also swaps those odds to a 2/3 chance to win and 1/3 to lose.
The grenade myth was intriguing to me. On first thought you would imagine the shrapnel would fly out in a sphere. The grenade is round, the explosive inside is pushing the casing apart equally on all sides, so when it explodes it will be pushing some into the ground, and some into the air so there should be no safe zone logically.
The grenade test, in my opinion, was too close, just diving away from the grenade would make you much further and on a real scenario the ground could have rocks and dips, so IT IS SAFER to lay down and you could not even get hit. They could have tested a little further than that in my opinion.
it's easier to understand if you think of it like this: instead of 3 doors there are 100 doors. And after you choose one door the host opens up 98 empty doors so there is just your door and one more left. What is more likely, that you happened to chose the correct door or that the other one is the corrct one?
Interesting thing that is worth examining... It regards the single-answer tests (you choose one correct from a,b,c,d). If you don't know the answer for sure (just suspect which one is actually correct) is it better to stick to your first guess or changing it after second thought? I remember one of my teachers saying that "the first guess is the best". What I noticed in my case was that changing the already marked answer rarely paid off.
the thing about hitting the deck to dodge shrapnel is more to do with body surface area + if you know where it landed you can turn and put your feet nearest it, therefore creating an barrier from your feet all the way to your vital organs when on the floor. If you are standing you don't have anything protecting your chest and head :)
I think the Monty Hall paradox is just a layperson's paradox. It is not a paradox for one trained in statistics, it is merely a matter of understanding the changing odds once one unsuccessful door has been opened. 100% of the time. The door that gets open first will be empty. Obviously the designers of the let's make a deal game new the statistics. They didn't have to test it out. They just calculated it.
ok the fire and tire thing works. ive done it to a car tire and a motorbike tire using nothing but body spra and a lighter, yes i got burnt arm hair from it at the time xd
24:00 the myth isn't actually confirmed. The myth is that it can be done without damage to the car, and that should include the tires. If you unload it and then take it up to highway speeds, you'll find the tires are damaged, vibrating a lot due to separation of the reinforcing wires inside them.
It ..absolutely does? 1 ticket with 5 numbers (For simplicity sake, let's say any 5 EVEN ones) and 1 ticket with 5 numbers (Again, let's say this one is all ODDS so there is no overlap) *doubles* your changes to win...in theory. You're covering more numbers. The horrific catch is that you don't just need to "cover" those numbers, but the amount of combinations. If you have 100 numbers to pick from, that means 100*100*100*100*100 chance to get it right, or one in TEN BILLION. With 2 tickets covering different letters, I think you have a one in FIVE BILLION chance to win. Plainly speaking, you'd need to get a massive amount of tickets, and overlapping numbers might be better. It's mind-bogglingly massive. But no, more tickets absolutely means a better chance of winning.
Would lying down from a grenade outside of 5 feet with your feet towards the grenade not mean that the fragments will hit your feet/legs instead of your chest or head, thus saving your life?
The problem with how they tested the Monty Hall Paradox is that, the goal is to check is the player has a better chance of winning when he switches door, but Adam and Jaime would often choose different initial door, readding the luck element back in the test. That variable should be removed as much as possible, so what they should have done is selected the same door every time and look at the result of switching vs not switching from there.
But you can just look at the graph behind them to know when a switch or stick would earn a win or not. Just see on Jaime's side all the blank squares. Had he chosen to switch, he would've won. Same with Adam, all the blank sqaures on his side would've earned him a win if he chose to stick. What they did just halved the time it took them to record that experiment.
You slightly miss the point of my comment, my point is that the chart behind them show that Adam(switching)'s action were more likely to win, but the goal was to test if switching is better than not switching, if both of them are given the exact same case (where the win is) and each of them choose the same door, in the case which one is more likely to win? Would the charts be in a similar state? I just feel like they left in too much a Luck variable in their testing.@@Condorian_
@illnoon it doesn't matter which door is chosen though. Since the win door is random, it doesn't make sense to keep choosing the same door because it is still 1/3 of a chance to get it right regardless. It's like playing the lottery. It doesn't matter if you choose 1-2-3-4-5-6 as your numbers or 13-21-32-34-49-54. It's still the same chance to win. The paradox and the experiment are based around chances, and you can't take it away from it. Choosing the same door or not wouldn't change anything.
Regarding the grenade myth: Soldiers usually wear helmets. They won't stop a rifle bullet - but they got quite a chance to stop a grenade fragment. Obviously, it would still suck to have fragments in your arms or shoulders - but that's significantly less lethal. There is also a difference in grenade design: There are offensive and defensive hand grenades. Defensive grenades have more splintering effect - they are designed to be used out of some sort of defensive structure. The US baseball grenade is one of those. Offensive grenades have less splintering effect - they are used to clear defensive structures out of the open. ruzzian hand grenades are of this type.
Bear in mind they also chose to test as close to the blast as they could while removing the shock from the equation. Five feet is not enough space for the blast to propagate upward in the wave form it innately follows. They even mentioned 'yes, the shrapnel is moving upward, but not enough'. Put the targets at 10-15 feet and see how much safer hitting the deck would be. Would probably be even less shrapnel. Not a direct reduction, but probably a Log function.
I wonder, if you add Dry ice first inside the tire before doing the inflating trick. Since It will turn to CO2 as it vaporize. It might counter act the vaccum. Idk. But the mythbusters are not busting myths anymore. So I guess this will stay in my curious mind
I want to see the same handgrenade test, made on concrete! In dirt or soil, the blast will create a crater that shoots the shrapnel upwards. And on concrete, the shrapnel will be A LOT less!! 1 more test while i´m on it. Use Ballistic gel, not boards. How many of those shrapnels is lethal?
They haven't tried what the guy from Soul Eater does, holding guns upside down and pulling triggers with his pinkies (both hands). I wonder if this episode came before soul eater though.
The tyre inflation is used in Iceland a lot the temp their when used is well below 0°c and it was also used in British top gear when they drive to the North pole!
Using Ether was the only way to seat my 44" bias super swampers. No bodys machine could do it. You still have to inflate it up it was the only way to seat it onto the rim
The one arm straight out technique (aka "the Dueling Stance") has the advantage of minimising your profile, meaning that if you don't have any body armor then it might actually be the better option in a firefight. Edit: Also, I imagine that holding the gun with only one hand would improve your mobility and agility over holding it with both.
The stick or switch thing seems like blind luck, or misunderstood\manipulated data. You ALWAYS have 3 choices in the example given. So you ALWAYS have a 33% chance to pick correctly. Without knowing the answer, those 33% odds come out fairly. If you had weird historical data like "Oh, of a sample size of 200 door openings, the left most door was 7.1% more frequent" to adjust for stuff (Which might and likely won't do you any good) we are talking about nothing but mathwank. 33% is 33%. You take away one door, congrats. 2 choices means 50% to succeed and 50% to fail. It's still a literal, actual coin flip. Except a coin flip you can eventually pseudo-rig to work in your favor by flipping a certain way, in certain conditions, etc. PURE LUCK does not get this treatment.
the door test for the masin guys jaimies set didnt evne have a prize thingy for most of em, you see he flips his door then the last remaining door and nothign is behind any of em
the point of hitting the deck when a grenade hits is not to not get hit but too use ur own feet as cover. better to not walk anymore than to not live anymore
Single arm streched out is why so many older movies use it while not as good as the modern two hand hold it still works and looks beliveable, Gangster and criss cross Umm who ever thought those must high. Inflating tire with lighter fluid yer someone was smoking on that one, Grenade is why you duck behind a wall if one is there otherwise yer your out of luck.
There are people who shoot cross-arm Akimbo(which they called 'Criss-Cross') and do fine. Akimbo(2-gun shooting) is a viable technique, but they were untrained in doing it appropriately and were calculating for time, which necessitates dumping rounds downrange instead of trying to actually be accurate. There are Special Operations groups that actually train in 'intuitive shooting' (no-aim, as Delta calls it) and Akimbo shooting techniques, because they DO work in some situations. Are they perfect? No. But they have their uses.
Gangster style is the position naturally assumed when you raise your arm; the palm is pronated. This isn't going to change if you're holding a pistol. And I don't know how they are holding their weapon that they cannot use the sights. The reason people 'naturally' fire a pistol upright is because historically that's the only practical orientation for a rifle, and (usually) for a longbow.
So, they test those shooting styles for the first time and compare it to the one they received training and have extensive experience in and then say "nope, not as effective in this one specific scenario at which our style excels"? Ok, granted, I'm like 73% convinced Jamie would be an immediate master at literally anything, but this seems still very questionable..
@14:00 really? That's nonsense. Switching has a perfect relationship to sticking in that it perfectly inverts the outcome. Either way, it's easier to see how the 'paradox' works if you move to extremes. Suppose there are 1 million doors. They pick one. The host opens every other door except one more, intentionally revealing only loosing doors. Your original chance is 1 in 1 million. The chance of every remaining door combined just got concentrated into that single other door.
😂 One time I had twenty sheets of 3/8 o s b plywood on the top of a 87 dodge colt. I was lucky. I left the windows down, because there was so much weight on top of the roof you couldn't open the doors l o l and then I drove 40km to home
If grenade is lethal within 5ft, how do a few soldier survive diving on a grenade? On the gameshow part, what about more than 3 boxes? Say 10 boxes and you are allowed to switch 5x.
You need to cite a primary source for that claim. Look at the pattern of those two blasts. If your abdomen is covering the grenade, _all_ that detonation wave and all of the shrapnel is going to be intercepted by your body. Guts, heart, and lungs --> hamburger and stewing beef.
Stupidity, lack of organisation, rushing and recklessness would all have played their parts. You may aswell ask, why wouldn't he borrow or rent a trailer/van if he needs to get so much material. You would hope that someone so stupid wouldn't be the one doing the construction, and that in all likelihood he's a total cheapskate who wants to get all the materials himself so that the builder can't rip him off.
if you could escape a grenade by lying on the floor, the army would discontinue its usage, beside grenades are room clearing devices, they are not meat to kill .... they are far more effective toold to kill then grenades ....
Grenade drill is running 5/7m amd then hitting the deck. Does not guarantee no shrapnel hitting you...but definitely reduce thos chances massively Not dropping nxt to a grenade. Thats just stupid
I wonder if there would be million doors would people still stick to their original choice? Pick one door from 1-1000000. I choose the door 6045. After that 999998 losing doors are opened. Now there will be two doors left one has the price money the door 6045 that you choose and door 511859 will you switch the door or not.
They did that with the Audi A(6?) in another episode where they tested if two cars stuck together nose to nose could be able to drive and steer. I think it's about avoiding an unintentional product placement without permission, which could result in a lawsuit.
There's nothing confusing about Monty's paradox, it's about groups not doors. Once you've chosen a door you have two groups, the group of doors you didn't choose (2 doors) and the group of doors you did choose (1 door), so which group is moire likely to contain the prize? The group with 2 doors has a 66% chance of containing the prize, so switching doubles your chances of winning. Proof that Bay area democrats are really really dumb.
With the gun stance myth, of course the gun stance they trained in is the most effective. All the other stances they haven't trained in or used before, so all you can conclusively say is "the other stances mostly sucked if you were trying them for the first time." How effective would they be if you trained to use them and then compared them? No idea because they didn't test that. Nor did they get an expert marksman to try them out and evaluate them, which would have been far more informative.
🎉 you need to get a pro with revolver that is use to shooting from the hip because they are shooting at🎉 target from the😮 drawing position and they have to hit the target for it to count because the mith is that it's a practiced gun🎉
The game they're playing with their volunteers isn't the Monty Hall problem, in order for Monty Hall logic to apply, the contestant needs to know the game rules before the game starts. The way they did it, the volunteers had no reason to switch doors.
It is a torture device for the modern age. The wheel is spun five times. Each spin selects a myth for them to test and then evaluate which myth is busted. It is time to spin the wheel of misfortu- eh, I mean the wheel of Mythfortune.
33:47 "Jamie's been shooting from the hip for years" 🤣
The tire flame trick is only meant to seat the tire on the rim, its not meant to inflate it as well, nothing is busted, its confirmed!
💯
100% busted
This has been proven years ago with an Arctic expedition . This is how they had to re-seat their dislodge tires .
They added a parameter that wasn't part of the myth. That was the issue. No one said it inflated the tire forever, nor did they say the maintenance was finished after the seating. You still have to put air in it afterward, which is easily done with a regular manual pump (which all drivers should keep one in their trunk anyway!), so... Yeah.
Yeah, they should try to inflate it without seating it first, and see how long that would take them...
With the tyre inflation myth, I have seen many people who use this also have an air line hooked up to the tyre before they light it, so once it reseats they can fill it before it cools and makes a vacuum
Definitely some misunderstanding about the purpose of the trick, it was only ever about seating the tyre, which is the hardest part, particularly if you're roadside without a very hefty compressor. Once that's done you can inflate it with as little as a hand pump.
@@Jammanzilla98 You beat me to this, because I was about to say something about that. It doesn't seem that the person doing it in the video is claiming the tire is properly inflated, but that the sudden influx of pressure FORCES it to seat. A moment to let it cool and a handpump (which most drivers really should keep a small one in the trunk anyway), would make this a viable solution.
@@Jammanzilla98 Yeah they misunderstood the why. I would not expect anything else from them :) It's like watching grown children play with fire, guns and explosives.
Yup. The boom juice is just to seat the bead so it will take air. It may be OSHA wrong, but I've done it many times with high profile tires that defied hand manipulation and with anemic compressors at hand.
@@Jammanzilla98Exactly. And they did precisely the same mistake with the grenade myth. The soldier only asked if it would be better to lie down, not whether he´d walk away unharmed. To me, that´s a no-brainer - obviously you wouldn´t lie down besides the grenade or facing it, you´d run or jump away, then lie down. If they made an upright human target, and one of two footsoles, they could count the amount of shrapnel that hit each one.
The loaded car was always gonna work. Even if the load causes some unsafe handling conditions, the way the suspension is designed makes it so it bottoms out without the tire touching the wheel well. There is a physical piece of metal supporting the suspension, keeping it well above the tire, you could never overload a car to the point of the tire being jammed into the wheel well.
There is a rubber block to prevent any metal on metal contact when the spring is fully compressed.
Unless a suspension involved part breaks.
The tire bead seating myth was confirmed.
The reason they had the fire was because they used way... WAY too much fuel, way too much.
I've done this in the bush in situations where a bead was knocked off a rim to reseat the bead and it worked great, then you use a pump to inflate the tire.
I still enjoyed the show!
Ah, right on time for the evening. I'll pop a beer watching this when the kids go to sleep. Cheers to all the other dads and moms!
Hot as the devils nethers here, so I'm going for a cornetto. Enjoy your beer!
Must better than watching, The farmer wants to marry his mother on first sight on a paradise island 🏝️
Surely, this masterpiece of culture should be watched with the kids?!
I've always said that Mythbusters should be required for all kids -to foster a love of science and creating....and having a good laugh!
This AI learning is starting to get a little creepy
33:51
jamie: safety's off
some joker in the background: BÄÄÄÄM
safety dude: *jumps*
I love how Adam uses every opportunity to dress up
On the monty hall one it was enough to look at the winning pattern of the first test. I expect only a third of the contestant won. That means that if they DID switch they would have won two third of the time
The key point is: The moderator knows where the prize is - and therefore opens an empty door.
If it wouldn't be for this very fact - staying or switching wouldn't make any difference.
@@stanislavczebinski994 well providing they open a door i'm switching from now on lol.
@@stanislavczebinski994 Another key point is the assumption that the moderator is playing the game honestly, and not a dishonest game of "switcheroo". Suposedly, in the end it is a choice of two doors, therefore, if it is an honest game, the odds must be 50/50.
@@RICHARD-mn3nd That is incorrect. This is purely statistics and there is no trick. Switching has a 2/3 chance of winning.
@@RICHARD-mn3nd Nope, that's the intuition, but look at it from the perspective of the host after the candidate has picked a door. To make it even more intuitive, make it 99 losing doors and still only 1 winning door.
If the candidate should have picked the right door (1% chance), you can pick whatever door you want to leave closed since they're all empty. So by switching, the candidate will lose - but only in this 1% of all cases.
But if the candidate has picked one of the losing doors (99% chance), you now have _no_ choice in which door to leave closed - the winning door. So if the candidate switches, they'll win - in the 99% of cases where they picked a wrong door at the start.
Amazing episode. What a great time that was for cable TV
It was excellent to see the paradox laid out like that.
The gangsta stance was done incorrectly since they used the sights. In the movies, the shooter always has the gin lower, and is looking at the "target", being completely indifferent to the gun.
We trained one arm on the 1911ACP and other hand guns. No body armor in those days and presenting the whole torso squared on was not a good idea. High marksmanship was achieved. I could reliably put 8 in the Bulls eye. The Colt 45 is heavy but in that pose with recoil and relaxed fire rate, deadly accurate.
The issue with their test parameters is that they're looking to dump the full mag at 15 feet quickly, which causes issues. I've seen guys go akimbo (two guns for those who don't know) and get tight groupings in a silhouette. All about drilling and breaking the technique down.
That's kinda weird cause the 1911 was intended to be used with 2 handed shooting which was unusual as one handed shooting was the norm at the time. Many at the time were dismissive of the 1911 ACP because it was too heavy and had too much recoil for effective one handed shooting.
@@AdeptusCaeiusIII The main problem is they were comparing it to a shooting style they were trained in vs ones they are trying for the first time, it's like a sketch artist picking up a paintbrush for the first time and saying that painting is busted because they couldn't paint a good picture. they needed to practice with the other styles or gotten complete novices in all styles to see how effective they are
@@lesvernornvienas8232 So you haven't truly disproven my statement. Merely presented an alternative outlook with the hopes it produced the same results. The outlook is the same. Whether you are looking at a NOVICE usage of one vs another or looking at DRILLING one vs another, the question remains the same: Is drilling one method vs another better? Is one NOVICE usage of one vs another better? Either way, a truly objective test has not been done. Delta mandate learning to fire without aiming (a method I have named 'intuitive aim') to enter the operations group (my point). They did not test absolute novices on the differences between the stance types (your point). My original point stands.
This test proves almost nothing, other than what drilling stance types provides to accuracy. They have learned the Weaver, and thus have been taught that Weaver is best, and therefore created testing parameters that mandated that they use what they have drilled to get best results. Most special operations groups learn particular stances for 'best results', but my argument is that VERY RARELY does drilling only one shooting stance provide good results.
I do appreciate you providing your own input. Never give up on learning and seeking knowledge.
I know that the body target was what things were scored off, but you can see a LOT of head hits on some of the poses that did badly on the body target.
And head shots are generally "disabling" shots in a real gunfight. This may mean some of the 'losing' poses are more lethal than they seem.
In my Opinion, this is one of the best ones ever!
I do find it interesting that the ganster style did worse than shooting from the hip. You can at least see the gun so you should have a rough idea of where you are aiming.
Having never fired a gun in my life, I immediately guessed it would be the worse. When you fire a handgun normally, your arm is line with the direction of the gun's recoil, meaning you can counter-act the recoil with the entire strength of your arm. When you tilt it sideways, the forces are now moving in a direction where the only thing you can use to counteract the recoil is your wrist, which isn't very strong.
@@jordanberndt4157 That affects the time to shoot all of them, not accuracy. The original poster talked about the accuracy, which logically speaking, should be higher than a hip-shot.
The problem here is that there is a fixed correlation between the sight and the path of the bullet due to gravity. They shot as if the sight was up top, while it was on the side. It's like shooting with a sight that shows totally different spot.
The weavers hold is most certainly the most stable and accurate, but the problem with this testing is that...they were actually trained in it, which they admitted themselves. They tried to shoot in accordance with the rules of shooting with it even when they didn't use it. They also did much better with it for obvious reason. They were on the other hand total rookies with all the others, so they should have compared it to a total rookie weaver-shooting. THAT is what a point of reference means. Where only the factor tested is the difference.
As proof, there are quick-shot tournaments where people shoot more accurately than either Adam or Jamie, faster than them, from hip, all the while adding pulling out the gun from the holster into the mix.
@@kikixchannel The straight arm position scored about the same as the weaver stance.
@@MrMarinus18…even with rookies like Adam & Jamie, I might add. I’m positive I could hit maybe 1 shot out of 8 on gangster & straight arm, while with Weaver, I could hit 7-8 out of 8. I have shot only BB gun in the near past, real guns has been a while, BUT in both cases it was the 1911, and I am quite the marksman when it comes to shooting beer cans with BB-1911. 😂 I mean, I can hit them very reliably at 5 meters… what is that, 10 feet? (That’s actually due to space constraints at the place I tend to use that BB gun, so…)
@@MrMarinus18 Slightly worse. It's also the one most similar to the weavers stance. It just has a little bit less stability, so it's no surprise it's close. Its mechanics of shooting are pretty much identical.
The flame is NOT intended to INFLATE the tire especially an old tire with a hole.
Only use that trick to seat a TUBELESS type tire (Only) to the rim... Don't use too much accelerant.
And make sure to check the tire pressure before installing it back...😊😊😊
The simplest explanation for the Monty Hall Problem (not Paradox, because it isn't) is Jamie's first suggestion of using cards. Of course, it wouldn't be nearly as much fun.
Take 99 sets of Ace, King, Queen. Ace wins, King and Queen lose. Randomize each set so it's a true test. Pick one card from each set, and before you turn it over, ask your test subject how many of the choices are going to be winners. Anyone with even the most basic understanding of probability will say 1/3, or 33. Set those cards aside, and ask how many winners there are likely to be among the unchosen cards. Answer is 66, of course. Flip over one non-winner from each set of two unchosen cards, then remind the person that they already know there are probably 33 winners in the chosen cards, so there are probably 66 winners among the unchosen, unflipped cards. Now do they want to switch?
My problem with the gun test is that they are comparing their scores in a method they've both trained in against methods they've never used before. It would be like a basketball player shooting free throws the way he always has and then trying the Rick Barry-style underhand technique without ever having practiced it and concluding it doesn't work.
Also, was anyone surprised that Jamie's spin didn't even go all the way around once (as far as I could tell), as if he didn't care and just wanted to get on with it; and Adam's spin had considerably more oomph?
Make it worse in the stance test: They tested with TIME as a variable. Time is never a variable. You cannot miss fast enough to win a gunfight or shooting match. If the doubled ammunition was an issue for scoring, cut each Akimbo (double guns) score in half, then average Adam and Jamie. Then, you take your time on each shot and you see that (with all shots allowed the time to make the shot) you disincentivize haphazard shooting for measured shots, and all the stances (but for the hip shot) would have scored marginally well.
After that, it is all drilling and depth perception. I know guys who can put 20 rounds in Zone A(the center) of a silhouette at 15 feet. 20/20.
It is a paradox as it's extremely counter-intuitive.
@@MrMarinus18 A paradox has to be logically insupportable. "Less is more" is a paradox. "I travelled back in time and killed my grandfather but then I wasn't born so I couldn't go back in time to kill my grandfather but then my grandfather survived so I was born so I went back in time..." is a paradox. "I didn't understand how numbers work quite as well as I thought I did"* is not a paradox. Puzzle, conundrum, stumper, mathletics... but not a paradox.
* I'm not taking a cheap shot at anyone - the first time I heard about it, I thought it was 50-50, too.
For the Monty Hall Problem, there's a pretty easy way to make it very intuitive: For one, make it 100 (or 1000 or so) doors with only one "winner" door. Second, look at it from the perspective of the host, about which door(s) he can open.
There's two scenarios:
(1) The candidate has actually picked the right door (1% chance in case of 100 doors). The host can pick any of the other 99 doors to leave closed and open all others. So if the candidate switches, they'll lose - but the chance of being in this situation is that 1%.
(2) The candidate has picked a "losing" door (99% chance). Now the host has only *_one_* door he can leave closed and must open all others. No choice whatsoever, the one remaining closed door is the winning door. And the chance of being in this situation is that 99%.
So, by switching, the candidate would lose only in 1 out of 100 cases, win in all 99 other cases.
That's a VW Jetta, boet. Here in South Africa that would have been considered only half a load. heh
I have a big problem with that tire myth. First of all it’s mostly used for tires that are rather difficult to seat the bead. Mechanics almost always have compressed air on hand so this trick is meant to seat the bead and then you quickly put the air chuck on and fill it up
Adam and Jamies hip shooting test needs further testing. I believe this style is for really close quarters shooting where the target is in the range of 3 to 6 feet at the most. Their test was done static standing at a distance of about 15 feet apart. And the 3 young peoples tire inflating test had some issues. Firstly, too much starter fluid was used especially on the first attempt. Secondly the area where they were testing was windy and the starter fluid did not spread evenly around the rim of the tire. Thirdly, the tires they were using seemed rather crumbly and old. A reasonably decent tire should have been used. However, I do enjoy the myth busting series thoroughly...
Bob Munden proved that its possible to train hand to eye coordination so you dont have to line up the eyes with the sight.. Bob Munden was able to hit as accurately from the hip as with two hands. I saw a video where Bob Munden shot a revolver from the hip making two shots against two balloons. He was able to shoot accurately and so fast that the two shots sounded like one shot.
For sure, but there is an enormous difference between what a top level professional shooter can do and what a normal shooter can do, and anyway the test was on the difference in performance between styles, Munden himself could surely make a better score on a target using a good technique than shooting from the hip.
10:38 i always believed that the disc should point to the blast source
As a firearms instructor for over 40 yrs., Yu can shoot from the hip, however you lock your wrist to your hip using that brace an shoot(with practice Yu can bullseye every time) movie shooting is in another world
45:19 this hits different after Rust
Adam is made to host a game show with an over the top suit!
Makes perfect sense that the straight-arm stance works; it's exactly how they did it back in the day before anyone was particularly worried about an optimal position.
In the first game show test, since everyone stuck with their choice, you could have looked at if there was a 50/50 distribution of wins and losses. That would have told you something at least.
Yeah, I assumed they would have given that info.
Small sample size and utter reliance on a 50-50 choice wouldn't have made for good info anyway.
Burt Gummer on Mythbusters!!! Wow what a legend.
It's too bad John Wick wasn't out when this ep was made, it would have been fun to see them test that Center Axis Relock stance
The Monty Hall Paradox is actually very simple if you think about it. You know whichever door Monty opens will have nothing behind it, leaving you with what seems like 50/50 odds, but it's not, because that third door still applies.
Regardless of the number on the door, from the start of the game, your choices boil down to:
[$] - you stick, you win; you switch, you lose.
[0] - you stick, you lose; you switch, you win.
[0] - you stick, you lose; you switch, you win.
Ergo, because there's 1/3 chance to win and 2/3 to lose, switching also swaps those odds to a 2/3 chance to win and 1/3 to lose.
The grenade myth was intriguing to me. On first thought you would imagine the shrapnel would fly out in a sphere. The grenade is round, the explosive inside is pushing the casing apart equally on all sides, so when it explodes it will be pushing some into the ground, and some into the air so there should be no safe zone logically.
ive personally used the fire trick with a bit of petrol and it worked and the tire stayed inflated
The grenade test, in my opinion, was too close, just diving away from the grenade would make you much further and on a real scenario the ground could have rocks and dips, so IT IS SAFER to lay down and you could not even get hit. They could have tested a little further than that in my opinion.
100%. Going down next to the grenade is just dumb
It's things like this Monty Hall paradox that make me think we live in a simulation.
it's easier to understand if you think of it like this: instead of 3 doors there are 100 doors. And after you choose one door the host opens up 98 empty doors so there is just your door and one more left. What is more likely, that you happened to chose the correct door or that the other one is the corrct one?
for the pick a door, i wonder if adam called jamie 'vanna' on set ?
Interesting thing that is worth examining... It regards the single-answer tests (you choose one correct from a,b,c,d). If you don't know the answer for sure (just suspect which one is actually correct) is it better to stick to your first guess or changing it after second thought? I remember one of my teachers saying that "the first guess is the best". What I noticed in my case was that changing the already marked answer rarely paid off.
if you remove the step where the "host of the game" opens up one of the empy doors then it doenst matter if you change it or not.
the thing about hitting the deck to dodge shrapnel is more to do with body surface area + if you know where it landed you can turn and put your feet nearest it, therefore creating an barrier from your feet all the way to your vital organs when on the floor. If you are standing you don't have anything protecting your chest and head :)
They use the tyre method often when out in the dessert. And yes it dosen't inflate the tyre, that has to be done after. So it's not busted !
This explanation of the monty hall thing is the first time i think actually understand it.
I think the Monty Hall paradox is just a layperson's paradox. It is not a paradox for one trained in statistics, it is merely a matter of understanding the changing odds once one unsuccessful door has been opened. 100% of the time. The door that gets open first will be empty.
Obviously the designers of the let's make a deal game new the statistics. They didn't have to test it out. They just calculated it.
ok the fire and tire thing works. ive done it to a car tire and a motorbike tire using nothing but body spra and a lighter, yes i got burnt arm hair from it at the time xd
24:00 the myth isn't actually confirmed. The myth is that it can be done without damage to the car, and that should include the tires.
If you unload it and then take it up to highway speeds, you'll find the tires are damaged, vibrating a lot due to separation of the reinforcing wires inside them.
Where’s the grenade trick from the movie Top Secret?
omg first episode with working sound
if you train it, every gun holding style works
Monty Hall is interesting. Like buying multiple lotto tickets doesn't increase your chance of winning, each ticket gives you one chance
It ..absolutely does?
1 ticket with 5 numbers (For simplicity sake, let's say any 5 EVEN ones) and 1 ticket with 5 numbers (Again, let's say this one is all ODDS so there is no overlap) *doubles* your changes to win...in theory. You're covering more numbers. The horrific catch is that you don't just need to "cover" those numbers, but the amount of combinations.
If you have 100 numbers to pick from, that means 100*100*100*100*100 chance to get it right, or one in TEN BILLION. With 2 tickets covering different letters, I think you have a one in FIVE BILLION chance to win. Plainly speaking, you'd need to get a massive amount of tickets, and overlapping numbers might be better. It's mind-bogglingly massive. But no, more tickets absolutely means a better chance of winning.
Missed one shooting technique... aiming with small mirror around a corner.
Would lying down from a grenade outside of 5 feet with your feet towards the grenade not mean that the fragments will hit your feet/legs instead of your chest or head, thus saving your life?
They could surmise the switch - on how many of the original choice actually won vs who lose (who would have switched)
I've had 5 tonne on a one tonne ute.
The problem was not getting going.
The problem was stopping.
I'd forgotten how much I fancy Carrie
The problem with how they tested the Monty Hall Paradox is that, the goal is to check is the player has a better chance of winning when he switches door, but Adam and Jaime would often choose different initial door, readding the luck element back in the test. That variable should be removed as much as possible, so what they should have done is selected the same door every time and look at the result of switching vs not switching from there.
But you can just look at the graph behind them to know when a switch or stick would earn a win or not. Just see on Jaime's side all the blank squares. Had he chosen to switch, he would've won. Same with Adam, all the blank sqaures on his side would've earned him a win if he chose to stick. What they did just halved the time it took them to record that experiment.
You slightly miss the point of my comment, my point is that the chart behind them show that Adam(switching)'s action were more likely to win, but the goal was to test if switching is better than not switching, if both of them are given the exact same case (where the win is) and each of them choose the same door, in the case which one is more likely to win? Would the charts be in a similar state?
I just feel like they left in too much a Luck variable in their testing.@@Condorian_
@illnoon it doesn't matter which door is chosen though. Since the win door is random, it doesn't make sense to keep choosing the same door because it is still 1/3 of a chance to get it right regardless.
It's like playing the lottery. It doesn't matter if you choose 1-2-3-4-5-6 as your numbers or 13-21-32-34-49-54. It's still the same chance to win.
The paradox and the experiment are based around chances, and you can't take it away from it. Choosing the same door or not wouldn't change anything.
the green car was loaded differently to the photo.
they use the tire flame to seat the bead on the wheel not to pump it up , you cant put air in a tire thats not seated
Regarding the grenade myth: Soldiers usually wear helmets. They won't stop a rifle bullet - but they got quite a chance to stop a grenade fragment.
Obviously, it would still suck to have fragments in your arms or shoulders - but that's significantly less lethal.
There is also a difference in grenade design: There are offensive and defensive hand grenades.
Defensive grenades have more splintering effect - they are designed to be used out of some sort of defensive structure. The US baseball grenade is one of those.
Offensive grenades have less splintering effect - they are used to clear defensive structures out of the open. ruzzian hand grenades are of this type.
Bear in mind they also chose to test as close to the blast as they could while removing the shock from the equation. Five feet is not enough space for the blast to propagate upward in the wave form it innately follows. They even mentioned 'yes, the shrapnel is moving upward, but not enough'. Put the targets at 10-15 feet and see how much safer hitting the deck would be. Would probably be even less shrapnel. Not a direct reduction, but probably a Log function.
I wonder, if you add Dry ice first inside the tire before doing the inflating trick. Since It will turn to CO2 as it vaporize. It might counter act the vaccum. Idk. But the mythbusters are not busting myths anymore. So I guess this will stay in my curious mind
uhhh man that hurt about the tire... only if they knew only if
I've seen the prizes switched after they made the choice, working high up in the studio
I want to see the same handgrenade test, made on concrete!
In dirt or soil, the blast will create a crater that shoots the shrapnel upwards.
And on concrete, the shrapnel will be A LOT less!!
1 more test while i´m on it. Use Ballistic gel, not boards. How many of those shrapnels is lethal?
They haven't tried what the guy from Soul Eater does, holding guns upside down and pulling triggers with his pinkies (both hands). I wonder if this episode came before soul eater though.
The tyre inflation is used in Iceland a lot the temp their when used is well below 0°c and it was also used in British top gear when they drive to the North pole!
Using Ether was the only way to seat my 44" bias super swampers. No bodys machine could do it.
You still have to inflate it up it was the only way to seat it onto the rim
The one arm straight out technique (aka "the Dueling Stance") has the advantage of minimising your profile, meaning that if you don't have any body armor then it might actually be the better option in a firefight.
Edit:
Also, I imagine that holding the gun with only one hand would improve your mobility and agility over holding it with both.
Agility and mobility, yes, but accuracy it will definitely reduce slightly.
The stick or switch thing seems like blind luck, or misunderstood\manipulated data.
You ALWAYS have 3 choices in the example given.
So you ALWAYS have a 33% chance to pick correctly.
Without knowing the answer, those 33% odds come out fairly. If you had weird historical data like "Oh, of a sample size of 200 door openings, the left most door was 7.1% more frequent" to adjust for stuff (Which might and likely won't do you any good) we are talking about nothing but mathwank.
33% is 33%.
You take away one door, congrats. 2 choices means 50% to succeed and 50% to fail. It's still a literal, actual coin flip.
Except a coin flip you can eventually pseudo-rig to work in your favor by flipping a certain way, in certain conditions, etc. PURE LUCK does not get this treatment.
46:44 I think I saw that dude on Tremors movie.
Haha, Burt Gummer?
the door test for the masin guys jaimies set didnt evne have a prize thingy for most of em, you see he flips his door then the last remaining door and nothign is behind any of em
the point of hitting the deck when a grenade hits is not to not get hit but too use ur own feet as cover. better to not walk anymore than to not live anymore
its not a paradox
RIP Grant.
42:08 good year
Single arm streched out is why so many older movies use it while not as good as the modern two hand hold it still works and looks beliveable, Gangster and criss cross Umm who ever thought those must high. Inflating tire with lighter fluid yer someone was smoking on that one, Grenade is why you duck behind a wall if one is there otherwise yer your out of luck.
There are people who shoot cross-arm Akimbo(which they called 'Criss-Cross') and do fine. Akimbo(2-gun shooting) is a viable technique, but they were untrained in doing it appropriately and were calculating for time, which necessitates dumping rounds downrange instead of trying to actually be accurate. There are Special Operations groups that actually train in 'intuitive shooting' (no-aim, as Delta calls it) and Akimbo shooting techniques, because they DO work in some situations. Are they perfect? No. But they have their uses.
Gangster style is the position naturally assumed when you raise your arm; the palm is pronated. This isn't going to change if you're holding a pistol. And I don't know how they are holding their weapon that they cannot use the sights.
The reason people 'naturally' fire a pistol upright is because historically that's the only practical orientation for a rifle, and (usually) for a longbow.
So, they test those shooting styles for the first time and compare it to the one they received training and have extensive experience in and then say "nope, not as effective in this one specific scenario at which our style excels"?
Ok, granted, I'm like 73% convinced Jamie would be an immediate master at literally anything, but this seems still very questionable..
I also stick with my stick ... 100% win.
@14:00 really? That's nonsense. Switching has a perfect relationship to sticking in that it perfectly inverts the outcome.
Either way, it's easier to see how the 'paradox' works if you move to extremes. Suppose there are 1 million doors. They pick one. The host opens every other door except one more, intentionally revealing only loosing doors. Your original chance is 1 in 1 million. The chance of every remaining door combined just got concentrated into that single other door.
You've either mislabelled the time-mark, or misunderstood the narrator. The second paragraph is well-put.
😂 One time I had twenty sheets of 3/8 o s b plywood on the top of a 87 dodge colt.
I was lucky. I left the windows down, because there was so much weight on top of the roof you couldn't open the doors l o l and then I drove 40km to home
If grenade is lethal within 5ft, how do a few soldier survive diving on a grenade?
On the gameshow part, what about more than 3 boxes? Say 10 boxes and you are allowed to switch 5x.
You need to cite a primary source for that claim. Look at the pattern of those two blasts. If your abdomen is covering the grenade, _all_ that detonation wave and all of the shrapnel is going to be intercepted by your body. Guts, heart, and lungs --> hamburger and stewing beef.
Shooting akimbo isn't effective, they say... Anyway, then I started blasting.
straight arm is used in the olympics
Why on earth didn't the DIY guy just do a couple of separate runs?
Stupidity, lack of organisation, rushing and recklessness would all have played their parts. You may aswell ask, why wouldn't he borrow or rent a trailer/van if he needs to get so much material. You would hope that someone so stupid wouldn't be the one doing the construction, and that in all likelihood he's a total cheapskate who wants to get all the materials himself so that the builder can't rip him off.
Vw Santana é bravo
Here for the amusing complaints about what is ultimately a TV show.
if you could escape a grenade by lying on the floor, the army would discontinue its usage, beside grenades are room clearing devices, they are not meat to kill .... they are far more effective toold to kill then grenades ....
Grenade drill is running 5/7m amd then hitting the deck. Does not guarantee no shrapnel hitting you...but definitely reduce thos chances massively Not dropping nxt to a grenade. Thats just stupid
who would have thought you dont aim real guns at your camera folks on a set?
I wonder if there would be million doors would people still stick to their original choice? Pick one door from 1-1000000. I choose the door 6045. After that 999998 losing doors are opened. Now there will be two doors left one has the price money the door 6045 that you choose and door 511859 will you switch the door or not.
you'd have to be reallt dumb to stick to your first choice
45:19 - Alec Baldwin might wanna watch this part...
🤣 Love that comment 😂
7:36 Kate is the mate with quite some bare bait :)
😂
Why did they cover the VW-badges? Fear of German engineering? ;-)
They did that with the Audi A(6?) in another episode where they tested if two cars stuck together nose to nose could be able to drive and steer.
I think it's about avoiding an unintentional product placement without permission, which could result in a lawsuit.
There's nothing confusing about Monty's paradox, it's about groups not doors. Once you've chosen a door you have two groups, the group of doors you didn't choose (2 doors) and the group of doors you did choose (1 door), so which group is moire likely to contain the prize? The group with 2 doors has a 66% chance of containing the prize, so switching doubles your chances of winning. Proof that Bay area democrats are really really dumb.
With the gun stance myth, of course the gun stance they trained in is the most effective. All the other stances they haven't trained in or used before, so all you can conclusively say is "the other stances mostly sucked if you were trying them for the first time." How effective would they be if you trained to use them and then compared them? No idea because they didn't test that. Nor did they get an expert marksman to try them out and evaluate them, which would have been far more informative.
Doesnt work because i cant do it logic again...
100m sprint record is also busted because jamie cant do it...
🎉 you need to get a pro with revolver that is use to shooting from the hip because they are shooting at🎉 target from the😮 drawing position and they have to hit the target for it to count because the mith is that it's a practiced gun🎉
The game they're playing with their volunteers isn't the Monty Hall problem, in order for Monty Hall logic to apply, the contestant needs to know the game rules before the game starts. The way they did it, the volunteers had no reason to switch doors.
Can you seat a tyre with starter fluid? Then they show a video of someone doing it.... Myth solved let's all go home.
john wicks busted
A real gangster is trained..so he has accuracy cause of his long career.....😂 something they didn't mention