I know! Holy shit, I did not know that you could boil water purely by means of subjecting it to the motion induced by a blender.
Update: from the sound of things, it's the action of the blades and the friction induced by their interaction with the water, rather than the swirling motion of the water itself, which sounded kind of ridiculous.
There's blade-water friction as well as water-water friction. The link you provided does not quantify their relative contributions. [edit: Actually, I'm not even sure how much blade-water friction there is, due to the boundary layer effect.]
There is also heating from cavitation bubbles collapsing in the water. If you look up cavitation heaters you will find a wacky rabbit hole with unsubstantiated claims about achieving heating efficiencies over unity. However, apparently there are some industrial processes that benefit from cavitation heating by getting even liquid heating and avoiding heating elements that can develop scaling. More info: http://hydrodynamics.com/cavitation-technology/scale-free-he...
Not endorsed by IBM. At the bottom of the page you see:
Watson, the Watson logo, Power7, DeepQA, and the IBM logo are
copyright IBM. The Watson 2016 Foundation has no affiliation
with IBM. The views and opinions expressed here in no way
represent the views, positions or opinions - expressed or
implied - by IBM or anyone else.
According to WHOIS the domain is owned by:
Registrant Name: Aaron Siegel
Registrant City: Los Angeles
Registrant State/Province: California
I wouldn't call it #winning. Did Edmund Hillary "win" because he climbed Everest first?
I think the misunderstanding of Perl is based in the "There is more than one way to do it" philosophy. A corollary to that motto could be "There is no right way to do it." Using that corollary, no matter what Perl code you look at the correctness is in the eye of the beholder.
Even looking at your own code a year later, you'll ask yourself "why did I do it that way?" This is because the Perl syntax and choice of modules is so deep and varied that you cannot help but continuously evolve your style.
It takes real world trial and error of writing and reading Perl code to build your own style and get a handle on what good, readable Perl code should be... for you.
Haters are going to hate, but Perl programmers know the power and aren't going to it give up. Winning isn't everything. Getting there first? Well, that just means you should respect your elders. :)
Which would explain why Erdos might be confounded by the answer. He was an expert at numbers, not psychology.
Proofs are built with an adversarial mind set. Always assuming the worst possible case and proving that a theorem holds in all conditions. The "hand of god" (or in this case the game show host) doesn't move to make theorems easier to prove. That isn't the universe works!