| json_metadata | "{"app":"Musing","appTags":["Law"],"appCategory":"Law","appTitle":"What do you know about murphy's law?","appBody":"<p>There is not only one law of murphy are many.</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>Most people take it as something negative, but I think it is the most real things that usually happen in our lives.</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>Are laws or statements with a very high effectiveness, I would say that more options of a 50 to 50, as if it is given or not given every year.</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>I have been a victim of all these lñeyes, I am not very patient and one of the ones that has made me believe the most is that of the ranks</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p><img src=\"https://ep01.epimg.net/verne/imagenes/2015/06/19/articulo/1434705663_423636_1434708590_sumario_normal.gif\" /></p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>This topic is somewhat extensive, so I'll leave you a few laws</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>1. If something can go wrong, it will go wrong</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>As you remember in Ask a Mathematician, \"nothing lasts forever, so at some point all the pieces of a machine will break\". To which we could add that the more time and work involved a task, the easier it is that at some point there will be some setback. That is, although not everything will always go wrong, much less, this first law of Murphy will be fulfilled often, provided we give sufficient time.</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>By the way, apparently (this point is not clear), the original statement says that \"if there are two or more ways to do something and one of them can result in a catastrophe, someone will decide for it.\"</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>2. The toast always falls on the side of the butter</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>In 1997 Robert Matthews published an article in Scientific American in which he collected evidence confirming some of Murphy's laws. One of them: the toast.</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>According to Matthews, the height of the table is decisive in this case, since the slice of bread, greased or not, \"does not have time to make a full turn and fall back on the ground when it hits the ground\". We must remember that we do not toss the toast into the air as if it were a coin, but simply fall off while trying, without success, to have breakfast.</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>Matthews, who is a physicist and mathematician, had already published a study demonstrating this theory in 1995. His work was rewarded with an Ignobel, the Nobel parody whose objective is to reward the investigations that first make people laugh and then make them think. By the way, Murphy's first law did not win this award until 2003.</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>Matthews himself explains his research in a video. It is in English, but the tests and demonstrations are very clearly understood.</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p> </p>\n<p>3. The most important information of any map is in the fold or on the edge</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>Sometimes we are forced to resort to plans and guides on paper, as if we were in the Middle Ages. Or in 1998. We often get the impression that the important information of our route or destination is lost in a fold or on the edge of the map, forcing us to have to go back and forth pages to guide us.</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>It is not just an impression. If we look at the example extracted from Why do buses come in threes, we will see that an edge of a plane of only one centimeter represents 28% of the total area. If we extend the edge to two centimeters, there is a 47% chance that the point we are looking for is right there. For this reason, good road guides and city plans duplicate at least 30% of the information on each page.</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p> </p>\n<p>4. The pairs of socks always go two by two before entering the washing machine and one by one when leaving it</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>This law is explained by the theory of probabilities and combinatorial, according to the aforementioned article by Matthews. Regardless of what happens with these garments in the washing machine (a mystery that is beyond the humble pretensions of this article), \"the random loss of socks is always more likely to create the maximum possible number of odd socks.\"</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>If we lose only one sock, we will have one loose. As we will not put on that loose sock, the next one that we will lose when doing the laundry will be another one that has a partner, so we will have two unpaired socks.</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>And if we lose more than one at a time, it is easier for them to be of different pairs, as the statistician Victor Niederhoffer explains in Daily Speculations. \"If you have 20 socks -10 different pairs-, after losing the first sock, the chances of the second sock undoing another pair are 18 over 19, compared to 1 over 19 that is a sock of the same pair\". That is, if we do not buy new pairs to replace them, we run the risk of ending up with a drawer full of odd socks.</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>5. The other queue is always faster</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>This issue is already dealt with in another article: if it gives us the impression of being in the slowest queue it is because 1) the slowest queue is usually the one with the most people and, consequently, it is the queue where it is it's easier that we are and 2) if we just choose a queue and there are, for example four, there is a 75% chance that at least one of the other queues will be faster than ours. Therefore, most of the time there will be at least one other queue that is faster.</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p> </p>\n<p>We will never tire of this gif</p>\n<p>The same applies to traffic, as explained in Principia Marsupia. In this case we must add that we spend more time in the slow lane precisely because it is the slowest and we also spend more time being ahead than overtaking.</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>6. Carrying an umbrella when there is rain forecast makes it less likely to rain</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>Although there is no causal relationship between one event and another (it would be an example of illusory correlation), Matthews explains the reasons why it is very common for us to end up carrying the umbrella without needing it. This author explains the following:</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>Although the predictions of rain are increasingly accurate, we must bear in mind that if we live in a place with low rainfall, most of the time it is correct to say that it will NOT rain.</p>\n<p>We do not care so much if it's going to rain throughout the day as if it's going to rain during the time we're on the street. \"The odds of it raining in the hour, more or less, that you're out walking are usually very low in almost everyone.\"</p>\n<p>If we consider both factors, it is very likely to end up walking the umbrella uselessly because \"even the seemingly accurate forecasts that we currently have are not good enough to reliably predict less frequent events\".</p>\n<p>7. No matter how many times a lie is proven, there will always be a percentage of people who will believe that it is true</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>It is one of the many versions of a popular phrase by Mark Twain, who said that a lie can go around the world while the truth is still putting on shoes.</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>There are many reasons that give reason, at least in part, to this law of Murphy. From the outset, successful rumors play with our emotions and anxieties, as do classic urban legends such as \"the curve girl\". They also address our inclinations and biases: many of us thought it funny that Esperanza Aguirre believed that Saramago was Sara Mago, for example, and we turned the joke into an anecdote because we wanted it to be true.</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>Also, as the rumors spread, we give them even more credibility, simply because we hear them more. This leads us to spread them, so we enter a vicious circle. The media play an important role in this point: a study last year noted that many media spend more time and work to spread false rumors than to verify and deny them.</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>Of course, false news is resistant to denials. We saw an example a few months ago when we republished the story of Ricky Martin and the marmalade: we still found comments on forums and websites that claimed that the episode had actually happened, but that it never aired and the recordings were destroyed, following the twisted logic usual conspiracy theories. How to prove that there was never something that nobody saw and then was destroyed?</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>8. You always find things in the last place you looked at</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>The reason is that we do not keep searching after finding them. \"Here were the keys, in the third place I searched. Then I looked in the drawer and under the bed, but I have not seen them there. \"</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>On the other hand, if we find something in the first place where we look, it can not be said that it is lost, no matter how much drama we put into it. Exceptions may be allowed. For example, if that first site is a lost property office.</p>\n<p><br></p>\n<p>Surely there will be coincidences in my post and they will point it out for plagiarism so I will add the source.</p>\n<p>Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy%27s_law</p>\n<p><br></p>","appDepth":2,"appParentPermlink":"f3paq34d5","appParentAuthor":"bamike","musingAppId":"aU2p3C3a8N","musingAppVersion":"1.1","musingPostType":"answer"}" |
|---|
hiveblocks