||Date: February 20th, 2009 - 11:34 am
glad you approve
||Date: February 20th, 2009 - 11:46 am
This is good. mh was used for the millihelen anyway. Although the millihelen is on some level a more objective unit of measurement, in that you can test for a ship launch.
Yeah, minihelen is a much longer tested geek unit of hotness measurement. The logarithmic scale does make for a better yardstick.
Especially since the wealth needed to launch a ship (these being Greek times, something on the order of a trireme) is no longer in the realm of states. Paris Hilton could probably use her wealth to launch quite a few yachts, but she's still a skank.
exactly, the flickr post
has some rollover notes on it that get specifically into the paris hilton phenomenon.
||Date: February 21st, 2009 - 02:31 am
The mh isn't a measure of kinetic energy, it's a measure of potential energy. If Paris Hilton is using her wealth to launch boats, we're measuring the MH of whoever she's trying to doink that week. Achilles was pretty skanky himself, but they don't call it a millichilles. And not just because no one knows how pronounce that.
I especially like that the logarithmic scale means you can essentially ignore subtle differences...
someone who is 900mh and someone who is 1000mh are essentially still just in the 100dH realm
though the difference between 100mh and 200mh is much more pronounced
probably outdated. I'm sure beauty standards at that time were on a different scale than by modern times.
Same reason the definition of an inch has changed.
I still prefer the "Helen" unit, though many forget the rest of the quote. Her face not only launched 1000 ships, it also "burnt the topless towers of Ilium". So, we have to measure in terms of ship launching AND arson. There's a good article on the topic here
I'm not saying that's not a valid unit. I'm saying that's even more outdated. I mean, lets put it this way. Do you know off the top of your head how many cubits tall you are?
||Date: February 20th, 2009 - 02:57 pm
Shakira is 110 dH, you mean.
oops. that was a typo. Thanks. Did you actually check the math or did you notice just from the description.
||Date: February 20th, 2009 - 03:44 pm
It sounded off by the description, which prompted me to check the math. Intuitively, if Bob is twice as hot as Alice, Bob should measure 10dH higher than her.
yep. I had just accidentally transposed the numbers when I was typing.
||Date: February 20th, 2009 - 03:36 pm
Thank you. That was incredibly insightful and possessed of intense calculation.
||Date: February 20th, 2009 - 03:39 pm
I forgot to leave this in my earlier comment, but would you mind if I share your flickr picture with some other feminine beauty mathematicians? I feel like this post could push the classification of feminine beauty well into the next century.
By all means, please, link them there or here. I'd really like other's insight.
||Date: February 20th, 2009 - 05:15 pm
It brings me great joy to know that there are practical, real-life applications for Math I Used To Know.
Yeah, I was saying on my flickr page that this was the most useful math had been since High School
hahahah this was awesome! I love math! And hot women! haha
glad I could help. Please tell all your friends to use the scale in every day conversation. :-)
||Date: February 21st, 2009 - 08:58 am
damn, i'm disturbed and now curious... it's a complicated way to objectify women (which i don't necessarily have a problem with - don't get me wrong). i feel like i should be morally opposed on some kind of ground.
instead, i just want to know where i rank.
(don't tell me please... better to be curious and optimistic then sure and disappointed)
You know, I decided ahead of time that I wasn't going to answer that question for anyone. I'm kinda amazed that more people didn't ask.