NO JOKE!! Neighbor just installed a 20ft "Selfie Bauble" on his front lawn. What do I do now??

Unplug it

Drape it with a big tarp

Post an add on craigslist M4M, meet at this friday at 11pm for a massive gang bang. Call the po-po when the action starts

Back woods wrote:

This is why god made guns.

This is why God made pellet guns.

I don't know what you're describing. Is it just a giant, reflective sphere that lets people take pictures of their reflections?

Seasonal Spiritualism wrote:

Except that it's 20ft tall!

Any ideas?

Go get one that's 30ft tall. With three times as many blinking lights.

Ytr wrote:

I don't know what you're describing. Is it just a giant, reflective sphere that lets people take pictures of their reflections?

A what? I don't get it.

Neighbourhood escalation wrote:

Seasonal Spiritualism wrote:

Except that it's 20ft tall!

Any ideas?

Go get one that's 30ft tall. With three times as many blinking lights.

This is bad mathematics (or physics).

The lights are on the surface of the sphere, not in the volume of it.

So it would only be (3/2)^2 = 2.25x as many lights with a 30ft/20ft diameter ratio, not (3/2)^3 = 3.375x.

Crossbow. Easy fix.

I don't understand the problem. Do they lights keep you on at night? What's the issue?

Aspriring Student wrote:

Neighbourhood escalation wrote:

Go get one that's 30ft tall. With three times as many blinking lights.

This is bad mathematics (or physics).

The lights are on the surface of the sphere, not in the volume of it.

So it would only be (3/2)^2 = 2.25x as many lights with a 30ft/20ft diameter ratio, not (3/2)^3 = 3.375x.

This is bad logic (or reading comprehension). Why would you assume equal light density? He didn't say, "get a 30 ft tall one, because that would mean it has three times as many blinking lights". What he said is perfectly valid. You assumed a "therefore".

iamsmart wrote:

Aspriring Student wrote:

This is bad mathematics (or physics).

The lights are on the surface of the sphere, not in the volume of it.

So it would only be (3/2)^2 = 2.25x as many lights with a 30ft/20ft diameter ratio, not (3/2)^3 = 3.375x.

This is bad logic (or reading comprehension). Why would you assume equal light density? He didn't say, "get a 30 ft tall one, because that would mean it has three times as many blinking lights". What he said is perfectly valid. You assumed a "therefore".

Clearly the light density should be similar (within 5-10% tolerance), and even between manufacturers it's likely not differing too much, unless of/c he's going to shell out for a bespoke oversized selfie bauble. There's just no-way that simply upping the diameter by a mere 50% would give him thrice as many blinking lights, at least according to the known laws of physics.

Bauble-head wrote:

Clearly the light density should be similar (within 5-10% tolerance), and even between manufacturers it's likely not differing too much, unless of/c he's going to shell out for a bespoke oversized selfie bauble. There's just no-way that simply upping the diameter by a mere 50% would give him thrice as many blinking lights, at least according to the known laws of physics.

Why can't he just make a bauble within a bauble?

The outer (30ft) bauble will have 2.25x as many lights as the neighbors puny 20ft one, while the INNER BAUBLE (15ft?) can pick the slack remainder.

Err wait, that's still not enough... Still need another 7.5ft bauble inside the 15ft bauble, and then another 4.5ft bauble inside that!

Pellet guns leave evidence. Use a pin from your last bib. Problem solved.

Can we assume that this is for a Christmas decoration?

I'd be annoyed if it was year round but not for Christmas.

Neighbourhood escalation wrote:

Seasonal Spiritualism wrote:

Except that it's 20ft tall!

Any ideas?

Go get one that's 30ft tall. With three times as many blinking lights.

The bauble just got 10 feet taller!

Can you see the curvature on it? Ground control to major Tom will be along soon to tell you that you have to go to 200miles above sea level to see its curve.

Bauble-head wrote:

iamsmart wrote:

This is bad logic (or reading comprehension). Why would you assume equal light density? He didn't say, "get a 30 ft tall one, because that would mean it has three times as many blinking lights". What he said is perfectly valid. You assumed a "therefore".

Clearly the light density should be similar (within 5-10% tolerance), and even between manufacturers it's likely not differing too much, unless of/c he's going to shell out for a bespoke oversized selfie bauble. There's just no-way that simply upping the diameter by a mere 50% would give him thrice as many blinking lights, at least according to the known laws of physics.

Why? Who says it would be the exact same design? Perhaps the larger sphere allows for more internal equipment, that allows for increases light density. Perhaps scale allows them to increase the light density without increased unit cost.

Babushka bauble wrote:

Bauble-head wrote:

Clearly the light density should be similar (within 5-10% tolerance), and even between manufacturers it's likely not differing too much, unless of/c he's going to shell out for a bespoke oversized selfie bauble. There's just no-way that simply upping the diameter by a mere 50% would give him thrice as many blinking lights, at least according to the known laws of physics.

Why can't he just make a bauble within a bauble?

The outer (30ft) bauble will have 2.25x as many lights as the neighbors puny 20ft one, while the INNER BAUBLE (15ft?) can pick the slack remainder.

Err wait, that's still not enough... Still need another 7.5ft bauble inside the 15ft bauble, and then another 4.5ft bauble inside that!

This doesn't work. How would the inner bauble(s) exude any of their luminousity to the exterior? No, they would just light the hidden (inside) face of the next larger one(s). Only a pedantic would argue that there are "blinking lights" on the inside and these count for anything, when no-one can see them.

Filling up the bauble volume just doesn't cut it.