https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7tRr49qZfo

So, how do you account for this well known trick?

On 07/09/2019 07:24, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7tRr49qZfo

So, how do you account for this well known trick?


The ****ing great big gap where the two pieces do not meet?

--
Adam

ARW wrote:

harry wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7tRr49qZfo
So, how do you account for this well known trick?

The ****ing great big gap where the two pieces do not meet?

That's just because he cut it inaccurately, done properly it reduces the
length of the bar by 1/4 the length of the "extra" square.

http://andyburns.uk/misc/chocolate-trick.png

On 07/09/2019 11:56, Andy Burns wrote:
ARW wrote:

harry wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7tRr49qZfo
So, how do you account for this well known trick?

The ****ing great big gap where the two pieces do not meet?

That's just because he cut it inaccurately, done properly it reduces the
length of the bar by 1/4 the length of the "extra" square.

http://andyburns.uk/misc/chocolate-trick.png


Wonka would have a wank.

But you are correct.

--
Adam

ARW wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

ARW wrote:

harry wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7tRr49qZfo
So, how do you account for this well known trick?

The ****ing great big gap where the two pieces do not meet?

That's just because he cut it inaccurately, done properly it reduces
the length of the bar by 1/4 the length of the "extra" square.

http://andyburns.uk/misc/chocolate-trick.png

Wonka would have a wank.
But you are correct.

To bring it back to DIY, he needs a blade with a narrower kerf ...

On 07/09/2019 07:24, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7tRr49qZfo

So, how do you account for this well known trick?


Its so obvious it doesn't really need anything to explain it.
Just look at the damn bar at the end.

"dennis@home" Wrote in message:
On 07/09/2019 07:24, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7tRr49qZfo

So, how do you account for this well known trick?


Its so obvious it doesn't really need anything to explain it.
Just look at the damn bar at the end.



Harry only sees what he wants to see, that's his problem.
--
__
%Profound_observation%


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On 07/09/2019 11:09, Graham. wrote:
"dennis@home" Wrote in message:
On 07/09/2019 07:24, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7tRr49qZfo

So, how do you account for this well known trick?


Its so obvious it doesn't really need anything to explain it.
Just look at the damn bar at the end.



Harry only sees what he wants to see, that's his problem.

Harry only sees what slightly cleverer people than he is want him to see.


--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

On Saturday, 7 September 2019 11:09:25 UTC+1, Graham. wrote:
"dennis@home" Wrote in message:
On 07/09/2019 07:24, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7tRr49qZfo

So, how do you account for this well known trick?


Its so obvious it doesn't really need anything to explain it.
Just look at the damn bar at the end.



Harry only sees what he wants to see, that's his problem.

I wonder if he'd have the same problem with white chocolate ;-)

On 07/09/2019 07:24, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7tRr49qZfo

So, how do you account for this well known trick?


4 x 1/4 = 1

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 07/09/2019 07:24, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7tRr49qZfo

So, how do you account for this well known trick?

At the end, the third row from the bottom is slightly thinner than the
others.

--
Max Demian

Max Demian wrote:

At the end, the third row from the bottom is slightly thinner than the
others.

Only 3 out of 4 columns of it are ...

On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 23:24:04 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7tRr49qZfo

So, how do you account for this well known trick?

I now know why all the clapped out geriatrics in the UK have fallen
for PPI and why they send so much money to Nigerian bankers with tons
of unaccounted gold :-)

Go back to wallowing in your personal cess pit of hatred harry, you
are on more familiar ground.

AB

"harry" wrote in message
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7tRr49qZfo

So, how do you account for this well known trick?

you really can't work it out for yourself

"tim..." wrote in message
...


"harry" wrote in message
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7tRr49qZfo

So, how do you account for this well known trick?

you really can't work it out for yourself

Nice one. I think I've worked it out: I presume lines that are supposed to
be parallel aren't.

"NY" wrote in message
...
"tim..." wrote in message
...


"harry" wrote in message
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7tRr49qZfo

So, how do you account for this well known trick?

you really can't work it out for yourself

Nice one. I think I've worked it out:

No you havent.

I presume lines that are supposed to be parallel aren't.

http://andyburns.uk/misc/chocolate-trick.png

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"NY" wrote in message
...
"tim..." wrote in message
...


"harry" wrote in message
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7tRr49qZfo

So, how do you account for this well known trick?

you really can't work it out for yourself

Nice one. I think I've worked it out:

No you havent.

I presume lines that are supposed to be parallel aren't.

http://andyburns.uk/misc/chocolate-trick.png

Ah, the difference is that the combined length is shorter. I hadn't spotted
that. I wondered whether the difference was that the diagonal edges of the
two pieces were not quite parallel, and that the area of the extra piece was
the area of a triangular air gap between the pieces. But I was wrong.

"NY" wrote in message
...
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"NY" wrote in message
...
"tim..." wrote in message
...


"harry" wrote in message
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7tRr49qZfo

So, how do you account for this well known trick?

you really can't work it out for yourself

Nice one. I think I've worked it out:

No you havent.

I presume lines that are supposed to be parallel aren't.

http://andyburns.uk/misc/chocolate-trick.png

Ah, the difference is that the combined length is shorter. I hadn't
spotted that. I wondered whether the difference was that the diagonal
edges of the two pieces were not quite parallel, and that the area of the
extra piece was the area of a triangular air gap between the pieces. But I
was wrong.

there is a similar trick where that's the answer

but not this one

tim

On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 05:29:17 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

Nice one. I think I've worked it out:

No you havent.

Be careful, senile Rodent, he's one of the very few here who still haven't
worked out what a pathological asshole and psychopath you really are!

--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

"NY" wrote in message
...
"tim..." wrote in message
...


"harry" wrote in message
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7tRr49qZfo

So, how do you account for this well known trick?

you really can't work it out for yourself

Nice one. I think I've worked it out: I presume lines that are supposed to
be parallel aren't.

nope

On Sunday, 8 September 2019 13:49:18 UTC+1, tim... wrote:
"NY" wrote in message
...
"tim..." wrote in message
...


"harry" wrote in message
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7tRr49qZfo

So, how do you account for this well known trick?

you really can't work it out for yourself

Nice one. I think I've worked it out: I presume lines that are supposed to
be parallel aren't.

nope

The answer is that the row with the diagonal cut has become shorter in the vertical axis.
Not immediately obvious because he's left a light space on the diagonal cut where it's been re=assembled..