Go and count them instead of counting the number of heads and feet. Stupid way to go about it.

44 hens, 28 rabbits and one very angry RSPCA inspector.

What if some of the hens have a lucky rabbit's foot?

>>5059
So what's going on here? Is dad too stupid to help his 11-year-old with their homework?

Even if that is a GCSE question you could only give a range of answers without a more specific question.

>>5064
Oh yeah? Give a solution different to >>5061 then.

>>5064
I thought that to begin with, but there are two variables and two equations, so you can do simultaneous equations.

x = chickens, y = rabbits
Chickens have one head and two feet; rabbits have one head and four feet
There are 72 heads, so x + y = 72
There are 200 feet, so 2x + 4y = 200

If x + y = 72, then you can double everything and 2x + 2y = 144
And we already know 2x + 4y = 200, so we can subtract the entire above equation from that to get 2y = 56
If 2y = 56, then y = 56/2 = 28
x + y = 72, so x + 28 = 72, so x = 72 - 28 = 44

You have 44 chickens and 28 rabbits. The real question is, what kind of nerd does their homework on Saturday night instead of Sunday afternoon like a normal person?

Here's my working. Different path to >>5066-lad , but same principle.

>>5066

My workings were just:

(200 mod 72) / 2 = 28

72 - 28 = 44

Learning to program on a ZX81 warped my brain.

If you're feeling lazy you can use desmos.com to plot the equations and read where they intersect.

>>5068
> (200 mod 72) / 2 = 28
U fucking wot m8

Your methods are all painfully slow.

Or with numpy

>>5069

>U fucking wot m8

Modular arithmetic is the tits.

>>5071
f-strings have been in Python for years now, why use .format()?

>>5074
You just know it's going to be the title of Ed Sheeran's next album.

>>5075

.format() is the new way, we're not supposed to use %d crap anymore

>>5077
But just stick an f in front and put the variables in the squiggly brackets.

This is just me thinking out loud.

Say I was on the motorway and averaging 75mph. That'd mean after an hour I'd be 5 miles further ahead than if I stuck to the speed limit of 70mph, all things being equal.

If my destination was 70 miles away that'd mean it'd take me 56 minutes to do it if I sped at 75mph all the way, meaning that every 15 minutes I speed by 5mph on the motorway shaves 1 minute off my journey.

Does that sound right?

>>5079

That's right. This sort of consideration was part of the speed awareness course when I did it, basically pointing out if someone doing the speed limit left just ten minutes earlier than you, you'd have to constantly speed at licence-losing territory to even hope to catch up.

>>5080
Surely it depends on the length of the journey.

>>5081

Yeah, but how long would the journey have to be?

>>5080

Well fuck the police, I do 80 on the motorway precisely so I can have an extra ten minutes in bed. What was the point of the internal combustion engine if not for this purpose?

Why does everyone else on this planet have their priorities so consistently fucking backwards. This is just Big Morning shilling so I have to listen to ten more minutes of their shitty breakfast show.

>>5083

The problem with speeding for me is that the license penalties are a far greater burden than the fines. I wish we had a more Russian outlook on things, where rich cunts like me could just speed however fast they wanted because it's only going to cost money. But I have to be good, because I need my license. So fuck the police, indeed.

>>5084

I'd support this, as long as you got Russian Speeding consequences too.

>where rich cunts like me could just speed however fast they wanted because it's only going to cost money

Most of the videos on LiveLeakItemFix these days happen to feature Russians smashing their vehicles into pixels while they themselves somersault into the path of a bloody big wagon.

>>5082
Well for a longer journey, your speed can be comfortably below licence-losing territory whilst still catching them.

>>5086

Yes, but how much longer does the journey have to be before you're at, say, 75mph and able to catch up? Britain's not that long.

>>5087
About two and a half hours I reckon, so that's about Leeds to Milton Keynes but most of that is now smart motorway.

>>5087
Well I've knocked up a little desmos graph for you.

The black line is the 70mph lead driver, and the other lines are a pursuer at various speeds. 75 is green, and we can see they intercept at around 150 minutes (x-axis) or ~170 miles (y-axis). Which as other lad says is 2h30m.

So what'd be the difference in fuel cost if I drove for an hour at 75mph compared with 1 hour and 4 minutes at 70mph, assuming the overall distance is the same and this is your bog standard car?

>>5090
That would depend entirely on your car and its fuel efficiency, which is a function of the engine, the tyre and road conditions, and how much weight you're carrying.

>>5090

There's no such thing as a bog standard car when it comes to fuel efficiency, there's just so many variables. It's entirely possible for a car to be more efficient at 75mph than 70, even.

>>5091>>5092
Let's say I'm going down the motorway in a Ford Focus.

>>5093

Which model year? What engine? What octane fuel? What are your tyre pressures? How many people, how much luggage in the car? Are your windows up or down? If down, how much? What direction is the wind, relative to your average direction of travel? What's the temperature outside? What's the temperature of your engine?

>>5094
Any will do.

>>5093

Fag packet maths:

A Ford Focus has a drag coefficient of about 0.3 and a frontal area of about 2.3m². This would mean an increase in aerodynamic drag of 14.7% by increasing from 70mph to 75mph. Frictional losses in the tyres and drivetrain will increase linearly by 7.1%. At these speeds aero drag dominates, so we'd expect a total increase in energy loss of slightly less than 14%.

If you're currently getting about 40mpg, an increase in fuel consumption of 14% would cost you about £1.50 on a 70 mile motorway trip.

>>5096

The rub here is gear ratios, I reckon.

>>5097

If you're cruising along in sixth, there won't be much difference in the thermodynamic efficiency of the engine.