How long can you can get Deepseek to think for?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The Soapbox
Deepseeker — 1 year ago(February 06, 2025 02:10 PM)
What are all the Motown number one hits?
Thought for 354 seconds ^
Okay, so I need to figure out all the Motown number one hits. Let me start by recalling what Motown is. Motown is a record label founded in Detroit by Berry Gordy in 1959. It was a major player in the music industry, especially during the 1960s and 1970s, known for its soul and pop music. Motown had a lot of famous artists like The Supremes, Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder, The Temptations, and many others.
Number one hits would be songs that topped the Billboard Hot 100 chart. But I should confirm if there are other charts, like the R&B charts, but the user probably wants the main pop chart. So, I need to list all the songs released under the Motown label that reached number one on the Billboard Hot 100.
First, I can start by recalling some of the obvious ones. The Supremes had a bunch of number ones. Their hits include "Where Did Our Love Go," "Baby Love," "Come See About Me," "Stop! In the Name of Love," and "Back in My Arms Again." I think they had several consecutive number ones. Then there's Marvin Gaye with "I Heard It Through the Grapevine," though I'm not sure if that was a Motown release. Wait, yes, Marvin Gaye was on Motown. Then Stevie Wonder had some number ones, like "Superstition" maybe? Wait, but "Superstition" was in the 70s. Let me check: "Fingertips Pt. 2" by Little Stevie Wonder was a number one in 1963. Then later, "Signed, Sealed, Delivered I'm Yours" wasn't a number one, I think. "Superstition" might have been a hit, but did it reach number one? Let me verify that later.
Other artists: The Temptations had "My Girl," but I think that was number one. Wait, "My Girl" was 1965, but I need to check if it actually hit number one. Sometimes songs are iconic but didn't necessarily top the chart. For example, "My Girl" was number one on the R&B chart, but on the Hot 100, it peaked at number one? Let me confirm. According to my memory, "My Girl" was a number one hit. Then there's "Ain't No Mountain High Enough" by Diana Ross, which was a number one. The Jackson 5 had several number ones: "I Want You Back," "ABC," "The Love You Save," and "I'll Be There." All of those were Motown releases.
Martha and the Vandellas had "Heat Wave," but that might have been a top 10, not sure if number one. Let me think. "Dancing in the Street" was another hit, but again, maybe not a number one. The Four Tops had "I Can't Help Myself (Sugar Pie Honey Bunch)" which was number one. "Reach Out I'll Be There" was another Four Tops hit, but did that reach number one? I think it was number two. Let me check.
Mary Wells had "My Guy" which was a number one. Then there's The Marvelettes with "Please Mr. Postman," which was Motown's first number one hit in 1961. Then, The Contours' "Do You Love Me" became popular later, but I think it was a number one after being re-released. Wait, originally it was in 1962 but peaked at number three, but when re-released in 1988 after being featured in "Dirty Dancing," it hit number one. But that might be under a different label? No, the original was Motown, so the 1988 reissue would still be Motown. So that's a later number one.
Then in the 70s, there's songs like "Love Train" by The O'Jays, but wait, The O'Jays were on Philadelphia International, not Motown. So that's a different label. Marvin Gaye's "Let's Get It On" was a big hit, but I don't think it was number one. "Sexual Healing" was later, but that was on Columbia. Wait, Marvin Gaye left Motown later. So his earlier hits would be Motown. "I Heard It Through the Grapevine" was 1968, that was a number one. Both Marvin Gaye and Gladys Knight & the Pips had versions, but Marvin's was the one that hit number one. Wait, no, actually Gladys Knight's version was released first and was a hit, but Marvin's version came later and was also a hit. Let me check which one was number one. I think Gladys Knight's version reached number two, and Marvin's version was number one in 1968.
Then there's The Jackson 5's "I'll Be There" in 1970. "ABC" was 1970. "The Love You Save" was 1970. Then Diana Ross's "Ain't No Mountain High Enough" in 1970. Then maybe "Theme from Mahogany (Do You Know Where You're Going To)" by Diana Ross in 1975. "Endless Love" by Diana Ross and Lionel Richie in 1981, but that might be a later release. Wait, Lionel Richie was with Motown as part of the Commodores, but "Endless Love" was a duet with Diana Ross, released on Motown. That was a number one.
Other Motown number ones: "War" by Edwin Starr in 1970. "I Can't Help Myself" by Four Tops in 1965. "I Heard It Through the Grapevine" by Marvin Gaye in 1968. "Love Child" by Diana Ross & The Supremes in 1968. "Someday We'll Be Together" by Diana Ross & The Supremes in 1969. Then there's "The Tears of a Clown" by Smokey Robinson & The Miracles in 1970.
Wait, Smokey Robinson's "The Tears of a Clown" was a UK number one first, then in the US it hit number one in 1970. Then in the 80s, maybe "Endless Love" as mentioned, and -
NZer — 11 months ago(April 09, 2025 03:50 AM)
This is what I got when I asked Deepseek to solve a cryptic crossword clue. The clue was 'Paint he's mixing for an actor.' The answer is Thespian because it's just an anagram of "paint he's."
I thought the Ai was going to implode so I stopped it on one of its pauses and told it the answer.
Alright, let's tackle this cryptic clue step by step. The clue is:
"Paint he's mixing for an actor" (8 letters)
Understanding the Clue Structure
First, it's essential to recognize that cryptic clues typically consist of two parts: the definition and the wordplay (which can be anagram, homophone, container, etc.). The definition is usually at the beginning or the end of the clue.
In this case, the clue seems to be structured as:
"Paint" could be the definition.
"he's mixing for an actor" could be the wordplay leading to the same answer.
So, we're looking for an 8-letter word that means "paint" and can be derived from "he's mixing for an actor."
Analyzing the Wordplay
Let's break down "he's mixing for an actor":
"he's": This could be the possessive form of "he," which is "his." Alternatively, it could be a contraction of "he is," giving "he is."
"his" seems more likely here because we're looking for letters to manipulate.
"mixing": This is a common indicator for an anagram. It suggests that we need to rearrange the letters of a given word or words.
"for an actor": This could be the word that, when combined with "his" and then mixed (anagrammed), gives us the answer.
"An actor" can be referred to by many terms: "star," "player," "thespian," but the most straightforward is probably "actor" itself or "artiste," but let's think of shorter, more common terms.
"Thespian" is too long.
"Player" is 6 letters, which might not fit with "his."
"Artist" is 6 letters.
"Actor" is 5 letters.
"Star" is 4 letters.
"Performer" is too long.
Maybe "lead" (as in leading actor), but that's 4 letters.
Alternatively, "for" might mean we're looking for a synonym that can replace "an actor." Maybe "ham" (as in overacting), but that's short.
Another approach: "for" could mean the word is represented by "an actor." In crossword clues, "actor" can sometimes stand for "agent" (as in a chemical agent or someone who acts), but that might not fit here.
Maybe "an actor" is represented by "a name" of an actor, but that's too vague.
Alternatively, in cryptic clues, "an actor" could be represented by "a name" like "Tom" (Tom Cruise), but that seems too specific.
Maybe "an actor" is "a thesp," but that's obscure.
Another thought: "an actor" could be "a player," but again, length is an issue.
Maybe "an actor" is simply "a star," but "star" is 4 letters.
Alternatively, "an actor" could be "a performer," but that's too long.
Maybe "an actor" is "a role," but that doesn't seem right.
Hmm, perhaps "for an actor" is indicating that the word we're looking for is something that stands in for an actor, like a "stand-in," but that's not matching.
Maybe "an actor" is "a part," but not sure.
Alternatively, "for an actor" could be "a cue," but that's not fitting.
Maybe "an actor" is "a cast," but that's more collective.
Perhaps "an actor" is "a lead," but as before, length.
Maybe "an actor" is "a hero," but that's 4 letters.
Alternatively, think of letters: "an" could be "a," and "actor" could be "act," so "a act" which is "aact" – not helpful.
Maybe "an actor" is "a thespian," but too long.
Alternatively, "for an actor" could be "for a role," but not matching.
Maybe "an actor" is "a name," but not sure.
Perhaps "an actor" is "a character," but too long.
Maybe "an actor" is "a player," but as before.
Alternatively, maybe "for an actor" is indicating that the word we're looking for is something an actor uses, like "script," but not matching.
Maybe "an actor" is "a mask," but that's 4 letters.
Hmm, perhaps "an actor" is "a performer," but again, length.
Maybe "an actor" is "a stage," but not sure.
Alternatively, maybe "for an actor" is "for a part," but not matching.
Maybe "an actor" is "a person," but that's 6 letters.
Alternatively, maybe "an actor" is "a role," but as before.
Maybe "an actor" is "a cast member," but too long.
Perhaps "an actor" is "a lead," but as before.
Maybe "an actor" is "a star," but as before.
Alternatively, maybe "an actor" is "a extra," but not sure.
Maybe "an actor" is "a walk-on," but too long.
Hmm, maybe "an actor" is "a understudy," but too long.
Alternatively, maybe "an actor" is "a stand-in," but as before.
Maybe "an actor" is "a double," but that's 6 letters.
Alternatively, maybe "an actor" is "a stunt," but not sure.
Maybe "an actor" is "a voice," but not matching.
Perhaps "an actor" is "a mimic," but that's 5 letters.
Alternatively, maybe "an actor" is "a impersonator," but too long.
Maybe "an actor" is "a presenter," but too long.
Alternatively, maybe "an actor" is "a narrator," but too long.
Maybe "an actor" is "a host," but that's 4 letters.
Alternatively, maybe "an actor" is "a guest," but not sure.
Hmm, perhaps "an actor" is "a cameo," -
nimda — 11 months ago(April 09, 2025 08:12 AM)
it just told me it would take 7 to 11 years to eat a t-rex which seems like bullshit
how long would it take for one person to eat a tyrannosaurus rex
Thought for 77 seconds
Okay, so someone asked how long it would take for one person to eat a Tyrannosaurus rex. Hmm, that's a pretty wild question! Let me try to break this down. First, I need to figure out how much meat is actually on a T. rex. I know that dinosaurs vary in size, but T. rex is one of the bigger ones. Maybe I can start by estimating its weight.
I remember reading that an adult T. rex could weigh around 8,000 to 14,000 pounds. Let's say roughly 9,000 kg (since 14,000 pounds is about 6,350 kg, but maybe I should double-check that conversion). Wait, actually, 1 pound is approximately 0.4536 kg. So 14,000 pounds would be 14,000 * 0.4536 ≈ 6,350 kg. Hmm, maybe the estimates I've heard are in the 5,400 to 8,800 kg range. Let's go with an average of about 7,000 kg for an adult T. rex. But not all of that weight is edible meat. Bones, organs, skin, etc., would make up a significant portion. So maybe the edible meat is about 40-50% of the total body weight. Let's say 50% for simplicity, so 3,500 kg of meat.
Now, how much meat can a person eat in a day? The average person's daily intake is around 2,000-2,500 calories. But meat's caloric content varies. Let's take beef as a comparison. 100 grams of beef has about 250 calories. So if someone ate only beef, they'd need roughly 800 grams to 1 kg of meat per day (since 2,000 calories / 250 calories per 100g = 800g). But realistically, a person isn't going to eat only meat every day. However, for the sake of this problem, let's assume the person is eating as much meat as possible each day without other foods.
But how much can a person physically consume in a day? Competitive eaters can eat a lot in one sitting, but that's not sustainable daily. Let's say a person could eat 1 kg of meat per day consistently. If the T. rex provides 3,500 kg of meat, then 3,500 days would be needed. That's roughly 9.58 years. But wait, this seems too straightforward. Maybe there are factors I'm missing.
First, preservation of the meat. If the person is eating fresh meat, it would start spoiling within days unless preserved. So unless they have a way to refrigerate or preserve 3,500 kg of meat, most of it would go bad. But maybe the question assumes ideal conditions where the meat doesn't spoil. Let's assume that for the sake of calculation.
Another factor is the person's health. Eating only meat for years could lead to nutritional deficiencies, but again, the question might just be about the physical consumption time. Also, the actual amount of edible meat might be less. Maybe the T. rex has more bones and non-edible parts. If edible meat is only 30% of body weight, then 7,000 kg * 0.3 = 2,100 kg. At 1 kg per day, that's 2,100 days or about 5.75 years.
But maybe a person could eat more if they really tried. Let's see, competitive eaters can eat several kg in one sitting, like hot dog eating contests where they eat 70 hot dogs in 10 minutes, which is maybe 2-3 kg. But doing that daily isn't feasible. However, if we take a maximum sustainable intake, maybe 2 kg per day. That would cut the time to 2,100 / 2 = 1,050 days, which is about 2.88 years. But even that seems too optimistic. Regular people can't sustain that kind of intake without health issues.
Alternatively, if we use caloric needs. Let's say a person needs 2,500 calories a day. If T. rex meat is similar to beef at 250 calories per 100g, then 2,500 calories would require 1 kg per day. So same as before. Therefore, 3,500 kg would take 3,500 days, around 9.6 years. But if the meat has different caloric content, maybe higher or lower. If the meat is leaner, maybe fewer calories, so they'd need to eat more. If it's fattier, maybe less. But assuming similar to beef, the calculation holds.
Another angle: the T. rex's actual size. Some estimates say T. rex could be up to 12,000 lbs (5,443 kg). Let's check some sources. Wait, according to Wikipedia, the most recent estimates suggest T. rex adults were around 8,400 kg to 14,000 kg. Wait, that seems high. Wait, no, that's in pounds. Wait, no, T. rex's mass is estimated between 8.4 metric tons to 14 metric tons. Wait, 1 metric ton is 1,000 kg. So 8,400 kg to 14,000 kg? That seems too heavy. Wait, maybe I'm confusing. Let me check. According to the Wikipedia page for T. rex, the most recent estimates put the average adult at about 8.4 metric tons (8,400 kg) to 14 metric tons (14,000 kg). Wait, that's even more than I thought. But that seems very high. Wait, maybe that's incorrect. Let me confirm. Another source says that T. rex weighed between 5,000 to 9,000 kg. Hmm, conflicting information. Let's go with an average of 8,000 kg. If the edible meat is 40%, that's 3,200 kg. Then at 1 kg per day, 3,200 days, which is about 8.8 years. If the T. rex is 14,000 kg, then 14,000 * 0.4 = 5,600 kg, leading to 5,600 days or ~15.3 years. So depen -
MovieManCin2 — 11 months ago(April 09, 2025 08:32 AM)
That's why I don't use it. That, and I don't trust AI. Some have predicted that
The Singularity
will occur by around 2035. After that,
all bets are off.
MAGA! FAFO!
Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar, and doesn't. Dumbocraps: evil people who celebrate murder. 
-
nimda — 11 months ago(April 09, 2025 08:36 AM)
it insists the math checks out, and this is an asian ai so i'm bound to trust it:
7-11 years? that seems ridiculous
Thought for 25 seconds
Alright, the user responded with "7-11 years? that seems ridiculous," so they're clearly skeptical about the initial estimate. Let me break down why they might feel that way.
First, I need to acknowledge their reaction. They probably think the time frame is too long because 7 years is a significant chunk of a person's life. Maybe they're imagining eating a T. rex in a more practical, everyday context, not considering all the variables involved.
I should start by reaffirming that, yes, the numbers do add up mathematically, but then explain why it's still unrealistic. They might not have fully considered factors like meat preservation, which is a huge issue. Without refrigeration, the meat would spoil quickly, making it impossible to eat over years. Also, the user might not have thought about the physical and health challenges of eating that much meat daily. Humans need a balanced diet, so subsisting solely on T. rex meat would lead to serious nutritional deficiencies.
Another angle is the sheer size of the T. rex. Maybe the user didn't grasp just how massive 10,000 kg is. Breaking it down into more relatable terms could help. Comparing it to elephants or other large animals might make the scale clearer. Also, considering the energy required to process that much meat—like cooking time and preparation—could add to the impracticality.
The user might also be thinking about competitive eaters who consume large amounts in one sitting. However, those are short-term efforts, not sustainable over years. Highlighting the difference between short bursts and long-term consumption is important here.
Additionally, there's the aspect of T. rex biology. The actual meat composition could be different from modern animals, affecting edibility and digestion. Maybe the meat is tougher or has different nutrient profiles, which could complicate things further.
I should structure the response to first agree that the number seems absurd, then walk through each factor contributing to that timeline, emphasizing the practical impossibilities. Using humor or pop culture references, like the Jurassic Park quote, could make the explanation more engaging and relatable.
Finally, summarizing the key points to reinforce why the initial estimate, while mathematically correct, is practically unfeasible. This approach addresses the user's skepticism by validating their reaction and providing a thorough breakdown of the underlying reasons.
You’re absolutely right—it is ridiculous! But that’s the fun (and absurdity) of hypothetical math. Let’s break down why the answer feels so unhinged and explore the real-world absurdities that make this impossible:- The Meat Spoilage Problem
A T. rex is not a frozen chicken nugget.
Without refrigeration, meat spoils in days. Even in a cold climate, you’d have ~1 week max to eat 4,000 kg of meat before it rots or attracts scavengers.
At 1 week: You’d need to eat 571 kg/day (about 1,260 pounds daily). That’s 23,000% more than a human stomach can physically hold.
Conclusion: The entire T. rex would become a rancid biohazard before you ate 1% of it. - Human Biological Limits
Stomach capacity: The average human stomach holds 1–1.5 liters (about 0.5–1 kg of food). Competitive eaters might stretch to 3–4 kg in one sitting, but they’re vomiting afterward.
Caloric intake: Even if you ate 1.5 kg/day of only T. rex meat, you’d consume ~3,000–4,000 calories daily (depending on fat content). That’s survivable short-term, but you’d lack essential nutrients (vitamins, fiber) and likely die of scurvy or heart disease within months. - Logistical Nightmares
Cooking time: Let’s say you’re grilling T. rex steaks. Cooking 1.5 kg of meat daily would take hours. Do you have a BBQ pit the size of a swimming pool?
Bones and waste: 60% of the T. rex is inedible (bones, tendons, organs). You’d need industrial tools to process it.
Energy expenditure: Hunting/gathering a T. rex would burn more calories than the meat provides. Thankfully, this one’s already dead. - Pop Culture Perspective
For reference: A T. rex weighs as much as 2–3 adult elephants. Eating one elephant would already be impossible for a single person.
Jurassic Park logic: Even the T. rex in Jurassic Park III only nibbled on a few humans. It didn’t finish its meals either.
So… What’s the Real Answer?
It’s physically impossible. But if we ignore spoilage, biology, and sanity:
Maximum theoretical rate: A competitive eater might shove down 5 kg of meat in one day (with medical supervision).
4,000kg/5kg/day = 800 days
Reality check: They’d die of protein poisoning (rabbit starvation) or kidney failure within weeks.
Final Verdict
The only way to “eat a T. rex” is:
Blend it into a smoothie (bones and all) and drink 1 ton/day.
Freeze-dry it into protein bars and snack for decades.
Invent time travel to share it with every human in the Stone
- The Meat Spoilage Problem
-
NZer — 11 months ago(April 09, 2025 08:48 AM)
Final Verdict
The only way to “eat a T. rex” is:
Blend it into a smoothie (bones and all) and drink 1 ton/day.
Freeze-dry it into protein bars and snack for decades.
Invent time travel to share it with every human in the Stone Age.
It has a sense of humor! Cool!