CLOSE
Original image
iStock

How Rich Could You Be If You Bought '90s Apple Stock Instead of Having Kids?

Original image
iStock

Kids are expensive. Everyone knows that. But it’s hard to visualize just how much money you spend while raising those precious babies to adulthood. To give you the bleak outlook, try out WhatIfIBoughtAppleInstead.com, a calculator that compares how much raising a child costs versus how much money you could have if you put that money into Apple stock instead.

For instance, I was born in 1990. Using cost data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Yahoo Finance, the calculator estimates that even without the cost of college, 18 years of raising me probably cost my parents somewhere around $419,000. (Sorry, guys.) Instead, they could have bought 193,283 Apple shares, and they’d be $21.1 million richer. This is a whole new way to feel guilty about not calling your parents enough, particularly if you were born in the days before Apple became the world’s biggest company.

Life is a little more complicated than this kind of simple calculator can handle, so these aren't cut-and-dry figures. Maybe my parents would actually only be $20 million richer if they replaced me with an investment in Steve Jobs. Either way—parental love: so valuable.

Calculate the cost of your own birth or the birth of your own children here.

Know of something you think we should cover? Email us at tips@mentalfloss.com.

Original image
iStock
arrow
science
2017 Ig Nobel Prizes Celebrate Research on How Crocodiles Affect Gambling and Other Odd Studies
Original image
iStock

The Ig Nobel Prizes are back, and this year's winning selection of odd scientific research topics is as weird as ever. As The Guardian reports, the 27th annual awards of highly improbable studies "that first make people laugh, then make them think" were handed out on September 14 at a theater at Harvard University. The awards, sponsored by the Annals of Improbable Research, honor research you never would have thought someone would take the time (or the funding) to study, much less would be published.

The 2017 highlights include a study on whether cats can be both a liquid and a solid at the same time and one on whether the presence of a live crocodile can impact the behavior of gamblers. Below, we present the winners from each of the 10 categories, each weirder and more delightful than the last.

PHYSICS

"For using fluid dynamics to probe the question 'Can a Cat Be Both a Solid and a Liquid?'"

Winner: Marc-Antoine Fardin

Study: "On the Rheology of Cats," published in Rheology Bulletin [PDF]

ECONOMICS

"For their experiments to see how contact with a live crocodile affects a person's willingness to gamble."

Winners: Matthew J. Rockloff and Nancy Greer

Study: "Never Smile at a Crocodile: Betting on Electronic Gaming Machines is Intensified by Reptile-Induced Arousal," published in the Journal of Gambling Studies

ANATOMY

"For his medical research study 'Why Do Old Men Have Big Ears?'"

Winner: James A. Heathcote

Study: "Why Do Old Men Have Big Ears?" published in the BMJ

BIOLOGY

"For their discovery of a female penis, and a male vagina, in a cave insect."

Winners: Kazunori Yoshizawa, Rodrigo L. Ferreira, Yoshitaka Kamimura, and Charles Lienhard (who delivered their acceptance speech via video from inside a cave)

Study: "Female Penis, Male Vagina and Their Correlated Evolution in a Cave Insect," published in Current Biology

FLUID DYNAMICS

"For studying the dynamics of liquid-sloshing, to learn what happens when a person walks backwards while carrying a cup of coffee."

Winner: Jiwon Han

Study: "A Study on the Coffee Spilling Phenomena in the Low Impulse Regime," published in Achievements in the Life Sciences

NUTRITION

"For the first scientific report of human blood in the diet of the hairy-legged vampire bat."

Winners: Fernanda Ito, Enrico Bernard, and Rodrigo A. Torres

Study: "What is for Dinner? First Report of Human Blood in the Diet of the Hairy-Legged Vampire Bat Diphylla ecaudata," published in Acta Chiropterologica

MEDICINE

"For using advanced brain-scanning technology to measure the extent to which some people are disgusted by cheese."

Winners: Jean-Pierre Royet, David Meunier, Nicolas Torquet, Anne-Marie Mouly, and Tao Jiang

Study: "The Neural Bases of Disgust for Cheese: An fMRI Study," published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience

COGNITION

"For demonstrating that many identical twins cannot tell themselves apart visually."

Winners: Matteo Martini, Ilaria Bufalari, Maria Antonietta Stazi, and Salvatore Maria Aglioti

Study: "Is That Me or My Twin? Lack of Self-Face Recognition Advantage in Identical Twins," published in PLOS One

OBSTETRICS

"For showing that a developing human fetus responds more strongly to music that is played electromechanically inside the mother's vagina than to music that is played electromechanically on the mother's belly."

Winners: Marisa López-Teijón, Álex García-Faura, Alberto Prats-Galino, and Luis Pallarés Aniorte

Study: "Fetal Facial Expression in Response to Intravaginal Music Emission,” published in Ultrasound

PEACE PRIZE

"For demonstrating that regular playing of a didgeridoo is an effective treatment for obstructive sleep apnoea and snoring."

Winners: Milo A. Puhan, Alex Suarez, Christian Lo Cascio, Alfred Zahn, Markus Heitz, and Otto Braendli

Study: "Didgeridoo Playing as Alternative Treatment for Obstructive Sleep Apnoea Syndrome: Randomised Controlled Trial," published by the BMJ

Congratulations, all.

[h/t The Guardian]

Original image
iStock
arrow
Live Smarter
This Tool Knows If Robots Are Coming for Your Job
Original image
iStock

If you work as a cashier, you may want to polish your resume. According to the online tool “Will Robots Take My Job?” there’s a 97 percent chance your position will be replaced with technology in the not-too-distant future. Pharmacists, on the other hand, can breathe easier—they face a 1.2 percent risk level of unemployment by automation.

As Geek.com reports, the website, developed by Mubashar Iqbal and designed by Dimitar Raykov, can calculate the stability of 702 jobs. It pulls its data from a 2013 report titled "The Future of Employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation?” The original study projects that 47 percent of U.S. jobs risk becoming obsolete as technology advances.

To see which side of the workforce your occupation falls on, type your title into the search bar on the main page. The tool brings up your automation risk level (ranging from “Totally safe” to "You are doomed”), the job’s projected growth, and median salary and employment numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

With some positions, like bank tellers (risk level of 98 percent) and telemarketers (99 percent), apps and automations are already starting to phase out human beings. Fortunately, there are still plenty of tasks a robot can’t be programmed to execute. So people with creative jobs, like writing songs or naming paint colors, are safe for now.

[h/t Geek]

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER
More from mental floss studios