How do they taste? I haven't gotten to try one yet.
faultyproboscus
joined 2 years ago
I have had Gros Michel bananas. They do not taste like banana candy, although weirdly they do smell like the candy much more strongly than the Cavendish.
The replacement for the Cavendish is already being sold commercially in Australia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldfinger_banana
The volume has increased exponentially. With generative AI, there are thousands of "news" sites with landing pages that look better than many real local news organizations.
These sites have agendas and are able to post the same story across the web, written differently each time, to look like events are taking place across the country/world and all being reported on by local news orgs. It's all astroturf, as far as the eye can see.
This list from Wikipedia just barely scratches the surface: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fake_news_websites
And this doesn't even touch on the amount of bullshit real news orgs publish without proper investigation thanks to the 24 hour news cycle and the rush to be the first to cover a story.
Yeah, there used to be misinformation published by news organizations and people with agendas. But that used to take significant effort. Now, I can set up a fake news website and fill it with stories in an afternoon.
You are dividing the working class just like the billionaires want you to do. You are demanding that people make a sacrifice of tens of thousands of dollars to accomplish very little.
This is another fucking purity test that divides the left and makes us incapable of handling the existential threat that is the republican party.
People who bought cybertrucks? Yeah, fuck 'em. Elon's right-wing bullshit was very public by the point the cybertruck was released. Those people aren't with us anyway.
But you're discounting over a million people in the US, who generally lean very left, who generally also have the finances to help support political action against this extraordinarily corrupt and dangerous right-wing regime.
Kill the snake, then we can go back to squabbling.
It's more complicated in ways that aren't intuitive.
Yes, at first glance, it appears that everything would continue to collapse down to a singularity. But a singularity is literally a failure of our model of physics. It's like dividing by zero- the result is nonsense. It's not an actual object.
From our perspective, time is stopped at the event horizon of a black hole. The singularity never forms because there isn't time for that to happen. If you fell into a black hole, would a singularity form as you are crossing the event-horizon? Maybe. Maybe Hawking Radiation is a thing and you're cooked by a wall of radiation as the collapsing object literally evaporates beneath you.
Keep in mind that high densities are needed for stellar black holes to form. An event horizon would form around the solar system if it was filled with air- and yes, there are black holes of this size.
I think it's a combination of at least three things.
Cosmic Microwave Background radiation gives us a pretty good idea of the energy/mass density in the universe at a fixed point and age of the universe. If you take the densities estimated from the CMB and multiply it by the estimated size of the universe at the time the CMB (380k years after the Big Bang), then you get the total mass.
Second, we can just look for what we can see. I think there have been large-scale surveys done to estimate total mass/energy in the universe.
The third estimate has to do with something called 'critical mass' - we observe the overall 'curve' of space to be very close to flat. I'm talking the geometry of space; two parallel rays of light do not ever cross or diverge. For this to happen, there needs to be a certain average density of mass.
Wikipedia has the mass of the observable universe listed as 1.5×10^53 kg, although this can go up to 10^60 kg at the higher ends.
If we plug the Wikipedia numbers into the Schwartzchild radius formula: r = (2GM) / (c^2)
Where G is the gravitational constant, M is our mass, and c is the speed of light:
r = (2 * 6.67408 * 10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2 * 1.5*10^53 kg) / (299792458 m/s)^2
r = 2 * 10^43 m^3 s^-2 / 8.988 * 10^16 m^2/s^2
r = 2.225×10^26 meters
r = 23.52 billion light years
Wikipedia lists the radius of the observable universe as 46.5 billion light years.
So... given the Wikipedia numbers, the universe would need to be half the size it is now to be a black hole. At these scales, being within an order of magnitude is... fine.
If we bump up the estimate of mass to only 3x10^53 kg, then the Schwartzchild radius equals the size of the observable universe.
So it's within the margins of error of our current estimates that the Schwartzchild radius of our universe would be the current size of our universe.
If you take all the mass in our universe and run it through the Schwarzschild equation, you get a black hole with about the same radius as our observable universe.
Things don't need to be tightly packed to be a black hole, there just needs to be enough stuff in an area.
view more: next ›
Thanks