This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.


I am now sitting on the wing of a plane that is about to take off. Gonna try to Tom Cruise it. Will post updates soon.

thebestaquaman, (edited )


  • cylindrical human, 2m tall, 25 cm diameter.
  • air displaced from the point you teleport to is instantly moved to form a monolayer (1 molecule thick) on your surface.
  • The displacement of air is adiabatic (no heat is transferred, which will be true if the displacement is instantaneous)

Volume of displaced air: ≈ 100L = 0.1m^3 At atmospheric conditions: ≈ 4 mol

Surface area of cylindrical human: ≈ 1.58 m^2 Diameter of nitrogen molecule (which is roughly the same as for an oxygen molecule) : ≈ 3 Å Volume of monolayer: ≈ 4.7e-10 m^3

Treating the air as an ideal gas (terrible approximation for this process) gives us a post-compression pressure of ≈ 45 PPa (you read that right: Peta-pascal) or 450 Gbar, and a temperature of roughly 650 000 K.

These conditions are definitely in the range where fusion might be possible (see: solar conditions). So to the people saying you are only “trying to science”, I would say I agree with your initial assessment.

I’m on my phone now, but I can run the numbers using something more accurate than ideal gas when I get my computer. However, this is so extreme that I don’t really think it will change anything.

Edit: We’ll just look at how densely packed the monolayer is. Our cylindrical person has an area of 1.58 m^2, which, assuming an optimally packed monolayer gives us about 48 micro Å^2 per particle, or an average inter-particle distance of about 3.9 milli Å. For reference, that means the average distance between molecules is about 0.1 % of the diameter of the molecules (roughly 3 Å) I think we can safely say that fusion is a possible or even likely outcome of this procedure.


The math actually says that we might quite possibly get nuclear stuff. I checked because at first I intuitively thought the same thing as you.


To be fair, the result of this calculation only depends on the area/volume ratio of the human. I used the specific cylinder, because humans are roughly cylindrical, and have a volume of roughly 100 L. The surface area of a regular human is probably a bit larger than that of a cylindrical one though.


To be fair: If you live in the south, it doesn’t make much sense, but if you live a bit further north it’s the difference between getting up when the sun is a a reasonable place, or getting up in the middle of the night (winter) or the middle of the day (summer). I want it to be light out when I’m awake, not when it’s sleeping time.

Turns out it’s easier to adjust the clock than to say “work starts at 9 in the winter and at 8 in the summer”


Any idea on the range that hit at? The flight time was crazy!


It might have to do with the fact that by far most of the population has some degree of immunity now due to infection or vaccination, making the disease much less lethal than it was, and now completely comparable to other flu viruses. I don’t want everyone to freak out every time some mild disease is in season. Yes, it sucks to get a cold, and it sucks to get the flu, but if nobody ever catches them we will have very low levels of immunity in the population, making it far worse when people do eventually catch them.

After covid I was bedridden a couple weeks because of common colds. Thats never happened before. The amount of people hospitalised due to other diseases than covid also spiked (we have statistics for this). The reason was that very few people had gotten sick for two years, so nobody had any immunity agains anything they weren’t vaccinated against (which is most cold- or flu viruses).


I’m not pretending coronavirus is literally a type of flu virus. It just happens to be a novel flu virus that we don’t have as much exposure and immunity to yet. There are plenty of historical examples of what happens when a population is hit by a virus that it has little or no immunity against, even though that virus is relatively harmless to those with immunity.

That is not an argument against vaccines, and it is not an argument against all the precautions that were taken when Covid-19 first hit. Those were both necessary for the population to build as much immunity as possible, with as few as possible deaths and as little as possible sickness.

It is an argument for the fact that Covid-19 must be treated differently now and in the future vs. how it was initially treated. It is now a virus that most of the population as some degree of immunity against (due to both infections and vaccines). If you doubt that that’s the case, just look at the reproduction numbers for Covid-19 outbreaks, which are still ongoing. In the initial waves, just a handfull of infections were capable of spreading to entire countries, killing thousands, within just weeks. If a handfull of people get Covid-19 now, that is no longer the case, even though we aren’t quarantining people. This is a direct result of herd immunity. Just like we have flu season, where different flu viruses spread in local epidemics, Covid-19 will continue to spread in local, seasonal epidemics in the foreseeable future (likely “forever”), but it is no longer the same threat as it was when nobody had any immunity to it.


So your standpoint is that you want people to walk around making each other sick regardless of the consequences?

I never said that. I said that if nobody ever gets sick, the consequences are much larger when disease does spread. Just check the statistics for any country post-covid lockdowns, and you will se a spike in non-covid related respiratory disease. Plenty of doctors and researchers have pointed out that the reason was very little respiratory disease during lockdowns/quarantining periods leading to low immunity in the population. I want to minimise the consequences long-term, and I’m saying that I prefer to get mildly sick once or twice a year over getting extremely sick every other year.

And your reason for this is that you spent two weeks in bed?

It seems like you didn’t even read the whole paragraph. As I said, what I experienced wasn’t unique, but something we could also see in statistics over hospitalisations. I’m lucky enough to only have been in bed, but for people with preexisting conditions, the same infections could have been much worse. Again: If most people get mildly sick every now and then (as we always have) we prevent outbreaks from wreaking havoc and hospitalising a bunch of people when the do happen.


Yes, Covid-19 is still considered novel, but saying that we are dependent on evolutionary-scale changes to develop immunity is just wrong. The immune system learns to recognise infections relatively quickly, which is literally why vaccines work. It’s also why people typically only get infected by seasonal epidemics once in a season, because we quickly build a short-lasting “immunity” to the virus that is in season. Source: Masters degree in chemistry/biotechnology.


Some languages - specifically Norwegian that I know of, don’t have separate words for “boyfriend” and “girlfriend”. In Norwegian we have the word “kjæreste” which can be directly translated to “dearest”. To me it always feels a little weird to use “boyfriend” or “girlfriend”, i guess the same could be true for other non-native english speakers.


It just really rubs me the wrong way when people want to “rewrite history” either by modifying books, art or anything else, to fit their modern world view.

First of all: I think it’s naive to believe that we somehow now have “the answer” to what is “correct”. Secondly: I really don’t like setting a precedent that we can just erase uncomfortable things at any time. Imagine the how much has been lost throughout history by different cultures erasing things they didn’t like.

Most of all, it’s the concept of judging acts or words from other times and cultures based on our idea of right and wrong that just gives me the impression that people lack perspective, and the ability to put things into context.


Doomscrolling has now become an Olympic sport

And if I have that page, I’ll be a viable competitor

German Government is Preparing to Provide Ukraine with Taurus Missiles (

According to information from its own sources reported by German t-online, based on reports from circles within the Social Democratic Party, the German government intends to announce the supply of Taurus missiles to Ukraine “in the near future,” the publication states.


I’ve never heard anyone call Scholz “tough as nails” before, but if this helps get the ball rolling with ATACMS that would be fantastic!


a lot of people aren’t receiving the housing they prepaid for.

the hell world of trying to find a place to live in the US.

Your propaganda

I’ll just leave this here for you to think about.


It breaks my heart to see people that are trying to good get hurt or killed by those only trying to turn a profit. I have to wonder, at what point to enough people become so sick of the violence that follows cartels like this that you start getting significant peoples militias set up to protect local communities?

People who back into parking spots: Why?

To me, it seems objectively easier to pull into a parking space forward and then back out of the space when you are ready to leave. You don’t have to line up with the lines while driving backwards, and it’s easier to keep from hitting other cars as well. So why back in? To me, the only advantage I can think of is that you...


Exactly, especially if you have a long car.


There’s a comment on another post with this article doing the math on this, and it seems like the net emissions (when you account for efficiencies) actually favour steam-reforming + fuel cells.


One of the advantages of hydrogen is that tanks and fuel cells can withstand a large number of “charging cycles” much better than batteries. Additionally, for ships, the amount of energy needed to move is so enormous that I fear we’ll have a hard time creating batteries that are feasible for long-distance shipping.

For short distance ferrying (including large, car carrying ferries) on the other hand, Norway has already implemented quite a few electric stretches. The major issue there is building the infrastructure to charge the ferries.


If we’re able to make hydrocarbon-synthesis from CO2 efficient… we’re still going to need to source the hydrogen somewhere.

But if we do that using electrolysis (with renewables), and are able to create more energy efficient CO2 capturing processes, I could see synthetic hydrocarbons as a viable fuel option in the future. The thing is: They’re stupidly good at being stable, energy dense, energy carriers. We also have a lot of infrastructure in place to handle hydrocarbons already.

In principle, synthetic hydrocarbons could be part of a zero-emission cycle, where we capture CO2 and electrolyse hydrogen with renewable energy, and use the hydrocarbons as an energy carrier. But if we go that way, we’re definitely going to have to research efficient hydrogen production, and probably storage as well.


One of the beautiful things with the fediverse is that I’ve just created an alt account on another instance, so I can

1: Reduce the load on servers

2: use the alt account if is down


Er rimelige argumenter både for og imot:

For: Det kutter ca. 2% av Norges karbonavtrykk, noe som er helt vanvittig for et enkeltprosjekt.

Mot: Det gjør antakelig at vi kan produsere mer gass totalt, og gir ammunisjon til de som vil forlenge oljealderen mest mulig. Karbonavtrykket fra brenning av gassen fra Melkøya er antakelig mye større enn karbonavtrykket fra å drive anlegget.

For: Det investeres milliarder i fornybar kraftutbygging og infrastruktur. Det siste er spesielt viktig. Når Melkøya en dag legges ned kommer denne kraften og infrastrukturen andre industrier til gode. Det bygges også ut mye mer enn Melkøya trenger.

Mot: Dersom kraftutbyggingen ikke går som planlagt, kommer det til å bli kraftmangel i nord. Det fører til økte priser, og går utover potensielle industrier som vil starte opp.

Det er det siste “mot” punktet jeg har sett flest motstandere snakke om, men jeg synes det første er viktigere.

Jeg synes også “mot” punktene fullstendig drukner i forhold til “for” punktene, og at vi burde kjøre på med bygging av fornybar kraft i nord så fort som mulig.


Det er likevel en vesentlig forskjell mellom en symbolsk handling, hvor intensjonen er det sentrale, og de handlingene du sammenlikner med. I en sak om overlagt vs. uoverlagt drap kan man se på hvorvidt gjerningsmannen planla drapet. I tyverisaken kan man se på hvorvidt det ble tatt konkrete grep som fungerte for å hindre at det ble oppdaget.

I begge tilfeller er handlingen i seg selv allerede ulovlig, og det holder det å vise at gjerningsmannen “visste eller burde ha visst” hva konsekvensene av foregående handlinger ville vært. I tilfellet symbolsk handling snakker vi om en handling som i seg selv ikke er ulovlig, og må i såfall formulere en lov som sier noe som at "fordi du tidligere har sagt at du ikke liker , eller at du er imot politikk som hjelper , er det ulovlig for deg å " da mener jeg at vi langt på vei har gjort uttalelsene "liker ikke " eller "støtter ikke politikk som hjelper " ulovlig.


Problemet med en slags “midlertidig begrensning” er at man veldig fort åpner døren for et flertallstyranni, hvor man “midlertidig begrenser” ytringsfriheten til politiske motstandere, så lenge de er i kraftig mindretall.

Det er nok av historiske tilfeller hvor en liten gruppe mennesker har kjempet mot flertallet, og endt opp med å få rettigheter og muligheter som vi i dag ser på som selvfølgelige. Grunnen til at det gikk var at majoriteten ikke brukte makten sin til å begrense det de kunne si. Jeg synes det blir veldig feil å begrense ytringer fordi “vi har rett”, det ender uansett opp med at man begrenser ytringer man er uenig i.


Det kan jeg være enig i, hvertfall når det er snakk om høyreekstreme tullinger som bare er ute etter å lage kvalme.

Jeg er mer skeptisk til å fordømme når f.eks. en kvinne som hadde blitt pisket før hun flyktet til Sverige (?) demonstrerte mot regimet i hjemlandet ved å piske, og deretter brenne, Koranen.

Flaggbrenning har lenge vært noe som blir gjort i demonstrasjoner- det er en kraftig uttalelse, men trenger ikke alltid fordømmes (se: russiske borgere som brenner flagg/pass i protest mot invasjonen av Ukraina)

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • bokunoheroacademia
  • Leos
  • DreamBathrooms
  • mdbf
  • osvaldo12
  • magazineikmin
  • Youngstown
  • thenastyranch
  • InstantRegret
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • everett
  • kavyap
  • tacticalgear
  • sketchdaily
  • tester
  • ethstaker
  • cubers
  • cisconetworking
  • khanakhh
  • GTA5RPClips
  • Durango
  • lostlight
  • normalnudes
  • modclub
  • HellsKitchen
  • relationshipadvice
  • littleknowngames
  • All magazines