Yeah I was referencing the event horizon as the most meaningful measure of size.
And whether the density is fixed over time or not doesn't affect the question. Let's take the universe at its current average mass/energy density - whatever the "true" measure of that is.
To the best of our understanding, at large scales the density is uniform. So if we consider a suitably large spherical volume of space within our (presumably infinite) universe.. that volume will have an average mass/energy content greater than the threshold amount for a black hole of that apparent volume (again, using the external event horizon frame).
So that suggested to me that either we live in a finite universe, or we must be on the inside of an event horizon. It seems like an unavoidable conclusion.
I think a point they are trying to make is that the border of a black hole is only to us outside observers, if you yourself fell into one you wouldn't notice anything specific when you crossed the boundary. The popular example of hawking radiation references a border and pairs of particles, however its actually only to help people understand the idea of what is going on
>> Our universe is expanding. It's density is not fixed.
> None of that precludes uniform density at large scales.
According to observation, the universe is expanding. An argument that it's really static at a large scale would require contradicting observational evidence, but none exists. A theory that requires abandoning observational evidence bears a special burden, which this theory lacks.
The universe's expansion, and a black hole's increase in mass over time, are unrelated phenomena. We could have one without the other. In fact, because of Hawking radiation, in the far future we might see a larger universe accompanied by smaller black holes.
It may just be that the physical conditions of our universe just prior to the big bang are indistinguishable from that of the interior of black holes.
In that sense black holes are areas where our universe has reverted from it's low entropy state all the way back to the initial nearly infinite entropy state.
some people read HN in their free time. this person has decided to draw pubs in her free time. i don't see her making shit posts about how you choose to use your free time.
if it were not for this article, I'd never have known that someone was trying to draw by hand every single pub in London. so it was successful in delivering news to me
Who cares about it being a scoop or how they sourced it. The information came to me by them. Where did you get the notion that any of this is the sole purpose of a news organization?
You know that the newspaper had other sections in it that, wait for it, wasn't news, right? They had lifestyle sections. They had sports sections. They even had comics. None of that was news as whatever your strict definition seems to be, but it was information that people were interested in knowing. Maybe you don't. Great. Move along and stop trying to ruin it for everyone else just because you don't get it.
I'm naturally conspiratorial; but, this is possibly why search results were intentionally degraded over the past 5 years. Which has had an impact on overall site traffic that has not gone unnoticed. Google's been trying their luck with "creator summits" over the past few years but the creators are starting to smell a rat.
So you have Google which famously does not want people to actually leave their property. Infoboxes, calculator, extraction of semantic data for direct display in search results.
Would a company like that intentionally downgrade search results making quality content harder for users to find, then train their LLMs on this highly valuable content, ultimately creating an unnatural shift away from the previous model to the "weak AI chatbot" model?
I know HN hates conspiracies but there's trillions of dollars at stake here. We know companies will poison entire communities and create flammable rivers just to shave a few million off the expenses. Who knows what Google will do to keep it's market position?
Real web search is disappearing locked behind large datasets unavailable for normal users. The AI screen ensures you’re fed exactly what they intended while siloing off the web more and more to block competition. All the while signing exclusivity deals which should realistically be illegal (try finding current Reddit results anywhere but Google).
AI based interaction makes it much easier to manipulate users into buying your items as they add a layer of human-like trust on top of the machine. It won’t be long before prices are hidden behind LLMs generating prices based on who you are. I’m already noticing ChatGPT becoming more and more enthusiastic about any product it thinks I have the potential of buying. Try asking it if something is a good deal, 9 times out of 10 it will say, “Yes, go for it.”
We don’t want to live in a proprietary world where LLMs exist. This technology needs to be open. The search data needs to be open and not walled off to only monopolies. This is an inflection point.
I can imagine half a dozen ways to use this data against you in all kinds of settings. Sales, divorce, employment, espionage against your employer, burglary, and basic blackmail.
They blamed them for pre-existing social problems. I feel the important context was that the government had to be significantly dysfunctional for the Nazi party to even exist.
I know that CECOT is not nearly as bad as concentration camps, but at the same time it's not like Trump refrains from sending people off to camps, based on loose accusations.
What I'm trying to say, or I guess repeat after you, is that fascism doesn't have to be Hitlerian to be fascism. Or in other words, at this point it's too late anyways.
We absolutely should start comparing and measuring now, because at the point where the comparisons match 100%, too much damage will have been done.
If I was religious I'd probably pray for the US, as I'm not I'm just shaking my head in astonishment.
Trump isn't sending his political opponents to camps (yet), is my point. If you're a citizen currently in US, you can, to paraphrase the old Soviet joke, stand next to the White House and shout "Trump is an asshole", and you won't find yourself on a deportation flight tomorrow. OTOH Nazis started creating concentration camps specifically for communists and dissident journalists less than a month after their electoral victory.
I think that focusing on broad comparisons is not the best idea precisely because it's way too easy to deconstruct, and "X is literally Hitler" is such an overused political trope that most people stop listening right away regardless of how much truth there is to it. It's better to focus on the specific negative actions.
> The Nazis had strong support. But Hitler was appointed.
Well, yeah, PM’s (and the Chancellor in the German system at the time, and now, is a PM) are almost invariably appointed by the head of state after either a general election—or sometimes between them if an incumbent resigns or a vacancy occurs by other means—as the leader of the majority party (if any), the leader of the majority coalition (if there's no majority party but there is a majority coalition), or sometimes (and whether this is allowed and whether it makes a sooner next election than would otherwise be required varies) some minority party leader based on some combination of size of minority, support and opposition from other parties, and discretion of the head of state.
And, yes, Hitler was first appointed as the last and weakest kind, but that's still effectively winning the tiebreaker set out for an ambiguous electoral result, since it could only happen because no other party or coalition could form a legislative majority.
> They blamed them for pre-existing social problems.
Is immigration a new hot topic in the US?
I mean, a few years ago the US government started wasting money building a wall on the US-Mexico border whose only purpose was propaganda and dog whistling.
And is it really necessary to point out the obvious parallels between the Nazi's "vital state" propaganda and Trump's "Canada as 51st state" and "Greenland is ours" rhetoric?
If they talk like Nazis and they goose-step like Nazis, what are they? I would ask if you'd start being concerned when they started rounding up random people off the streets, but apparently that's still not enough.
There's an entire division of the military that is literally police. They serve a similar function to their civilian counterparts. There's also intelligence and logistics units.
2/7 is an infantry battalion. They have no training or experience policing.
I was a member of an infantry battalion once tasked with doing policing in a foreign country. Let me just say that the outcome was exactly what you’d expect. We were very effective at responding with overwhelming force to attacks by an insurgency but pretty ineffective at keeping the peace.
That the security policy for the user and the resulting access key hasn't changed their level of access?
Identity, while the most common use case, is only half the system when federating logins.
reply