5 ms·
Total tangent.. but there’s no innate reason to be totally boggled by huge (or incredibly tiny) numbers. I think getting all in a huff about them is an anti-pat
by jackyinger 7y ago
Total tangent.. but there’s no innate reason to be totally boggled by huge (or incredibly tiny) numbers. I think getting all in a huff about them is an anti-pattern in science writing. I mean, we deal with gigabytes of data on machines with clock periods of nanoseconds every day.
What is cool is learning about new-to-you physical mechanisms.
- aasasd 7y agoCounterpoint: Graham's number. It's like the Emperor's “enough dakka,” but with digits.
- perl4ever 7y agoIt's faintly ridiculous to have all the over the top expressions of amazement about something a couple hundred times the size of the Sun. If you're the layperson this is aimed at, who doesn't have a clue about stellar physics, then why not imagine a star 1,000 or 1,000,000 times the mass?