r_parthasarathy

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by r_parthasarathy 5y ago

   I'm glad this makes sense; thanks for writing!
2. 2.▲
   by r_parthasarathy 5y ago

   Your comment is a good one, and I don't have time for a long reply, but I'll point out that the motivation for my being a bit "overblown" is the unfortunate and very common tendency of many people to have a nonsensical &
3. 3.▲
   by r_parthasarathy 5y ago

   pfdietz is correct. The key thing is that divergences always multiply, leading to an exponential dependence on number of scattering events. There isn't a transition between a linear and an exponential dependence. I think where you&#x27
4. 4.▲
   by r_parthasarathy 6y ago

   The monkey number was a very rough order of magnitude comment, and shouldn't be taken too seriously. But: You’re technically correct — I didn’t actually look up the metabolic rate of monkeys. The average value for humans (2000 Calori