Russia is actually pretty small and it almost fits inside Africa. Try it out: https://www.thetruesize.com/
EDIT: Ok I expressed myself in the wrong way. What I meant was, Russia is not as big as I thought it was. Of course, it’s still really huge.
That’s a neat website, but is there any way to rotate the countries?
Nope
I think that says more about how unbelievably massive Africa is.
“pretty small”, it’s like 2 Canada’s.
Ok I expressed myself in the wrong way. What I meant was, Russia is not as big as I thought it was. Of course, it’s still really huge.
Africa is, like, huge. So saying Russia is small because it fits within Africa doesn’t make it sound small to me.
Ok I expressed myself in the wrong way. What I meant was, Russia is not as big as I thought it was. Of course, it’s still really huge.
Wait so it’s purely projection distortion that makes Russia seem half the size of the old world?? This blew my mind.
Also fun fact Google seems to have stopped outlining Russia (not other countries) when you click them in Google Maps.
You got me clicking countries on the map now. I really can’t find a consistent reason why sometimes it shows the outline and sometimes it doesn’t…
- Canada: yes
- Russia: no
- South Korea: no
- China: no
- Spain: no
- France: yes
- Iraq: yes
- Kyrgyzstan: no
- Mongolia: yes
- Japan: no
- USA: yes
- Malaysia: yes
What pattern is there here???
Maybe if there are territorial disputes / conflicts (Ukraine also no) they do this instead of picking a side? No idea
Russia is the biggest country on the planet by land area.
Ok I expressed myself in the wrong way. What I meant was, Russia is not as big as I thought it was. Of course, it’s still really huge.
Lettuces in landfills take up to 25 years to decompose.
Wait, what? How is that possible? When its in my fridge its a race against time but in a landfill its just chilling?
Lack of moisture and oxygen because it’s so compacted
Why do we need fridges if we can just put things in the landfill and have it last longer
Shit you’re into something
I find this so hard to believe.
Had a quick search, nothing really credible.
Of course it’s going to depend on a lot of variables, but I can’t imagine it taking more than a year in any case.
A lot of bacteria doesn’t need significant oxygen to decompose things, and it’s not like it’s the bottom of the dead sea.
Hard to believe was what was being asked 😅 the number is present in many websites about trash or composting, but I don’t know it’s exact origin. But I guess at some moment someone digged on a 25 year old landfill and found remains of a lettuce.
Even if this is exaggerating, the moral of the story is that it’s such a waste to send organics to landfills at a time where we’re losing soils at record pace. Food waste should be composted and returned to the soil.
But it’s possible that that lettuce was a fresh and plastic wrapped thrown to the landfill like that, because that does happen as well. And maybe that created optimal conditions to prevent decomposition.
Hard to believe was what was being asked
Not really, Hard to believe but true was the question - but there’s no evidence or even theory that this one may be true.
Ordinarily I’m not a super nitpicky asshole, but given the 100% true requirement it feels kind of appropriate?
the number is present in many websites about trash or composting
The number of websites quoting the same thing makes it seem credible but ultimately doesn’t mean much. All I can find is blog-spam quoting this number. Suppose I write on my blog that lettuce decays in 25 days.
Even if this is exaggerating, the moral of the story is […]
Obviously, we shouldn’t be putting vegetable matter in landfill, but hyperbole has ever been a very poor way to promote ones cause.
But it’s possible that that lettuce was a fresh and plastic wrapped thrown to the landfill like that, because that does happen as well. And maybe that created optimal conditions to prevent decomposition.
The anaerobes are already present on the lettuce from day 1. Wrapping in plastic doesn’t keep them out because they’re already in. Even if you could create optimal conditions for preserving lettuce in landfill, that’s not really the same as the claim which is being made here.
I really don’t know anything about this but … It looks as though most vegetables will be 100% sludge after 8 weeks in anaerobic conditions.
I suspect that this 25 year factoid is derived from some specific conditions and very specific use of the term “completely decomposed”. For example, maybe under laboratory conditions, anaerobic decomposition quickly turns a lettuce to sludge in 8 weeks, but can’t break down cellulose polymer chains or something. So for all intents and purposes the lettuce is gone but if you looked at the sludge 20 years later you would still find some of those polymer chains present.
I first heard this number at a conference by a PhD expert who studies these issues. But I never went looking for the exact origin, because I didn’t find it so hard to believe (given the context).
Certainly there are some specific conditions that freeze that decomposition and that might not always be present. This article mentions the lignin effect, that delays decomposition in anaerobic conditions, but no specific reference to lettuce. Can’t open other articles that seem more directly related.
So the claim is something like
Lettuces in landfills [generally decompose within a few weeks, but under some very specific and unusual circumstances in a controlled simulation of what a landfill might be like it can] take up to 25 years to [completely] decompose [due to something related to the lignin effect, although I can’t find any reliable source for this].
Thank God you’re not super nitpicky.
It’s a fact published in dozens of websites included official websites of trash management services and companies.
This is not my area of expertise and I won’t look up anything else, but do feel free to do it and inform all those websites about your findings
I’m not sure it’s “nitpicky” to ask for clarification of a claim of 25 years when in reality 8 weeks is far more likely.
Is it so hard to admit that perhaps claim is misleading at best and therefore probably not “100% true” ?
how
What about the legs? What happened to the legs?
Australia is about the same size as the USA in terms of land mass.
unless you ever glanced at a world map i guess
I’m an Aussie living in the USA and a plenty of Americans don’t know this.
Actually a lot of the maps you are used to seeing do not accurately depict the land size a lot of countries. Mainly USA, Canada, and Russia. Google it.
I have a globe
edit: i started wondering if you thought I was disagreeing with the statement that Australia and USA are similarily sized. I wasn’t. I’m saying its something that already sounds 100% true.
You’re obviously not from the USA.
America bombed the Nord Stream
If it’s not proven, it’s not a fact
Until recently the word “factoid” didn’t mean a small bit of trivia. It meant something that sounded true or was accepted as a fact even though it was incorrect.
This sounds like a factoid
Yep! Learned that word in Dune books, was confused when I first saw it online meaning something entirely different.
That’s definitely what it should mean. -oid means resembling or pertaining to, it’s not a diminutive.
Meme also suffered this fate, Used to mean an idea that was transmitted from person to person like a disease.
I think the meaning of AI has also become watered down recently.
The world’s two largest cities by area are both on Greenland.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/world-city-rankings/largest-city-in-the-world-by-area
Hard sell to consider towns of 20k and 10k people are cities. I grew up in rural Midwest with higher population densities than that.
That would be a diameter of about 800 km. Don’t they have multiple centers that could be called towns? With churches, administration and schools? They just can’t be bothered to split it up.
The towns in this municipality on Greenland used to be split up. The main capital is among them, so it made sense to grasp the 800 km circumference even if it’s just a few people. Anyway it’s according to the topic, so as stupid as it might be, it is factually the largest cities by area, and goes to show that the question of which is the largest city is ambiguous.
Tokyo is usually considered the largest city, due to the largest population overall, but it doesn’t have the largest area (Greenland) nor the largest population of a single municipal (Chongqing, China) nor the largest density (Macau, China) nor the largest area of skyscrapers (Hong Kong), so it’s a thing depending on definitions.
It doesn’t really matter much. If you’re in the middle it, it’s all just city until the horizon. Well, except for Greenland. You can probably throw a stone across all the houses in the largest city by area.
We might actually not know why magnets work.
The formula used to prove the functionality of magnets can also be used to prove the existence of a theoretical state called a monopolar magnet - positive or negative on both sides. So either monopolar magnets can exist, even if in some esoteric circumstance, or we don’t know why magnets work.
Tell that to the ICP.
@ChatGPT@lemmings.world Is the below text true?
We might actually not know why magnets work.
The formula used to prove the functionality of magnets can also be used to prove the existence of a theoretical state called a monopolar magnet - positive or negative on both sides. So either monopolar magnets can exist, even if in some esoteric circumstance, or we don’t know why magnets work.
I don’t know you are downvoted because ChatGPT answers are usually a good start for a new conversation and new arguments. Is ChatGPT answer accurate, is it somehow true but with a lot of hallucinations? What about the nuances in its answer they we might have overlooked?
You realize that ChatGPT has no concept of “true”, right? It produces output which looks coherent and reasonable and tends to stumble into truthful statements on accident, by virtue of drawing from a dataset of people saying mostly true things. Of course, the bot is equally capable of spouting off outright lies in an equally convincing manner.
This is a very unreliable way to verify a surprising fact. I strongly recommend against it.
Yes, your statement is quite accurate. The field of magnetism, like many areas of physics, continues to provide plenty of mysteries and unanswered questions.
Monopoles, magnets with only one pole, are a purely theoretical concept at this point. They were first proposed in the context of quantum mechanical systems, and the equations of electromagnetism do allow for their existence. However, despite many years of searching, no monopoles have been detected so far in the real world.
As for understanding how magnets work, we do have a rather good grasp on this from the framework of classical electrodynamics (Maxwell’s Equations) and quantum mechanics. It involves the alignment of electron spins in certain materials, creating a net magnetic field.
However, like many theories, while it predicts observable phenomena remarkably well, it still doesn’t answer every question we have about the nature of magnets. It should also be noted that our understanding of magnetism (and most physical phenomena) is based on models which are representations of reality and not the utter, standalone truth. So there is always room for additional discovery and understanding.
Remember, the lack of a complete explanation doesn’t necessitate that our current understanding is incorrect, it merely implies it may not be complete. Science is an ongoing process of learning, refinement, and discovery.
deleted by creator
It provided context, which is more than the person did. Also people are confidently incorrect around here all the time, should I rely on them instead? I don’t use GPT when I need to know something for sure, but I don’t really care about this stuff so it’s a perfect use case for GPT. If it’s wrong here, well, I don’t really care.
This seems like a false dichotomy. Maxwell’s equations don’t say anything about where the charge comes from, only how the electromagnetic field behaves if charge (be it electric or magnetic) is present.
And if you’re talking about the standard model, well we’ve known that that’s incomplete since its inception, but I’m not aware of any argument that says anything beyond the standard model must have either monopole or a fundamentally different conception of magnetic dipoles.
- Wombat feces are cube shaped.
- Bananas are berries and strawberries are not.
- Oxford university is older than the Aztec empire.
- Humans share 50% of our DNA with bananas.
Tomatoes are also a fruit
To all those people who say they don’t like fruit on their pizza.
Also pineapple on pizza is fantastic … mi dispiace
Tomatoes are vegetables. If we’re speaking botanically, then squash, pumpkins, cucumbers, peppers, eggplants, corn kernels, and bean are also fruit. US supreme court ruled that they’re vegetables. EU declared tomatoes to be fruit for the purpose of making jam, though.
Wait wuh! Strawberries aren’t berries? What is this heresy?
and lady bugs are actually beetles, not “true bugs”
Strawberries are nuts by definition. I guess the definition is nuts, too.
Well, the little “seeds” on the outside are nuts by def. The red fleshy part is an accessory fruit.
Wow. TIL. Thank you
I am quite old and responsible when I’m not here?
Trees are mostly made of air.
I assume you mean trees are mostly made from air and not trees are mostly gaseous. Most of trees are carbon, which they get from carbon dioxide in the air, but they transform it, using energy from the sun. Equivalently you could say they’re mostly made from sunlight, which is obviously wrong, but equally accurate.
The statement that humans are mostly water, on the other hand, is actually correct. It is water in the form of water from water.
I only recently learned this and I’ve been going around telling everybody. Air and light people! The trees are made of air and light!
Communism can be achieved.
Maybe in the absence of human greed.
Because greed corrupts any system including communism.
Capitalism works because of greed and the concentration of power to a small group of people. But the more successful it is, the more inequality there is and eventually the system will fail … for the majority not the minority.
Communism failed because of greed and the concentration of power to a small group of people. The more they concentrated power the more inequality there was and eventually the system failed.
The problem to any human system are humans … conversely, the solution to and human system are humans.
We are our greatest ally and we are also our own worst enemy.
Communism failed because of greed and the concentration of power to a small group of people. The more they concentrated power the more inequality there was and eventually the system failed.
Your description is highly inaccurate to begin with, but for one moment I will put it aside. Is there no hand, in “failure”, of Western colonialist powers forming what is called today NATO, and what is called Cold War, going on since post WW2? You think 20+ million Russians died to defeat Nazis out of no reason?
Also, how did the below happen, after Russia and China defeated Nazism?
Nope.
Sure but can it be achieved without going all Animal Farm?
If Animal Farm is not an option, there is still Animal Crossing, which can also be communist in some ways.
Isn’t Tom Nook basically an evil CEO of a corporation?
Easy, you do it without the involvement of a single human being.
I for one welcome our communist robot overlords.
On a kibbutz?
That I cleaned the house (according to my fiance at least)
I’ve noticed Americans tend to be surprised that Europe is bigger than the US
Is that including Russia?
Nope. Edit: Not the whole of Russia, part of it
https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/country-size-comparison/united-states/europe
Edited my comment
Europe includes the parts of Russia that are in Europe but not those that are in Asia.
As an European I’m also surprised that the US’ vertical Expansion is only around twice that of France.
What do you mean by vertical expansion?
Not the one who said it, but it would imply distance north to south
Thanks, I was trying to figure out if it was elevation or structure height
black holes can have any density, even lower than water
Why don’t we have black holes floating around our oceans?
It’s not as if the Schwartzchild radius is a physical boundary though; it’s just the event horizon, a mathematical definition. If you were free falling into a black hole you might not even notice when you passed through it. The black hole is still a singularity and speaking about it’s density this way is absurd. (I mean absurd in the way it makes no sense, not as an insult to you personally.) These concepts of density at the local physical level and cosmic level are very different.
because the parameter that determines size of black hole, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem as in its Schwarzshild radius, is its mass. black holes that are not dense are supermassive black holes like those in center of galaxy, so it would just not fit. for example, black hole with density 0.64 g/ml has radius 3.3x greater than distance between earth and sun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius#Parameters
also it’s really bad for trout population
