Your premise is extremely unlikely to begin with. Let's assume somehow it comes to pass, still the time scales of these phenomenon are on the order of millions of years. If today a blackhole were to start eating the Sun, it would take a couple of million years to finish that meal. Given a max human lifespan of 120 years. You and your next 10^4 generations have nothing to worry about.
But for it to destabilize the orbit of planets through the orbit of a binary system, it is quite plausible once the blac hole has gained sufficient mass for it to count as a binary system and not simply a planetary mass black hole orbiting a stellar mass sun[1].
I seem like that adds up. If somehow black hole consumed enough material from the sun so that it's orbit stayed inside the sun it would start growing exponentially.
First the outer layers of the sun are not very dense, but as a larger fraction of the matter for the black hole comes from the sun the slower (relative to the sun) the black hole would get. The slower the black hole is that closer it would come to the center of the sun. The closer to the center of the sun the denser the sun is.
The pressure of the sun is at least 10,000 times greater than the center of the earth which is 3,500 kilobar. Wouldn't the amazing gravity gradient and the 3,500 kilobar pressure result in a very well fed black hole that would double in mass within say a few days? Sure a accretion disk would form and start pushing back the matter at the north and south poles to reduce the feeding rate.
Sure black holes generally increase is size slowly, but they aren't usually inside a gas cloud of 1.4grams/cm^3 at a pressure of 3,500 kilobar and having an entire suns worth of mass to provide resistance to the accretion disk allowing for matter to fall in quicker.
I've heard numbers like you mentioned for atom sized size black holes that fell within the earth, but the main problem is that the likelyhood of swallowing an atom is so small that it grows incredibly slowly.
Don't understand why the subscription is cheaper on a mobile phone, if the content and resolution is the same. Also, won't you be able to use something like Samsung Dex to watch this content on a tv anyways?
I don't know why an organization called phys.org might need such sensationalization of mundane news. Every article including this one makes it sound like new developments have occurred in physics. When you actually read the article and apply a small helping of skepticism you realize, the world is just the way it was yesterday. phys.org is not HN worthy imho.
Well they too need clicks. Set the right inventive (people more likely click bait links than more sound/dry ones) and it will either go that way or lose out to another org that does.
It's like sitcoms with laugh tracks. Everyone you ask hates them, but if you ask people how much they enjoyed/would rewatch/would recommend/... a certain show they consistently give higher ratings to an episode with vs without canned or study laughter.
In fairness, all the sensationalization is in the original press release put out by UC Riverside; phys.org has just copied that wholesale (which is what they generally do).
Why does it look less aerodynamic than a normal plane? Isn't a rocket or missile like shape the most aerodynamic one? Planes are pretty close to rockets with thin wings for maneuverability. Fling V has so much surface area being pushed against the air, I am honestly surprised at their claim of being 20% more fuel efficient.
In term of pure drag, you're right, you want to reduce the surface and that's not what this design does.
However, for aerodynamic efficiency it is the lift/drag ratio that matters.
And while in a normal airliner the body provides very minimal lift, here it's basically a wing and thus generates a lot of lift.
The end result is that while the drag is probably worse, lift is likely improved enough to compensate.
(Also, drag might not be that bad given you do not have a tail, which is pretty awful aerodynamically speaking)
.. and even if they are punished the fine is usually so small that they can commit the same crime a few hundred times and still won't run out of money.
It's expensive but not nearly as expensive as I would expect a Teenage Engineering product to be. For example, their most famous product, the OP-1 (a small digital synth with a small LCD screen) is $1300.
That's the same price as a Nintendo 2DS, which is about as cheap as mobile gaming comes. So I mean, you might have opinions about how good a value it is, but it is not a very high price point for its market.
Playdate is not in the same market as the 2DS, or really anywhere near it. It's not trying to compete on any of the games-industry metrics, nor could it.
It's like comparing the latest Avengers movie with a niche YouTube show. You can compare the price of a movie ticket with a Patreon subscription, but what are you even comparing?
No, it doesn't. It only might. You or your kids might play it for 10 minutes and never touch it again.
How many people on HN have $100s spent on Steam games they haven't even installed once and probably never will? Or games they finally played but didn't like, yet too much time elapsed for a refund?
Based on the technical specs $150, even with 12 games seems like price gouging. It's not too far off the Adafruit PyBadge someone else mentioned in another comment only that comes with a color LCD and more buttons for only $35 ($25 if you get the trimmed down version). Sure it doesn't come with a fancy case and it's missing an analog crank (really?), but there's literally hundreds of free games you could get for it that I'm willing to bet are as much fun or more than every single one of those 12 free games that Playdate will include.
Sorry, this looks like a overpriced gimmick. The digital equivalent of a pet rock, or a more modern (and far more expensive) take on a tomagotchi.
Why are you willing to bet that "hundreds of free games" made by internet randos for a cheap gizmo are more fun than every single one of the 12 games made by experienced game developers?
It would entirely depend on the quality of the games, wouldn't it?
I compare it more to a subscription to Kindle Unlimited or Netflix. With the difference that once I played them all, I can even sell all the games and the device.
I'm prepared to pay 12$ for a good book. Then pointing to free books as an argument that said book is not worth 12$ is not really applicable. I am not just paying for some book, I am paying for a specific book. Like, say, there is a new book out by Neil Gaiman. I will buy that unseen, even if you tell me that I could get a free book by Somebody INeverHeardOf instead.
In the case here, I loved Firewatch and I am willing to give Panic the benefit of the doubt.
A lot of cash burning startups flush with VC funding have propped up salaries for everyone in the market. They are very willing to dole out crazy amounts of RSUs to compete with the already high FAANG salaries for the same talent.
Do lawyers get something equivalent to RSUs? I know many software folks whose salaries might be <150K but after adding the value of the stocks they receive they go beyond 150K usually.
