The whole point of a black hole is that nothing can support its own mass past a certain point. A black hole is a region more than it is an object, with a singularity beyond an event horizon. If there really is a singularity, it is a point or ring, not a sphere. There are other conjectures which replace the singularity with something else, like masses of strings, but it doesn’t really matter to the universe outside of the event horizon.
As to it being a source of dark matter, the idea that black holes and other compact objects are dark matter is encapsulated in the MACHO (MAssive Compact Halo Object) theory. It is extremely unlikely to be correct, because observations largely rule this out. Black holes warp spacetime around them and result in detectable phenomena as a result of gravitational lensing. It would appear that such lensing is not common enough to allow for black holes in sufficient quantity to explain dark matter.
If you really meant dense then you have to rememberer that the average density of a black hole enjoys an inverse proportionality to its volume. In other words a supermassive black hole is far less dense on average than a much smaller hole. However it is still far far denser than a whole galaxy, which is mostly empty space and diffuse dust.
I don’t think you meant dense though, I think you meant mass, because that’s sort of how your post seems to be phrased. The answer then is that it is a minute fraction of the mass of the galaxy. Sag A* is about 4 million solar masses, and the Milky Way has 250 billion stars, many of which are far more massive than Sol. Even ignoring other objects like stellar remnants and nebulae, the mass of the central black hole is negligable on the scale of the whole galaxy.
I mean, he said it outright: “I think you'll find that most people who 'keep the wallet' are probably not religious...”
I don’t think it’s so much a carried or implied assumption as his central thesis, and his justification down the thread is a page of more claims and anecdotes. Call me cynical, but I don’t think there is any “there” there.
" Call me cynical, but I don’t think there is any “there” there. "
I provided links to three articles of data to support my primary thesis, moreover, if you do a Google search you will find overwhelming research in support of the fact that 'those who attend regular service are less criminal'.
My 'anecdotes' are there to help contextualize it for you.
So the 'there' is so obviously 'there' ... the question is, why, even when faced with actual data to people keep doubting? That's the interesting bit.
And to be clear I'm not religious nor do I attend services.
So we have a HuffPo article, an article from MarriPedia (a religious site) and an abstract from the Sociology and Religion department of The Association of Sociolgy and Religion. Three famously unbiased, data-driven outlets (/s) which even then, only tangentially support part of your point, and then only through the loosest of correlations.
Tesla is facing the prospect of needing to sell a honking load of stock at a discount to deal with their debt, and to do that they need a high stock price. While Musk appears to be a liability in many areas, he is the focus for a cult of personality that has made Tesla what it is, and has shown incredible talent for inflating the price of Tesla’s stock on that basis.
So while Tesla as a healthy company without crushing impending debt would almost certainly be better off without him, Tesla as it is only really exits because of his presence. Long term they have to actually make a lot of money and stop hemorrhaging money, and get out of their death spiral. Short term the only way to do that is sell expensive stock, and that stock is expensive because of the cult of Musk.
> he is the focus for a cult of personality that has made Tesla what it is
I disagree. What made Tesla what it is was the ability to design and bring to the market an electric car that people wanted to buy and actually prefered over equivalent ICE offerings, and pulling this off while competing against one of the most competitive and entrenched global industries.
They promised and they delivered. That's what made Tesla what it is.
Everything else is just self-promotion and actually erodes Tesla's accomplishments and goodwill.
I am a huge Apple fan so this is not meant to be an insult, but to me Tesla is the Apple of EVs.
They made a product that people view above the sum of it's parts.
The fact is the Model S, and the Model 3, are cars that make people stretch beyond their means because they're held in a higher regard simply for coming from the brands they come from, the way the iPhone is, or a MacBook does.
It's what annoys some detractors of both "Why get a Model S, it's insulting to call it a luxury car next to an S Class that costs as much (which is true in my opinion)" "Why get an iPhone when an Android phone has 4x the RAM and a trick display and more apps! (which might be true)".
If another incumbent only did as much as either, they'd fail. GM couldn't make a Model 3 even if they made a Model 3. Reviewers wouldn't be charitable and say the tablet is "Forward facing". They'd call it what is honestly is, cost cutting.
They wouldn't argue Autopilot is improving, they'd be appalled an incumbent made a driving assistant willing to merge into lane shoulders and released it with nothing more than a "keep your hands on that wheel!"
Tesla has charisma, and that charisma imbues anything they make with a halo. That's why they can ask for 1k for a car coming out in 2+ years (or in even more years for the 35k version). That's why they can release AP without more safety guards than Super Cruise for example and not get skewered. Just like Apple can release a phone with a poor antenna and tell you you're holding it wrong, or a keyboard that gets clogged with normal use and tell you to pull out the compressed air.
And that charisma affects investors too. You can tell a TSLA investor from miles away just by how they speak. It's always about "the ride". It's almost always "Elon is saving humanity". It's why the CEO can call people pedos and not be removed, it's why shorting TSLA is probably the worst idea ever, but I digress...
A key part of that though, is that Tesla took 5 years before it even produced it's first car, 9 years before it's actually successful model S. Over that time they burned an enormous amount of money and they're 'disrupting' an industry that has 5-6% margins not the silicon valley style 30-40% with 0 marginal cost on inventory. Arguably the differentiating factor for Tesla was the ability to get financing in the region of Billions of dollars for close to a decade in order to break into this incredibly competitive market.
You talk about 'they promised and they delivered' yet Tesla has been a lesson in how a company can continually over promise, under-deliver without incurring any consequences. Just because Tesla eventually became successful doesn't paper over the cracks in it's early days.
Even now, if you're looking at valuing Tesla on what they delivered, well that's fine- but it's not reality. Tesla's current valuation makes them more valuable today than Ford. Which is pretty surprising when the idea of Tesla having the market share and profitability of Ford would be a very optimistic scenario.
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Well that totally doesn’t sound like someone with a personality disorder. /s
I’m fairly sure that history will almost instantly forget them, because they exist to be disposable, to be replaced, and as interest and attention moves on their “mark” on history will be exceedingly shallow. Maybe that’s the difference between this constructed “reality” and... reality. Something real can be lasting, while this cotton candy version of reality only seems substantial from a certain angle, for a little while. It’s a kind of shallow “reality” for shallow people with minuscule attention spans.
Considering that “cars owners” in America represent 88%, maybe it’s just an alignment of interests. Maybe alternatives are rejected not because of these subtle systemic issues, but rather because a supermajority of Americans own cars and don’t want the alternatives? Talking about “car owners” like that isn’t synonymous with “most Americans” is a very particular way to frame the issue that makes it seem like a top-down structure when it isn’t.
I own a car, a bike, shoes, and a transit card. Most people where I live have at least 3 of these. Saying that "car owners" are 88% is exactly the kind of superficial statistic that got us to where we are today. How about having an appropriate policy for each area according to local circumstances?
Many of the people I work with own cars but will choose to cycle, walk, or take the bus (researchers who have money and are well educated). Just because they drive frequently, doesn't mean they are doing it to commute to work. They probably don't benefit much from more parking spaces.
The funny thing in Palo Alto is that new buildings near the train station end up with permanently empty parking spaces, thanks to the parking minimum & employees taking the train.
The problem is, everyone driving and parking a car in dense urban areas is not sustainable past a certain level of density. This results in heavy traffic and a large amount of land dedicated to parking which could be better used as anything else.
This is a top-down structure that was intentionally designed by urban planners after WWII and it is reaching its scalability limit.
Limitations on density are put there by popular demand. Most American's don't want that level of density either. I think they're wrong, but they're the majority.
By their actions, Americans show they want density. Otherwise, why are more Americans moving into big cities than moving out of them? Why do they clog up the freeways by driving to work in the same cities at the same time?
People might say they don't want density, but every current trend is toward more density, because of the actions people are taking.
Someone migrating to a big city generally wants to the last one in the door. People are much more interested in consuming density personally than in in allowing developers to produce more of it.
It’s a giant country, and despite what people in the Silicon Valley bubble think, there are a lot of cities with a lot of space. This is an insoluble problem if everyone demands acces to a spot in one or two major cities, because that’s where VC money is concentrated. That’s not a problem for most people though, who frankly don’t care about housing problems or traffic problems for techies. They’ll switch over to EV’s, but good luck trying to get them to embrace trains and busses.
The article is about Cincinnati, not Silicon Valley. And clearly there is a problem in Cincinnati or steps to roll back mandatory parking minimums would not have been taken.
People will just “pirate” the web. As for no ads, people who want that experience already get it for free. Given the incredibly low quality of most ad supported content, maybe the real solution is for much of it to die.
We already do pay to help raise other poeple’s kids through a variety of taxes, including public schools via property tax. This would be more of a subsidy for reproducing, rather than helping to raise them. I think it’s only rational for a community to invest in good outcomes for children, because the alternatives are not only undesireable and immoral, but more expensive. Actually subsidizing having children though, rather than investing in existing children isn’t something quite so simple. If you want to have children and are willing to make the associated sacrifices, good for you, it entire ask me to mitigate those sacrifices when I’ve chosen to not have children. I’m still happy to pay my taxes and invest thereby in their education and health, but propping up your career? No.
You can always just go to another coffee shop. It is not like this is the only coffee shop. I would have definitely participated when I was in school. Seems like a good service considering it could help you find a job after college.
The article itself is... not worth commenting on, but I’ll just comment on the irony of referring to Bitcoin as a “meteor” when far from enjoying a meteoric rise, it has crashed and burned. Beyond that, it looks like they don’t actually refute any arguments, just float the lazy idea that the economists in question are protecting their jobs because crypto would... ruin them? Because reasons?
It seems like the equivalent of someone preaching homeopathy and saying that doctors who don’t like it are just protecting their jobs because if homeopathy takes off, they’re ruined. Only it’s somehow even more poorly presented in this article. You know the routine, pharmaceutical companies are hiding the miracle cure for cancer to make money on treatments, but... with crypto.
As to it being a source of dark matter, the idea that black holes and other compact objects are dark matter is encapsulated in the MACHO (MAssive Compact Halo Object) theory. It is extremely unlikely to be correct, because observations largely rule this out. Black holes warp spacetime around them and result in detectable phenomena as a result of gravitational lensing. It would appear that such lensing is not common enough to allow for black holes in sufficient quantity to explain dark matter.