• Resol van Lemmy@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    2 days ago

    In my country, which is Morocco, the organ of love isn’t the heart, it’s the liver.

    My mom sometimes calls me “lkbida diali” which just translates to “my liver”.

    • jacksilver@lemmy.world
      19·
      7 days ago

      I had to looks this one up, but missed the “galaxy” vs “universe”. There are an estimated 3 trillion trees, 100-400 billion stars in the milky way galaxy, but potentially 1 septilliom stars in the universe.

      However all three of these are estimates, so who actually knows.

      • mipadaitu@lemmy.worldEnglish
        7·
        6 days ago

        I’m not sure where these numbers are from, but my guess is that you mean the Observable Universe, which is just the part of the universe that we can see.

        We don’t know how big the full universe is, it could be infinite with an infinite number of stars.

        • jacksilver@lemmy.world
          4·
          6 days ago

          Just some quick Google searches so not sure how reputable, but didn’t feel like copying random links.

          But yeah, that’s why I called them out as estimates as I suspect there is a lot of room for error in those numbers.

  • balsoft@lemmy.ml
    27·
    7 days ago
    • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
      111·
      7 days ago

      The electric field one is also interesting, because the cable length doesn’t actually determine how long it takes to turn on. All that matters is the distance between the power source and the device. Electricity travels at the speed of light, which means we can measure how long it should take to travel down the wire.

      But let’s say you have a 1 light year long power cable, made out of a perfect conductor (so we don’t need to worry about power loss from things like wire resistance or heat). Then you set the power source right next to the device and turn it on. The logical person may say that the device would take a full year to turn on, because the cable is one light year long. Others may say that it will take two light years to turn on; Long enough for the electricity to make a full circuit down the cable and back to the power source again.

      But instead, the device turns on (nearly) instantly. Because the wire isn’t actually what causes the device to turn on. The device turns on because of an EM field between itself and the power source. The wire is simply facilitating the creation of that field. The only thing that matters is the distance between the source of power and the device. That distance, divided by the speed of light, is how long the device will take to turn on. If the device was a full light year away from the power source, it would take a full year to turn on. But since the device is sitting right next to the power source, it turns on right away.

      • balsoft@lemmy.ml
        10·
        6 days ago

        But instead, the device turns on (nearly) instantly. Because the wire isn’t actually what causes the device to turn on

        That’s not exactly true. In this case, the energy transmission would go like this: (change of electric field in the little bit of wire next to the power source) -> (change of magnetic field in the air between the wires) -> (change of electric field in the wire next to the load). This limits the amount of energy transmitted significantly and incurs a lot of losses, meaning if you had something like a lamp plugged in it would start glowing extremely dimly at first (think about how some cheap LED lights keep glowing even with the switch off - it’s similar, albeit it happens due to inter-wire capacitance and not induction). It would then slowly ramp up to full power over a course of a year.

        Here’s a video from the same person about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vrhk5OjBP8 (although I haven’t watched this yet)

        Edit: after watching the video, I think I was actually wrong in a couple of my assumptions. First of all, it looks like the reason for the initial energy transmission is wire capacitance and not induction, so (electric field in wire) -> (electric field in air) -> (electric field in wire, in the “opposite direction”, but because the wire goes back and forth it’s the same current direction). This means that my LED example is even more potent. And the second one is that because it’s capacitance and not induction, this means that there’s no slow ramp-up, it just makes the light glow very dimly all the way until the electric field makes it through the wire, and then it ramps up very quickly.

      • bountygiver [any]@lemmy.mlEnglish
        3·
        6 days ago

        wait so if you have another person travel to the other end of the wire, and do a time sync with consideration of time dilation to tell them to cut the wire 1hr after you turn on the power, will the device turn off after 1 year since it wouldn’t “know” the wire is cut until a year has passed?

      • corbs132@lemmy.world
        3·
        7 days ago

        Can you help me understand why the distance between the power source and the load impacts how long it would take to turn on? I remember a video a while back (veritasium maybe?) that explained it like metaphorically pushing/pulling a chain inside the wire, but why would distance to the source impact this?

  • Commiunism@beehaw.org
    18·
    7 days ago

    A somewhat political fact, but one that made some of my friends dumbfounded:

    When a bank issues a loan, it generates that money literally out of thin air and credits that money to the loan account rather than using deposits they already had. For example, if you want to borrow $100,000, the banker approves the loan and doesn’t hand over cash or move existing money around - instead, they just go on their system and credit your account with the sum, that’s it.

    • faktotum@leminal.spaceEnglish
      10·
      7 days ago

      While I think your point is true that its much more abstract than people realize. When I worked at a bank and we disbursed loans and credited/debited fees it was from “GLs” (General Ledger?) which were basically just separate accounts to help keep track. Like we had a “member service” one which was for basically anything with good reason. One time someone did a very large amount but he just basically got told to do it a different way.

      Its all just in a computer. I could’ve accidentally credited someone a million dollars but it would’ve been realized when I tried to close my drawer and balance everything out. And the branch would have to be balanced at the end of the day so I assume the bank did as well.

      On a related note banks take out loans from other banks. I think a lot of people don’t realize that banks have savings accounts so they have money to lend.

        • balsoft@lemmy.ml
          2·
          7 days ago

          The Fed Board, apparently: https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm

          After reading through that page and the FAQ, I think it’s because the banks should now be compelled to held reserves because Fed pays them a reasonable interest (close to what they would get if they give a very low-risk loan) on them, rather than it being a strict requirement. I don’t know enough about economics to have an opinion on whether it’s a good idea, but I feel like it’s not too horrible? Like, maybe it makes some shitty banks even more susceptible to bank runs, but that’s the reality of fractional reserve banking in general.

  • hOrni@lemmy.world
    4·
    5 days ago

    Not really favourite, but definitely most unbelievable: They elected Donald Trump for president in the US. Twice.

  • Didros@beehaw.org
    3·
    5 days ago

    The one I say themost is probably that there are 10 times as many germ cells in your body as human cells, but due to their size it is only around 8 pounds of your weight.

    But the one I love the most is that there are more unique ways to shuffle a deck of cards than there are grains of sand on Earth.

  • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
    82·
    7 days ago

    Lots of people know a broken clock is right twice per day, but many are unaware that a clock running backwards is right 4 times per day.

    • tetris11@lemmy.ml
      5·
      7 days ago

      a clock running backwards is moving away from the current time at twice the rate, so isn’t your example the same as saying that a clock that runs twice as fast is right 4 times a day?

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        11·
        7 days ago

        No, if you go twice as fast, it would only align with one at 12 and one at 24. It’s not about speed, it’s about the intersections of forward and backward laps.

          • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
            5·
            7 days ago

            You can picture a clock or a track. If you have one going forward and one backwards, they meet at the halfway point (6), and again at the full lap (12). This happens twice in a day.

            If you have one going twice as fast, they only meet when the faster one laps the slower one. The two clocks would be at 3&6, 6&12, 9&6(18), 12&12(24)