bzbarsky

Total power radiated by a black body per unit surface area scales as T^4 (in Kelvin).

So for black bodies with identical shape and linear dimensions R1 and R2, with identical power production per unit volume, both in thermal equilibrium with whatever is outside them, you would expect:

R1/R2 = (T1/T2)^4

(because setting power produced equal to power radiated gives R proportional to T^4).

Pretending humans are spheres with radius 1m and the sun is a sphere with radius 7*10^8m, you would expect the sun to have ~160 times the temperature of a human at equilibrium in vacuum. It's going to be lower because not all of the sun is power-producing, of course. But higher because a human is not 1m in radius. And again higher because humans are not spheres and lose heat more than a sphere would for the same volume (more surface area).

The sun is about 6000K on the surface. That would give us ~40K for the equilibrium temperature of a human in vacuum, which at least seems truthy.

TL;DR: the sun is big, with a small surface area compared to its volume, because it's big.

Heat and temperature are indeed not the same.

For both the sun and a human on earth there are two processes going on:

1. Heat production per unit volume.

2. Heat loss per unit surface area.

The volume to surface area ratio for the sun is much larger than for the human, for a minor reason (the sun is a sphere) and a major reason (the sun's linear size is much bigger). So the equilibrium temperature of the sun in the same ambient outside environment is higher than the human's.

Your thought experiment about placing a human inside the sun would in fact work as you say, if a human body continued to produce heat once it had achieved thermal equilibrium with the surrounding plasma.

There was such a standardized test when I was in high school, for what it's worth. And some states still have them, and some require a passing grade on them to graduate from high school.

In some countries, you arrest people first, then find/manufacture evidence later.

Of course it comes out of your compensation in the end. It just doesn't come out of the "headline" compensation number you see.

Which is fine if you're comparing equivalent "headline" numbers. But for other purposes the ratio of take-home pay to what the employer has to pay out (so including all the employer-side taxes) might be more relevant in terms of determining your likelihood of receiving a certain level of take-home pay.

Note that France has one of the highest levels of government spending as a share of GDP (and hence represented by taxes, though this includes sales taxes/VATs/etc/etc) in Europe, at 62% or so.

For comparison, Germany is at 51%, UK at 50%, Netherlands at 47%.

Belgium is close to France at about 61%...

The US (not in Europe, obviously) is at 46%.

And Switzerland at 36%; this is the European outlier in the opposite direction from France.

But a priori, just from this data I would expect French taxes to be about 1.4x US taxes and Dutch taxes to be similar to US ones...

Popper was specifically referring to levels of intolerance that cause people to move from the world of discussion to the world of physical force.

That is, per Popper, tolerating people who will physically harm you as part of the discussion means a discussion cannot be meaningfully held at all.

But people really like to stretch this to whatever edge-case meaning of "intolerant" would be convenient to them at the time...

> China had a literal one child policy

The operative word being "had". It hasn't had one in a while.

> Population grows exponentially

It really depends. It does if you assume TFR is a constant, but it tends to not be constant.

> I don’t think we should look at it in decades but rather as through lenses that capture time in centuries.

In the "centuries" timeframe, technological change (much reduced infant mortality, availability of contraception, career opportunities, etc) pretty much dominates the TFR situation.

For your first command:

    gzip -c /dev/sda > img.gz

For your second command:

    gunzip -c img.gz > /dev/sda

are what I suspect the blog post would recommend.

Just to make the numbers clear, Leningrad had something like 2.5 million residents in 1941. Depending on who is counting, somewhere between 600 thousand and a million died during the siege of Leningrad (largely from hunger, which is a separate long discussion).

There were also somewhere on the order of 350-400 thousand Soviet soldiers killed in the battles around Leningrad.

It's pretty hard to "take" a multi-million person city if the residents are willing to accept double-digit-percentage fatality rates to prevent it... The big unknown is always whether they will be willing to accept it.

The issue is that there is an implied difference in implied causation ("difficult because of their personal qualities" vs "difficult because of the college environment", say) and the truth values _with that implication included_ might be quite different.