Where is the hydraulic press channel?
We can go farther.
this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2023
1000 points (96.3% liked)
internet funeral
6924 readers
1 users here now
ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤart of the internet
What is this place?
• [email protected] with text and titles
• post obscure and surreal art with text
• nothing memetic, nothing boring
• unique textural art images
• Post only images or gifs (except for meta posts)
Guidlines
• no video posts are allowed
• No memes. Not even surreal ones. Post your memes on [email protected] instead
• If your submission can be posted to [email protected] (I.e. no text images), It should be posted there instead
This is a curated magazine. Post anything and everything. It will either stay up or be lost into the void.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Yeah. How small are they if we turn their ashes into synthetic diamonds?
Ok, so each person is a little less than 20% carbon, so a pile of 177 bodies would contain about 2000 kilos of carbon.
A 1 carat round cut diamond has 0.2 grams of carbon and is about 5mm in diameter.
So what is that, 2 million diamonds? It would be a pile about the size of a car?
There's some weird assumptions being made here--for example, a cremated body would not end up as a 13kg pile of carbon, almost all of it would be lost--but most of your basic facts are correct. The number of humans is actually 200 (there were 177 cars).
If you did somehow extract all ~13kg of carbon from each of the 200 passengers pictured, you'd end up with 2,590,000 grams of pure carbon dust. If you then formed that into a single diamond, you'd get an object quite a lot smaller than a car. I couldn't find a way to calculate the size of a diamond from a known mass (apart from doing a bunch of algebra, and I didn't want to), so I used https://www.omnicalculator.com/other/diamond-carat and put in some ballpark numbers for diameter and depth until I got close to the target mass.
I ended up at a sphere of diamond about 128cm in diameter. Still a big fuckin diamond, but you could put a bunch of those into one car, and it would be a lot smaller than the satirical pile of cremains in the meme.
Ok, so each person is a little less than 20% carbon, so a pile of 177 bodies would contain about 2000 kilos of carbon.
Dont forget that almost all of that carbon will be lost as CO2 during oxidation.
You probably meant to reply to the parent comment, as this is one of the "weird assumptions" I explicitly called out (that almost all of the carbon would be lost).
Grandma.tar.gz
No! Grandma! 😭
These cremated remains are dangerous and can attack at any time!
so we must crush it
So crematoriums are the transportation of the future. Sweet!
Case in point: Star Trek's transporters, which pretend to be teleporters but probably just atomize you while building an identical clone somewhere else.
That's literally the case. There's two Rikers running around because the transporter malfunctioned one time.
Nah that's because they locked a second "transporter beam" onto the pattern while it was in transit, thus basically making a copy. Normally it's supposed to turn your matter into energy in a specific pattern, then move that energy to another location and turn it into matter again.
Now, in my opinion, in our universe, the end result is the same - your continuous consciousness is interrupted/ended and an identical copy of you is created somewhere else. But we're talking about the star trek universe, where thoughts are apparently at the very basis of physics and can directly influence the universe, especially anything to do with "subspace". So it's safe to say that consciousness exists on an additional, metaphysical layer other than just your corporeal form.
Also, there are multiple cases of people being turned into "pure energy" and retaining their consciousness somehow, so I dont see how a transporter would necessarily be different.
load more comments
(1 replies)
How do you get three elephants into a mini?
You chop them in half. Then you chop them in half again. Then you slice them up very finely. Then you mash them. Then you put them in plastic bags. You put some in the boot, you put some in the back seat, and what's left over you put on the passenger seat.
loss (extended version)
Some things which have always annoyed me about the original panels:
- People walking cannot go nearly as far as they can on a bus or in a car, and any kind of real distance travelled is very slow.
- Public transit is also much slower than a car, door to door, when taking into account the first and last legs to get you from your start to public transit, and from public transit to your destination.
- People on a bus must all go along the exact same route.
- Most people in the US do not live where there are robust public transit options.
- In dense urban areas, lots of people from all walks of life make use of public transit.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of public transit, more of it, and in more places. But, fuck, it's not the travelers' fault that it's not always the best option (or in suburbs and rural areas, often not an option at all).
Most of these issues are a funding and infrastructure problem. More funding + better infrastructure to handle it = more direct routes with fewer stops to handle more demand.
Exactly. I haven't met a single person who simultaneously thinks "fuck cars" and "we should get rid of cars tomorrow"
At the moment, there's no way most people could get rid of cars.
I say this as someone who has never had a licence (too disabled to drive), I've always relied on walking, cycling or bus/train.
The way most places in my country (Australia) are set up, you need access to a car. Ideally, your own car or a shared family car.
I don't have that luxury, I've built my life around making that work for me. I've chosen my career based on it, I'm forced to choose where I rent based on it, I have to turn down invitations to events I want to attend because of it, unless a driving friend is attending, or it's not ludicrously expensive to uber - but neither is the solution to our current infrastructure'a dependency on cars.
There are so many options for good infrastructure and systems of public and private transport, but the current rate of implementation means those who can drive are practically forced to, and those that can't are at a genuine disadvantage compared to driving peers.
Are the original panels disputing any of that?
It’s just to give some perspective about how efficient public transport can be when compared with the number of cars required to transport the same number of people.
load more comments
(5 replies)
The cars will be much slower than the buses because the absurd amount of cars will eventually cause terrible traffic jam. And the environmental damage caused by the huge amount of cars is enormous (air pollution + require a huge amount of land to build one more lane & parking space)
Most people in the US do not live where there are robust public transit options.
Don't live in the US, got it.
Great. I'll take that advice. Now who's going to pay for my family to move, get us new citizenship and find us new jobs? You?
load more comments
(1 replies)
-
Assuming theres no traffic jams, yes
-
Depends whether the area implements things like bus lanes
-
Yes, but you can get off at different spots
-
They have infrastructure problems with that
-
Yes
Electric bicycles is the best alternative surely? Mild excersise, still decently quick and it's quite portable too.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Fuck cars, and humans too!
- Converted into a nutritious paste.
Lemmygrads dream
view more: next ›