Apparently the volume of the ESB is about 1e6 m³. So that's about 37e12 m³ of magma. But yeah, using a weird unit of measurement no one even knows and using 37 million as a factor pretty much guarantees that no one can relate this to anything.
> using a weird unit of measurement no one even knows and using 37 million as a factor pretty much guarantees that no one can relate this to anything
Manhattan has a land area of 59.1 square kilometers [1]. 37e12 m³ of magma would fill the land area of Manhattan to over 600 kilometers, i.e. well past the boundary of space.
Alternatively, it would fill California's 424,000 thousand square kilometers to 100 meters, or about halfway to the top of the Transamerica Pyramid [2].
The Empire State buildings base is almost 2 acres x 443.2 m tall and a square km is 247 acres. 2 * 443m * 37 million / 424 million (424,000 thousand) / 247 ~= 0.3m so covered to the depth of 1 foot. Which seems more reasonable.
ED: Ahh, they had wrong area for California. It's 424,000 square kilometers not "424,000 thousand square kilometers"
That 424million should be 424,000, so we are back at 300m deep. Except the ESB doesn't fill anywhere near all of the (2 acres x 443m) cuboid, so 100m is closer.
Is this really correct? You'd think with modern imaging it would be fairly easy to spot a 100m high magma formation the size of california. How does magma even flow with such volume, it sounds like it would create an island that everyone would know the name of.
In an explosive eruption, the magma doesn't just flow downhill and solidify in place like it does in Hawaii. It gets blown to smithereens by expanding gases and the resulting fine particles are scattered all over the world. All that's left is a hole in the ground, which will be quickly filled in if it's below sea level.
so if you're reading an old article using Wembley Stadiums as the unit of measurement you should have some sort of B.D (Before Demolishment) and A.R (After Rebuild) dating scheme to keep it straight.
The real problem is that 37 million is too big a number. Saying something would fill 10 or even 100 Empire State Buildings is relatable. Once you say 37 million ESBs or 10 billion swimming pools, you might as well say it's 10 quadrillion coffee cups full.
I prefer the examples higher up the thread of filling the Grand Canyon 9 times or submerging all of California to a depth of 100m.
How about writing 1000 cubic kilometer and then adding that this is the equivalent of 10 times the Grand canyon? I just would like to see real units. I also don't know how long a football field is.
Regardless of what the law says, in practice, breaking TSA equipment, interfering with TSA duties and, above all else, pissing off a TSA officer are all arrestable offences.
If there’s any question about culpability, all they have to do is ask you, “Is there anything in your baggage you think we should know about?” and if you don’t disclose it then, you’re screwed.
What? You say you were never asked such a question? You say you even tried to warn them? Well I have sworn testimony from a TSA officer that says they ALWAYS ask that question, and you’re the guy who was caught carrying a piece of equipment designed for trickery and vandalism. Case dismissed.
There’s a way: it’s pointless and nobody will use it.
It’s very much a solution looking for a problem. If there was some advantage to using cryptocurrency for sex services, they’d already be doing it, just like they do for illegal items distributed by mail.
THESE PEOPLE HAVE TO MEET! So why do thy need cryptocoin? Cryptocoin just makes life harder, because you have to convert that coin into cash you can spend, which is troublesome and leaves an e-paper trail.
And the market for erotic services that don’t involve meetings gets by just fine without the need for crypto. If it didn’t, it would have moved to the Silk Road and its successors long ago.
So a disruptive technology is one that disrupts the marketplace, but markets are impossible to predict, so disruptive technologies can only be identified in hindsight. Have I got that right?
TL;DR Business theory based on cherry-picked case studies, post hoc rationalization and survivorship bias fails to make a compelling case, but nobody cares, because it tells an appealing story.
