> This is super exciting because it now implies that these black holes in orbits are actually rather common in space- more common than ones where the black hole and star are closer at this rate!- and the trouble is detecting them.

If it turns out that galaxies contain far more black holes than previously assumed, what ramifications might that have, e.g. for understanding galaxies' masses, rotations, dark matter complements, etc.?

Call it a wall to keep aliens out and people will clap.

Half of that prediction is probable.

Can't both be true?

Calling terms "definitionally correlated" is not "equivocation". There seem to be a lot of terms here that you don't understand.

I have no more time for this unproductive conversation. Cheers.

> And you were aware of a correlation between vulnerable narcissism and body-image self consciousness leading to sexual distress in men prior to this study?

>> Considering they are practically definitionally correlated, I think everyone who knew the terms was aware.

>>> What makes the current study being discussed in the Psypost article low quality? You have not addressed that despite me asking multiple times.

-.- You evidently have more time to waste than I do. Cheers.

I was not expecting "Nuh-uh" as a reply.

I would rather lazily attack Psypost for publicizing low quality studies than vigilantly defend Psypost for publicizing low quality studies. We must have different motivators, c'est la vie.

> And you were aware of a correlation between vulnerable narcissism and body-image self consciousness leading to sexual distress in men prior to this study?

Considering they are practically definitionally correlated, I think everyone who knew the terms was aware.

There are better and worse studies. Psypost doesn't appear to distinguish based on quality, probably because their business model is making ad revenue from as many studies as possible.

Then for whatever reason, low quality studies are posted here with the link to Psypost rather than the actual study.

Note that this conjecture is regarding civil wars, not wars where one country invades another to take its territory.

Right, hopefully most people here know that. I hope most people here also know that in terms of existing infrastructure, gas station locations are virtually all secondary customers, not primary customers.

Anyone looking at the map of Tesla chargers can see that my comment represented the situation fairly, whereas you found 1 oddball charging site in the entire United States and present that as if it's relevant - and it's still just 250 kW chargers anyway. That's intellectually dishonest IMO.

You have a strange agenda, to be arguing with people who would like to see more electrification. There's no good reason for you to be misrepresenting the state of affairs.

100 kWh in 10 minutes would mean 600 kW supply per charger.

A standard house service provides 24 kW, so each charger would have to supply equivalent power to 25 houses. Let's assume a charging lot has 10 chargers - that's 250 houses equivalent in one small location (6 MW), corresponding to one 'gas' station.

Where are you seeing this commonly existing? Do you have a link to a map of these?

edit:

I see you edited your comment without answering my question. Oh well. A little searching seems to show the Tesla V3 charging locations have 8 stalls at 250 kW each, or 2 MW per location - and even these don't exist in most of the country. Sorry for trying to help.

edit2:

The largest sedan battery pack Tesla currently offers is 100 kWh, so I sized for that.

The issue here isn't so much about kWh, but kW. Charge rate, i.e. time spent charging on a trip, seems to be a commonly cited operational obstacle causing so many to keep buying ICE vehicles. People don't want to have to charge for an hour or more every 200-300 miles.

No, that's not the issue here.

As the commenter above correctly pointed out, we don't generally have transmission infrastructure in place to supply the current necessary for fast charging.

Correct, and the best way to tackle that problem doesn't seem to have been worked out.

I wonder if having a large supercapacitor as part of each public charger might allow for a feasible solution. The supercapacitor's charge time could be much longer than 10 minutes, but its high discharge rate could then allow for fast charging of a vehicle.

Not my field, so feel free to laugh if this is implausible. How large would a supercapacitor have to be to store 100 kWh?

edit: copied from below

100 kWh in 10 minutes would mean 600 kW supply per charger.

A standard house service provides 24 kW, so each charger would have to supply equivalent power to 25 houses. Let's assume a charging lot has 10 chargers - that's 250 houses equivalent in one small location (6 MW), corresponding to one 'gas' station.

A little searching seems to show the Tesla V3 charging locations have 8 stalls at 250 kW each, or 2 MW per location - and even these don't exist in most of the country. Sorry for trying to help.

edit2: That house equivalence is way off since groups of houses aren't pulling max load all the time. 6 MW should service much more than 250 houses. (600 homes per 1 MW is commonly cited, so ~3600 homes)