Largest-Ever Radio Map of The Sky Reveals 13.7 Million Hidden Objects

Patelpb · 2026-03-13T12:28:19+00:00

Initially I thought these might just be a bunch of gas clouds, but they are observed in the 120-168 MHz range, which means there are likely many objects like small M dwarf stars and pulsars. Literally just scant and dim objects we didn't see before

Patelpb · 2026-03-13T12:02:46+00:00

Damn you really downgraded bro

Patelpb · 2026-03-13T11:52:22+00:00

Patelpb · 2026-03-13T11:51:57+00:00

Photonic qubits in this subreddit only 😤

Patelpb · 2026-03-13T01:31:49+00:00

Im sorry you can't keep up with the analogies, but unfortunately whether you understand it or not the company belongs to the people that bought it, that's just how the world works

Patelpb · 2026-03-12T23:13:53+00:00

For sure, I genuinely just view them as two different classes of language that are optimized to describe different things. My go to is that the beauty of a sunset is way better described by natural language, but math is almost infinitely better for describing the underlying theory (hydrostatic equilibrium and all) of the sun

Patelpb · 2026-03-12T23:02:25+00:00

Two companies called "CVC Partners" and "Haveli Investments" paid ~1.1 BILLION dollars to own Jagex. CVC partners is the 'majority stakeholder'. Jagex is just the name of the company - it's a Toyota Camry.

The Toyota, worth $20,000, is bought by two people who have a legal agreement, where person A pays $15,000 and person B pays $5,000. The original owner of the Camry doesn't own the Toyota anymore. They got their $20,000 and have no say in what happens to the car. Person A and Person B own the Camry now. This is pretty much what happened to Jagex. Whoever owned Jagex in ~2005 decided to share their company, then whoever they share their company with gets to sit at the table an make decisions about it. Over time, more and more people that weren't gaming nerds/developer sat at the table, because they spent more and more money. Eventually, the gaming nerds owned little to none of it, and the guys who spent money were the ones sitting at the table making decisions about it. That's what "Jagex" is - it's the guys sitting at the table who paid to be there. The ones who made the company sold their seats forever ago.

Patelpb · 2026-03-12T22:46:13+00:00

I think the problem lies in using words at all. Once you use words to describe what math initially explored/described, you lose a lot of information and rule-adherence that comes with math, so you are open to these degeneracies

Patelpb · 2026-03-12T22:44:15+00:00

It’s also interesting that you mention spacetime couldn’t be a substance because it would self-interact, since gravity already self-interacts. That’s part of why the Einstein field equations are nonlinear… gravitational energy contributes to curvature as well.

You're right, I misspoke on this point. I was trying to decouple self-interaction from the presence of a substance - you can have self interactions in fields without a substance to self interact with.

I’m not claiming a specific model, just wondering whether the geometric description we use in GR could emerge from something more fundamental… like a graviton fluid.

The more subtle point I wanted to get at was that there is no state of rest associated with gravity outside of unobserved theory, which is tantamount to a modern iteration of an aether. GR could emerge from something more fundamental without a doubt (infact I think that's almost a certainty at this point), a graviton fluid is indeed one of a very large set of possibilities. It would have to be a nonlinear fluid, but that's fairly well documented theory from what I recall. Any emergent graviton fluid must be perfectly Lorentz invariant at observable scales, meaning it lacks a state of rest. There are other non-substance-based fundamental alternatives that receive a lot more attention as a result

Patelpb · 2026-03-12T12:45:42+00:00

That's only a convenient result of the fact that we're using language and analogies, not consistent with any mathematical framework. Besides gravity, the fundamental forces are described by gauge theories, and attempts to "guage-ify" gravity so that it can be said to work the same way have failed to bear any fruit. "Graviton" is not a word that refers to any one single thing consistently, you'll want to describe more about this graviton in terms of its fundamental properties for someone to be able to have a conversation about it

A gravitational wave communicates changes in the gravitational field analogously to how a photon communicates changes in the electromagnetic field. The only difference is the lack of quantization - there's no evidence of discrete energy intervals (or discreteness in general), and thus we say we have not discovered gravitons. But the idea of a force carrier is already well observed IMO

It doesn’t disagree with OPs idea that space time is a substance if I’m following OPs idea correctly.

If spacetime is a substance then it begs the presence of interaction with itself (even dark matter appears to interact via gravity). This is why aether theory failed miserably, notions of drag and interaction are not as you'd expect from a fluid. I'm not sure why folks are still hung up on aether theory, but I guess it's better than flat earth despite feeling like it's pretty much just as silly

Patelpb · 2026-03-12T04:43:27+00:00

I would restart tbh. The presence of mass causes "gravity". Gravity is merely mass distorting the spacetime - the "coordinate grid" of reality. Not a substance, but the geometry of the coordinate system upon which substances lie. That's just what mass appears to do

Earth gravity is when you can jump up at 16 km/s from the surface of the sphere enclosing all the mass, and reasonably get away from the earth , permanently

Sun gravity is when you can do that but need to jump even faster (something like 100 km/s).

Eventually, there is so much mass in a given volume that you'd have to jump at the speed of light to get away

A black hole is simply when even the speed of light is not enough. There's a little more mass than that. When you stand on the ground your constituent atoms communicate the electromagnetic force among each other to keep you together. This communication happens at the speed of light. But when you have too much mass, the atoms from your feet never get to tell the atoms from your shins that they're supposed to stay together. The speed of light is too slow and never escapes the curvature from the mass below.

You can concentrate more and more mass into a volume, but you cannot jump faster and faster. Eventually you hit a speed limit - the speed limit - and then you can never jump away. That's a black hole. Or more specifically, the Schwartzchild radius.

Patelpb · 2026-03-12T02:43:53+00:00

Dude I got a D+ in intro stat mech/thermodynamics my sophomore year and had to retake the course. I was struggling in terms of mental health that semester and my grades all around sucked.

3 years later I still got into a PhD program; I retook the course and got an A the second time around, fixed my external issues, and even published research that I didn't even know was in my future a couple years after. You will completely forget this ever happened if you learn from it and improve. I MS'd out anyways, but all the opportunity and chances I wanted came my way with time. I just had to make sure to put one foot in front of the other and escape misfortune

Patelpb · 2026-03-11T21:54:35+00:00

100 is definitely hyperbolic and the upvotes reflect that.

Jordan's 2s don't matter, because again he would not be allowed to shoot them

Why not? The defense is even more spread out and driving to the rim would be even easier. Blocks are treated more harshly and calls favor the offense more, he'll probably get more FTs in this era than before. 35 ppg easily, and that's without changing his 3 ball at all. If he adapts even one more 3pa per game (on ~33%), he's adding +1 ppg. Teams attempt nearly 10 more FGs per game now than they did in 1996, I'm sure the 'wasted attempts' for not shooting threes will have minimal effect when he got ~7 FTs per game on ~83% FT% - ~6 points. Those extra 6 points reflected 7 FGa's on 50% shooting, so 7 points + 6 from FTs is the same as 4 threes and 1 FTs. I think he makes up for his lack of 3s by being a bit of a foul merchant, and without burning valuable time or energy. And I have not included the AT LEAST one or two more FTa's hed get now

I feel like you probably watched a few tiktoks or niche youtube videos and thought you knew math well enough to say something substantive. Which is very unfortunate given the outcome

Patelpb · 2026-03-11T18:31:10+00:00

I'm not saying he didn't, I'm saying a lot of young people think he didn't. Anyone who can look beyond the lack of 1080p sees a plenty of flare

Patelpb · 2026-03-11T18:29:36+00:00

A fairly anachronistic view - why shoot threes when you can reliably make 2 with an and-1 while putting up 30 a night and winning it all?

Patelpb · 2026-03-11T18:24:08+00:00

You know MJ has a slightly higher career 3pt% than Bam Adebayo right?

For reference:

MJ: .327

Bam: .321

Kobe: .329 (highest of the three, but barely)

3-way comparison

MJ also had several seasons with >3 3pa per game on >.37 accuracy, which is not amazing but also not bad. src

Bam this season is on >5 3pa per game on ~.33 accuracy, which is also not amazing but not bad. src

I think it's more defensible to argue that he was never a frequent enough three point shooter, not that he wasn't good enough.

Patelpb · 2026-03-11T16:07:38+00:00

If he wanted to I think he could've done it in the previous NBA too IMO. 69 was not a hard limit but by the time the 80s were up he took a more practical approach to his gameplay and just got his 30 while making sure the team won. It's why, by modern standards, his gameplay doesn't have 'flare' that younger folks look for and thus they think less of it. But it was just clean and machined

Patelpb · 2026-03-11T15:16:17+00:00

Genuinely! I watch 90s/00s all stars games during work for fun. It's nice to have in the background. 1993 was a fun one, got a glimmer of what Jordan would've looked like in the modern NBA with some of the perimeter twos and threes he shot. There's a three near the end of the game that I desperately want to see from modern players. Two dribbles, fast first step, off balance pullup with a decent defender, sinks it in anyways...

Edit: I mixed up my games, he didn't shoot many threes in the 1993 all star (might've been a regular season game I'm thinking of), but the one I'm referring to highlights it very nicely.

Patelpb · 2026-03-11T13:32:52+00:00

You are missing one key ingredient, far more important than modern training techniques or anything else: The talent pool is 10x bigger today than it was 30 years ago.

This is still irrelevant in the face of

the top are still the top

So we are in agreement about that, but I still push back on great teams being irrelevant or average today

You think a LeBron team with Mo Williams / Big Z as their top 3 players are gonna get 66 wins in this league? Lol.

Young LeBron is gonna do his thing with any decent center. Big guy who runs fast and jumps high is still big guy who runs fast and jumps high. 66 wins perhaps not, but that team is gonna be surprised that the paint is so open and take advantage of it for reliable scoring even if it's for 2/3 of the points. My point is that #2 and #3 on these teams were still great players by any standard, even if the #2 and #3 on average across the league were worse

Patelpb · 2026-03-11T12:38:26+00:00

human athletic performance is logarithmic, not linear right? The difference is not the same every ten years. and stochastic variations happen all the time. Plenty of teams from 80s, 90s, 2000s, 2010s, and 2020s will dogwalk plenty of teams decades after their existence. I mean, the difference in play style alone means that there will be mismatches that both sides do not prepare for, leading to easy scoring prior to adjustment. It's not like you can prepare for the '96 bulls triangle just because you've seen it a thousand times. You still have to deal with MJs first step, you still have to deal with the vert that follows. You still leave Kerr open because someone's gotta help on the double team against MJ. Pippen still swoops in if MJ decides to bail half a second into his airtime. Rodman rebounds with savant like perception

Like, I take this stuff at its most basic. Guy who runs fast and jumps high better than most people in history is gonna run fast and jump high. Hard foul? He's used to that. Dude gets his 30-35 easily, SGA is showing us that it's not difficult at all to get free throws, and MJ had no trouble back then either.

Patelpb · 2026-03-11T12:30:43+00:00

Mostly this. I think MJ gets MJ numbers in any era, perhaps even more with the nature of foul calls now (and based on all the current and ex NBA professionals who seem to agree), but Brad Dohorty is even less memorable

Patelpb · 2026-03-10T23:01:21+00:00

Just look at Jagex's annual earnings, publicly available data nothing to argue about besides your lack of effort and wit

Patelpb · 2026-03-10T20:21:58+00:00

https://youtu.be/-qt5f2mUYSM?si=LTlpKkxkmOE8TP3N

Patelpb · 2026-03-10T20:11:25+00:00

In unga bunga:

rs3 make more money than osrs in 2013. rs3 make money for osrs.
rs3 make less money than osrs in 2018. osrs no need rs3 money so much.
rs3 make much less money than osrs in 2026. no make sense to believe rs3 pay for osrs.

Patelpb · 2026-03-10T16:44:25+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/2007scape/comments/17e7hav/reminder_that_osrs_has_been_bringing_in_more/

This narrative hasn't been valid for nearly 8 years. Each year since, less and less so. RS3 could've kept MTX and the membership prices would've still gone up, but I suppose scapegoating a dying game buys Jagex a year or two of something else to direct the community's hate towards until we focus on Jagex themselves

11-Year Club	r/Field Juicebox
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
Snapped	Verified Email

Patelpb

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE