Is this the largest ever because we're just starting to be able to map this type of stuff or have we seen a lot of them and this is enormous?
I think 5 km^3 is a large eruption by any standards. Looking at lists of modern ones it's a index 6 event which happen every few decades on land. From the article it sounds like if it weren't close to Mayotte it wouldn't have been picked up seismically.
Sudden release of such gases has been suspected in the case of a number of sudden ship disappearances over the centuries. If a bubble's volume is large relative to the ship's, the ship will drop to the bottom as the gas forces water from under the hull. Then the surrounding seas crash onto the decks.
Water is also heavier than air, and water on top of a bubble will also fall into the center of the bubble (breaking it up into smaller bubbles), until the surface tension of the water around the bubble is great enough to hold it together (small bubble).
Therefore a huge bubble gets split into many bubbles, I suppose at depth a lot of the gas gets dissolved into the water. The worst that would happen is many small bubbles cause the density of the water to decrease, causing the boat to sink lower into the water. I'm not sure if the water could lose enough density to sink a regular boat directly?
I think what you may be thinking of is large, shallow explosions (generally man made) under a ship which create a temporary bubble which then collapses in on itself, but can cause extreme stress on large ships.
Extremely contrived example of bubbles being able to sink a small boat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSmAXp_BHcQ
How a bubble generated by an explosion can actually sink a large ship: https://youtu.be/UdFNuc5XtII?t=192
Edit: not the largest, but large. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storegga_Slide
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissd without evidence" -- C. Hitchens
Since the comment was removed or deleted it originally said something like "Underwater volcanoes are the cause of Climate Change -- prove me wrong"
<evidence-free assertions, disruption, distraction, and disingenuous arguments>
do not overlap, and it is useful to distinguish between the two and to treat them differently.
To paraphrase Asimov, one person's ignorance (deliberate or not) is not equal to another's knowledge.
In the past, it was difficult to get an idea published. Money and power are definitely not sufficient to show that someone's ideas should be listened to (in some cases, the converse is true), but they're at least weakly correlated to competence. Also, when the barrier to entry was higher, less was produced, so there was a lot more opportunity for coversight.
This lead to printed words and popular speech having an air of authority and truthfulness. I expect that this will be swiftly eroded, and replaced with more caution, as society adjusts.
Say someone goes to that community to try and convince them otherwise and says "hang on, vaccines don't cause autism, here's some research articles", they'll get banned and their post removed, and everyone in the separate community is none the wiser and nobody who uses that community will ever have the chance to be convinced otherwise.
So if you really wanted to stamp out the anti-vaxxers, I guess you'd have to have some kind of monitoring to make sure they don't post anything anywhere about anti-vaxx views. That would need to be done by someone or something powerful, say... Facebook or the government? I don't trust Facebook as their ulterior motive is selling your data for sweet sweet ad money, and I don't trust the government as many governments have shown in the past many times they can't be trusted to regulate speech of citizens (not that I would EVER want to regular speech)
So - why not just let them speak on large public platforms and have them get laughed at?
All I'm saying is that there's disinformation, and then there's harmful disinformation, and on top of that there's a recent trend amongst certain podcast listeners in a certain demographic to insist that allowing people to spread harmful disinformation as far and wide as they want to will magically reveal how fake and harmful it is to everyone. I don't know what the answers are, I just know the binary answers are wrong:
(0) The government should pass laws prohibiting free speech about stuff the government has determined is "wrong".
(1) If only everybody could just say whatever they want anywhere and anytime they want without repercussions, social pressures from Internet forums will make them realize how wrong they are! Because if there's one thing we've learned about Internet forums over the past 30 years, it's that they bring everyone together and magically help filter out truth from falsehood? Or something.
I don't have any answers, I just know that neither extreme is helpful, and I'm extremely not sympathetic to the likes of anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists.
I dunno, they're already doing that anyway. And OP clearly has no interest in actually sticking around and debating this point, just in trolling us, so it's not like flagging their post shuts down conversation in any meaningful way.
Why should every reasonable conversation about climate, vaccination, and others give space to allow constant sealioning? It spoils every discussion and ruins it for those trying to discuss and learn in good faith - whilst entertainment for the troll lobbing the one sentence hand grenades.
> "If you take away the right for anti-vaxxers to talk about things on a public platform" vs "someone goes to that community ... they'll get banned and their post removed"
So you're actually advocating for the paradox of tolerance? They can moderate the discussion in their under the radar community to stay on topic, but the world in general should not and should just take the consequences and pollution?
No, I don't think much would be lost from the discussion if that comment were removed. We'd lose some noise, but very little signal.
I agree that there is a slippery slope. I don't know where to draw the line. But HN gives us a way to downvote and flag comments like this one for a reason - they add negative value, and the discussion is better off without them.
Prove me wrong.
I can't even say where my mind went, 'cause it hasn't come back yet...
Fridays are hard. Especially on mobile screens.