Total power radiated by a black body per unit surface area scales as T^4 (in Kelvin).
So for black bodies with identical shape and linear dimensions R1 and R2, with identical power production per unit volume, both in thermal equilibrium with whatever is outside them, you would expect:
R1/R2 = (T1/T2)^4
(because setting power produced equal to power radiated gives R proportional to T^4).
Pretending humans are spheres with radius 1m and the sun is a sphere with radius 7*10^8m, you would expect the sun to have ~160 times the temperature of a human at equilibrium in vacuum. It's going to be lower because not all of the sun is power-producing, of course. But higher because a human is not 1m in radius. And again higher because humans are not spheres and lose heat more than a sphere would for the same volume (more surface area).
The sun is about 6000K on the surface. That would give us ~40K for the equilibrium temperature of a human in vacuum, which at least seems truthy.
TL;DR: the sun is big, with a small surface area compared to its volume, because it's big.
For both the sun and a human on earth there are two processes going on:
1. Heat production per unit volume.
2. Heat loss per unit surface area.
The volume to surface area ratio for the sun is much larger than for the human, for a minor reason (the sun is a sphere) and a major reason (the sun's linear size is much bigger). So the equilibrium temperature of the sun in the same ambient outside environment is higher than the human's.
Your thought experiment about placing a human inside the sun would in fact work as you say, if a human body continued to produce heat once it had achieved thermal equilibrium with the surrounding plasma.
Yeah, this is a morbid analogy but if you got a bunch of people enclosed in a small area, the people in the middle will get so hot they will heatstroke, even if it's freezing outside. See the recent Korean crushing disaster.
Don't give them ideas, harnessing people power would solve all the major problems. Overpopulation, global warming, energy crisis,... Reminds me of that 'Mitchell and Webb - Kill all the poor' sketch.
Well, plant the idea that there is a fusion reaction going on in mitochondria at a very low scale. Throw in terms like "proton gradient", "electron transport chain" and create a science conspiracy.
There was such a standardized test when I was in high school, for what it's worth. And some states still have them, and some require a passing grade on them to graduate from high school.
Of course it comes out of your compensation in the end. It just doesn't come out of the "headline" compensation number you see.
Which is fine if you're comparing equivalent "headline" numbers. But for other purposes the ratio of take-home pay to what the employer has to pay out (so including all the employer-side taxes) might be more relevant in terms of determining your likelihood of receiving a certain level of take-home pay.
We're comparing headline numbers, not economic cost. There are so many other economic costs to hiring someone that it would be almost impossible to compare. The most blaring one of course is healthcare cost. In the US, the employer bears this cost which is enormous (as healthcare is astronomically expensive in the US) and by your argument this would reduce "your likelihood of receiving a certain level of take-home pay"
And yet incomes are much higher in the US than in Germany.
I think headline numbers are the only useful thing to compare here.
Note that France has one of the highest levels of government spending as a share of GDP (and hence represented by taxes, though this includes sales taxes/VATs/etc/etc) in Europe, at 62% or so.
For comparison, Germany is at 51%, UK at 50%, Netherlands at 47%.
Belgium is close to France at about 61%...
The US (not in Europe, obviously) is at 46%.
And Switzerland at 36%; this is the European outlier in the opposite direction from France.
But a priori, just from this data I would expect French taxes to be about 1.4x US taxes and Dutch taxes to be similar to US ones...
Note that the shift has been quite recent (more or less since 2017) and not uniform; the ACLU does still take up free speech cases, while avoiding others, depending on various things.
Related, but not mentioned in the above articles, are tweets from prominent ACLU lawyers calling for banning certain books (see https://reclaimthenet.org/strangio-shrier-free-speech-suppre... for a reference, but this was quite widely reported). On the one hand, said lawyers have a right to their own opinions on their own personal twitter accounts. On the other hand, the ACLU never bothered to say that this opinion does not represent the ACLU organizational position....
Thank you - unfortunately I don't have access to the nytimes article (and am not willing to subscribe to get it). However, your comment did help me find other articles that seem relevant to this discussion.
In case it is of value to others, one such article is https://washingtonmonthly.com/2021/10/26/why-the-aclu-is-rig... - it definitely has a pro-ACLU slant, but I thought it did a reasonable job of explaining the dynamics of the recent discussion/shifts within the ACLU with respect to free speech
"Asia" is pretty broad, but India was at 2.2 in 2020 and dropping pretty rapidly; as of earlier this spring it hit 2.0. Note that the Statista numbers are moving 5-year averages, so the "spot" number for India is lower than the number you see on that graph.
China had a literal one child policy to combat exponential growth in population. India incentivised small families.
Population grows exponentially and it is also a function of time. I don’t think we should look at it in decades but rather as through lenses that capture time in centuries.
The operative word being "had". It hasn't had one in a while.
> Population grows exponentially
It really depends. It does if you assume TFR is a constant, but it tends to not be constant.
> I don’t think we should look at it in decades but rather as through lenses that capture time in centuries.
In the "centuries" timeframe, technological change (much reduced infant mortality, availability of contraception, career opportunities, etc) pretty much dominates the TFR situation.
So for black bodies with identical shape and linear dimensions R1 and R2, with identical power production per unit volume, both in thermal equilibrium with whatever is outside them, you would expect:
R1/R2 = (T1/T2)^4
(because setting power produced equal to power radiated gives R proportional to T^4).
Pretending humans are spheres with radius 1m and the sun is a sphere with radius 7*10^8m, you would expect the sun to have ~160 times the temperature of a human at equilibrium in vacuum. It's going to be lower because not all of the sun is power-producing, of course. But higher because a human is not 1m in radius. And again higher because humans are not spheres and lose heat more than a sphere would for the same volume (more surface area).
The sun is about 6000K on the surface. That would give us ~40K for the equilibrium temperature of a human in vacuum, which at least seems truthy.
TL;DR: the sun is big, with a small surface area compared to its volume, because it's big.