Ojisan1

Ojisan1 t1_jabll0e wrote

That’s where it gets complicated. We don’t know because we can only observe 13.7 billion light years in every direction. So what we see is a sphere with us at the center. But there are some other things that suggest that the universe is a hypersphere or a hypertoroid.

It’s not possible for us to picture these objects except by approximation, or with math, or with analogies. But a short explanation: A sphere is a circle extended into an additional dimension. You can visualize that. A hypersphere is a sphere extended into an additional dimension. Can’t visualize it, but that’s what it means.

A torus is a donut shape, so a hypertoroid is a donut extended into an additional dimension.

There are videos about hypercubes, and hyperspheres, which attempt to help picture what it’s like, but because our minds operate in 3 dimensions, it’s not capable of truly comprehending these 4 dimensional objects.

5

Ojisan1 t1_jabhmis wrote

It’s like asking the question what’s at the edge of the earth? The answer is more earth. Just because you can’t see over the horizon doesn’t mean that’s all there is.

Similar with the universe - we can only see as far as light can travel in the amount of time since the universe began, just under 14 billion years. That’s like the horizon. But if you were able to magically teleport to 14 billion light years away from here, you’d still be able to see 14 billion light years in every direction. Similar to how if you teleported to the horizon on earth, you’d still just see the same distance to the horizon in every direction.

It’s more complicated because we are 3 dimensional beings in a 3 dimensional space, versus being 3 dimensional beings looking at the 2 dimensional surface of a sphere. If we were 4 dimensional beings, we could look at the 3D universe from a vantage point that would make it just as obvious that there’s no edge as it’s obvious to you that there’s no edge of a globe. But we aren’t 4 dimensional beings so we have to use analogies to understand without using math.

The way to understand expansion is that everything is getting further away from everything else. No matter where you are, everything else that exists is all moving away from you.

10

Ojisan1 t1_j6gzruz wrote

The point is to understand your current patterns of behaviors in the context of your previous life experiences which caused your brain to establish those patterns of behavior. Usually people seek therapy because those patters are maladaptive, meaning that they are behaviors that aren’t working for you. They aren’t healthy for you.

A good therapist will guide you in conversation (the therapeutic relationship) to try and uncover those previous experiences and help you connect the dots to your current behavior. Once you understand why you act or think a certain way, you can make more informed decisions about whether you will keep doing that, or try to change.

If you have a bad therapist, they won’t be good at that. It’s a hard skill. But you could also be a bad patient - either unwilling to do the work, or lacking in self-reflection to be able to connect the dots, or having very specific psychiatric conditions which prevent you from engaging in therapy honestly.

Watch some Dr K (HealthyGamerGG) videos of his sessions with various entertainers, he’s pretty good at it and you can see the process in action with a skilled therapist.

Also worth checking out the HBO drama series “In Treatment” which shows a flawed therapist getting too involved with some of his patients but mixed in with some fictional therapy sessions which are quite good (but unrealistically short).

2

Ojisan1 t1_j6c88fn wrote

> "This wasn't like a one time thing he said in passing. It wasn't like, 'Oh, by the way, this happened.' He went into great detail," a crying Feldman said in the documentary about Haim, who died from pneumonia in 2010. "He told me, 'Charlie bent me over in between two trailers and put Crisco oil on my butt and raped me in broad daylight. Anybody could have walked by, anybody could have seen it.'"

6

Ojisan1 t1_j69ks2f wrote

This author must have never been outside of a major city.

Of course the most densely populated areas have the highest broadband penetration. And within bands of population density, investment in new infrastructure is going to where people who can pay for it live, rather than where people who can’t. But a poor person in a city will have an easier time than a rich person in a rural area.

It costs a lot of money to get rights of way and dig trenching for fiber. The further away from an interconnect, the more it costs. (I used to sell fiber backbone connections to companies that would install it for office buildings. Shit’s expensive, mostly because of the digging.)

4