• emptyother@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    85
    ·
    8 months ago

    And if he doesn’t, thats a “loss” for some reason. Nothing is actually lost mind you, there is no 7.5 trillion pounds of baby meat in a dump somewhere.

    • Final Remix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      53
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Nevertheless, we’ve fired the CEO and given him 6 billion pounds of baby meat for failing.

      • Got_Bent@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        ·
        8 months ago

        And he gets another sweet gig with another big company because he’s got “experience”

    • lad@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      8 months ago

      It was a loss because the CEO had already received an MBO in percentage of planned growth

      • takeda@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        8 months ago

        Reminds me of the Reddit CEO who was sobbing that Reddit is not profitable (and that’s why they had to block 3rd party apps) while receiving a $200 million salary.

  • lad@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    My calculations show that around the age of 80 he will be massive enough to turn earth into a black hole if evenly distributed onto its volume

    Edit: actually by the age of 30, because I misread the current age to be 12 months

    • Scubus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      If that’s with it evenly distributed, then with all that weight as a virtual point source due to the difference in size between the baby and Earth, wouldn’t the baby collapse to its roche limit even faster? And as long as it’s not a kuggleblitz (that’s def not spelled right) black hole it would quickly consume the Earth and grow even larger, right?

      • lad@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yes, but then we would better use human body density to determine the size of an object, it’s not going to be realistically (lol) a point source anyway and will take longer to become a black hole, I think 🤔

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    They also expects if a woman can give birth to a baby in nine months, nine women only need one month to “produce” a baby. Or even just eight or seven women, because of synergy effects.

    • lad@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      Because they don’t know anything that grows faster than exponential, and anything that grows slower doesn’t look as good in the reports

      • mechoman444@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Slower growth is worse than faster growth. I want 10 million next week not next year.

        This kind of capitalism is a disease.

  • radicalautonomy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    6 lbs., 13 oz. at birth for anyone wondering.

    7.5 trillion = 7.5x10^12

    40 three-month intervals in 10 years

    P = Pounds at birth

    P x 2^40 = 7.5x10^40

    P = 7.5x10^40 / 2^40

    P ≈ 6.82 lbs.

    P ≈ 6 lbs., 13 oz.