Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by logfromblammo 2889 days ago
How many packs of butter per Library of Congress?

The problem is that most people just cannot conceptualize really, really, really large numbers, but journalists and authors try to make them more relatable anyway, and end up just making it worse.

I think what they meant to say was that it could make a typical globular cluster satellite of the Milky Way galaxy, containing about 225000 butter-stars with the same mass as our sun.
1 comments
Sean1708 2889 days ago
> I think what they meant to say was that it could make a typical globular cluster satellite of the Milky Way galaxy, containing about 225000 butter-stars with the same mass as our sun.

I don't think it was anything near that complex: 40 trillion trillion trillion is just the number of tubs of butter it takes to get 10 billion trillion trillion tonnes if you assume each tub is 250 grams.

link
logfromblammo 2888 days ago
Even then,

  10^3 = thousand
  10^6 = million
  10^9 = billion
  10^12 = trillion
  10^15 = quadrillion, or thousand trillion
  10^18 = quintillion, or million trillion
  10^21 = sextillion, or billion trillion
  10^24 = heptillion, or trillion trillion
  10^27 = octillion, or thousand trillion trillion
  10^30 = nonillion, or million trillion trillion
  10^33 = decillion, or billion trillion trillion
  10^36 = undecillion, or trillion trillion trillion
One of those numbering conventions is not tremendously useful, and the other is very very very stupid. It compounds with the knowledge that some people call 10^9 "a milliard" rather than "a billion". This is why we have SI unit prefixes, and write numbers ending with an exponent of 10.

And here I was, assuming each "pack of butter" was one of those 10g single-serving packs (although some are only 7.65g). I didn't check it against the "tonnes" number in the article. In the US, a "pack of butter" could also be a box containing 4 sticks 113 g each, totaling 454 grams, because butter in the US is sold by the pound. Apparently, they are 250g elsewhere.

And a (metric) tonne is already 1000 kg, or 1 Mg. There is also the long ton, which is 1016 kg, and the short ton, which is 907 kg.

The obfuscated number is therefore 1x10^40 g, which is even larger than standard metric prefixes can express, so we'd probably write it as 1x10^37 kg, for some reason.

So my previous math was wrong. That's 5 million butter-stars the size of our sun, or enough butter to form a slippery, spreadable black hole as massive as the one at the heart of our galaxy. I guess from this, we can calculate the size of Audthumbla the giant space-cow?

link