this post was submitted on 10 May 2026
676 points (98.4% liked)

Technology

84643 readers
3733 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] moopet@sh.itjust.works 23 points 3 days ago (8 children)

An "atom bomb" is not a standard unit of measurement. It's less than helpful.

[–] Hossenfeffer@feddit.uk 21 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Pffft. An 'atom bomb' as a unit of measurement is (roughly) equal to:

ff x (hdl/afps) x solh x amb

Where:
ff = football fields
hdl = hot dog lengths
afps = average Floridian pants size
solh = Statues of Liberty heights
amb = average medical bill.

[–] Fiery@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 3 days ago

Americans will do anything but use the metric system.

[–] el_abuelo@programming.dev 11 points 3 days ago (1 children)

How many atom bombs less than helpful is it?

[–] smeenz@lemmy.nz 3 points 2 days ago

Americans will use anything but the metric system.

[–] CptOblivius@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Yes but at that level of energy no unit is useful for the average person to comprehend. I somewhat understand the usage here. If it was in joules very few people would be able comprehend.

[–] moopet@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago

But then why pick 23, a number with two significant digits, to indicate scale? By this logic, 10 would be as effective at communication.

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The 9 GW are already there if anyone needs a proper value, but without anything to compare it to, 9GW means nothing to most people. Hence the comparison.

[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

9 is not the total energy. The article says the total thermal load is 16. 9 for the electrical usage and another 7-8 in the form of cooling. It also says that's the amount of 40,000 Walmart Supercenters...if you want another non standard American unit of measurement

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

If you want a standard unit of measurement, I trust you can re-read the title and find "9GW" in there. That is a proper standard unit, but to most people a number so mindbogglingly huge makes no sense at all, so they added a comparison to something people are more likely to being able to even roughly conceptualize.

[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That 9gw is not the whole amount. the total thermal load is 16GW.

Which according to the pdf is equal to 40,000 Walmart supercenters if someone needs a non standard, American unit of measurement...

[–] lukaro@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 days ago

Thats enough power to send Doc and Marty on 14 and half trips through time.

[–] mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago

that's probably why they put an actual value in the title preceding it

[–] Evotech@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago

Nuke bad. Propaganda