I was reading a novel that features a man falling into a black hole, and it mentioned the common notion that we'd never see the man actually pass the event horizon because, due to general relativity, clocks asymptotically slow to zero as one approaches the event horizon.

So with the right optics, we'd be able to see the man falling into the black hole forever. This is creepy, so in the novel people decided to abandon the black hole and just leave it be.

Lower on the same page, however, it was mentioned that they plan to leave it be until the black hole evaporates.

Well, evaporation via Hawking radiation takes a finite amount of time. A particle falling toward the black hole takes an infinite amount of time. So what happens to the still-present particle/man falling into the hole when the hole finally evaporates?

I've been reading far too long and it's late and I'm tired, so I apologize if the question is dumb. Thanks a bunch if I can read an answer in the morning!

I'm researching a hypothetical scenario in which a region of the Earth's ozone layer becomes severely depleted and, for reasons outside the scope of the question, cannot recover naturally.

Assuming this depletion persists for twenty years, what would be the consequences for the environment and human populations beneath it?

I'm particularly interested in:

• The effects of increased ultraviolet radiation on human health.
• The consequences for agriculture, wildlife and local ecosystems.
• Whether people could continue living in the affected region by adopting protective measures.
• Whether the effects would remain geographically concentrated or spread into neighbouring regions.

For geographical context, imagine the depletion is initially concentrated over New Mexico and the wider American Southwest.

I'm aware that a permanently localised area of ozone depletion may not be physically realistic. I'm primarily interested in the consequences if such a condition were somehow maintained.

I genuinely want to learn mathematics, physics, programming, computer science, and AI. I want to build a career in computer science, pursue AI research, and hopefully do a PhD someday. But lately, I've been feeling increasingly demotivated.

The problem is that I rely on AI to learn almost everything. Whenever I have a question, I ask GPT. Whenever I don't understand a concept, I ask AI to explain it. And the more I learn this way, the more I wonder: What's the point of learning anything when AI will always know more than I ever could?

Even the most basic AI models seem to possess more knowledge than I could acquire in a lifetime. And with new models becoming increasingly capable, I keep wondering whether the knowledge I'm working so hard to gain will even matter in the future.

With GPT-6, Claude Opus 5.5, Gemini 4, and other models competing to become more capable, it feels like the gap between human intelligence and AI capabilities will only continue to grow.

I want to understand the mathematics behind AI, learn physics, become a better programmer, and contribute to actual research. But sometimes I question why I'm putting in the effort when AI can explain concepts faster, write code better, and potentially solve problems that I might spend years learning to solve myself.

And even when I genuinely want to learn, I'm confused about what I should prioritize learning and whether any of it will remain valuable by the time I become proficient.

I'm not necessarily saying that learning is useless. I genuinely love the idea of understanding how things work. But I'm struggling to reconcile that curiosity with the feeling that AI might eventually outperform me at almost everything I want to become good at.

For those of you studying computer science, mathematics, physics, or AI, how do you deal with this feeling? How do you stay motivated to learn when AI is advancing so rapidly? Do you think deep technical knowledge will still matter for people pursuing AI research and PhDs, or should we be approaching learning differently now?

Hi friends, I really need some advice on something. My friend and I recently started a social media page focused on educational content and STEM. Even though it's only been a month, I im not sure im seeing any results. So I wanted to know what YOU all would want to see. Like what kind of topics, what kind of explanation would you not skip past on Instagram regarding STEM, and do you prefer in-depth explanations or just brief explanations?

Would prefer any and all help! This is something I want to expand

I don’t mean in judging way, I’m a guy myself. It’s just interesting. By abnormal I don’t necessarily mean necessarily bad, just abnormal.

For example, foot fetish. It’s almost entirely exclusive to men.
Yes women like hands but not to that extent.

Or most crimes. Why do men commit more crimes? Aggression from testosterone sure, but planning an entire robbery and shit is a whole has a whole mental thoughts behind it.

Looksmaxxing. Have you seen a single Looksmaxxer girl? It’s supposed to be girly thing but men there literally die to look pretty. Girls usually on average do more average surgeries, but those few % of guys who do as well literally replace their entire identity.

80% suicides are men too.

Not even that but every known ever influential historical figure was a man. From war criminals to generational talents.

Like girls in comparison are more chill and healthy. Is there a scientific explanation?