256 karma · joined February 10, 2011
Also, really far-away galaxies are receding from us faster than light.
And, the existence of the cosmological event horizon seems to support this too, I think. Things beyond that horizon will emit light in our direction, but that light will never reach us. In fact, without this horizon, I believe that the night sky would be much brighter.
I find it kind of sad that, as time passes, more of the universe becomes unobservable. Eventually the only stars visible from our POV will be those in our own galaxy (and galaxies that ours has merged with, in the interim).
More info at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe
Nothing can travel faster than light through space, in a vacuum. However, if you pick two points in space that are far enough apart (e.g. at opposite sides of the observable universe), these points will be moving apart faster than light, because space itself is expanding.
The expansion of space isn’t coming from a single point outward, like an explosion. It’s expanding by the same amount at every point in the universe. People analogize this in lower dimensions to stretching fabric or blowing up a balloon.
For topics where the truth is a matter of opinion, the topic should probably just describe the different points of view, and qualify their use-cases and pros and cons, rather than arbitrarily picking one.
For the remainder, the side with the strongest references should win. I'll probably need to stratify the community a bit as Grok grows. Those with more influence should judge based on the site principles, similar to the US Supreme Court interpreting the law. I'm cautious to avoid fiefdoms, ulterior motives, and conflicts of interest.
https://grok.how/topic-guidelines
The most impact will come from the community of contributors who are committed to these principles. I'll be supporting them.
It's a big challenge to maximize accuracy while allowing open contribution. We'll need to experiment and iterate on this to improve.
What are your suggestions?
You may be right about the font size. For now, Grok's larger font size is deliberately lower density. It's meant to encourage conciseness, be comfortable to read, and avoid overwhelm.
One guideline I'm trying to respect is what UX people claim is the ideal text line width: 50-75 chars. Wikipedia, on other hand, is ~279 chars on my present screen (it scales with screen width), which feels awkward to me.
Citations are currently encouraged, but not required. They might be required in the future.
If you were to pick a domain of knowledge to focus the site content on (rather than "everything"), what would you pick?
What new ideas and practices are you interested in?