I think you're onto something. Replace "developers" with "doctors" I that statement and you've described healthcare in the mid 1900s. Replace with "masons" and we describe the medieval times. There is always a specialized class
I'm going to date myself here. In 199x, we had a 286 and loved a game called "Command HQ" that had lovely gameplay and sound to boot! Then we got the ol' Packard bell 486 with a sound blaster. We played the same game (which had midi output too) for the first time and my father and I cried -- it was unbelievable.
That's when I first became enamoured with the "art of the possible" and this has driven my career.
I fully believe that doom could have had pc speaker sound; after all w3d did!
Background: 25 years of tech. If there's a job done in or around IT, I've done it and done it well. I started with dumb terminal migrations and build world-class databases today. As I like to say, I know the whole data stack from "Silicon to SQL". Lately, I've specialized in building amazing engineers. If you need an amazing team of engineers (think NASA or SpaceX) over a team of amazing engineers (think Justice League or Avengers), then I am the leader you need!
It would look something like this[1] except with slower visual propagation.
Note that this camera (like any camera) cannot observe photons as they pass through the slits -- it can only record photons once they've bounced off the main path. Thus you will never record the interference-causing photons mid-flight, and you'll get a standard interference pattern.
AlphaPhoenix mentions in the description that he wants to try and image an interference pattern, and it seems possible.
Though it wouldn't really be showing you the quantum effect; that's only proven with individual photons at a time. This technique sends a "big" pulse of light relying on some of it being diffusely reflected to the camera at each oscilloscope timestep.
Truly sending individual photons and measuring them is likely impractical as you'd have to wait for a huge time collecting data for each pixel, just hoping the photons happens to bounce directly into the photomultiplier tube.
Dumb question, and I might not understand the difference. Don't we already have synthetic gasoline in the form of trufuel and the ilk? I can buy that at walmart; expensive, sure, but is indoor-safe and lasts forever. Smells good when it burns as a bonus!
No. Trufuel is fossil fuel derived. It's just distilled and mixed to a much tighter tolerance than typical gasoline. Synthetic gasoline is derived from atmospheric CO2 and water, effectively reversing combustion via the Fischer-Tropsch process or Methanol-to-Gasoline.
While we're at it, can we do something about the gigalumen blue light every device seems to have to indicate on/charging/charged? My house looks like a dystopia spaceship after dusk.
It's the kind of flaw we don't notice until after we've bought the products and lived with them for a while. Therefore, it doesn't hurt sales and therefore, there is no pressure for manufacturers to change.
It sucks.
As a workaround, these work great. Note that these particular ones are partial blackout stickers. They are 50-80% opaque. You can still see the light, but it won't be bright enough to annoy. If you want to darken even further you can just layer two of the stickers.
If you need total blackout, there are similar ones available that are 100% opaque, although at that point I'm not sure why a person would buy a specialty product instead of just using regular tape...
> It's the kind of flaw we don't notice until after we've bought the products and lived with them for a while.
I dunno. There is an increasing amount of products announcing "no led indicators" as a feature. And I've seen plenty of reviews with people saying things like "the on led is too bright".
I did buy some rechargeable fans this year, and they had a very welcome "night mode" that shuts off the blue LEDs.
I'm not sure if they exactly advertised it as a feature. The Amazon product page was kind of a soup of mangled English. I guess it was probably mentioned in there somewhere.
Sure, we eventually react to ubiquitous issues like blue LEDs, but it's been 2 decades since blue LEDs were new/fancy and it's just barely popping up now. It's very reactive and very slow.
Just look at microwave interfaces. They haven't meaningfully changed in function in decades, and yet +30s buttons often don't start the microwave, power level can rarely be set after starting and all sorts of basic responsiveness details.
I've had to put a layer of electric tape, sometimes two of them, on some of those just to get the bedroom to a level where it's dark enough to sleep in comfortably.
They're so bright, you can see the damn blue circles on the ceiling. Blue moon rising, invited by no one.
I once bought one of those alarms that brighten along with the pattern of natural sunlight in the morning (and dim in the evening), as I don’t get much natural light in my bedroom. The time display on it was so unbelievably bright at its lowest setting that my sleep was worse until I piled stuff up in front of it. I don’t even bother with it anymore.
Renting, I'd want something I can temporarily attach to arbitrary pre-existing blinds. On reflection, there are several types one might encounter but I'm particularly thinking of the "twist stick to adjust horizontal slats" style. (As opposed to "loop of chain controls angle", or "fully unroll from top".)
I think there was a Show HN some months back where somebody 3D printed a mount so that the twist-stick could be slotted in at a slight angle.
Yes, seconding this one too. I've opted for ugly black electrical tape squares over the worst offenders in sleeping spaces, but why is that the only option?
Ha, I've done the same. I never thought I'd become like my old grandpa, who didn't like when TV stations started adding crawls to the bottom of the screen for certain news/information so put electric tape across the bottom of the screen.
If they're going to do LEDs, at least do red ones, which don't obliterate night vision. Making them togglable is the ideal unless they're literally a life-or-death piece of equipment.
It used to be dim red LEDs but then in the early 2010s everyone switched to blue to look more fancy and modern. Sometimes really bright ones too, I used to have an ASUS router that had bright enough (blinking!) blue LEDs to light the entire room up. Without any option to disable them, of course.
With all public debate around the effects of blue light on sleep, it's weird more people haven't found that concerning.
> my old grandpa, who didn't like when TV stations started adding crawls to the bottom of the screen for certain news/information so put electric tape across the bottom of the screen.
I now have a small amount of electrical tape in my travel bag, and I use it at practically every place I stay. I just rewrapped some around a bit of plastic - no need for it to be very sticky anyway as I take it off when I leave.
My MacBook Pro's dual magsafe charging lights do this for me. It becomes an issue when I travel so that the MacBook is in the same room I sleep in. Sometimes turing it perpendicular to the bed is enough, at least it's not directly into my eyes even if it is lighting up the room. Other times I have to pile stuff on top
I've always struggled to fall asleep with even a moderate amount of light in the room, and I used to go crazy trying to cover every small led to make things easier for me. It took me far longer than it should have for me to realize that it would be easier to cover my eyes instead, and I bought a nylon sleep mask on Amazon for a few dollars. It's literally been life changing how much my sleep improved after that. If anyone is bothered by this specifically when trying to sleep, I'd highly recommend trying out using a mask to block light when sleeping; it's really cheap to give it to a shot, so you don't lose much by trying, and you might end up winning the lottery like me.
I have a monitor with a bright blue / dull orange LED. I found that stacking layers of kapton tape turns the blue into a dull green, while leaving the orange mostly unaffected.
The worst one of these I encountered was in a USB-PD power supply meant to replace a 12V outlet in a car. It was extremely distracting driving at night. The illuminated area covered most of the face of the device, so I covered it with RTV silicone.
yes plz && ty, I listen to audiobooks at bedtime and I can't put my earbuds back in the case without them turning on a super bright blue light that has actually woken up my partner in the past. Why? I can see a little pinhole status light to show me that the connection is made correctly but why outline the whole case in blue and then start flashing the percentage charge remaining in the case while also animating charging bars to show that the buds themselves are also charging? Why turn my bedroom into the landing scene from the movie ET?
(For those who haven't noticed, you can just simply paste 186.66721+8.89072 or whichever target you're curious about in an astronomy database like Aladin[0], and there right-click on "What is this?")
They look like they're roughly in the same plane. Is it safe to assume they're roughly in the same plane, or could they be really distant along the line of sight? The similarity in size makes me think they are, but I don't have any reason to be confident in that judgment.
It says that NGC 4410 is (gravitationally) interacting galaxies. After clicking through the link, it calls it RSCG 55 instead and explains more. I don't understand the naming scheme.
The naming scheme is based on the principle "tens of thousand of people have done this over thousands of years, and they all named things themselves". Its not uncommon for objects to have ~20 separate names[1], with some having over a hundred [2].
In this particular case, RSCG 55 means a group of galaxies[3], of which NGC 4410 is one member. Apparently RSCG is the "Redshift Survey Compact Groups" (https://cds.unistra.fr/cgi-bin/Dic-Simbad?RSCG) so 55 is just an index number.
That's also the case for the 4410 after NGC; in that case stands for "New General Catalog". In contrast the Sloan Digital Sky Survey gave NGC 4410 the name SDSS J122628.29+090111.4 where the numbers indicates its position in the sky.
The "index number" and the "position of the sky" are the two most popular naming strategies.
"like NGC 4410, above them in this image. The four interacting galaxies of that system are connected by tidal bridges, created by the gravity of each galaxy pulling on the others in the system."
I believe there would be a difference in their red/blue signatures if they were moving relative to each other, but as you say they clearly are on the same plane
