qjkxbmwvz @ qjkxbmwvz @startrek.website

Posts

3

Comments

1,188

Joined

2 yr. ago

99 what you did there...

(I know, IC isn't valid Roman numeral representation of 99, but it was the only joke I could think of.)

Because it's not an X at the end, it's a Greek chi. Same with the arXiv preprint distribution --- it's "archive," not are-ex-iv.

From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_Osbourne

The couple used to physically fight regularly and, according to Osbourne, they would "beat the shit out of each other." She has described herself as "a beaten woman" when she was at the hands of husband Ozzy where he once knocked out her front teeth. She once retaliated by throwing a full bottle of scotch at his head.

ethic cleansing

Tbh that doesn't sound too bad? Like maybe take a nice shower but with cruelty free/plant-based soap that wasn't animal tested (and obviously there's no drought concern in this scenario).

go2rtc, a camera streaming tool that's useful for security cameras, at least has some humor in their choice --- port 1984, of course.

All I see is *******

Anyway, here's Wondersmall.

I'm drunk, and it's all Mexico's fault!

Beautiful!

Sorry you're getting down voted --- lots of replies from folks unclear on what the diffraction limit means, atomic resonances, etc.: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2161094-a-single-atom-is-visible-to-the-naked-eye-in-this-stunning-photo/

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2161094-a-single-atom-is-visible-to-the-naked-eye-in-this-stunning-photo/

Parent didn't say resolve, they said see --- you can't resolve stars but you can most certainly see them.

Light up a single atom enough and you can see it (unclear if this works with a dark adjusted naked eye or if a long exposure is required): https://www.newscientist.com/article/2161094-a-single-atom-is-visible-to-the-naked-eye-in-this-stunning-photo/

No, they're too small to resolve. You can see small things if they're bright enough: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2161094-a-single-atom-is-visible-to-the-naked-eye-in-this-stunning-photo/

A single atom of gold is far too small for any photon in the visible spectrum to interact with.

That's incorrect --- single atoms can, and do, interact with optical photons.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.19671 https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13716

And the entire field of super resolution microscopy relies on small things (e.g., molecules) interacting with light.

Wait until you hear about the Arctic circle...

https://elest.io/open-source/immich

No experience with them so can't at all vouch for them, but it looks like there are providers who will do this.

I self host Immich with an off site backup (=raspberry pi at in-laws house, all over WireGuard). Can't recommend Immich enough!

Are we talking fediveese hackers? You know, the socialist-furries-with-UNIX-socks hackers?

Those folks hate cars, not trains. I don't think we need to worry.

The energy from nuclear reactions can be astonishingly large (compared to, say, chemical reactions).

But atoms are really, really, really small.

Concert attendance is growing exponentially, with the number of attendees projected to be greater than the number of atoms in the observable universe sometime in late October.

(...I think you may have gotten whooshed...)