https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbird_(wind-powered_vehicle)
Can go directly upwind (no tacking required). Can also be applied to boats.
- 0 Posts
- 137 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: February 1st, 2024
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
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).
110·9 days agogo2rtc, a camera streaming tool that’s useful for security cameras, at least has some humor in their choice — port 1984, of course.
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/
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!
The energy from nuclear reactions can be astonishingly large (compared to, say, chemical reactions).
But atoms are really, really, really small.
3·1 month agoNo, I’ve been a strict vegetarian for a long time, mostly vegan now but not strict about it. I did eat fish a few years ago because it was an invasive species (and also, delicious).
But also, I have no problem getting the food/nutrients I need from a plant based diet, which isn’t always easy for other folks.
Thanks for the thoughtful response! 1) makes a lot of sense, and 2) makes a lot of “emotional sense” to me (as opposed to “intellectual sense,” I guess).
What’s the conventional wisdom as to why this is so bad, but eating meat basically gets a pass? Like, meat offers sustenance, yes, but it’s by no means required. So basically, humans eat meat because it tastes really good — it’s great “culinary entertainment.”
This is a different kind of entertainment, but it’s deeply offensive to many folks. I’m not trying to be a dick about it, just curious why this is seen as such a sin.
Is it that these animals weren’t “supposed” to be killed? Would a movie about a beef cow who ends up getting slaughtered, both onscreen and IRL, be seen as better? Worse?
OTOH, if you can afford basic necessities, hobbies are just a rounding error on top of them.