Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)S
Posts
35
Comments
1968
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • smh

    Jump
  • I would guess it's essentially the same effect that causes our blue sky in the day and red sky at dawn and dusk. TL;DR if you already know what Rayleigh scattering is, skip to the last paragraph

    Okay so the reason that we can "see" the sky, as in it is lit up and has colour, is that sunlight (which is basically white) gets scattered when it passes through the atmosphere instead of just going straight through. This is an effect called Rayleigh scattering. Rayleigh scattering affects shorter wavelengths more than longer ones.

    If there is too much scattering of a wavelength, chances are that most of it will not make it to a given observer. It'll either just wind up going off into space or being absorbed by something. During daytime, our atmosphere does this just enough to get rid of most of the ultraviolet light. The next frequency down is blue, which gets scattered enough for us to see it.

    For the sky directly above you to appear blue to you, you need some of the blue wavelengths of light to have made it to that point above you and then get scattered there. Other wavelengths need to have either been absorbed already (like UV) or not scattered much yet (like red).

    During sunsets and sunrises, the light has to pass through much more atmosphere to get to us than it does during the day. As a result, the blue light starts to meet the same fate that UV does during the day, and longer wavelengths like yellow and red are the only ones that make it to us

    So, all that is to set up that Mars has a way thinner atmosphere which does way less scattering. The sky normally looks more or less the same colour as the ground because there's so little Rayleigh scattering happening that dust kicked up by the wind dominates the colour instead. However, same rules apply as on Earth - sunset means more scattering. It's just that on Mars, that goes from UV scattering to blue, instead of blue to red.

  • Okay so if we take your definition in which a civil war isn't a war: when the Soviet Union rolled tens of thousands of troops with tanks into Hungary, or when Turkey invaded Cyprus and made a new country out of a third of it, or when Russia put 14,000 troops in Moldova and made a new country out of the bit north of the Dniester, what exactly made those not international in your view?

    How many countries were involved in Bosnia

    At least three depending on what you count as a country. Again, given that it started before the EU existed, why are you saying that no wars happened between the end of WWII and the creation of the EU?

    when was the first international genocide conviction in Europe since the Nuremberg trials?

    1. What does that have to do with anything?
  • The hell is your definition of a war that excludes all of those? The Hungarian revolution, Turkish invasion of Cyprus, and Transnistria war were all international conflicts as well

    I will also note that the Bosnian war is both part of the Yugoslav wars that I mentioned and also kicked off before the Treaty of Maastricht

  • You have got to be taking the piss

    • 1946: Greek civil war
    • 1956: Hungarian revolution
    • 1974: Turkish invasion of Cyprus
    • 1989: Romanian revolution
    • 1990: Transnistria War
    • 1991: Yugoslav Wars

    This does not even include the many smaller-scale rebellions or anything that happened in the Caucasus

  • That account is less than a month old and the literal first thing they did with it was defend Putin. Yesterday they got banned from some communities for spreading antivax nonsense. Classic stuff.

  • The real video does exist, LBC just uploaded the wrong one. They corrected it in a matter of hours. Here's the actual one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYRVezF5-hk

    The interview with the housing secretary was also re-uploaded with the correct title and description

  • Who cares? How do you even know that people didn't watch the video?

    Because if they had watched it, they would know that it was not actually about Epstein or Russia

    Have you seen anything about the reports at all?

    I literally wrote "I do not doubt Israel's involvement. I think it's silly to argue that other countries can't also be involved" in this post

  • I agree with that (for the most part, I think it could do with a bit more centralisation), but I don't think it's what "every time in history" is pointing to

  • Please tell me you are not trying to argue that the EU is doomed to fail because Hitler and Napoleon both failed

  • Headlines were invented to get attention for a story, not to replace it. Otherwise, nobody would bother to write an article (or in this case conduct an interview) under the headline

    The actual video has the MI6 guy bring up Israel's involvement as well. If these were actual people making assumptions off of headlines, they would never have found out

    But no, I don't think that every single commenter is an actual person who just made an assumption, commented, and left without even pressing play on the video

    Edit: almost every single commenter. Shout out to the one talking about Trump shitting himself instead. Still should have pressed play, but at least it was funny

  • Whether it was Russia or Israel really isn't the point here

  • If that was the case, would they not just put the correct video back instead of taking it down altogether and uploading the correct one separately? I don't know if you actually can replace the video file on a youtube upload. I know there are some limited editing tools that can be used to cut a segment out, but that wouldn't explain this

  • As in LBC posted the wrong video intentionally?

  • If the yellow is down to a directional light source (and I don't have a better idea than that), I wonder if the white fur is reflecting a fair bit of it? It's like how having a sheet of paper laying flat near a wall causes the bit of the wall above it to be a bit lighter. It still looks like the yellow is mostly on the opposite side to the purple, so I think it's plausible

  • Sorry if I'm sounding combative.

    Don't worry, I didn't take it that way! Unfortunately I'm not knowledgeable enough on cameras to offer another guess besides that though

  • Does the camera you took the pic with do any kind of automatic correction / enhancement? This looks like the results you would get if the pic had warm artificial lighting, the colour temperature was shifted to make her fur neutrally white, and then the saturation was cranked up. That results in orange closest to the artificial light source (catching the strongest warm light, therefore keeping some orange when the temperature is shifted to make most of her fur look white again) and purple farthest from it (it wasn't orange before, so the de-oranging just purplified it) and then the saturation increase exaggerates the effect

    Also Furryosa is very cute

  • "local .ml account approves of billionaire Jeff Bezos manipulating major new outlet"

  • I invite you to take a look at how much of their post history is RT and Sputnik

  • No idea if anyone has done anything to make this more than an idea, but if you want to de-orbit someone else's satellite safely you could use a laser broom. Whe you vaporise stuff with a laser, the material that ablates off of the object imparts a bit of thrust to that object. This means that zapping a satellite with a laser can potentially slow it down just like pushing it with a rocket. It also has the benefit of being useable on any other troublesome debris, and it can be reused between jobs (assuming you solved the engineering challenges of Big Space Laser)