I can’t beleive I’ve never noticed the subtitle pun before today

Wild. I was just complaining that I used to follow Lockheed Martin on social because planes are cool, but it’s recently become filled with missile and other direct weaponry posts. I’m well aware of what the purpose of a fighter plane is. They used to at least have fun posts about the scientific work performed by the U2 and SR71.

There’s certainly a tipping point where light becomes too yellow to accurately represent color. I was recently shopping bathroom vanities and some showed what the greens and blues would look like under different color temps, with 2700K just about ruining the appearance. I also painted a room in light blues and had to change the adjustable lights to 3500K, if I remember correctly.

I’m just intrigued and thinking out loud. I’m having a hard time describing yellower as harsh. I could see the overhead lights doing a better job at flooding an area and minimizing shadows, whereas window light would be diffused but still somewhat of a point-source depending on distance. The “backrooms” image of the empty office space certainly comes to mind where it’s all a vague shade of yellow-green.

As far as people who can’t seem to see anything under wandering daylight, IME, they tend to be a mix of people who are either older (reduced dark vision, reduced focus) and impatient people (who don’t understand your eyes take 5 seconds to adjust pupil size but 20 minutes to refill rhodopsin, your night vision juice). Or just people who demand conformity. Or a 4th group I suppose, who have max-brightness screens that doesn’t play with eyes well against dark backgrounds. I do personally prefer natural light and wait for my eyes to prove they can’t see enough before using lights, except for when I have physical tasks to do like cook or repair something.

Apologies for seeming like I was telling you you’re wrong. I was trying to get your perspective but just rambled in my own opinions. Lights are a notable hobby for me, sort of. Headlights, flashlights, night lights, street lights, light pollution, night sight, neon lights, uv lights… I read up on lights weirdly often.

Itvs interesting that you find yellow light to be harsh. Normally, the yellower tones (2700k-3500k) are called warm and soft white. Daylight is 6500k with a notable blue tone and neutral white is somewhere around 4500K. Is your office also filled with brown/dirty surfaces that seem highlighted by the warm light or grays that clash with it? Florescent lights (and cheap LEDs) are especially harsh in general because they have really bad color rendering, meaning certain tones get muted and distort perception. Letting in daylight may just be helping restore color vibrance. Bluer lights also tend to have more UV output, which makes them more painful at night. Yellower lights lean towards the red end and aren’t so jarring for the same brightness. Bluer lights get used in hospital, lab, and other high-detail settings for more clarity, while yellower lights get used in more relaxed environments where visual detail is less important.

I wouldn’t guess you have a different cone count, but I would guess there’s some underlying perceptions about colors and visuals.

If I make a gas engine with 100% heat efficiency but only run it in my backyard, do the greenhouse gases not count because it’s so efficient? Of course they do. The high efficiency of a data center is great, but that’s not what the article laments. The problem it’s calling out is the absurdly wasteful nature of why these farms will flourish: to power excessively animated programs to feign intelligence, vainly wasting power for what a simple program was already addressing.

It’s the same story with lighting. LEDs seemed like a savior for energy consumption because they were so efficient. Sure they save energy overall (for now), but it prompted people to multiply the number of lights and total output by an order of magnitude simply because it’s so cheap. This stems a secondary issue of further increasing light pollution and intrusion.

Greater efficiency doesn’t make things right if it comes with an increase in use.

I thought Axe Snakepeel was so cool. I thought it had titanium beads. Turns out, the beads were plastic and titanium (dioxide) was normal soap stuff (though I think just to artificially make the soap opaque). It disappeared before I was aware

I’ve had SwiftKey for a long time as well. My biggest gripe is it likes to change tense/pluralization of words randomly, it seems, as well as dropping post-apostrophe letters. It entirely flips the meaning from “can’t” to “can” at the worst, while also makes me seem not so smart when I say “there are 133 word in this comments”.

2.2 for me now. Clicking the ratings it warns me “ratings are based on recent reviews from your region by people using similar devices to you”. I didn’t check it before, just relayed other comments.

Maybe it’s rapidly changing via bot/invalid review washing. A screenshot from 3 hours prior to your comment shows it at 4.3 but still 14k reviews

No no, fakes names and misattributed quotes means it’s satire

Raise your hand if you think pink peeps taste worse than yellow. Great, great, welcome to the iodine tasting club. It’s genetic. Pink-dyed dessert isn’t supposed to have more bitterness than an IPA

I’m so tired of this misrepresented quote. He said take the blood out, THEN bleach it. Covid deaths would drop overnight but y’all ain’t ready for that talk

50% failure rate of the cables and 50% failure of the tester means a problem will be found 100% of the time, but it dmwont tell you where. Or something.

You’re getting downvoted because noble people aren’t seeing how closely related “fixing defects” and “eliminating undesirables” due to a loose definition of “defect”. Human traits are on sliding scales. Is drawfism a defect? If yes, then how short is too short? There is overlap between the tallest dwarfs and the shortest non-dwarfs. We talk about autism being a spectrum - so where on the scale does that qualify for genetic modification? Who gets to decide these limits? To say it’d be up to the individual could then open it the other way and allow for unethical modification beyond natural traits.

I’m not trying to see cancer deletion tech leads straight to nazis, just that these are real ethical debates that are already raking place. We have the architecture of embryo design in place

That’s a key detail I now see

Edit: I see the error in my below response. I leave wrong answers for conversational completeness

That’s not equivalent either. “if not b, then not a” works if it’s a sequence but doesn’t work for options in which multiple inputs can lead to the same output. If you get pizza every Tuesday and Friday, then answering “what’s for lunch” with “if Tuesday, then pizza” and “if Friday, then pizza” doesn’t let it work in reverse. “what day is it” can’t be answered with “if pizza lunch, then Tuesday”

and when it is time to replace your vehicle, consider an EV

OK but EVs don’t work for me, the most specialist boy in the world. I need a class-2 5-seat, 8ft-bed pickup as my daily driver because I pickup mulch every two years and my dream vacation involves driving 12 hours per day.

Is there an increase in the actual number of people with hypertension? Or is there an increase in the known number of people with hypertension in your country? While I don’t want to downplay the risk and frequency of any medical condition, it’s important to consider the increase may come from better, more frequent diagnoses and testing ability. A similar increase in cancer frequency largely came from more frequent screenings, better testing, and more knowledge all around. Yet, all kinds of things were blamed for the “sudden” change from cell phones, plastic, banning lead, vapes, non-organics food, GMO food, to nuclear power plants.

Analog pinch-zoom

This has been my experience when looking at the hourly temperature predictions. The “day” starts at a normal wakeup time