My experience with phone zoom has been underwhelming so far, but I would like to check out the Samsung S2x’s 10x zoom when I have the chance!
Still, I really like using binoculars because they transport me next to what I am looking at and do so in very high definition. I do have >100€ binoculars though, colors look very nice through them. I think it will be difficult to replicate via a screen.
Yes. The camera pixels generate a current in response to light. You can add some filters to block certain wavelengths of light (like UV) from getting to the camera sensor, and tune the pixels so that they respond more to to specific colors. But X-rays and gamma rays can just pass through the filter. Often they will pass through sensor as well, but, in the cases that they do get absorbed by the sensor, they can also produce a current that to the camera’s readout electronics looks like other light would.
The gamma detectors I mentioned are very very sensitive. They respond to single X-ray/Gamma ray particles. These detectors can count how many individual particles collide with a small crystal cube every second. These crystals are special in that they produce a very tiny flash of light when an X-ray or gamma particle collides with them. As an added bonus, these sensors can directly measure the energy of the particles by measuring the strength of the flash, and from this information they can construct not only the total counts but also a spectrum. With this extreme sensitivity these detectors can measure small quantities of radiation that come from space, from rocks, and from other materials.
I looked for a video of a phone going through an X-ray machine, and found these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8iSoPhtY3s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1YaroH6lHA
The white specks that you can see near second 25 (first video) and second 34 (second video) could be a result of the X-rays. I am not sure, but it seems reasonable to me. On contrast, when I put my radiacode through the X-ray machine in the airport the radiacode reacts very strongly and becomes saturated.
Radiation detectors. Such as the Radiacode or the Open Gamma Detector.
Binoculars are quite portable, very useful, and phones don’t do a good job at zooming in like that.
Smart watches integrate with phones but the phones by themselves are not so good at measuring the heart rate and other parameters directly.
Mini projectors. UV flashlights. Tools in general… There is so much actually. What type of gadgets are you looking for?
Someone needs to explain to Musk how to debug with the JSON so that the ipv6 GUI does not overflow into the git API front-end
Check in your settings whether you have disabled the visibility of bot responses. This can happen if bots replied to you and your settings are set to not see them.
Thank you being around, bringing this nice community here, and helping with the federation!! 😁
I find it satisfying to see the graph come down :)
Yes, sorry, there was some serious lagg in fetching posts from Lemmy World that persisted for several days and accumulated a 1-week delay.
But after upgrading Mander it is now fetching data from LW quite rapidly and it should be back in-sync in about a day and a half from now.
If you are curious about the ranking algorithm, there is some info here: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/contributors/07-ranking-algo.html
Dragonfruit lemonade (agua de pitahaya) is delicious!
You can take a lot of control by using search commands. Here is a list of commands for Google, for example: https://www.lifewire.com/advanced-google-search-3482174
By using commands like these you can narrow down your searches to the point that the impact of SEO is small. You give a much greater weight to the conditions that you have chosen.
It can be a bit of work to write a good search query, but the database that search engines search through is massive, so it makes sense that it would take some work to do this right.
Search engines like google aggregate data from multiple sites. I may want to download a datasheet for an electronic component, find an answer to a technical question, find a language learning course site, or look for museums in my area.
Usually I make specific searches with very specific conditions, so I tend to get few and relevant results. I think search engines have their place.
I used to it eat a lot of it as a child. But now that I think more about nutrition it is a rare treat for me. I don't buy it nor keep any at my home, because if I buy it I'll eat it. If I go out and eat fries I'll usually eat them with mayonnaise. I do like the taste, especially in egg sandwiches.
Fair enough. I just looked it up and if the scale in this image is correct, I agree that the size of the hole looks small in comparison. I also looked at the security video of the crash itself and it is frustrating how little we can see from it.
Since this was such an important event and there seems to be a lack of specific pieces of essential evidence - either because of bad luck or because of a cover-up - I understand the skepticism. And I am not a fan of blindly believing any official narrative. But, without any context, if I see that photo and someone tells me that a plane crashed into that building, I would find it probable simply because the shape is so similar to the photo of the Bijlmer accident that I'm familiar with. A plane crash seems to me like a very chaotic process, so I don't have a good expectation of what the damage should look like.
Maybe I'll look for a pentagon crash documentary some time.
I don't have much of an opinion on this topic, I haven't really looked into it.
But as soon as I saw this image, the El Al Flight 1862 which crashed in the Bijlmer in Amsterdam in 1992 immediately came to mind. The shape of the hole is very similar!
This image shows the likely position of the Bijlmer plane during the crash:
The image you posted of the Pentagon seems to me consistent with what I have seen of the Bijlmer accident, and so the shape of the hole and the absence of wings in the photo does not persuade me personally that no plane was involved.
You can set up a personalized RSS feed with Feeder. It will take a bit of effort to set up, but you can create a feed that is very well tailored to your interests. You can get news feeds but also subscribe to other kinds of content, like scientific publications and financial statements.
A botnet could have many unique accounts, and some could even appear like users. So I can't rule it out. I also haven't done a deeper dive into the accounts.
But when a post gets popular I would expect it to get at least a few downvotes, regardless of what it is.
There is one account that has a single comment from 5 months ago that is downvoting most posts and comments. That one is very suspicious
Other than that… No other accounts are as obvious. A few do have some reoccurrences but most of those votes do seem organic on first inspection.
Yes, you are right. If a mod wants I can send them the username and they can ban them from the community. I can see it as an admin from my instance but I can't take action.
Ooh, cool! 😁 That detector seems to be working only in “Geiger mode”, which means that it can count the number of X-rays/Gamma particles but it does not estimate their energy. So, the dedicated devices are still better in that they allow you to identify the source of the radiation by measuring the counts and the energy distribution simultaneously.
It probably would not be too difficult to build the open gamma detector into something like a pinephone. I don’t think that has been done yet.