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…

*gaygents

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.

(…I think you may have gotten whooshed…)

Yeah it’s missing the text, “…then the Planck X would be…” for the first two.

I don’t think this is the black and white issue that the headline suggests.

Homeless advocates appear to be on board with this, at any rate: https://www.kqed.org/news/12047353/heres-why-sf-homeless-advocates-are-glad-lurie-ditched-push-for-1500-shelter-beds

It sounds like the “more beds” campaign promise was somewhat misguided, as slapping a bandaid on homelessness isn’t a fix; more beds is, to an extent, just for show. Hopefully we’ll be able to get actual, research-based solutions to homelessness here.

I’m not super optimistic, but changing course on a campaign promise because the experts and advocates say your current plan is bad shouldn’t be criticized out of hand IMHO.

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?

Eurythmics 🫱 sailing the seven seas 🫲 Village People

*ought (whoosh?)

I once heard a native English speaker pronounce it as “the printer kweeyee.”

I think a lot of companies view their free plan as recruiting/advertising — if you use TailScale personally and have a great experience then you’ll bring in business by advocating for it at work.

Of course it could go either way, and I don’t rely on TailScale (it’s my “backup” VPN to my home network)… we’ll see, I guess.