Apple Abandons Electric Car Development, Stock Goes Up 0.8%

[KenElevenShadows]

6 minutes ago, jazzpiano88 said:

That was kind of my point, it’s ok to do something unhealthy once in a while.  I’d never heard of these star gazers.  The media puts the fear of god into everyone with no perspective of reality.  I never went swimming in the local pool after eating growing up for fear of drowning due to cramps.    Did you know that sitting too close to the TV ruins your eyesight? 


 

 

The sun is far more damaging when there is an eclipse than when there is not. There's less light, so your iris expands. The damage occurs because you are then letting in far more UV light, which in turn has far more capacity to damage your retina. That's not a hysterical "fear of God" statement. It's a statement of fact, and it's up to you to heed warnings from optometrists and eye specialists or not.

[jazzpiano88]

6 minutes ago, KenElevenShadows said:

The sun is far more damaging when there is an eclipse than when there is not. That's not a hysterical "fear of God" statement. It's a statement of fact, and it's up to you to heed warnings from optometrists and eye specialists or not.

I learn something new every day.   I always thought it was because people would be attracted to look at it longer than the raw sun.   Are there more damaging components during the eclipse than non eclipse?  I would think superposition would mean the non eclipse is always worse but I’m not an astrophysicist. 

[jazzpiano88]

I got it.  Don’t look into the sun at night.   Makes sense.    My reality didn’t get that cuz I’ve never experienced a significant total  eclipse in my lifetime. .      Thanks!

[KenElevenShadows]

On 4/6/2024 at 9:35 PM, jazzpiano88 said:

I got it.  Don’t look into the sun at night.   Makes sense.    My reality didn’t get that cuz I’ve never experienced a significant total  eclipse in my lifetime. .      Thanks!

 

Just to be clear, you don't require a total eclipse to damage your eyes. There's a reason why all eclipse parties and events in California - which had somewhere around a 40-45% occlusion of the sun - issued solar glasses. It's for the same reason. There's less light, so your iris expands. The damage occurs because you are then letting in far more UV light, which in turn has far more capacity to damage your retina. And I know that for people who experienced this, they might think, "Well, it didn't really get any dimmer, so yeah, I'm good." It actually did get dimmer, but because it was a slow, gradual dimming and only 40-45%, our eyes simply adjusted, and we never noticed the dimming light. So can you still get your retinas fried by looking into a 40-45% solar eclipse? Yeah, absolutely. You might just need to stare at it a little longer.

 

Whatever you do, you do NOT want to look at the eclipse through the optical viewfinder of your camera. That results in a near-instant fry.

[Anderton]

I too learn something new every day around here.

[KenElevenShadows]

Oh, one more thing.....your sunglasses are NOT dark enough to protect your eyes. That's right, even your super dark ones. 

[Thethirdapple]

1 minute ago, KenElevenShadows said:

Oh, one more thing.....your sunglasses are NOT dark enough to protect your eyes. That's right, even your super dark ones. 

 

I only wear my sunglasses at night…

 

 

 

PEACE

_
_
_

[jazzpiano88]

35 minutes ago, KenElevenShadows said:

Just to be clear, you don't require a total eclipse to damage your eyes. There's a reason why all eclipse parties and events in California - which had somewhere around a 40-45% occlusion of the sun - issued solar glasses. It's for the same reason. There's less light, so your iris expands. The damage occurs because you are then letting in far more UV light, which in turn has far more capacity to damage your retina.

Thanks for that!  We just went through an 85% and I definitely avoided looking up there.   It’s amazing how even 85% doesn’t seem all that dark.   Like a bit dusky.   

[Philbo King]

On 3/11/2024 at 2:04 PM, Anderton said:

I'm always surprised there isn't more emphasis on conservation. There are so many "always-on" devices these days. I honestly don't mind waiting a few seconds for something to get up to speed, compared to the energy spent on keeping an appliance in an "always on" condition.

 

I've been to a lot of European countries where automatic light switches are a thing. If someone leaves a room, the lights turn off. I assume the circuitry required to turn the lights on and off depending on whether people are present draws some current, but not as much as leaving lights on when not needed. And, if people just set their thermostats a little higher in the summer and lower in the winter, cumulatively it would make a difference.

I looked into these for our house (USA).  They run 25-40 $US for each.  Since we have solar power on the roof and currently have a 1.4 MW-Hr generated surplus, they didn't make economic sense for us.  But if we didn't, it would be fairly pain free to buy & install one per month.