Eerie Skyglow Called 'Steve' Isn't an Aurora, Is 'Completely Unknown' to Science • Hacker News Board

Re: Eerie Skyglow Called 'Steve' Isn't an Aurora, Is 'Completely Unknown' to Science

#111

Post by wowDude » Sat, Aug 25, 2018, 4:32 AM UTC

kurthr wrote: post #81

wowDude wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

everything is deadly at large doses ... if we were to ban everything that leads to a certain point of toxicity, we would not be able to live with anything around us No, that's not how this works. The salient point here, is that we know about specific things which are predominantly non-essential, and atrociously bad for everyone . Lead. Asbestos. Cigarette smoke. DDT. Plutonium. This list is not exhaustive. Believe it…

Relative Risk The problem with DDT was that while it didn't cause significant problems for people (at the concentrations used), it caused huge problems for birds (thinned shells). At the same time it wiped out the mosquito carrying malaria along the gulf coast. The ecologic side effects were terrible, but in many cases human risk may well have been reduced. Some asbestos is extremely dangerous, some is not (it depend…

Yeah, I mentioned all of those specific examples, because it brings exactly your kind of response out of the woodwork.

Come back to me and say that lives were saved.

- Malaria spreading mosquitos went away.

- Asbestos: it depends.

- Ban the ocean because Plutonium??? Well, that's just crazy talk!

- Rebel against the wind in your face! Let the sun shine! Drive a convertable, because lead makes it possible! Treat yourself!

All of those points are the kind of attitude that defers coping with the consequences of something, for selfish reasons now.

Re: Eerie Skyglow Called 'Steve' Isn't an Aurora, Is 'Completely Unknown' to Science

#112

Post by wowDude » Sat, Aug 25, 2018, 4:49 AM UTC

tomatotomato37 wrote: post #76

wowDude wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

everything is deadly at large doses ... if we were to ban everything that leads to a certain point of toxicity, we would not be able to live with anything around us No, that's not how this works. The salient point here, is that we know about specific things which are predominantly non-essential, and atrociously bad for everyone . Lead. Asbestos. Cigarette smoke. DDT. Plutonium. This list is not exhaustive. Believe it…

The thing is though that most of the materials in that list can still be used in ways that don't incur risk. Just because making your water system out of a toxic metal is a bad idea doesn't mean you should outlaw the use of fishing weights and lead-acid batteries, in the same way the banning the shoving of asbestos into every corner of a house doesn't mean you have to also stop using it in firefighting equipment.

Actually, it kind of does. We really should stop selling lead fishing weights, and avoid using lead-acid batteries as much as possible. Mostly, because the world really is a better place for everyone, when consumer retail channels aren't fire-hosing these things into the waste stream. Lead acid batteries probably have unique applications to brag about, but fishing weights don't.

Yes, on shelves, it's all controlled behind appealing packaging, and a yeah quantity of people derive pleasure from using things properly, and disposing of their waste responsibly, but another portion of people take it home will simply spew it out into the open, dumping it into landfills, where maybe it leaches into a water table, and maybe it doesn't. But if you look at the inputs, it all started with making and selling such products at all.

Fire departments probably benefit from the use of asbestos, as a niche class of use cases. Simply knowing that there are exceptions to general utility, should not guide choices about broad marketplace availability.

Re: Eerie Skyglow Called 'Steve' Isn't an Aurora, Is 'Completely Unknown' to Science

#113

Post by nate_meurer » Sat, Aug 25, 2018, 10:44 AM UTC

kurthr wrote: post #81

wowDude wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

everything is deadly at large doses ... if we were to ban everything that leads to a certain point of toxicity, we would not be able to live with anything around us No, that's not how this works. The salient point here, is that we know about specific things which are predominantly non-essential, and atrociously bad for everyone . Lead. Asbestos. Cigarette smoke. DDT. Plutonium. This list is not exhaustive. Believe it…

Relative Risk The problem with DDT was that while it didn't cause significant problems for people (at the concentrations used), it caused huge problems for birds (thinned shells). At the same time it wiped out the mosquito carrying malaria along the gulf coast. The ecologic side effects were terrible, but in many cases human risk may well have been reduced. Some asbestos is extremely dangerous, some is not (it depend…

> And I'm not taking off the dangerous lead weights ballencing my tire rims on the drive to work

Yes you will, because they are being banned in a growing number of states and countries. Lead weights are already illegal in the EU and in several of the most populous states in the U.S.

> because I want to live.

That's silly. Unbalanced wheels are annoying, but they aren't dangerous unless the shimmy is extreme, like when you have a lot of mud stuck in your wheels, in which case wheel weights won't help anyway.

Re: Eerie Skyglow Called 'Steve' Isn't an Aurora, Is 'Completely Unknown' to Science

#114

Post by jacobush » Sat, Aug 25, 2018, 4:24 PM UTC

mncharity wrote: post #110

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has got me interested now. At the equator, on the surface of Earth, solar radiation is about 1kW per square meter. According to this¹ wikipedia article 55-60% of solar energy is lost on its way through the atmosphere. So would ~2kW / square meter at thermosphere height be enough to make you feel warm-hot despite the heat lost to evaporative cooling from sweating? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_sola…

One might sweat a couple of liters/hr, and thus might manage 2 kW. But that's not needed. Between bright hot Sun, too hot, and dark cold deep-space sky, too cold, Earth spins, mixing too hot, and too cold, into not too bad. And so can you - the "barbeque roll" thermal management strategy for satellites. And if you're head-on to the Sun, or in shadow (holding an umbrella)... I don't recall whether radiative loss is su…

But how much can you irradiate to the black space?

Re: Eerie Skyglow Called 'Steve' Isn't an Aurora, Is 'Completely Unknown' to Science

#115

Post by tuxxy » Sat, Aug 25, 2018, 8:25 PM UTC

One of my favorite memories is driving far north of Jackson, WY with my partner and her father. We pulled over off the road near a farm and started stargazing when I noticed this colorful ribbon flowing in the sky. I thought it was the Aurora, but when I googled around I realized it wasn't. I found some talk of Steve and it was exactly what I saw.

It's definitely a weird thing to witness just out of nowhere.

Re: Eerie Skyglow Called 'Steve' Isn't an Aurora, Is 'Completely Unknown' to Science

#116

Post by chongli » Sat, Aug 25, 2018, 10:57 PM UTC

bitL wrote: post #23

Alright, so for decades Steve was called aurora as well, possibly for ages by natives observing it; yet now scientists decided to slap another sticker on it as the original scientific aurora explanation doesn't fit this class of what was traditionally called aurora as well; and we ended up with 'Steve'...

For centuries people called whales fish. Then scientists came along and said "No! Whales are actually mammals."

Those pesky scientists and their new categories!

Re: Eerie Skyglow Called 'Steve' Isn't an Aurora, Is 'Completely Unknown' to Science

#117

Post by dang » Tue, Aug 28, 2018, 2:20 AM UTC

throwaway76543 wrote: post #61

cortic wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having a system to enriches the few who don't need more wealth reinforced by impoverishing the many is better than chattel slavery and worse than a system which offers real choice and ownership of ones labor.

You appear to have a twisted understanding of both economics and human history.

Can you please not do flamewars on HN?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Eerie Skyglow Called 'Steve' Isn't an Aurora, Is 'Completely Unknown' to Science

#118

Post by dexterdog » Tue, Aug 28, 2018, 1:25 PM UTC

cortic wrote: post #102

dexterdog wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If somebody else is making 100x off of just your work you need to quit yesterday and find somebody to pay you 2x what you are currently making. They will be more than happy to do so as they will still be making a 50x profit on you. Either that or you have absolutely no clue as to how much value you actually create for your company. Nobody generates 100x profit, not even slaves.

thank you for your advice, i think you missed my point though.

I thought your point was that somebody else is actually making 99-100 dollars for every dollar that you make. I would like to know how you came to that number.

Re: Eerie Skyglow Called 'Steve' Isn't an Aurora, Is 'Completely Unknown' to Science

#119

Post by andai » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 6:57 PM UTC

frikk wrote: post #96

themodelplumber wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for sharing your comment. Whenever I read this kind of thing I'm reminded of the 1561 celestial event over Nuremburg[0] and I hope we can a) see more of these kinds of events and b) really start digging into their nature. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1561_celestial_phenomenon_over...

OK what's the deal with that? Or this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1566_celestial_phenomenon_over...

> At the dawn of August 7, we saw large black spheres coming and going with great speed and precipitation before the sun and chattered as if they led a fight. Many of them were fiery red and, soon crumbled and then extinguished.

Re: Eerie Skyglow Called 'Steve' Isn't an Aurora, Is 'Completely Unknown' to Science

#120

Post by cortic » Tue, Sep 11, 2018, 2:35 AM UTC

dexterdog wrote: post #118

cortic wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

thank you for your advice, i think you missed my point though.

I thought your point was that somebody else is actually making 99-100 dollars for every dollar that you make. I would like to know how you came to that number.

i worked out those numbers roughly for myself. My point though, was; most of, or at least the majority of my working life is to enrich someone who is richer that could can ever be. This is the nature of the relationship between the shareholder and the common worker.