For the sunset example then, a natural question (for me) is then why isn't the sky green in the transition from blue sky to red sunset sky?
It can be - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_flash
Why is the sky blue?
31–40 of 279 posts
Re: Why is the sky blue?
#32Interesting here is: Actually, for most blue butterflies, it’s not even a pigment-it’s just a trick of the light. Since blue is so rare in the biological world (hardly any plants or animals can produce real blue chemicals), they evolved structural colors. Their wings have these microscopic ridges that reflect blue light while canceling out other colors. It’s basically the same reason the sky looks blue, just built in…
It's also the trick employed by Iridigm, which Qualcomm acquired in late 2004 (i was there then).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interferometric_modulator_disp...
Re: Why is the sky blue?
#33In terms of "qualia", its the other way round probably? Like the way we see colours would have evolved (within the available environment of wavelengths and scatterings and the possibilities with rods and cones) so that the things we want to see are more likely to stand out. So we see the sky as blue because leaves are green and berries are red.
Re: Why is the sky blue?
#34Re: Why is the sky blue?
#35Funniest memory re: Rayleigh scattering: in anime show Aldnoah Zero, the uber-genius protagonist mansplains about it to a high profile girl, basically completely out of blue. An impostor of the girl later appears on an in-universe pirate broadcast, making an agitating environmentalism talking point using a technically incorrect explanation of the phenomenon that isn't consistent with the fact. The ever-right protagonist immediately notices it, having enlightened the girl previously on that exact topic, and it leads to actions.
Like, dude, as if anyone would care about such a highly technical point, like eg some React framework quirk or race condition mitigation for specific generation of Intel procesdor or a semi-well known edge cases with btrfs inode behavior, even if I had been on that exact camp.
Re: Why is the sky blue?
#36In terms of "qualia", its the other way round probably? Like the way we see colours would have evolved (within the available environment of wavelengths and scatterings and the possibilities with rods and cones) so that the things we want to see are more likely to stand out. So we see the sky as blue because leaves are green and berries are red.
Re: Why is the sky blue?
#37didn’t cv raman prove just that via his raman-effect for which he got the noble prize ?
Re: Why is the sky blue?
#38Brilliant explanation and beautifully presented. I wish I had a technical writer who could write up our business case this well!
I'm the writer of the article, and happy to chat. Email is my username at gmail.
Re: Why is the sky blue?
#39Re: Why is the sky blue?
#40Going to be that guy , even though I think this is a really nice work overall... But the winking and "cool guy" emojis are so grating. In general, technical explanations that apologize for themselves with constant reassurances like "don't worry" and "it's actually simple" undermine their own aim. Your job -- if you're making content for people with double digit ages -- is to make the explanation as clear as you can,…
No, your job is to help your reader get to the end of the text. That means writing in a way that most of your audience finds compelling, readable, and not intimidating. Not all readers are the same, so you will fail at your job for some readers. But few readers are emotionless automatons that need nothing but dry technical content, unless it’s a topic they are very motivated to understand.
> That means writing in a way that most of your audience finds compelling, readable, and not intimidating.
I would agree with that. And I think emojis and unnecessary reassurances subvert that goal. It's fluff, it's more to read, and if the writing isn't already clear, they don't fix the problem.
> But few readers are emotionless automatons that need nothing but dry technical content
Nothing in my post argues for dry technical content.
Bartosz Ciechanowski's superb work, which may have inspired the author, gets the balance just right without any hand-holding asides: