Pat @Pat@qoto.org

@lucifargundam

(I suspect only about <2% of readers will fully understand what I said.)

@lucifargundam

People who do that tend to f*ck their own mothers in outhouses, too.

@lucifargundam

Well, I mean the site is called "Glassdoor", what did they expect?

It's like using "Windows" and expecting your computer to be secure.

Yeah, that's "portion", not "potion".

(fair use image)

#Webb #Hubble
#Astronomy #wonderful #life

Animated sequence of the galaxy cluster "Stephan’s Quintet" from the Webb Telescope...

Patsplaining...

This one is absolutely, 100% true. A flashlight (or any other source of light) that travels toward the Earth (or any other gravity well) will increase in frequency. This is known as gravitational blueshift (or gravitational redshift when light travels away from a source of gravity).

The part that’s somewhat deceptive is that the change is so small that it cannot be detected with the human eye, so in actuality the light will appear the same color, even though it is actually “bluer”.

Gravitational blueshift is due to general relativity and can be explained in one of (at least) three ways…

1. Time runs slower in a gravitational field; the more gravity, the slower it runs. And the closer you are to the Earth, the higher the gravity. So the frequency will be more because: frequency = 1 / time

2. Anything that falls into a gravity well gains speed, or momentum. This is an increase in energy. Since light is already traveling at the speed limit it can’t go any faster when it “falls” in, so the only way it can gain energy is to increase its frequency.

3. Because of the equivalence principle, gravity is acceleration and the source of the light has lower gravity because it is further away, and so it is accelerating slower at that point than it is when it is closer to Earth with higher gravity, so the frequency shifts due to the Doppler effect.

Further reading…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

****SPOILER*****

This is much more complicated than I thought when I posted this poll. It also depends on how you measure the "surface", i.e., if you measue the entire surface as a smooth sphere or as a fractal surface.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal_dimension

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_roughness#Soil-surface_roughness

****SPOILER*****

Also, some additional parts are in shadow because of the irregularity of surface features, such as craters and mountains which cast shadows.

****SPOILER*****

Excluding light from sources other than directly from the Sun, it's between 85-90% in shadow. The entire back of the moon is in the shadow of the moon itself, while the front is about 75% covered by the shadow of the Earth.

What potion of the surface is in shadow?

Here's a picture of a recent lunar eclipse...

#science #fiction #ScienceFiction #SciFi #film #movie #flop #epic #fail #technology #scientology #travolta #war #future #FTW #bad #Lafayette

Retro SciFi of the Week…

Battlefield Earth (2000)

Battlefield Earth is infamously regarded as one of the worst science fiction films ever made. Based on L. Ron Hubbard’s navel of the same name, the film took nearly 20 years to finally get financed and produced. The film uses a stilted, campy acting style and copious tilted camera angles similar to the style made famous by the 1960s TV series Batman. The stilted acting style was interpreted by most critics as simply bad acting.

(fair use image)

>"This is similar to the gravitational lensing of a black hole, but it's curved less. Think of it as a lens with a long focal length. In this case the focal length is billions of lightyears!"

That's not correct at all. I really screwed this up. It doesn't act like a glass lens at all (except that it bends light). It's much more complicated than that and it doesn't even have a focal point or a focal length. So...

nevermind.

(The first paragraph is correct though.)

#linux #cli #cat #dog #useless

Here's another stupid and useless Linux command string using cat...

echo bark |cat|cat|cat|cat|cat > dog

Then when you type "cat dog", it says "bark".

Patsplaining…

CLI=commandline interface (the command prompt)

The cat command is the UNIX command that concatenates files. You type “cat <filename> <filename> etc...” and it puts them together one after the other into one, which is sent out to the standard output. The standard output is usually the terminal screen. It’s probably most often used by people to quickly dump the contents of a single file to the screen, “cat <filename>”.

If no file name is given, the default is to take input from standard input, which is usually the keyboard. So if you just type “cat”, it will take whatever you type on the keyboard and send it to the screen without processing it, which is kind of useless, except in this weird case. 😄

#linux #cat #cats #GNU #obvious #keyboard #cli
-
Linux tip…

If you want to keep your cat from typing potentially dangerous stuff into your unattended keyboard, type the following at the CLI:

cat

(it actually works!)

And the whole reason why I'm doing any of this is because here in US we almost loss our democracy because half of the Republican party were too ignorant to understand that they were being taken in by a con artist.

... and I'm doing these Patsplaining toots about them because nobody ever responds to the #TruthBeTold toots, so I assume people just don't understand them. (Maybe you folks do understand but just don't give a shit. But I'll keep explaining them anyway in case some folks don't understand.)

I do these #TruthBeTold toots to demonstrate how the phrasing of words can be literally true, but imply something that is not true. It’s important to understand how this works to help improve critical reasoning skills and to be able to spot statements that are misleading.

(I also sometimes just do them for fun 😄)

#truthbetold #patsplaining

This one is 100% true, sort of...

By saying, “No cameras were allowed in the #Pennsylvania State House...”, it implies that there was a specific prohibition of them, like “No cameras allowed”. But a literal interpretation of the phrase simply means that there was no explicit statement saying that they were allowed, which of course there wasn’t, so that statement is true. There was no such thing as a camera in 1776, so they wouldn’t even know what one was and therefore wouldn’t issue any statement about them at all.

The phrase, “...so there are no pics or videos of the event”, is also true in that there are no photographs or videos of the event. However, the word “so” implies that the reason why there are no photos/videos is because of a prohibition on cameras, but the actual reason is just because cameras hadn’t been invented yet.