OT: Sens Lounge -The four seasons edition

[Tnuoc Alucard]

How to view the solar eclipse without destroying your eyes

Get ready. It's happening on Oct. 14.

mashable.com

 

[maclean]

 

[thinkwild]

 

[maclean]

Recently we were discussing science and near-death experiences in here and The Guardian just published a long-read article on the topic I thought I'd throw up here: The new science of death: ‘There’s something happening in the brain that makes no sense’

 

[jbeck5]

In preparation for the big event…you can read this article. And remember don’t stare at the sun!

“Do not use regular sunglasses to view the eclipse. Even overlapping several pairs will not give you the protection you need.

Do not use any welders glass rated less than "shade 12" to view the eclipse. Most welding masks have glass rated less than that (about shade 10 or 11). So, if you have a welding mask or goggles, be absolutely sure you know their rating and that it's 12 or higher. If you can't verify that, or they're rated less than 12, please don't use it — not even if you try to layer it with something else like sunglasses. It's not worth the potential eye damage.

Do not use any 'homemade' methods people have thought up over the years. This includes:

• neutral density or polarizing filters for camera lenses,
• smoked glass,
• photographic or X-ray film (regardless of whether it is unexposed, exposed, or developed),
• space blankets,
• potato-chip bags,
• DVDs or CDs.”

“If you do look directly at the eclipse while experiencing totality, you must be very careful to time it just right!

After observing the eclipse through sun viewers and then standing in the dim light of totality, our pupils will be dilated — opened wide — to take in as much light as possible. It will be like as if we were standing in dark room for all that time. This will make our eyes extremely susceptible to bright light.

Thus, if your eyes are unprotected when the Sun suddenly peaks out around the limb of the Moon, the chances of suffering eye damage could be more significant than at any other moment of the eclipse.

So, be sure to know the exact timing of totality for your area, and put your eclipse glasses back on, or return to your indirect method of viewing, before totality ends!”

How to safely watch the April 8 total solar eclipse - The Weather Network

We're less than two weeks from a total solar eclipse passing over the eastern half of Canada. Here's how to stay safe while observing this spectacular celestial event.

www.theweathernetwork.com

My gf got us some eclipse glasses. We tested them out by looking at the regular sun.

It's crazy. All you see is a clear yellow ball in what looks like a black abyss...I guess that's actually what it's like. Crazy though.

If you google sun through eclipse glasses and look at pics, it looks exactly like the yellow sun in the black background...but it's more surreal because you're looking at the real thing and not a picture.

 

[jbeck5]

Hey sens fans,

I tried to find a thread but the search function on HF is busted. I got lucky and was selected last week for the 3rd round of the world jr ticket draw and managed to buy 4 tickets for the games at the CTC.

Im just wondering if I can get some advice on what part of town to stay. We're looking at either downtown so we can be near other tourist attractions, or on the west part of town (The Glebe or Westboro) so we can get a bigger place. Do either of these have good public transit to the CTC? We will be driving so we could bring our car but I've heard it can also be a pain going to the games at rush hour/trying to get out after the game. We will have kids going to some games so hoping to not get stuck out too much longer past game time.

Also wondering if they have a few games per day is there anything at or near the arena to fill the time between games?

Thanks and excited to visit Ottawa! First time in over a decade!

Stay downtown. The Glebe is south...and technically a little east of downtown. Definitely not west. You were right about Westboro though. That's west of downtown.

Public transit isn't the greatest in Ottawa due to the wasted money on LRT which took away a lot of bus services...that and Ottawa is huge in land (bigger than most major cities in North America) while only having 1.5 million people so everyone is spread out around the green belt making it hard and expensive to have an efficient public transit system.


Use your car. Park at the dealership round about. It takes me like 25 mins to get to the game from the complete opposite end of the city.

Traffic is bad from 4-6 but if you're driving to the arena at 6:30 or something, all the commuting traffic is done and you're able to fly going 120km/h.

As for what to do around the arena, not much. It's like any suburbs. You have restaurants and stores and bars and parks. Pick one of those, I guess.

 

[jbeck5]

Recently we were discussing science and near-death experiences in here and The Guardian just published a long-read article on the topic I thought I'd throw up here: The new science of death: ‘There’s something happening in the brain that makes no sense’

Is this just a sensational article?

Before I read something that looks potentially scientific, I scroll down to the bottom to see source references and bibliographies, etc.

I don't see any of that.

I've read the first half. Seems like story time. No references. No idea where he's getting any of his numbers.

It is an entertaining read for sure, just wouldn't use it as a basis for any argument or anything. It reads like an opinion piece, or a story rather than anything scientific.

 

[thinkwild]

It's certainly a well timed article coinciding with Easter. Listening to some of the AI researchers thinking they have created consciousness with their AI's, that just by organizing enough info, consciousness appears, might lead to some interesting new speculations too.

 

[Cosmix]

Oh wow, now Joe Rogan is repeating the nonesense from that old study, we already went over this, the study they are referring to which was a bit misleading in the first place but has since been picked up and misrepresented by a number of outlets (some of which you already posted here) didn't actually look at EVs, it was entirely about particulates from Ice vehicles (a VW Golf that was loaded up to it;s max capacity on a closed track if I recall), and extrapolated that if the tire wear on a heavilly weighted car was problematic, the tire wear to heavier EVs would be an even biggger deal (forgetting that EVs use tires specifically designed to accomodate their increased weight which helps reduce wear. The original study was problematic for numerous reasons many of which we already went over in this thread,

They talk about wear on brakes as if thats a bad thing for evs, which is funny, because Evs use regenerative breaking (not using the break pads but the motor to slow down) which cuts back a lot of break dust, compared to ice vehicles, often it's cited EV brakes last twice as long though some Tesla owners have reported going 100,000 miles before replacing brake pads..

I am NOT going to buy an EV until the tech is more mature, fully tested and proven in the real world.

I cannot afford to be on the “bleeding edge”.

 

[maclean]

Is this just a sensational article?

Before I read something that looks potentially scientific, I scroll down to the bottom to see source references and bibliographies, etc.

I don't see any of that.

I've read the first half. Seems like story time. No references. No idea where he's getting any of his numbers.

It is an entertaining read for sure, just wouldn't use it as a basis for any argument or anything. It reads like an opinion piece, or a story rather than anything scientific.

I mean the researchers in question are quoted in the article. Never in my life have I seen a newspaper article list a bibliography at the end. First half is kind of an introduction to the issue. No it is not a sensational article. Lol

 

[jbeck5]

I mean the researchers in question are quoted in the article. Never in my life have I seen a newspaper article list a bibliography at the end. First half is kind of an introduction to the issue. No it is not a sensational article. Lol

I mean compared to a scientific journal publication.

I don't entirely even see the point of a article that is talking about something that is scientific, but then not formulating it in a way that shows the work done.

It very much is a sensational article.

It's more about catching your attention and being entertaining than it is about being factual and proving it.

Do you know what I mean?

Like I couldn't use anything from this article to back up any kind of argument.

Usually it has the name of the study and date and place. The doctors working on it. Their findings, etc.

It be way more interested in a peer reviewed scientific journal publication.

This is just sensationalism. It's story time.

 

[Micklebot]

I am NOT going to buy an EV until the tech is more mature, fully tested and proven in the real world.

I cannot afford to be on the “bleeding edge”.

Just looking at Tesla's, they started up in 2004 and have been selling their cars since 2008, that's approaching 20 years. Electric motors and batteries are really not particularly new tech.

We're well past the bleeding edge. and into the early adopters stage with I believe~10% of new vehicle registrations in Canada being BEV, some countries like Norway are already well into the early majority stage and are looking to hit 100% new registrations as EV by 2025 (2027 for commercial vehicles, I believe).

What's important is whether they meet your personal use case, if you do long road trips or tow long distances, an EV likely isn't ideal. If you mostly commute within 100km, and have a garage where you can park and charge, they it may make sense for you. But until it's time to shop for a new car, don't worry about it, if what you have now still meets your needs and is cost effective, probably not worth changing.

 

[YouGotAStuGoing]

This is just sensationalism. It's story time.

I think you're confusing this piece with hard news. It's not, and it doesn't pretend to be. This is a long-form essay, exploring the cited doctor's case study into Patient One. It uses a narrative to paint the larger picture, yes, a very common approach in this type of writing.

Catching attention? You bet. But it's also very much based in fact. Even if the methodology isn't listed it's apparent that the findings were based on the results of a brain scan, likely done when she was taken off life support. All quotes are cited, all research is identified.

This piece is clearly intended to help the layperson understand. It's not hard news and shouldn't be treated as such.

EDIT TO ADD: Here's a hard news version of this story if you prefer it to the narrative.

 

[Tnuoc Alucard]

I am

We're well past the bleeding edge. and into the early adopters stage with I believe~10% of new vehicle registrations in Canada being BEV, some countries like Norway are already well into the early majority stage and are looking to hit 100% new registrations as EV by 2025 (2027 for commercial vehicles, I believe).

BEVs have been around for over 100 years…. Here is an example close to home

 

[Cosmix]

Just looking at Tesla's, they started up in 2004 and have been selling their cars since 2008, that's approaching 20 years. Electric motors and batteries are really not particularly new tech.

We're well past the bleeding edge. and into the early adopters stage with I believe~10% of new vehicle registrations in Canada being BEV, some countries like Norway are already well into the early majority stage and are looking to hit 100% new registrations as EV by 2025 (2027 for commercial vehicles, I believe).

What's important is whether they meet your personal use case, if you do long road trips or tow long distances, an EV likely isn't ideal. If you mostly commute within 100km, and have a garage where you can park and charge, they it may make sense for you. But until it's time to shop for a new car, don't worry about it, if what you have now still meets your needs and is cost effective, probably not worth changing.

I am planning to continue to use my 2022 Santa Fe for another 8 years or so; longer if it holds up well. Most of my driving is around town, about 80%-90%. Currently doing around 12,000 km/year. Once or twice a year we drive to Toronto/Guelph/Windsor to visit family. We don't plan to do much LD driving at our ages (seventies).

BEVs have been around for over 100 years…. Here is an example close to home


View attachment 845166

Looks like a chilly ride.

 

[Tnuoc Alucard]

I am planning to continue to use my 2022 Santa Fe for another 8 years or so; longer if it holds up well. Most of my driving is around town, about 80%-90%. Currently doing around 12,000 km/year. Once or twice a year we drive to Toronto/Guelph/Windsor to visit family. We don't plan to do much LD driving at our ages (seventies).

Drove my 2008 Santa Fe for 11 years, maybe should have replaced it a year earlier, as things started to need replacing.
Would have bought another, but they stopped using the 3.3L V6 in the Santa Fe, and not a fan of the 2.0 L turbo or the 2.4 options… have heard of to many first hand issues, and read of many more.
Easy vehicle (2008 Santa Fe) for DIYers to work on, did all Oil/Filter changes and brake pad replacements myself.

Recently returned from Florida, and saw many Teslas along the way, and many more sitting at recharging stations at Buc ees service stations, when I arrived and still there when I left…. They have to spend at least an hour or more each time they stop for recharging….. and if they were retuning from Florida as well, they would take at least one more day than I did (2 1/2) because of range limitations.

 

[jbeck5]

Just looking at Tesla's, they started up in 2004 and have been selling their cars since 2008, that's approaching 20 years. Electric motors and batteries are really not particularly new tech.

We're well past the bleeding edge. and into the early adopters stage with I believe~10% of new vehicle registrations in Canada being BEV, some countries like Norway are already well into the early majority stage and are looking to hit 100% new registrations as EV by 2025 (2027 for commercial vehicles, I believe).

What's important is whether they meet your personal use case, if you do long road trips or tow long distances, an EV likely isn't ideal. If you mostly commute within 100km, and have a garage where you can park and charge, they it may make sense for you. But until it's time to shop for a new car, don't worry about it, if what you have now still meets your needs and is cost effective, probably not worth changing.

Or if you don't drive enough distance to make up the price difference over a used gas car, for example.

Don't forget about us hybrid workers with multiple cars... Each car doesn't get much mileage working from a home office.

A lot of people are driving way less than they used to with how working remotely works these days.

 

[jbeck5]

I think you're confusing this piece with hard news. It's not, and it doesn't pretend to be. This is a long-form essay, exploring the cited doctor's case study into Patient One. It uses a narrative to paint the larger picture, yes, a very common approach in this type of writing.

Catching attention? You bet. But it's also very much based in fact. Even if the methodology isn't listed it's apparent that the findings were based on the results of a brain scan, likely done when she was taken off life support. All quotes are cited, all research is identified.

This piece is clearly intended to help the layperson understand. It's not hard news and shouldn't be treated as such.

EDIT TO ADD: Here's a hard news version of this story if you prefer it to the narrative.

Both are sensational.

Neither are scholarly.


That was my point. In science, peer reviewed work cites all their references.

Throughout the article there would be a code linking each fact to a bibliography with all the references cited.

That's how they're done.

What you shared to me, is just a regular article about science and not a scientific publication. The two are very different. One is sensationalism trying to catch your attention for revenue. The other is to educate the reader on findings of an experiment.

 

[YouGotAStuGoing]

What you shared to me, is just a regular article about science and not a scientific publication. The two are very different. One is sensationalism trying to catch your attention for revenue. The other is to educate the reader on findings of an experiment.

Well, yes. You've succinctly summarized the two professions. And yet, if news publications started publishing scientific research, their readership would decline dramatically. News exists to distill the complex down to the simple and offer the option to access the non-distilled information for those who want what you're looking for, as the link I shared did.

Not sure if you clicked through, but the scientific paper is linked in the BBC article I posted. So it's not like the information is being hidden or deliberately misrepresented.

 

[AchtzehnBaby]

Free 30 days with Autopilot for Tesla owners

Drive carefully

 

[branch]

Recently we were discussing science and near-death experiences in here and The Guardian just published a long-read article on the topic I thought I'd throw up here: The new science of death: ‘There’s something happening in the brain that makes no sense’

Such a crazy topic but I think we are starting to arrive at some kind of conclusion regarding the existence of a soul. I sound crazy to type that but I think we operate on two levels, one being this earthly corporeal mass that we live in, and something else that possibly exists in this 3d space but in somewhere/something else as well.

Another bit of "woo" theory, I think the progress towards UFO disclosure might be sending us towards a similar hypothesis

And no I don't smoke weed. This is a bizarre existence. Stranger than fiction

 

[Relapsing]

Well, yes. You've succinctly summarized the two professions. And yet, if news publications started publishing scientific research, their readership would decline dramatically. News exists to distill the complex down to the simple and offer the option to access the non-distilled information for those who want what you're looking for, as the link I shared did.

Not sure if you clicked through, but the scientific paper is linked in the BBC article I posted. So it's not like the information is being hidden or deliberately misrepresented.

I remember a while ago reading about the path information takes from hard research to something like the guardian article you posted.

First, a legitimate peer reviewed paper is written on a subject. The author, being an expert in their field, uses language coded for consumption by others in their field.

The next step down from here is something like a scientific magazine. The author is knowledgeable, likely in a variety of fields, but doesn't have the depth of knowledge of the original researcher. So, some things get dumbed down a little bit. Analogies get made. Things maybe get a little skewed, but the major notes are still there.

Then an author from, let's say, the BBC, way less knowledgeable than the former author, publishes an article that further dumbs down the magazine article. Makes it even easier to consume. But more is lost in translation.

And then the guardian picks it up and passes it to an author, who takes it down another level. Not necessarily because he's uninitiated... That particular guardian author has a masters in psychoanalytic theory (whatever that is)... But because his audience requires it. The original source is lost.

Somewhere along the way, what you're reading isn't really representative of the original research. It's been translated numerous times. Little cracks of misunderstanding and misrepresentation form.

Always best to go as far back as you can understand

 

[maclean]

I remember a while ago reading about the path information takes from hard research to something like the guardian article you posted.

First, a legitimate peer reviewed paper is written on a subject. The author, being an expert in their field, uses language coded for consumption by others in their field.

The next step down from here is something like a scientific magazine. The author is knowledgeable, likely in a variety of fields, but doesn't have the depth of knowledge of the original researcher. So, some things get dumbed down a little bit. Analogies get made. Things maybe get a little skewed, but the major notes are still there.

Then an author from, let's say, the BBC, way less knowledgeable than the former author, publishes an article that further dumbs down the magazine article. Makes it even easier to consume. But more is lost in translation.

And then the guardian picks it up and passes it to an author, who takes it down another level. Not necessarily because he's uninitiated... That particular guardian author has a masters in psychoanalytic theory (whatever that is)... But because his audience requires it. The original source is lost.

Somewhere along the way, what you're reading isn't really representative of the original research. It's been translated numerous times. Little cracks of misunderstanding and misrepresentation form.

Always best to go as far back as you can understand

I don't necessarily disagree, but I did find the author made a very thorough effort not to make any particular claims, sensational or otherwise, and put a lot of emphasis on the fact that what has been observed is open to many different potential interpretations and there is a lot of research that still needs to be done.

 

[Micklebot]

Or if you don't drive enough distance to make up the price difference over a used gas car, for example.

Don't forget about us hybrid workers with multiple cars... Each car doesn't get much mileage working from a home office.

A lot of people are driving way less than they used to with how working remotely works these days.

It's funny, I know lots of people who drive more now because they used to bus in 5 days a week, now they drive in two days a week instead. Some even moved further from work because of that flexibility. I also know people whe went from two cars to one,

Stats can released something a while back saying we were back to pre pandemic levels of car commuters in most large urban centers, while public transit had still yet to rebound.

 

[YouGotAStuGoing]

I remember a while ago reading about the path information takes from hard research to something like the guardian article you posted.

First, a legitimate peer reviewed paper is written on a subject. The author, being an expert in their field, uses language coded for consumption by others in their field.

The next step down from here is something like a scientific magazine. The author is knowledgeable, likely in a variety of fields, but doesn't have the depth of knowledge of the original researcher. So, some things get dumbed down a little bit. Analogies get made. Things maybe get a little skewed, but the major notes are still there.

Then an author from, let's say, the BBC, way less knowledgeable than the former author, publishes an article that further dumbs down the magazine article. Makes it even easier to consume. But more is lost in translation.

And then the guardian picks it up and passes it to an author, who takes it down another level. Not necessarily because he's uninitiated... That particular guardian author has a masters in psychoanalytic theory (whatever that is)... But because his audience requires it. The original source is lost.

Somewhere along the way, what you're reading isn't really representative of the original research. It's been translated numerous times. Little cracks of misunderstanding and misrepresentation form.

Always best to go as far back as you can understand

No arguments coming from me! I wasn't the original poster of The Guardian article — I just took issue with jbeck's take on journalism. As a trained journalist myself, it wasn't representative of the industry at all. Different functions and such, as you correctly identify here. And yet journalism so commonly is frowned upon for not being something it doesn't claim to be.

I'm a big proponent of primary sources wherever possible, but these featurey pieces are the types of content that put this kind of research on a person's radar and invites them to dig deeper if they're interested. Case in point: if not for the Guardian article being posted, we wouldn't be having this deeper discussion about the value of the study.