Het probleem is alleen dat meer serverruimte ongeveer 225 miljoen kilometer ver weg is.
You are talking about hallucinations, not mirages.
Disclaimer, same here ;-)
The key word of the quote is "false image".
That the reflection of the mud (not stones as I said earlier) tricks your eyes/brain into thinking that it looks like water, is not a "false image", I think the better term for that would be an optical illusion, but I'm no illusionist ;) so don't pin me on that one.
A false image is when something appears to be in place\position, but when you get closer, it actually "disappears" from that place, only to reappear even further away (in the context of a mirage). It's not actually where you think it is, hence a false image.
This video would be a (superior) mirage if the 'water' would be 'floating' above the dunes in the distance. But if you would attempt to reach it with your bike, the water would slowly disappear from the place where you saw it. Once you reach the place where you saw the water on top of the dune, you would see the water is further away than you previously thought it was, because the light "bends" over the dune top creating a "false image", it was actually behind the dune.
That wouldn't happen in this scenario because you need specific conditions for a mirage like a large flat plane like a dessert without dunes, the ocean, long straight roads, etc.
Hope this helps!
No it's not technically an (inferior) mirage. It's not a mirage at all. A mirage describes an optical effect that bends the light. This has nothing to do with bending light. You can never "reach/go to" a mirage.
I think a better term would be an optical illusion, it looks like water, but it's just rocks.
In the vein of BiFL, Some mention the Google pixel 7a (good choice), but for longevity, it's better to go for the pixel 8a: it will have 7 years of major updates instead of 3 years for the 7a.
You also mentioned that photos are important, which are really really good on the pixel phones, also their budget line (the same quality as their flagship, but no widescreen or télé cameras).
But it's a bit over budget, and no SD slot. Maybe you can find a deal with a provider if you need to switch.
Ik denk dat dat voornamelijk komt omdat je broek veel strakker op je huid zit en het zweet gelijk absorbeert waardoor je het minder merkt. Je broek absorbeert ook meer vocht dan een tshirt(dikkere stof) zonder dat het 'natte plekken' krijgt.
De meeste zweetklieren zitten rond je voeten, oksels en kont.
And even today some (web)fonts use ligatures, it's a design choice. But I'm also not really a fan of most.
You probably already know this, but Factorio's upcoming expansion is literally going to be Factorio in space.
Not out yet though, probably around august.
Yeah, so they still need to confirm this, as your article also states. And that's also the reason why nobody is talking about this yet, we're not sure yet. And I've gotten my hopes up a lot of time, to eventually find out it was a nothing burger.
Exciting stuff for sure, but your original comment is a bit "too sure" about this discovery, and hopefully one of these days we will get a "breaking news" to confirm this, but it's still too early to be sure, let's hope it was not a fluke in the measurement! Thanks for the link and info!
I follow this stuff pretty closely, and have not yet heard anything that provides this solid evidence.
Are you sure you didn't get that info from a blog that doesn't really know what they are talking about, jumps to conclusions, and just assume "organic molecule = life"?
I would love a source for the thing you are talking about.
I'm really curious about a comparison too between B&W make-up, normal make-up and natural.
And if there is a difference between using a 'real/old' B&W camera, or a modern one that converts to B&W.
I think nobody in the comments have watched it up until the end, what's going on here? Backup Jesus? Was the first an imposter?
Hope that the internet would unite the world
I don't think this is always true, and there is a lot of conflicting information about this, I would love for a real botanist to explain this clearly: I read some species are not suited to become pickles because they shouldn't have a cucumber taste.
They are definitely in the same family (like courgette and some others). But I think the statement "pickles and cucumbers are always identical" is not correct. But again, I would love a real expert on this.
Edit: and I think there could also be some differences between countries in species used.
On the flipside 4x8 performs slightly worse then 2x16 (lower mhz limit)
So, how do you explain my image then?
No concentric circles there, and they stack without a gap, and they are identical and fit on top of each other.
Well then show me, i've shown proof that they fit this way. And i can prove they won't fit if you try to make the shape out of concentric circles.
Do keep in mind, that dark red and light red parts are identical, they are duplicates of each other, so they can fit on top of each other just like the video shows. (or else that illusion doesn't work).
What I think you did was create 2 different pieces (with concentric circles) but then they wouldn't fit on top of each other.
No it isn't: I made this, and didn't use concentric circles :) I show that at the bottom how I made the shape, it's not 2 concentric circles, it's 2 identical circles/ovals (doesn't matter, as long as they are identical), but one circle is shifted downwards, and then you cut out the shape from that difference.
So there is no bigger circle. the bottom radius, and the top radius of the shape are identical. They have to be, or else they don't fit on top of each other, you would get a gap, or they would overlap.
Sorry but you're wrong. What surprised me: both the bottom and top radius of the shape are identical, or else they wouldn't fit on top of each other. So there is no "outside bigger circle". At least if I understand what you mean by "bigger circle" correctly.
It's the slant of the short sides, in combination with the offset that aligns with the angle of the slant that is causing me to think that the top shape is smaller then the bottom shape. and here's my proof, just look at the second figure on the left, curves but straight edges, and the illusion fails: https://imgur.com/a/lcWJb5P
(and yes all curvatures are identical in my image, i can export an SVG of this if you want to play around with it yourself)
No, it's because the short sides are slanted. Both arcs are identical, but the bottom shape is offset to the right. but because of the slanted sides, they trick your brain into thinking they are aligned right above each other. But they are aligned at the angle of the slant (thus offset)
The curve just makes it harder to understand what the illusion is. this illusion also works with straight sides, but then it's easier to see the illusion.
Source, tried this in Illustrator myself because it was breaking my brain.
2 years later again:
reddit giveth, and reddit taketh away.
sorry for your wholesome loss.
and thanks for the tips ;)
In general, don't try this though, always try to learn from local experienced pickers if possible, some mushrooms look very much alike in different parts of the world. about a 100 people die each year from poisoning.
This purple mushroom I found in the wild
mildlyinteresting