A couple of nuclei have spin-isomer (IIRC) decays that emit both the expected high-energy photon, but also a second visible one. I no longer remember which. :/
The challenge with seeing a single atom naked-eye, is getting visible photons fast enough.
For some value of see - it's just a point source. I had a professor object "that's not seeing the nucleus - it's just a diffraction-limited dot". Funny thing was, they were about to travel to a big star party, to I guess "not see" stars. Sigh. Admittedly the argument for pedagogical value is limited. But at least the years-later long-exposure photo of a single atom was interesting enough for popular press.
With an atom's electrons, the bottleneck is electron transition cycle time. So your photon budget is small and isotropic. And the retina requires localized hit(s) on deadline. With an pumped atom outside the eye, even with optics, my impression is you at best have a limits-of-perception experiment: "ok, I've a 50% confidence (my dark-adapted eyes) just saw a flash there".
Nuclear transitions are plenty fast. But they're also higher energy, and you can't see X and gamma rays. Well, except for the flash of retinal cell death, as with cosmic rays in astronaut eyes.
So with a nucleus that emits visible photons, you can tweeze, trap, strip and bombard an atom to fluorescence in a vacuum chamber, have a window that passes visible, and get a little dot, naked-eye visible with ambient room illumination. It's a cover photo somewhere IIRC, but I years back burned out on trying to re-find it.
But it's a fun concept, isn't it? And makes for a compact example of needing expertise. More compact than say a marine bio professor, writing a children's picture book on photosynthesis, burning lab time to figuring out what bottlenecks world phytoplankton mass. But they're sort of toy examples. Real need is more like being able to ask "Instead of an atoms-up primary school learning progression, might we do nucleons-up to materials? What might that look like? What stories might we use? What cross-cutting ideas might tie it together?". I wish I knew how to make progress on this.
I think the complaint was that lines aren't capped somewhere at 70-80 characters but rather fill the entire remaining space in the viewport which can make the text hard to read.
I see where you're coming from but resizing the browser to your preferred text width would mean decreasing the space for elements like the tab bar or other "not-in-body" UI elements even though there's still screen space available. I'm not sure that's something most people would want.
Not to mention some sites have things like side bars, images or other UI elements that make them more comfortable to user with larger viewports so you'd resize your browser often when you switch tabs.
It would be useful if sites could specify a "body" element that could be resized and aligned however the user wishes without affecting other parts of the site or the browser UI.
Right but then it becomes a mess to find anything if you have to look in multiple tab bars or you have a lot of windows which could also become hard to manage. My point is, while your approach works for you it's probably not useful or intuitive to enough people to justify designing your website around it.
Yes. I'm not a stickler for 70—80 characters; IMHO the ~200 character lines on HN are excessive, but I can cope. You know, Postel's law: be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others.
I took the aforementioned screenshot on a huge display to illustrate the issue more clearly, but on a garden-variety 1920×1080 monitor — stock Firefox, no extensions that would affect rendering — Fossil wiki's text formatting is still objectively bad.
It's a major automotive blog with TV shows and a large online presence. They also just post stuff that's entertaining to people who like cars/bikes/vehicles in general.
Hmmm... your reference seems to indicate it's OK, so long as it's clear to any observers what's really going on. Cheeseburgers with non-dairy mock cheese are an explicit example.
(Next two paragraphs quoted:
For example, if one wishes to drink almond milk while eating meat, he needs to indicate that it is in fact almond milk, not regular milk, which is forbidden. In the olden days, this was done by popping some whole almonds into the milk. Today, this can be achieved by having the container on the table, making it clear that it is almond milk.6
The same would need to be done in order to serve a veggie burger that resembles meat, topped with real cheese, or to serve a beef burger under a slice of imitation cheese. It’s fine to eat, provided that the package is nearby and visible, or its parve identity is spelled out on the menu, receipt, etc.
> For example, if one wishes to drink almond milk while eating meat, he needs to indicate that it is in fact almond milk, not regular milk, which is forbidden. In the olden days, this was done by popping some whole almonds into the milk. Today, this can be achieved by having the container on the table, making it clear that it is almond milk.
Who are you indicating it to? Does gods omnipotence not extend to distinguishing different types of milk, or is this so people can police it? (not trying to be snarky - genuinely curious)
This image [1] comes from "Converson to Islam in the Medieval Period" by Richard Bulliet [2]. The percentages inferred by Bulliet roughly track a sigmoidal curve. He makes an argument in analogy to the spread of a disease through a social network.
It should be noted that the deta is from Iran, but presumably the same arguments apply for Southeast Asia.
Oh. That's kindof... gross. Better than wrapping silently I guess. Can you at least tell when a number has been 'promoted' to a float so you know you need a bigger type?
Do you have references for the multiple migrations, especially from India? I know there was this paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/5/1803, but I had the impression that hadn't been replicated.
We also detect a signal indicative of substantial gene flow between the Indian populations and Australia well before European contact, contrary to the prevailing view that there was no contact between Australia and the rest of the world. We estimate this gene flow to have occurred during the Holocene, 4,230 y ago. This is also approximately when changes in tool technology, food processing, and the dingo appear in the Australian archaeological record, suggesting that these may be related to the migration from India.
...
There is a sudden change in stone tool technologies, with microliths appearing for the first time (43), and people start processing plants differently (14, 44). It has been a matter of controversy as to whether these changes occurred in situ (45) or reflect contact with people from outside Australia or some combination of both factors. However, the dingo also first appears in the fossil record at this time and must have come from outside Australia (46). Although dingo mtDNA appears to have a SE Asian origin (47), morphologically, the dingo most closely resembles Indian dogs (46). The fact that we detect a substantial inflow of genes from India into Australia at about this same time does suggest that all of these changes in Australia may be related to this migration.
In summary we now have at least four roughly supportive lines of evidence: the stone archaeological record, the dingo bone archaeological record, the genetic record, and comparative morphological characteristics. There is no technical reason why ocean travel could not have been made between Australia and islands to the north, indeed it would be stranger for it not to have happened since those islands almost all had native oceangoing traditions and birds would have been visible migrating to and from Australia so the fact there was land there would have been blindingly obvious.
