← Back to context

Comment by raincole

10 hours ago

That's some weird semantic nitpicking.

Wikimedia has a category of "photographs of the Sun":

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photographs_of_t...

Do you think they are not photographs of the Sun because these are not what I see if I look at the sun with my eyes? (In which case I'll see pure white then perma black, I assume.)

8 comments

raincole

Reply
pavon  1 hour ago

Sure, a photo taken in non-visible spectrum is still a photo. And stacking photos taken with different wavelength filters or sensor can also be considered a photo. For example the headline image of the spruce tips taken in a lab is photo. And based on the description of the UV camera in the paper, they did generate UV video of the tree tops.

However, the linked article and associated paper don't have any such photos (or video) of the corona in the treetops. Instead the UV video was processed with a detection algorithm, and then the visible-light photos and video were annotated with graphed dots of where detections were seen. Those dots aren't a photo of the corona by any reasonable definition.

t-3  9 hours ago

They're the same as looking at the sun with your eyes. You won't go blind looking directly for a short time. It's just best not to stare for a long time.

moralestapia  9 hours ago

Lol.

At work, some guy has been pushing a 2-day feature into its 5th week now, with questions like "what do you mean by (database) table?" "Is <not_a_database_table> a database table?"

Etc...

We have to fill-in RFDs to answer those kind of questions, so the process is massively slow and st...(expunged due to HN guidelines).

So yeah, some people really love their semantics and are willing to do whatever it takes to keep it that way.

[You can take a guess at where this startup will be in 2-3 years ...]