why do the kids have full body shadows but the father only has a shadow under the newspaper!?

i guess the shadow gene was from mom?

This appears to be “Susanna before the Elders” by August Saabye

https://www.smk.dk/en/article/the-sculpture-street/

Really nice job capturing the forms! Love the 3-tone look.

Just one small correction, which is in the article but somehow is wrong in the title.

Rainfall increases the ocean’s uptake of carbon by 6%, and the ocean accounts for one quarter of global uptake. So the amount we’re talking about here is 1.5% and doesn’t include the amount rainfall contributes to uptake of carbon on land unless we just chalk all rainfall up to oceanic uptake.

Oh! Awesome experiment! Yes, they’re shorter because of perspective (foreshortening). With a mirror surface it’s better to think of a duplicate of the object flipped across the mirror plane, then you can apply the same tricks to draw in perspective, which may make it look shorter.

In your example here, since we’re viewing from the side the perspective is not going to factor in as much, so we land at “roughly the same size”

If it helps, think of the water first like a perfect mirror. If it’s a perfectly flat mirror then it would look like there’s another duck upside down below this duck. If you want to be extra precise, it’s mirrored across the plane where the duck meets the water.

But water isn’t usually perfectly flat mirror, and here you have little nods to there being ripples or waves. The choppier the wave, the less it reflects, so you’ll often see people break up the mirrored reflection at the choppiest parts of the wave. Similarly, waves aren’t flat, depending on the part of the wave/ripple you’re at, you’d be reflecting higher or lower as though the mirror is tilted to the angle of the surface.

The last tricky part is that most surfaces are more reflective at a glancing angle than head on, so often reflections are stronger further in the distance and closer up you’ll just be looking down into the water. On a more technical note, you can look up the index of refraction to learn more about this phenomenon.

To tie it all together, this is why those long shots of sunsets have a sun reflection that is really long (much longer than the size of the sun in the distance) - because it’s at a distance it’s a strong reflection and because all the waves are reflecting at different angles you’re getting all the glancing reflections of the sun on the top of each wave. It typically being dark at sunset also means the bright sun reflection blooms to make it look brighter and larger than just the tip of the wave.

Conversely, in water sports like wakeboarding, you might not see much of a reflection at all because all the water is choppy and non-reflective.

Looking down into a pond, you might not see a reflection either because the angle is too steep to reflect.

In short, yes, in this case the reflection should probably be roughly the same size.

Permissive licenses permit a broader range of use compared to “copyleft” licenses.

“copyleft” here just being a cute way of being the opposite of copyright - instead of disallowing others from what they can do with “copyrighted” code, “copyleft” requires that they (upon request) share modifications to your code.

Permissive takes away this requirement to share your modifications. “copyleft” is considered more free and open source (FOSS), permissive is more business friendly.

If everything was equal (scale of production, subsidies, decades of shipping logistics worked out) I’d agree, but I don’t think vegan cheese is anywhere near that.

A good start would be to remove subsidies for livestock and their feedstocks. I think that would already bring the cost of vegan alternatives a lot closer.

Which part sounds off to you? This looks like a very reasonable paper hoping to distill traditional medicine into viable research paths, and does it using a pretty interesting model of compounds and effects.

If all you see is jibber jabber, maybe you should just default to trusting the experts on this one? Like, it’s not in an obscure journal - it’s a highly regarded peer reviewed journal. The authors aren’t random, they’re researchers at some of the best universities in the world (Nanjing University ranks #7 on the Nature Index).

The abstract is about as plain-speaking as it gets in the world of cutting edge research. You can probably look up the handful of domain-specific terminology and have a good grasp at what the research is about.

For those that look at this and still think the solution might just be more money, first recognize that Google donates only to keep Firefox as a viable competitor to avoid anti-trust legislation.

If we raised half a million dollars, we haven’t saved anyone any money except Google - they’d simply donate only 100k next year so Firefox remains competitive, but not successful.

I don’t disagree with the sentiment of the post, but we also have to realize that we’d only be improving things after the first ~600k.

For anyone who’s curious, this is the state of discussing this feature: https://github.com/helix-editor/helix/discussions/8572

I’m not an authority on the helix ethos, but I’ve contributed a bit and hung around long enough to have a good read on their stance on most topics. The project is still young and managing the growing pains of getting a lot of traction relatively early. I think the devs value keeping the maintenance footprint small to keep the project sustainable.

The philosophy of helix’s design is to be a more convenient kakoune, not necessarily a vim. vim is much more widely known, so that analogy springs up more often, but this idea of using piping out to an external command for most operations comes from kakoune.

For features that would introduce significant maintenance overhead, may jeopardize the performance of a more common workflow or where the design goals are still maturing, the team tends to push such suggestions toward being developed as plugins when that system is added. I get the impression that they see the value of this workflow, but would prefer to see it battle tested as a plugin first.

The community-based project of passion to enhance lemmy is already here... it's lemmy.

This isn't reddit. There isn't a big black box and company around the service that is preventing the community from making it what they want it to be.

Sure there can be flavors, but I'd guess if there's the type of consensus around the usefulness as there is with RES, then why wait for a separate project to shoehorn features on top of lemmy when the folks behind lemmy seem quite receptive to contributions?

It can both currently produce only 0.1% of hydrogen using a green process, while also developing a new process that is 99.9% green (for the hydrogren that it produces using the new process). That means the overall production right now is probably still ~0.1% green, but the point of the article seems to be that they hope to transition to this new process, which sounds pretty cool.

And to also knock out a few other misunderstandings, I'll also address your comment below: The stats you link are for the number of plants, not the volume of production or consumption (what is claimed). Both stats can be correct if China has large plants that produce more volume than in other countries. But better yet, we don't even have to root around for the details - the article cites it's source: the World Economic Forum's latest whitepaper (June 27, 2023), which in turn cites statistica "Global Hydrogen Consumption By Country". So there you have it - China out-consumes hydrogen at a rate of about 2-times that of the next largest consumer (the United States). That seems to track pretty well, since both countries are similarly developed, and China is about 4x the size of the US by population. If you wanted to split hairs, you could say that this doesn't include volume of production. Given the incredible lead in consumption volume, I'm willing to grant them that omission.

And, not chalking this up to you, but I've seen other replies in here about how China is somehow cooking the books. That's becoming more and more obviously wrong (and more than a bit racist). As one indicator, their universities occupy 8 of the top 20 institutions in the Nature index. For those unaware, this is a premier British-based peer-reviewed journal that releases a ranking of academic institutions based on their publishing to high-impact journals. China's year-over-year change also means that they're rising on that list rapidly.