4 ms·

Try different colors at your home!

palata 3y ago
Well I was hoping for something more scientific. I read a bit about that, and it seems like insects are more affected by smaller wavelengths (UV/blue rather than yellow/red) and some species polarized light. But then if we know it, why don't we engineer the street lights to not attract insects?
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > Well I was hoping for something more scientific. What is more scientific than testing the hypothesis yourself? That's science; that's its essential joy and spirit and nature. Have you reckon'd a thousand acres much? have you reckon'd the earth much? Have you practis'd so long to learn to read? Have you felt so proud to get at the meaning of poems? Stop this day and night with me and you shall possess the origin of all poems, You shall possess the good of the earth and sun, (there are millions of suns left,) You shall no longer take things at second or third hand, nor look through the eyes of the dead, nor feed on the spectres in books, You shall not look through my eyes either, nor take things from me, You shall listen to all sides and filter them from your self. Someone else doing it is just reading. :)
  - taneq 3y ago
    The first step of any scientific study is a lit review, so reading is still science. :)
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      humbug! boo hiss! Do you go to concerts and critique the scaffolding? :) And that is not the first step. The first step is to have a curious thought, to seize on it, to rush out to test it. And only then, maybe, you do a lit review, do it more formally, and write it up. I just was starting to eat Gumbalaya, and I paused. ... I remembered the leftover bit of gochujang chili oil in the fridge from a restaurant, the one I've been trying to find a use for. Surely no! Bayou creole with this already a bit-too-far Korean-Chinese fusion? I couldn't imagine it. And surely then, for science, I had to try ... (it was incredible, but could have been awful - no way to know without trying it). I suppose I should review lit and write it up ...
    - fuzzfactor 3y ago
      >reading is still science. :) Umm, no. Reading is still research. Time spent reading may lead directly to more science, but it's not always the most prominent path, plus you have to put down the books occasionally and get into action or the research will stagnate because of a thing called no progress whatsoever. Science is the part that may lead to future publications. Maybe, maybe not. Often best conducted with the hands, eyes and mind not overly bound or preoccupied with materials previously published. Remember the default, especially in hard science, is no progress whatsoever, with gradual loss of technology developed during previous lifetimes. So reading can be most essential to keep previous progress from being forgotten or lost completely. I say don't stop reading altogether but get into action as much as possible. -note not my downvote, corrective upvote actually
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        > with gradual loss of technology developed during previous lifetimes. What do you mean by that? Are you referring to something like the Middle Ages?
        fuzzfactor 3y ago
        Not as gradual as that. More like vacuum tube technology and those kinds of things where only a few decades ago there was orders of magnitude more widespread capabilities which are steadily declining now.
  - dataflow 3y ago
    > What is more scientific than testing the hypothesis yourself? Professionals doing it? Who know how to do it properly better than laymen?
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      With respect, that is the complete opposite of science! The only difference, the only barrier, between you and a 'scientist' is that someone else took that step to do it themselves. Tomorrow you could be a scientist - next time you have an idea! You don't have to publish in Nature to be a scientist. Really, I mean that in the best way. I am a scientist every day. It's powerful, it's joyful, it's curious and exploratory (very important parts of your brain to work out, per research by professional scientists), it's extraordinarily practical: Science, by me, has reduced my energy consumption and bill by around (very roughly) 70%.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - dekhn 3y ago
        You're likely describing citizen science and engineering, which cannot really be considered for publication in Nature. The work here represents many thousands if not millions of hours of accumulated scientific skill in building experiments that are likely to produce useful conclusions, rather than falsely rejecting the null hypothesis. I've worked in citizen science and I have even done some exciting stuff in my garage, which attracted the world's leading researcher in my area of interest. The first thing I'd need to do with my tech is to bring it to his lab and reproduce it on science-grade equipment. then we would need to come up with good hypotheses we could test, and spend an enormous amount of time designing protocols, and debugging lab details. All of that comes before even thinking about writing a manuscript that would be accepted in nature, which is one of the most prestigious journals with enormous readership. I don't want to discourage young folks who want to get into science, but the reality is that the vast majority of real science is dull work, such as requesting money, writing presentations to convince people you're right, and debugging experiments. I'm not defending this as the way it should be, but observing the reality of the situation. I have actually met a very small number of people who managed to turn citizen science into Big Science and get published, but they are a much smaller group than the folks who do bad citizen science in their garages and get attention on sites like Hackaday.
  - palata 3y ago
    Don't get me wrong: I think you are right, and I should try it myself. But I was hoping to maybe get some insights from somebody in the field. I have actually been looking for literature about that, and I don't know (maybe I missed a lot) but it did not really feel like there was a definitive answer to that.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      > ... I should try it myself. But I was hoping to maybe get some insights from somebody in the field. Yes, of course. Please don't mistake my enthusiasm for some imperative or criticism. I was just taking the opportunity to make a point in HN generally. I look up the existing literature all the time. What a waste of all that effort otherwise!
      - fuzzfactor 3y ago
        As we used to say, 6 months in the laboratory can sometimes save you hours in the library. The most ambitious did both at the same time.
        wolverine876 3y ago
        > 6 months in the laboratory can sometimes save you hours in the library. One of my favorites!
  - RHSman2 3y ago
    Who wrote that? 100% behind it. Thanks for sharing
    - fuzzfactor 3y ago
      Nobody well-known any more. Probably have to dig through the "literature" ;)
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        Walt Whitman, "Song of Myself", in Leaves of Grass. Possibly the most famous book of poetry in the US, at least. Apparently you need to do some reading of that "literature", as you call it - the kind that doesn't come with an abstract! :)
        fuzzfactor 3y ago
        >Possibly the most famous book of poetry in the US That's why I was confident it wouldn't be a difficult search ;) >Leaves of Grass The exact literature I was talking about. Seriously though, I appreciate your posting the abstract (and attribution) and I'm sure a lot of other visitors have enjoyed it. Some concepts really stand the test of time a lot more than others.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      Walt Whitman's "Song of Myself", in one of the most famous books of poetry ever (responding to the other commenter), Leaves of Grass. I don't know that Whitman meant to talk about science, but whether he was conscious of it or not, he is! I came across the poem (again) recently and immediately saw that section for what it is - to me. Much of the poem is about sex and a free spirit - so, science as sex? The sex of science? :)

Well I was hoping for something more scientific. I read a bit about that, and it seems like insects are more affected by smaller wavelengths (UV/blue rather than yellow/red) and some species polarized light. But then if we know it, why don't we engineer the street lights to not attract insects?

wolverine876 3y ago
> Well I was hoping for something more scientific. What is more scientific than testing the hypothesis yourself? That's science; that's its essential joy and spirit and nature. Have you reckon'd a thousand acres much? have you reckon'd the earth much? Have you practis'd so long to learn to read? Have you felt so proud to get at the meaning of poems? Stop this day and night with me and you shall possess the origin of all poems, You shall possess the good of the earth and sun, (there are millions of suns left,) You shall no longer take things at second or third hand, nor look through the eyes of the dead, nor feed on the spectres in books, You shall not look through my eyes either, nor take things from me, You shall listen to all sides and filter them from your self. Someone else doing it is just reading. :)
- taneq 3y ago
  The first step of any scientific study is a lit review, so reading is still science. :)
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    humbug! boo hiss! Do you go to concerts and critique the scaffolding? :) And that is not the first step. The first step is to have a curious thought, to seize on it, to rush out to test it. And only then, maybe, you do a lit review, do it more formally, and write it up. I just was starting to eat Gumbalaya, and I paused. ... I remembered the leftover bit of gochujang chili oil in the fridge from a restaurant, the one I've been trying to find a use for. Surely no! Bayou creole with this already a bit-too-far Korean-Chinese fusion? I couldn't imagine it. And surely then, for science, I had to try ... (it was incredible, but could have been awful - no way to know without trying it). I suppose I should review lit and write it up ...
  - fuzzfactor 3y ago
    >reading is still science. :) Umm, no. Reading is still research. Time spent reading may lead directly to more science, but it's not always the most prominent path, plus you have to put down the books occasionally and get into action or the research will stagnate because of a thing called no progress whatsoever. Science is the part that may lead to future publications. Maybe, maybe not. Often best conducted with the hands, eyes and mind not overly bound or preoccupied with materials previously published. Remember the default, especially in hard science, is no progress whatsoever, with gradual loss of technology developed during previous lifetimes. So reading can be most essential to keep previous progress from being forgotten or lost completely. I say don't stop reading altogether but get into action as much as possible. -note not my downvote, corrective upvote actually
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      > with gradual loss of technology developed during previous lifetimes. What do you mean by that? Are you referring to something like the Middle Ages?
      - fuzzfactor 3y ago
        Not as gradual as that. More like vacuum tube technology and those kinds of things where only a few decades ago there was orders of magnitude more widespread capabilities which are steadily declining now.
- dataflow 3y ago
  > What is more scientific than testing the hypothesis yourself? Professionals doing it? Who know how to do it properly better than laymen?
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    With respect, that is the complete opposite of science! The only difference, the only barrier, between you and a 'scientist' is that someone else took that step to do it themselves. Tomorrow you could be a scientist - next time you have an idea! You don't have to publish in Nature to be a scientist. Really, I mean that in the best way. I am a scientist every day. It's powerful, it's joyful, it's curious and exploratory (very important parts of your brain to work out, per research by professional scientists), it's extraordinarily practical: Science, by me, has reduced my energy consumption and bill by around (very roughly) 70%.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - dekhn 3y ago
      You're likely describing citizen science and engineering, which cannot really be considered for publication in Nature. The work here represents many thousands if not millions of hours of accumulated scientific skill in building experiments that are likely to produce useful conclusions, rather than falsely rejecting the null hypothesis. I've worked in citizen science and I have even done some exciting stuff in my garage, which attracted the world's leading researcher in my area of interest. The first thing I'd need to do with my tech is to bring it to his lab and reproduce it on science-grade equipment. then we would need to come up with good hypotheses we could test, and spend an enormous amount of time designing protocols, and debugging lab details. All of that comes before even thinking about writing a manuscript that would be accepted in nature, which is one of the most prestigious journals with enormous readership. I don't want to discourage young folks who want to get into science, but the reality is that the vast majority of real science is dull work, such as requesting money, writing presentations to convince people you're right, and debugging experiments. I'm not defending this as the way it should be, but observing the reality of the situation. I have actually met a very small number of people who managed to turn citizen science into Big Science and get published, but they are a much smaller group than the folks who do bad citizen science in their garages and get attention on sites like Hackaday.
- palata 3y ago
  Don't get me wrong: I think you are right, and I should try it myself. But I was hoping to maybe get some insights from somebody in the field. I have actually been looking for literature about that, and I don't know (maybe I missed a lot) but it did not really feel like there was a definitive answer to that.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > ... I should try it myself. But I was hoping to maybe get some insights from somebody in the field. Yes, of course. Please don't mistake my enthusiasm for some imperative or criticism. I was just taking the opportunity to make a point in HN generally. I look up the existing literature all the time. What a waste of all that effort otherwise!
    - fuzzfactor 3y ago
      As we used to say, 6 months in the laboratory can sometimes save you hours in the library. The most ambitious did both at the same time.
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        > 6 months in the laboratory can sometimes save you hours in the library. One of my favorites!
- RHSman2 3y ago
  Who wrote that? 100% behind it. Thanks for sharing
  - fuzzfactor 3y ago
    Nobody well-known any more. Probably have to dig through the "literature" ;)
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      Walt Whitman, "Song of Myself", in Leaves of Grass. Possibly the most famous book of poetry in the US, at least. Apparently you need to do some reading of that "literature", as you call it - the kind that doesn't come with an abstract! :)
      - fuzzfactor 3y ago
        >Possibly the most famous book of poetry in the US That's why I was confident it wouldn't be a difficult search ;) >Leaves of Grass The exact literature I was talking about. Seriously though, I appreciate your posting the abstract (and attribution) and I'm sure a lot of other visitors have enjoyed it. Some concepts really stand the test of time a lot more than others.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    Walt Whitman's "Song of Myself", in one of the most famous books of poetry ever (responding to the other commenter), Leaves of Grass. I don't know that Whitman meant to talk about science, but whether he was conscious of it or not, he is! I came across the poem (again) recently and immediately saw that section for what it is - to me. Much of the poem is about sex and a free spirit - so, science as sex? The sex of science? :)