A solar panel is one type of device that converts incident photons into electrical energy. A similar device is inside the camera and is generally referred to as "the sensor." Slightly different, though, they are tuned to specific colors/wavelengths of light. The sensor is split into pixels. Each pixel has a sub-pixel for red, green, and blue light. If a red, green, or blue photon hits one of the appropriate sub-pixels, it generates a small electrical current which can be measured.

Just like human eyesight, the sub-pixels are not extremely particular about what wavelength excites them. There's a wider curve. So for instance, yellow light is somewhere between red and green and will excite both red and green sensors, but to a slightly lesser degree meaning a slightly weaker (lower current/voltage).

What's really key to making an image instead of a poor efficiency solar panel is the lens which very finely aims rais of light based both on where on the lens they hit as well as what angle it comes from. The lens bends light because it has a different refractive index than air (feel free to ask additional questions on this... Or any of these concepts really). The bent light rays hit very precise locations of the sensor so only that pixel is affected.

The electronics will scan the pixels typically an entire row or column at a time, then shift the way down the entire sensor. This means if something moves very quickly relative to the speed at which the electronics scan the sensor, it can end up slightly warped due to something called rolling shutter.

These files end up fairly large, so the camera actually stores the square root of the excitation (the current is first scaled to a number from 0: no current to 255 max current) which not only makes the number much smaller, it also samples small changes in low light levels better than the same change in very bright conditions which is also how human vision works (one light bulb switched on when only 1 other is already on doubles the amount of light. But if there are 100 on and you turn on one more, it's only 1% more light. So we notice contrast better in low light conditions). Your computer should square the numbers back to a scale of 0-255 before displaying the picture. fun, relevant video

Also, I think there's some treaty that says we can't. I mean, I'm just going off of what my high school physics teacher said, but I remember him telling us about a ship that rides the wave of nuclear fission, but it never got to fly because we can't detonate nukes in space or something.

I wonder how it stacks up if you group them. Like, I don't know what would be an equivalent tier group as "medical" but maybe literary, theoretical sciences, something like that. If you could come up with an equivalent group, does medical have the most doctors per group? If it's 3:1 and there are more than 4 such groups, then it would stand to reason...

When you take a breath, you fill your lungs with oxygen. The length that you can hold your breath is how long you can go off the oxygen in your lungs. It will be slowly turned to CO2 by your cellular metabolism processes. Normally, you clean out the waste by breathing out and get new oxygen to use by breathing in.

During that entire time, your heart is still pumping blood around and the oxygen is still being used. Your brain uses a massive amount of oxygen. When you choke someone out, you're stopping the oxygen in their blood from getting to the brain.

Why do gases tend to have higher solubility in cold water?

Every storage location needs an address, just like a house needs an address. In order to access that byte of info, you need to basically plug in the correct address. Of course, like all computers, they deal with electricity which is either on or off. We represent that with 1 or 0 respectively.

So let's say you've got a 2-bit address. The first bit has 2 options, and the second bit also has 2 options, so there are 2*2=4 addresses possible. Those are as follows:

00 - 01 - 10 - 11

If I increase the number of bits in the address by 1, to 3 bits, the first two bits can be any of those 4 while the new bit is 0, then repeat the same 4 options while the new bit is 1. So you double the number of locations that can be addressed for each bit you add:

(0)00 - (0)01 - (0)10 - (0)11

(1)00 - (1)01 - (1)10 - (1)11

If I clean that up a bit it looks like this:

000 - 001 - 010 - 011 - 100 - 101 - 110 - 111

8 options for 3 bits. 16 options for 4 bits. And so on... There's one other thing going on here. There are two prefixes that can be used for data. The normal metric prefixes (kilo-, mega-, giga-...) Are supposed to mean 1000 of the previous. A kilometer is 1000 meters. A megajoule is 1000 kilojoules. In data, they added a separate set of prefixes (kibi-, mebi-, gibi-...) Which are actually an even power of 2 multiple instead of 1000. It works out fairly well because 2¹⁰=1024 which is pretty close to 1000. So a kibibyte is fairly close to a kilobyte. And a megabyte is pretty close to a mebibyte.

I think what happened is that the common community of computer consumers didn't take to the new prefixes because it's a bit confusing to have two separate sets that mean different things. And it's not like you ever need to convert between kilobytes and megajoules so why not just use the regular prefixes anyway. So now everything is called kilobytes or megabytes when in reality, they actually mean kibibyte and mebibytes.

The counterintuitive part is that you normally think about things from the perspective of your car. Your car goes on green and stops on red. My machine goes when I flip the switch to red and stops when I flip the switch to green. If you think about someone else's car at the stoplight, then fine, this matches well, but I also think you're weird if you do that.

But pray, tell, what button do I press to make my machine go? Red, or green?

This tradition screwed heavily with me when I started working on industrial electrical equipment. Green means safe (off) and red means danger (energized). More common in Europe, but since the main mfg of equipment I was familiar with was an international company, we had to be well familiar with both options.

Holding is done on every play too, and that's against the rules. It's all about not getting caught. Plus, most of the push piles happen at the line of scrimmage whereas the runner starts behind. The offense is trying to push the defense back, not the runner forward... Mostly. If they waited to start pushing until the rubber was in front, the play would be over. So I think they can get away with a little bit of pulling the runner along with them. What I do know for sure is that vaulting off your teammates (and I think the word is such that being thrown by your teammate also counts) is very illegal, and very hard to hide.

The expected outcome of the election results for a state is the exact same as the popular vote in that state. Representatives still hold the right to decide not to vote the same way as the majority of their districts, but the majority of the votes in their districts are fore the same candidate that the majority of the districts vote for.

Right. If the particle you're looking at has a very similar refractive index as air (or if the pile is in water, then the refractive index of water. Whatever medium your pile is in) then you are not likely to see any visible aberrations at all. This needs to be close like withing a millionth of a percent.

If your particle has a significantly different refractive index, but is still mostly transparent, then you are likely to see it clearly. Even if a contiguous mass would be near transparent, every time the light passes from one substance to the other (and a pile like this is likely to have millions of such interactions) then it will scatter a bit of light every time. You will see this most likely as a white powder.

The only other option is that the particle is not transparent. It either absorbs or reflects most visible light, in which case it will look like any other pile of stuff. It will take on the visual properties of that stuff. Except reflection might end up looking more scattered or matte than normal. As an example, a really shiny metal that you could see your reflection in when atomized is likely to lose the perfect surface finish that gives it that specular reflection where an image can be made out. It is going to reflect the light in all directions equally so it will just look like a pile of silver dust.

The strong incentive is that they should ideally be voting for what their constituents want. And most people want fair voting.

I just wonder why we can't do the opposite: tell the computer to accurately represent the actual voting community as closely as possible, mathematically as perfect as we can get (without eliminating the electoral college, which would be better, but old habits (and people with money and power) die hard.

AlphaPhoenix has an amazing video on the topic. It's also extremely closely related to Simpson's paradox in statistics. minutephysics also does a good video on that where he puts together an extremely simplified example of you you can draw from different datasets to get different results.

The overall idea is this: if you make sure that for every 10 Democrats in a district, there are 11 Republicans, then the Republicans are more likely to win that district. You repeat this for as many districts as possible. You obviously can't guarantee this for all districts, especially if there are more Democrats in the state than Republicans, but you can shove all the remaining Democrats in the few remaining districts, so even though those districts are nearly guaranteed to go Democrat, they are the minority of the results for that state.

As a simplified example, let's say there are 6 districts with 11 voters each. Districts 1 to 5 (or A to E if you prefer to avoid confusion with the numbers coming up) have 5 D voters and 6 R voters that so 5 out of 6 districts end up Republican. The last district has 9 D voters and 2 R voters. This district is a landslide D result, but it doesn't matter because R wins 5 to 6. If you actually count up the R voters, there are 32. However, there were 34 D voters in the state. So D should have won.

Let's say you want to carry a box. Does the box feel heavy? That's because it's weight is exerted on you. You have to carry its weight in order to lift it. But the box is also being lifted because you are exerting a force on it. This happens always, in all scenarios and circumstances.

Let me give a few more examples that are easy to see, but you might not have thought about them. If you stick your hand out a car window, you feel a force pushing it backwards. The force of the air slamming into your hand. But also realize that if your hand weren't there, the molecules of air would be relatively undisturbed. You are pushing them out of the way to make room for your hand, so you are applying a force to the air molecules as well.

A rocket works because the burnt fuel is forced down and out through the nozzle by the expanding gasses behind it. The expanding gasses apply a force to the spent fuel, but the spent fuel also pushes back on the rocket, providing lift. (If you wanted to get right down the the bottom of it, the spent fuel is pushing on the expanding gasses of the currently burning fuel, and that causes them to push on the rocket because they want to go up, however, the body of the rocket gets in its way, pushing down on them to keep them contained instead of moving up... Just another example of reaction force)

Walk up to a wall and push on it. It might be easier to see with something very heavy, but still just barely movable. If you don't brace yourself, when you push on it, you will end up moving backwards instead. That's because it's pushing on you with the same force you are on it. If you do brace yourself, you might be able to move it a bit. You'll notice that you feel in your ankles that you are still being pushed backwards, and into the floor, meaning your legs are also pushing on the floor with a force, but the floor is pushing back on you (with friction) keeping you from moving backwards.

Every. Single. Force has an opposing force to consider. The fact that it is exactly the same magnitude I don't know if I have the ability to understand well enough to eli5, but the opposite reaction clearly makes sense to me. If I had to try to phrase what I think causes the equality part, I think it would involve the conservation of energy & momentum. I think if you pushes on something and it didn't push the same amount back on you, then you would give it more energy than you lost. I think that is the main reason. And since energy can't be created or destroyed, the forces have to be equal. (Big disclaimer: this last bit is speculation, not a guaranteed correct answer.)

A) I do t know the relation to the death rate, but before the decline, the birth rate was very clearly higher than the death rate. If the 20% decline caused it to equal or drop below the death rate, then see B). But if the birth rate got closer to the death rate, yet is still higher, then population will continue to increase. However, it will increase at a slower rate.

B) any decrease in population is unlikely to be felt until 18-25 years later. Until then, those children are still mostly just following their parents around or perhaps are in college which is almost like its own little contained ecosystem. You are unlikely to feel like they are making things more crowded. During that 10-25 years, there are children born during the faster birth rate time who are becoming adults and entering the world, making it seem more crowded.

C) I would be very doubtful of any study that asks people if it "seems more crowded" right now for several reasons. Mostly, we just got out of a global pandemic that held our country in grip for nearly 2 years. Maybe you weren't isolating, but a huge percent of the population were. So you are definitely experiencing a surge in people going out in public. You may think it seems more crowded than before the pandemic, but it's so hard to overcome implicit bias in the way we perceive the world. That's why rigorously controlled studies are required. We need to know how many people trafficked a certain area in. A certain time 3 years ago, and we need to average over several days of the week because their schedules and hobbies and reasons for going outside are not only dependent on that, but may have changed in the last 3 years. We should probably even consider time of year. We went into the pandemic during winter, and really this spring and summer was when the majority of people I knew started going back to life as it was before (more or less). So the study should either average across multiple times throughout the year, or track month, temperature, weather, and all factors to make sure they aren't affecting the number of people that are out and about. Your brain does not do any of this automatically. I am highly suspicious that your anecdotal evidence actually implies things are more crowded. In fact, I even sorta agree with you, I never seemed to have to wait for the self-checkout at Walmart but maybe 2 or 3 times a year at the worst. Now it seems like I'm waiting more often than not. I thought that was weird until I realized I also just moved from a city of 75k to over 400k. Maybe waiting is more common here. Maybe people are less likely to choose the person operated checkout because they're so use to isolating, they're not used to interacting. Maybe Walmart has fewer people on duty to checkout either due to the pandemic itself or to keep pace with consumers, but they haven't yet bounced back fully. There are so many variables.

It depends (a little bit) by what you mean by particles but significantly more by what you mean by stacked, and also what material the particles are.

Let me give you an example. A meter stick is a 1-meter tall stack of atoms. Atoms are waaaaaay smaller than microscopic. You can see a meter stick, right? But, if you look end on to a meter stick, you see that it is, maybe an inch wide by a half cm tall. So there are already quintillions of atoms just in every layer of the stack.

So maybe you mean a single particle stacked on another single particle... All the way up to 1 m tall. This would be a very very unstable beam. Like balancing a km long pencil probably. But what kinds of particles. If they are just barely too small to see with the naked eye, then even two of them should become just barely visible.

If instead, they are significantly too small to see with a naked eye, then stacking them 1 wide will never become visible. Our eyes can't distinguish things smaller than a certain visual angle, so if the particle stack itself is smaller than that, we won't see it.

There are some notable curiosities tangentially related. Gold can actually form an opaque layer at only a few atoms thick. That's why gold plating is so useful, and gold leaf exists. It's not a 1 m tall stack, but you could say it's a few nanometers tall if you're looking at thickness, or you could say it's however wide and long the object being played is, but then we're going back to the particles being stacked in two different directions that is now visible because obviously it would be.

I dont mean to be rude, but that wasn't my question.

Would it be somewhat accurate to say it's a mathematical trick that makes it easier to analyze the propagation of the compression wave by pretending its a moving particle instead, simplifying the math?

I always assumed it was like an effigy of your opponent. You can attack it as if you were attacking your opponent, but it can't defend itself. Perhaps like using a straw man as a sparring partner is not like true combat training.

We solve this with something called a force body diagram. The child, the Earth, and the wagon can all be diagramed independently.

The wagon has two forces acting on it. The force of the child pulling it, and the force of friction from the ground (maybe air resistance too, if you want). If the pulling force exceeds the friction force, the wagon accelerates.

The child has two forces acting on them. The wagon pulls back with the same force they pull on it (equal and opposite force that this question is asking about). Also, the ground pushes them forward with the same force they push on the ground while extending their legs (the normal force... Also a consequence of Newton's 3rd). If the normal force exceeds the reaction force of the wagon, the child accelerates forward (along with the wagon).

The ground has two forces. The friction with the wagon actually acts forwards on the ground since it works backwards on the wagon. And also the force of the child extending their legs backwards also pushes the ground backwards. We already know that the force from the kid's legs exceeds the reaction force of the wagon in their hand. And we also know them at this pulling force exceeds the friction of the wagon to the ground. Therefore, the kid's legs must be pushing harder than the friction and the Earth must accelerate backwards for the kid to be able to accelerate forwards.

The thing is, the Earth is massive. It will not accelerate very much. Negligibly in fact. So basically, we can if ore it and only focus on the child accelerating.

Edit: crude diagram the forces acting on the cart are in green. The forces acting on the child are in blue. The forces acting on the Earth are in red. Every force has an equal and opposite pair. F for friction. P for pulling. R for running all show up twice in opposite directions (and equal magnitude) and their relation tells you which direction each object is accelerating.

I didn't want to make a top level comment because I wasn't explaining anything, but I just wanted to add that Shaq went around trying a bunch of different sports and you can see his extreme reaction to driving a racecar. I think it was Nascar, not F1, but still...