On Sunday, 1 May 2022 at 00:32:24 UTC+1, Titus G wrote:
> On 30/04/22 06:18, Andrew McDowell wrote:
> > On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 5:55:39 AM UTC+1, Titus G wrote:
> >> From an advertisement for Harpers Magazine, May 2022 Issue.
> >>
> >> As the earth is getting warmer, it’s also getting brighter. About
> >> 83 percent of humans—and more than 99 percent of North Americans
> >> and Europeans—live under light-polluted skies. The planet’s
> >> darkness has become a rapidly dwindling resource with profound
> >> ecological and biological effects. The lack of darkness has been
> >> linked to cardiovascular disease, obesity, depression, diabetes,
> >> and even cancer. Suzannah Showler reports on the burgeoning
> >> darkness conservation movement and enumerates the losses we face as
> >> darkness becomes endangered. “Our view of the stars and planets has
> >> been crucial to the physical sciences, to navigation, to religion,
> >> to myth. Every culture makes meaning from our vantage on the
> >> stars,” Showler writes. “In that sense, artificial light is
> >> blotting out access to the primary source text of our cultural
> >> heritage.” (End of advertisement).
> >>
> >> I don't have enough background reading to comment on this nor
> >> sufficient motivation to research further but it certainly sparks a
> >> passing interest and will be a topic that some here will probably
> >> follow and have insights to offer.
> >
> > Not everybody's life would be improved by cutting back on artificial
> > light. My eyesight has always been bad enough that I do not benefit
> > much from a clear night sky - I can see that the moon is out, and I
> > might also detect venus, but that's about it.
> There was an interesting article in the Guardian about an astronomical
> visual illusion regarding Venus colliding with Jupiter and four planets
> visible in a row with perhaps the naked eye or definitely with
> binoculars. Northern Hemisphere.
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/apr/30/jupiter-and-venus-will-seem-to-nearly-collide-in-rare-celestial-spectacle

Or else not visible, for the reasons discussed.
It's also badly timed for me, but mainly my sky
is dominated by nearby urban areas' lighting.

BBC called it "an optical illusion": maybe an astronomer
said it, but it seems unfortunate to me that one planet
passing in front of another is treated as a potential
catastrophe. Do people worry /now/ when the moon
is interposed between the earth and the sun?

I suppose that people know it happened to the dinosaurs -
though that was with something very, very much smaller
than a planet dropping down - and there are lots of bad
movies where the moon, Mercury, or even the sun is off
course and whacks into us, unless, increasingly unbelievably,
one scientist with a crazy idea can save the day.

So maybe people really are worried about that?

"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
>On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 7:32:24 PM UTC-4, Titus G wrote:

>> There was an interesting article in the Guardian about an astronomical=20
>> visual illusion regarding Venus colliding with Jupiter and four planets=
>=20
>> visible in a row with perhaps the naked eye or definitely with=20
>> binoculars. Northern Hemisphere.=20
>>=20
>> https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/apr/30/jupiter-and-venus-will-se=
>em-to-nearly-collide-in-rare-celestial-spectacle
>
>It's just a conjunction. This is just a step up from the laziest of lazy jo=
>urnalism,
>articles about full moons, "super moons", and "blood moons".

OBSF - Wasn't a planetary conjunction the purported cause of the ganyquake
in 'Farmer in the Sky'?

On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 10:26:39 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 10:05:47 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>
>> Yes, I have often thought that the invention of eyeglasses was the
>> first step to the cybernetic organism.
>>
>> And, as it spread, a major opponent to Natural Selection.
>
>Just to _parts_ of Natural Selection. Selection pressure for
>larger brains isn't removed, but isn't counteracted by natural
>selection for other traits as much. So it's helping natural
>selection do its job in helping humans evolve in the right
>direction!

For all we know, our brains would be 10x as powerful now if eyeglasses
(and a lot of other things) had never been invented.

That's the problem with evolution: you just can't predict what it will
produce.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 09:40:39 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 12:19:09 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 09:03:09 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, 29 April 2022 at 14:11:16 UTC+1, jack....@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> Among the things Titus G wrote:
>> >> > From an advertisement for Harpers Magazine, May 2022 Issue.
>> >> >
>> >> ...
>> >> >The lack of darkness has been linked to
>> >> > cardiovascular disease, obesity, depression, diabetes, and even cancer.
>> >>
>> >> "has been linked to" is a bit more definite than "is associated with", assuming it is meant literally and not just chosen from a thesaurus of scare words. I suspect the link is not as direct as walking through a well-lit parking lot causing these maladies, but runs through the lifestyle that has one running around so late at night. This disposes me to put these advertisers in the category of people who want one specific thing (possibly not even related to what they are advocating for) and who are willing to say anything to get it. This puts me in the mood to examine their motives more than their facts, which are thin on the ground anyway. This all leads to a joke about them using facts the way a drunk uses a lamppost, more for support than illumination, as is the use they are proposing for lampposts.
>> >
>> >The claim appears under "Health" at <https://www.darksky.org>
>> >It's mainly about staying up too late and/or melatonin.
>> >
>> >Wikipedia says that the non-profit International Dark-Sky
>> >Association was incorporated in 1988.
>> >
>> >International Dark Sky Week ends on Saturday, I suppose
>> >without a firework show.
>> >
>> >> On a tangentially related note: I read somewhere recently a hypothesis that bright light is needed to trigger... a whatever, something in developing eyeballs, and keeping our kids cooped up indoors under artificial light much less intense than sunlight is responsible for their need for glasses. I follow it only on the level of a Just So Story, but if it is advocating any lifestyle change, at least it is doing so more subtly, and for a specific purpose, rather than everything from cancer to cultural heritage.
>> >
>> >We have better artificial light in the 20th and 21st
>> >centuries than we used to, I'd say.
>> >
>> >Meanwhile, a "theory" that I've heard going around
>> >is that "normal" sleep for human beings is to go to
>> >bed when it's dark, get up a while later, I forget why,
>> >then go to bed again until morning. Supposedly this
>> >only quite recently ceased to happen but we've
>> >forgotten or covered it up or something. Actual
>> >evidence is, um, light.
>> IIRC, what they did in the meantime was eat their fourth meal [1],
>> dress, and go to the theater. Or the concert hall. Or the ball.
>
>No, Robert is referring to the idea of 'second sleep', which claims
>that pre-industrial people would wake up for an hour or two at night,
>engage in activities, and then go back to sleep.
>
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biphasic_and_polyphasic_sleep#As_historical_norm

Yes, and I am giving a theory about /what/ they did between 1st and
2nd sleeps. This ties directly into what Robert is referring to.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 10:10:47 AM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> "pete...@gmail.com" <pete...@gmail.com> writes:
> >On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 7:32:24 PM UTC-4, Titus G wrote:
> >> There was an interesting article in the Guardian about an astronomical=20
> >> visual illusion regarding Venus colliding with Jupiter and four planets=
> >=20
> >> visible in a row with perhaps the naked eye or definitely with=20
> >> binoculars. Northern Hemisphere.=20
> >>=20
> >> https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/apr/30/jupiter-and-venus-will-se=
> >em-to-nearly-collide-in-rare-celestial-spectacle
> >
> >It's just a conjunction. This is just a step up from the laziest of lazy jo=
> >urnalism,
> >articles about full moons, "super moons", and "blood moons".
> OBSF - Wasn't a planetary conjunction the purported cause of the ganyquake
> in 'Farmer in the Sky'?

Can't recall, but Heinlein may have onto something. Ganymede is in a1:2:4
resonance with Europa and Io, which creates tidal stresses. This helps
keep its iron core molten, and a liquid water layer in its mantle. It could
plausibly cause ganyquakes.

OTOH, that heat has caused it to fully differentiate, and the surface is miles thick
ice. Difficult to farm!

Pt

In article <DxwbK.40401$JaS8.5000@fx47.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
>>On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 7:32:24 PM UTC-4, Titus G wrote:
>
>>> There was an interesting article in the Guardian about an astronomical=20
>>> visual illusion regarding Venus colliding with Jupiter and four planets=
>>=20
>>> visible in a row with perhaps the naked eye or definitely with=20
>>> binoculars. Northern Hemisphere.=20
>>>=20
>>> https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/apr/30/jupiter-and-venus-will-se=
>>em-to-nearly-collide-in-rare-celestial-spectacle
>>
>>It's just a conjunction. This is just a step up from the laziest of lazy jo=
>>urnalism,
>>articles about full moons, "super moons", and "blood moons".
>
>OBSF - Wasn't a planetary conjunction the purported cause of the ganyquake
>in 'Farmer in the Sky'?

Well, a conjunction of two or three of the other Galileans.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/

On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 4:07:20 PM UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 10:26:39 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 10:05:47 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, I have often thought that the invention of eyeglasses was the
> >> first step to the cybernetic organism.
> >>
> >> And, as it spread, a major opponent to Natural Selection.
> >
> >Just to _parts_ of Natural Selection. Selection pressure for
> >larger brains isn't removed, but isn't counteracted by natural
> >selection for other traits as much. So it's helping natural
> >selection do its job in helping humans evolve in the right
> >direction!
> For all we know, our brains would be 10x as powerful now if eyeglasses
> (and a lot of other things) had never been invented.
>
> That's the problem with evolution: you just can't predict what it will
> produce.
> --
> "I begin to envy Petronius."
> "I have envied him long since."
I do wonder about a world in which education and study was not linked to myopia - wearing glasses marks a child as different and does limit some activities - or require that they be performed without glasses.

On 01/05/2022 09.10, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> "pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 7:32:24 PM UTC-4, Titus G wrote:
>
>>> There was an interesting article in the Guardian about an astronomical=20
>>> visual illusion regarding Venus colliding with Jupiter and four planets=
>> =20
>>> visible in a row with perhaps the naked eye or definitely with=20
>>> binoculars. Northern Hemisphere.=20
>>> =20
>>> https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/apr/30/jupiter-and-venus-will-se=
>> em-to-nearly-collide-in-rare-celestial-spectacle
>>
>> It's just a conjunction. This is just a step up from the laziest of lazy jo=
>> urnalism,
>> articles about full moons, "super moons", and "blood moons".
>
> OBSF - Wasn't a planetary conjunction the purported cause of the ganyquake
> in 'Farmer in the Sky'?

In _Prince Caspian_, a conjunction of the planets Tarva and Alambil announces
the beginning of Caspian's fight to claim his throne from the usurper Miraz.

Before Dr. Cornelius explained this, Caspian was afraid of a collision, as well.

--
Michael F. Stemper
Isaiah 58:6-7

In article <fe8t6h1qd2n7i5d9u6pu32lvdqm782becd@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 10:26:39 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 10:05:47 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, I have often thought that the invention of eyeglasses was the
> >> first step to the cybernetic organism.
> >>
> >> And, as it spread, a major opponent to Natural Selection.
> >
> >Just to _parts_ of Natural Selection. Selection pressure for
> >larger brains isn't removed, but isn't counteracted by natural
> >selection for other traits as much. So it's helping natural
> >selection do its job in helping humans evolve in the right
> >direction!
>
> For all we know, our brains would be 10x as powerful now if eyeglasses
> (and a lot of other things) had never been invented.

BTW, eyeglasses were originally invented to fix presbyopia (age-related
farsightedness). Grinding lenses to fix near-sightedness started several
centuries later.

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

On Saturday, 30 April 2022 at 17:19:09 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 09:03:09 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, 29 April 2022 at 14:11:16 UTC+1, jack....@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Among the things Titus G wrote:
> >> > From an advertisement for Harpers Magazine, May 2022 Issue.
> >> >
> >> ...
> >> >The lack of darkness has been linked to
> >> > cardiovascular disease, obesity, depression, diabetes, and even cancer.
> >>
> >> "has been linked to" is a bit more definite than "is associated with", assuming it is meant literally and not just chosen from a thesaurus of scare words. I suspect the link is not as direct as walking through a well-lit parking lot causing these maladies, but runs through the lifestyle that has one running around so late at night. This disposes me to put these advertisers in the category of people who want one specific thing (possibly not even related to what they are advocating for) and who are willing to say anything to get it. This puts me in the mood to examine their motives more than their facts, which are thin on the ground anyway. This all leads to a joke about them using facts the way a drunk uses a lamppost, more for support than illumination, as is the use they are proposing for lampposts.
> >
> >The claim appears under "Health" at <https://www.darksky.org>
> >It's mainly about staying up too late and/or melatonin.
> >
> >Wikipedia says that the non-profit International Dark-Sky
> >Association was incorporated in 1988.
> >
> >International Dark Sky Week ends on Saturday, I suppose
> >without a firework show.
> >
> >> On a tangentially related note: I read somewhere recently a hypothesis that bright light is needed to trigger... a whatever, something in developing eyeballs, and keeping our kids cooped up indoors under artificial light much less intense than sunlight is responsible for their need for glasses. I follow it only on the level of a Just So Story, but if it is advocating any lifestyle change, at least it is doing so more subtly, and for a specific purpose, rather than everything from cancer to cultural heritage.
> >
> >We have better artificial light in the 20th and 21st
> >centuries than we used to, I'd say.
> >
> >Meanwhile, a "theory" that I've heard going around
> >is that "normal" sleep for human beings is to go to
> >bed when it's dark, get up a while later, I forget why,
> >then go to bed again until morning. Supposedly this
> >only quite recently ceased to happen but we've
> >forgotten or covered it up or something. Actual
> >evidence is, um, light.
> IIRC, what they did in the meantime was eat their fourth meal [1],
> dress, and go to the theater. Or the concert hall. Or the ball.
>
> These are 1%-ers we are talking about, of course. What the lower
> orders did I have no idea. Well, I suppose those in service or in some
> businesses would have been active as well.
>
> [1] In the USA: Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner, Supper. When I joined the
> Army in the late 60s, their three meals were: Breakfast, Dinner, and
> Supper. This conformed to some parts of the country. Other parts (like
> the one I came from) ate: Breakfast, Lunch, and Dinner. In Merry Old
> England, I suspect, one of those would be named "Tea". Some of the
> time, anyway.
>
> When I was growing up, we had "Dessert" before we went to bed, which
> might have been a vistigial form of the Fourth Meal.

Passing out after dinner is unlikely to be universal
and more about what you're drinking. Probably not tea.

As the Wikipedia page mentions, we have caffeine now -
except for people who avoid it - and naps for young children
or siestas for adults. And we went from hunter-gatherer
primates to hardworking farmers to... the 1% and the 99%?
So what's "natural" or what is best is hard to untangle.

When I cut down on caffeine, I think I was drowsy all the time
for a few days, till I got used to it.

mcdow...@sky.com wrote:
> On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 5:55:39 AM UTC+1, Titus G wrote:
> > From an advertisement for Harpers Magazine, May 2022 Issue.
> >
> > As the earth is getting warmer, it’s also getting brighter. About 83
> > percent of humans—and more than 99 percent of North Americans and
> > Europeans—live under light-polluted skies. The planet’s darkness has
> > become a rapidly dwindling resource with profound ecological and
> > biological effects.

> Not everybody's life would be improved by cutting back on artificial light. My eyesight has always been bad enough that I do not benefit much from a clear night sky - I can see that the moon is out, and I might also detect venus, but that's about it. Most of my various eyesight problems are alleviated by good light and worsened by darkness. The reduction of street lighting would significantly restrict me, especially commuting to work in the winter.

Yard work this weekend reminds me of an ecological effect of artificial lighting.

It seems some flying insects navigate by the Moon at night; they fly out keeping it at a constant angle to their path, then reciprocate and fly back. If they happen to choose a streetlight that is about a millionth as far away as the Moon, the constant angle to it requires curving your path. This can be most easily pictured by keeping the light at a right angle to your path: you would be circling the light. If you keep the light at an acute angle in front of you, you would spiral into it, if at an obtuse angle behind you (possible with bug-eyed bugs) you would spiral away. Hence bugs around outdoor lights, they are not "attracted" to them, they are navigating by them in the wrong way, when they run into whatever layer of glass protects them, they bounce off, reorient themselves, and do it again. Actually, I don't know if this is overall harmful or beneficial. There are nights when the Moon is not visible in the sky, navigating by streetlight for short trips (not all the way to the pole) would be along a curved path, but constantly available. I wonder if some bugs, such as bats benefit from having a place with a concentration of food. We have been lighting our cities for about a century, that's about a hundred insect-generations (except for outliers like cicadas which have their own cicadian rhythm) so we should be seeing some accommodation to it.

--
-Jack

On Sun, 1 May 2022 09:45:26 -0700 (PDT), Andrew McDowell
<mcdowell_ag@sky.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 4:07:20 PM UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 10:26:39 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 10:05:47 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yes, I have often thought that the invention of eyeglasses was the
>> >> first step to the cybernetic organism.
>> >>
>> >> And, as it spread, a major opponent to Natural Selection.
>> >
>> >Just to _parts_ of Natural Selection. Selection pressure for
>> >larger brains isn't removed, but isn't counteracted by natural
>> >selection for other traits as much. So it's helping natural
>> >selection do its job in helping humans evolve in the right
>> >direction!
>> For all we know, our brains would be 10x as powerful now if eyeglasses
>> (and a lot of other things) had never been invented.
>>
>> That's the problem with evolution: you just can't predict what it will
>> produce.
>> --
>> "I begin to envy Petronius."
>> "I have envied him long since."
>I do wonder about a world in which education and study was not linked to myopia - wearing glasses marks a child as different and does limit some activities - or require that they be performed without glasses.

Do they still wear glasses? My impression has been that contacts have
pretty much taken over.

Of course, glasses are so much a part of my identity that I would wear
them even if my cataract surgeries had left my eyes in perfect shape.
Not that I'm complaining -- a little astigmaism and prism aren't that
bad.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Mon, 02 May 2022 09:06:45 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>Do they still wear glasses? My impression has been that contacts have
>pretty much taken over.
>
>Of course, glasses are so much a part of my identity that I would wear
>them even if my cataract surgeries had left my eyes in perfect shape.
>Not that I'm complaining -- a little astigmaism and prism aren't that
>bad.

I've worn glasses since 1st grade which was several decades ago.

My late father had eye surgery and was dissatisfied with the result
but in his case it was non-cataracts. I've been advised by my eye
doctor that he expects I'll be a candidate for cataract surgery in 3-5
years and at that point that won't be cosmetic.

On Mon, 02 May 2022 16:13:37 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Mon, 02 May 2022 09:06:45 -0700, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Do they still wear glasses? My impression has been that contacts have
>>pretty much taken over.
>>
>>Of course, glasses are so much a part of my identity that I would wear
>>them even if my cataract surgeries had left my eyes in perfect shape.
>>Not that I'm complaining -- a little astigmaism and prism aren't that
>>bad.
>
>I've worn glasses since 1st grade which was several decades ago.
>
>My late father had eye surgery and was dissatisfied with the result
>but in his case it was non-cataracts. I've been advised by my eye
>doctor that he expects I'll be a candidate for cataract surgery in 3-5
>years and at that point that won't be cosmetic.

I've got that day coming too. Not really sure how I feel about it.
Hoping by that time they have accommodating implants that actually
work.

On 02/05/2022 11.06, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sun, 1 May 2022 09:45:26 -0700 (PDT), Andrew McDowell
> <mcdowell_ag@sky.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 4:07:20 PM UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:

>> I do wonder about a world in which education and study was not linked to myopia - wearing glasses marks a child as different and does limit some activities - or require that they be performed without glasses.
>
> Do they still wear glasses? My impression has been that contacts have
> pretty much taken over.

I know a lot of people who wear glasses. I've been in contacts since
I became self-supporting in 1976, but I think that glasses are more
common.

Of course, there's no real way to tell if somebody's wearing contacts,
so my perceptions might be skewed.

--
Michael F. Stemper
Deuteronomy 24:17

On Mon, 02 May 2022 23:12:59 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 02 May 2022 16:13:37 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 02 May 2022 09:06:45 -0700, Paul S Person
>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Do they still wear glasses? My impression has been that contacts have
>>>pretty much taken over.
>>>
>>>Of course, glasses are so much a part of my identity that I would wear
>>>them even if my cataract surgeries had left my eyes in perfect shape.
>>>Not that I'm complaining -- a little astigmaism and prism aren't that
>>>bad.
>>
>>I've worn glasses since 1st grade which was several decades ago.
>>
>>My late father had eye surgery and was dissatisfied with the result
>>but in his case it was non-cataracts. I've been advised by my eye
>>doctor that he expects I'll be a candidate for cataract surgery in 3-5
>>years and at that point that won't be cosmetic.
>
>I've got that day coming too. Not really sure how I feel about it.
>Hoping by that time they have accommodating implants that actually
>work.

Mine work fine, in terms of visual acuity. Once the prism/astigmatism
are corrected, of course.

But I have known others who were less satisfied.

The world, I would expect, will look a lot brighter: the natural lens
turns what you see yellowish [1] as it ages, but the replacement does
not. This suggests that there is a /reason/ older people sometimes
develop a negative view of the present: it looks ... off, because it
is more yellowish than it used to be.

One of my friend's granmas [2] found, after cataract surgery, that the
nice shade of off-white she had chosen for her house was, in fact, a
very bright white instead.

[1] It is not that everything looks yellow, it is just that all colors
are shifted a bit in that direction.

[2] Plural on the theory that everybody has two. More, if the family
history calls for and/or emotional ties have accrued.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

In article <qej27h9nfva9c5443o1k8kli3c571n7som@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 02 May 2022 23:12:59 -0400, J. Clarke
><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 02 May 2022 16:13:37 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 02 May 2022 09:06:45 -0700, Paul S Person
>>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Do they still wear glasses? My impression has been that contacts have
>>>>pretty much taken over.
>>>>
>>>>Of course, glasses are so much a part of my identity that I would wear
>>>>them even if my cataract surgeries had left my eyes in perfect shape.
>>>>Not that I'm complaining -- a little astigmaism and prism aren't that
>>>>bad.
>>>
>>>I've worn glasses since 1st grade which was several decades ago.
>>>
>>>My late father had eye surgery and was dissatisfied with the result
>>>but in his case it was non-cataracts. I've been advised by my eye
>>>doctor that he expects I'll be a candidate for cataract surgery in 3-5
>>>years and at that point that won't be cosmetic.
>>
>>I've got that day coming too. Not really sure how I feel about it.
>>Hoping by that time they have accommodating implants that actually
>>work.
>
>Mine work fine, in terms of visual acuity. Once the prism/astigmatism
>are corrected, of course.
>
>But I have known others who were less satisfied.

My eyes are only slightly better than two boiled onions but they're what I
am stuck with. I was somewhat less than overjoyed to discover I have cataracts
but at least they are not, at present, serious impediments to vision.

On the plus side, my student eye doctor tracked down the cause of a recurring
issue as soon as she saw me: my right lens was getting smudged because the right
nose piece was entirely gone. Repaired for free!

--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On Tue, 3 May 2022 07:56:04 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
<michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 02/05/2022 11.06, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 May 2022 09:45:26 -0700 (PDT), Andrew McDowell
>> <mcdowell_ag@sky.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 4:07:20 PM UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
>
>>> I do wonder about a world in which education and study was not linked to myopia - wearing glasses marks a child as different and does limit some activities - or require that they be performed without glasses.
>>
>> Do they still wear glasses? My impression has been that contacts have
>> pretty much taken over.
>
>I know a lot of people who wear glasses. I've been in contacts since
>I became self-supporting in 1976, but I think that glasses are more
>common.
>
>Of course, there's no real way to tell if somebody's wearing contacts,
>so my perceptions might be skewed.

I've always been a bit creeped out by putting things on the surface of
my eyeball so I'm partial to glasses. My daughter (whose vision is
worse than mine) isn't so she does. As they say "different strokes..."

On 03/05/2022 09:13, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Mon, 02 May 2022 09:06:45 -0700, Paul S Person
> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Do they still wear glasses? My impression has been that contacts have
>> pretty much taken over.
>>
>> Of course, glasses are so much a part of my identity that I would wear
>> them even if my cataract surgeries had left my eyes in perfect shape.
>> Not that I'm complaining -- a little astigmaism and prism aren't that
>> bad.
>
> I've worn glasses since 1st grade which was several decades ago.
>
> My late father had eye surgery and was dissatisfied with the result
> but in his case it was non-cataracts. I've been advised by my eye
> doctor that he expects I'll be a candidate for cataract surgery in 3-5
> years and at that point that won't be cosmetic.

I had my lenses and cataracts melted using ultrasound and the plastic
lenses slipped in in their place a couple of years ago.

I went from being short-sighted to being long-sighted, with greater
clarity of vision.

You can get multi-focal lenses, but they can throw rings around images.
As I was in my late fifties it was recommended that I just age
gracefully. ;-)

Things had a blue tinge for a few days after the first eye was done, my
cataracts were very dark by then.
It wasn't as noticeable after the second eye, presumably my brain had
gotten used to it.

And the surgeon fixed my astigmatism at the same time.

I usually wear sunglasses when I go outside, it's still just a little
bit bright. (Yes, putting clothes out on the line can be a pain!)

Now, instead of spending a $lots on glasses with photo-reactive lenses
and all that every few years, I buy handfuls of $15-20 reading glasses
in various strengths for various tasks and leave them about the house
and in the car. +1.5 is my "standard" setting, but I use +1.0 in front
of the computers, and up to +3.5 for fiddly things. :-)

Cheers,
Gary B-)

On Wed, 4 May 2022 17:33:32 +1000, "Gary R. Schmidt"
<grschmidt@acm.org> wrote:

>On 03/05/2022 09:13, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 May 2022 09:06:45 -0700, Paul S Person
>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Do they still wear glasses? My impression has been that contacts have
>>> pretty much taken over.
>>>
>>> Of course, glasses are so much a part of my identity that I would wear
>>> them even if my cataract surgeries had left my eyes in perfect shape.
>>> Not that I'm complaining -- a little astigmaism and prism aren't that
>>> bad.
>>
>> I've worn glasses since 1st grade which was several decades ago.
>>
>> My late father had eye surgery and was dissatisfied with the result
>> but in his case it was non-cataracts. I've been advised by my eye
>> doctor that he expects I'll be a candidate for cataract surgery in 3-5
>> years and at that point that won't be cosmetic.
>
>I had my lenses and cataracts melted using ultrasound and the plastic
>lenses slipped in in their place a couple of years ago.

Sounds like there may have been some improvements in the process.

Then again, I was unconscious both times, so cannot confirm that the
old lenses were phyically (as opposed to sonically) removed.

>I went from being short-sighted to being long-sighted, with greater
>clarity of vision.
>
>You can get multi-focal lenses, but they can throw rings around images.
> As I was in my late fifties it was recommended that I just age
>gracefully. ;-)
>
>Things had a blue tinge for a few days after the first eye was done, my
>cataracts were very dark by then.
>It wasn't as noticeable after the second eye, presumably my brain had
>gotten used to it.

It was after I got the second one that I found that, under certain
rare conditions, I could actually /see/ the edge of the lenses.

>And the surgeon fixed my astigmatism at the same time.
>
>I usually wear sunglasses when I go outside, it's still just a little
>bit bright. (Yes, putting clothes out on the line can be a pain!)
>
>Now, instead of spending a $lots on glasses with photo-reactive lenses
>and all that every few years, I buy handfuls of $15-20 reading glasses
>in various strengths for various tasks and leave them about the house
>and in the car. +1.5 is my "standard" setting, but I use +1.0 in front
>of the computers, and up to +3.5 for fiddly things. :-)

I was hoping to achieve something that convenient, but it was not to
be.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On 4/30/2022 12:23 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 09:40:39 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
> <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 12:19:09 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 09:03:09 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, 29 April 2022 at 14:11:16 UTC+1, jack....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Among the things Titus G wrote:
>>>>>> From an advertisement for Harpers Magazine, May 2022 Issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> The lack of darkness has been linked to
>>>>>> cardiovascular disease, obesity, depression, diabetes, and even cancer.
>>>>>
>>>>> "has been linked to" is a bit more definite than "is associated with", assuming it is meant literally and not just chosen from a thesaurus of scare words. I suspect the link is not as direct as walking through a well-lit parking lot causing these maladies, but runs through the lifestyle that has one running around so late at night. This disposes me to put these advertisers in the category of people who want one specific thing (possibly not even related to what they are advocating for) and who are willing to say anything to get it. This puts me in the mood to examine their motives more than their facts, which are thin on the ground anyway. This all leads to a joke about them using facts the way a drunk uses a lamppost, more for support than illumination, as is the use they are proposing for lampposts.
>>>>
>>>> The claim appears under "Health" at <https://www.darksky.org>
>>>> It's mainly about staying up too late and/or melatonin.
>>>>
>>>> Wikipedia says that the non-profit International Dark-Sky
>>>> Association was incorporated in 1988.
>>>>
>>>> International Dark Sky Week ends on Saturday, I suppose
>>>> without a firework show.
>>>>
>>>>> On a tangentially related note: I read somewhere recently a hypothesis that bright light is needed to trigger... a whatever, something in developing eyeballs, and keeping our kids cooped up indoors under artificial light much less intense than sunlight is responsible for their need for glasses. I follow it only on the level of a Just So Story, but if it is advocating any lifestyle change, at least it is doing so more subtly, and for a specific purpose, rather than everything from cancer to cultural heritage.
>>>>
>>>> We have better artificial light in the 20th and 21st
>>>> centuries than we used to, I'd say.
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, a "theory" that I've heard going around
>>>> is that "normal" sleep for human beings is to go to
>>>> bed when it's dark, get up a while later, I forget why,
>>>> then go to bed again until morning. Supposedly this
>>>> only quite recently ceased to happen but we've
>>>> forgotten or covered it up or something. Actual
>>>> evidence is, um, light.
>>> IIRC, what they did in the meantime was eat their fourth meal [1],
>>> dress, and go to the theater. Or the concert hall. Or the ball.
>>
>> No, Robert is referring to the idea of 'second sleep', which claims
>> that pre-industrial people would wake up for an hour or two at night,
>> engage in activities, and then go back to sleep.
>>
>> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biphasic_and_polyphasic_sleep#As_historical_norm
>
> After a hard day of hunting, gathering, and avoiding cats, rest up a
> bit, make babies, then go back to sleep to prepare for another hard
> day of hunting, gathering, and avoiding cats.

I assume that you are talking about big cats.

Lynn

On 5/1/2022 11:45 AM, Andrew McDowell wrote:
> On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 4:07:20 PM UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 10:26:39 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 10:05:47 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, I have often thought that the invention of eyeglasses was the
>>>> first step to the cybernetic organism.
>>>>
>>>> And, as it spread, a major opponent to Natural Selection.
>>>
>>> Just to _parts_ of Natural Selection. Selection pressure for
>>> larger brains isn't removed, but isn't counteracted by natural
>>> selection for other traits as much. So it's helping natural
>>> selection do its job in helping humans evolve in the right
>>> direction!
>> For all we know, our brains would be 10x as powerful now if eyeglasses
>> (and a lot of other things) had never been invented.
>>
>> That's the problem with evolution: you just can't predict what it will
>> produce.
>> --
>> "I begin to envy Petronius."
>> "I have envied him long since."
> I do wonder about a world in which education and study was not linked to myopia - wearing glasses marks a child as different and does limit some activities - or require that they be performed without glasses.

Riding a roller coaster without glasses can be terrifying.

Lynn

On Wed, 4 May 2022 21:43:00 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/30/2022 12:23 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 09:40:39 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>> <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 12:19:09 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 09:03:09 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>>>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, 29 April 2022 at 14:11:16 UTC+1, jack....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Among the things Titus G wrote:
>>>>>>> From an advertisement for Harpers Magazine, May 2022 Issue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> The lack of darkness has been linked to
>>>>>>> cardiovascular disease, obesity, depression, diabetes, and even cancer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "has been linked to" is a bit more definite than "is associated with", assuming it is meant literally and not just chosen from a thesaurus of scare words. I suspect the link is not as direct as walking through a well-lit parking lot causing these maladies, but runs through the lifestyle that has one running around so late at night. This disposes me to put these advertisers in the category of people who want one specific thing (possibly not even related to what they are advocating for) and who are willing to say anything to get it. This puts me in the mood to examine their motives more than their facts, which are thin on the ground anyway. This all leads to a joke about them using facts the way a drunk uses a lamppost, more for support than illumination, as is the use they are proposing for lampposts.
>>>>>
>>>>> The claim appears under "Health" at <https://www.darksky.org>
>>>>> It's mainly about staying up too late and/or melatonin.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wikipedia says that the non-profit International Dark-Sky
>>>>> Association was incorporated in 1988.
>>>>>
>>>>> International Dark Sky Week ends on Saturday, I suppose
>>>>> without a firework show.
>>>>>
>>>>>> On a tangentially related note: I read somewhere recently a hypothesis that bright light is needed to trigger... a whatever, something in developing eyeballs, and keeping our kids cooped up indoors under artificial light much less intense than sunlight is responsible for their need for glasses. I follow it only on the level of a Just So Story, but if it is advocating any lifestyle change, at least it is doing so more subtly, and for a specific purpose, rather than everything from cancer to cultural heritage.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have better artificial light in the 20th and 21st
>>>>> centuries than we used to, I'd say.
>>>>>
>>>>> Meanwhile, a "theory" that I've heard going around
>>>>> is that "normal" sleep for human beings is to go to
>>>>> bed when it's dark, get up a while later, I forget why,
>>>>> then go to bed again until morning. Supposedly this
>>>>> only quite recently ceased to happen but we've
>>>>> forgotten or covered it up or something. Actual
>>>>> evidence is, um, light.
>>>> IIRC, what they did in the meantime was eat their fourth meal [1],
>>>> dress, and go to the theater. Or the concert hall. Or the ball.
>>>
>>> No, Robert is referring to the idea of 'second sleep', which claims
>>> that pre-industrial people would wake up for an hour or two at night,
>>> engage in activities, and then go back to sleep.
>>>
>>> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biphasic_and_polyphasic_sleep#As_historical_norm
>>
>> After a hard day of hunting, gathering, and avoiding cats, rest up a
>> bit, make babies, then go back to sleep to prepare for another hard
>> day of hunting, gathering, and avoiding cats.
>
>I assume that you are talking about big cats.

Not necessarily. The puma and the cheetah are both considered to be
small cats.

On 29/04/2022 20:01, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 2:30:10 PM UTC-4, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>> On 2022-04-29, Titus G <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> From an advertisement for Harpers Magazine, May 2022 Issue.
>>>
>>> As the earth is getting warmer, it’s also getting brighter. About 83
>>> percent of humans—and more than 99 percent of North Americans and
>>> Europeans—live under light-polluted skies. The planet’s darkness has
>>> become a rapidly dwindling resource with profound ecological and
>>> biological effects. The lack of darkness has been linked to
>> Lies, all lies! It is never dark at night. I have seen countless
>> movies and TV shows where people roam around at night and there is
>> always plenty of light to see by. In _Barbarians_ they rode at
>> speed through the forests of Germania at night! Clearly this
>> universal depiction must be an accurate reflection of reality.
>> Don't be taken in by fake news that say otherwise!
>> --
>> Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
>
> I live out in the country. No streetlights.
>
> Some nights, if I walk outside, It's literally dark
> enough that I can walk into a parked car before
> I see it.
>
> Other nights, the moon is bright enough to see some
> colors by.
>
> pt

One night in the early 1970s I was observing at Mt Wilson Observatory
and stepped outside the 60-inch dome to check for any encroaching
clouds, or rising fog from the Los Angeles Basin below. (The night
assistant was taking a brief turn at guiding an exposure.) I had my
flashlight off to keep dark adaption, and there was no Moonlight. A few
feet from the door, I bumped into *someone* or *something* big. Really
startled, I switched on the light, only to see an equally startled deer,
which scrambled away, hooves clattering on the paved pathway! I
literally could not see it in the very dark night.

--
Mike Dworetsky

On 01/05/2022 16:18, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <DxwbK.40401$JaS8.5000@fx47.iad>,
> Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> "pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 7:32:24 PM UTC-4, Titus G wrote:
>>
>>>> There was an interesting article in the Guardian about an astronomical=20
>>>> visual illusion regarding Venus colliding with Jupiter and four planets=
>>> =20
>>>> visible in a row with perhaps the naked eye or definitely with=20
>>>> binoculars. Northern Hemisphere.=20
>>>> =20
>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/apr/30/jupiter-and-venus-will-se=
>>> em-to-nearly-collide-in-rare-celestial-spectacle
>>>
>>> It's just a conjunction. This is just a step up from the laziest of lazy jo=
>>> urnalism,
>>> articles about full moons, "super moons", and "blood moons".
>>
>> OBSF - Wasn't a planetary conjunction the purported cause of the ganyquake
>> in 'Farmer in the Sky'?
>
> Well, a conjunction of two or three of the other Galileans.
>

It was in the chapter which, I recall, was entitled "Lineup". He had all
four large moons lined up one side of Jupiter to cause a "Ganymede
Quake". This cannot actually happen, because one of the moons (Io) is
always on the opposite side of the planet when Europa and Ganymede align
on one side.

--
Mike Dworetsky