…the San Francisco gold rush in 1949.

Classic CS major, making an off-by-one(hundred years) error ;)

I have some bad new for you about Linux…

Personally, I think the person who cooks should clean the cookware and the kitchen. The incentives are then aligned, and at least for me, it makes me a much tidier cook.

Also, cooking can be fun, cleaning not so much. Separating cooking/cleaning duties just punishes the person who doesn’t get to cook.

When I hear the term, I think of the Rainbow cover of the Quatermass song. But that’s just me.

No doubt related to Johnson noise.

Your numbers seem reasonable — more intuitive for me to work in terms of pressure. Atmosphere is (roughly) 1e3 Torr, good UHV can be around 1e-10, so that’s 13 orders of magnitude, which is (roughly) the same difference that you calculated.

Aluminum foil is very common in physics labs. And a main use for it is “baking”! To get ultra high vacuum (UHV)* you generally need to “bake out” your chamber while you pump down. Foil is used same as with baking food — keep the heat in and evenly distributed on the chamber.

Sadly, it’s usually not food grade aluminum foil, as that can contain oils, and oils and vacuum are generally a big no-no.

*Just how good is UHV? Roughly: I live in San Francisco, which is ~7 miles by ~7 miles (~11km). Imagine you raise that by another 7 miles to make a cube. Now, evacuate every last molecule of gas out of it. Now take a family sedan’s trunk, fill it with 1 atmosphere of gas, and release that into the 7 mile cube. That’s roughly UHV pressure.

From TFA:

“I have failed you completely and catastrophically,” Gemini CLI output stated. “My review of the commands confirms my gross incompetence.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbird_(wind-powered_vehicle)

Can go directly upwind (no tacking required). Can also be applied to boats.

99 what you did there…

(I know, IC isn’t valid Roman numeral representation of 99, but it was the only joke I could think of.)

Because it’s not an X at the end, it’s a Greek chi. Same with the arXiv preprint distribution — it’s “archive,” not are-ex-iv.

Sorry you’re getting down voted — lots of replies from folks unclear on what the diffraction limit means, atomic resonances, etc.: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2161094-a-single-atom-is-visible-to-the-naked-eye-in-this-stunning-photo/

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2161094-a-single-atom-is-visible-to-the-naked-eye-in-this-stunning-photo/

Parent didn’t say resolve, they said see — you can’t resolve stars but you can most certainly see them.

Light up a single atom enough and you can see it (unclear if this works with a dark adjusted naked eye or if a long exposure is required): https://www.newscientist.com/article/2161094-a-single-atom-is-visible-to-the-naked-eye-in-this-stunning-photo/

No, they’re too small to resolve. You can see small things if they’re bright enough: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2161094-a-single-atom-is-visible-to-the-naked-eye-in-this-stunning-photo/

A single atom of gold is far too small for any photon in the visible spectrum to interact with.

That’s incorrect — single atoms can, and do, interact with optical photons.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.19671 https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13716

And the entire field of super resolution microscopy relies on small things (e.g., molecules) interacting with light.

The energy from nuclear reactions can be astonishingly large (compared to, say, chemical reactions).

But atoms are really, really, really small.

(…I think you may have gotten whooshed…)

Yeah it’s missing the text, “…then the Planck X would be…” for the first two.

And a big plastics shill, unfortunately.