Have you considered the possibility that, by "finding a bug" and possibly "suggesting" a "patch", the LLM could be smuggling another bug unbeknownst to the vibe coder(s) and/or smuggling a technical debt?
I say this as someone who've been coding since my 8s (now I'm 30), someone who hasn't the tribalistic anti-AI sentiment (I even use LLMs sometimes, particularly the non-Western ones such as Deepseek and Qwen) but understands LLMs enough to know how the (current, state-of-the-art) stochastic parrots shouldn't be trusted the source code of any slightly serious project, especially a full browser that Firefox is. Chances are devs are going to blindly trust and obediently stage-and-commit whatever the parroting machine spits out, and this can end up really messy. Given the ongoing pivot to AI from Mozilla, I doubt they're worried about the consequences of vibe coding, though.
@dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works TIL Philipp Mainländer, David Benatar and countless other competent philosophers were/are all teenagers doing teenager ramblings!
As if it were a matter of caring or wanting/not wanting to use websites... It would be really nice to live in such a world where one could have the luxury of "choosing". Unfortunately, it's not this world for many people and many peoples.
To exemplify this, there are websites I, as a Brazilian, can't simply choose whether to use or not, because there are government and bureau websites for services through which I'm expected to comply with citizen things I didn't ask for (as I didn't ask to be born in this world to begin with). Online services such as "DETRAN" (state-wise transportation bureaus where one must renew one's driver's license), which I remember having to click a reCAPTCHA in order to proceed with transportation-related citizen duties. I can't have the luxury of saying "you know what, I'm not renewing my driver's license which has become my ID for a plethora of services not even related to driving, which means I'm going ID-less and becoming a legally-indigent person in the eyes of the next cop that requests my ID".
Hell, I can't even choose to have a degoogled phone because our customs (Receita Federal) will likely deny the entry for any "unlicensed device" (i.e. devices not licensed by ANATEL, Brazilian telecommunication agency). And installing a custom ROM in any available device is not without the risk of bricking the device (and losing a monthly minimum wage worth of money spent with said device) especially for someone like me who never installed custom ROMs.
Again, would be really awesome to live in the world you described where one could afford "caring to use" things...
"Some free advice? You ever get back there, you hoard toilet paper. You understand me? Hoard it. Hoard it like it's made of gold. 'Cause it is." (Chuck Shurley, Supernatural TV series, S05E04)
Your only question in your earlier reply was "you don't think oil and gas kills way way more?", to which I replied with a counter-question about two things being true simultaneously, and then I said "I'm not saying oil and gas are harmless, much to the contrary", recalling my earlier excerpt about things buried by Mother Nature, things of which, if you didn't catch it initially, are oil (and by extension gas) as well as radioactive minerals (those containing uranium, plutonium, etc).
So yes, I did answer your question.
There's no need for nuance when cats kill 1,000 times more
So? What do you suggest we do with cats and how the heck could instinctive behavior, a behavior of which is found among species that predates us human, compare to artificially melting rocks and sand merged to mimick the naturally occurring photosynthesis in a very rough manner?
Because I didn't criticize PV just for the sake of it, I said several times how PV panels could benefit of having a vantablack surface that could absorb the most sunlight possible while reflecting the least specular light possible. Still you seem to be deliberately ignoring those parts from a content you dismissed as a "wall of text" (while you're curiously accusing me of being unwilling to discuss).
To blame renewables
You just strawman-d a constructive critique of mine about photovoltaic panels (in which, again, I didn't say "we should stop using PV", for Goddess sake) to "blaming (all) renewables", which I defy you to quote and point out the excerpt from my replies where I supposedly said that. If you can't pinpoint the excerpt where I say something in the lines "we should stop using renewables" or "we should stop using PV", then I gentle ask you don't put words in my fingers that I didn't wrote.
See my other replies in this sub thread, where I'm explaining the nuances behind this matter.
The thing is, that yes, even windows kills birds.
I agree with you in this regard. Window panes are as reflective as solar panels. But then we humans tend to place solar farms where it used to be the habitat for wildlife because we humans can't be bothered to have football fields worth of blue mirrors potentially reflecting sunlight towards apartments during specific moments of the day.
Again, I'm not against PV, much to the contrary, it's the best we have (after all, every type of energy source stems from solar energy under the hood, so why not siphon directly from the source?), but I'm the kind of person who tries to ponder about both sides of the coin, hence why (if you noticed) my initial comment wasn't without ideas to solve this issue (making the panels vantablack, for example).
You know what kills birds 1.000 times more than all three combined? Cats.
Just like owls kills mice and small mammals with such an amazingly ruthless impetus, and...? Were talking about natural hunters doing instinctive hunting, a situation very different from our artificial apparata doing artificial harms to the environment, an environment of which predates our existence as the Homo sapiens species we are. Solar panels as we crafted these don't naturally occur in Nature.
It’s an invented “discussion” to blame renewables. You don’t think oil&gas kills way way way way more?
Did you know two things can be true at once? I'm not saying oil and gas are harmless, much to the contrary. Perhaps you didn't even read my whole comment where I said "some things buried by Mother Nature should stay buried". I don't mean to be rude but I suggest you read my initial comment again in all of its entirety.
By "I don't know why solar panels have to be this reflective", I meant PV panels as well. Yes, the article I linked, regarding Ivanpah, refers to a solar thermal, which is worse give the way its designed as a panopticon conjuring a death ray out of sunlight. But solar panels aren't less unsafe for beings high in the skies:
They’re also mostly falling out of favour, losing out to photovoltaic panels. Which are simpler to make, operate, and are vastly cheaper to boot, while also not being reflective (They are protected by a layer of glass, so there’s a minimum amount of reflection simply because they’re smooth, but they’re not mirrors).
I tend to disagree. The glass coating is still a flat smooth glass, practically similar to that of a mirror. Should the glass coating be rough, it would reduce the specular reflection, but this would likely affect the absorption of sunlight by the PV semiconductors.
On top of that, we're talking about a pair of eyes seeing the reflection from height, which won't be the same as if you stare at it standing in ground level. In fact, pilots can get temporarily blinded by solar panels and this can pose dangers to aviation (as per IATA).
If trained humans are affected, you betcha birds are even more affected by having eyes more sensitive than ours. Hence my comment on this regard, because we humans have this annoying bias of worrying more about other humans (because, after all, we're humans) than worrying about the countless other species who have been inhabiting Earth way before an hominin descended from the tree to play with fire and having a "cogito ergo sum" delusional moment. I'm not saying we shouldn't worry about other humans, I'm saying we are far from being the only tenant species temporarily inhabiting this Pale Blue Dot.
That 6000 figure is from a solar thermal plant, not solar PV.
Yes, but PV has a highly reflective coating, which reflects sunlight almost like a mirror. It won't burn the birds, but then we get to another part of your reply:
Solar panel reflections are nothing like lasers.
Which is correct to a certain extent... but looking at a mirror which is reflecting the sunlight doesn't seem that nice to the eyes, especially sensitive eyes of a bird looking at it from height (where the sunlight reflection may or may not converge from multiple panels positioned together, hence my analogy to lasers) and possibly mistaking it for a lake (glass panels aren't something naturally occurring, it's something we hominids built, something unbeknownst to other species, so the chances are the reflective surface will seem like the surface of a water body, especially in deserts where the bird will be thirsty). This "Siren call from the light" is similar to how moths end up colliding with lamps: they don't know the concept of "light emitter" so their instincts mistake it for the Full Moon which means mating.
Notice: birds being killed by solar panels doesn't necessarily mean the panels are directly killing them; rather, it's the specular reflection from their glass coating rendering the birds disoriented (because, again, the thing looks like a lake but isn't a lake), which in turn will expose them to unnecessary risks, such as being temporarily blinded (akin to how drivers can get blinded from getting headlights unwittingly blasting at their eyes) and/or colliding mid-flight due to misguided spatial notion and unseen obstacles. Because it's an avian death indirectly (and not directly) caused by the panels, it's unlikely to become statistics, it'll likely look like the bird died of "natural causes". In fact, many human activities indirectly kill birds, especially when we talk about climate change, and I guess/hope you know how this lack of direct harm doesn't mean climate change isn't doing harms to wildlife.
And owls would not be affected because they fly at night…
Seems like you don't know some of the amazing diurnal and crepuscular owls yet, so here it goes:
There are others, and as I said in another reply in this thread, there's the possibility that a nocturnal owl will be disturbed by something (corvids harassing her, or human activity) which will force her to wake up and flee to a safer place.
lol, why specify both here? Tell me more about these non-bird avians and/or these non-avian birds…
At least to me, an ESL (English as a second language) person, both words carry different meanings:
Birds = Passeriformes, such as corvids, mockingbirds, parakeets, etc...
Avians = everyone else from Aves clade, especially the "larger" ones, such as owls, falcons, eagles and swans, but also hawks and chickens.
In Portuguese (I'm Brazilian) we have "pássaros" and "aves", which are definitely going to refer to different winged beings, and owls aren't passerines, therefore they'd be more of an "ave" than a "pássaro".
Both of these categories, however, have species that are equally going to be affected by solar panels, hence my distinction and inclusiveness.
Aren’t they only active at night, though?
That's the beauty of Strigiformes: there are lots of misconceptions about owls in what our common sense believes. There are diurnal and crepuscular owls, such as the northern hawk-owl (Surnia ulula) and the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia, although she isn't used to fly as higher as her cousins because, and here's another common sense belief to be broken, she doesn't nest on trees and other higher places, she nests underground).
Many owls are crepuscular, active during dawn/dusk when the sun has a lower apparent angle. Depending on the solar panels' position and arrangement (e.g. solar panels facing slightly north/south), this means a sunlight reflected towards the far horizon instead of reflecting upwards. Given how the sunlight during dawn/dusk is fainter, yeah, it's not gonna burn the avians/birds, however it'll definitely blind them if they're flying towards the solar panels, because they'll be looking directly at a focused and magnified sunglare.
And even the so-defined "nocturnal owls" may meet the sunlight, either by being faced by danger/annoyance during sleep/roosting (such as corvids harassing owls or evil hominids attacking owls, among other situations requiring the owl to wake up and flee) or (a guess of mine) by getting active earlier during summer (when sunset happens later than usual), then they'll face the same problem as their crepuscular/diurnal cousins.
Sadly, solar panels do kill thousands of birds/avians.
[...] the largest solar power plant in the world, Ivanpah Solar Plant, located in the Mojave Desert in California, is believed to be responsible for at least 6,000 bird deaths each year, as the birds can suffer severe burns or become incinerated if they fly too close to the 40-foot towers that concentrate sunlight from five square miles of solar panels. These numbers are likely an underestimation, as the sight of birds and insects rapidly immolated as they soar too close to the towers, which can reach temperatures of 1000 degrees Fahrenheit
Even when birds don't get burnt alive, the reflection of the sunlight from the surface of solar panels is akin to pointing lasers at airplanes and ending up blinding the pilots.
And as I've been an owl-biased person lately, I'd say owls are likely going to be the most affected because their breathtakingly beautiful deep eyes are larger than most avians, therefore having more surface area for the reflected sunlight to blind them, and because they're so reliant on their accurate vision to hunt, blindness will definitely mean death...
I don't know why solar panels have to be this reflective, (yeah, I know, there's a glass protecting the semiconductor from the elements, still) it even seems counterintuitive because you're losing lots of energy in form of reflected light. Ideally, solar panels should be akin to a vantablack, totally dark and, therefore, as fully light-absorbing as possible, practically a human-made optical black hole.
Still, solar energy seems gazillion times better than both nuclear and fossil fuels, because some things that were buried by Mother Nature should stay buried, and both nuclear and fossil fuels digs things that Mother Nature have been burying for ages. Should nuclear power facilities need more nuclear fuel, there are currently 12,187 (as of 2025, maybe an outdated number from Federation of American Scientists) potential sources for the carcinogenic hot stone eager to be dismantled by way more sane scientists instead of being used by "M.A.D." (iykwim) hominids in green garments and boots.
This is very interesting, I liked the slight roughness of the shadows.
I often notice this difference between the techniques of different artists: art is usually born from tracing the outlines of the form (as you did in Image 1), which eventually gets a fill color (as per Image 2). For me, on the other hand, the form is born through base filling, maybe because of the medium (a digital canvas, where a brush stroke can be digitally erased or pruned without leaving traces as it happens on physical canvas/paper). With this kind of drawing technique, depth occlusion and/or the interplay between light and shadow end up being part of the draft itself.
Not sure which software app you use for drawing, but if advice is welcomed, two things help me doing 2.5D depth in my art: a set of water brushes which acts as a synthetic paint (it slightly smudges and blends colors while mixing a wave-like texture according to the current flow percentage; the brush in question is for Sketchbook, but there are likely similar brushes/modes for alternative drawing softwares/apps); layers (dozens of layers) and their blending modes (esp. "multiply" and "linear burn") and the blur filter. I often do posing and anatomy from my visual thoughts, but I also do rotoscoping (drawing over a reference picture) of real photos and/or from dummy/mannequin posing tools; in latter case, the reference comes with depth of its own, which I try to reproduce with the brush.
maybe the shadows weren’t as harsh as i expected them to look
I'd say it has partly to do with the background. Your image (esp. the Image 3) is a transparent PNG, your canvas was likely gray or white, but then you posted to Lemmy, whose UI has a dark background, so the different background ends up changing how our eyes perceive the light-shadow interplay.
This, with an additional caveat: it must be two (or more pairs, always an even number of) rings sandwiched on top of each other inside the so there's counterbalancing of the torque, otherwise it'd be more of a reaction wheel.
To be fair, most sci-fi shows seem to struggle with accurate mechanisms for gravity inside the ship, which is directly related to the ship's size and shape... Which reminds me of how the ship from the Vogons (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) is, by far, the most unrealistic one, essentially being a gigantic cube inside of which the Vogons stand as they use loudspeakers (from the vacuum of the space) to announce their bureaucratic destruction procedures for Earth 😂
Still, I'd say USS Enterprise is the most iconic spaceship to me.
Back when I initially drew, I was thinking of some premises, including ionic thrusters (whose acceleration is knowingly slow) used only for changing the ship's course which would essentially be wandering naturally (and unhurriedly) towards deep space, after being built in orbit (much akin to how ISS was built) then towed to orbit near escape velocities by detachable stages before leveraging gravitational assist, like the Voyagers did. In this sense, the centrifuge would be used during free roam through deep space, when the ship isn't accelerating on its own. Also, the crew would be small (up to a dozen, but ideally three or five people, or an odd numbers of people), which would be floating in microgravity inside the rest of the ship (esp. the cockpit) most of the time.
But thinking about your design, rings around the ship instead of ships above/below the ship, yours is a better design than mine, because it'd also include a more efficient connection hallway to/from the rest of the ship.
I tried to draw it, keeping the pair of counterbalancing rings:
Indeed, the scale in which I depicted the idea isn't accurate and, in reality, the whole thing should be way bigger, which means the astronauts would be barely visible from outside the cockpit's windows.
At least in a mental model, if these models had larger dimensions than they're currently implied to have, the spaceship's body/hull would end up heavier than the rings, even when the rings are also scaled up, because the volume and the surface of the hull is implied/expected to exceed those of the rings, whose materials should be "truss-like" (i.e. hollow) for these to be lighter than the ship's hull.
But, welp, it's been a long while since I tinkered with Kerbal Space Program.
Lol! Indeed. I guess that, in order for these configurations (especially the Option B, given potential imbalance on pitch and roll in Option A) to work, the ship must be really big. In reality, the three astronauts inside the cockpit shall be way smaller (but, then, they would be barely visible as subpixels in a 1440x1440 canvas)
To a certain extent, yes... but I guess it will depend on factors such as the length and the weight of the rings, the weight of the gravitating things sitting on the inner part of the rings (this would be, by far, the biggest contribution to imbalance, no matter the configuration of the rings, as different things, including people, with different weights would be standing on different places across each centrifuge) and the dimensions of the spacecraft, wherein the center of mass tends to be, even with both rings. In option A, the rings are supposed to be as closest as possible to each other, with enough gap for them to rotate without friction.
The main imbalance I can see is during ship's rotation, especially roll and pitch, given how both configurations only account for yaw balance. So the ship must be as stationary as possible in relation to itself, only changing its attitude when really needed, and doing so in the slowest pace possible, no hurry needed. That's also why I placed ionic thrusters instead of traditional rocket engines, as ionic thrusters are known to push things really slowly. This spaceship is meant to accelerate extremely slowly.
After I draw this schematics-art, I thought of further configurations, such as Option B with the rings inside a larger husk (so the ship would become more aerodynamic, while also adding some structural strength and weight to further dampen the torque imbalance). Another alternative, for the Option A, would be four rings instead of two, with a pair on the top (as it currently is) and an additional pair on the bottom, which would make the center of mass to match the center of mass of the ship's hull.
@m_f@discuss.online @thefarside@sh.itjust.works
This comic has music... Why do I hear boss music? ("...But what's this that I can't see with ice cold hands, taking hold on me?")
Luckily for the rest of the bystanders, Death is quite fond of the pizza in Chicago. Unlucky day for this guy's cardiac muscle, though...
@skarn@discuss.tchncs.de @Solumbran@lemmy.world @linux@lemmy.ml
Have you considered the possibility that, by "finding a bug" and possibly "suggesting" a "patch", the LLM could be smuggling another bug unbeknownst to the vibe coder(s) and/or smuggling a technical debt?
I say this as someone who've been coding since my 8s (now I'm 30), someone who hasn't the tribalistic anti-AI sentiment (I even use LLMs sometimes, particularly the non-Western ones such as Deepseek and Qwen) but understands LLMs enough to know how the (current, state-of-the-art) stochastic parrots shouldn't be trusted the source code of any slightly serious project, especially a full browser that Firefox is. Chances are devs are going to blindly trust and obediently stage-and-commit whatever the parroting machine spits out, and this can end up really messy. Given the ongoing pivot to AI from Mozilla, I doubt they're worried about the consequences of vibe coding, though.
@dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works TIL Philipp Mainländer, David Benatar and countless other competent philosophers were/are all teenagers doing teenager ramblings!
@ennof@feddit.org @LuminousLuddite@lemmy.world @technology@lemmy.world
As if it were a matter of caring or wanting/not wanting to use websites... It would be really nice to live in such a world where one could have the luxury of "choosing". Unfortunately, it's not this world for many people and many peoples.
To exemplify this, there are websites I, as a Brazilian, can't simply choose whether to use or not, because there are government and bureau websites for services through which I'm expected to comply with citizen things I didn't ask for (as I didn't ask to be born in this world to begin with). Online services such as "DETRAN" (state-wise transportation bureaus where one must renew one's driver's license), which I remember having to click a reCAPTCHA in order to proceed with transportation-related citizen duties. I can't have the luxury of saying "you know what, I'm not renewing my driver's license which has become my ID for a plethora of services not even related to driving, which means I'm going ID-less and becoming a legally-indigent person in the eyes of the next cop that requests my ID".
Hell, I can't even choose to have a degoogled phone because our customs (Receita Federal) will likely deny the entry for any "unlicensed device" (i.e. devices not licensed by ANATEL, Brazilian telecommunication agency). And installing a custom ROM in any available device is not without the risk of bricking the device (and losing a monthly minimum wage worth of money spent with said device) especially for someone like me who never installed custom ROMs.
Again, would be really awesome to live in the world you described where one could afford "caring to use" things...
@Grimy@lemmy.world @a_gee_dizzle@lemmy.ca
"Some free advice? You ever get back there, you hoard toilet paper. You understand me? Hoard it. Hoard it like it's made of gold. 'Cause it is." (Chuck Shurley, Supernatural TV series, S05E04)
@Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com @Memes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Your only question in your earlier reply was "you don't think oil and gas kills way way more?", to which I replied with a counter-question about two things being true simultaneously, and then I said "I'm not saying oil and gas are harmless, much to the contrary", recalling my earlier excerpt about things buried by Mother Nature, things of which, if you didn't catch it initially, are oil (and by extension gas) as well as radioactive minerals (those containing uranium, plutonium, etc).
So yes, I did answer your question.
So? What do you suggest we do with cats and how the heck could instinctive behavior, a behavior of which is found among species that predates us human, compare to artificially melting rocks and sand merged to mimick the naturally occurring photosynthesis in a very rough manner?
Because I didn't criticize PV just for the sake of it, I said several times how PV panels could benefit of having a vantablack surface that could absorb the most sunlight possible while reflecting the least specular light possible. Still you seem to be deliberately ignoring those parts from a content you dismissed as a "wall of text" (while you're curiously accusing me of being unwilling to discuss).
You just strawman-d a constructive critique of mine about photovoltaic panels (in which, again, I didn't say "we should stop using PV", for Goddess sake) to "blaming (all) renewables", which I defy you to quote and point out the excerpt from my replies where I supposedly said that. If you can't pinpoint the excerpt where I say something in the lines "we should stop using renewables" or "we should stop using PV", then I gentle ask you don't put words in my fingers that I didn't wrote.
@Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com @Memes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
See my other replies in this sub thread, where I'm explaining the nuances behind this matter.
I agree with you in this regard. Window panes are as reflective as solar panels. But then we humans tend to place solar farms where it used to be the habitat for wildlife because we humans can't be bothered to have football fields worth of blue mirrors potentially reflecting sunlight towards apartments during specific moments of the day.
Again, I'm not against PV, much to the contrary, it's the best we have (after all, every type of energy source stems from solar energy under the hood, so why not siphon directly from the source?), but I'm the kind of person who tries to ponder about both sides of the coin, hence why (if you noticed) my initial comment wasn't without ideas to solve this issue (making the panels vantablack, for example).
Just like owls kills mice and small mammals with such an amazingly ruthless impetus, and...? Were talking about natural hunters doing instinctive hunting, a situation very different from our artificial apparata doing artificial harms to the environment, an environment of which predates our existence as the Homo sapiens species we are. Solar panels as we crafted these don't naturally occur in Nature.
Did you know two things can be true at once? I'm not saying oil and gas are harmless, much to the contrary. Perhaps you didn't even read my whole comment where I said "some things buried by Mother Nature should stay buried". I don't mean to be rude but I suggest you read my initial comment again in all of its entirety.
@The_Decryptor@aussie.zone @Memes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
By "I don't know why solar panels have to be this reflective", I meant PV panels as well. Yes, the article I linked, regarding Ivanpah, refers to a solar thermal, which is worse give the way its designed as a panopticon conjuring a death ray out of sunlight. But solar panels aren't less unsafe for beings high in the skies:
I tend to disagree. The glass coating is still a flat smooth glass, practically similar to that of a mirror. Should the glass coating be rough, it would reduce the specular reflection, but this would likely affect the absorption of sunlight by the PV semiconductors.
On top of that, we're talking about a pair of eyes seeing the reflection from height, which won't be the same as if you stare at it standing in ground level. In fact, pilots can get temporarily blinded by solar panels and this can pose dangers to aviation (as per IATA).
If trained humans are affected, you betcha birds are even more affected by having eyes more sensitive than ours. Hence my comment on this regard, because we humans have this annoying bias of worrying more about other humans (because, after all, we're humans) than worrying about the countless other species who have been inhabiting Earth way before an hominin descended from the tree to play with fire and having a "cogito ergo sum" delusional moment. I'm not saying we shouldn't worry about other humans, I'm saying we are far from being the only tenant species temporarily inhabiting this Pale Blue Dot.
@naught101@lemmy.world @Memes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Yes, but PV has a highly reflective coating, which reflects sunlight almost like a mirror. It won't burn the birds, but then we get to another part of your reply:
Which is correct to a certain extent... but looking at a mirror which is reflecting the sunlight doesn't seem that nice to the eyes, especially sensitive eyes of a bird looking at it from height (where the sunlight reflection may or may not converge from multiple panels positioned together, hence my analogy to lasers) and possibly mistaking it for a lake (glass panels aren't something naturally occurring, it's something we hominids built, something unbeknownst to other species, so the chances are the reflective surface will seem like the surface of a water body, especially in deserts where the bird will be thirsty). This "Siren call from the light" is similar to how moths end up colliding with lamps: they don't know the concept of "light emitter" so their instincts mistake it for the Full Moon which means mating.
Notice: birds being killed by solar panels doesn't necessarily mean the panels are directly killing them; rather, it's the specular reflection from their glass coating rendering the birds disoriented (because, again, the thing looks like a lake but isn't a lake), which in turn will expose them to unnecessary risks, such as being temporarily blinded (akin to how drivers can get blinded from getting headlights unwittingly blasting at their eyes) and/or colliding mid-flight due to misguided spatial notion and unseen obstacles. Because it's an avian death indirectly (and not directly) caused by the panels, it's unlikely to become statistics, it'll likely look like the bird died of "natural causes". In fact, many human activities indirectly kill birds, especially when we talk about climate change, and I guess/hope you know how this lack of direct harm doesn't mean climate change isn't doing harms to wildlife.
Seems like you don't know some of the amazing diurnal and crepuscular owls yet, so here it goes:
- Surnia ulula (Northern Hawk Owl, primarily diurnal):
https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/nohowl/cur/introduction
- Asio flammeus (Short-eared Owl, active day and night):
https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/sheowl/cur/introduction
- Athene cunicularia (Burrowing Owl, one of my favorites, active day and night): https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/burowl/cur/introduction
- Bubo virginianus (Great Horned Owl, can be active during twilight): https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/grhowl/cur/behavior
There are others, and as I said in another reply in this thread, there's the possibility that a nocturnal owl will be disturbed by something (corvids harassing her, or human activity) which will force her to wake up and flee to a safer place.
@Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com @Memes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
What exactly are you referring to? My comment is lengthy and mentions a lot of things.
@OwOarchist@pawb.social @Memes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
At least to me, an ESL (English as a second language) person, both words carry different meanings:
Birds = Passeriformes, such as corvids, mockingbirds, parakeets, etc...
Avians = everyone else from Aves clade, especially the "larger" ones, such as owls, falcons, eagles and swans, but also hawks and chickens.
In Portuguese (I'm Brazilian) we have "pássaros" and "aves", which are definitely going to refer to different winged beings, and owls aren't passerines, therefore they'd be more of an "ave" than a "pássaro".
Both of these categories, however, have species that are equally going to be affected by solar panels, hence my distinction and inclusiveness.
That's the beauty of Strigiformes: there are lots of misconceptions about owls in what our common sense believes. There are diurnal and crepuscular owls, such as the northern hawk-owl (Surnia ulula) and the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia, although she isn't used to fly as higher as her cousins because, and here's another common sense belief to be broken, she doesn't nest on trees and other higher places, she nests underground).
Many owls are crepuscular, active during dawn/dusk when the sun has a lower apparent angle. Depending on the solar panels' position and arrangement (e.g. solar panels facing slightly north/south), this means a sunlight reflected towards the far horizon instead of reflecting upwards. Given how the sunlight during dawn/dusk is fainter, yeah, it's not gonna burn the avians/birds, however it'll definitely blind them if they're flying towards the solar panels, because they'll be looking directly at a focused and magnified sunglare.
And even the so-defined "nocturnal owls" may meet the sunlight, either by being faced by danger/annoyance during sleep/roosting (such as corvids harassing owls or evil hominids attacking owls, among other situations requiring the owl to wake up and flee) or (a guess of mine) by getting active earlier during summer (when sunset happens later than usual), then they'll face the same problem as their crepuscular/diurnal cousins.
@naught101@lemmy.world @OwOarchist@pawb.social @Memes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Sadly, solar panels do kill thousands of birds/avians.
(Source)
Even when birds don't get burnt alive, the reflection of the sunlight from the surface of solar panels is akin to pointing lasers at airplanes and ending up blinding the pilots.
And as I've been an owl-biased person lately, I'd say owls are likely going to be the most affected because their breathtakingly beautiful deep eyes are larger than most avians, therefore having more surface area for the reflected sunlight to blind them, and because they're so reliant on their accurate vision to hunt, blindness will definitely mean death...
I don't know why solar panels have to be this reflective, (yeah, I know, there's a glass protecting the semiconductor from the elements, still) it even seems counterintuitive because you're losing lots of energy in form of reflected light. Ideally, solar panels should be akin to a vantablack, totally dark and, therefore, as fully light-absorbing as possible, practically a human-made optical black hole.
Still, solar energy seems gazillion times better than both nuclear and fossil fuels, because some things that were buried by Mother Nature should stay buried, and both nuclear and fossil fuels digs things that Mother Nature have been burying for ages. Should nuclear power facilities need more nuclear fuel, there are currently 12,187 (as of 2025, maybe an outdated number from Federation of American Scientists) potential sources for the carcinogenic hot stone eager to be dismantled by way more sane scientists instead of being used by "M.A.D." (iykwim) hominids in green garments and boots.
@maya_the_good_apple@sh.itjust.works @artshare@lemmy.world
This is very interesting, I liked the slight roughness of the shadows.
I often notice this difference between the techniques of different artists: art is usually born from tracing the outlines of the form (as you did in Image 1), which eventually gets a fill color (as per Image 2). For me, on the other hand, the form is born through base filling, maybe because of the medium (a digital canvas, where a brush stroke can be digitally erased or pruned without leaving traces as it happens on physical canvas/paper). With this kind of drawing technique, depth occlusion and/or the interplay between light and shadow end up being part of the draft itself.
Not sure which software app you use for drawing, but if advice is welcomed, two things help me doing 2.5D depth in my art: a set of water brushes which acts as a synthetic paint (it slightly smudges and blends colors while mixing a wave-like texture according to the current flow percentage; the brush in question is for Sketchbook, but there are likely similar brushes/modes for alternative drawing softwares/apps); layers (dozens of layers) and their blending modes (esp. "multiply" and "linear burn") and the blur filter. I often do posing and anatomy from my visual thoughts, but I also do rotoscoping (drawing over a reference picture) of real photos and/or from dummy/mannequin posing tools; in latter case, the reference comes with depth of its own, which I try to reproduce with the brush.
I'd say it has partly to do with the background. Your image (esp. the Image 3) is a transparent PNG, your canvas was likely gray or white, but then you posted to Lemmy, whose UI has a dark background, so the different background ends up changing how our eyes perceive the light-shadow interplay.
@X@piefed.world @anon6789@lemmy.world
TIL the Tytonidae (barn owls) do the same "one-leg perching" that of Athene cunicularia (burrowing owls). Lol
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works @artshare@lemmy.world
This, with an additional caveat: it must be two (or more pairs, always an even number of) rings sandwiched on top of each other inside the so there's counterbalancing of the torque, otherwise it'd be more of a reaction wheel.
To be fair, most sci-fi shows seem to struggle with accurate mechanisms for gravity inside the ship, which is directly related to the ship's size and shape... Which reminds me of how the ship from the Vogons (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) is, by far, the most unrealistic one, essentially being a gigantic cube inside of which the Vogons stand as they use loudspeakers (from the vacuum of the space) to announce their bureaucratic destruction procedures for Earth 😂
Still, I'd say USS Enterprise is the most iconic spaceship to me.
@CIA_chatbot@lemmy.world @artshare@lemmy.world
Back when I initially drew, I was thinking of some premises, including ionic thrusters (whose acceleration is knowingly slow) used only for changing the ship's course which would essentially be wandering naturally (and unhurriedly) towards deep space, after being built in orbit (much akin to how ISS was built) then towed to orbit near escape velocities by detachable stages before leveraging gravitational assist, like the Voyagers did. In this sense, the centrifuge would be used during free roam through deep space, when the ship isn't accelerating on its own. Also, the crew would be small (up to a dozen, but ideally three or five people, or an odd numbers of people), which would be floating in microgravity inside the rest of the ship (esp. the cockpit) most of the time.
But thinking about your design, rings around the ship instead of ships above/below the ship, yours is a better design than mine, because it'd also include a more efficient connection hallway to/from the rest of the ship.
I tried to draw it, keeping the pair of counterbalancing rings:
@Lumidaub@feddit.org @artshare@lemmy.world
lol
@Adderbox76@lemmy.ca @artshare@lemmy.world
Lol
Indeed, the scale in which I depicted the idea isn't accurate and, in reality, the whole thing should be way bigger, which means the astronauts would be barely visible from outside the cockpit's windows.
At least in a mental model, if these models had larger dimensions than they're currently implied to have, the spaceship's body/hull would end up heavier than the rings, even when the rings are also scaled up, because the volume and the surface of the hull is implied/expected to exceed those of the rings, whose materials should be "truss-like" (i.e. hollow) for these to be lighter than the ship's hull.
But, welp, it's been a long while since I tinkered with Kerbal Space Program.
@SGforce@lemmy.ca @artshare@lemmy.world
Lol! Indeed. I guess that, in order for these configurations (especially the Option B, given potential imbalance on pitch and roll in Option A) to work, the ship must be really big. In reality, the three astronauts inside the cockpit shall be way smaller (but, then, they would be barely visible as subpixels in a 1440x1440 canvas)
@panda_abyss@lemmy.ca @artshare@lemmy.world
To a certain extent, yes... but I guess it will depend on factors such as the length and the weight of the rings, the weight of the gravitating things sitting on the inner part of the rings (this would be, by far, the biggest contribution to imbalance, no matter the configuration of the rings, as different things, including people, with different weights would be standing on different places across each centrifuge) and the dimensions of the spacecraft, wherein the center of mass tends to be, even with both rings. In option A, the rings are supposed to be as closest as possible to each other, with enough gap for them to rotate without friction.
The main imbalance I can see is during ship's rotation, especially roll and pitch, given how both configurations only account for yaw balance. So the ship must be as stationary as possible in relation to itself, only changing its attitude when really needed, and doing so in the slowest pace possible, no hurry needed. That's also why I placed ionic thrusters instead of traditional rocket engines, as ionic thrusters are known to push things really slowly. This spaceship is meant to accelerate extremely slowly.
After I draw this schematics-art, I thought of further configurations, such as Option B with the rings inside a larger husk (so the ship would become more aerodynamic, while also adding some structural strength and weight to further dampen the torque imbalance). Another alternative, for the Option A, would be four rings instead of two, with a pair on the top (as it currently is) and an additional pair on the bottom, which would make the center of mass to match the center of mass of the ship's hull.