grrangry
grrangry t1_j408zs2 wrote
Reply to comment by VanZandtVS in Nicole Kidman AMC Promo updated with Dumb and Dumber by S2R2
> all for the privilege of possibly contracting bed bugs from some nasty previous attendee.
Never have I once--in all my years--considered that to be a possibility. I did not want to know this, but thank you. I can't stop scratching random itchy spots now. Be back in a minute, going to burn everything I own...
grrangry t1_iy90d34 wrote
Reply to comment by ithinkitsthis in Artemis 1 at its furthest point in its moon orbit, about 268,000 miles from earth. by kjpmi
Remember there's no (or so little as to not matter) scattering of light in space. Almost all the light you see comes out from the sun and reflects off the three objects in the photo. Earth, Moon, spacecraft. The spacecraft (obviously) is closest and very reflective, so it's going to be the biggest light source in the image. That bright source will determine what exposure is required to be able to pick out the detail they can. A longer exposure would wash out the image and a shorter one wouldn't pick up enough light to see the Earth and Moon in any detail.
If the camera was pointed out away from everything and a photo taken with the correct settings, you would see stars. For example this photograph taken from the ISS.
grrangry t1_jegqqoz wrote
Reply to comment by jadnich in ELI5-What is the fibonacci sequence? by amsdys
>The second is always 1.618 times larger than the previous
Ehhh... "always" is a bit of a misnomer. "Settles down to depending on how precise you are", maybe.
The more digits of precision, the longer it takes to settle. Graph, Graph of zoomed in portion