[HN Gopher] Average color of the NYC sky every 5 minutes
___________________________________________________________________
Average color of the NYC sky every 5 minutes
Author : sethbannon
Score : 476 points
Date : 2023-06-08 18:36 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (nskyc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (nskyc.com)
| avelis wrote:
| It's unfortunate you can't bookmark dates but really cool none
| the less.
| scrame wrote:
| great domain name!
| rollinDyno wrote:
| Very cute, although I'd like to see what the results are like
| when choosing the dominant rather than the average color.
| ck2 wrote:
| national smoke map
|
| https://data.usatoday.com/fires/
| burkaman wrote:
| Also https://fire.airnow.gov/
| ck2 wrote:
| airnow is almost useless in some areas
|
| The only single sensor near my city is 50 miles away, it says
| air quality is fine, yet the smoke tracker map has several
| wildfires nearby
|
| We need a huge, reliable pm2.5 etc network, start with every
| single public school
| shagie wrote:
| A significant number of the sensors show up as "LOW COST
| PM2.5 SENSOR (PurpleAir)"
|
| https://www.purpleair.com sells those sensors (you can see
| their coverage on their map).
|
| It would be something to assist/help fund and public
| schools would be an excellent place to have them be
| situated.
| UberFly wrote:
| This is such a cool idea. Some people are so cleaver.
| foxandmouse wrote:
| I find it fascinating how Toronto is no where near as bad as New
| York. The fight to protect the environment has to be a global one
| bobthepanda wrote:
| At the latitudes of the US and Canada, the prevailing winds
| blow from west to east.
| post-it wrote:
| https://firesmoke.ca is an excellent resource for seeing the
| current smoke levels across the continent.
| fragmede wrote:
| For SF, there's https://isitfoggy.com/daylight2.html
| karles wrote:
| Is this data not polluted by the skyline? Or does it somewhat
| take buildings/the skyline into account, and correct for the
| shades of these objects?
| mikepurvis wrote:
| Based on the color selected out of the night shots, I'm
| assuming the average is of just the plain sky, with the water
| and buildings cropped out.
| andai wrote:
| From some fiddling in an image editor, it looks like it's a
| fairly small rectangle (I'd guess top left corner?)
| samstave wrote:
| Zooming out is kinda neat...
|
| But I would like to be able to see the background image for some
| of the shots bythemselves - as there are some cool pics of that
| view.
|
| https://i.imgur.com/S9I3arV.png
| sgt101 wrote:
| This is going to sound brutal - but citizens of New York... if
| there is anyone in the world to blame for this, it is you...
|
| Sorry. I know that's horrid. But it's also true.
| bobbylarrybobby wrote:
| Can you explain that?
| sgt101 wrote:
| Sure, I will explain. New York is one of the epicenters of
| consumption that has driven climate change and precipitated
| the wild fires in Canada. The USA has been one of the most
| sustained producers of carbon in the world for the last
| century and has exported this tendency world wide.
|
| Boys and girls - you did this. The sky is orange because of
| things you did. Face it, front up and deal with it.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| My guess is they are referring to NYC as center of capital
| markets.
| sgt101 wrote:
| No - personal carbon consumption. New Yorkers have lived an
| unsustainable life style for the last 100 years, for the
| last 50 years you've all known about it - but you've done
| nothing about it.
|
| Yes - the capital markets are also huge enablers.
| jpk wrote:
| Without really supporting or elaborating on your thesis here,
| this comment it basically content-free.
| xnx wrote:
| Does this go back further than 2 days?
| throwaway290 wrote:
| It would be interesting if he specified how he came up with RGB
| values for sky color, like what is his neutral grey point etc.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Yeah you can't just do this with a consumer webcam out of the
| box because they're constantly trying to auto-adjust the white
| point. I mean not if you want anything "accurate". (Some
| webcams allow you to lock the white point in software though.)
|
| But indeed, it is very non-obvious what you'd select for the
| constant exposure and white point (or combined as a gray
| point). You might also want to apply a strong curve to the
| brightness so nighttime skies are quite visible.
| georgeplusplus wrote:
| My heart goes out to new yorkers. This cannot be healthy. If
| there are long-standing health repercussions I doubt there will
| be any recourse they can take.
| netfortius wrote:
| Haven't the Americans looked for a reason to invade Canada, for
| like ... forever?
| okennedy wrote:
| Because that worked out so well for us the last time we
| tried... [0]
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812
| bombcar wrote:
| That was invading _Britain_ more like, it 's time for a
| rematch.
|
| Of course, we may re"match" by lighting California on fire
| again when the prevailing winds are from the Southwest.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| According to that, the entire war cost ~$105 million
| dollars, which is about $2 billion dollars today. So 3
| years of war equals around one day of the current US
| military budget.
|
| I realize your post was mostly silly, but it made me
| curious so I ran the numbers.
| ksherlock wrote:
| The US kicked the British out of Canada in 1867.
| amscanne wrote:
| I presume this is a joke (though I don't get it), because
| AFAIK the US had nothing at all to do with Canadian
| federation.
| ksherlock wrote:
| Post civil war, there was concern that Canada would be
| manifest destinied. Britain was somewhat supportive of
| the CSA and Alaska was purchased in 1867 so there were
| reasons to think they were next.
| bee_rider wrote:
| No, we've got a good thing going obviously. We have a nice
| big peaceful border, they send us celebrities and artists,
| and we will absolutely demolish any country that fucks with
| them.
|
| We generate plenty of wildfire smoke internally anyway.
| nemo44x wrote:
| People will be fine and no one is going to develop long term
| health issues from a couple days of smokey air. I feel bad for
| people with lung conditions as breathing was made more
| difficult for a bit but no one is dying from this.
|
| And what recourse? Who?
| chimeracoder wrote:
| > People will be fine and no one is going to develop long
| term health issues from a couple days of smokey air. I feel
| bad for people with lung conditions as breathing was made
| more difficult for a bit but no one is dying from this.
|
| That's simply not true. People can, and do, develop long-term
| issues from acute exposure to bad air (that's literally why
| the range is called "Hazardous" on the AQI).
|
| Not to mention that one in ten New Yorkers has asthma, which
| means that yes, people can literally die from acute exposure
| to air pollution.
| nemo44x wrote:
| > People can, and do, develop long-term issues from acute
| exposure to bad air
|
| Not for a day, no. At least not for what was going
| happening in the East Coast. It wasn't like ash and debris
| was flying through the air. It was like sitting around a
| campfire. People aren't that fragile. Now, hypochondriacs
| might think they are (and we have a growing population of
| those), but they simply aren't. Is it bad for someone with
| COPD? Yes, but the damage had already been done for years.
| georgeplusplus wrote:
| Go directly inhale camp fire smoke for 24 hours straight
| and tell me how you feel.
|
| Do you live in NY? I dont know anyone that lives here
| that feels the way you do. I can only reason that someone
| who is so far removed from the situation can say
| something so callous.
|
| My dad who has 65 years in NYC has never seen it this
| bad, and that was with pollution before EPA was created.
| nemo44x wrote:
| I do in fact life in the area. From Tuesday afternoon to
| Wednesday afternoon it smelled a bit smokey and it was
| hazy and the sun reflected off the particles. Was eerie.
|
| And I kept my windows closed and we did not go to the
| playground. But the dog was still walked and I went about
| my business walking around or driving when needed. It was
| an exceptional scenario but it wasn't dangerous.
|
| People need to get over themselves I think. It was fine
| for the short duration it was.
| dahart wrote:
| > It wasn't like ash and debris was flying through the
| air.
|
| Isn't that exactly what smoke is? It's worse than visibly
| large particles, the small particles are more likely to
| get inside your lungs and do damage.
|
| > Not for a day, no.
|
| You might want to familiarize yourself with the evidence-
| based WHO air quality guidelines which sets standards
| based on short-term 8 & 24 hour exposure periods, and
| separate long-term recommendations for annual exposure.
| https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-
| stories/detail/what-ar...
|
| The recommended short-term 24 hour exposure levels are
| far below what NYC saw (as well as what many cities in
| the west have had for months at a time over the last ten
| years. These numbers are published based on the WHO's
| ability to _demonstrate_ that adverse health effects
| appear in the population when exposure exceeds these
| levels. The recommendations were lowered recently
| compared to their 2005 numbers because the studies and
| data and evidence have grown in the last 20 years and it
| shows that even mild levels of exposure result in more
| doctor's visits, more lung conditions, more athsma, more
| damage and more risk.
| nemo44x wrote:
| Junk "science". It's extrapolations that make no sense
| and that don't translate to reality. Ever heard the
| saying "lies, damn lies, and statistics?" Well that's
| what this interpretation is.
|
| You can't generalize from a 1-off event like we saw
| (where most nobody was being exposed for much of it) and
| then average across the population and say it causes
| things.
|
| Repeated exposure, yes. But not this. Is it good for you?
| No. But it's not like it's really hurting anyone. Walking
| past a person smoking a cigarette isnt going to give you
| cancer no matter how hysterical sone people get about it.
| It's ridiculous to even entertain it.
| dahart wrote:
| Crazy. Why do you believe that? Have you read the WHO's
| methodology? What is your expertise in air quality
| studies and/or policy? Do you know how many scientists
| and organizations outside the WHO agree with their
| assessment?
|
| Nobody said anything about walking past a single smoker,
| that's pure straw man in this context. The stats also
| aren't generalized from a single event. You're arguing
| armchair FUD logic without any facts, against real-world
| evidence from a global organization with a many decades
| history of monitoring all available science on this
| topic.
|
| The full methodology and 24 pages of scientific
| references are available online:
| https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240034228
| nemo44x wrote:
| > Crazy. Why do you believe that?
|
| Because no one is dying from some smoke blowing across
| the region for a day, lol.
|
| Chronic pollution is a problem. Breathing bad air daily
| is a problem. working around smoky environments day in
| and day out is a problem Having some smoke in the area
| for a day is not.
|
| I'm tired of the neurotics and hypochondriacs making big
| deals out of things that aren't. Like, don't get fat and
| don't smoke, and use bad things in moderation and get
| regular checkups and don't stress about everything and
| you'll live to 80 in most cases. Some people get unlucky.
|
| People dramatizing this recent event like it was HARMFUL
| to them and "scary" or some type of public health crisis
| are insane. Posts like yours that for whatever reason
| want to reference something that isn't really science but
| is used like it's irrefutable truth to say that the smoke
| event was somehow dangerous - I mean, just c'mon. It's
| fine.
| dahart wrote:
| > Because no one is dying from smoke blowing across the
| region for a day, lol.
|
| Why do you think that? How do you know, exactly?
|
| I would totally recommend reading the WHO report! The
| guidelines are based on mortality statistics. They have
| in fact studied how often people are dying from a 24 hour
| exposure to bad air. Statistically, a few people are
| actually dying from one "bad day" exposure. It's not many
| people, but it's still a measurable number greater than
| zero, and they are demonstrating the number is greater
| than if they didn't have the one bad day of smoke. Yes,
| for a single event it affects the most prone population.
| What we are talking about is risk factors. Most people
| will not die from one day of smoke, but that doesn't mean
| no one will.
|
| I could see this topic being irritating to hear about if
| you don't believe in science and don't trust the WHO, and
| we certainly have a political climate with people
| intentionally trying to reduce public trust in science
| and organizations like the WHO. But it's worth keeping an
| open mind and studying a little bit about what they're
| actually saying, what they're not saying, and how they
| arrived at their conclusions.
| nemo44x wrote:
| > They have in fact studied how often people are dying
| from a 24 hour exposure to bad air. Statistically, a few
| people are actually dying from one "bad day" exposure.
|
| Yeah it wasn't the million other things they did in the
| last 80 years of their lives. Perfectly healthy people
| keeling over because of a bad air quality day lol. Please
| take a moment to use a small bit of logic here. This is a
| make believe idea like people who died in car accidents
| but had Covid were victims of Covid. This is aggregate
| nonsense and to suggest a single, mild event (hundreds of
| miles from danger) was the bullet to the head is so far
| fetched as to be hilarious to me.
|
| I'm not a science renter but as a person highly educated
| in that field I can spit bullshit quickly. I know what
| the report is saying because stats and math are fun to
| tell a story. But just because you're using the tools of
| science doesn't mean you're doing meaningful science.
|
| Your report is a political statement to justify
| power/action when it isn't warranted. Much like people
| used to reference the word of god as authorities truth.
|
| Maybe all the alarmists and doom sayers caused unhealthy
| rubes undue stress that that's what did it. They never
| even breathed a breath.
|
| Your science is laughable at best in the context of this
| weeks event.
| bbarnett wrote:
| _Not to mention that one in ten New Yorkers has asthma,_
|
| One in 10 people do NOT have asthma.
| chimeracoder wrote:
| > One in 10 people do NOT have asthma.
|
| You are incorrect. Current prevalence state-wide is 8%[0]
| and lifetime prevalence is 14%, indicating that many
| people are expected to develop asthma but have not yet
| been diagnosed.
|
| Incidence is more concentrated in the city due to a
| strong causative relationship between asthma and certain
| measurable factors: poverty, childhood exposure to
| vehicular-generated air pollution, and the tendency to
| have highways located near poorer neighborhoods.
|
| If you look at a map of asthma incidence in the city by
| neighborhood, this heterogeneous distribution is even
| clearer.
|
| [0] https://www.cdc.gov/asthma/stateprofiles/asthma_in_ny
| s.pdf
| quesera wrote:
| > _Current prevalence state-wide is 8%[0] and lifetime
| prevalence is 14%, indicating that many people are
| expected to develop asthma but have not yet been
| diagnosed_
|
| Perhaps a bathtub curve? Many people have childhood
| asthma which resolves in adolescence. So they'd count for
| lifetime but not current.
| bbarnett wrote:
| Well, all I can say, is these numbers seem crazy to me.
| It appears that the condition is all a mishmash of "lungs
| in bad state", predicated by anything from "that dude was
| breathing deadly toxic air", to "always like this".
|
| I think there should be more nuance here, but concede you
| are correct as the subject is discussed.
| [deleted]
| chimeracoder wrote:
| > My heart goes out to new yorkers. This cannot be healthy. If
| there are long-standing health repercussions I doubt there will
| be any recourse they can take.
|
| It's not good, but it's far from the worst around. The peak AQI
| here in NYC was about 350, which is actually much lower than
| the average AQI in Delhi between November and January, for
| example. (Air pollution is highly seasonal).
|
| Effects of air pollution are cumulative, so the people who
| really suffer the most from it are the ones who experience this
| regularly, as opposed to historical anomalies like this.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| It's actually back in the healthy range as of this morning! I
| could immediately tell the difference when I woke up before
| sunrise, I went for a long walk outside and it felt great.
| bee_rider wrote:
| It mostly seems to have moved down to Pennsylvania at this
| point.
|
| Smoke happens, it is bad, but I'm sure everybody in the country
| gets it a couple times in their life (unless you live on
| Martha's Vineyard or something).
| isleyaardvark wrote:
| It's not great, but for comparison many cities in Asia have a
| much worse AQI much more often.
| hgsgm wrote:
| That's not the equality I wanted.
| elif wrote:
| Over a decade ago my wife was thru hiking and got caught in the
| smoke of a California wildfire. The ash scratched her corneas
| and her vision is still impacted to this day.
|
| It's definitely not something to take lightly, even if you wear
| a mask.
| jgalt212 wrote:
| Or you can live in the Colorado with fresh air, but way more UV
| exposure. There are always trade-offs.
| zucked wrote:
| We've (Coloradoans)been dealing with wildfire smoke pretty
| much forever. On average our air quality is quite good, but
| fires in _any_ of the PNW /SW states regularly impact our air
| quality during the spring, summer, and fall. We held the
| dubious title of worst air quality in the world for at least
| a day earlier this spring.
|
| It's been a little comical having this NYC air quality
| situation keep finding it's way into my news sources -- it's
| been a part of my life as long as I've been alive. I check
| the FireNow site as much as I check the weather during the
| warm month.
| googlryas wrote:
| On the Front Range, where most people live in Colorado
| (~Denver + north and south 60 miles), the air quality can
| actually get pretty bad due to inversion, and this has been
| noted since pre-statehood. We also are lucky enough to get a
| lot of wild fire smoke from California, Canada, the PNW, as
| well as our own home sourced wildfires. Maybe 2 years ago it
| felt like the whole summer was smoky, and we had stretches
| where the AQI was 500+ here in Boulder.
|
| https://denvergazette.com/outtherecolorado/news/the-brown-
| cl...
| alex_duf wrote:
| Such a simple idea, yet so well executed.
| [deleted]
| blululu wrote:
| I stiched the last two days of this into a quick Timelapse - very
| cool to watch. https://youtu.be/KTv6tqyr8YU
| paweladamczuk wrote:
| I wonder how the camera was calibrated in terms of white balance
| (if at all).
|
| I have this idea to implement in my house: a sensor that would
| measure temperature of the light outside and set the lights
| inside to the same temperature. Getting this measurement right
| seems to be non-trivial. Though maybe it wouldn't have to be
| exact in terms of physical units, a pair of sensors calibrated
| together (one for outside, one for inside) might achieve the
| desired result too.
| hunter2_ wrote:
| I think it must have a fixed white balance, or the average hue
| captured would hardly change over time at all.
|
| Adjusting the inside lights until the inside sensor is
| satisfied, rather than based on specifying in absolute units,
| would also have the benefit of taking into account any
| influence on indoor overall color contributed by your walls,
| window coverings, and anything else. Might need to average
| multiple sensors for best results, unless a single sensor does
| that through a wide angle diffuser.
|
| This is a bit like how automatic audio equalizers (I think
| Sonos offers this, for example) don't work just by ensuring
| that the speaker delivers the desired frequency response curve
| (or lack thereof), but by actually using a measurement mic,
| since your experience will be influenced by the combination of
| speaker+room. The difference is that you only need to have the
| mic around when making changes to the room/furniture (which is
| rare) whereas you'd be making changes to the indoor light bulbs
| continuously (based on outdoor light), so you need your indoor
| sensor running continuously.
| djkoolaide wrote:
| Could be mistaken but I think my Mac already does this -- it
| has "true tone" and when I open the lid, my main external
| monitor changes color temperature.
|
| I wonder if there's a way to scrape that data and then send it
| to Home Assistant for light control.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| If only color calibration were that easy.
|
| People should really get comfortable with the idea that color
| is relative, so choose whatever looks nice to you and stick
| with it. True Tone certainly isn't scientific.
|
| In this scenario, all that matters is that the instrument
| doesn't try to change its white balance. You can actually
| calculate the spectral energy of the sky based on these color
| changes alone, and it doesn't matter if you start at a white
| balance of fluorescent or incandescent.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| Your idea is pretty straightforward. Set up a camera outside,
| point it at the sky, capture a screenshot, average the color,
| set smart lights to that color.
|
| Presto, yellow sky makes yellow light.
|
| You'll quickly grow tired of how it looks. And not because it
| isn't calibrated correctly.
| jrockway wrote:
| What the high end variable-temperature lighting systems seem
| to do is just use your clock and latitude to simulate what
| color temperature the sky would be at a given time of day,
| and set the lights to that.
|
| I've never seen it in action, I only have boring old single-
| color lights. I am not really annoyed by 2700K lamps during
| the day, and mixing daylight and 2700K doesn't really look as
| awful as you'd think during zoom calls.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| The main point is that those high end systems won't look
| any better to you just because they calculate out a color
| curve based on your lat,long. It'd look just as good if you
| point a camera at the sky. Your high end systems also won't
| capture changes in weather, so that's less cool. But then
| you'd get bored of it looking rainy whenever it rains.
| yonatan8070 wrote:
| Has the developer of this posted any blog or documentation of how
| it works? What hardware/software is used for it?
| 83 wrote:
| The first two night photos have logos for EarthCam, Live, and
| some location data. Seems they found a way to remove those in
| later images.
| william- wrote:
| It appears that the camera provider was switched around 1 day
| ago [0].
|
| [0] https://twitter.com/mikebodge/status/1666541169273372672
| gnarbarian wrote:
| probably a webcam
| zuppy wrote:
| i presume you're on mobile and it's not visible there. on
| desktop you can hover any section and you will see the
| picture that is used as the source.
| hgsgm wrote:
| Tap on mobile
| jonas-w wrote:
| On mobile (i use firefox an android) you can tap on the
| sections
| imadj wrote:
| The author is a designer who do many creative coding projects,
| he mentioned in an interview[1] back in 2011 that:
|
| > I wrote this program that hooks up to a webcam. It takes a
| photo out the window every five minutes, and it will upload
| that to a server. The server then reads the sky portion of the
| photo, and it goes pixel by pixel. What it does is it takes all
| those values, the RGB values, and it averages them. So what you
| are seeing is not the dominant color in the sky it's actually
| just the average color.
|
| Mike Bodge's personal website:https://bod.ge/
|
| Recent tweet by author:
| https://twitter.com/mikebodge/status/1666507978663690240
|
| Here's also a submission from a decade ago (2011):
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2685621
|
| Shameless plug: Assisted by my HNRelevant browser extension
|
| [1] https://www.villagevoice.com/2011/06/23/mike-bodge-nskyc-
| cre...
| tantalor wrote:
| Average _how?_ In RBG? HSL? LAB?
|
| Average raw RGB gives you bad results.
| imadj wrote:
| Well, I'm afraid I can't help you with that
|
| If you're enthusiastic about the project, maybe consider
| DMing the author on Twitter to discuss it with him
| iso1631 wrote:
| Nice, however "a day ago" isn't particularly helpful. For this
| local EDT time would be fine, but I'd like to know it it's 8am or
| 11am
| cypherpunks01 wrote:
| #50a7f1 from this morning is an incredibly beautiful blue
|
| https://storage.googleapis.com/nskyc-3727d.appspot.com/nyc/1...
|
| Makes me miss NYC.
| CWCorrea wrote:
| With some kind of API to retrieve the colors the site would be
| really useful.
| [deleted]
| radres wrote:
| So simple yet beautiful!
| Am4TIfIsER0ppos wrote:
| #000 I didn't think it'd be that dark even at local midnight
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| It's going to depend on the camera and processing, since the
| dynamic range of human vision extends _well_ beyond the RGB
| color range.
| orangepurple wrote:
| I agree and if you want to refer to a color in an absolutely
| correct, objective, device-independent manner you need to
| define it in terms of L*a*b*
|
| The CIELAB coordinate space represents the entire gamut of
| human photopic (daylight) vision and far exceeds the gamut
| for sRGB or CMYK.
|
| You might initially think that the three axes of what is
| "RGB" defines a perfect color cube which accurately describes
| all perceptible colors but this is not true. The typical RGB
| we encounter when encoded with an sRGB gamut (almost always
| on smartphones, TVs, and PCs as of 2023) forms a bizzare
| polyhedron in the objective L*a*b* color space instead of
| filling the whole thing with itself because it is just a
| small subset of what we can actually see: https://en.wikipedi
| a.org/wiki/File:SRGB_gamut_within_CIELAB_...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIELAB_color_space
| googlryas wrote:
| 1WTC and all the other buildings are pretty bright at night. I
| assume if they were physically masked out, the camera would
| have better chance to pick up some light reflected off the
| atmosphere
| notRobot wrote:
| Scroll down to the end of the page to 2 days ago! It's insane!
| js2 wrote:
| Manhattan 2 days ago vs _Night of the Comet_ :
|
| https://imgur.com/a/MYpreX5
|
| EarthCam view:
|
| https://www.earthcam.com/usa/newyork/worldtradecenter/?cam=s...
|
| No idea if this link remains permanent:
|
| https://static.earthcam.com//hof/newyork/skyline/16862004424...
| rcthompson wrote:
| The vague timestamps like "an hour ago" are an odd choice, since
| they're very non-unique.
| ReptileMan wrote:
| Is the urban legend that it started out of controlled burn at
| WTREX conference true? Couldn't verify, but there are also no
| outlets debunking it.
| WorkerBee28474 wrote:
| Yes, but that was in Alberta. The smoke in New York is coming
| from fires in Ontario and Quebec, which were probably started
| by lightning strikes.
| DANmode wrote:
| Hot take: Canadians may need to learn controlled burns.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| That fire did happen, but was extinguished about a month ago:
| https://www.albertaprimetimes.com/beyond-local/banffs-out-of...
|
| The 'urban legend' remains because it is constantly mentioned
| on right-wing 'news' sites as proof that DEI programs are
| dangerous to society.
| sokoloff wrote:
| I read that article. What is the _possible_ connection to DEI
| programs?
| rootusrootus wrote:
| It was a prescribed fire event called WTREX, which stands
| for Women-in-Fire [0] Prescribed Fire Training Exchange.
| Right wing sites haven't been shy about their viewpoint
| [1].
|
| [0] https://womeninfire.org/
|
| [1] https://freebeacon.com/politics/burning-down-barriers/
| falloutx wrote:
| Such a great little website. you can see it was more orange than
| Hackernews header just 2 days back.
| DirectorKrennic wrote:
| What concentration of fine particulates would be necessary to
| produce a sky the exact color of HN's header?
| kesava wrote:
| what a funny/scary thought :)
| [deleted]
| antonvs wrote:
| YC116 aims to find out. Now hiring. Our mission: Making the
| world a better place by making the sky HN orange.
| SahAssar wrote:
| With occasional low hanging black clouds for when famous
| people die.
| code_runner wrote:
| Do I have to relocate to nightvale in order to get a job?
| altairprime wrote:
| The Tubbs fire did a fine job of this, but it's always dimmer
| than the luminosity of HN orange on a typical screen, so it
| depends on how you define "color".
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| Not being exact, but at least 150+ AQI seems to generate a
| significant impact on sunlight coming through creating that
| "smoky"/"faded" look. I can't comment on how to get the
| orange exactly as I think it also requires specific
| particulate matter to get that.
| Tade0 wrote:
| Not particulate matter, but photochemical smog, so nitrogen
| and sulfur oxides, volatile organic compounds and of course
| ozone.
|
| Add sodium lamps for lighting and you get a rich, orange
| hue.
| schappim wrote:
| Things start to get interesting if you zoom out:
|
| https://files.littlebird.com.au/Shared-Image-2023-06-10-08-5...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-09 23:00 UTC)