It's true, too. Lunar albedo is 12%.

https://www.ign.com/articles/2015/08/05/nasa-releases-a-gif-...

... matter of fact it's all dark.

(The moon has an albedo of 12%)

Take a look at https://issinfo.net/artemis.html

Your illustration is about right, but the angle they're catching now is even a bit further than you've shown.

Sunlight is yellowish in atmosphere since some blue's been scattered by the atmosphere[1], but it's white in space.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering

I don't think that's right. Sunlight is white in the atmosphere too. Scattering causes the sun, not the light, to look yellow, and so sunlight is thought of as yellow.

Scattering doesn’t really make the sun to appear yellow except when it’s low, behind a lot of air. When it’s above 30° or so it just looks blinding, neutral white (or non-blinding neutral white if there’s suitable cloud cover or other filter in front of it). Even though a lot of the blues are scattered around, the sun still looks just white when it’s high in the sky.

But when the sun does look yellow, its light is yellow too, that’s the definition of "looks yellow". And the golden hour paints everything in very iconic yellow-orange hues. The light as integrated over the whole sky is still white (modulo whatever’s scattered back into space), but the light that comes from the direction of the sun is clearly tinted yellow and the light from the rest of the sky is clearly tinted blue.

> But when the sun does look yellow, its light is yellow too, that’s the definition of "looks yellow".

Not quite; the sun is far away and is restricted to a tiny portion of the sky, but its light covers half the earth at a time. It is simultaneously true that the sun looks yellow and that the light we receive from it is white. It isn't the case that objects in direct sunlight are yellowed by that light; the yellow appearance when you look at the sun is something of an illusion.

> Even though a lot of the blues are scattered around, the sun still looks just white when it’s high in the sky.

This isn't true.

This is not universally applicable, especially if an algo isn't deterministic. For example if you were to time "bogosort of 100 items" you'd see increasingly better times the more runs you performed.

Or the now-ubiquitous footer:

"Store cookie? [Yes] [Ask me again]"

How would it know not to ask again if it can't store a cookie?

At least if this "Store cookies?" question is implicitly referencing EU regulations, those regulations don't require consent for cookies which are considered essential, including a cookie to store the response to the consent question (but certainly not advertising tracking cookies). So the respectful replacement for "Ask me again" is "Essential cookies only" (or some equivalent wording to "Essential" like "Required" or "Strictly necessary"). And yes, some sites do get this right.

I’ve not seen a site that remembers your selection of “reject all”/“essential only”. It would actually be hard to argue that it would count as an essential cookie, nothing about the site depends on remembering your rejection. I guess that makes “maybe later” more reasonable since it’s going to ask you every time until you relent.

"Reject all" doesn't have to be cookie, the answer could go to the browser storage.

Basically it just exists in your browser, telling it "the user didn't agree to cookies, so don't send this data and don't render those blocks". The only thing that web server knows is that requests come from someone who didn't send any cookies.

I believe it's a very common implementation.

Huh? Of course those get remembered, and of course it's allowed by GDPR. If the websites you visit don't remember "reject all", they're doing it maliciously (or out of incompetence, I guess).

It could know by respecting the DNT flag and don't even ask in the first place.

Pretty standard option for any home with a teenager, to be honest. Long enough to drag the handset into the nearest coat closet when needed.

Mom’s listening along on the other phone with her hand covering the receiver.

And of course, you can use the ~v / ~V commands (as listed in the ~? menu) to increase/decrease verbosity after the connection is established.

That lets you `ssh -vvvv` to a host then once you've figured out the issue use ~V to decrease verbosity so that debug messages don't clutter your shell.

I see this take a lot but I'd argue what Docker did was to entice everyone to capture their build into a repeatable process (via a Dockerfile).

"Ship your machine to production" isn't so bad when you have a ten-line script to recreate the machine at the push of a button.

Exactly my feeling. Docker is "works on this machine" with an executable recipe to build the machine and the application. Newer better solutions like OCI-compliant tools will gradually replace Docker, but the paradigm shift has provided a lot of lasting value.

Yeah docker codifies what the process to convert a base linux distro in to a working platform for the app actually is. Every company I've worked at that didn't use docker just has this tribal knowledge or an outdated wiki page on the steps you need to take to get something to work. Vs a dockerfile that exactly documents the process.

There's usually an easy-ish way to override malloc/calloc/realloc/free on Unix, as it's very useful to do when debugging issues or just to collect allocation metrics.

In ELF objects (i.e. on Linux) this is usually done with the "Weak" symbol binding. This is an optional flag for symbols in ELF format that let you override a symbol by providing a competing non-weak symbol, which the linker will prefer when there is a conflict. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_symbol

You can see the list of Weak symbols by looking for a 'W' in the output of `nm` on linux hosts.