Drowning in Light (2014) | Hacker News Reader

Drowning in Light (2014)

nautil.us

37 pointsdnetesn18 comments

The article talks about technological solutions (e.g. smart grids that determine where light is actually needed) as well as legislation. I have to say that I'm not confident that the lighting industry will self-police, except in the sense of offering improved energy efficiencies (I think there are analogies with internet-of-things and security here).

> If nothing else, communities may take the matter into their own hands

A good UK example of community-driven efforts is the Campaign for Dark Skies [1]. This is a force multiplier for individual community efforts, offering resources and support for local initiatives. As a sometimes amateur star-gazer, I support their efforts whenever I can. Because it is something special to see the non-augmented Milky Way, even if it is less colourful and detailed than the long-exposure shots that crop up everywhere

[1] http://www.cpre.org.uk/what-we-do/countryside/dark-skies

There is nothing better than being at a place with low light pollution and seeing something like this: http://theartofnight.com/

If you're interested in finding places with low light pollution, check here: https://www.lightpollutionmap.info

> There is nothing better than being at a place with low light pollution and seeing something like this.

As far I understand, you can never see with the naked eyes something similar to a long exposure photo. Sure you can get a better outline of the Milky way but you'll never see something that is the result of collecting photons during minutes or hours.

Yes, absolutely, but just reducing the amount of light pollution around you and looking up in the sky is a wildly different experience than, say, looking up somewhere close to a city.

And I would posit that laying on your back with open attention to the night sky in a place free from light pollution is orders of magnitude more moving than any long-exposure photograph. It’s not just the visuals, but the grander sense of being witness to the majesty of where we actually are on this planet.

No, nothing like those long-exposure photos, but the human eye is far more sensitive than any camera, as proven by the fact that we can see the Milky Way at all with sub-second exposures. The number of stars in the sky under clear rural conditions is stunning.

Speaking from memory about experiences is not very precise, but I was shocked when I've seen nightsky on a particulary dark (no moon) night with almost no clouds in a very unpopulated area of Poland.

Usually in the city I can only see like 10 starts, and in a countryside near that city maybe 100, but they are very tiny and sky is black.

In that forest I've seen sky that was mostly stars, some had colors, Milky Way was dim but solid white belt with many stars in it. It was much closer to these long-exposure photos than to a regular night sky with light pollution.

Echoing what others have said in their replies, it is remarkable, the difference when you get somewhere that really has substantially less light pollution. Not just 10 or 20 miles away -- hundreds.

Also, there is nothing between you and it. This is something a picture doesn't fully convey: You are a part of it, in the midst of it, right now -- and every moment of your life, if you could only see it.

It seems trite to say it, these days, but there is a very fundamental component of perspective.

Another source for checking light pollution: http://darksitefinder.com/

What you also need for awesome night-skys is low air-humidity.

So high mountains in a desert are quite good ... I am a bit spoiled by that ..

Some of you may be in a position to come compare and contrast

http://oregonstarparty.org/

When did inset quotes of the article itself begin to be placed after the text quoted? I feel like this is a change from what I expect: that inset quotes are optional, interesting asides that add value to the article. Not word-for-word copy-pastes of what I just read.

Has this changed? I feel like the approach taken in this article is becoming more common and I kind of hate it. But I also wonder if it's just my mind playing tricks on me. If it is a change, is it due to digital publishing constraints or does it serve some purpose or audience that I can't envision?

When? Well for one, I remember seeing this in desktop publishing projects in the 1990s :-)

Ok, then it's purely my aging brain playing tricks on me.

I've been thinking about light a lot lately. I've been working on a photonic computer, however I've been realizing the importance of light for our existence. Your perception is largely light based and strangely enough all religions draw a parallel between light and their respective God/s.

I'm a religious person but I found this Bible quote to be a good summary of the book in John 5

"This is the message we heard from Jesus and now declare to you: God is light, and there is no darkness in him at all."

TL;DR "We spoke to Jesus and he said the same thing: God is light".

This makes sense considering how light or heat was the thing that turned inorganic chemistry into organic chemistry.

I know what you meant, but organic chemistry is distinguished by a carbon nucleus. The chemistry of life is called biochemistry.

>the average citizen of Babylon would have had to work a total of 41 hours to buy enough lamp oil to equal a 75-watt light bulb burning for one hour. At the time of the American Revolution, a colonial would have been able to purchase the same amount of light, in the form of candles, for about five hour’s worth of work

Or either of them could have found a tree, broken off some wood, and set it on fire?

That works the first time. Then the tree is gone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com