English Language & Usage: Multi-Layered Discourse Room

12:25 AM

@jlliagre Winter having somehow a "culturally dependent" definition has never been something I've been able to reconcile in my own mind. Whether those who have done so are too dim to worry about mathematics and astronomy or whether they're too bright to do so, I don't know. But upon us programmers does it fall to encode rigorous computer instructions, and these fuzzy social whims are ever and anon a font everlasting of vexing bugs and egregious stupidities that diminish our quality of life.

> In some cultures, the season is regarded as beginning at the solstice and ending on the following equinox[16][17] – in the Northern Hemisphere, depending on the year, this corresponds to the period between 20, 21 or 22 December and 19, 20 or 21 March.[12]

In Scandinavia, winter in one tradition begins on 14 October and ends on the last day of February.

> The sky over the city of Vancouver was the color of a television tuned to a Prince concert. OK, maybe not the whole sky. But enough of it that people noticed. A bunch of streetlights — a few hundred out of thousands — had suddenly changed. What had been moonshine white was now blue, or purple, or even violet.

The older I get, the less I seem to understand simple English.

Mitch

When I'm ruler of the Earth, I will decree that there will be no winter. It may very well get cold and snowy for a good part of the year, but by law we will ignore it by not naming it

tchrist

> While the indigo lights have also spawned theories online ...

Indigo, no less.

The sequencing of color-names in blue, purple, or even violet suggests a perceived progression of which I am unfamiliar.

Also, where do we slip indigo into such lists? Asking for a friend (Roy G. Newton).

@Mitch Are you trying to save all the daylight?

Or all the nightlight?

And are they mood indigo or ne plus violette?

Q: Why do you have ultra violet nightlights?
A: So I don't step on the scorpions.

Barefoot.

tchrist

12:52 AM

mdpi.com/2072-4292/14/19/4976/htm

My hypothesis is that these suddenly "purple" street lights were never actually "blue" leds inside them to begin with. You can make white light using a mathematically infinite number of different combinations of spectral frequencies. But you don't need to use all of them. You just need to pair two that "cancel" each other out.

I bet the laminate that peels away had phosphors that were generating something a bit further up from yellow towards orange so that they could still use the blue–yellow opponency channel to cancel out a "blue" led that was itself further down from blue towards violet.

But it could also be incomplete separation causing a variety of metameric matches, which is why not all "purple" street lights are the same "purple".

But there's no way I believe they had a red laminate.

Because they you'd be relying on the red–green opponency channel instead, and these are all "blue" LEDs not "green" ones.

You could maybe make nice yellow lights that way, though.

One thing I read had them using "blue" leds that generated narrow-band spectra as low as 405 nm for their innards. Come on people, that's not blue. That's violet. Blue is like 470.

But here again I believe we've fallen prey to the "fuzzy social whims" thing.

> While it is technically possible to make a wavelength anywhere between 395 and 530 nm, most large suppliers concentrate on creating blue LEDs (450 to 475 nm) for producing white light with phosphors, and green LEDs in the 520- to 530-nm range for traffic signal green lighting.

And nobody is going to see 475 as anything like purple, let alone violet.

So you aren't going to be seeing something approximating the "black light" glow simply because they've exposed a bare-bulb LED at 470.

It's impossible to get accurate information about this in the popular press, because they don't know what they're talking about and so say silly fuzzy social things.

Given that red + yellow = green while red - yellow = orange, then how in the world can red + blue == red - blue!?

Something is wrong here.

No, red + green = yellow. Gosh.

I still don't believe that adding and subtracting the same pair can ever give the same answer.

In unrelated matters, the US Senate seems to have decided that you don't have to be a same-race couple to legally marry. How progressive is that?

Now at last marathoners can openly marry indy five hundred drivers.

Strike that, only one of them at a time, not all five hundred.

Transcript for

English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…