So a weird thing about ultraviolet light, like blacklights and UV-C disinfecting light, is that it's invisible. Kinda. And also Kinda.

See there's a distinctive look to blacklights, they look like this.

But it turns out this isn't the ultraviolet that you're seeing.
See, the light produced by the bulb isn't perfectly monochromatic UV. Blacklights are in the UV-A range, which is 315 - 400 nm. The human vision range is 380-nm to 700nm.
There's a little overlap there, between the high UVA and the low end of human vision...
And there's multiple types of ultraviolet lights, but the kinds used in blacklights peak at 370nm or 340nm
so while most of the light coming out of the bulb is in the invisible UV range, some of the light is a bit higher up in the spectrum, which makes it slightly into the visible violet range.
So the light you see from UV lights is either the not-UV light it produces as a side effect, or something else fluorescing.
because that's the whole point of UV lights: they make materials fluoresce, which is when they absorb energy and then re-emit it at a different frequency... which is in the visible range.
FUN FACT ABOUT FLORESCENT TUBES:
So you know how blacklights are usually florescent tubes, rather than LEDs or incandescent bulbs?
this is because florescent tubes (at least the mercury kind) are inherently blacklights. They ALL make UV.
a UV light isn't terrible useful, so the inside of the tube is coated with a phosphor which absorbs the UV and re-emits it at the color intended, usually some temperature of white.
This is why fluorescent lighting can erase EPROMs in computers: They're erased by UVC light, and a very small amount of the UV light produced by fluorescent tubes is the dangerous UVC kind.
so if you have a computer with EPROMs that aren't covered by a sticker, and fluorescent lighting, they'll get erased... in about two years. yeah, there's not much UVC in fluorescent lighting.
(and you can tell that because we're not all dying of skin cancer while crying from the sunburns on our eyes)
so in a way it's easier to make a blacklight than a regular white fluorescent tube.

It's not exactly that simple, though, there is some coating on the tube to block some of the violet light
since you want your blacklight to have as little visible light as possible, for greater contrast.
but if you had a monochromatic UV light (like, say, a laser), you wouldn't be able to see it. it would be completely invisible!

... kinda.
See the other thing about this is that UV light is easily blocked by glass, or many other transparent surfaces.
This is why you can sit outside for an hour on a sunny day and get a sunburn, but you don't get it from sitting in front of a window /in a car on a sunny day
And you're always seeing through transparent surfaces.
No, not just glasses or contacts, if you wear them.

Your cornea.
The Cornea is the front part of the eye, which is a fixed-focus lens to let you... focus.

(This is confusing to talk about, and gets worse because your eye also has another lens, called the "lens")
But it turns out the reason you can't see UV light is that it gets filtered out in the cornea, not because it doesn't trigger your retina's rods and cones. So it's "visible", except you always have a filter to stop it.
EXCEPT... not always. Some people have aphakia, where you don't have a cornea.
This can happen because of injury, cataract surgery, or rarely because of birth defects.
naturally this really messes up your vision, making you very far-sighted with no ability to focus, but it also often means that your vision now extends into the ultraviolet.

You can see a whitish-blue/whitish-violet color you couldn't see before.
So yeah, to sum up: UV light is invisible, but we often "see" it because we see the nearby visible violet light emitted by imperfect UV lights.
And the truly invisible UV light isn't really invisible, just filtered out by a filter we (almost) all have.
anyway the subject that originally made me jump into this, and a handy helpful tip:
Because we can't see UV light, we can't see which type of UV light it is, and that's important.
UV A is almost completely harmless blacklights.
UV B can give you a sun tan or sun burn
UV C will sterilize surfaces and give you skin cancer
so if you have some kind of violet-ish fluorescent tube and you aren't sure which type it is, try not to expose your skin (or worse, eyes) to it.
BTW, the fact that we can't see UV has been exploited by scammers in the last year.
UV C is great at sterilizing because it rips apart DNA, meaning you can shine it on surfaces and kill bacteria and viruses.
Now why would anyone want to kill viruses on surfaces in the last year?
So there've been a lot of products coming out which are cheap UV sterilizing lamps.
Some of them are just UV A, meaning they're just blacklights, so they're useless for sterilizing.
but even worse, some of them are not even UV lights at all.

They're just violet LEDs!
it's almost an "emperor's new clothes" sort of product.
"oh yeah, this thing is definitely putting out the sterilizing light, but you can't see it. We promise it is doing it, though."
Big Clive on youtube has been tearing down and testing a lot of these UV lights, and here's the one that turned out to just be purple LEDs:
https://t.co/gQDZTNiOWa
and here's the awesome follow-up video which shows how you can confirm your UVC light is really UVC:
SUNBURN A BANANA
https://t.co/OZXynq1q0v
and here's the thread where I got my own UVC lamp and similarly sunburned a banana:
https://t.co/EKND2xiUAe
a rough & easy guideline if you want to buy one: get one with a fluorescent tube.
UV LEDs do exist but they're relatively expensive, and UV tubes have been around for a while and are comparatively cheap.
so if you're making a fake UVC light you're probably going to make it an LED one because those are cheaper to make.

the UV tubes are more likely to be real because fake tubes wouldn't be much cheaper.
but when in doubt: BANANAS
I'm obsessed with these cargo-cult UVC lights.
they don't replicate the functionality, but they do replicate the look.

More from foone

Everyone likes to forget this episode just because it's terrible, but we were really sleeping on inherent comedy in a unfreezing an investor 300 years in the future and having them discover we've transitioned to a moneyless post-scarcity utopia.


it's like a classic twilight zone episode.

in fact, it IS a twilight zone episode.
The Rip Van Winkle Caper, Season 2, episode 24.
Four criminals steal a million dollars of gold bars, then put themselves in suspended animation for a hundred years to hide from the law.

they wake up, then start killing each other from mistrust, then the last one dies in the desert, as he offers a gold bar to the driver of a passing car, asking for water and a ride into town

the confused driver walks back to his car with the bar, and his wife asks what the gold bar is.
he says something like "It's gold... they used to use this for money, before we figured out a way to manufacture it."
He tosses it away, and drives off.

More from Tech

Recently, the @CNIL issued a decision regarding the GDPR compliance of an unknown French adtech company named "Vectaury". It may seem like small fry, but the decision has potential wide-ranging impacts for Google, the IAB framework, and today's adtech. It's thread time! 👇

It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details):
https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha

I've read it so you needn't!

Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.

The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.

Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.
(1) Some haters of #Cardano are not only bag holders but also imperative developers.

If you are an imperative programmers you know that Plutus is not the most intuitive -> (https://t.co/m3fzq7rJYb)

It is, however, intuitive for people with IT financial background, e.g. banks

(2)

IELE + k framework will be a real game changer because there will be DSLs (Domain Specific Languages) in any programming language supported by K framework. The only issue is that we need to wait for all this

(3) Good news is that the moment we get IELE integrated into Cardano, we get some popular langs. To my knowledge we should get from day one: Solidity and Rust, maybe others as well?

List of langs:
https://t.co/0uj1eBfrYj, some commits from many years ago..

@rv_inc ?

#Cardano

(a) Last but not least, marketing to people with Haskell, functional programming with experience and decision makers in banks is a tricky one, how do you market but not tell them you want to replace them. In the end one strategy is to pitch new markets, e.g. developing world

(b) As banks realize what is happening they maybe more inclined to join - not because they would like to but because they will have to - in such cases some development talent maybe re-routed to Plutus / Cardano / Algorand / Tezos

You May Also Like

🌿𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝒂 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒓 : 𝑫𝒉𝒓𝒖𝒗𝒂 & 𝑽𝒊𝒔𝒉𝒏𝒖

Once upon a time there was a Raja named Uttānapāda born of Svayambhuva Manu,1st man on earth.He had 2 beautiful wives - Suniti & Suruchi & two sons were born of them Dhruva & Uttama respectively.
#talesofkrishna https://t.co/E85MTPkF9W


Now Suniti was the daughter of a tribal chief while Suruchi was the daughter of a rich king. Hence Suruchi was always favored the most by Raja while Suniti was ignored. But while Suniti was gentle & kind hearted by nature Suruchi was venomous inside.
#KrishnaLeela


The story is of a time when ideally the eldest son of the king becomes the heir to the throne. Hence the sinhasan of the Raja belonged to Dhruva.This is why Suruchi who was the 2nd wife nourished poison in her heart for Dhruva as she knew her son will never get the throne.


One day when Dhruva was just 5 years old he went on to sit on his father's lap. Suruchi, the jealous queen, got enraged and shoved him away from Raja as she never wanted Raja to shower Dhruva with his fatherly affection.


Dhruva protested questioning his step mother "why can't i sit on my own father's lap?" A furious Suruchi berated him saying "only God can allow him that privilege. Go ask him"