Black and white film retains the developed silver particles, whereas color processing discards the silver entirely and leaves clouds of dye behind to form the image. The silver has higher acutance, of course.
As I have already written in another comment, only if we would see changes in the orbits of the known bodies, then that would be evidence for a currently existing outer planet.
The parent article contains several sentences like "The six most distant known objects in the solar system with orbits exclusively beyond Neptune (magenta) all mysteriously line up in a single direction."
All those sentences do not support the existence of an outer planet now, they only demonstrate that at some moment in the past there was a big body in that direction.
The papers that I have linked report the results for the simulation of the close passage of a star in the past, which match pretty well what we see now in the outer Solar System.
Such close encounters between stars are known to happen from time to time, because superposed on the general rotation around the galaxy center all stars have random own motions, so the distances between them are changing all the time and even collisions are possible.
We detect planets elsewhere by either them passing in front of the star or star wobbling IIRC. How come we can't detect this hypothetical big outer body by Sun wobbling a bit? We are pretty close to see minute changes. If its there it must have some effect, no?
My understanding is that radial velocity detection only works when you’re watching the entire system from afar. Since Earth is part of the solar system, we’re inside the moving frame. We can’t measure the Sun’s wobble relative to the solar system barycentre without comparing it to some external fixed reference.
2 big reasons, first is that wobbles which we normally observe require that the star move enough to be detected on a shorter time scale. IE: if the orbit takes 100 years and we look twice in 5 years, the planet will have only moved 5% of an orbit and the wobble will be near 0. Second is the less mass and further the planet is away, the less noticeable the wobble. Something at 500 au is going to produce no measurable wobble in our lifetime.
There are other ways besides seeing changes in orbits to confirm the existence of a body. Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn are easily seen with the eye, for instance.
Planet 9 might be confirmed with infrared surveys as a post from last week discussed or some other method.
You are right, I was only replying to the parent article, where the incorrect argument was stated, that the orbits pointing to an external attractor mean that it exists now in that direction.
There may be one or more big planets at great distances from the Sun, but not for the reason stated in the parent article, which is better explained by an ancient star flyby.
Did you actually look at the details? It's literally in rule #1:
> 1 . Any observations you add must be the first photograph(s) of that species anywhere. If an observation is the first one for that species to be uploaded to iNat, but other photos of that species from an earlier point in time already exist anywhere elsewhere online/in print, then that observation should not be added to the project. This is the biggest source of observations that I have to remove from the project. So your observation must be both the first photograph of that species on iNat and also the first anywhere.
I just realized on re-reading your comment that you are actually agreeing with my main point (but it's too late to edit my other comment), you're just saying that I wasn't confident enough in stating it.
I was just trying to be polite with the "as far as I can tell", really. Of course I did look at the details, otherwise I wouldn't know them.
Your comment implies that there is an existing piece of music, which can subsitute the generated music. While subsitutability varies from person to person, your original statement implies for me that each generated music has an accompanying original music that you can listen to instead (of which it was "stolen" from), since it is similar enough. I think we both know that that is not the case.
I know that you likely intended to imply that you can subsitute the aformentioned AI music with an existing piece of music of the same genre, but that is not a view shared by all. Sometimes the generated music scratches such a specific and personal itch, that it cannot be replicated by something in the same genre.
A better counterargument to your original comment would be "It is not an exclusive situation. I can listen to and support both generated music and handcrafted music at the same time. They both contain music tracks that I like."
You don't have to be a big fucking nerd about it, you know what I meant. The generated music wouldn't exist without the foundation of stolen music made by people.
No, I didn't know what you meant. Communication is hard, and there are multiple ways to interpret your statements. It is better to be specific.
To be more specific about the second sentence, if there are any readers in doubt:
> The generated music wouldn't exist without the foundation of stolen music made by people.
The word "stolen" is a value judgement that is not shared by all. It is a word meant to invoke an emotional response in the reader. For example, Stallman has argued that the data could not have been stolen, or else it would not be there anymore. So, removing this word gives you:
> The generated music wouldn't exist without the foundation of existing music made by people.
Which is a true fact that has never been in debate.
However, this is not relevant to the main point that not all generated music has a suitable handcrafted substitute, and that there is no actual need to choose exclusively to listen to generated or human crafted music. Furthermore, the conversation has turned uncivil (the first sentence). Therefore, goodbye.
> It has learned to predict the next word very well and the prediction probability distribution was later tweaked with human feedback and automated test feedback.
It didn't predict anything here, it just ripped off a reddit comment.
