this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2024
44 points (97.8% liked)

chapotraphouse

13533 readers
953 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

You can't literally see lights from space or whatever. If somewhere had less coverage on google maps you wouldn't think it's uninhabited, but for some reason, people irl seem to be constantly referring to this image as though it's a literal picture. Mostly for 'civilized' reasons, but also light pollution and just other stuff. Maybe this just made the rounds on reddit or something?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Esoteir@hexbear.net 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

okay but i was replying to OP saying you literally can't see them from space and you can?

you could use the same argument about the aurora borealis, just because it's darker in person doesn't mean you can't see it

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I wasn't trying to be rude, sorry if I came off that way.

[–] Esoteir@hexbear.net 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

it's all good, i think i took your reply in the wrong way, so i'm sorry about that. I was replying to OP saying you can't see the lights from space, so I took the correction as an "um, actually you can't, you can only really see them in a camera picture", where after rereading, I think you were more responding to me responding to OP's entire post and saying that it would only look like the same brightness as the composite image with the high shutter speeds getting an exposure probably higher than the human eye could get, which is a fair assumption

that being said i just looked at the first ISS picture I posted again and you can see the metadata, which has it at a shutter speed of one second so shrug-outta-hecks