> Veins close to the surface of the skin appear blue for a variety of reasons. The factors that contribute to this alteration of color perception are related to the light-scattering properties of the skin and the processing of visual input by the visual cortex, rather than the actual colour of the venous blood which is dark red.[6]
I get what you mean, but this is also like saying a butterfly doesn't have color.
The blue in blue eyes (and green) is a structural property, not a pigment property. This is also why eye color changes for these people much more dramatically than people with darker colored eyes (see Hazel eyes).
It's color caused by structure, but that doesn't make it not a color. A lot of things aren't going to "have color" if you use that definition. Including the sky...
Human blood can turn blue when consuming enough (collodial) silver?
Like when rich people consumed food and beverages from pure silver plates (100's of years ago) their blood supposedly turned purple/blueish. Hence the term (at least in Dutch) that "he is of blue blood" = he rich af.
Perhaps, but according to etymonline the term comes from Spain, where certain families described themselves as having "blue blood" to emphasize that they had no Moorish ancestry. The contrast being drawn isn't one between nobles and laborers. It's between indigenous nobles and intrusive nobles.
Funny you're showing up as downvoted, but this is absolutely right. Apple is testing their search abilities with URL autocomplete and it's surprisingly good. It's gotten much better in the last 6 months in particular.
There was recent controversy about Roald Dahl's books getting revised (and he said himself 'change one word [in my books] and deal with my crocodile'), yet he also made revisions in his own lifetime for the same reason (https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplacido/2023/02/21/woke-w...)
So what if it's not new? That doesn't really make it better.
An author rewriting another edition of his own work is not the same as deceptively presenting an unoriginal work as being genuine.
I'm answering the musing from the person I replied to:
> It is hard to me to understand how much this revisionist tendency is just a recent invention and to what extent it has been present throughout the history.
There's a world of difference between an author revising their own work voluntarily, and their work being censored and amended without their consent. Any writer may review their work and find it wanting for any variety of reasons - but it remains the record of their creative vision. The most perfect expression of their ideas and deepest self. Even children's stories. The Forbes article you link to lists a variety of nonsensical changes that seem to have been made 'just because'. As a writer myself, I find the concept of 'sensitivity readers' condescending, troubling and downright dangerous.
To cite the article you've linked
- Author Salman Rushdie wrote, “Roald Dahl was no angel but this is absurd censorship. Puffin Books and the Dahl estate should be ashamed.”
> s a writer myself, I find the concept of 'sensitivity readers' condescending, troubling and downright dangerous.
Also a writer myself, I find 'sensitivity readers' just another tool in the toolbox. I wouldn't find it appropriate to have a generic one, but if I'm, say, depicting an addict I might want to consult someone who either has lived experiences with addiction or someone who is an expert on addicts, so that I'm not unintentionally spreading bullshit tropes. A basic "am I the asshole" sort of check.
What you're describing already existed. It's the role of a researcher or fact checker. A sensitivity reader explicitly serves a different function. Not checking for accuracy but perceived offensiveness. This is an ever expanding rubric and one that (for the 'sensitivity reader' like the bureaucrat), can only fail catastrophically in one direction. The incentive is not to ensure accuracy, it's to avoid controversy.
The phrase 'bullshit tropes', so reminiscent of 'piece of shit people' is telling here.
you can't boot the arm Macs into target disk mode, you can only boot to the recovery os and share the drive - it shows up as a network share iirc. I was super annoyed by this a few weeks ago because you can, for example, use spotlight to search for "target disk mode" and it will show up, and looks like it will take you to the reboot in target disk mode option, but once you're there it's just the standard "choose a boot drive" selector.
I highly recommend following Ken Shirriff on Twitter, some great threads on the work he does to keep machines running at the Computer History Museum. https://twitter.com/kenshirriff
Actually, I find airpods to be very usable as bluetooth earbuds for all kinds of devices, these days I mostly use them behind my desktop PC when playing games and they work just fine.
When I pop them out of the case they automatically connect to my PC just like they would an iPhone or other apple device. They won't automatically switch to the PC like they would for apple devices but they also won't just switch from the PC so I don't mind.
Taking them out doesn't pause media but the play/pause controls do work.
I do think that most people without an iPhone won't buy them so they're essentially still bought as iPhone accessories, but they don't have to be!
I agree about the watch though, that's definitely an iPhone accessory.
