this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2025
597 points (98.1% liked)
Technology
73534 readers
2647 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
aha.
Anyway, nice to see the famous Substack network effects in full swing.
Because if there's one thing you can hide, it's dimming the one thing that brings heat and light to the planet.
Ignoring conspiracy theory stuff, people aren't very good at perceiving changes in light levels if they happen gradually. During any solar eclipse there are wide bands where only a partial eclipse is observed. It's pretty common for people in those bands to not notice that something has changed even with 50% occlusion.
You're right when talking about the average person with nothing but their eyes. But there are tons of companies and members of the public that have bits of tech that would call that out easily. Solar panels, environmental logging equipment, etc, would notice the drop in light levels fairly easily, and would be apparent when reviewing historical vs current levels, and the power grids would definitely notice the sun dimming dropping their power outputs.
Without going into conspiracy theory territory, there's no realistic way to hide that from the public.
Definitely, any changes natural or anthropogenic would be measured and to great accuracy. I just wanted to point out that the notion of the general public, especially if conditioned to distrust scientists and authorities, not noticing changes isn't the outlandish part. See global warming denial despite years of record setting temperatures.
I figured, which is why I framed my comment the way I did. You may be able to discount the scientists, but can you discount them, plus citizens complaining about their solar output, power plants having to raise rates due to falling solar generation, crop impacts, and even just other citizens posting raw data all coming out with similar data over time saying it's a problem?
Having said that and looking at the state of climate change, I have a hard time not seeing the parallels against my argument. But falling solar output would have a much more immediate effect on us than climate change (and would likely reverse it to some extent).
I'd chalk that up to the assumption that a cloud has partially or fully obscured the sun. If clouds weren't a thing, we'd be much more sensitive to light changes as they wouldn't be a part of our outdoor experience.
I'm not checking to see if the sun is still there every time the ambient light outside dims, y'know what I mean?
Photography hobbyist here: our eyes adapt to light more than we realize. What to us is a slight change in brightness is a dramatic difference to a photo camera.
You'd think that of all people, white supremacists would applaud anything that prevents their skin from getting darker.
Beware of increasingly white supremacists.
You'd think that, but I've had the command "get a tan for God's sake you're transparent" used as an insult against me. You can be too white for white supremacists.
Its probably talking about the UK stratospheric aerosol injection research. Like all conspiracy theories, just enough of a grain of truth.