and so you know i’m not crazy, here’s the text from the research paper: “Over approximately 1.5h he imaged the galaxy with a clear filter while a supernova was being born, using 20-s exposures to avoid saturation caused by the bright city sky.”

So he used a language construct that is never literally true, (even local events get perceived after they happen!) in the way that the construct is usually construed, (that he saw the earliest possible light from said event.) and you want to nitpick?

omg!!!!!!! (edit: you are correct, of course, but this syntax is typical of astronomy articles since for all we know, we are the only ones who can perceive the experience of something “beginning”)

If he was using FIREfox, he probably would have came out of this a little warmer...

Yeah the 50mm f/1.4 was my go to portrait lens on my crop sensor. When I went full frame I had to get an 85mm f/1.8

Longer lenses with less distortion are more true to what you see in real life, so the saying, “the camera adds 10lbs,” isn’t really accurate.

I feel very, very small right now.

there was a guy here in Nashville that tried to shoot a mortar style firework with the tube on head. It exploded... he died. Fire is fun... to an extent.

I am confused by this:

Part of me wants to print this, but the other part knows that I will only fire it once or twice and then it’ll end up gathering dust.

Well, we do know that he didn’t have a dick, at least.

Paul Feig’s Ghostbusters is a film for anyone who ever watched the first Ghostbusters and thought, “I wish they got to use their guns more.”

What are the odds we find out this person had died wandering too close to an unsafe area to also catch Pokemon?

Great salsa dancer, though.

It’s cringe worthy.

This is unbelievably ridiculous and stupid.. I don’t know if this guy is a real camera operator but he’s not getting hired now.

Same here. I’m never going to watch that.

er, you know you can just use PrintSreen on your keyboard to do it, then paste that into paint or whatever, right?