this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2024
651 points (100.0% liked)

196

16473 readers
2148 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 49 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 127 points 7 months ago (3 children)

I wonder how many stared without protection, and how many were scammed with fake glasses.

[–] [email protected] 65 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm going to lean more towards fake glasses (benefit of the doubt and what not)

Fake products have been really popping off on Amazon for awhile now

[–] [email protected] 37 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Why would you give people the benefit of the doubt? We're stoopid.

Trump staring directly at the eclipse in 2017

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Some are stupid, absolutely

But we can all easily be screwed over by fake products

Shit I got a fake SanDisk SD card a few years ago from Amazon, only found out after the return period because of how long it took to fill. Now I only buy storage from local electronics stores (when I can) and even then I test them.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

It's not all Amazon's fault. Sometimes people buy a thing, then return it "unopened" because reasons, when, what they actually did, was remove the MacBook from the package and replaced it with a brick, then shipped it back to Amazon for a refund. Free MacBook.

Amazon restocks it because it was "unopened" and ships a fucking brick in a MacBook box to someone for thousands of dollars.

But yes, many, many, MANY, expensive products on Amazon are fake. Even not expensive ones too.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

There is a lot of red team country there.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I also noticed after using them with my actual glasses, that it warns not to use them with other optical devices

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I think that’s just because wearing them over regular glasses creates a bigass gap. I tried it for a second this time around before thinking better of it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Well, you could put the glasses over the eclipse thingers.... But that would just focus the light right into the eclipse lenses and probably would make them not work so well. IDK.

I'm just some guy. Not like I work with optics for a living.

My only complaint was that, during totality (I was in the path), we couldn't see anything through the eclipse thingers. That's the part I wanted to see, and.... Nothing. Do I need two sets of these? One for totality, and one for the rest of the damn time?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You take off the glasses during totality. Only during totality is it safe to look.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

I just fact checked this and apparently you're right.

https://news.utexas.edu/2024/04/08/25-questions-and-answers-about-the-great-north-american-eclipse/#:~:text=It's%20perfectly%20safe%20to%20look,bright%20as%20a%20full%20Moon.

And https://science.nasa.gov/eclipses/future-eclipses/eclipse-2024/safety/

"You can view the eclipse directly without proper eye protection only when the Moon completely obscures the Sun’s bright face – during the brief and spectacular period known as totality. (You’ll know it’s safe when you can no longer see any part of the Sun through eclipse glasses or a solar viewer.)"

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Probably not many, the glasses are so cheap to make and so easy to tell if they aren't right.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 7 months ago

Don't underestimate the stupidity of man.

[–] [email protected] 107 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The region map also tells a story

[–] [email protected] 40 points 7 months ago (2 children)

That's roughly where the path of totality went tho

[–] [email protected] 38 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Yes, that's the story it's telling

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

Hey now. Correlation does not indicate causation.

But yes. That's the reason because of course it is.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

When I read OP's comment I thought they were saying that people from that region of the country would be more likely to stare into the sun and then google why their eyes hurt. Maybe that just says something about me and how I feel about them.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 7 months ago (2 children)

People misunderstanding and looking at it in partial maybe?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

It's almost like, you stare at the sun, and it hurts your eyes regardless of whether the moon is in front of it or not.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

OP swing Texans messed up their eyes more.

[–] [email protected] 78 points 7 months ago (3 children)

True story: Today I was on my college campus in California, on the quad, hoping to admire the partial eclipse today. Some enterprising young woman next to me was selling glasses for three bucks. I saw some people buy some and decided what the hell. Unfortunately the only thing she had left was some kind of monocle. I bought it anyway and enjoyed the partial eclipse. After around 10 minutes of looking on and off, I sat down to read the text on the monocle. It said it was exclusively for phone use and under no circumstances was it to be used for viewing with your eye. Saying it could cause serious damage. Thankfully no pain so far, but I hope I didn't do any kind of serious damage. I've had anxiety about it ever since. The seller said to not worry about it and it would be fine. She had no idea either. Lovely!

[–] [email protected] 35 points 7 months ago

sees phone lens cover: "this is an old timey eclipse monocle".. I'm just teasing the idea of an eclipse monocle just made me giggle. I hope you're eyes are ok- it sounds like you're good?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I think it's more the manufacturer knows it can't cover both eyes and so tells you not to use it that way. If your eyes don't hurt, I'm sure the damage was very minimal. But what do I know.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Thanks, makes me feel better.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Well the floaties I bought for the pool had warnings in many languages but only the one in murican got my attention: it's not a toy and it's not a floatation device. What the hell do Americans use it for if the legalese forbids everything?

Same story with people treating kinder eggs like a lethal device.

[–] [email protected] 52 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I broke out my welding lens to look through. Worked very well. I can believe most of texas feeling the hurt since 'we' think we're immune to most health and safety warnings published forthe general public.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Was the shade in your lens at least 12 I hope?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Mine too lol. I know that isn't technically enough, but we aren't talking instantaneous damage like a laser here. You need to be much more careful around stuff like that.

Regular UV radiation is a gradient, like going outside without sunblock. You're gonna burn if you are an idiot about it. Don't stare at the thing for 60 minutes straight. We looked, we saw, and then we stopped looking.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah i just looked at it from about 80% to the diamond ring stage. Not more than 5 minutes

[–] Strykker 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I mean that is the stage most likely to cause damage, since there is a bit less light so your eyes dilate to take in more, but it is still just as intense.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Hasnt changed anything on me yet. I weld often enough to be acclimated i guess

[–] Strykker 2 points 7 months ago

I mean if your fine currently your probably fine,

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yep, same here. The auto darkening set I normally use didn't really work, but I just looked through a piece of spare glass I had lying around for a passive set.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Yeah i think autodarks have a limited range of activation. 93mil is probably a bit out of reach

[–] [email protected] 38 points 7 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

west Virginians be looking at el sun

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

it's because they're closer to the sun on the mountains

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

All Hawaiians using glasses as it should be.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 7 months ago (1 children)

What glasses. Cardboard with slits.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

But that just projects a shadow of what's happening. I needed the full experience. So yes, idk what glasses people were needing, I could see the sun perfectly fine. The spots and eye-pain afterward was just a bonus feature

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Where can you find these graphs?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

It looks like it's Google Trends, if I'm remembering correctly. If you search for that name, the page should come up, but I believe it's at trends.google.com. They're super interesting to look at!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

You're very welcome! :)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

Google trends

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

My eyes hurt trying to zoom in on the pixel.

What is the scale on the x axis?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

The scale is yes.