Mikhail Kats
@mickeykats.bsky.social
Optics/photonics researcher, applied physicist, and faculty at the University of Wisconsin - Madison. Personal account + opinions
Was @mickeykats on Twitter
Was @mickeykats on Twitter
Fixed it up a bit, including scaling the brightness. Calling it a night
November 28, 2025 at 8:45 AM
Fixed it up a bit, including scaling the brightness. Calling it a night
I guess the human eye can see anything if you try hard enough =P
Actually I'd be pretty scared if I saw 792 nm. The eye sensitivity is very low there, so if you see it, that's a lot of power hitting your retina..
Actually I'd be pretty scared if I saw 792 nm. The eye sensitivity is very low there, so if you see it, that's a lot of power hitting your retina..
November 28, 2025 at 7:38 AM
I guess the human eye can see anything if you try hard enough =P
Actually I'd be pretty scared if I saw 792 nm. The eye sensitivity is very low there, so if you see it, that's a lot of power hitting your retina..
Actually I'd be pretty scared if I saw 792 nm. The eye sensitivity is very low there, so if you see it, that's a lot of power hitting your retina..
It's just javascript & html, aided by claude
November 28, 2025 at 7:27 AM
It's just javascript & html, aided by claude
Should I try to normalize the brightness of the color by the photopic response of the human eye? What should I call 710 nm, visible or near IR?
Lots of interesting little design choices
Lots of interesting little design choices
November 28, 2025 at 7:13 AM
Should I try to normalize the brightness of the color by the photopic response of the human eye? What should I call 710 nm, visible or near IR?
Lots of interesting little design choices
Lots of interesting little design choices
The color feature seems broken on mobile; I will fix tomorrow
November 28, 2025 at 6:54 AM
The color feature seems broken on mobile; I will fix tomorrow
I will try it your way! Thanks.
November 28, 2025 at 2:40 AM
I will try it your way! Thanks.
This was my answer too, though I'd use a period =)
November 28, 2025 at 2:36 AM
This was my answer too, though I'd use a period =)
Does no react reduce functionality significantly, in your experience?
November 28, 2025 at 2:35 AM
Does no react reduce functionality significantly, in your experience?
Weirdly there seems to be no option to share claude artifacts privately unless you have an institutional claude account
It's a shame because building internal tools is a strong use case
It's a shame because building internal tools is a strong use case
November 28, 2025 at 1:46 AM
Weirdly there seems to be no option to share claude artifacts privately unless you have an institutional claude account
It's a shame because building internal tools is a strong use case
It's a shame because building internal tools is a strong use case
Power conservation in a transformer is tricky until you consider what the load is, what the electrical outlet is doing, and the grid behind the outlet (with plenty of abstraction, of course)
November 27, 2025 at 7:07 PM
Power conservation in a transformer is tricky until you consider what the load is, what the electrical outlet is doing, and the grid behind the outlet (with plenty of abstraction, of course)
E.g., upscale an image of a person based on other photos of the same person
That way small features that are there in reality (say, some skin texture on someone's face) but are not in the original image can be added during the upscaling process
That way small features that are there in reality (say, some skin texture on someone's face) but are not in the original image can be added during the upscaling process
November 26, 2025 at 8:40 PM
E.g., upscale an image of a person based on other photos of the same person
That way small features that are there in reality (say, some skin texture on someone's face) but are not in the original image can be added during the upscaling process
That way small features that are there in reality (say, some skin texture on someone's face) but are not in the original image can be added during the upscaling process
Well that's why you have separate verifiers which presumably have their own credibility
But I agree, need to think about what qualifies as a verifiable characteristic. I was just spitballing
But I agree, need to think about what qualifies as a verifiable characteristic. I was just spitballing
November 26, 2025 at 8:26 PM
Well that's why you have separate verifiers which presumably have their own credibility
But I agree, need to think about what qualifies as a verifiable characteristic. I was just spitballing
But I agree, need to think about what qualifies as a verifiable characteristic. I was just spitballing
I also think it would be cool to verify pseudonymous accounts (maybe with a different badge). Maybe something like: "This person chooses to remain pseudonymous but was verified by XX to be work in a major tech company and is an expert in YY"
November 26, 2025 at 8:22 PM
I also think it would be cool to verify pseudonymous accounts (maybe with a different badge). Maybe something like: "This person chooses to remain pseudonymous but was verified by XX to be work in a major tech company and is an expert in YY"
Just realized that I had the exact same thought earlier bsky.app/profile/mick...
@bsky.app has an opportunity to do verification much better than Twitter ever did (especially with distributed verification by trusted verifiers):
Clicking on the checkmark could show details. Something like "X is verified because they a journalist for Y outlet" or "... expert in Z at W"
Clicking on the checkmark could show details. Something like "X is verified because they a journalist for Y outlet" or "... expert in Z at W"
November 26, 2025 at 8:15 PM
Just realized that I had the exact same thought earlier bsky.app/profile/mick...
I didn't understand this on twitter and I don't understand it here:
The verification checkbox says "this user is verified" but... verified in what?
When clicking on the badge (e.g., attached), it should say "This person was verified by bsky to be a journalist at XX" or something to that effect
The verification checkbox says "this user is verified" but... verified in what?
When clicking on the badge (e.g., attached), it should say "This person was verified by bsky to be a journalist at XX" or something to that effect
November 26, 2025 at 8:13 PM
I didn't understand this on twitter and I don't understand it here:
The verification checkbox says "this user is verified" but... verified in what?
When clicking on the badge (e.g., attached), it should say "This person was verified by bsky to be a journalist at XX" or something to that effect
The verification checkbox says "this user is verified" but... verified in what?
When clicking on the badge (e.g., attached), it should say "This person was verified by bsky to be a journalist at XX" or something to that effect
I really do not enjoy receiving emails or documents in what is clearly ChatGPT voice
November 26, 2025 at 5:51 AM
I really do not enjoy receiving emails or documents in what is clearly ChatGPT voice
Would be nice to see Tim on Bluesky some day..
November 26, 2025 at 5:37 AM
Would be nice to see Tim on Bluesky some day..