stacking up

I thought yesterday's SeeStar shot of the moon was good.

But my other half also took a SeeStar video of it.  Why would you take a video of a static scene?  To enhance the view.  He spent today fiddling around with AutoStakkert!, software to stack multiple frames to get a better image.  The result is great, much crisper:

Why not just use the SeeStar to integrate over a longer time, like with other images?  Well, it doesn't do that for solar system objects, so we just have to try harder.

He also played around with a solar video taken at the end of May.  Here's a simple image:

2026/05/29, 17:48 BST

And here's the result of processing the video, with much more detail visible on the sunspots:

further and further

 Another day, and the moon and Venus are even further apart.

Venus just visible on the far right. Photo taken with a Pixel 10 camera; 22:14 BST

This time we were ready with the SeeStar telescope, although, of course, it couldn't get both in the same frame!  The moon looks better with the right focus and exposure:

SeeStar S50 photo, 250mm, f/5, 1/100s exposure; 21:50 BST

what a difference a day makes

Yesterday, the moon and Venus were close in the sky.  Today, less so.  It really emphasises how fast the moon moves realtive to the rest of the sky.  Venus moves too, relative to the "fixed" stars, but much more slowly. 

Venus is on the far right, just above the stalks.  Photo taken with a Pixel 10 camera; 22:15 BST

The phone camera makes the sky look a lot pinker than it appeared to the naked eye.

We spent some time observing the moon through binoculars, and the craters stood out well, especially on the terminator.  I must learn how to take phone photos through binoculars...

moon and Venus cosying up

The moon and Venus were close in the sky this evening.  Given the time of year, even though it was past 10pm BST, the sky was still quite bright.

Canon EOS R7 with 400mm lens, f/5.6, 1/60s exposure; 22:19 BST

Squnting at that pic, it looks like the whole disc of the moon is (just) visible; it seemed plausibly so to the naked eye, too.  

We can test that.  Ramping up the contrast to a ridiculous level confirms:

This is what GenAI is for

I'm an AI skeptic, gleefully saving stories of AI deleting a company's entire database, or diagnosing faked diseases, or just frankly turning evil.  Although it is more than happy to apologise for its poor behaviour, like after that time it set dinosaurs loose in Central Park.  

I'm waiting for the day it does something so extreme, the problem can no longer be ignored, the lack of any "intelligence" can no longer be overlooked.  Its use, including hallucinating a footall match that never took place, has already resulted in the "retirement" of a Chief Constable.  Check your citations, guys!

However, there are extremely skilled artists generating amazing material with GenAI that enriches culture. 

This LoTR disco movie is amazing:

And I soooo wish this Dr Who trailer was real:

I'm not sure how many gigajoules of electricity, or gigalitres of water, were involved in generating these.  But it is certainly energy and coolant well spent, compared to the standard AI slop inundating us.

sequestering carbon, several books at a time CLXI

The latest batch:

The photography book is in response to the recent attempts to capture images of insects in the garden.  My other half wants to learn how to do it better.  Which will probably include a new fancy lens or two.

today is the first day of the rest of my life

Six weeks ago I discovered I was vitamin D deficient.  I have been taking my prescribed "loading dose" of 50,000 IU a week since then.

The effect has been nothing short of remarkable.  The fatigue evaporated almost immediately, by the end of the first week the bone pain was much reduced, and was completely gone by the end of the third week.  I can definitely recommend this!

So now my booster course is over, I will be taking a supplement to ensure I never get that low again.  My doctor recommended a 1000 IU tablet daily.  I bought a pack of 60 for £2.50, so that's 2 months worth, at less than 5p a day.  Ridiculously cheap, yet so effective.  I took my first one with lunch today, and this will now be a new daily ritual.

I've become a bit of a vitamin D evangelist!

If you ever wanted to know how potentially lucrative it would be to be an unethical journal editor, read on

I've blogged before about offers journal editors get to be unethical.

The offers continue:

Dear [editor in chief],

I hope you are doing well. My name is Ivy Yang, and I work as a publishing development editor focusing on academic journal collaborations and manuscript resources.

I am reaching out to explore the possibility of private cooperation with you regarding submissions to your journal. We have a stable number of manuscripts in related research areas and are looking for an experienced editor who can help oversee the handling process in an efficient and professional manner.

Our expectation is that submitted papers can receive timely attention, be assigned to suitable reviewers, and move through peer review smoothly. Where appropriate and in line with journal policy, we may also recommend qualified reviewer candidates for your consideration, which could help save time in the reviewer selection process.

For successfully accepted manuscripts, we would also be happy to offer a cooperation fee or honorarium. The specific arrangement can be discussed privately based on mutual understanding.

We highly value long-term cooperation based on mutual trust, efficiency, and professional communication. If this possibility is of interest to you, I would be glad to discuss details with you privately at your convenience.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,

Ivy Yang

I've bolded the most dubious part: a “cooperation fee” “discussed privately”.  Okaaaaay, that sounds legit.

<\s>

Well, Ivy is nothing if not persistent.  And the next email was much more explicit.  Actual dollar amounts.

Our work focuses on helping authors identify suitable journals and supporting them throughout the submission and peer-review process. This is a paid collaboration, and the compensation is provided on a per-paper basis, depending on the journal category:

EI-indexed journals: USD 200–1000 per paper;

SCI-indexed journals: USD 500–2200 per paper;

SSCI-indexed journals: USD 1000–3000 per paper.

The exact amount depends on the journal level, workload, and degree of involvement.

If you are interested in this opportunity, I would be happy to discuss further details with you. We can continue via email or any platform convenient for you.

Ivy Yang

Up to 3000 USD under-the-table remuneration per paper!  Pay-to-publish takes on a whole different meaning.  No wonder there are so many junk journals.  (Although, like any such scam, I would bet the numbers change once an "agreement" is in place.)

Remember, gentle reader, just because a paper is “in the literature” and has been “peer reviewed” doesn't mean it is of any value whatsoever (scientifically that is; clearly there is a monetary value!)  Junk journals, paper mills, AI slop.  The literature is not merely being polluted, it is being swamped with drek.  Is this how progress ends?  Sinking into the shoulders of Swamp Thing?