The article is also very survivorship-bias-y. His blog happened to do fine without him doing any SEO, but that doesn't mean all SEO is pointless.

I don't think this is quite the photoelectric effect. The atoms absorb photons and re-emit photons--they aren't emitting electrons.

Conservation of momentum, I think

If the emitted photon always had the same momentum as the absorbed photon, the light would go right through the mirror, passing on its way without changing direction.

Only if the momentum wasn't transferred to the mirror.

Which is, in fact, what happens. Solar sails exploit this fact:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail

If momentum was transferred to the mirror then the emitted photon would not have the same momentum as the absorbed photon.

Conservation of momentum doesn’t mean that the momentum of the emitted photon has to be equal to that of the absorbed photon. It means the sum of the momentum of the emitted photon and the mirror must equal the momentum of the absorbed photon, assuming the mirror had no momentum to begin with.

> Why the photon is then re-emitted in exactly the same direction that it would have if it was reflected rather than a random direction?

That is, the equal and opposite direction, exactly as predicted by conservation of momentum.

Momentum is a vector. The sum of the vectors is preserved.

I'm pretty sure when Decartes said that, he meant that that's the only thing we know for sure to be true, since everything else could be a hallucination. He wasn't making an argument for cognitive enhancement... was he?

Cybering always finds a way

What? Why?

it should be harder for predators

Funny because they still got the 99.997% right

Yeah, because 0.003% is indeed 0.00003, they just put a % sign and forgot to fix the actual number.

Mystery solved

To be fair I quite like that feature. Usually if I'm disconnecting from a WiFi it's because it's not working very well and I want to use my mobile data instead. If I forget to turn it back on I'd end up using way too much data.

I hope you realize that doesn't mean that you disconnected.

Try opening an ad-monetized app that requires network connection to load the ads. Make sure cellular date for that app is off. You'll get ads. Unless something has changed in the past few weeks, you should see ads load despite the fact that they should not in this scenario.

This means the Wi-Fi isn't off, isn't even in a respectful hibernate state, it's on but telling you it's off. It's your child telling you "yes mommy/daddy I'll do it right" and then cuts corners knowing you're going to trust them.

In the past few weeks my iPhone X has been having a strange Wi-Fi bug where it says it's on in the top corner of the screen, but in settings it says it's off. I didn't turn it off. When I go to turn it off, it's frozen and I have to restart settings. I'm highly suspicious it's related to Apple's Wi-Fi and Bluetooth default hibernate code or implementation of that code.

Apple screwed the pooch on this one. They should allow us to toggle the hibernate mode or long press to choose whether to go into hibernate or actually turn off, not force us to use it in a misleading way.

I've trained myself to always turn it off in settings, it's annoying, but it fits apple's product motto:

It just works.

Fair point, but they could just have used short/long press to have both options, as mentioned elsewhere in this discussion.

Yeah true, they could easily give both options

See also: Boeing 737 Max

As in security against stalling lead to a UX disaster that caused planes to dive into the ground?

I'd argue the moral of that story was to redesign the plane, instead of piling on hacks to save costs in the short run.

As I understand it, they tried to design a new plane that wouldn't require pilots to be re-trained on how to use it, if they'd already been trained on an older model. That's the UX I'm referring to.

Certainly a (bad) trade-off, but I wouldn't classify it as UX. It's more of a safety vs sales trade-off.