Me too! Took some fiddling, but it was quite cool. As were the mass of images thrown on the ground by leaves.
2 Likes
Indeed, I suspect astronomers have got staring at the sun safely pretty well in hand by now. It’s just a matter of proper filter design. My next door neighbor had some glasses he got from a friend at NASA. They said NASA in big letters on them. I was pretty comfortable assuming those were safe.
Anyone who has an ophthalmologist who says “there’s no safe way to look at the sun” should consider changing to a more competent one.
4 Likes
Alternately: “Astronomers with decades of experience staring at the sun may actually know what they’re talking about.”
4 Likes
So do the opthamologists with decades of experience treating people who have damaged their eyes from staring at the sun.
1 Like
When I was an undergrad there was a research institute on campus that studied sunspots and solar flares, with a specialized solar telescope that was integrated into the building itself. (Some of the details of the construction are here.) One wall of what otherwise was a lounge room (sofas, coffeemaker) was a live image of the sun, thanks to what was basically a pinhole camera coupled to a reflector telescope. So these astronomers routinely looked at the sun the one genuinely safe way, not through glasses.
(Unfortunately, this was a small undergraduate college, and as far as I can recall I was the only undergraduate who ever set foot in the place during my years there, so the college booted the institute from campus and repurposed the building, wasting all the effort that went into creating the cool observatory.)
1 Like
Realistically, the supplier is in China and just registers a new identity to blind more kids for profit. I mean, I know you know, but even if someone was on board with one batch of blind kids (somehow) that is how it pans out.
Maybe they have to pay for a new mailing address but I have no doubt a cottage fake address business will crop up to enable this kinda stuff. This is the same country that has a fake eggs problem so big that people get rich teaching other people how to make fake eggs.
1 Like
There are safe and unsafe ways of looking at the sun. It is possible to do so using the proper equipment and when following proper procedures for doing so with that equipment, but failure to do so will of course damage your eyes. That’s why “always use the proper ISO-certified filters” has been such a huge deal. Millions of people – myself included – watched this eclipse in person using eclipse glasses. Millions more have watched eclipses in other countries for many, many years. Thousands spend their life monitoring the sun and looking at it through proper filters for decades. Many people chase eclipses around the globe so that they can see as many as possible. The simple fact that ophthalmologists have not been overrun by these millions of people suffering from eye damage after watching eclipses through eclipse glasses would seem to easily prove that your ophthalmologist is factually wrong: it is possible to observe an eclipse safely.
That said: don’t stare directly at the sun without proper protection. Always follow instructions and recommended observation limits when using proper equipment. Always verify that your equipment is functioning properly before observing the sun. Proper ISO-certified eclipse glasses will block out virtually all indirect sunlight, virtually all non-LED and most LED-based artificial lights. Do not use eclipse glasses that you can see through normally. Do not use eclipse glasses that have scratches or holes in the filters. Always buy your glasses from a reputable source. Take breaks when observing the sun, even through eclipse glasses. Never look at the sun through an unfiltered telescope or binoculars. Never use a solar filter that is placed on the eyepiece of a telescope – they should always be placed on the intake end of the device. Failure to follow these instructions will result in a trip to @M_Dub’s ophthalmologist, who will use your presence as proof that there is no safe way to look at the sun.
2 Likes
Never as a seller; as a buyer I have my strong suspicions about the variation between several orders of what were supposed to be identical electric toothbrush heads; though I don’t know of a conclusive test for fakes with those; just that the variations in build quality and effectiveness seemed remarkably high for anything that was supposed to be the same product.
The information about the mechanics of ‘commingling’ and various Amazon fulfillment services labelling options is from research rather than personal experience; as I haven’t done any selling on Amazon.
1 Like
[quote=“d_r, post:38, topic:106984”]and it is unreasonable to hold Amazon to a higher standard.
[/quote]
Funny, I do not feel unreasonable in the slightest in holding companies to higher standards whenever possible.
2 Likes
The standard Amazon should be held to is to not sell counterfeit or fraudulently labeled products.
Try operating a bricks and mortar store selling counterfeit goods. Try hand carrying counterfeit goods through Customs. Supply chain responsibilities and the risks of non compliance are the standard for Amazon’s competitors, so why should Amazon be held to a lower standard?
Regarding the ‘sold by / fulfilled by’ canard, Amazon clearly functions as a retailer / ecommerce platform. They are not Fedex, making their money on logistics service between 2 third parties.
And if it is now somehow legal to market and sell counterfeit products as long as your marketplace does not take title to the merchandise, then bricks and mortar stores could start doing the same thing. They could allow suppliers to consign products on ‘fulfillment’ terms instead of resell terms, and add a sticker somewhere on the shelf saying ‘fulfilled by Walmart’, problem solved.
3 Likes
It’s amazing that Amazon’s management have not done jail time yet. They’re essentially an important player in the global market of counterfeit and fraudulent goods.
But no surprise how they’re able to be so profitable: quality control and compliance costs are enormous. If you’re able to shift these costs to the consumers then naturally your profits will go up.
Their competitors should apply the same logic: 'we’re not actually sure that anything we’re selling is what we’re claiming it is, but congratulations, you’ve now all been appointed our (unpaid) QC staff, and if enough of you are so outraged that you bother filing a report, we might delist the fake goods.
1 Like
Good point unfortunately
Edit ‘amazing’ to ‘annoying’
Walmart also sold suspect glasses, and responded the same way. So did many brick-and-mortar non-chain shops, such as convenience and souvenir shops (I don’t know if they contacted their customers, I doubt it as it is hard to track down cash customers).
Speaking as the son and grandson of small merchants, counterfeit goods did not originate with the internet.
It is OK to hate on Amazon - I do it too - but this is neither an artifact of one particular seller, or a mode of sales. Anyone with constructive ideas of how to reduce the problem or better ways to contact customers will probably have more success contacting the FDA (for drugs) and FTC and CPSC (for the rest) or writing their legislators than ramping up their indignation in blog forums.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
