A simple diagram showing why our Seestar frames rotate during Alt-Az tracking and how properly polar-aligned EQ tracking keeps the sky’s orientation fixed on the sensor. Particularly useful for understanding those uneven stack edges and why longer sessions can need substantial cropping. This is a schematic illustration; poor polar alignment and tracking drift can still cause problems in EQ mode.
The buildup, the atmosphere, and then Maul simply standing there with the lightsaber — “I’m right here.” Such an intimidating entrance.
Something about Lawson’s reactions in Maul Shadow Lord puzzled me. In Episode 2, he describes Maul as being “proficient with a laser sword.” That initially made him sound unfamiliar with lightsabers, although the phrase itself is perfectly fine as we have seen Anakin use it in The Phantom Menace while recognising Qui-Gon as a Jedi, and Luke uses it in The Last Jedi.
What interests me more is the Force use. During the police-station attack, Maul pulls Lawson’s blaster out of his hand with the Force. Then, during the escape with Devon, Maul damages the pedestrian bridge and Daki holds it up with the Force while Lawson and the other officers rescue civilians.
Yet in Episode 4, Lawson asks Daki, “Why didn’t you tell me you were a Jedi?”
I can understand Lawson not recognising Maul personally. But did he never notice what Daki was doing at the bridge? It is difficult to say this when we see the eposode, what was Lawson's position, or was he too focused on rescuing people to see who was holding it up, with the lightsabers later providing the obvious confirmation?
Is Lawson deliberately downplaying anything connected to the Force because he wants to keep the Empire out of Janix?
His surprise in Episode 4 felt a little odd given what had already happened around him.
What is your ORC ID
Celebrating Indian Independence Day with a little molecular tricolour model I did all day today - Chem Office 3 D PDB strucutre - modeling Amino acid by Amino Acid for the protein - atom by atom for the pigments and then colouring them.
I chose this model because much of my work revolves around one of the most fascinating things plants do capturing photons and converting light into biological energy. This is the major light-harvesting complex II (LHCII) of pea, Lathyrus oleraceus . LHCII is a major antenna complex of Photosystem II, harvesting light and transferring excitation energy towards the reaction centre. What made it perfect for the tricolour is its structure: LHCII is a trimer of three essentially identical protein monomers, which I have coloured saffron, white and green. Each monomer contains three major transmembrane α-helices and acts as a scaffold holding a surprisingly large number of pigment molecules. The ball-and-stick structures you see are the pigments chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and carotenoids such as lutein, neoxanthin and violaxanthin.
I am writing review on Nano fertilizers and I collected about 2000 references from Pubmed, I wanted to organize it and I started doing it with ChatGPT, in the process I developed a a workflowand then generalised with the help of ChatGPT - This is more suited for plant science literature classification.
The subject-specific parts are kept in square brackets so the same prompt can be adapted to another topic.
Instruction to run this prompt
Run the process one step at a time.
After completing a step, stop and show me the result.
I will then say:
Proceed to the next step.
Before starting
My review is provisionally titled:
[REVIEW TITLE]
The review is mainly about:
[WRITE 2–4 SENTENCES DEFINING THE SCOPE]
The central question is:
[REVIEW QUESTION]
The main terms that define the subject are:
[YOUR KEYWORDS HERE]
Important variants, formulations, synonyms or related terms are:
[YOUR KEYWORDS HERE]
Important applications or routes of use are:
[YOUR KEYWORDS HERE]
Mechanisms I am interested in include:
[YOUR KEYWORDS HERE]
Important outcomes are:
[YOUR KEYWORDS HERE]
Important environmental, biological or experimental conditions are:
[YOUR KEYWORDS HERE]
Safety/toxicity terms that may be relevant are:
[YOUR KEYWORDS HERE]
Economic, adoption, commercial or regulatory terms are:
[YOUR KEYWORDS HERE]
Some literature may not deal directly with the main subject but is worth retaining as background or comparison. Relevant supporting areas are:
[YOUR KEYWORDS HERE]
Subjects that are clearly outside the review are:
[YOUR EXCLUSIONS HERE]
These terms are guides, not mechanical filters. A paper should not be included simply because one keyword appears in the title, and it should not be excluded simply because the wording I used above is absent.
Step 1. First look at the reference file
Before screening anything, inspect the uploaded file and work out how the references are structured.
Check whether the records contain, where available:
Also look for obvious problems such as duplicate references, incomplete records, titles broken across lines, mixed referencing styles, repeated DOI strings or text that is not actually part of a reference.
Create one internal record for each reference using:
Keep the original reference text. If information is missing, leave it missing rather than reconstructing it from memory.
At the end of this step report:
Do not start judging relevance yet.
Step 2. Deal with duplicates
Look for both exact and probable duplicates.
A DOI match is the strongest indication, but also compare title, authors, year and journal because the same paper may occur in different citation formats.
Separate:
Exact duplicate – clearly the same publication.
Probable duplicate – very likely the same publication but some bibliographic details differ.
Related publication – similar study, conference abstract, preprint, correction, companion paper etc., but not necessarily a duplicate.
Give duplicate groups an ID and retain one master record while keeping track of all duplicate entries.
Do not permanently discard them from the audit trail.
Step 3. Do a broad first screen
The first screening pass should be deliberately generous.
At this stage I would rather keep a doubtful paper than lose something important because its title was vague.
Use the review scope, the keyword groups above and any abstract supplied with the record.
Classify each paper as:
P1 – clearly worth examining
The paper directly concerns the main subject or one of the important dimensions of the review.
P2 – possibly useful
The relevance is less direct, but the paper may contribute mechanism, methodology, comparison, safety, background, economics, regulation or another useful perspective.
P3 – probably outside scope, but not certain
It looks peripheral, although the available information is not sufficient for a confident decision.
P4 – clearly outside scope
There is enough information to say that the paper does not belong in this review.
For each record give:
Do not make the final inclusion decision for P1–P3 yet.
Step 4. Second screen: decide what kind of evidence the paper provides
Now go through P1, P2 and P3 more critically.
Where an abstract is available, use it. If only a title is available, do not pretend that methods or results are known.
I want the retained literature separated roughly into the following groups.
Core empirical studies
Studies that directly investigate the subject of the review and measure an outcome relevant to the review question.
Depending on the subject this could include biological, physiological, biochemical, molecular, agronomic, ecological, clinical, technological or performance outcomes.
Material, formulation or technology studies
Studies that help explain the properties of the material, intervention or technology itself.
For example:
Retain these when they genuinely help explain the intervention being reviewed. A purely technical characterisation paper with no plausible connection to the review may not be useful.
Mechanistic studies
Papers that help answer how or why an effect occurs.
This may include:
Application or performance studies
Work dealing with practical use, such as:
Safety and environmental studies
Retain relevant work on:
A study outside the immediate target system can still be relevant if it provides information needed to understand realistic risk or exposure.
Economics, adoption and commercialisation
This includes work on:
Regulation and policy
This includes:
Supporting literature
Some papers will be useful even though they do not directly study the central subject.
Retain these selectively when they provide something that the review genuinely needs, for example:
Do not allow supporting literature to become a second uncontrolled literature collection.
Step 5. Exclusions and uncertain papers
Every exclusion should have an actual reason.
Examples might be:
Avoid using only “not relevant.”
Give enough information to understand the decision later.
For example:
Exclude – ZnO nanoparticles are used only for photocatalytic wastewater treatment; the paper contains no plant, soil, nutrient-delivery or agricultural component.
If there is not enough information to decide, keep the paper in an uncertainty group rather than forcing a decision.
Use:
UNCERTAIN – check abstract
UNCERTAIN – check full text
and briefly state what needs to be checked.
For example:
Check full text to confirm whether the treatment is actually nanoscale or conventional.
This uncertainty category is important. A vague title is not evidence that a paper is irrelevant.
Step 6. Give each retained paper a main role
Once the inclusion decisions are reasonably stable, assign each retained paper one main classification.
Suggested labels are:
If the subject needs more useful categories, add them.
For example:
INCLUDE – BIOFORTIFICATION
or
INCLUDE – DROUGHT RESPONSE
may make sense for one review but not another.
The categories should serve the review, not the other way around.
Step 7. Organise the included literature by theme
Now classify the retained papers according to the scientific structure of the review.
Give every paper one primary theme and, where useful, one or more secondary themes.
Possible broad themes are:
Replace these with themes that make sense for the actual subject:
[YOUR REVIEW THEMES HERE]
Do not create a theme merely because a word occurs frequently. Themes should correspond to scientific questions or meaningful sections of the review.
Step 8. Build the working database
For each included paper record as much of the following information as the supplied reference or abstract allows:
For missing information use NR rather than guessing.
If something is mentioned but genuinely unclear, use UNCLEAR.
Step 9. Note the maturity of the evidence
I also want to know how close the evidence is to realistic application.
Use a simple hierarchy appropriate to the subject, for example:
Adapt this if the subject requires a different hierarchy.
This is not a quality score.
A very good laboratory experiment is still laboratory evidence, and a badly designed field trial does not become strong evidence merely because it was conducted in the field.
Step 10. Score usefulness to this particular review
Give each retained paper a relevance score from 1 to 5.
5 – Essential
Directly addresses a central question. Very likely to be discussed in detail.
4 – Highly relevant
Strong evidence for an important section.
3 – Relevant
Useful evidence but not central.
2 – Supporting
Mainly useful for context, mechanism or comparison.
1 – Peripheral
Worth retaining for the moment but unlikely to contribute much to the final review.
Again, this is relevance to this review, not a judgement on the quality of the paper.
Step 11. Check important comparisons
For this particular review I am especially interested in these comparisons:
[INSERT IMPORTANT COMPARISONS HERE]
Examples might include:
Record whether each important comparison is:
This helps prevent unlike studies from being treated as though they provide the same evidence.
Step 12. Use the classified literature to shape the review
Once classification is complete, map the papers against the likely structure of the review.
For each proposed section identify:
Also look for patterns in the literature.
I am particularly interested in:
Evidence-rich areas – questions for which there is substantial independent evidence.
Evidence-poor areas – important questions represented by few papers.
Evidence-maturity gaps – many laboratory studies but little realistic validation.
Comparison gaps – studies that lack an appropriate benchmark or comparator.
Method gaps – important outcomes that are rarely measured.
Geographical or biological gaps – evidence concentrated in a few countries, species, environments or systems.
Long-term gaps – subjects dominated by short experiments with little repeated or long-duration evidence.
Do not say that a literature gap definitely exists in the entire field simply because it is absent from the references I supplied.
Use wording such as:
This area is underrepresented in the supplied literature set.
Final consistency check
Before producing the final files, check the screening once more.
In particular:
If you change an earlier classification because better information becomes available, keep a record of:
Outputs I want
At the end, prepare separate tables/files for:
The screening summary should give:
If the literature is supplied in batches
For a very large collection I may upload the references in several batches.
Keep the same Record IDs and screening rules across batches.
After each batch give:
If a genuinely new theme appears, add it.
Do not silently change the classification system midway through the exercise. If a rule has to change, state what changed and identify earlier records that may need to be checked again.
Working rule
Accuracy is more important than forcing every paper into a neat category.
If the available information does not support a decision, say so.
Do not manufacture missing information to complete the table.
I would rather have an UNCERTAIN record that can be checked later than a confident but unsupported inclusion or exclusion.
Run the process one step at a time.
After completing a step, stop and show me the result.
I will then say:
Proceed to the next step.
Spiny Whorltail Iguana of Machu Picchu is one of those small creatures that makes the ancient citadel feel alive. Seen basking quietly on sun-warmed stones and terrace walls, this Andean lizard blends beautifully with the granite, moss and lichens of the ruins. Nikon Cool PiXP900 June 26
Mountain Viscacha - it is a rodent - basking in the sun sitting quietly on the rocks, looking like a cross between a rabbit, squirrel and chinchilla. Many visitors call it a chinchilla, but it is usually a viscacha a close relative of the chinchilla and a true animal of the Andes.
With its soft fur, rounded body, long whiskers and bushy tail, the viscacha blends beautifully with the lichen-covered stones of the Inca citadel. It lives among rocks and crevices, feeding on grasses and mountain vegetation, perfectly adapted to the rugged Andean landscape. Nikon CoolPiX P900 - June 26
The classical postcard view of Machu Picchu when fliped - the Hyena Picchu - nose here - mountain range becomes an Inca face - the guide pointed this out, I dont think the Incans selected Machu Piccchu because of this - I think it is a coincidence
Just wanted to share our experience for anyone trying to get Machu Picchu tickets in Aguas Calientes.
We reached Aguas Calientes around 9:00 PM yestseday and went straight to check the online ticket availability. I had been monitoring the website throughout the day and noticed that Circuit 3A tickets had appeared. We immediately booked four tickets for the 1:00 PM slot. Since we already had accommodation booked, we stayed the night in town.
Today morning we were back at the Cultural Office by 4:30 AM and joined the queue. When ticket sales opened at 6:00 AM, we were able to get Circuit 2 tickets for the following day within about 15 minutes.
What surprised me was how light the queue was. For the past week, there have been 1,000 tickets per day available through the Aguas Calientes ticket office, and even this week the lines seemed much shorter than many of the horror stories I had read online.
My advice: keep monitoring the online availability closely. It helps you understand how tickets are moving and lets you act quickly when slots appear. Also, if you're aiming for Circuit 2, be aware that the early morning entry times tend to sell out first.
A local told me that this is currently a relatively quiet season because many tourists are staying home to watch the FIFA World Cup. I have no idea whether that's actually true.
Hope this helps someone planning a last-minute visit!
Until what time in the evening is the in-person ticket counter usually open in Aguas Calientes. I read that additional routes/circuits may open again in June. If that happens, will the authorities increase the total number of the 1000 in-person tickets, or will the same 1000 tickets simply be redistributed among the additional routes?
Trying to understand how this may affect availability for circuits like 2A and 2B in June.
Thanks in advance!
A lot of people in Tamil Nadu - and quite a few in my own friend list will be eating their hats today. I had been watching political debates almost non-stop the last two or three months on YouTube, – in fact I started talking too much thuya tamil - கோட்பாடு, உடன்பாடு, நிலைப்பாடு, முரண்பாடு, வேறுபாடு, செயல்பாடு – lol, I watched debates and analysis from almost every side , I saw that journalists and commentators were leaning towards one party, another party, and sometimes pretending not to lean anywhere while leaning quite visibly. What struck me was not just what they were saying, but how they were saying it. Many of them were not analysing the ground as much as they were defending the world they already believed in.
One journalist, who actually did some fairly good analysis, honestly admitted that he too lives in an echo chamber of sorts — that he often goes in search of news, numbers and signals that reinforce what he already believes. I thought that was a rare moment of honesty. Because this is not only a journalist’s disease. It is a human disease.
I saw the same thing in some politically active friends also. Many had such deep emotional investment in one party or another that they simply refused to see anything that went against their preferred narrative. Anything inconvenient was dismissed. Anything favourable was amplified. A small crowd became a wave if it suited them. A real wave became “paid hype” if it did not.
I had no such strong party affiliation in this election. So I watched everyone. I watched the DMK-supporting voices, the AIADMK-supporting voices, the BJP-leaning voices, the TVK enthusiasm, the anti-Vijay commentary, the pro-Vijay excitement, the caste calculations, the women voter arguments, the youth mobilisation debates, the booth-level discussions — everything. And because I was not emotionally tied to one outcome, I could see something forming.
I did see a Vijay wave coming, I must honestly say, not to this extent. But I could sense that something was moving below the surface. There was a kind of energy that many established political analysts were laughing off because it did not fit their old grammar of Tamil Nadu politics. They were still reading the new script with old spectacles.
That is the danger of echo chambers. They do not make us stupid. They make us selective. They do not actually stop us from thinking on the other hadn, they make us think only in one direction. They do not hide all facts. They show us only the facts that keep us comfortable.
Politics, like science, needs one basic discipline: the willingness to let data hurt your belief.
If the ground is saying something, listen to the ground. If the crowd is changing, watch the crowd. If the young are moving, don’t dismiss them as cinema fans. If a new political language is emerging, don’t laugh at it just because your old vocabulary cannot describe it.
The hat-eating today is not only about one party winning or losing. It is about how many people mistook their whatsapp group, their YouTube circle, their favourite journalist, and their friend list for Tamil Nadu itself.
Tamil Nadu was speaking. Many were only listening to themselves.