2020 New Random Pics

[GH85Carrera]

On August 10, 1838, twenty-one Texas Rangers under Colonel Henry Wax Karnes camped along Seco Creek in Medina County when approximately 200 Comanche warriors attacked without warning. The Rangers, including future frontier legend Jack Hays, found themselves outnumbered ten to one. Karnes immediately ordered his men into a nearby ravine where thick brush provided cover against the mounted attackers.
The Texans developed an effective defensive strategy despite their numerical disadvantage. Six or seven men fired while others reloaded, creating continuous volleys that prevented the Comanches from overrunning their position. This rotating fire technique allowed the Rangers to maintain steady resistance throughout the engagement.
The Comanches launched three separate charges, fighting with determination and tactical discipline. However, the battle turned decisively when Chief Isemani fell dead and Chief Casemiro sustained serious wounds. Twenty Comanche warriors lay dead with an equal number wounded. The war party gathered their casualties and withdrew to their village.
The Rangers achieved a decisive victory but paid a price. Colonel Karnes, who directed the defense from an exposed bluff position, suffered wounds during the engagement. Several Ranger horses were killed, though no Texan deaths were recorded. This August clash demonstrated how defensive positioning and disciplined fire could overcome superior numbers.
The engagement represented another chapter in the violent frontier conflict between Anglo-Texan settlers and Comanche bands defending their territory. Colonel Karnes had raised his Ranger companies specifically to patrol and defend the Texas frontier, authorized by the Republic just eight months earlier in December 1837.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by john70t

British aviation 'failure-analysis' teams decided to reverse the process.

Instead of finding all the airplanes shot down....They mapped the ones that survived the trip home.

Those were the areas that were 'known good'.

The usually recounted story about this is that Abraham Wald was a mathematician with a statistical research group. The military approached the group with the request for them to confirm the military's theory that they should add more armor to the bits of the plane that had the most bullet holes. Abraham Wald told them, "no, you should add more armor to the places on the plane with no bullet holes."

The theory is that they were looking where there were bullet holes thinking "bullet holes are bad". But what Wald realized is that if the planes make it home with those bullet holes, then they aren't that bad. The bad bullet holes keep the planes from coming home, and those are in the spots where we don't see the bullet holes (because we don't get to analyze planes that don't come back). So the additional armor needs to go in the engines and to protect the pilot, because if you kill the engines or the pilot, the plane doesn't come back. This is an example of survivorship bias.

[GH85Carrera]

It will be a smothering of snow!

[Steve Carlton]

[GH85Carrera]

From over 1.5 million kilometers away, astronomers have spotted methane clouds drifting above the vast seas of Titan, Saturn’s largest moon. Using the James Webb Space Telescope and confirmed by Keck Observatory in Hawaii, scientists captured bright, fluffy clouds hovering above Kraken Mare, Titan’s giant northern sea.
Despite being 1.4 billion kilometers from the Sun, Titan experiences a complete cycle of rain, rivers, and seas—but instead of water, it’s liquid methane and ethane! These new observations reveal active weather patterns, showing clouds forming, shifting, and evolving over just 30 hours.
This discovery highlights the power of teamwork between space- and ground-based telescopes, helping scientists refine climate models for this organic-rich, mysterious world. As future missions like Dragonfly prepare to explore Titan, tracking its clouds will be key to understanding its weather—and maybe even hints of habitability.

[GH85Carrera]

A museum volunteer accidentally altered a modern art piece after mistaking it for a dirty mirror
and attempting to clean it. The artwork, titled Inverted Syntax-16, consisted of a mirror mounted
on a wooden board that had been intentionally left covered in dust for decades.
According to museum staff, the dust was not neglect. It had been allowed to accumulate for
nearly 40 years as part of the artist’s original concept. A deliberate smudge at the center of the
mirror was meant to represent distorted self-perception and social identity. The dusty surface
was the artwork itself.
While walking through the gallery, the volunteer reportedly believed the mirror had been
overlooked during cleaning. Using toilet paper, they wiped away much of the dust before staff
noticed what was happening. By that point, the intended surface of the piece had been largely
removed.
The museum later issued an apology to the artist and began discussions about possible
compensation. Legal experts noted that determining responsibility could be complicated, as
removing dust may not clearly fall under traditional definitions of property damage.
The incident added to a growing list of similar situations involving modern art. In previous years,
gallery staff in Italy discarded an installation they believed was trash, and a security guard in
Russia drew directly on a painting he thought looked unfinished.
Some observers suggested the incident itself could now be interpreted as part of the artwork’s
evolving meaning.