You two seem to be somewhat talking at cross purposes.
As far as I can see, what they’re saying is that the Dem candidate needs to apeal to Dem voters and those who could be persuaded to vote Dem, to ensure their vote. If Biden turns enough of them off and they don’t vote he risks losing. On the other hand dyed in the wool Republican voters probably can’t be turned, so there’s no point trying to apeal to them.
You seem to be saying that not voting for Biden, despite him being unpopular, risk letting Trump in. That is also true, and it is vital that Trump is stopped, they’re just pointing out that that is easier if Biden listens to his base, rather than population wide surveys.
I think you’re significantly misunderstanding whst they’ve said, or at least I get something entirely different from it.
The two of you seem to actually agree on almost everything, including that the Dems don’t have an overwhelming majority (I can’t see where they’ve said otherwise anyway). You seem to be saying that people should vote Dem regardless of what they’re doing, which they, and I agree with. They’re trying to point out that a) the Dems probably can’t win over solid Rep voters, and that trying to by making policies that would appeal to them risks alienating the Dem base, and more importantly swing voters and b) making policies that appeal to the Dem base and potential swing votes, despite the fact they might further alienate Rep voters is likely to result in a larger voter turnout for them.
A lot of the things Biden is currently doing seem to be aimed at trying to get Republican voters on-side, but are quite unpopular with the Dem base. Precisely because they don’t have a large majority losing any voters could be catastrophic.
The two parties, and their presidential candidates, are fairly evenly balanced in votes at the moment, both with a solidly entrenched core, a periphery of less commited voters, and the swing voters inbetween the sides. The candidate that wins is likely to be the one who loses fewest of their periphery voters and alienates the fewest swing voters. Making policie to try to ‘poach’ voters from the other party’s core is a lost cause, but might cause some of your potential voters to stay home even if they don’t vote Rep.
Oh I absolutely agree that making sure people actually vote is important, and it’s something a parties supporters can do. You can bet that Republican voters will be pushing each other, and Dems need to be just as dedicated. The thing is, that’s a whole lot easier when your candidate is saying and doing things you agree with, and not doing stuff you abhor. That’s the nit the party and candidate have control over and should be tuning. It wouldn’t be easy to make big changes, but even more moderate changes would be helpful. Biden seems to finally be changing his tune on Isreal a bit at the moment, the question is whether he’s irreconcilably alienated too many voters already, or if he can win them back.
Expecting people to vote for Biden despite disliking his policies because the alternative is worse is logical, but might, I fear, be excessivly idealistic. The more Biden and the Dems listen to their base the easier this will be.
The device captures visible and infrared light, just like a typical night vision scope. They’re working on expanding the spectrum too, which could lead to some interesting and useful results. I understand that, for instance, skin cancers are more visible under certain UV wavelengths, so imagine a doctor being able to just put on a pair of glasses that convert that wavelength to give you a once over during a checkup.
The material captures visible light too, so headlights would be brighter, but I wonder if there’s a way to reduce the contrast by either filtering out some wavelengths (like driving glasses) or the material simply not boosting it’s output past a certain level?
The photons travel through a resonant metasurface, where they mingle with a pump beam.
From that, I think it’s suggesting it needs a separate beam of photons to amplify the signal, much like a transistor needs a supply current to amplify the signal it gets.
They also say:
This new tech also captures the visible and non-visible (or infrared) light in one image as you look through the ‘lens.’
Which sounds like it produces an image showing both the IR and visible spectrum in the visible range.
Mind you, re-readind it, most of the article just talks about IR, so I’m not certain what it’s actually doing. It could just be transparent to the visible spectrum. It wouldn’t be much good for driving if it did that though, the windscreen blocks a lot of IR and you’d need IR headlights!
'It's very possible': Trump floats imprisoning his political opponents (www.nbcnews.com)
Night-vision lenses so thin and light that we can all see in the dark (newatlas.com)