Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.
Select a section:
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

  • Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
  • Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
  • Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
  • Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
  • Note:
    • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
    • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
    • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
    • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.



How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

  • The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
See also:

March 14[edit]

ID for credit card purchases[edit]

Why and when did stores stop asking to see ID when you use a credit card? I remember as a kid (say around 2004) they would almost always ask my mom to see ID if it was over a certain amount (I think about $20). Then eventually the practice slowly faded away, and I can't recall any times she was asked after about 2008-2010ish maybe. THORNFIELD HALL (Talk) 01:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you? I don't recall that ever being the case in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The US THORNFIELD HALL (Talk) 08:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall that ever being the case in Australia — The Australian standard for EFTPOS transactions, including by credit card, is (was?) AS 2805. That standard includes a response code 08 (in 1987) or 001 (since 1993) which means "Honour with identification". The only case that I can recall this happening was when the terminal could not connect to the bank and verify the PIN - in which case the transaction could be approved (stored in the terminal and sent later) if the cardholder provided ID. (Although it could happen with large transactions, even online with PIN - the rules varied between banks and merchants.) In theory any form of ID would do, but the most common form of "ID" was the signature on the card - ie the customer signed the receipt and the merchant checked that signature against the card. In fact the latter was so common that many terminals displayed "Approved with signature" rather than "with identification".
(I wrote software for Australian EFTPOS terminals in the late 1990s.) Mitch Ames (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MasterCard and Visa prohibit this practice, but I am not sure when that started. [1]. Other card brands may have similar rules. RudolfRed (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Visa Core Rules of 22 April 2017 said, "A Merchant may request Cardholder identification in a Face-to-Face Environment."[2] Those of 13 October 2018 said, "Unless specified in the Visa Rules, a Merchant must not request Cardholder identification as a condition of purchase."[3] This has remained unchanged since. There is an exception that applies in the US, Canada, and several other regions, for when the merchant suspects fraud in a face-to-face environment. The oldest version of the MasterCard Tules I found, of 12 May 2010, already states, "A Merchant must not refuse to complete a Transaction solely because a Cardholder who has complied with the conditions for presentment of a Card at the POI refuses to provide additional identification information, except as specifically permitted or required by the Standards." [4]  --Lambiam 09:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Money question[edit]

In Carl Barks's story A Financial Fable, Scrooge McDuck's money gets spread all over the land and people grab it for themselves. However, they soon find that their new wealth is not of much use, as there are not enough things left to buy with it, which leads to increased prices.

How analogous is this situation to real life? If the richest people in the world suddenly decided to spend all their money, would it happen that there are not enough things in the world to buy with it, making the money useless? JIP | Talk 12:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a real-life situation would be the introduction of a guaranteed minimum income for everyone. Some might fear that most people would simply stop working if they had a guaranteed income to cover their basic needs, removing the need to work, and this would lead to the situation described in Barks' fable. I don't agree with that interpretation, and I don't believe this situation could arise in real life, at least as long as only money is involved. --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has happened repeatedly in history. It was more common before the ability to travel easily. A rich person travels across the land. Town by town, the rich person spreads wealth. The people are initially happy at the wealth, but quickly find that all prices have increased and there is no continued income. So, they end up poorer than before. It has continued with increases in wages. When wages increase, people are initially happy. Then, prices increase and they find they have less purchasing power. For more detailed information, look into the Big Mac index. It attempts to separate the concept of money vs buying power. 75.136.148.8 (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On a larger scale, large amounts of silver and gold looted by Spain from the New World resulted in the Price revolution. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also Mansa Musa#Wealth. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.186.221 (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The richest person in the world today is worth about $215 billion.[5]. If that money were distributed equally to each of the 8.1 billion people in the world, each person would receive about $26. I would think that that would make essentially no impact on the economy. CodeTalker (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding this somewhat, according to Forbes, the world’s billionaires were worth $12.2 trillion in 2023. If this were divided ratably among the people of the world, each person would receive a little over $1500. That would probably be inflationary in some poor countries, but would have little effect in wealthier countries. John M Baker (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If every recipient spends the money wisely, it will very likely provide a noticeable boost to the economies of the poorest countries. Consider the positive impact of microcredit, without the burden of having to pay back a loan. It is not likely that most would spend the money wisely, but it is not likely that the world’s billionaires will let their wealth be redistributed in the first place.  --Lambiam 08:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Micro credit loans do have to be repaid, and often at what many would consider high interest rates (20%+).DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 10:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I added the words "without the burden of having to pay back a loan", so as to focus solely on the positive impact.  --Lambiam 17:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"If every recipient spends the money wisely." Hahaha! During Covid, the Federal government handed out free money. How many Americans still have any of that money? I simply purchased an SP500 index with the first check, a DOW index with the second one, and a Nasdaq index with the third stimulus check. I assume I am in a very tiny minority. I'm not saying that I spent the money wisely. I haven't spent it yet. I invested it. When I do spend it, I will likely spend it on something rather stupid, but I will have a lot more money to be stupid with. 75.136.148.8 (talk) 11:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I bet most of the American recipients were not particularly impoverished, unlike the target groups of microcredit programs. The whole point of the CoVID stimulus was that they would spend this money, never mind how, to avoid the contraction that was to be expected because many people were going out less and therefore spending less. If everyone had instead invested it "wisely", this would have thwarted the goal.  --Lambiam 17:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Biden said in his State of the Union address that he wants to tax wealth above 100 million dollars at 25% per annum. The billionaire would down to a tenth as much in just 8 years. A state wealth tax was introduced in the California legislature of 1% on any taxpayer worth over 50 million, so about $10 million a year. If they move to another state, he wants to keep collecting the tax anyway as an exit tax, for years after they moved out. Edison (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Biden's proposal is a tax on income, not wealth. Anyone who earns more than $95,000 already pays a marginal tax rate of between 24% and 37%. A billionaire who pays a 25% tax on income is not going to lose his wealth in 8 years or 800 years. CodeTalker (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 15[edit]

Putting a small pile of salt on the side of one's plate[edit]

Both my sister and I (raised mostly in London in the 1960s by parents from Dundee and Newcastle) have always added salt to our meals by putting small pile of salt on the edge of our plates rather than salting the food directly, and then dipping forkfuls of food in the pile as needed. Neither of us have ever met anyone else who does this; I have visited central Scotland and Northumberland many times and nobody else has ever heard of this practice. I have searched in vain for some clue as to where this practice is (or more likely, was) associated with -- was it a working class northern British habit that has died out? I can't think of a way to research this question but I'm hoping someone here can think of a way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Salt and pepper shakers#Distinguishing salt from pepper: "In the UK, salt was often poured onto the side of one's plate and used for dipping, rather than shaken across the whole dish, hence salt cellars having a single, larger, hole", however as a Yorkshireman whose parents came from the Midlands and Yorkshire, I've never done it nor seen it done. Maybe some "posh" upper-class thing, certainly not how I'd eat my chips! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the perplexed: in the UK, the term salt cellar means what is called salt shaker at the other end of the pond.  --Lambiam 16:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Salt cellar" is a known but kind of old-fashioned term in America. And what we call "chips", youse guys call "crisps", right? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term is known, but isn't an American "salt cellar" more like an open bowl with a small spoon to dispense the salt,[6] not something one turns upside down over one's dish to pour out some salt, like the one-hole salt dispenser seen here?  --Lambiam 13:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also: "chips" are what our American friends call French Fries, not a 1970s cop series. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- just makes me more curious, of course. My parents were both working-class so I don't think it's a posh thing. I wonder when and why it died out? And that line in the Wikipedia article is helpful but unsourced; if I ever run across a source for this information I'll remember and add it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought I'd add that my dad was posh and he did it. --Viennese Waltz 17:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That, plus the Debrett's reference below, makes me think they picked it up as they moved into the middle class -- senior civil servant and secondary school department head -- from working class -- an army NCO and mining background in one case and a farming and shoe-making background in the other. The Debrett's reference makes me wonder how pervasive this is in the upper class -- do they teach this at Eton? Would one see this at high table at Oxbridge? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your chips are typically thicker than our pommes frites, but yes. —Tamfang (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The pile instead of sprinked salt is listed in Debrett's Essential Table Manners. 75.136.148.8 (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I was growing up in a UK upper-working class family, salt and pepper were sprinkled, but optional sauces (ketchup, brown sauce, horseradish sauce, mint sauce, cranberry sauce) were put in a blob on the side of the plate. I still do this if eating in company.
A salt cellar was originally a communal open pot, containing salt which tended to 'cake' into loose lumps, so rather than everybody repeatedly dipping into it, it made sense to transfer a smaller quantity to one's plate where forkfuls of specific foods could be dabbed onto it; the salt shaker (facilitated by freely flowing salt, an early 20th century development) and the habit of sprinkling the whole plate were later developments: doing the latter can suggest that one assumes the cook has under-salted the entire dish – my mother used sometimes to complain when my father did it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.186.221 (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was taught as a child in London to make a pile of salt at the side (skilled working class but with middle class habits). My understanding is that this is the reason why a salt cellar has a single apperture, whereas the pepper pot has multiple holes for sprinkling, like this. A quick Google search suggests that this is a British peculiarity, Continental cruet sets seem to have multiple holes for both. Alansplodge (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gun that swings to reload[edit]

I've been trying to find out about a kind of gun or shotgun I saw in a movie (maybe the Pirates of the Caribbean or a western) which has to be swung around like a cowboy swinging a lasso after shooting a bullet to shoot again. I think the barrel or at least a large mechanical part of the device is rotated a full circle with a ratcheting sound. I can't find anything similar on Wikipedia. Does this sound familiar to anyone? 78.1.207.150 (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might be thinking about the one they used in The Rifleman. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or the one John Wayne liked to use, as in this famous scene from True Grit:[7]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's it, thanks :) I already read about lever action while searching for this but it didn't occur to me that rifles could be sturdy enough to swing around while holding on to such a small part! 78.1.207.150 (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should you ever wish to attempt this, YouTube has a tutorial. Alansplodge (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you know, rifles have to be sturdy enough to take repeated concussions. —Tamfang (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smiling in photos, redux[edit]

There's been plenty of discussion here on refdesk about why people don't smile in old photos, with popular answers ranging from poor teeth to no access to dentistry, to even cultural taboos against smiling in general (see for example Russia and some Asian countries). However, there's now a somewhat newer phenomenon occurring that I want to discuss that may draw upon these ideas. In the 2020s, writers and cultural commentators began noticing that smiling in advertising photos began to diminish and disappear in some instances. For an easy and simple example that anyone can verify, department store advertising photos in the US (for example, circulars), from the 1980s, 1990s, and early to mid-2010s, mostly featured smiling models displaying clothing. This has almost disappeared in some market segments in more recent years.

Take the Banana Republic, Old Navy, Gap line as one example. On the Banana Republic and Gap websites, none of the models are smiling, not even the kids. However, on the Old Navy website, all of the models are smiling. I have a weird theory about this. Old Navy is predominately for the US market, but they do have stores in Manila, and Mexico City. But the culture of smiling in Mexico and the Philippines is highly regarded and acceptable. In other words, people love to smile in all three countries. However, Banana Republic and The Gap have a more international presence, and are making inroads into Asia, unlike Old Navy. My theory is that because the culture of smiling in Asia isn't as popular, the advertising team for Gap and Banana Republic are designing ads that are more globalized in terms of appeal to those cultures. Is there any truth to my idea? Viriditas (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, non-smiling models on the catwalk have been a feature of Parisian and other fashion shows for more than half a century. I would speculate that this is intended to focus the viewers' attention on the clothes rather than the models. Speaking personally, I find excessive smiling in ads to be unnatural, and often an obviously false attempt to create a 'bond' with the model and hence the product, while more neutral expressions, not directed at the viewer, seem more natural. Others doubless have different perceptions. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.186.221 (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but there's a 2007 article about this in Reuters that supports the idea that this changed in haute couture fashion, even on the catwalk, in 2007.[8] The idea comes from the 1990s, when it was said that models who smile take attention away from their clothing. I didn't raise this as an alternative explanation because it is an entirely different phenomenon than the one I'm discussing. There's a long-form discussion of some of the possible reasons for the modern trend I'm discussing here. Viriditas (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a trend there. You can see the same thing with women in '60s movies or even American 40s/50s hipster/beatnik culture. People who smile too much can't come off as serious and self-assertive. 78.1.207.150 (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's definitely something happening. This study blames the use of phones for the decline of smiling in general. Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I won't mention the name for BLP reasons, but there's an infamous case of a female politician in the US who recently got much criticism for many reasons but including for her odd smiling during a speech where she was talking about rape, death and other things, and expressed fears for her children. Women and especially women politicians are often controversially told they need to smile or smile more [9] [10]. Nil Einne (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All true, but it's interesting how this discussion quickly shifted to sex and gender, and seems to have assumed I was talking about women, when my original post specified neither, quite intentionally, as the phenomenon I observed in fashion ads occurred equally among men and women that were depicted. Viriditas (talk) 08:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Explanations vary. NYT: "Why do runway models always look miserable? They always look as if they would bite your head off if you spoke to them."[11] — Because it's awfully hard to maintain a believable expression of great joy when you are walking in front of hundreds, if not thousands, of strangers, all there to render their judgment on what you are wearing. WSJ: "Why do fashion models look so cranky?"[12] — Because the designers think a smile detracts from the clothes. The Guardian: "Why do fashion models look so grumpy?"[13] — Because they are grumpy; try being a model: you can't eat, you barely get to sleep and you often have to wear really stupid clothes yet keep a straight face while the photographer shouts about how you should shag the camera, or something. (Perhaps all of the above apply.)  --Lambiam 13:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for the public's interest in what models are wearing, that must account for the godlike adulation afforded to "supermodels" and their richly-deserved lifestyles, and the almost total lack of attention given to their clothing. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where I live, the Victoria's Secret Angels used to do an annual photo shoot. A lot of famous fashion designers used to vacation in my area as well. Although I met most of them, the only one I got to hang out and talk with in any depth was Miranda Kerr, who I found to be a lovely person. Everything Lambiam says is true, and a lot more. More telling, was the discussions I had with the designers who spent time here while trying to recharge. They told me a lot of things about the fashion industry that are pretty sad. Viriditas (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When appearing at fashion shows, etc., the models are not presenting themselves and the clothes to 'the public', but mostly to fashion-industry professionals who regard them as little more than animated mannequins.
I suspect the 'public's godlike adulation' is in large part a fictional narrative created by the media, on the behest of the fashion advertisers on whose advertising revenue the media is greatly dependent. I myself have never met anyone who adulates any 'supermodel', though admittedly I am not part of any demographic that might. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.188.170 (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, in French mannequin is the common term for a fashion model. ("Twiggy, aussi connue sous le nom de Twiggy Lawson, et depuis 2019, Dame Twiggy Lawson, (née Lesley Hornby), est un mannequin et une actrice et chanteuse britannique, née le 19 septembre 1949.") One doesn't need animatronics to animate them.  --Lambiam 09:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 16[edit]

Counting string[edit]

In Princess Caraboo (film), a professor tries to get the supposed "Princess Caraboo" to show the number 6 on a "counting string", which he says is "common to every known culture of the Orient". "Princess Caraboo" clearly does not know how to use the string, as she ends up indicating 2000 (?). Is this "counting string" a real thing, and if so, how is it used exactly? How would one indicate the number 6 on such a string? 32.217.240.174 (talk) 08:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The South American quipu comes to mind, but whatever people meant by the word "Orient" then, it would not have included South America. --142.112.220.50 (talk) 10:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely, but possible: Abacus. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article suggests that knotted strings were in use in China as a counting device more than 5,000 years ago. Mikenorton (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, and Wikipedia has Chinese knotting#Recordkeeping on this. --142.112.220.50 (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But this (as a recording method rather than decoration) was being referred to as a past practice as early as the third century CE. Is there any evidence of it being contemporary in the 19th century? I don't recall the detail being in the book by Catherine Johnson I have read (unfortunately no longer to hand) about the character – perhaps the film's script writers invented it: our article on the actual person states the film "added fictional elements to the story". {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.188.170 (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The traditional problem with string is measuring it, not counting it. DuncanHill (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“But there's a snag, you see, the hundred and twenty-two thousand miles [of string] is in three-inch lengths.” In that case it probably was counted. —Tamfang (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

China's leadership in crops[edit]

I've noticed that China has a staggering proportion in the world production of several agricultural crops: peach (61%), plum (56%), apple (49%), tomato (35%), potato (25%), wheat, etc. Why is that and what role, if any, does the field area allocated for those crops play? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

China also has a staggering proportion of the world's population. Peach production in China notes that "most of China's peaches are for domestic consumption". As for plums, China produces the most, but was still the largest importer of plums and sloes in 2022.[14] They also ate the most apples in 2021, accounting for "39.5 % of apple consumption in the world".[15] Clarityfiend (talk) 07:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth do they use sloes for? Alansplodge (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably nothing really. This seems to be just because those two are counted together in market reports for whatever reason. Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Szechuan sloe gin is apparently a thing, and this reports that China is also the World's biggest sloe (as opposed to other types of plum) producer, so they must use them for something. One can presumably use sloes for pretty well anything that other types of plum are used for. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.241.39.117 (talk) 05:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well that source claims "As of 2022, China produced 6,752,221 tonnes of Sloe plum, accounting for 54.49% of the total production." Except according to List of countries by plum production, China also produces about 7 million plums and sloes. So either China produces almost entirely sloes or the source is simply wrong. I'm going by the later since after talking a lot about "sloe plum" production, it ends with: "The world's total production of sloe and plum was estimated at 12,391,469 tonnes in 2022." And the other figures also look a lot like the figures for other countries suggesting almost no one produces other plums. And the header where all this happens is "Sloe and Plum Production in the World". If I had to guess it used some sort of algorithmic generation probably strongly predating a lot of the recent generative AI stuff. Perhaps it's even one of those sites which has translated back and forth. As for use sloes in place of other plums, well there are a lot of different kinds of plums and I know very little of sloes. But Prunus spinosa#Uses makes me doubt sloes are consumed that much as a simple raw fruit unlike many kinds of other plums, probably even in China. Although yes I should have gone with "not much" rather than "nothing really". Nil Einne (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 17[edit]

National identity in England (ethnic groups)[edit]

Hello. The link below shows a survey done on the national identity of ethnic groups in England, ethnic groups, I repeat, not in general; it is the groups I am interested in, just out of curiosity. Has a new survey been done, if so where can I find it? Because I would like to see it, if it exists, because this page dates back to 2013 and the survey itself to 2011. Thank you very much. https://hummedia.manchester.ac.uk/institutes/code/briefingsupdated/who-feels-british.pdf 37.182.78.11 (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That excellent briefing was based entirely on data about England in the 2011 United Kingdom census. More recent data is available from the 2021 United Kingdom census. The data about the national identities of people in different ethnic groups is available from the UK Data Service. The Office for National Statistics was scheduled to release a commentary discussing this data in early 2023, but as far as I can see, they never did. This is probably because there is a critical problem: the order of answers on the national identity question was changed between 2011 (when the first answer on the list was "English") and 2021 (when the first answer was "British"). IIRC, this change was not made in the other three nations of the UK. ONS has issued a quality notice that warns you should "Take care when interpreting results for these groups", which is civil-servant speak for "we completely messed this up so you can't compare the two censuses". Matt's talk 10:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to escape sample bias in life?[edit]

How to even discover that you may be at a sample bias situation and need to discover if you are at it or not (and then escape it)? 179.134.102.52 (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By introspection in the light of your knowledge of this sort of bias? By discussing the issue in question with a variety of people outside your cultural circle, or at least reading/watching their views online? By accessing and studying scholarly works on the subject? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.188.170 (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ask Kurt Gödel. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 18[edit]

Origins of religion and the hunting hypothesis[edit]

I am not as familiar with paleoanthropology, as I should be, but I keep running into discussions about the evolution and origin of religion and the hunting hypothesis in the literature, going back about 80 years. This has me very curious. Is this still considered a viable hypothesis? Our article on the hunting hypothesis asserts that it is, saying, "advocates of the hunting hypothesis tend to believe that tool use and toolmaking essential to effective hunting were an extremely important part of human evolution, and trace the origin of language and religion to a hunting context." Our article reads as if it might be a touch outdated, so I'm curious as to the current state of the research paradigm in 2024. It seems to connect a lot of the missing dots, but that has me a touch skeptical, as it could be too good to be true. Viriditas (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: more recent commentary in the book article The Hunting Hypothesis argues that it is now the accepted hypothesis, but to support this idea it cites a popular magazine article from 2014. I would appreciate some clarity on this. More specifically, is there good evidence that religion arose out of hunting culture? It is interesting to note that in the ethnology literature, there is a larger pattern of religious traditions and practices focusing on the success of the hunt, how to find the animals, etc, particularly in Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, and elsewhere. I assume this is also true for North America. I ran across an older, interesting quote from Frederic Spiegelberg circa 1948 that expands upon this idea. Spiegelberg writes about older Buddhist iconography discussed by Suzuki (presumably from ancient China and Japan?) that focuses on the use of hunting and cowherding imagery as a metaphor for Buddhist practice. Spiegelberg goes on to connect all the major religious traditions to hunting. One small quote from 1948 stands out: "So we might presume that of the three types of early mankind which the anthropologists have discovered—hunter, farmer and herdsman—the hunter was the first and decisive one to supply the material for religious ideas, while the "cult" (agriculture) and the "pastor" (herdsman) probably entered the religious field much later. The hunter cannot think about the basic reality behind or within this ordinary so-called reality in other terms but in his hunter's terms, and he calls it a deer. Later, the farmer calls it the spirit of the crops and of fertility, and thus this basic principle takes up the shape of the prevailing ideas within any group of mankind. The Ancients used to call that the metamorphoses of their gods. And Aristotle gives the philosophical explanation for this fact by saying 'Whatsoever is received comes to him that receives it after the manner of the recipient?' The picture of the hunter's trail and of the traces we must look for, is surprisingly widespread and famous throughout the history of religions." Viriditas (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without direct evidence, it's possible to create all sorts of plausible hypotheses. Hunting was certainly an important and probably ubiquitous factor in human development, and religion seems similarly ubiquitous, but hunting was not the only thing going on, and correlation does not prove causation.
It would seem to me that early human attempts to understand how the World works would embrace other factors, such as the Sun, Moon and stars, weather, seasons, plant growth, etc. The earliest forms of religion I have casually read of do not seem to be particularly hunting based, though they include it as elements, and certainly the origins of religion lie earlier than any evidence we have, or probably can have. It's been suggested (though it's a stretch) that even chimpanzees may have glimmerings of 'religious' ideas.
What, at its simplest, is religion anyway (see Theories about religion for a variety of ideas, in which hunting is only referred to once, and Evolutionary origin of religion). In the classical world it was not usually thought of as a separate topic – it was just assumed that gods were part of the world, and 'religion' was a label you might apply to the things you did in regard to that, not essentially different to the things you did to craft something, or grow something, etc. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.241.39.117 (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Religion implies religious leaders, people who have the spare time to think about abstracts, and the charisma to convince other people to feed them while they do it. (The same is true of government, but much later.) Hence, the rise in food availability associated with hunting (vs. gathering) might well create that surplus. So sad. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 08:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does it? There's plenty of time for woolgathering while woolgathering. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anthropologists of religion classify animism, a belief system in which not only humans but also animals, plants, rivers and mountains have a spiritual essence of their own, as a form of religion. But it is not organized religion; it does not require leaders or philosophers.  --Lambiam 09:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does not require them, but Shintoism, which is certainly animist, does to some extent. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.241.39.117 (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even still, DOR’s point about abstract thought is super interesting. Philosopher Richard Kover at the University of Alberta talks about this: "Even more importantly the hunter needs to be able to actively inhabit the subjective awareness of the prey, to perceive the world almost viscerally through its eyes and ears. Hunting, the poet and environmental philosopher Gary Snyder notes, requires that one “use (one’s) body and senses to the fullest”; it also entails between the hunter and hunted an inter-subjective dimension whereby one “strains (one’s) consciousness to feel what the deer is thinking today at this moment” (Snyder, 1969: 120). This ability comes in useful not only as the hunter tracks the prey over great distances but particularly when he is closing in on the quarry and must come well within the sensory defenses of the prey. To come even close to taking a shot, the hunters must exercise the utmost stealth, caution, and keen attention to the behavioural nuances of the prey, continually asking themselves, “Has the prey caught sight of them or smelled their scent? Did it hear the slightest rustle of grass as the hunter crept forward?” Consequently, successful hunting, far from requiring the hunter to violently hate, or forgo all thoughts of empathy with the prey, requires exactly the opposite: the hunter must respect the prey and constantly imagine the subjective state of their quarry, attempting to quite literally perceive the situation through its senses. Little wonder then that hunter-gatherer cultures place such emphasis on “thinking like the prey” or that the myths and discursive forms of reasoning of foragers accord such high esteem and respect to other animals, particularly the prey, as the very taskscape of technologically primitive hunting demands not only a profound sense of humility and respect towards the prey but also the ability to subjectively identify with it." Viriditas (talk) 09:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is such profoundly humble inhabitance of the subjective awareness of the prey also demanded of hunting wolf packs? If not, how come they manage to do without while it is demanded of hunter-gatherer humans?  --Lambiam 07:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wolves are physically easily able to chase and catch prey, while humans have to rely more on guile, requiring more of their intellectual faculties.
That said, we have little idea of what the consciousness of a wolf is like, though we do know that they are markedly more intelligent than (nearly all) domestic dogs, whose comparative friendliness to humans and lesser intelligence than their wolf ancestors is in large part because of two mutations in the Melanocortin 2 gene and widespread possession of the genetic condition of Williams syndrome that causes similar characteristics in humans.
Perhaps wolves, too, have introspective understanding of their prey and concepts that, were we to know of them, we would recognise as 'religious'. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.241.39.117 (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps wolves even have organized religion, like organized adulation to the Moon goddess Lupa – adulation being a portmanteau of adoration and ululation; we do not recognize it only because we have no idea what it is like to be a wolf. But if we cannot say, with any degree of certainty, that subjective awareness of the prey is demanded of hunting wolves, I consider the claim that it is demanded of another species as philosophers' speculation, an interesting idea, perhaps, but hardly qualifying as a candidate explanation of the origin of religion.
The physiological advantages hunting wolves have over humans are not across the board. Wolves can move fast, but most prey animals can move faster. If the prey manages to escape the closing encirclement, wolves usually have to give up the pursuit pretty soon. On the short distance, humans are much slower than wolves, but trained human hunters have a high long-distance endurance. By persisting in their pursuit, they will eventually catch the exhausted prey.  --Lambiam 19:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the two skill-sets are complimentary, perhaps why humans and woves/dogs became mutualistic so early. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.241.39.117 (talk) 06:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've read about paleoanthropology, wolves are entirely limited by their quadraped physiology. My understanding is that bipedalism led to humans being successful hunters, the development of speech and language, and later religion. Wolves can't do this, because according to Jeremy DaSilva, "animals that walk on two feet have finer control of their breathing, and that gives them the flexibility to make a great range of sounds". "Bipedalism likely gave Australopithecus the fine-controlled breathing required to make a larger range of sounds than a chimpanzee can make, and it freed their hands to communicate with gestures." In other words, according to Nicholas Wade, "religion, at least in its modern form, cannot pre-date the emergence of language." I don't see how wolves can reflect on abstract ideas without language. Viriditas (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Language, despite its etymological root, need not be vocal. Anyone familiar with dogs can understand a good deal of their expressions (some evolved to interact with humans) and body language, and dogs reflect a similar understanding of humans. The level of understanding between wolves must be considerably greater. In any case, wolves (and dogs) in fact do communicate with sounds to a degree, and probably to a far greater degree and quality than we have yet discovered, as hinted by our (so-far limited) progress on understanding elephants and dolphins. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.241.39.117 (talk) 06:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bipedalism didn't immediately make humans good persistence hunters. Australopithecus afarensis was bipedal, but did not yet have an efficient, modern gait. Homo erectus walked more efficiently. Bipedalism did immediately free up the hands to carry tools, including ranged weapons.
A long-distance chase is, for humans, a fairly good hunting strategy in open terrain, as humans have good endurance. In open terrain, traps don't work very well, as there are no preferred paths to put a trap on, making it unlikely an animal would walk into one randomly. Baited traps work better, but only against carnivores, which don't make a good primary source of food. Ambushes don't work in a terrain where humans can't hide in the vegetation.
In woodland, in particular if the soil doesn't allow for good footprints, on the other hand, persistence hunting doesn't work so well for humans, as the prey can easily get out of sight. Without a well-developed sense of smell, humans would have to break off the pursuit. A mutualistic relationship with another animal may help and requires the companion to have good endurance too (else they couldn't stay together), better tracking abilities (as that's the human's weakness) and poorer abilities to kill (else there would be no benefit for the companion). Birds seem ideal and in fact, even wolves are reported to coöperate with ravens. In such terrain traps and ambushes work best, and in contrast to most ambush hunters, that need a short sprint and nasty teeth or claws, humans can use ranged weapons, so they need no sprint and can take on well-armed prey. In contrast to persistence hunts, advanced ambushes and traps depend also on the human's mental abilities.
I don't see how religion, a system of non-falsifiable ideas with no predictive value, may help in a hunt. However, I recognise the possibility that the tendency of many human beings to maintain such ideas may be a side effect of something that is beneficial in a hunt. PiusImpavidus (talk) 12:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Religion is used by many hunting cultures to predict where the animals may be successfully found. While there’s no evidence that this system actually works in reality, it looks like it gave hunters the psychological strength and resolve to do what needed to be done, perhaps an early form of "faith". Although I’m not certain, it looks like this kind of proto-religion is also used to "communicate" with or to placate the so-called spirits of the animals so as to form some kind of extended familial relationship. From this, it looks like the idea of a divine pantheon first emerged. Viriditas (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your final sentence appears to be a leap of faith, for which I would want to see some supporting evidence. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.241.39.117 (talk) 07:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For sure. See Master of Animals as one of dozens of examples. Viriditas (talk) 09:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That article certainly details many interesting examples of animal themes that appear as elements in ancient religions and pantheons near (on both sides of) the beginnings of recorded history, but not that such themes were the origin of all religious thoughts and of supernatural pantheons, which must lie much deeper in time; not so? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.241.39.117 (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No idea, but there's a new book called The History and Environmental Impacts of Hunting Deities that provides case studies. Viriditas (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 20[edit]

Asymmetrical round robin generator[edit]

Is there any service where one can create asymmetrical home and away round robins where the order of opponents in the second half of the season is different from the order in the first half of the season? In England, the leagues play a type of schedule where the order in two halves is not same, but each team that meet each other in one week will all meet each other again on same week in other half of the season, and also the corresponding weeks are clustered, but are not in symmetrical order. Most generators only let me create symmetrical calendars. And I know that I have asked this before, but I would like to have such a service. --40bus (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generating the first half and then randomly generating an order for the reverse fixtures in the second would seem to me to be trivially easy. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.241.39.117 (talk) 06:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I generate the schedules for our local children's basketball, baseball, and football teams. Every team has to play every other team twice, once as a home team, once as an away team. I pair up every team as a home game with every other team as an away team. So, Team A is home against Team B, then home against Team C, then home against Team D, etc... Once I finish with Team A, I go to Team B and make it a home team against every other team as away. In this list, Team A plays every home game first and then all away. We don't want that. So, I shuffle the games. Then, I check to make sure there is no case where teams play each other twice in a row. If that does happen, I shuffle again, recheck, shuffle, recheck. Then, I have the schedule. Note that this can be done in a spreadsheet just as easy as a computer script. It used to be done in a hat. You wrote down all the combinations, put them in a hat, then pulled a random game. If you got a pair playing back to back, you just put the game back in the hat and drew again. 75.136.148.8 (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 23[edit]

Cracker refineries[edit]

  1. of cracker refineries in the United States?

2601:282:237E:7DD0:D413:A4EF:18DF:853A (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the Motiva refinery in Port Arthur, Texas.  --Lambiam 12:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the original poster meant "How many cracker refineries are there in the United States?". --142.112.220.50 (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do crackers have to do with oil refining? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Fluid catalytic cracking. HiLo48 (talk) 05:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or, more generally, Cracking (chemistry).  --Lambiam 19:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I interpret the question as “What was the first cracker refinery opened in the US?” Maybe OP is investigating how people interpret ambiguous questions. PiusImpavidus (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The wikitext doesn't really say "1. of cracker refineries", but "# of cracker refineries". You know, with a number sign. --142.112.220.50 (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. In some languages, "1., 2., 3." is the common way of saying the equivalent of "1st, 2nd, 3rd".  --Lambiam 19:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have articles on 42 oil refineries in the United States, not counting unincorporated territories. To be economically viable, a commercially operating refining facility must be fairly large, so I expect this covers all of them. I have not checked if all are in operation today.  --Lambiam 19:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As of January 2022, there were 125 operating oil refineries in the United States per the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)[1], via List of oil refineries#United States AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (June 21, 2022). "U.S. Number and Capacity of Petroleum Refineries" (pdf). US Department of Energy. Retrieved November 18, 2022.


March 28[edit]