Miscellaneous desk
< March 26	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 28 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 27[edit]

Perceived leaning of text on scrolling dot matrix display[edit]

I took a ride on the Helsinki Metro just today and kept on looking at the dot matrix display which shows the next station. The text on the display scrolls from right to left. During the scroll, I consistently see the text as leaning a few degrees to the left. When the text is stationary it looks perfectly upright. I am pretty sure the leaning is an optical illusion as the actual lights on the dot matrix display are perfectly orthogonal. Yet the perceived leaning is consistent whenever the text scrolls, and even the amount it leans stays consistent. What is causing this? JIP | Talk 20:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the LEDs of the dots are scanned up row by row, where the scanning pattern sweeps the rows – somewhat unusually – bottom to top. Consider a vertical stroke of some letter, such as a capital H. By the time the top row of dots is scanned, the stroke has moved a bit to the left from when the bottom row was scanned, so its top dot is to the left from where its bottom dot was lit. --Lambiam 20:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have observed (and wondered about) exactly the same phenomenon on displays in railway carriages in the UK. I don't think Lambian's suggestion (if I have understood it correctly) can be correct because, as JIP says, these are dot matrix displays, with only about 6–7 elements per full letter height (I have failed to find a linkable picture of the exact sort we're discussing): the dots themselves cannot physically move as each dot is a (quite large) single fixed LED, not made up of smaller pixels; therefore, the stroke cannot move "a bit" to the left.

I think there may indeed be a timing element (as Lambian suggests) involved, combined with persistence of vision: if the bottom dots are turned on (and off) a little before the top dots, this combined with the overall illusory movement of the text may result in the perceived lean. However, an expert in this area may well have a completely different explanation. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.233.48 (talk) 08:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like it's scanning top to bottom. After reaching the bottom, the text is moved a bit to the left and scanning begins again at the top, so the top row is shifted left before the bottom row. That means that on average the top row is a bit left of the bottom row, giving a leaning text (that's how I interpret "leaning to the left").

You could investigate by making a video and playing it at reduced speed, but the exposure time of the camera (which may be shorter than the frame time) and its scanning method may interfere, so it may appear that in your video the matrix display is completely unreadable. You may need an expensive camera, not a cheap smartphonecam. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a more plausible mechanism for producing the phenomenon than I gave above – although either is theoretically possible. If the shutter time is considerably shorter than the refresh rate, photographic stills should then sometimes show partially shifted strokes, kind of like ^{^●
_●}
_{^●
_●}. --Lambiam 16:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Westerns[edit]

The following question, includes the several aspects, which hopefully will garner several responses.

I ask, having watched multiple old westerns from the 1950s, often, there is a protagonist who is a rich Cattle Baron. My first question is, were such characters based in reality? Were there ruthless ranch owners, who would muscle out their neighbours and force them to sell?

The second aspect of my question is, how long does money last? To clarify this; How many generations does money usually last? I know from English Heritage sites that many of these were in the family for only two to three hundred years at the most before (usually) in the early 20th century being sold by the descendants of the original moneymaker. Are there any families remaining in the US who made money, through ranching as shown in westerns that still hold this money? More generally speaking, if one becomes one of the "1%" how many generations can it be expected to last.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:6888:C600:B0E4:239B:941:7FB0 (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a random example: Peter French.

Regarding what happens to the money, this page about the Maxwell Land Grant says (at the bottom) that Lucien Maxwell's son Pete was a huge disappointment to Lucien. Pete was pretty much a bum living off his father's fortune his entire life. He believed that he didn't need to work and squandered whatever was left of Maxwell's fortune after his Mother, Luz died. I'm still looking for counterexamples where the cattle baron's family are still tycoons of some kind in the present day. The land itself seems frequently to end up belonging to the US government, by fair sale or otherwise. Looking through Dynasty#Influential and wealthy families, I haven't been able to find a family whose fortune derives from cattle. Card Zero (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Range war and the category Category:Range wars and feuds of the American Old West will be of interest in respect of the first part of the question. DuncanHill (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean antagonist? The protagonist is the hero of the picture, who is typically not the evil land baron. Matt Deres (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

R. W. Burchfield in The New Fowler's says "in English literature the protagonists are the chief actors in a play or the main characters in a work of fiction" and traces this use to Dryden in 1671, and I think it is in this sense that our OP was using the word. DuncanHill (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you say the "main characters", do you mean that both sides of the central conflict would be considered "protagonists" by this original definition? Because I had always come across "protagonist" used for the character that we are following, and not for the character that he/she is contending with. Whether this central character is "good" or "evil" has never seemed relevant to me. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The term "protagonist" originally meant what Duncan says above. The term "antagonist" was coined due to a misunderstanding of the root words of "protagonist".[1] --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Cattle baron for other examples. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven's Gate is claimed in the article to have been "inspired" by the Johnson County War, as are Shane and The Virginian, and real-life victims Ellen Watson (Ella Watson in the film) and her partner Jim Averill also appear in Heaven's Gate. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding families that still owe their money to Cattle Ranching, see King Ranch, still owned by the descendents of the founder, Richard King, now the Kleberg family, the most recent member of which there is a Wikipedia article about is Richard M. Kleberg, the current primary owner is Jay Kleberg. There are also probably dozens of other Kings and Klebergs that have a stake in the ranch. --Jayron 32 11:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comparison with the decline of very large estates in the UK, in the late 19th and 20th centuries this was due to two factors, the Great Depression of British Agriculture caused mainly by cheap food imports (some from the Wild West), and later by inheritance tax, which by 1949 had risen to "80% on taxable amounts over £1,000,000". However, some with sufficiently profitable investments away from their own farmland and with talented accountants, have managed to pass on a great deal of wealth to their offspring, for example Hugh Grosvenor, 7th Duke of Westminster, whose inheritance includes most of the West End of London. Alansplodge (talk) 11:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Queen herself traces no small part of her personal fortune to the Duchy of Lancaster, which includes "18,433 ha (45,550 acres) of land holdings (including rural estates and farmland), urban developments, historic buildings and some commercial properties across England and Wales, particularly in Cheshire, Staffordshire, Derbyshire, Lincolnshire, Yorkshire, Lancashire and the Savoy Estate in London.". Prince Charles derives much of his private wealth from the Duchy of Cornwall. --Jayron 32 11:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone ever owned part(s) of the British Isles that would be collectively worth ~£100 billion or more today? Though I don't know if UK is a part of Europe where the second etc son got land. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Crown Estate was once considered the monarch's private property; today it is held in corporation and controlled by the UK state, but it once was the property of the monarch exclusively, though over the course of the 17th century (the Interregnum, Restoration, and Glorious Revolution periods), the estate became separated from the monarch's control. Today it is valued at a little over $15 billion. It seems unlikely that any one property owner held much more real-estate than that. Unless one considers that in the medieval period, the entire Kingdom of England would have "belonged" to the English King... --Jayron 32 14:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing about the West End thing and finding out it's only £10B so maybe just the theater district made me wonder if there was once like a Medieval duke hunting forest that now has a million people plus Heathrow. But even the Crown only has £15.2b so maybe not. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was using some hyperbole with the phrase "most of the West End", but the duke's company (rather than the duke personally) has substantial holdings in Mayfair and Belgravia which his forbears developed in the 19th century. [2] Mayfair is well-known in the UK as the most expensive property on the London Monopoly board. Alansplodge (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I knew from the bought for $24 of trinkets story that Manhattan's land has reached $1.74 trillion so figured it couldn't be most of the rich half or quadrant of a rich city of ~9 to 16 million. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]