Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

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.

Ready? Ask a new question!

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:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

February 15

Shampoo use

The typical reason o f using shampoo is to remove the unwanted build-up of sebum in the hair without stripping out so much as to make hair unmanageable. Do we need shampoo or not? It's hard to say as it can't always work for everyone but what is thus no poo moment what makes it different from using shampoo does it clean scalp the same way?

Shampoo#No Poo Movement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.94.221 (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

We don't "need" shampoo, or at least we managed perfectly well without it until 1814. The same could be said about millions of commercial products. If you find it useful, go ahead and buy it. More information at shampoo and no poo.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Coincidentally, we seem to have had rather a lot of shampoo related questions recently. Alansplodge (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, all of them from Australia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

So oodways? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I haven't used shampoo for over 30 years. Can't say I've ever missed the experience. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Eek. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

A la Patrick Stewart? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Not a big deal. I hardly ever use soap per se. I use sorbolene, as my skin is sensitive to the wrong pH, and it's neutral. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I thought the movement against shampoo's idea was that we should use real poo on our hair. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Nah, they poo-pooed that idea. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• The deal is, when it comes to hygiene, there are really two types of hygiene: cosmetic hygiene and health hygiene. Health hygiene is the sort of things we do to improve our health outcomes: washing hands with soap and water frequently is a way to reduce transmissibility of infectious agents. Brushing your teeth helps you keep them in your head longer and prevents things like gingivitis and tooth decay. Cosmetic hygiene is stuff like wearing deodorant and bathing practices (in general) and things like that. A person's culture may have certain general attitudes towards things like odors, hair and skin textures, and things like that, and those cultural attitudes will shape things like shampoo usage, deodorant and perfumes, bathing frequency, etc. Saying all of that, however, and I want to make this very clear, merely because these behaviors are culturally necessary and not biologically necessary does not make them invalid. A person's social and emotional health is just as important as their physical health, and a person who feels happier because of the interactions they get based on their cosmetics practices is not a bad thing. In other words, there may not be a health reason to shampoo your hair , but if shampooing your hair makes you feel better about yourself, that's a perfectly valid reason to do it. </rant> --Jayron32 17:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I suspect there are hundreds of millions of people in the world who don't use shampoo and live a perfectly normal life within their own culture. Marketeers and hucksters got us onto this shampoo malarkey and now 'modern' civilisation can't live without it. a bit like shaving or eating with utensils. Richard Avery (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I think its important where a cultural practice is not harmful, that we don't put down people who participate in that practice. Shampooing and using forks to eat are certainly not necessary practices, but neither are they harmful, and there's no need to treat people who do them as being "duped" or taken in by "hucksters". Merely because someone does things differently than you doesn't mean they should be denigrated for it. --Jayron32 14:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• I tried it once for several months last year. In the end I found the whole idea to be very much a load of, well, poo. It could be also said that it left me scratching my head... Elephas X. Maximus (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

February 17

semi-trash water pump

[1] Can anyone explain what a "semi-trash" water pump is? Is it just slightly better than one that is completely trash, or what? When it says 91 feet total head lift, does that mean it can pump water from ground level to 91 feet high? Not gonna buy it but have been following the madness in Houston (water and power are still out all over, people in apartment complex are portaging swimming pool water upstairs to flush their toilets) so started looking at this stuff. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• added: they do have a full-trash one.[2] I think maybe this has to do with the size of debris (rocks and stuff) that can pass through the pump along with the water, but that is just a guess. Hmm. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The first product overview says the ports can pass "soft solids up to 5/8 in. diameter", and the second "solids up to 1-1/4 in. diameter".  --Lambiam 21:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that's what made me guess about semi vs full trash. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The total head is the lift measured from the water level to the discharge, and yes, their 91 feet total head lift does mean that it can pump water up to 91 feet above the water level ... at 0 flow. Likewise, its maximum flow of 158 GPM is at 0 head. This is stated explicitly in the manual in it's specification table on page 5:

Maximum Flow at 0’: 158 GPM

Maximum Head Lift at 0 Flow: 91 ft.

Note that the 91 ft maximum head lift implies a maximum discharge pressure of just under 40 psi.

Page 5 also include a Performance Curve ... which doesn't *quite* seem to match the specification, as it appears to suggest only 151 GPM at 0' but a 97' maximum head lift at 0 flow. -- ToE 00:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Articles regarding smart cities impact on demographics of cities

Hello, I look for articles which describe what impact does a smart city has on a demographics of a population.

Thanks --Exx8 (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Not an answer, but a comment. A study seeking to establish evidence of the effect will have to address two difficult issues. One is that there is no agreed measure for the smartness of a city, like city IQ. The second is that there may be a causal effect in the other direction, where the demographics drives political and economic decisions on the city's development. Therefore one should not expect much beyond anecdotal evidence of any impact.  --Lambiam 08:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The article smart city elucidates very little. I imagine it's something like an idea of good urban planning that uses plenty of internet-age technology. (It also seems like a good platform for me to run for city council on, since I couldn't be held accountable.) This question would be a good opportunity for someone who knows more to improve the article. Temerarius (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Unless, ABF, a good platform for city council is all it really is. Elephas X. Maximus (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

In addition to the above, it's probably too early to measure demographic data. For one, smart cities is a very recent thing. For another, you'd need to compare before and after, requiring multiple censuses, which typically don't get done very frequently. On top of that, you'd have to control for other factors besides the "smartness". Matt Deres (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

February 18

Megan Shoemaker - Biographies of living persons

I was wanting to create a page about the model Megan Shoemaker. However, I can only find one newspaper article about her when she was starting college. There are many pages on the Internet with her photos. She made the cover of at least two magazines. She is listed in the List of Vogue Deutsch cover models. I don't know how to go about adding her biography. Plus, I'm not very good at creating new articles. I mostly just do small edits to articles.. -- Ubh [talk... contribs...] 10:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

One newspaper article is probably not enough to make an article; it would be deleted for having a non-notable subject. Matt Deres (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid "many pages on the Internet", "made the cover", and being "listed" somewhere count for nothing as far as Wikipedia:Notability (people) is concerned. Per that policy, she would need to "have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Just to elaborate on the above answer; the minimum requirements to have an article at Wikipedia exist solely to ensure that there is enough source material to help write about the subject in question. A cover of a magazine is not source material. What we need basically is sufficiently in-depth biographical writing about the person so that we can read it and use what is written there to write our own article about the person using that already existing biographical information. If the biography of this person is not already written down somewhere else, Wikipedia should not be the first place it is written (see WP:NOR). --Jayron32 17:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

February 19

WHO News announcement puts the world population into one of three groups, at high, moderate and low risk. In what proportion are the groups, as defined?

Promotion of ivermectin use - forum shopping with misdirecting intro - no need to waste more time on this

I'm seeking a reasonably accurate percentage of word population (or total number of people (alive)) (tentative answers added after Lambiam's feedback and some work) ~45% "born, resided, or had long-term travel in Southeast Asia, Oceania, sub-Saharan Africa, South America, or the Caribbean", ~47% "in Central America, Eastern Europe, Mediterranean, Mexico, Middle East, North Africa, Indian sub-continent, or Asia" (and not in a) and ~8% of the rest of the population ("Australia, Canada, United States, or Western Europe"), respectively. “ born, resided, or had long-term travel in Southeast Asia, Oceania, sub-Saharan Africa, South America, or the Caribbean. Similarly, the risk is considered moderate in Central America, Eastern Europe, Mediterranean, Mexico, Middle East, North Africa, Indian sub-continent, or Asia (with low risk being those in Australia, Canada, United States, or Western Europe ” Source: https://www.WHO.int/news/item/17-12-2020-a-parasitic-infection-that-can-turn-fatal-with-administration-of-corticosteroids From what I can tell, doctors aren't familiar with this advice. And I'm wondering how big the impact is if that's so. If the question was "residing" instead of "born, resided, or had long-term travel", the answer would be easy - look at something like the chart I've added to the question. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC) I expect that the fraction of people who were born or had long-term travel in the identified areas but do not reside there is small compared to the number of of the residents of these areas, so you won’t be far off if you use the number of residents. For the practical use of this cautionary statement, the precise numbers are irrelevant. The most important thing is that healthcare workers in these high-risk areas be aware of it.  --Lambiam 22:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC) I think you're right, if +/- around 20% is considered good enough. Thanks. Caveats: 1) Many of the millions residing in a low-risk area but who were born, resided, or had long-term travel in another area would be put off by your last sentence. 2) You left out the "resided" category. 3) Each of these categories grow the size of the higher risk categories. As for specifics: Based on the pie chart, looks like about 35% of the world population is living in a high risk country. (Purple thru Red+ Russia ~= 25%, and Green - (USA+Russia) ~=10% [- Caribbean, Central America slivers, <1%]. So maybe Answer 1: 45% of the world population is at high risk? But people could be way more or less mobile than I am guessing they are. United States + Western Europe (+ slivers for Canada and Australia, - Mediterranean Europe) ~= 10%. So Answer 3: maybe ~ 8% of the world population is at low risk. So that means Answer 2: around 47% of the world population is at moderate risk. So about 3.5 billion at high risk. About 7.2 billion people at high or moderate risk. But we still have the FDA saying don't take ivermectin to treat CoViD-19, no ifs, ands or buts. Madness. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC) Where did the FDA say that? The closest I can find is [3] which doesn't say that. Nil Einne (talk) 07:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC) “ "Q: Should I take ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19? A: No. ” Cochrane staffer's meta analysis info: Helps make it increasingly clear the FDA is in part responsible for thousands of unnecessary deaths a day, and trillions in economic damage. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC) References While the FDA does not approve the use of ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19, it does approve of its use for treating strongyloidiasis, and this approval would extend to the treatment of strongyloidiasis in patients who happen to have COVID-19. The WHO advises the use of ivermectin as a presumptive treatment for strongyloidiasis for those at high or moderate risk of hyperinfection when initiating corticosteroid therapy, including for COVID-19.  --Lambiam 08:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC) The FDA approved ivermectin. Full stop. (Including some new formulations recently.) Otherwise, yes. Independent MDs can write scripts for ivermectin to prevent or treat covid if they want to. Once a drug is approved, FDA can control how its marketed, but they have little say with respect to what diseases MDs choose treat with what approved drug. (Even MDs who work for corporations are supposed to have the freedom to write scripts off-label almost without exception/restriction. But de facto, most are discouraged from doing so, and so many don't.) I have filled scripts for ivermectin for covid. So what's with the underlining? If you're not aware of the clincal evidence for ivermectin, I would urge you to review it (the data or one or more of the meta-analyses that have been published, rather than underlining what you underlined... Ivermectin Rx have jumped something like 50 fold, as I recall, in the US (See youtubeDOTcom/watch?v=SrTGOoBjvyo for the number and a chart if you're curious; it's displayed somewhere in there.) in the last few months. It's clear to me that the NIH's phenomenally ignorant or corrupt statements on ivermectin are obviously that to anyone who understands how to read and takes the time to read the clinical studies. Or if you prefer to hear that said with a bit more tact, listen to the first video I linked to. Or have you already seen it? But anyway, I didn't come here to the reference desk to gab about it. I think I have my answer, at least approximately: I would put it thus: The WHO is already saying about 92% of patients with more than a mild covid-19 case should be getting ivermectin. In addition, the WHO is expected to advise the use of ivermectin in all patients within weeks. I'd put money on it. WHO could urge its use for prophylaxis too, though I'm not expecting that. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 09:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC) Another data point: a recent change in the recommendations given by the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines. As of February 9, 2021 (unchanged since August 27, 2020): The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19, except in a clinical trial (AIII).[4] As of February 11, 2021: There are insufficient data for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.[5]  --Lambiam 10:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC) @50.201.195.170: "WHO is already saying about 92% of patients with more than a mild covid-19 case should be getting ivermectin" WTF did they do that? Your earlier document definitely doesn't support that. It only supports 'When initiating corticosteroid therapy, including for COVID-19, presumptive treatment (with or without laboratory screening) with ivermectin is advisable for those at high or moderate risk of hyperinfection'. Statistically, a large percentage of patients aren't likely to be covered by this advice at all since they have no long term travel or residency in a moderate or high risk region. Remembering that while 92% of the world's population may be at high or moderate presumptive risk, a large percentage of confirmed COVID-19 cases are in the US and Western Europe. Yes some of them would be even though they are being treated in the US or Western Europe but it seems unlikely it'll even be 10%. The number of cases in many areas is likely to be much higher than confirmed cases. However that also reflects the reality that many of these countries have poor health care systems and any treatment they are receiving is often spotty or non existent. I mean heck, a number of people in these places should be receiving ivermectin without any consideration of COVID-19. Of course even putting uncertainty over patient numbers in many countries aside, China with about 1/6 of the world's population but who are in the moderate risk category, has largely controlled the outbreak further demonstrating the fallacy of taking 92% of the world's population to mean 92% of patients. Maybe more importantly, that advice only covers people who are receiving corticosteroid therapy. The WHO's current recommendations for corticosteroids and COVID-19 seems to be [6]. It only recommends their use for 'treatment of patients with severe and critical COVID-19'. It specifically suggest against their use for 'treatment of patients with non-severe COVID-19' albeit with low confidence. So people with "more than mild covid-19" shouldn't be receiving corticosteroids for their COVID-19 unless they fit into that very likely small subset of patients with 'severe and critical COVID-19'. Therefore, unless they're receiving corticosteroids for some other reason or they or their doctor is ignoring or unaware of this advice (which is unfortunately going to be quite common), wherever they have ever resided or now live, this advice doesn't come into play. (Other advice may.) Of course hearkening back to my earlier point, it's unfortunately true that a bunch of people in moderate and high risk regions aren't going to be receiving corticosteroids given their limited healthcare access, even if their condition warrants it. And this is a treatment we have decent evidence for. (I.E. Ivermectin still doesn't come into play.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC) Slightly an aside but since especially in a case like this, I'd prefer not to make claims without sources, can someone find a good source on what percentage of COVID-19 patients are only classified as having moderate case and what percentage severe or critical? Unfortunately a lot of sources e.g. [7] [8] seem to rely on this Chinese study [9] which didn't distinguish between mild and moderate. I did find [10] but it only covers admissions at one small point of time to one hospital, hence the number of mild cases is tiny. (Although the number who never went above moderate is far higher than severe and critical cases, as I claimed was the case.) I'm confident that there are far more moderate than severe or critical cases, so more than mild COVID-19 would mostly be moderate cases who shouldn't receive corticosteroids according to the WHO, but lack any sourcing at the moment so have modified my statement above. Nil Einne (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC) @50.201.195.170: That's extremely selective quotation and you specifically said "no ifs, ands or buts". In reality what they the FDA said is: Long list of quotations from the FDA, a public domainsource No. While there are approved uses for ivermectin in people and animals, it is not approved for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. You should not take any medicine to treat or prevent COVID-19 unless it has been prescribed to you by your health care provider and acquired from a legitimate source. and No. FDA has created a special emergency program for possible therapies, the Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program (CTAP). It uses every available method to move new treatments to patients as quickly as possible, while at the same time finding out whether they are helpful or harmful. We continue to support clinical trials that are testing new treatments for COVID so that we can gain valuable knowledge about their safety and effectiveness. and Ivermectin tablets are approved for use in humans for the treatment of some parasitic worms (intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis) and ivermectin topical formulations are approved for human use by prescription only for the treatment of external parasites such as headlice and for skin conditions such as rosacea. Ivermectin is FDA-approved for use in animals for prevention of heartworm disease in some small animal species, and for treatment of certain internal and external parasites in various animal species. People should never take animal drugs, as the FDA has only evaluated their safety and effectiveness in the particular species for which they are labeled. Using these products in humans could cause serious harm. and There are approved uses for ivermectin in people and animals but it is not approved for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. You should not take any medicine to treat or prevent COVID-19 unless it has been prescribed to you by your health care provider and acquired from a legitimate source. Some of the side-effects that may be associated with ivermectin include skin rash, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, facial or limb swelling, neurologic adverse events (dizziness, seizures, confusion), sudden drop in blood pressure, severe skin rash potentially requiring hospitalization and liver injury (hepatitis). Laboratory test abnormalities include decrease in white cell count and elevated liver tests. Any use of ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 should be avoided as its benefits and safety for these purposes have not been established. Data from clinical trials are necessary for us to determine whether ivermectin is safe and effective in treating or preventing COVID-19 That's clearly not a "no ifs, ands or buts". Actually they're specifically telling you you can take ivermectin if it's prescribed by a health care provider and acquired from a legitimate source. They're also telling you it you can take it as part of a clinical trial. Yes, they're also telling you it's unlikely to be prescribed for COVID-19 treatment since it isn't approved for this, although as Lambian pointed out, there's nothing in the FAQ to suggest the FDA is opposed to to the use of Ivermectin to treat someone with a parasitic infection, or with a suspected parasitic infection and who has COVID-19 and especially if they are going to receive corticosteroids. This FAQ is clearly targeted at end users not health care providers, do so provides zero guidance on that aspect. insert: My understanding the FDA's role in that is limited anyway mostly relating to approvals. For clinical guidance, that's mostly the job of the NIH and CDC.end insertion The FDA will never tell you to take medication that isn't approved for OTC usage without a prescription. Frankly it madness to think they would. They'll likewise never tell you to take medication intended for animals, which is the primary thing this FAQ seems to be addressing given the title etc. It's even more madness to think they would. Remembering also the FDA's advice is only intended for the US. Really there's nothing particularly surprising about this that FAQ. Nil Einne (talk) 11:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC) 14:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC) <soapbox-rant> Really the one thing the US health bodies seem to have been guilty of when it comes to this crisis is too readily approving drugs without any real evidence of their effectiveness, for emergency i.e. general use while simultaneously failing to make any attempt to determine if these drugs are actually useful i.e. by running well regulated clinical trials. For all the UK's failings, this seems to be one thing they have gotten right. I.E. rather than effectively encouraging random doctors to prescribe random things, with no one really knowing if they're doing anything useful or could be harming the patient; instead the UK have mostly made these part of clinical trials. So all UK and world doctors get an idea whether they should actually be prescribing this shit and under what conditions, instead of praying and hoping they're doing good not harm. Or worse giving something they personally believe is not beneficial and for which there is no good data to suggest they're wrong, just because their patient is demanding it after reading about it on the internet/heard about it on some crazy or not so crazy TV or radio station or online platform. It's somewhat understandable why the situation is so chaotic in poor countries with weak regulatory and science agencies, and bad healthcare systems like Mexico and most of South America. While yes, the NHS (or similar systems) do make it a bit easier to do these things; the US, one of the richest countries in the world, with (previously at least) internationally respected governmental agencies, and who spend incredibly amounts on research, science and healthcare, should not be this bad. Nil Einne (talk) 11:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)</soapbox-rant> I just noticed "thousands of unnecessary deaths a day". Again complete nonsense. The US daily COVID-19 death toll is generally a few thousand at most, the 7 day average is currently hovering at around 3 thousand (was above, now below). It's ridiculous to suggest even half of these could be prevented by ivermectin, especially given that even your own claim about who it's beneficial for is unlikely to cover even half of these deaths (i.e. they are at low risk). Even if ivermectin is beneficial, such overplaying of it's probable effectiveness as some sort of wonder drug is one reason why the FDA and others are so concerned about misinformation and seriously damages attempts to try and determine when ivermectin may be useful for COVID-19 patients, if ever. Note as I said above, the FDA's advice is only targeted at the US. It's unfortunately true as I also indicated that many countries lack bodies able to provide good advice targeting their specific situation. That's a reason to support bodies like the WHO able to fill that gap in a small part, and to ensure the FDA and other US health bodies work with the WHO and national health bodies etc. Where the FDA has failed to do so, that's reasonable criticism. But expecting their advice specifically targeted at the US public to cover people in other countries is silly. Nil Einne (talk) 12:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC) The claim "thousands of unnecessary deaths a day" is too strong, because the data are not in. Counting the number of preventable deaths on a worldwide scale, this may nevertheless turn out to be in the ballpark – we don't know, the data are not in. Conversely, emergency approval of ivermectin for treating COVID-19 might lead to a huge number of unnecessary deaths – we don't know, the data are not in. The "low risk" has little to do with the case; it is not about the risks engendered by COVID-19 itself, but the risk of being an undiagnosed strongyloidiasis patient.  --Lambiam 09:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

February 20

I got banned from Stack Overflow, what can I do?

I just found out I have got banned from Stack Overflow for asking too many stupid questions. Here is Stack Overflow's explanation of this.

What can I do about this? It tells me to "review my questions, especially those which have got negative feedback". All my questions which got negative feedback have already been deleted. Most have a feedback rating of zero. It also tells me deleting my stupid questions won't help.

Do I really have to wait half a year before I get a chance to ask a new question? Stack Overflow is a great aid in my job.

I have only got banned from the main Stack Overflow site. I haven't got banned from any other site on the Stack Exchange. JIP | Talk 16:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

It reads like the answer is to try again in 6 months. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

One thing you obviously can do is make a new account (preferably with a different browser and IP). Now, whether you may and should, considering your account still works on other sites... Elephas X. Maximus (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

February 22

Boeing 777 range with 1 engine

A recent news item [11] reports that a Boeing 777 had an engine failure. How far can such a plane fly on only one engine? I read the Wikipedia article, but did not see that info. If the engine failure had happened midway between US mainland and Hawaii, could the plane have enough distance to reach an airport? RudolfRed (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Flying a twin-engined airliner (such as the 777) further than 1 hour away at its cruising speed with one engine failed from a possible landing field is known as "extended twin operations", "extended operations", or ETOPS for short: the concept has also been extended to aircraft with more than two engines, and usually refers to flights at least partially over water or remote land terrain.

Every civil airliner is given an ETOPS rating that gives the upper limit of the permitted flying time with one engine out that it is allowed to get from any airfield(s) it could divert to and land at. No flight plan should be made or accepted that breaches this limit.

The rating for the 777 was originally ETOPS-180: this was later increased to ETOPS-207 in at least some circumstances: bear in mind that as with most types of airliner, there are several variants with different capabilities. My extremely rough estimate is that this would translate to about 2,000 miles, but doubtless more knowlegeable responders can and will correct this. Of course, this is an indication of what a flight plan should stay within, not the actual capability of the aircraft, which presumably is somewhat greater.

According to various issues of Flight Magazine I read some years ago, airline personnel amongst themselves refer to ETOPS as "Engines Turning Or Passengers Swimming." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.75.168 (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)