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.
Many consider it a no-go to self-like your own postings on Facebook (and I agree with that). But what about liking your postings shared by someone else? There are much less opinions about this. I think it shows gratefulness and respect to the sharing person and is generally a good idea. Or does it resemble a self-like too much? --KnightMove (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the reference desk where volunteers try to answer factual questions. In response to your question there are different opinions so, and as stated at the top of this page, we can't answer requests for opinions. Just do what you feel is appropriate. Shantavira|feed me10:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the questioner wants to avoid to appear acting inappropriately. While there will be different opinions concerning this issue, there are also different opinions as to whether the shape of the Earth is (approximately) spherical. There might exist objective evidence that one specific opinion is predominant. --Lambiam22:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on the social media platform, when you like or thumbs up someone else's post, it shows up in your feed for others to see. So, if someone shares your post and you like it, people viewing your feed will see that you liked it. This has two benefits. The person sharing your post will get a like, which promotes the entry. People viewing your feed will see that others are sharing your posts, making it more likely others will share your posts. For many, the point of social media is build a hefty quantity of followers. So, this is a good way to do so. You may find it embarassing to follow a lot of people, share posts from others, and thumbs up all your own stuff. But, that is how it works. It is all about self-promotion. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
December 3
Windows 11 vs. Windows 10
I've got a strange problem. Until about a week ago I had as my working computer HP Pavilion with Windows 10. Over time it seems to have become much longer to boot. I began thinking perhaps one of the four processors died out. So, I bought a much faster Dell machine., It came with Windows 11. I cannot find a way to shut it off through software. In Windows 10, in the lower left corner, exists a small pop up. I can invoke it, find a proper button and a choice of shutting off will appear: Restart, Shut down and Sleep. It is a very convenient arrangement. Where is a similar option in Windows 11? Did they forgot to implement it? Now I do everything hard way, by pressing a hidden button on the left of the computer frame. Will appreciate guidance. Thank you, AboutFace 22 (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Going off of memory, the button's now in the middle of the taskbar by default. (Google Images is claiming it's a blue Windows icon on the left edge of the list of apps, which then has a power button in the bottom-right of its popup.) 2603:8001:4542:28FB:D088:DDE4:16D3:E77C (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did find a tiny button on the task bar which has given/shown the shutdown popup once. Then it stopped working and only a brief flash appears. I wonder if I should install Windows 10 and wipe out Windows 11 for good? Need advice. Thank you, AboutFace 22 (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CPU cores tend not to just fail. To check, press Ctrl-Alt-Delete, choose Windows Task Manager and click Performance tab. There is a 99.99% likelihood they all are there. On the other hand, your original problem (Windows gets slower) has been a constant complaint since Windows 95. It is a very well-known symptom. I would suggest that Windows 10 on the HP could just need a good clean-out of all the accumulated junk that even a year's full-time use gathers. A decent local PC repairer would ideally make a call-out to your house and go through everything in the OS/installed apps/browser with you, for not much more than an hour's work. As for Win 11, there seems to be a skin for that: search for "make windows 11 look like windows 10". MinorProphet (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
December 4
Excel Question
Assume an Excel spreadsheet has two columns, ID and Date. Every entry in the ID column has a corresponding entry in the date column and vice versa. Each ID occurs once or more. Each ID can be associated with a number of different dates (including potentially the same date more than once). What is the quickest way to produce a table of all distinct IDs and the earliest date associated with that ID in the original table? Thanks 195.89.101.130 (talk) 11:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can a computer do A and B, but not both at the same time?
Do we have any situations in computing where computers cannot do 2 things at the same time? I think computers have set up architectures or environments that it will only do things 1 after the other, to prevent it from doing 2 at the same time. There's also the concept of deadlock, which might play a role. 170.76.231.162 (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
If the processor has multiple cores, these can execute different threads simultaneously. If the processor is a single-core CPU, it can at any instant of time be executing only a single thread; any other threads under execution are temporarily suspended. However, the operating system can switch tasks so quickly that for practical purposes it may seem as if the corresponding processes proceed simultaneously. --Lambiam10:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
December 5
Autorecovery Save in Word no longer works on timer
I am having a problem with Autorecovery saving in Word. I bought a new Dell Inspiron desktop computer about six months ago that is running Windows 11, and am using the latest version of Word, in what I think is now called Microsoft 365. (I am not asking whether it will work on 29 February 2024, or whether it will be upgraded to Microsoft 366.) I have always used the Autorecovery save option to save my work every 10, 12, or 15 minutes, to AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Word. This feature was working on my previous computer, and was still working when I upgraded to my new computer. However, within about the past month, I have noticed that Word isn't creating the Autorecovery files every 12 minutes, or whatever I have set the time to. It is periodically saving my documents, but, if I am actively editing a document, it isn't being actively saved, just saved when it wants to save them. The Autorecovery is less important than it was, because the combination of my processor, the memory, the operating system, and the word processor is more reliable with Wndows 11 and a newer machine, but I would still like to have the Autorecovery backups performed. Has there been a change to Word that downgrades this feature, or is there a setting that may have been changed, maybe in my registry, that makes this feature less reliable?
Robert McClenon (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
could you check the File>Options menu and then the "save" tab? For me it shows the options you have, which should mean it should still work as described for autorecovery. Note that Word may check your document for changes and choose not to overwrite the autorecovery if no changes have been made.
Alternative to the Auto-recovery, there is the autosave option, which saves your documents on the OneDrive that you get when taking an Office365 subscription. Rmvandijk (talk) 09:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, User:Rmvandijk - When I go to File>Options>Save, what I see is Word Save Options.
I think that is what you said. But it doesn't result in an Autorecovery save of the document being edited every 10 minutes. I am seeing that an Autorecovery save of all of the Word documents that I have open is done periodically, every few hours or something like that, not just the ones that I have modified, but not at the interval that I have specified. Is there some setting that changes how Autorecovery Saving is done? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Color printer for infrequent use?
Can anyone suggest a general type (specific model great but not required) of color printer that's good for printing a few pages once in a while? Cost of the printer and supplies are an issue, though more the up front cost since volume will be low. Physical space used by the printer is an issue. Print quality is relatively unimportant since if I need a good photographic print I can get it done at a shop. Basic "business graphics" level of print quality is ok. Finally it will be used with Linux and mustn't require binary blob Windows drivers.
Ink jets are terrible because if you unseal an ink cartridge to print a page, then let it sit for a few weeks or months, the rest of the ink dries up.
Ribbon-style laser printer could be ok I guess, though they take a lot of space, plus the cartridges are silly expensive.
I have been wondering about old fashioned impact printers with multi-color ribbons. Are those still a thing?
A color laser printer won't clog from lack of use. The toner is a powder, so it likes to be dry. They used to be very expensive, but I've seen home models under $500. Toner refills go for about $50/color pack, similar in price to ink jet. As with ink jet, you can risk the cheap knock-off stuff to try and save a few dollars, even though you know it won't really work and you'll end up buying the real toner later. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yeah I guess I'll consider that in the long run. I have a monochrome laser printer now, so if a color one can also print monochrome, maybe I can upgrade someday. I don't want two bulky printers if I can help it. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:6375 (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have a Canon laser printer in the staff area here and an Epson ink well printer in the public area. The ink well printer is slightly larger than the laser printer, but effectively, they are the same size. I know that some laser printers are huge, but those are not the home models. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dumbest mobile phone I can buy?
Any suggestions about the dumbest mobile phone I can buy? It's for a family member who can't deal with technological complexity. There used to be tons of phones like that, but they are all bricked now since the 2G and 3G mobile networks have been shut down. So that leaves LTE and 5G phones and they are all over complex.
Seeking a phone with:
NO internet
NO browser
NO camera
NO photo viewer
NO music player
NO video games
NO touch screen if possible (physical buttons preferred)
NO pretentious minimalist "design" with "elegant" typefaces and accompanying ridiculous yuppie price tag. Just a plain single function workingman's phone. Cheap is good, but as long as it's under $100 I won't get too angry.
Does anything made today come close to that? Thanks.
PS: I have looked at this page and those people do not get it. They list small feature sets as a con rather than a pro. But the ones that suck the least on that list seem to be the Kyocera (price not shown but around $100) and the Alcatel. I'm looking into those. The BLU Megatank is just what I want except that the networks capable of supporting it have shut down.
So I think your options are impossible. If you have a phone with a camera, you can just not use it right? Without internet there's no problem of the photo's going anywhere.
I think the name of the type is "feature phone". If I look for this I find for example the Nokia 110(4G). Its the 2023 model, also available without 4G, which you don't want. I think that this (or comparable) is as close as you'll get. In my region, it's about 45 euros Rmvandijk (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
