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.
"a significant number of the yes all women tweets implied that" - meaning?
I saw this video (3:33) and I listened to the woman that said "I don't think all men are potential predators or rapists - a significant number of the yes all women tweets implied that.". I don't understand the meaning of the emphasized part (maybe it's because I'm not a native English speaker). ThePupil17 (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The hashtag#yesallwomen is used by some Twitter users to highlight sexism and harrasment that women face. The woman in the video is saying that many of the tweets using this hashtag are generalizing men, making it seem that they are all potential predators or rapists. - Lindert (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should have been written "a significant number of the 'yes all' women tweets", indicating those who believe that all men have the potential, if I'm parsing it correctly. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Clarityfiend: You are not parsing that correctly. The original hashtag was "not all men" which is short for "not all men are like that" (Which doesn't necessarily mean rapists, but refers to sexism, misogyny, discrimination, domestic violence, what I would like to euphemistically call poor dating etiquette et cetera). Later another hashtag was created #yesallwomen (meaning: Yes, all women experience sexism and harassment, discrimination, misogyny and poor dating etiquette et cetera). The woman in the video claims that a significant number of the #yesallwomen tweets implied that all men are rapists. This claim is (obviously) false. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 10:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's also obviously a crucial difference between "all men are rapists" and "all men are potential rapists". The latter statement is kind of a truism. Anyone could be a rapist if you know nothing about them. The same goes for "all women are potential rapists" - Lindert (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lindert: You forgot to mention aliens. All aliens are potential rapists. I just read about a hundred of #yesallwomen tweets (which isn't very impressing considering they are limited to 140 characters) and none of those tweets claimed that all men are rapists. I admit that the sample size is a bit small, but still... The woman in the video makes that claim, even though it is easy to disprove, because she has an agenda. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 11:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@The Quixotic Potato:When you're trying to disprove a claim, you need to state the claim accurately. She never said that any tweets called all men rapists. Again, you're leaving out the word 'potential'. Now I don't think her actual statement was particularly meaningful or even true, but you are attacking a strawman here. - Lindert (talk) 11:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the linguistic question, without regard to the questions people are answering that didn't need to be because no one asked. The way to parse the statement is "a significant number of the 'yes all women' tweets implied that" because 'yes all women' refers to a specific kind of tweet, one with the hashtag #YesAllWomen. See the Wikipedia article titled YesAllWomen if you want to know more about the hastag. --Jayron3214:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all. To be honest I had no idea what it is "yes all woman" till the moment that you tell me about, and this the first time that I know about that. I don't use tweeter also, it's less popular in my country, so when I listened to her sentence that I mentioned it was for me like Chinese language :) ThePupil17 (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
February 23
Blue arc in the US south
Looking at the map of the last US presidential election, I noticed something rather strange in the south. Although the Dixie states are mostly Republican red, there's a long, almost contiguous arc of blue stretching from somewhere in east Mississippi (Chickasaw County, Mississippi, I think) across Alabama and Georgia and then up through the Carolinas. As far as I can tell, this doesn't correspond to any obvious geographic feature. A quick skim of the articles suggests that many of these are minority-majority counties, but what was it that arranged the demographics that way in the first place? Why this long string of counties? Smurrayinchester14:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There may also be a geographical aspect: the are in question more or less follows the fall line, and that is where much of the urban growth has taken place in the south. It is inland from the hot and flood prone coastal plains, but below the more difficult hill county. Black Americans have subsequently migrated to those urban areas where the job prospects have been better than in the agricultural coastal plains or in the higher mountain valleys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.178.47 (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article notes that it is almost entirely racial. It draws parallels between the map shown, and the racial breakdown of the counties in question: there's almost a 1-to-1 correspondance, which is true even in rural counties. --Jayron3216:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that was exactly the article that I was looking for! I figured that the blue patch along the Mississippi river was probably due to the fertility of the area (and therefore was the ghost of the plantations), but I didn't realize that there was also a geological explanation for this belt too. Smurrayinchester08:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By comparison, notice those blue regions of the very Republican Texas, most of which are on the Mexico border, and have a high Hispanic population. (Despite currently having two major Hispanic candidates, the policies of the Republican Party, and Trump in particular, are not likely to win many Hispanic votes.) StuRat (talk) 06:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, he's bragging about getting votes from 44-45% of the 8-9% of Hispanics who are Republicans, as if it means every Hispanic loves him, when I count only about 4% for Trump (44% of 8%). If he is the nominee, come general election time, he will hear from the rest. StuRat (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NPR had an article on this and linking it back to glacier formations depositing rich, cotton-growing soil. Glaciers → Soil → Cotton → Slavery → High % Black → Democrats. Article is here. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 03:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article [3] from the Financial Times mentions two Belgian families who together control 28.6% of the stock: the de Spoelbergh family and the de Mevius family. The Busch family has apparently been wiped out [4] and does not control anything anymore even though their name is still part of the company name. --Xuxl (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard a long time ago that there is one Pentecostal church in Africa (I can't remember off the top of my head) that has like millions of congregants sitting at a service. The church not only tends to the spiritual needs, but also provides basic human services that the local government cannot or does not provide. First of all, does this church even exist? My memory is so faint, but I'm pretty sure I'm not making this up. Second of all, how and why did secular governments in the world become more involved with community services (like providing marriage licenses, education, healthcare, food for needy people) without directing them to the church? 140.254.77.249 (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're looking for this (Pentecostalmegachurches in Nigeria, with up to 200 thousand attendants -- really big, but an order of magnitude smaller than "millions"). For the second question, that's a pretty big scope. Secular state or perhaps public policy might provide some starting points, but you're basically asking for a history of government. — Lomn21:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SemanticMantis: It looks like you are implying that ISIS does has sovereignty... ISIS isn't a country, and ISIS is not a government, therefore it cannot be a theocracy according to the dictionary definition (I use Merriam Webster). I removed it from the article. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Can anyone help me determine approximately the numbers of marshmallows produced worldwide each year? This would be of great interest to me
--Aniolare (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Peak marshmallow is when people eat only marshmallows. 7.5 billion humans times 365 days times 2,000 calories per day @ 1 marshmallow each equals 5.5 quadrillion marshmallows. Someone will be over with a less humorous upper bound shortly. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Googling the subject "how many marshmallows are produced each year" indicates several sources claiming 90 million pounds of marshmallow is consumed by Americans every year. Projecting that to the global scale could give provide a rough likely maximum number. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, I am concerned about the possible consequences of this "peak marshmallow" scenario and will forthwith write a concerned letter to my MP on the matter. --Aniolare (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an American, so I think I'm allowed to put down Americans without too much controversy. That said, if you apply our consumption of a sugary snack, which in this case is basically just sugar, to the entire world's population, you will likely have a rather inflated estimate. I'm fairly certain that there are many people who have never seen a marshmallow, much less had an "average" American's supply of them in their life. Dismas|(talk)23:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you believe that "peak marshmallow" is variable by culture? In that case do Ethiopians require fewer marshmallows than Americans?--Aniolare (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that almost every other country consumes less marshmallows per head than the United States. What you mean by Ethiopia "needing" marshmallows is slightly odd from an educated and articulate person, almost as though you are deliberately trying to maintain discussion an unanswerable question. Richard Avery (talk) 07:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify Richard I'm interested in a theoretical "peak marshmallow" situation where marshmallows and marshmallow derived foods are the only foods consumed by man, mankind and ideally organisms of near human intelligence. In such a situation I am asking whether the demand per head in Ethiopia would be lower than the demand in America? Or would the notably higher demand from elephants skew the averages in Ethiopia's favour? (Can elephants eat marshmallow??)--Aniolare (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
February 25
Anglosphere laws
Are there any legal ramifications in Anglosphere nations for minor social derelictions such as gently pushing a random stranger on the street, calling a police officer ugly extremely unattractive, calling a disapproving co-worker or roommate sexy, blowing kisses at random pedestrians on the street, farting loudly in a crowded elevator, relentlessly flicking the ear of one's disapproving sibling, yelling in the ear of one's frightened parent, cruelly never giving your offspring any pocketmoney or means to pay for educational necessities etc. From my research, the aforementioned situations fall under a grey area that is not covered under the law. Am I correct? Hawaan12 (talk) 07:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Calling a police officer ugly would be an insult (even if it is true). Some people campaigned to ditch Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, which makes it illegal to use “threatening, abusive or insulting” words, but I am not sure if that ever happened. Not giving your kid means to pay for educational necessities is probably child abuse. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all quite different situations. The latter ones in your list are almost certainly illegal, the earlier ones (from randomly assaulting strangers down to farting) you may get away with, depending on the seriousness of the consequences and whether the police or prosecuting authorities have a motivation to make an example of you.
Pushing a random stranger on the street is battery and/or assault, a tort, but the amount of damages you are likely to recover will depend on whether you were merely slightly inconvenienced, or fell to the ground and cracked your head.
Calling a policeman offensive names can be an offence, but there is case law at least in some states of Australia that the police are expected to be quite resilient.
"Calling a disapproving co-worker or roommate sexy" could be sexual harassment, depending on how often you do it.
"Blowing kisses at random pedestrians" on the street is likely to be okay, unless you do it so much or so often as to make it offensive, a public nuisance or obstruction to traffic.
"Farting loudly in a crowded elevator" is, I think, generally okay, again depending on the degree and possibly whether it is deliberate.
"Relentlessly flicking the ear of one's disapproving sibling" is definitely battery and probably assault and you probably will not get away with the defence that it is a reasonably expected amount of force. It might be child abuse as well, depending on the ages of the parties concerned.
"Yelling in the ear of one's frightened parent" is probably assault, and if you are their carer, there will be graver ramificiations. Some countries also have emotional abuse laws.
"Cruelly never giving your offspring any pocketmoney or means to pay for educational necessities" may be some sort of child neglect, which is usually a crime. Not --165.225.80.99 (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Educational necessities is quite a high bar. Many things you might think of as "necessary" might not be. HYPOTHETICALLY: Would you have to provide writing paper - when there is free toilet paper at the school to write on - or if you provide an old newspaper and tell the kid to write in the margins? Clearly it's undesirable for a child to have to do that - but is it really necessary to provide paper? In practice, I think schools generally provide most of the absolute necessities. But if something is truly necessary - and the school doesn't provide it - then the parent would surely be required to provide it on grounds that denying a child an education is illegal...right? SteveBaker (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I read "necessities" as things which the child absolutely needs to get an education at all - e.g. text books, if it's the sort of country where you have to buy your own textbooks. Pocket money on the other hand is probably okay to withhold - I would think parents are entitled to structure their child's personal economy as they wish, and it is not necessary to have pocket money for a child to be properly provided for. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They always wanted my parents to buy that weak glue that comes in lipstick-style containers that I forgot what it's called, regular glue, art paper, binders, writing instruments (probably).. Some of those things were only used for arts and crafts. I don't know what the school would've done if a parent refused to buy that weak glue that comes in lipstick-style containers that I forgot what it's called. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I always pass the school supply sections without attention nor eyeglasses (I think of it as one of the desert sections — like the cat litter, cake mix and vegetable aisles). I've also forgotten that some humans have gone school shopping recently. Silly me. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't bought or used glue sticks in a very long time but I still knew what they were called. Have you actually used or purchased glue or cat litter recently? You seemed to remember what they're called. Nil Einne (talk) 08:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, on an ENGVAR issue, in the UK a "glue stick" is the thing you put into a glue gun. The adhesive delivery mechanism described is called a "Pritt stick". In my young day, we used a rather less viscous and therefore much more amusing substance called Gloy Gum... Tevildo (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Pushing someone without their consent probably qualifies as assault and/or battery in most jurisdictions. Now, it's unlikely the state will choose to prosecute anyone for doing only that. We have to consider selective enforcement in any discussion of how the legal system works in practice. Some of the other things you mentioned, such as yelling in a person's ear, might incur torts such as emotional distress, which the wronged party could sue for. These are not crimes, but you asked about "legal ramifications". Also, many jurisdictions have "catchall" offenses such as disturbing the peace (see also ASBO in the UK). If law enforcement tells you to stop something in public (like your example of blowing kisses at people), and you persist, you can find yourself getting charged with one or more of them. People have long realized you can't write laws that deal with every single thing society might possibly want to prevent or discourage; this is part of the reasoning behind the common law system granting relatively broad latitude to the judiciary. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What do you call a species that has members of the species that produce food for other members of the species?
In many nonhuman species, food is discovered at a random location by sight, scent or hearing. Sometimes, food has to be caught and killed; other times, food can be retrieved from the ground in the form of dead animal or plant. Now, what do you call an instance in which food is grown and then distributed to other members of the species in exchange for metal coins or non-edible materials that symbolize the worth of a particular food? In this case, food is not received directly, but indirectly, before it gets to the eater. How do you describe this sort of phenomenon? 140.254.77.168 (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did find one example here of capuchin monkeys who were trained to use money to buy food (and they worked out how to use money to buy sex as well), but I don't know that this is a natural behavior that has ever been observed in the wild. --Jayron3219:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, working in the United States at a business company requires a work Visa, which may involve the luck of the draw literally. And there is a limit as to how many people can be drawn. What about Canada? If an American citizen finds a job in Canada and immigrates there, would the same thing apply? In other words, is it easier to become a Canadian or American? 140.254.70.25 (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK the only real "luck of the draw" for US migration is Diversity Immigrant Visa which only represents ~5% of total legal migrants to the US per year [13]Immigration to the United States[14]. Of course some would suggest all aspects of qualification like educational level and job, language etc may involve some degree of "luck of the draw", but that obviously applies to everything everywhere.
Also the Diversity Immigrant Visa is for a United States Permanent Resident Card. While this allows you to work, a distinction is normally made in most countries between a visa which qualifies you for permanent residence and a work visa (or work permit). The former as the name implies generally allows you to live in the country permanent generally even if you're not working, provided you're able to support yourself and don't do something to lose it. The later generally being temporary or requiring renewal. And often requiring you to work to have any hope of continually renewing it, or at least the renewal may be denied for reasons mostly unrelated to your conduct. It may also have other restrictions like only allowing you to work in a certain industry or a certain company.
The boundaries and variance from country to country can be complicated, still there's a reason Permanent residency and work visa are different articles. Getting a work visa and working legally in the country is often one way you may eventually gain permanent residence, but it also often isn't the only one. (As the diversity immigrant visa shows.)
In other words, if you think getting a work visa in the US largely involves luck of the draw, you probably don't really understand how things work in the US. So there's no point comparing to other countries. You probably want to read more about the situation in the US first.
Remember how someone sent them a 55 gallon drum of sexual lubricant? (I hope that was crowdfunding, that's a quarter ton of liquid!)
1. Why do 55 gallon drums of sexual lubricant exist?
2. Why are oil barrels 42 gallons but the default drum is 55? Is there some inherent property of petroleum that makes smaller containers preferable? (back when oil used literal barrels). Petroleum (especially light crude) is rather light.
3. Who the hell delivers to a (building) hostage situation? Does the deliveryman have to not be able to be fired for refusing and sign a form absolving their employer of liability for anything that might happen to them like being taken hostage, shot by a mentally ill militant etc.? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A1 - to enable a manufacturer of sexual lubricant to distribute it in quantity to a downstream company which will decant it into smaller branded containers. --Tagishsimon(talk)00:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The lube was sent by Max Temkin who invented the notoriously non-politically-correct Cards Against Humanity game. It cost him $1,175 to purchase and ship it to them. Evidently, someone had already sent them a pile of sex toys - and he felt that they might want some lube to go with them! I'm looking forward to seeing new Cards against humanity cards with "55 gallons of lube" - and another with "Sending ____ to the Oregon militia". If you know the game - that's a very logical thing to do - so I could easily believe he justified it as a business expense. SteveBaker (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is the kind of place that might buy 55 gallons of sexual lubricant.While A1 above is reasonable, there's also the invisible hand and supply and demand which have led us to a world where there are indeed customers for that sort of product in that sort of volume.
As an example, note that Peter_Acworth has bought the San Francisco Armory to host production of pornography. That place is huge, and there is lots and lots of pornography being produced there. I don't care to look up stats for that at the moment but the point is not all use of large drums of lubricant is wholesale and repackaging. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is actually a big difference between a drum, which is just a container of a particular shape, and a barrel which is a recognised unit of volume (and rarely an actual physical container. Drums are used to transport lots of different liquids - and the standardised size is just to make handling them easier. If you try to get a barrel of oil, you will be offered a drum, containing about 55 US gallons (though the exact international size is 200 litres). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.174.93 (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not long ago, just far away. Diesel fuel is still offloaded in 55-gallon drums to the outlying islands of Tuvalu to run their electrical plants.[15]Rmhermen (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
February 26
Sociological theory about how wealthy nations obtained wealth from other lands of other peoples
Six or seven years ago, I remember reading a heavy sociology textbook on my own time, because I thought the theories were cool, and one impression that I had was that many theories in sociology seemed to support opposing views, as in they were directly opposed to each other. But anyway, one theory was about the wealth of present-day wealthy nations and how they used the wealth from other lands for their own gain. Does anybody know the name of the theory? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, colonialism is a corollary of mercantalism: the colonies produce raw materials but do not process it to finished goods. The raw material wealth is extracted from the colonies, and sent back to the mother country for processing. Wealth is extracted from colonies, but it is added in the mother land. See Mercantilism#Policies which talks explicitly how colonialism and mercantilism worked together. --Jayron3219:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not possible to extract raw materials without leaving some wealth in the nation, since infrastructure must be created (roads, railroads, ports, warehouses). Also, it's frequently easier to pay off the theoretical leader of the natives, rather than directly conquering and enslaving them. But, in cases where the military option is used, you then have to add in military forts to the cost. And colonial powers also frequently combined a patchwork of kingdoms into larger, more economically viable, nations.
On the other hand, the colonial power may well destroy a great deal of the wealth producing ability of a nation, say be preventing the natives from doing their original economic production, like farming or creating crafts, so those workers can be put to work in whatever industry is most profitable to the colonial power. Thus, it's possible that nation may have less economic productivity when the colonial period ends, as the workers may no longer know how to make a living the traditional way. StuRat (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My father said he had heard of both a mother and a daughter both born on leap year day, on February 29. He asked me what are the odds for that. I quickly calculated (1 per 1461) squared, or about 1 per 2.1 million. My father said if it were that common, he'd have heard about it more often. Surely the real world doesn't follow such a nice clean mathematical model. In reality, what probability is there of a parent and their child both being born on leap year day? (Ignore the gender. In the real-world case my father cited, they just happened to both be female.) JIP | Talk21:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the real odds are pretty close to what you calculated. Obviously the age difference between parent and child need to be a multiple of four years, but I don't think that makes much of a difference if you average all populations in the world. I appears that slightly fewer people are born per day in February than the overall average (see here), but that will at most result in a 1% difference. Then there's the advanced rules for leap years, according to which leap days actually are about 1 per 1506 days, but that still makes only a 6% difference. I just don't see any reason why the real odds would differ much from your calculation. - Lindert (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But, if you specify a living pair, then one would have to be 116 years old, as the last time we skipped leap year was 1900. That is so unlikely we would do better to use the 1/4 chance of a leap year occurring. StuRat (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be the same of any two given people regardless of relationship? I share with my uncle but I don't see how it would be different. Mingmingla (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't think that the relationship is in any way significant. The probability relates to two people; that is, any two people, regardless of their relationship. Ignoring leap years (and February 29) for the moment, I believe the probability is 1/365 for the first person to have any specific birthday out of the year; and similarly, 1/365 for the second person to have one specific birthday out of the year. So, for both people to share the same birthday, the probability is 1/365 * 1/365, which equals 1/133,225. That's what I believe to be the case. The leap year simply complicates matters a bit by having us look at the four-year cycle of 1,461 days (instead of simply the one-year cycle of 365 days). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that there's nothing very special about Feb 29 except that it happens only once every 4 years, in general. The probability of mother and child having the same birthday, for any other day of the year, should be only about 4 times the probability of sharing Feb 29 - and should be the same for all days. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 09:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would be about 1/16th as much as sharing any specific date, since each must have a birth date that's about 1/4th as common. However, if you don't specify the date, then the chances of any two people having the same birth date is about 1/365.25. StuRat (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mother and child, specifically. The mother is going to have a birthdate, so the child has a 1/365.25 chance of having that same date. So if the mother's birthdate is Feb 29, then the probability of a child having Feb 29 would be 1/1461, right? The OP's question, though, was about a specific date for the mother also. The mother has a 1/365 chance of having any specific birthdate other than Feb 29. And the child has a 1/365 chance of having any specific birthdate other than Feb 29. So as a pair, they have a 1 / (365 x 365) chance of having a shared birthdate other than Feb 29. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a 1/3652 chance of sharing any other specific date, like July 1st. But if you allow for any date, then the chance is 1/365, since the first result must be multiplied by all the possible birthdays they could share. As for leap day, if you start with the assumption that the mother was born on leap day, then your math is correct, but I see no reason to start with that assumption. What you found was the chance of a child being born on leap day, GIVEN that the mother was. So the chances of a mother and child sharing a leap day birth day, given no prior assumptions, is approximately 1/365×42 times the chance that the two share any (unspecified) birth day. StuRat (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose one thing that would make the odds very slightly less would be the requirement that the mother had to give birth on a day when she was a multiple of four years old. I don't know the demographics - but if (for example) there were significantly fewer births at age 16 than at age 18 (seems reasonable given the laws on age of consent etc) - then the number of years when the woman would be a multiple of four years old, fertile and of an appropriate age could easily be somewhat less than a quarter of the total number of fertile/appopriate years. It would be hard to adjust for this effect because it depends on birth rates at different maternal ages - but I think it's plausible that it would make this event less likely than your current estimate. SteveBaker (talk) 06:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of. But that really has nothing to do with leap years, per se. That relates to the probability that a female is fertile at, say, age 27; versus the probability at age 28; versus age 29; and so forth. So, that "changing" demographic (or probability) would exist with every age/year, not just with every "fourth" age/year. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But the point is the since it can only occur on every 4th year of the women's life, her fertility on every 4th year matters for the calculation. So if fertility on her fourth year is above or below average, your calculations based on the assumption it's average won't be right. This and other factors (time of year has already been mentioned above, but also day of the week is likely to be a factor). There's also the interesting question of whether a woman born on February 29, or for that matter in February etc might have a fertility that's different from the average. Particularly if we're talking about someone from a certain area, e.g. the situation in the northern hemisphere Anglosphere or Finland or whatever rather than the worldwide average. I don't think these factors combined are going to make that big a difference, but I wouldn't be completely surprised if it could easily be 10%. (These factors are complicated and to some extent interconnected enough that I don't think we can assume they will balance out.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. So suppose (to take a 'spherical cow' approach) that women ALWAYS became fertile at age 18 and stopped being fertile instantly at age 30. In that case there would be 12 fertile years. If a woman is born on a leap year - then she is only fertile ON A LEAP YEAR at ages 20, 24, and 28. In that case, she is indeed only likely to be having a baby on a leap year with a 1:4 chance. But suppose the demographics shift and women became fertile at ages 16 through 32. Now, there are 16 fertile years - but there are FIVE fertile leap years at ages 16, 20, 24, 28 and 32. So now the odds of having a leap year baby are 5 in 16...almost one in three. MUCH more likely than if women were only fertile between ages 18 and 30. I think that demonstrates clearly that the simplistic math suggested earlier is far from the correct probability.
OK - so that's a very contrived case - and all women are different - and probability of giving birth aren't identical in every year of life. But what I'm trying to convey here is that in order to have a leap-year-mother have a leap-year-baby - we're saying that she has to give birth at ages that are a multiple of four - and there specific years aren't equally fertile to non-multiple of four ages.
Unfortunately, this makes the math horribly complicated - and demands that you look at the demographics of birth rates at different ages (and indeed, times of year, etc). Since many of those things are culturally determined (in the USA and Europe, we have laws and taboos - and strong efforts to "reduce teen pregnancy" - in other parts of the world, it's not at all rare for very young girls to become pregnant without cultural barriers. Worse still, cultural norms are shifting - so the probability of mother and child both being leap-babies has changed because of things like birth control and the acceptance of women in the workplace causing some people to choose to have children later in life.
So...we know that the naive calculation definitely isn't correct. Without knowing a lot of details about the age, occupation, location of grandmother, and mother - we don't stand a chance of giving you an accurate answer. The naive answer is probably the best we can come up with for a general estimate - but we know for sure it's not right. My spherical cow argument kinda inclined to believe that it's on the low side...but if it turned out to be too high, I wouldn't be so surprised. SteveBaker (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One other factor is whether a leap day mother would want to try to alter the odds to make a leap day baby more likely or less likely. Guaranteeing a leap day baby would be quite difficult, but trying to get pregnant about 9 months before and then delaying or bringing on delivery early could make it happen. On the other hand, avoiding a leap day baby is entirely doable. StuRat (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - if leap day-minus-9-months fell on a holiday or a weekend, that might increase the number of people who had intercourse that night - causing a mini-baby-boom on leap day. It's interesting to ask whether mothers would find it amusing or bad news to have a leap-day baby...and there are clear cultural issues about having a child with the same birthday as yours! Given that parents may have a small degree of control over the birth date (eg if the baby has to be induced) - that could have an impact. But my gut feel is that this pales into insignificance compared to the demographics of birth rate at different maternal ages.
My Mom was born exactly 9 months after the repeal of Prohibition, so I suspect grandpa and grandma had a little party that night. :-) StuRat (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
February 27
Mark Wahlberg
On Mark Wahlbergs page it says that he had a run in with peta for feeding his dogs an all grape diet? What is that? Doubt that is true.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathonteel (talk • contribs)
What was the official name of the city of Sihanoukville during the following periods: 1) French rule before the Japanese occupation; 2) Japanese Rule; 3) French rule after the Japanese occupation; 4) Khmer Rouge rule? Thanks! --151.41.155.159 (talk) 08:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to the French wikipedia article Sihanoukville (which for some reason is not on the interwiki link for Sihanoukville (city)), it was called Kampong Saom until 1958 when King Norodom Sihanouk named it after himself at the request of the legislative council. During their brief period in power, the Khmer Rouge wanted to create a rural utopia and depopulated the major cities, through massacres and forced deportations (see Cambodian genocide). It's not clear that they would have bothered to rename a city that they were bent on wiping off the map. I haven't been able to find anything indicating a formal change of name during that period (1975-1979). --Xuxl (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Factual question about Bosnia-Herzegovina
Why the Bosnia-Herzegovina entry in Wikipedia precises that it's a monarchy, although it's a republic? Also, the following statement about B-H being the "last colony" is weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbojanowski (talk • contribs) 15:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have no way of knowing about nor do we have any effect on what other websites do. If Google says something that you disagree with, you need to contact Google and ask them. At Wikipedia, no one here can answer for Google. --Jayron3216:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first google link is to a site called Wikipedia Rojalista, which is set up to look just like Wikipedia but which is actually a site advocating royal control of Bosnia-Herzegovina. It's not really Wikipedia. Loraof (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about this for several years now. I have over a quarter of a million digital photographs now, and there's plenty more to come. What should I do with them after I'm dead? On the one hand, I'd very much rather enjoy them myself up until my deathbed, and leave an heritage to my siblings' children (I don't have any children of my own). On the other hand, some of the photographs are rather sensitive. Nothing illegal, but for example quite many are BDSM-related, such as from BoundCon. None of my family knows I'm into BDSM and in fact, even my girlfriend doesn't know. It would be rather embarrassing for my siblings' children to learn their uncle was kinky only after he has died.
A famous example is J M W Turner, whose executor, John Ruskin, is reputed to have burned his collection of erotic drawings after his death. (Our article on Ruskin states that this is disputed by "recent scholarship"). Although we can't give legal advice here, this is one of the functions that an executor may be instructed to perform by the testator. Tevildo (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One possibility would be to sequester the "sensitive" photos into a separate directory tree, and encrypt it. TrueCrypt is a fairly usable platform for this (it's no longer officially supported by the author, but you can still get it). Probably there are other options depending on your OS.
It's good to have some mechanism for your heirs to be able to recover your passwords for most things; this is a complex problem on its own, and maybe someone else can give good pointers for it. But obviously, the key for that volume, you would just leave out. --Trovatore (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Recovery in the Lifestyle is a fellowship of BDSM lifestyle people who are in recovery. It's inadvisable to rely on cloud storage providers to safeguard the privacy of your digital photographs. Boxcryptor is a virtual hard disk that encrypts files on the fly using 256-bit AES encryption, however file names remain readable in the free version. AllBestFaith (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the advice to encrypt the sensitive stuff. Also, for the non-sensitive images, you might want to make copies and send them to your heirs before your death. StuRat (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)