Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/M

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.

May 15

Police hiring

In the USA, when was the first female police detective hired? What about the first black police detective, and the first black and Asian-American female forensic scientists? And when was the first Asian-American judge appointed (or elected) to office? Is it true that none of these would have been hired during the pre-WW1 era? 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:8476:9D85:4610:EA41 (talk) 05:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may find some useful info in List of African-American firsts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I see that by 1911 there were already a few black police officers in New York and Boston, but NO black women working in CSI (the first black policewoman was only hired in 1919, and she was a probation officer rather than a forensic scientist). 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:441F:C8FF:AED4:31F7 (talk) 11:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything specific, but this article says:

"Women continued to serve police departments in limited ways until the Great Depression and World War II in the 1930s and 1940s. These events increased competition for jobs in the United States, and the opportunity for women to compete with men for law enforcement roles was diminished. Women continued to serve increasingly in support roles, however, such as dispatch and other “desk-bound” duties. The tide began to turn in the 1950s as women in law enforcement moved into more male-dominated roles and began to compete for promotion".

So it seems unlikely that there were any female detectives before about 1950. Alansplodge (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Kate Warne and Lola Baldwin. --Jayron 32 12:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: any female police detectives before about 1950. Alansplodge (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that April 1, 1908 is before 1950, but I would have to double check on that. I also believe that the Portland Police Bureau is a Police agency, but I could also be mistaken. Can you explain why you needed to make a correction? --Jayron 32 12:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although Alansplodge reply was posted below yours, it was indented at their reply. The timing suggests there's a good chance there was either a hidden EC or an unnoticed edit. So it could easily have nothing to do with yours and simply recognition that their original claim was always likely to be contentious. Nil Einne (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That said, local norms may affect whether someone considers Auxiliary police as a sufficient part of the police force such that a member of auxiliary police could be considered a police detective. Nil Einne (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of this question, it is a matter of what kind of duties they perform. 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:15D7:F029:8904:1E6D (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many apologies for the hasty post, although Kate Warne was clearly a private detective. In my defence, the Lola Baldwin article does say 'Depending on the definition of "policewoman"'. Alansplodge (talk) 10:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before many US police organizations formally set aside some officers as detectives,and in smaller police organizations still, the general duties of all officers included those Wikipedia ascribe to detectives: "They often collect information to solve crime by talking to witnesses and informants, collecting physical evidence, or searching records in databases. This leads them to arrest criminals and allow them to be convicted in court." http://mentalfloss.com/article/83601/10-trailblazing-us-law-women lists seven women who were Deputy US Marshals in the 1880s and 1890s. If a train or bank was robbed, or a murder occurred, a US Deputy Marshal would perform the duties of a detective, from gathering evidence and interviewing witnesses to interrogating suspects. A number of women started out in cities or in rural sheriff's offices as jail matrons or as undersheriffs or deputy sherrifs dealing with female jail prisoners or with children of arrestees or with female prisoners, who needed to be detained and searched. They sometimes also did general law enforcement, with duties amounting to detective work. Per the article above such officers included Clair Fergusin in Utah as a Deputy Sheriff in 1897 and Constance Kopp as Undersheriff in New Jersey in 1915. Edison (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Her name was Kopp? That's amazing. That's almost as good as Thomas Crapper making crappers. --Jayron 32 16:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[un-indent] Thanks, all! So, even at the turn of the 20th century there were a few (white) women as well as blacks (but no black or other minority women) in various US police forces -- which is quite a surprise! (As an aside: the reason why I asked is that I'm currently playing Criminal Case: Mysteries of the Past, and in that game, which is set in New York in the years 1907-1910, one of your partner detectives is an Irish-American woman and the other is a black man, whereas the lab chief is a black woman and the weapons expert is an Asian-American (and disabled) one, which I thought was bullshit -- turned out it wasn't that much of a stretch after all! And, based on the linked articles, I might venture a thought that Madeline O'Malley, the Irish-American woman detective, might well have been partly based on Lola Baldwin, Marie Owens and/or Alice Stebbins Wells!) So this leaves just one question unanswered: Were there any Asian-American judges in the early 20th century? 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:15D7:F029:8904:1E6D (talk) 04:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not; the nearest I can tell is that Delbert E. Wong may be the first; and he was born in 1920. --Jayron 32 11:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! So, they did stretch the truth some while coming up with the characters, but not as much as I thought -- Madeline O'Malley and Isaac Bontemps (the detectives who go on patrol) are plausible (being an Irish-American woman and a black man), but Viola Pemberton (the lab chief), Rose Zhao (the weapons expert) and Judge Takakura are not. 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:59FC:11F6:62E8:BCD (talk) 07:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 16

Yahoo shares

Why does the company of Yahoo is not a boring penny stock? I saw the course of the stock has raised up a lot. Why?

Yahoo Clever is dead. Useless. There is not even offered a support.
Yahoo-search-bar or Yahoo as a search engine is out of time, not interesting for anybody. (The most used search with yahoo is "www.google...", you know?)
Yahoo mail is the worst thing I have ever seen, especially after so many details of robbed passwords from yahoo servers and the statement of Yahoo, that they give ANY information a police branch is asking for, totally free (google for example admits, it gives information out only to courts and only for "good reasons" and not to the police - yahoo doesn't ask for "good reasons") and immediately which they have collected about a person.

I don't see any reason why a capitalist would invest his money into this company, I wouldn't like to be a shareholder not even for free, because I feel like this stock can loose his worth tomorrow to 0,01$. So why the hell is a useless stock of a useless company raised up so high? --Saegen zeugen des sofas jehovas (talk) 04:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We do not offer financial advice.--WaltCip (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a request for financial advice, I'm seeing a question about why Yahoo! is worth anything. According to our article, it has revenue of $8.15 billion. The disconnect seems to be that many people feel that "nobody" uses Yahoo! since we live in a world where Google exists. Yet that is demonstrably false - Yahoo!'s Alexa rank is in the top ten. Lots of people go there, driving up ad revenue. Matt Deres (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For about 10 years, Yahoo has run a fairly robust original-content news division. Back a decade ago, sites like Yahoo News and Yahoo Sports were just aggregators, but those properties and other related sites like Yahoo Finance, which is the largest volume financial news site in the U.S., probably drive the bulk of Yahoo's traffic as fairly robust original content providers. They have their own journalism staff, and write their own content. When Yahoo! was bought by Verizon last year, they rolled these properties into Oath Inc., which serves as a holding company for much of Verizon's original news content sites. Yahoo is still a brand with cache, even if it has moved from being primarily a search engine to primarily a content provider. --Jayron 32 11:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo! may well have a cache, but I think the word you're looking for is cachet. I don't really get this question - looking in yesterday's Financial Times there's no stock listing in that name. Yahoo! is owned by Verizon, so the listing will be in that name. According to the paper, Verizon shares are currently 47.76, about midway between their 52-week low of 42.80 and their high of 54.77. 2A00:23C0:FCF6:4801:41CD:4F5F:7568:FBDB (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of the Tech Bubble when I drew a conglomerate of everything starship with [AOL logo]® / AOL / Time-Warner / Microsoft-Yahoo-Exxon-Mobil / Wal-Mart-K-Mart-Target-Macys-JC Penny / ... / long unreadbly small rows / nearly invisible litanous row on the hull. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arm day routine: what's missing?

I realize this is a not a fitness forum, but we have all sorts of experts here. I do the following on a typical arm day. I do not have a personal trainer and I'm wondering if I'm missing any important upper body muscles. (I am neglecting my core, I know--but I know how to improve that part of my workout.)

Warmup: pushups, pullups

Workout: the following, not one-by-one but cyclically, using dumbbells unless otherwise noted, 10-12 rep. Starred are the ones I feel I'm actually doing good at.

Bicep curls, elbows tight in
Shoulder raises? Not sure of the name, think Da Vinci's man
Row*
Standing triceps raises, w/ one dumbbell behind the head*
And about half the time I do either machine or DB or barbell bench press. Not confident in my form
Then I finish with trap raises with a trap bar.*

Any insight would be valued. Thank you!

Temerarius (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if your question technically qualifies as medical advice or not, but regardless I would heartily suggest you take your question to a qualified personal trainer. It's not just about us not dispensing advice, it's also about the fact that someone who can see you do the exercise in person can better tell what muscles are being missed. As you're no doubt aware, even a slight shift in the angle of a lift can impact which muscles get used. Your triceps, for example, are three distinct muscles - only by seeing you in person could it be determined that you're working them all appropriately. Matt Deres (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And to add a note of pedantry, there is no such word as 'bicep'. Biceps is both singular and plural. Turner Street (talk) 08:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Bicep before you get too sure of that. And then there's this.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sneezing

Can you sneeze so hard you physically injure yourself?--WaltCip (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. If you sneezed at the moment an unexpected wind would've almost made you lose your balance and fall off a cliff you could die. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sneeze is only a circumstantial contributor to injury in that case. I'm referring to an actual physical injury caused directly by the act of sneezing.--WaltCip (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems possible that a sneeze could be the straw that breaks the camel's back for something like a pitcher's elbow ligament stretched to almost the sudden breaking point where he could've thrown 1 more pitch if he hadn't sneezed at the worse possible part of the throw for a pitcher in that situation to sneeze. A doctor might know exactly how much less circumstantial it could get. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to have a hemorrhage triggered by a sneeze, but it is extremely uncommon. Even less common is atrial fibrillation triggered by a sneeze. These are so uncommon that all you will find are anecdotes that MIGHT be a cause-effect link. There is not enough data to make a rigorous study. Who would do that anyway? Would you volunteer to sneeze and see if it kills you? 209.149.113.5 (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atrial fibrillation is not acutely life-threatening. Were you thinking of ventricular fibrillation? As for studies on things linked to increased deaths, that's not how you conduct them. Smoking wasn't linked to increased health risks by recruiting a bunch of people to smoke. You take people who are already smoking and track them. Also, a lot can be learned by reviewing public health statistics and medical records. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple of articles the OP might wish to read, regarding injuring caused by sneezing, or by stiffling a sneeze: [2] and [3]. So the answer to the original question is yes. --Xuxl (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mail? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"...the authors concluded that there was a similar risk of injury between real-world low-speed crashes and plopping in a chair or sneezing". Significant Spinal Injury Resulting From Low-Level Accelerations: A Case Series of Roller Coaster Injuries Freeman MD, Croft AC, Nicodemus CN, Centeno CJ, Elkins WL. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation: November 2005, Volume 86, Issue 11, Pages 2126–2130. Alansplodge (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"My experience of back pain began ironically at a moment of great joy for me and my wife in June 2003—just before the birth of our second child. A few days before my wife went into labour, I sneezed, and so began a sequence of events that still affect me today". Spinal injury Correspondence to: P Carter: British Medical Journal 2013; 346 doi (Published 07 June 2013). Alansplodge (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I pulled a muscle in my back once when I sneezed. I was carrying a cup of something or other and didn’t want to spill it, so I had to awkwardly sneeze. Not a serious injury, and pure anecdata, but there you go. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've popped a blood vessel in my eye once or twice because of a sneeze. Again, not exactly serious, but technically an injury. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can injure yourself by not sneezing. Man ruptures throat by stifling a sneeze. BBC, 16 January 2018. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not quite right. He still sneezed; sneezing is a reflex which is basically impossible to stop (or nearly so). All he did was to sneeze, and redirect the air flow back into his throat, causing a tear from the massive pressures involved. --Jayron 32 23:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible to kind of stifle a sneeze to an extent. I don't know if that's a good idea or not. In any case, I know someone who had some delicate dental work, and they were told that for a couple of weeks, if a sneeze was coming on, to sneeze with the mouth open. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can do way more damage by stifling a sneeze than by letting it happen. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 19

Inland Revenue vs. HM Inspector of Taxes

Back in the 1990s I had a job working for the Inland Revenue in the UK. However, I remember that officially my employer was stated not as the Inland Revenue, but as "Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes". Clearly there was some legal nicety which meant that HMIT, rather than the IR, was my officially designated employer. What were the precise legal definitions on which this turned? --Viennese Waltz 10:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had a job in the Valuation Office Agency and I seem to recall my employer was the District Valuer and Valuation Officer (both of them were the same person), rather than the VO or the IR (of which the VO was a part). I think it's something to do with it being the DV/VO (in my case) and the HMIT (in yours) being the person who has the legal authority to do the work according to the wording of the relevant Acts, but couldn't swear to it. It's a good question! DuncanHill (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. If your theory is correct, and I have no reason to suspect that it is not, then Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes, or some current equivalent, ought to be the official employer of those who now work for HM Revenue and Customs. But HMIT is a redlink and Google has not come up with any legal definition of the term, so I suspect the office may no longer exist. The Act that governs the workings of HMRC seems to be the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005, which established Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, so maybe these Commissioners are the current equivalent of HMIT. But to complicate matters further, I seem to recall from my time at the Revenue that "Commissioners of Inland Revenue" existed in parallel to HMIT and were certainly not my employer. --Viennese Waltz 13:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 2005 act says the commissioners may appoint staff to be known as officers of Revenue and Customs, it also says they are responsible for "the collection and management of revenue for which the Commissioners of Inland Revenue were responsible before the commencement of this section". DuncanHill (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found this in the National Archives, which says "From the introduction of income tax, Government-appointed Commissioners - usually the landed gentry - were responsible for administering and collecting taxes with Surveyors having a watching brief. This pattern is essentially the same today. Surveyors have since been renamed Inspectors, however, and now have total responsibility for assessment and collection whereas Commissioners resolve disputes but have no executive duties." DuncanHill (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of which the OP speaks the tax offices were grouped into two divisions. There were the offices of "HM Inspector of Taxes", popularly known as "tax offices", which communicated with taxpayers and were open to personal visits by taxpayers to discuss their affairs. There were also offices of "HM Collector of Taxes" to which the money collected (e.g. under the PAYE system) would be remitted which were no doubt responsible for ensuring the payments were kept up to date. The OP apparently worked in the former group. 87.112.145.168 (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds right. But what I want to know is, what was the legal or constitutional relationship between those offices and the body then known as the Inland Revenue? And furthermore, do those offices still exist, and if not, what has replaced them? --Viennese Waltz 17:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 20

Risky cordax

Hello I am going to a toga party and I could use some advice on how to keep it in proper form while dancing. My toga is very large (long) and I use a belt. Temerarius (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article about Cordax describes an ancient dance form that is not necessarily "proper" to perform at a modern Toga party regardless of costume. Juvenal in first-century Rome satirized it as "girls encouraged by applause sink to the ground with tremulous buttocks." Wearing a belted Tunic as illustrated is a practical alternative if you are planning to do much gyration. DroneB (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See toga: "...the toga's bulk and complex drapery made it entirely impractical for manual work or physically active leisure" and was mainly used for formal and ceremonial occasions. Alansplodge (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wearing the same clothes to save time

Hi,

I've read about some successful entrepreneurs like Zuckerberg or Jobs who wear the same clothes every day in order to save time and be more productive. I've even seen videos about it. I have plenty of different tee-shirts but I literally spend less than 10 seconds deciding which one I will wear every morning. I believe that this "same clothes" rule makes absolutely no sense. Am I right or wrong? Thank you for sharing your views about it. Ericdec85 (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the header. The RD isn't a place for debates. You may want to read more carefully your sources too. E.g. I don't see any mention of saving time here [4]. (Couldn't find any comments from Steve Jobs on his rationale although did find Obama who again made no mention of saving time [5].) Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC) 17:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully they mean wearing the same style of clothes every day. If it were literally the same clothes, colleagues would want to keep their distance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Why Successful People Wear the Same Thing Every Day makes it clear that it means the same style and colour of garment, rather than actually the same garment over and over again. Alansplodge (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most businessmen wear the same dark suit, white shirt and tie every working day, and nobody ever thinks it's remarkable. Then there are others famous for wearing the same garb: Tom Wolfe, Queen Victoria, all Italian and Greek widows .... -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Simpson... --Jayron 32 15:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Physicist Richard Feynman supposedly chose to have only chocolate ice cream for dessert for the same reason, to avoid wasting time on minor decisions. This was parodied/mentioned recently on Young Sheldon BTW. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale of saving time, credited to high profile business executives like Zuckerberg and Jobs, doesn't make sense to me, but Corporate identity suggests to me that presenting a single colour-coordinated style of dress may reinforce in potential customers' minds that this is a company focused on consistency. In that article, see Coherence in the Best practices section. Akld guy (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But why are you crediting a rationale to someone who has never AFAWK given that rationale? Nil Einne (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The OP stated that the same-clothes rule made no sense to him. So he rejects it. So I'm entitled to think that he must be asking for alternative motivations. Akld guy (talk) 08:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Casual attire on modern corporate tycoons can be seen as a departure from the business attire of their predecessors or it can be seen as conformance to prevailing taste in dress in the general populace. Bus stop (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do people know that they actually live in Bethesda, Maryland (or similar unincorporated places in Maryland)?

The article on Bethesda, Maryland indicates that the community "has no official boundaries". The census bureau, the geological survey, and other organizations have their own definitions for Bethesda, but it sounds like those definitions slightly contradict each other. How could someone confidently say that they live in Bethesda, Maryland? (Or Silver Spring, Maryland, or any other place with a similar lack of clear boundaries?) 76.192.184.29 (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this the norm for many neighborhoods? This is just 1 level higher. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. the north border of the Upper East Side transitioned from billIonaire territory to Harlem Lite in c.2000 feet, is 96th and the river still the Upper East Side? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, neighborhood boundaries can be fuzzy. But you don't need to put a neighborhood name in a postal address. I'm genuinely confused how people in Maryland determine which place names to list in their postal addresses. Sure, these places have zip codes, but a single zip code can serve several different communities. 76.192.184.29 (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe townships? I don't know if Maryland has those. And the letter that only says Bethesda might just get there anyway unless the street number plus ZIP if given could refer to 2+ places that could at least possibly be considered Bethesda by someone. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does Bethesda collect any taxes from its residents? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The postal address is less official than you think. I've lived & worked in unincorporated places in PA. People decide for themselves what to list as their town on a postal address, and sometimes there's no "official" right answer (though some would be obviously wrong). As long as there's a zip code, the letter will get delivered to the local post office, and they will know the area well enough to find your house. Staecker (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not exactly right. "Official" postal addresses in the U.S. are designated by the USPS. You can look them up here. What is the case is that postal addresses have no particular relationship to city/community boundaries. Makes sense, they're about delivering mail. This also means people can use more "familiar" community names for postal addresses, and that the addresses don't change every time local borders change. Now, what you've mentioned is that, to add confusion (okay, really because people would complain otherwise), there are sometimes other "acceptable" addresses that the USPS will still accept. Again, these are often familiar local names. Also, people can ask the USPS to change the "official" place name associated with a ZIP Code. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The census (mentioned in the question) uses census tracts. You aren't placed in a city or town. You are placed in a census tract. Each census tract has a very clearly defined boundary. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, but what's your source for that assertion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/gtc/gtc_ct.html 209.149.113.5 (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is that these places are unincorporated communities. Such communities lack any municipal corporation, and so any boundaries they have are arbitrarily defined by other agencies, such as the U.S. Census (census tracts) and the U.S. Post Office (postal addresses and ZIP codes) which may or may not have any relation to the place in question; some unincorporated places have their own Post Office which may have the name of the community; but the post office may or may not deliver to the whole community, and some unincorporated places don't have their own post office, so they have addresses where the city is listed as the post office that delivers their mail, rather than where they live. For example, near where I live is Cleveland, Johnston County, North Carolina, which is a fairly large community which has it's own high school, elementary schools, newspaper, local youth sports organization, all named "Cleveland" (i.e. Cleveland High School, Cleveland Post, Greater Cleveland Athletic Association, etc.) It's a real place that people can identify with and know that they live there. Both geographically and population-wise, if it were incorporated and given boundaries, Cleveland would be a medium-sized suburb with 20-30,000 people. However, it isn't incorporated, and doesn't have a local post office, so if you live in Cleveland, your house "address" is listed by the post office that delivers your mail, which IIRC, could be any one of four different surrounding communities. Thus, your house address might say Garner, North Carolina, but you don't live in Garner; you don't even live in the same county as Garner, but because the Garner post office delivers your mail, that's what it says on your mail. You aren't in Garner, you're in Cleveland, which has ill-defined boundaries because there is no municipal corporation given authority over some patch of land called "Cleveland". There's just a population center named "Cleveland". --Jayron 32 15:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of this is postcode snobbery. There's also "telephone exchange snobbery" [6] ("Residents of Upper Leytonstone who were originally on Walthamstow (manual) exchange objected to being given numbers on LEYtonstone, a place they considered distinctly unfashionable.") 87.112.145.168 (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 21

Designing observation space according to the TV screen dimension

I'd like to know the optimal geometric-optic parameters or considerations regarding observation space (e.g., living room) vs screen size & dimensions. It'll be nice to have some references with respect to the relevant ergonomic aspects. P.s., the question doesn't result from the fact that FIFA world cup is forthcoming. בנצי (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "optimum" because it is based on opinion. I personally prefer a tv to be above eye level. Other people prefer it to be directly at eye level or slightly below. I personally want to see the sides of the television without turning my head. Other people want to be "immersed" in the picture. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're turning your eyes though cause the fovea and foveola are tiny. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Optimum HDTV viewing distance.

Also the Dutch consumers association ("consumentenbond") has a helpful graphic on this external link 212.178.135.35 (talk) 12:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Martin.[reply]

May 22

FAA regulations

Note: I am NOT looking for legal advice here, and indeed I would NEVER contemplate doing the stuff listed below, because I know that often the penalty for these things is death by plane crash; however, with that said, and assuming that the pilot in question survives, what are the legal penalties for: (1) knowingly taking off into IMC without an instrument flight plan (from an uncontrolled airport); (2) entering Class B airspace without clearance; (3) flying through the same Class B airspace in IMC without an instrument flight plan; and (4) landing at a controlled airport without clearance when the weather conditions are below minimums for any published instrument approach at that airport? 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:EDA1:77AF:46A8:7B5 (talk) 06:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) website has a section on Regulations & Policies that you should consult. DroneB (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Using lots of mirrors can you see to infinity?

Given a theoretically perfect set of mirrors reflecting into each other and a perfect set of eyes, can you see infinity?

What do you mean by "infinity"? I suppose that light could bounce back and forth infinitely many times between perfect mirrors, but that would take an infinite amount of time. (This should have been asked at the science desk.) Clarityfiend (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Infinity mirror. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, because light has a speed limit, and so it takes infinite time to appear to be at infinity. So you are not going to see back further than the time to travel back to when the mirror was built. Also things look smaller and smaller as they are reflected more times, so it will get harder to see. Lastly consider that the object and you are going to block some of that light, so you will probably just see reflections of yourself, the light source or any other objects. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Regardless of the reflective purity of the mirrors, the images should be reduced to such small sizes that they becomes unobservable, essentially instantly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]