Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the science section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.
skip to bottom
Select a section:
Shortcut
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:


March 1

Coronavirus concern

The world is in panic about the Coronavirus. Scientifically speaking, why should the world should be very concerned about the Coronavirus epidemic if the fatality rate is about 2% [1] [2]? And especially if young and healthy kids and millennials get it if the fatality rate is not existent for these groups? Other kinds of viruses have higher fatality rates than the Coronavirus. Scientifically speaking, help me understand why the Coronavirus is of grave concern. 2600:1006:B050:FEA4:ACC5:C31D:DCF3:63A3 (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish flu had a similar mortality rate, and killed around 50 million people (from a substantially smaller global population with much less global traffic). Whether that's of "grave concern" to you personally is up to you, of course, and may depend on your relative evaluation of pensioners and millenials. HenryFlower 08:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spanish flu had a 8-20% mortality rate based on Wikipedia article. A far cry from 2% or even a fair bit lower if there are many asymptomatic/weakly symptomatic cases which would explain the numerous outbreaks. 89.172.75.199 (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of the article are you reading? The Mortality section says The World Health Organization estimates that 2–3% of those who were infected died. HenryFlower 09:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The intro says 40-100 million out of 500 million infected. 40-100 million was more than 2-3% of the entire planet's population at that time, let alone the number of infected, so WHO must've been working with different death figures. 93.136.1.34 (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True. Looking at the talk page, there's been a bit of discussion about the discrepancy, going back at least ten years. I'm not reading all that, but the upshot seems to be that nobody was really counting at the time, so guesses vary wildly. HenryFlower 22:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian did a recent piece entitled Yes, it is worse than the flu: busting the coronavirus myths. I don't know how accurate the points in at are, but at least it's a reasonably reliable source. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the viral load is relatively high, then the virus may kill even young persons, that's why Li Wenliang, for example, died at just 33 years. But, perhaps more importantly, infected persons may spread the virus to people with weak immune systems, including elder persons (potentially someone's grandparents, etc). And that's not good. These projected scenarios may be of interest. Brandmeistertalk 09:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing is done to slow down the spreading, health and sanitation systems will be overwhelmed and dead bodies will be lying in the streets of major cities, like happened with the 1918 influenza pandemic and earlier this year in Wuhan. Not only is the death rate of infected people maybe 20 times that of seasonal influenza, but the World's population has virtually no immunity of any kind against the novel coronavirus – unlike for most kinds of influenza viruses. The pro capita mortality would therefore be much higher. On the other hand, only drastic or even draconic measures will cause a significant slow-down, but these also have a dramatic effect on the economic productivity.  --Lambiam 14:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed on "dead bodies will be lying in the streets of major cities, like happened with the 1918 influenza pandemic and earlier this year in Wuhan": Corpses of Wuhan Coronavirus Patients Dumped on Roads? Fake Alert 93.136.1.34 (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The OP's "only" 2 percent sounds like General Turgidson: "I'm not saying we won't get our hair mussed..." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I asked because I saw the stats, but I don’t know much about the Coronavirus. 2600:1006:B050:FEA4:ACC5:C31D:DCF3:63A3 (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nor does hardly anyone else, and that feeds the "panic". The flu is bad, but it's a known quantity. This thing still has too many question marks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"if young and healthy kids and millennials get it if the fatality rate is not existent for these groups". Large numbers of people are not "young and healthy kids and millennials". I'm not sure why so many people seem to think that a disease that kills people who are already ill, and the elderly/middle-aged, is no big deal. And in a worst case scenario of 100% contagion, that means killing off 2% of the Silent Generation, Boomers, Gen X, and unhealthy millenials and kids, which is a huge number of deaths, with every family losing people. Iapetus (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that it's not a big deal, it's that many things have a disproportionate mortality on those groups, including the flu, other coronaviruses, and other respiratory illnesses. Although deaths in those groups are a tragedy, they're not unexpected, even without some specific trigger. Deaths to otherwise healthy young adults is a) unexpected b) a greater burden on the economy and c) a greater burden on the healthcare system, both because higher numbers of people need treatment and because more of the staff will be directly affected. Matt Deres (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out here::
"The danger posed to society from this disease doesn't come from the mortality rate, rather from the potential to make large fraction of the population ill. Unlike the flu virus, this virus is a new virus to which we have no immunity.
About 10% of the infected people requires hospital treatment, which is a lot higher than in case of flu. The death rate of the order of 1% is achieved thanks to excellent hospital treatment. With a far larger fraction of the population infected with this virus compared to the flu and a far larger fraction of the infected people requiring hospital treatment compared to flu, the available hospital capacity to give everyone the treatment they need can be easily exhausted. The death rate due to the virus will then increase.
Also, people who need treatment for other reasons can then also fail to get prompt medical attention. People suffering a heart attack who would have survived under normal circumstances thanks to getting prompt medical attention, may now end up dying too." Count Iblis (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you back up a bit and look at media representation, you get a different view. Why is the coronovirus all over world media? Because it gets attentiona and that attention sells advertising. If you present it just right, you can get a lot of play out of the coronovirus. Include pictures of land sharks with rabies and I bet you can get more play out of it. This doesn't mean that the coronovirus is not a threat. It means that the threat of it and the media coverage of it are not necessarily related to one another. Terrible things have gone uncovered. Benign things have been covered ad nauseam. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The coronavirus is not "benign". And it's too early to say with certainty how big of a threat it is or what its mortality rate will turn out to be. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the media because it currently has a 2000% higher kill rate than the flu, (COVID-19 has about a 20 per 1000 kill rate, where as the flu has about a 1 per 1000 kill rate) and the flu already kills a lot of people. --Jayron32 18:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are comparing the death rate for those diagnosed in a medical facility with COVID19 to the death rate of all people estimated to get a flu infection - including those who show little to no symptoms. If you increase the COVID19 denominator to all those infected who show little to no symptoms, the death rate will be far lower - and sell less advertising if you were producing a media segment. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have fun living in your little world where diseases don't matter and bury your head in the sand. Have fun with that. Me, I'm going to wash my hands and try to stay away from people actively sneezing on me. --Jayron32 18:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that you believe around 6 millions people will die. This specific strand of coronovirus was found in China. 2% of the population of China is over 27 million. Yet, the total deaths in China is less than 3,000 and the infection rate has plumetted over the last two weeks. How does discussing 2% of the population of a country relate to the observed death rate of a virus? 135.84.167.41 (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can't make any assumptions. Before they started dying, the death rate was 0. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course, that's why the authorities in various countries around the world are doing something. Your argument that authorities, the media, and people should just ignore the disease and carry on as though nothing bad could happen, and that no preventative action should be taken, is unwise given the potential problems. The fact that these problems will happen if we do nothing is why we are doing something. The reason why death rates are decreasing is not because China did absolutely nothing and pretended like the disease would just take care of itself, which is what you are arguing the world should do. It is decreasing because effective measures are being taken. --Jayron32 12:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please show where I made the claim that nobody should do anything at all? I made the claim that the media is covering COVID19 because it sells advertising. If it didn't sell advertising, they wouldn't cover it. I also made the claim that the death rate of the COVID19 that you used is based on a denominator of people diagnosed with COVID19 in a heatlh facility (as reported by the WHO). The flu death rate you used is based on a denominator of 70% of the population that we assume will come in contact with the virus (as reported by the WHO). You cannot compare those death rates to one another because they are not measured the same way. You have made a strawman argument. You are arguing against something that I did not say in any way. What should people do? Wash your damn hands. The primary method of transmission is by getting the virus on your hands and then rubbing it all over your face. If you wash your hands, you will hinder the primary method of transmission. Is it 100% guaranteed? No. Absolutely not. But, running around screaming that the sky is falling isn't going to help in any way. Making claims that 2% of the U.S. population is going to die doesn't help. Making up strawmen to argue against doesn't help. I assume you intend to help and have the energy to do so. So, I strongly suggest that you repeat the WHO's information: Wash your hands. Don't buy facemasks (they don't help). If you can isolate yourself, do so. If you feel sick, make every attempt to isolate yourself. Don't ignore doctor's warnings and go to a party, travelling across state lines and sneezing all over everyone you meet along the way. All in all, don't panic. Wash your hands. Don't be an ass. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The ass is not a method of transmission. I believe it is mostly through the facial area instead (mouth, nose, eyes, etc.) --Jayron32 13:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Were you saying the same kind of thing in the 1980s when the AIDS panic was in the news? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good example of my point. In the 70s, AIDS was not covered in the media because it didn't sell ads. In the 80s, it did sell ads. So, it was covered extensively. It isn't because AIDS became more of a threat in the 80s. It is because it sold ads. When the ad sales died off, media covered died off. It isn't because AIDS became less of a threat. It is because advertising sales declined. I personally do not see why it is difficult to consider the motivation of media coverage as separate from the threat of the disease. The longer you live, the more "!!!WE ALL GONNA DIE!!!" media cycles you live through. Instead of panicing and doing nothing, protect yourself. Wash your hands. Isolate yourself if you can. AIDS was similar. Instead of a panic, don't use dirtly needles and don't have unprotected sex. Still, nobody is discussing how to protect against rabies infected land sharks. They have a death rate of 100% (and the death rate was zero before it started). 135.84.167.41 (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my country, at least, some media outlets cover this but do not sell any advertising at all. Bazza (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We get BBC World News on PBS in New York (I don't know about PBS in other cities). That is my preferred news source. They aren't blatantly trying to stir up emotions and they don't try to twist every news story into some form of anti-Trump rant. I get enough of that just riding the subway (Sure, Trump is the reason that seat on the subway is broken. Yes, Trump is the reason your coffee is cold.) and I'm simply too old to care what the Democrats and Republicans are pissing about this week. Back to topic: Each day for the last few weeks, our version of BBC World News has had a report from the World Health Organization. So, you hear the same message over and over: Wash your hands. Isolate yourself. You don't hear panic. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PBS and NPR have very minimal advertising. The IP complaining about disease hype being used to sell ads is a straw man argument. On commercial tv, everything is about selling ads. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2

modern processors

out of curiosity, what is the minimum amount of external circuitry needed to make a modern PC processor work? it doesn't have to work well or fast, just do something minimally useful like say fetching instructions from a (static, parallel) RAM and executing them. I'm thinking of things like PIC and AVR (that are µC), that need only a supply voltage and an optional clock, with not very high requirements (wrt stability etc) for either. I think things like the Z80 didn't need much external logic either. To put it bluntly, is all of that stuff on the MB really needed? This is simply to appreciate, on an intuitive, hobbyist level (I've played with µCs), what goes into a modern PC. Aecho6Ee (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aecho6Ee, This might be more suitable for the computing reference desk, but i'll answer never-the-less:
A *modern* CPU needs an insane amount of circuitry to function, which is why the chipset exists. The CPU is incapable of function without that chipset to guide it, and it needs the BIOS to perform setup before it can even do anything useful (as without any setup, the fan is off, and the CPU would be viable to overheat on the spot)
For an old, CPU, however.. Well that's harder to answer, but I'd say go back in time a good bit, to, say, the MC14500B, and look around. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 17:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not entirely accurate. There's a wide range, even today. See system on a chip, which would contain most of what you are saying on the CPU chip itself. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now we're going to be mincing words: a "CPU" is a different thing than a "chip". The CPU itself is usually a pretty small part of a system-on-chip; and even though everything is very small and fits inside one very nice square-shaped piece of plastic-resin packaging, there are many digital logic circuits other than the CPU inside that little rectangular black box. A few articles might help: electronic packaging; system on chip; multi-chip module; and so on. Nimur (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to mince words that way, then what is a CPU? We've been sticking on-die cache for decades. For the last decade, it has not been uncommon for entire GPUs to be on die with the CPU, and we still just call it something like an "Intel Core i5," and not "Core i5 + GPU." Is the math coprocessor part of the CPU? Memory management? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OuroborosCobra, I will note that the user asked about PC processors. For SoCs, yes, very little external hardware is needed. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 15:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty arbitrary distinction, isn't it? For example, Intel's 10th Generation U-Series gets built into things that look like laptop computers, but the "chipset" is on-package. Meanwhile, you can still buy certain mobile phones that are built using discrete components... If you draw a distinction between "PC"-class and "SoC"-class CPUs, you're not really describing the state-of-the-art or the state-of-the-marketplace. It would be more appropriate to talk about classifying CPUs at different power- or performance- or price- points. Nimur (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moonythedwarf, SoCs are used in PCs. There's a section in the SoC article about it. They are common in Chromebooks and smaller laptops, and even some of the Surface line. That's why I brought them up. They aren't just for embedded or specialized applications, but also used in many PCs. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OuroborosCobra, Fair point. I always seem to forget about mobile processors. My bad. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 20:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMO however you spin it, the distinction is going to be arbitrary. Is an Intel Compute Stick, a PC [3]? It may be intended for media centre applications but you can still use it like one even if it's fairly weak hardware. I'm currently typing this with a 46 inch TV as my monitor with a wireless keyboard and mouse. I'm not using an Intel Compute Stick, and frankly given the hardware I wouldn't want to, but I could be. Am I using a PC? Earlier today I was making some changes to a simple PowerShell script I wrote (historically but mostly or completely on this set-up). Last week I was doing a fair bit of Excel work. I couldn't play Red Dead Redemption 2 or probably even Two Point Hospital. But I could likely play the Windows versions of Minecraft Bedrock edition (there doesn't seem to be any hardware requirements unlike with the Java edition although I suspect the Jave edition would still work and definitely older versions should), Stardew Valley or most or all Wadjet Eye Games and I think all Infamous Quests and I think even most Phoenix Online Studios games. So am I using a PC?

If the TV is a distraction, well I also have a 24 inch monitor with HDMI input. They're rarer but do exist. (And it is and was sold as a monitor. While only Samsung marketing and designers can tell, I'm not sure if the design goal was simply for for Chromecast type devices since they were still relatively new in NZ at the time. I think part of the reason for HDMI is they wanted to have headphone output and DisplayPort was also still only beginning to take over from DVI. To be fair this no longer applies but I'm fairly sure you can still find monitors with HDMI input.)

I think that the Intel STK2MV64CC [4] and is probably better in most respects than the computer I was using 10 years ago which most would call a PC (Opteron 165 mildly overclocked, Nvidia 8500GT 256 MB, I think 4GB RAM but could have been 8GB RAM, HD as storage). The main question mark is the RAM, and storage. (Definitely size, even if you add a 512GB microSD although possibly 1TB will be enough. And although flash, eMMC and SD can be fairly crap although they probably still have better random read and write performance.) See e.g. [5] vs [6] and [7] vs [8] and [9] vs [10] although note that these are intended only for a very quick guide as many of these benchmarks may depends on other hardware, user and when they were done. Especially for the Intel, it's going to depend a lot on the hardware design TDP. Definitely it's better than what I was using 15 years ago. I actually wonder whether in some cases the Compute Stick outperforms my current computer which only has a AMD A10 5800K, although definitely my 32GB RAM and 512GB SSD, and for gaming my 280X means not in most cases.

And the STK2MV64CC is fairly old now. Despite the problems Intel has faced, I think you could design one with Kaby Lake, you'd get something even better although I'm not sure if there's anything beyond Kaby Lake you can use. (I think they haven't bothered to make a new Compute Stick because it didn't have much success.)

Then there's also the famous Raspberry Pis. These can be used for lots of things, but PCs is one common suggestion. Our article even says "The Raspberry Pi Foundation announces that they had sold eight million devices (for all models combined), making it the best-selling UK personal computer, ahead of the Amstrad PCW."

And in case it isn't obvious, I chose these examples because both are relatively small with limited components. Although still very complicated, some Raspberry Pi use a 6 layer PCB [11] and I think most will be like that. Frankly the Pi isn't a great example since they often have GPIO pins and other stuff for the various markets they are in part targeted at which you don't need for a simple PC. But they are also well known and have a fairly open design goal [12] meaning I'm fairly sure you can find a fair bit about the other stuff even if the SoC is still a bit of a black box. The Pis are also passive unlike the tiny fan in the Compute Stick.

As for Nimur's point, I mostly agree with OuroborosCobra. What do you mean mean by 'other components'? This seems to be a Intel Core M7-6Y75 [13]. You can see 2 dies on one side, and a large number of solder balls for the FC-BGA on the other. The 2 die bit is mostly irrelevant. I'm fairly they could make a monolithic one if they tried, it's just not an effective way to make them. (As AMD are showing, maybe even monolithic CPUs are not the best.) Undoubtedly what's on the die is very complicated with a lot of stuff which could be called components.

But although I used CPU earlier, the distinction between which part is the 'CPU' and which part isn't is not that clear cut. I still remember, and I think I may still have in the garage a motherboard with separate L2 (or L3 with some CPUs) cache. I think it may be under 25 years old. Yet many would find it weird to suggest the L2 or L3 cache on many modern CPUs is not part of the CPU.

P.S. I chose small size since it's likely to mean minimising components. From a general design standpoint, small sizes does have other tradeoffs. While some have designed Intel based compute sticks without fans [14] it is more difficult. However you can get some fairly fancy passively cooled Next Unit of Computing/mini PC type computers e.g. www.aliexpress.com/item/32766530325.html www.aliexpress.com/item/4000183153450.html . Admittedly I'm not sure how well designed these are or whether they have significant overheating and throttling, but still, they exist. Even with a dinky fan, you're not doing the same thing from a compute stick type design.

P.P.S. From my experience, the iGPU is actually named in a lot of cases. Maybe not in general marketing, but whether it's an Iris 640 or an HD Graphics 615 makes a big difference if you're using the GPU for something like gaming. It's true that each CPU is given a distinct model which tells you what the GPU is and I don't disagree with the general point that it's arbitrary whether you want to call the GPU part of the CPU or not.

For a while AMD got very big into their APU marketing. I think in part because they hoped it would compensate for their CPU module design which effectively meant you could have 4 threads with ~4x performance for integer calculations, but only 2 for floating point. I think they were hoping GPGPU would gain a lot more ground in generic home and business applications than it did i.e. the distinction between CPU and GPU when designing software would melt away more than it it. While this may not have happened, I think it still highlights how it's a bit arbitrary. And APUs and the Heterogeneous System Architecture still exists on some Ryzens.

And this reminds me of something I forgot and missed in OC's reply. I think I used a 80386 with or without a 80387 Coprocessor. Would you say such a computer has 2 CPUs or what? Yet despite what our article says, I don't think many would think of the AMD Ryzen 9 3950X as having FPU coprocessors, or the FPU as anything but part of the CPU. Then you get stuff like Intel's AVX-512. I don't know how accurate, but I've read claims that something like 25% of the die can be used for this. [15] Yet how many will say it's not part of the Intel CPUs that have it?

Nil Einne (talk) 08:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One additional comment. I guess some may consider even with the HSA (after all it is called heterogenous) etc, the GPU is clearly not part of the CPU since it has its own clock speed. I find this an interesting assertion considering you can have BigLittle type architectures and other cases (selective clocking of different cores depending on usage for example) with different clocks for different cores. And then there's how you consider things like the infinity fabric or any eDRAM cache. Meanwhile GPUs themselves often have core clocks and shader clocks. Nil Einne (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Modern CPUs perform bit operations. You need to feed in the values to set the registers. You need a clock pulse to tell the CPU to step through the operations. You can then read what is in the registers. That is the minimal hardware required. You don't need memory. You can set the incoming bits with switches. You don't need BIOS. The CPU runs whatever instruction you set in the registers. You don't need any form of display. You don't even need a CPU fan. If you have a slow clock pulse, it won't heat up. So, you really just need power, a pulse, and some way to feed in some binary numbers and a way to read out some binary numbers. In the end, that is all the CPU does. You set the registers, clock-clock-clock and then read the registers. Modern CPUs do have special connections. You can have direct memory access, bypassing a memory controller. You can have direct video card access, bypassing a bus controller. Of course, you can ignore that stuff and simply not connect it. For example, if you have a fancy CPU with a special direct connection to a high-end video card, but you don't have the video card to connect to, the CPU still works. You just can't play your games with the super high-end graphics. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quite correct. I think, if we're trying to boil this down to a hobbyist/amateur's level of detail, the right way to describe it is that your (main) CPU provides a surprisingly small part of the overall experience of a modern computer. For all the things you expect - like a graphical user interface, multimedia, video, audio, external keyboard, mouse, storage, networking ... and so much more - your main CPU doesn't actually do all of those things. Perhaps it could do those things - hypothetically speaking - but in today's system designs, the main CPU does not actually do any of that stuff by itself. The main CPU needs all the other "stuff." If we were to go over all the stuff, one by one, in sequence, it would literally take thousands of years just to describe it - because modern computers literally contain many billions of parts - for example, see our article on transistor count. It's not practical to list every part: instead, we depend on large numbers of teams - each with their own even-larger numbers of individual engineers - to manage all that "stuff." At the end of it all, we have a hugely complicated machine that does all the stuff that a regular user expects from a computer built in this century. It does a lot more than just "computing" numbers.
And if we want a modern system, we really have no option except to trust the final-result of all the accumulated years effort put in by all of those thousands of individuals, encapsulated inside one or more physical objects that we call the "components" of the whole computer system.
Now, where do e finally put all that "stuff" - all the individual components? Well, that depends on a lot of factors. Digital circuitry can actually be made really incredibly microscopically small - so small that it is absolutely invisible to you. Modern digital circuits can be made so small that the laws of physics tell us that you could not see it using visible light - no matter how powerful your microscope! So why are there still all these separate big bulky square-shaped rectangle things?
In some cases, we can use very large scale integration technology to put every single digital system inside one piece of plastic. But sometimes those super-highly-integrated all-in-one circuits are expensive; sometimes they need big, huge, massive incredibly talented engineering teams to design them; and sometimes even if you put that circuit, it could overheat - and so there are lots of factors that explain why any specific computer is designed to have all those "chips" and other components.
A lot of modern computer system design is a race between keeping up with all the new stuff that people want - and putting all that complexity in one place without breaking anything. You can basically look at the final shape of a computer as some kind of dynamic equilibrium - new stuff gets added, and customers won't buy a computer without it - but collectively, we haven't figured out a way to make that thing fit on to one single tiny little integrated circuit yet. A few years later, we figure that component out - and ... customers have some new thing that they must have, and system designers have to put in another discrete component ...
Nimur (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced this is the best way to look at things. I'm fairly sure with a modern PC style Intel or AMD CPU, you can't actually get it to do much, if you don't initialise it in the correct fashion. If expects certain stuff at certain times. If you don't do the right thing, it's either going to shut down, or the output will effectively be it telling you there is something wrong. Technically you could argue this feeding in binary numbers and receiving an output of binary numbers, but I don't think this is a meaningful way of looking at things. Nil Einne (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is a similar argument (in my opinion) to telling universities to stop teaching MIPS assembly. You are feeding in binary (hex, technically, but binary). You are reading out binary. What's the point? The counter-argument is that it teaches computer architecture. Without a good foundation in computer architecture, you can't get a good foundation in operating systems. Without a good foundation in operating systems, you can't get a good foundation in software algorithms. Without a good foundation in software algorithms, you can't get a good foundation in computer programming. Then, you have a gap between those with more of a holistic view of computers and those who memorized every cool add-on for python. Usually, it doesn't matter, but every now and then we get a major security flaw because someone who didn't really understand what they were doing toock a shortcut that shouldn't have been taken. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An old saying you may have heard: "If builders built buildings the way programmers write programs, the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just for fun, here's an interesting link: megaprocessor. A guy built a working processor out of transistors and such things. It's currently in the Cambridge Centre for Computing History. --2001:16B8:1EC2:FD00:A10B:A4C:F684:2791 (talk) 03:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using spontaneous combustion in a power plant

Would artificially induced spontaneous combustion (through rapid oxidation or bacterial fermentation) be a cheaper and less complicated way to generate heat at a power plant, particularly when compared to fossil-fuel and nuclear power plants? The usage of haypiles and compost for that purpose also looks like a better option than non-renewable coal. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Spontaneous combustion is just an ignition method, once something is already on fire, it doesn't care how it got ignited. Biomass power sources already exist, there's not a whole lot to be gained by creating some exotic ignition method. --Jayron32 17:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fossil fuel power stations also use some kind of ignition method, so this comes down to comparison of ignition methods. To generate heat a fossil fuel power plant uses mainly either a furnace or gas burning, with complex process of coal preparation and ignition to generate steam and ultimately spin the turbines. So, instead of all that machinery why not to use spontaneous combustion that would surely produce the same water steam for spinning turbines and electricity? Brandmeistertalk 20:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So instead use a more complex, energy intensive, and time consuming process of preparing the coal for the correct conditions for proper and yet predictable spontaneous combustion? I mean, some engine systems rely on it (Diesel engines for example), but I'm not sure that scales for coal power plants. --Jayron32 12:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spontaneous means not artificially induced, but ignition systems for a variety of combustion applications use both the latent heat of a surrounding system, usually as sustained combustion as in jet engines, and timed fuses. EllenCT (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All that said, it might be viable to utilize the waste heat from already-existing industrial-scale composting (as performed by many local authorities in the UK using municipally-collected collected garden and food waste) either directly or to generate useful amounts of electricity from thermoelectric generators. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.142.153 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Waste heat recovery is an important part of chemical engineering. EllenCT (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like a bad idea to me.
  • Spontaneous combustion of a pile of hay takes some time. Our article says usually 4 to 5 weeks. When you decide to switch on your power station, you want it on the grid within a day.
  • When there's a good air supply to your compost pile, the air will act as a coolant and prevent ignition. So, you need poor air supply. After ignition the air supply will still be poor, leading to slow burning, a cool flame, dirty smoke and poor efficiency.
  • What about using it only for ignition? After a few weeks waiting you've got a burning pile of hay, which you then use to ignite your natural gas. Is that really simpler than an electric spark?
Of course you can utilise waste heat. If you have some industrial process that produces waste heat that you can't use otherwise or only need at a lower temperature than your source, it may be a good idea to extract some work from it. The efficiency may be low, but it's better than not using the heat at all (if maintenance of your heat engine isn't too expensive).
Biomass is used to generate electricity, usually by burning it in a way similar to how coal is burned (and usually mixed with coal). It's potentially green energy, but somewhat controversial. The biomass is usually burned together with coal, which is definitely not green, and it's hard to guarantee that the biomass comes from sustainable sources. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 4

How much meat do parrots eat in the wild?

Anyone know? Have seen pet Amazon parrots stripping meat and marrow from chicken bones. Judging by the happy trilling noises and eye flaring, they really love it. Supposed to be good for them on an occasional basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.140.98 (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it will depend on the species (there are almost 400 species of parrot) and the availability of meat. Our Parrot article provides some info in the section Diet: "The diet of parrots consists of seeds, fruit, nectar, pollen, buds, and sometimes arthropods and other animal prey. ... Some parrot species prey on animals, especially invertebrate larvae. Golden-winged parakeets prey on water snails, the New Zealand kea can, though uncommonly, hunts adult sheep, and the Antipodes parakeet, another New Zealand parrot, enters the burrows of nesting grey-backed storm petrels and kills the incubating adults. Some cockatoos and the New Zealand kaka excavate branches and wood to feed on grubs; the bulk of the yellow-tailed black cockatoo's diet is made up of insects. ... Some extinct parrots had carnivorous diets. Pseudasturids were probably cuckoo- or puffbird-like insectivores, while messelasturids were raptor-like carnivores." (For references see the article.) In general seeds seem to remain the most important; a meat-only diet will probably lead to malnutrition (see also Rabbit starvation).  --Lambiam 11:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

dual mono to stereo, audio adapter

I have two audio sources. each provides mono audio, via a TRS jack. I need a stereo audio output, via a TRRS jack. one source each for the left and right channels. (1) can this adapter work without active power? (2) what is the name of this device? thanks! --14.194.231.184 (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest passive mixer, to mix two signals onto one signal
  • If that's all that you need, then a very simple passive adapter can do it. It doesn't even need any resistors to sum the signals (to mix two mono signals onto one, you'd use a Y network of resistors, like the diagram).
I don't know of a source for one ready-made, but you could make one by soldering. The easiest way might be to get an existing adapter, chopping the cores open in the cable (with a scalpel, to try and leave the screens intact) and then isolating one side and crossing the other side over in the other connector. Then pot the joint up under some Sugru or self-amalgamating tape.
I don't know what the pinouts are for TRRS (stereo) and TRS (mono). You'd have to confirm that for your particular device.
You should also check that the levels are suitable. You might need to make a passive mixer circuit (a few resistors and a couple of trimmers) because the levels are unlikely to be quite right, as they arrive – one is likely to be much louder and need balancing.
If you need (as is common) to pan the input signals between the stereo outputs, use something like this.[16] Andy Dingley (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you are describing a TRRS stereo breakout cable. It has TRRS female going to two TRS males. The left/right signal is broken out to the two males. It is a very common adapter. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If they make such a thing, you could use one in reverse and that would work fine. Do you have a source for one? I've not seen one.
This is similar, but it's splitting the mic to one socket and the headphone output to the other – I think the OP is looking for something very similar, but splitting left and right. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Search for "trrs stereo breakout" to get the males and females on the correct side, like this. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a "mic and headphones" splitter. We still need a "left and right". Andy Dingley (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, as Our Friend In Guildford can't leave my email alone, let me explain.
The 4-connection TRRS plug & socket is defined for three different systems, with different pin allocations. The originals were for video and are unidirectional. More recent ones are common on cellphones, but (as always) there are two standards: "the world" (OMTP) and Apple iPhones doing it differently (CTIA). The old PC standard for gaming headsets is the same as Apple. See [17] for pictures. Note that both of them are designed so that plugging in a standard TRS stereo (but unidirectional) headphone jack will connect correctly to the furthest connections for audio output, and short the microphone input to ground, for silence.
I don't know what a "mono TRS" connection is, I guess you actually mean a mono jack with TS alone. However connecting to the left terminal (usually white) of a stereo TRS jack (leaving the red Ring unconnected) will probably do what you need. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


March 5

coronavirus immunity

Do people infected with CV and recover from it become immune, like with some other viral illnesses? If this is not known, does it happen with regular flu? I'm wondering if antibodies from immune people can be used to treat infected people, as was apparently done with Ebola. Don't worry I'm not going to try this at home. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:B270:A096:24F4:F986:C62A (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be too early to tell.[18] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I wonder how many post-recovery positive tests were people who weren't re-infected, but rather, never became non-infected (they beat back the virus enough to stop having symptoms, but not enough to get rid of it completely, like supposedly can happen if you don't take your full course of antibiotics for bacterial infections). To really detect re-infection we'd need to see a positive test followed by a negative test followed by a positive test, all in the same person. There also appear to be two strains of the virus going around now, so they'd have to distinguish them. 2602:24A:DE47:B270:A096:24F4:F986:C62A (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.dfa.co.za/international-news/japanese-woman-tests-positive-for-the-coronavirus-for-a-second-time-43594564 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.198.187.35 (talk) 10:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A recent mutation of the virus may complicate things. Count Iblis (talk) 11:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the only way a body recovers from an infection is by obtaining an immunity to it. As opposed to, for example, poisons, which may or may not have varying tolerance levels. 73.222.115.101 (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wuhan coronavirus in New Zealand

To what extent is the Wuhan coronavirus a problem in New Zealand? Asking again as the situation is changing rapidly. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 coronavirus outbreak in New Zealand. 2602:24A:DE47:B270:A096:24F4:F986:C62A (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excavation methods

Are pneumatic caissons used as an alternative to the standard Piling, use of excavators and temporary retaining structures in large scale excavations? 126.255.11.145 (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen Caisson (engineering)#Pneumatic? I saw some more detailed information here. If that does not answer your question, can you be more specific, in particular as to what engineering purpose the large scale excavation would serve?  --Lambiam 08:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, they're certainly used and would still be an alternative.
In the modern period, pneumatic caissons are used less than they used to be, in favour of larger open-topped caissons. The availability of powerful cranes means that a large caisson (i.e. large enough to reach the surface) is both more easily installed, and crane access from above is obviously useful. Health and safety aspects also discourage working under pressure. Also working with bulk materials in a pneumatic caisson was infamously difficult, as they mostly relied on manual effort to move and lift things and spoil removal / material supply was awkward through the lock.
If a pneumatic caisson was used to gain access to the bottom, that has largely been replaced. If a pneumatic caisson was used because access to the bottom still needed to be under pressure (i.e. water would flood in otherwise), those are still used.
Furthermore, open water diving has become more sophisticated. Tasks which might once have needed a caisson to work in are now being done underwater. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 6

jerk and jounce, or snap, crackle, and pop?

So the third derivative of position, if you need it, is jerk.
I just discovered we've got an article jounce on the fourth derivative.
But that's where things start getting a little hinky.
At jounce there's an image (citing a reference) suggesting that the fifth and sixth derivatives are called flounce and pounce.
But there's also an (attributed) quote saying "The not so common names for the next three derivatives are snap, crackle, and pop", and indeed we've actually got articles, citing multiple references, on crackle and pop.
I realize it's a pretty academic question, but does anyone know whether jounce/flounce/pounce, or snap/crackle/pop, are more "official", and deserving of having their names on articles here? I've chased the linked references about as far as I can, without finding much in the way of definitivity. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. And if this intrigues you, you can also look into absement, absity, abseleration, and abserk, or the somewhat related actergy.

While these are quite jovial terms, I don't think I've seen them seriously used in any physics or engineering context. It's much more appropriate, and a lot more common, to clearly describe the nth derivative of position with respect to time.
As a point of note, when we use kinematic equations that actually do use the nth derivative - for example, in complicated situations of mechanical control theory, robotics, vehicle dynamics, and so on... well,... when things are very simple, we only need to use second-order equations (hence, the omnipresent PID controller); and when we actually need more than two terms, then we're usually controlling a state-space matrix, or some other transform-domain; and so - if there were three or five or k-thousand terms, we are not typically controlling (or even caring about) the time-derivatives. Rather, we simply refer to the k-th element of the vector of control-variables, which may - for some special cases - be defined by some computable relationship to one or more time-derivatives. What we do have, in terms of standard terminologies, are specific names for specific methods to generate those computable relationships.
And therefore, every proper roboticist worth their salt has memorized every variant of those horrible A-B-C-D matrix methods, which are a formalization of the linearized relationships between all n-th order derivatives, and we can all solve them on paper, and do not actually have to resort to using MATLAB.
...So, we don't really need names for those higher-order derivatives of motion. As such, I tend to disbelieve anyone who claims to report an authoritative, widely-used nomenclature for them.
A great reference is the Nise book on Control Systems Engineering; that book is kind of the "canonical source of truth" for the "standard" terminology - at least among the community of engineers who design and study the dynamic control of mechanical systems. There are plenty of other great resources, too - I can dig some out if you want more...
A practical everyday example where jerk is important is holding onto a pole while standing aboard a bus or subway train. You can handle more acceleration if you know it's coming and have time to tighten your grip, and the way you know is that the jerk is low. --69.159.8.46 (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nimur (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I get it about whether we need an "authoritative, widely-used nomenclature for them" -- and that's kind of why asked, since our articles Crackle (physics) and Pop (physics) could seem to lend the ol' "undue weight".
(Ironically, I am a roboticist, although evidently not one worth my salt. :-) )
—Steve Summit (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Up to jounce is quite widely used. Above this I've only heard snap, crackle and pop.
High-order derivatives are used in cases where there's some other process acting as an integrator. Most commonly this is the human body: the organs flapping around inside can be sensed by their force on the abdominal wall and that can best be predicted by calculating these high derivatives for the vehicle the human is in. So the main application areas for this are rollercoaster physics (I think it was Disney who originally imagineered snap, crackle and pop), fighter aircraft pilot ergonomics and motor racing. F1 drivers experience small-dimension forces but of much higher acceleration (and jounce) far greater than fighter pilots do (More high-order impulse from concrete kerbs than aerodynamics).
Years ago, I made instrumented driving shoes with an accelerometer, to try and tie this to uncommanded throttle surges that were happening. Jounce was moving the ankle up and down and the high-precision throttle sensor was reacting so quickly that it was detecting these bounces. The fix was to low-pass filter the throttle control input. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, rollercoaster physics should redirect to Physics of roller coasters. —2606:A000:1126:28D:2D45:4564:93:B822 (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC) ... thx, User:scs [reply]
And now it does. (You're welcome! :-) ) —Steve Summit (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 7

Eucharistic miracle at Sokółka

There is a claim of a Eucharistic miracle at Sokółka, Poland where upon close scientific examination, cardiac muscle fibres of a dying man were found intermixed with bread fibres in a way that no one can reproduce. Furthermore, there is another purported miracle I find somewhat compelling (which we do not have an article on), Our Lady of Las Lajas, Colombia. [19] Has the latter case been examined scientifically? Are there any skeptical scientists who have examined the first purported miracle? Why have neither of these claims been nominated for the Randi Prize? 2607:FEA8:1DDF:FEE1:C0AC:BED:E678:E3B (talk) 01:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Randi prize would require that this was reproducible, ie wafer turned into bread and heart mixture in a laboratory. I assume these were one off events with no careful checking beforehand. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sex differences in death rates for the Wuhan coronavirus

I've heard that men are more likely to die from the Wuhan coronavirus than women. Is it true that men are more likely to die of it than women, and if it is, what explains this? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly due to more smoking. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'On the question of why the virus is attacking men more than women, research has shown that, in China, many more men smoke than women. In fact, more than half of Chinese men smoke, compared with only around 3% of women. Smoking activates a receptor used by the coronavirus to infect human cells, ACE-2, Dr Greg Poland, a vaccine researcher and infectious disease specialist with the Mayo Clinic, in Rochester, Minnesota said, although this is speculative at this stage. However, Preiser weighed in and explained that if someone's lungs are affected by smoking (in a way, a chronic illness), then that certainly increases the risk from a virus that affects the lungs as “one has 'fewer reserves' to fall back on when the lungs are infected and inflamed”, he said.
Dheda adds: "Smokers are at higher risk of contracting many respiratory tract infections including influenza, TB, and Streptococcus pneumoniae, an important cause of acute pneumonia. There are a number of mechanisms by which cigarette smoking does this, including subverting the defensive functions of the airway lining and various types of immune defensive cells including macrophages and lymphocytes."' [20] Alansplodge (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. So, if the difference is due to men smoking more, presumably there is no evidence that men are inherently more vulnerable to the disease? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's too early to say for sure. As the disease spreads, more populations can be studied and the picture may become clearer. And, as always, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Matt Deres (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the difference is due to men smoking more, then the difference is probably simply due to smoking. Perhaps more attention to this factor needs to appear in sections about who is most likely to suffer serious consequences from this virus. HiLo48 (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon monoxide questions.

How is CO excreted by the body? If it is at all. Carboxyhemoglobin eventually goes to the liver right, so isn't it eventually urinated out? As with red blood cells? 2ndly, what % of CO we breathe in is excreted out, because I heard someone say a % generally stays in your body for good. But that % is prolly just stuck in the liver, making it harmless? So maybe a % of it is released within years? And the rest urinated out? Thanks. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

A wasp on a boat

So I was on the open-air deck of a ferry this weekend and there was a wasp buzzing round my head for quite a few minutes. Not on me (or on anything) but flying round like they do. Which got me wondering... to manage that, does a wasp have to fly really fast? Because the boat's moving at some speed, and if the wasp isn't resting on the boat or something on it, surely to keep pace it has to be circling at the same speed? Amisom (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would have to be flying fast to the same degree that you were experiencing any wind caused by the ferry's motion.
Consider that if you are inside an airliner travelling at 500mph, and walk forward at 5mph, then you are walking at 505mph relative to the ground, but you are not having to expend any unsual energy. On an open ferry, the superstructure is dragging some air along with it, so at, say, 20 knots (23mph) neither you not the wasp are likely moving through the local air at that speed. Moreover, that disturbed air will have turbulance and eddies, and insects that have been honing their flying abilities for more than 150 million years are probably very good at sensing and exploiting air currents to their advantage.
All that aside, according to this a common type of wasp can fly (through the air) at up to 30mph. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.210.25 (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The scenario reminds me of the old joke about a guy transporting birds in a truck, and is over the weight limit, so he keeps banging on the wall of the truck, to startle them and keep them flying. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're standing on Earth, which is rotating at about 1,000 miles per hour. That translates to about a quarter mile per second. Yet, if you jump up in the air for a second, the ground does not move a quarter mile under you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 8

If IVF plus embryo selection for desirable genes will eventually become a reality, would it be practically possible for someone who previously got a bilateral epididymectomy to likewise engage in this?

If IVF plus embryo selection for desirable genes will eventually become a reality, would it be practically possible for someone who previously got a bilateral epididymectomy to likewise engage in this--specifically in IVF plus embryo selection for desirable genes?

Basically, I'm thinking of screening embryos' genes to determine which embryos have genes that indicate a greater likelihood of them developing desirable traits if they will be subsequently implanted and born. I am well-aware that this currently isn't a reality but that it probably will eventually become a reality. I am simply curious about whether, once this actually becomes a reality, someone previously having a bilateral epididymectomy (but not a bilateral orchiectomy) would in any way create an obstacle to this person doing IVF plus embryo selection using his own sperm and someone else's egg.

Based on the information here, the more embryos that one would produce through IVF, the more potential that one would have in selecting embryos for traits such as intelligence/IQ (based on these embryos' genes) due to the fact that, with more embryos, one would have a larger number of embryos to choose from and pick the best one(s):

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0VFZjPIQAA7ok1.png

Specifically, though, I'm wondering if previously having a bilateral epididymectomy done would in any way prevent or interfere with a man's ability to create a large number of (implantable) embryos through IVF. Again, if there are less embryos to choose from, the potential gains from embryo selection for traits such as intelligence/IQ would be less than if there are more embryos to choose from. Also, again, I'm well-aware that this isn't actually technology that's fully developed right now, but this technology might nevertheless be successfully developed and commercialized, say, 20 or 30 years down the line. 68.96.93.207 (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Futurist is editing logged-out again. In any case, read Eugenics. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is wrong with eugenics if it is actually done non-coercively, though? I mean, when someone looks for a sperm donor or egg donor based on various desirable traits (such as IQ/intelligence, lack of criminality, great personality, lack of mental illnesses, et cetera), wouldn't they also be practicing eugenics? I mean, they're choosing whom to reproduce with based on various desirable traits of theirs because they want to increase the odds of their children having the same or similar traits. 68.96.93.207 (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&oldid=944477500"