Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

March 5

Dust buildup

If humans and animals produce dust in their dead skin, hair, body matter, etc., and dust isn't being removed from the world, but simply moved around and accumulated, will there come a time when there is too much dust, or a dust buildup on Earth? Will dust kill us, and if so, was Malthus right? What if we took all of the dust, packed it in a space capsule more densely concentrated than a Bangladeshi slum, and flung said capsule into the Sun? Would this be feasible and cost-effective? Any and all clarification is appreciated. Ευtγchεα 03:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Would you want all the poor little dust mites to starve to death? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The organic dust isn't created out of nothing: it ultimately comes from the food humans and animals eat, which is formed from the existing soil and atmosphere, and it ultimately returns to the soil and becomes part of it (although it might hang around in the house for a while). There is thus no net increase of material from this source.

In any case, the amounts are trivial compared to the scale of the Earth. Consider that every year around 40,000 metric tons of meteoritic material, including 5,000 tons of cosmic dust, fall on to the Earth every year – this is new material, but even though it's been going on for a few billion years, it doesn't seem to have caused any problems: quite the reverse, as some scientists think it might have been the source of molecules that gave rise to life. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 176.24.44.161 (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Life has been the source of quite some problems.  --Lambiam 06:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

We come from dust and we return to dust. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Dust simply goes to create earth, along with all the other rotting vegetable and animal matter. Incidentally, the idea that dust is made up largely of dead skin cells is a myth. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Dead skin cells, hair, pollen, worn carpets and clothes, ash from fires, soot from internal combustion engines, dust mite corpses, sea salt, ... Most of it is simply recycled into the environment. Worn synthetic fibres can be a problem though, as they may not be biodegradable. And launching something into the sun is very hard; first get to circular heliocentric orbit and then it still requires ${\frac {1}{{\sqrt {2}}-1}}$ times the $\Delta v$ compared to throwing it completely out of the solar system. The rocket launch would create more dust than you can put in the capsule. Better combust it into simple molecules. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Our Dust article says: "Dust in homes is composed of about 20–50% dead skin cells". Alansplodge (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Have you tried the Black & Decker DustBuster? Available at all good hardware stores. There are probably some instructions on what to do when the planet gets full. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

That would be good info for April 1 (along with the original question here). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I suspect James Dyson's business model relies on the earth never running out of dust. The more the merrier, in fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a humorous short story in which household dust is teleported to a neighboring universe, until the people there get fed up and start sending trash back. —Tamfang (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Somebody get this hero a dust barnstar pronto Ευtγchεα 20:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Rosh Hashanah and centuries in the Gregorian calendar

In the Gregorian calendar, which repeats every 400 years, centuries (starting with years ending with "01") only start on Monday, Saturday, Thursday, or Tuesday. So, no century in the Gregorian calendar starts on Sunday, Wednesday, or Friday. Well, coincidentally, those are also the three days of the week that Rosh Hashanah cannot fall on.

But is there any significance of this coincidence? GTrang (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Rosh Hashanah postponement rules? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The Jewish calendar is not influenced by the Gregorian calendar in any way, shape or form. Cullen328 (talk) 08:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

And the Rosh Hashanah postponement rules were not influenced by the Gregorian calendar, being hundreds of years older than the Gregorian calendar. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

March 6

Wp / wm images not loading

I asked at the Wikipedia teahouse and Wikimedia commons teahouse to no avail. I'm getting timeouts from upload.wikimedia that mean I don't see images on Wikipedia any more. It's been like a week or more. No images. What could be going on? I can see images browsing on my phone, until I turn the wifi connection on. So it's IP linked. If i go directly to upload.wikimedia.org, it times out. If I google wikimedia commons and click on it and upload from there, it seems like it's working. But stuff that I'd uploaded this way recently, during the problem? It worked, but now I can't see those images better than any others. Who should I be sending a message to about this? Temerarius (talk) 03:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

If you also have this problem viewing images on commons.wikimedia.org, it is definitely not a Wikipedia issue. You gave us much more detail here about the phenomenon plaguing you than you did a week ago at the Commons' Village pump/Technical page, in particular that it may be IP-linked. Is your IP static? Perhaps, describing the issue there again, but as detailed as is possible and reasonable, will elicit possible explanations. In the meantime, did you try other devices with your wifi connection, or your phone with other wifi connections?  --Lambiam 09:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes power cycling a device (such as your Wi-Fi router) makes a stubborn problem disappear.  --Lambiam 20:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

March 7

CAAC Souvenir

I have been asked to identify the source of a souvenir. It is a small baby in a blanket. When you press down the baby's head, it makes a squeak sound. It is in a hand-made cardboard box with a CAAC sticker on top. I recognize the sticker with the CAAC logo and the name in both Chinese and the English letters CAAC at the bottom. But, I have no idea what a squeaking baby has to do with an airline. The assumption is that it comes from the late 60s or early 70s. If it helps, the bag also has a pair of Wuxi clay figurines in a similar hand-made cardboard box. I have a photo of the baby and the label, but I don't know how to add them here. 75.136.148.8 (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Presumably you're talking about CAAC (airline). For uploading pictures, one option is something called Imgur. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Given how annoyed some passengers get with a wailing baby on board, one would expect that an airline will try to avoid an association with squeaking babies, just like the inflight entertainment system does not serve up airplane disaster movies, or even the comedy flick Airplane!. Do you have an indication that the box and the souvenir are connected, beyond that the box may have happened to be around when the person in possession of the souvenir needed a box to store it? Could the box perhaps originally also have contained figurines? Or might it perhaps also be an accidental container for stuff not connected to the airline.  --Lambiam 19:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I do not have a lot of information. These belonged to a couple who died in Framingham over 20 years ago. They traveled internationally in the 50s and 60s a great deal, but appear to have traveled less so in the 70s. I have no indication that they ever visited China. There are two boxes, both made of the same blue-printed card stock. They are hand-made because they are not squared off and the material is not cut straight. One has a very common Wuxi clay figurine set. I identified it quickly. It is factory made, not handmade. The baby is the hard one. It is a baby in a swaddling blanket. Basically, a baby head on a push rod inside a bucket painted to look like a baby blanket. Press down on the head and it goes into the bucket and makes a squeak noise. The Wuxi figurines have, in English, "Wuxi Clay" on the box. The baby has a CAAC sticker with the CAAC logo. Because the couple who owned it died in Framingham, I am beginning to suspect that they purchased it in China town in Boston or someplace similar. It is easy to find examples of Wuxi figurines. I have had no luck identifying the baby. 75.136.148.8 (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

OR— CAAC was handing out other kinds of souvenirs well into the 1980s. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 10:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

https://www.reddit.com/r/whatisthisthing/ has 2.7 million members Polygnotus (talk) 11:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I think this might well be correct. CAAC also ran the airports and Chinese airports routinely have souvenir shops. It's very plausible that they would have sold a wide range of branded goods in such shops, since air travel was still a luxury brand at that time. Matt's talk 21:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The baby is probably something to do with Christmas. Are you able to insert the Chinese characters, as they would have more meaning than 4 letters? Are they "中國民航" for the airline? But the box may be nothing to do with the contents ass mentioned by Lambiam. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

March 8

Rock dust as soil amendment

So, I've been getting my hands very dirty, trying to grow Hawaiian gardenias in containers. At the end of the day, I hope to put some of this experience to work writing articles about Hawaiian gardenias, but that's still some time in the future. One of the reasons I'm doing it is because gardenias can be very difficult due to their requirements, so it's a bit of a fun challenge for me. One thing that has me curious is the use of rock dust (mineral powder) as a soil amendment. The literature is bit odd on this subject due to the history of its use. Some people say it is just a trend and is not needed, while other gardeners swear by it. It's the only thing I haven't used yet, so I'm curious what the state of the literature says about it for container gardening. Is it helpful and will it make much of a difference for the plant, or can I get the same results using something else? Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

A search for "controlled+experiment"+"rock+dust" yields mixed results – mainly involving the growing of tomatoes. Some report a positive effect, others no effect. (As far as I checked the search results in more detail, none reported a negative effect.) Most were not up to scientific standards, whether in the setup itself, or in the reporting of the setup (which should be detailed enough to allow replicating the experiment), or in the reporting of the results (which should be detailed enough to make statistical hypothesis testing possible). One study, which reported a significant (but small) positive effect of Azomite^® on tomato crop,^[1] may pass muster. One issue is that there are many potentially confounding factors. What works for Solanales may not work for Gentianales. What works in soils with low pH may not have an effect in soils with high pH. The mineral composition of the rock dust and its granularity can be expected to make a difference. And so on.  --Lambiam 12:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. It looks like some studies show an increase in nutrient uptake leading to faster growth and yield in corn treated with basalt rock dust. Viriditas (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

At a very general level, basalt is what comes out of volcanoes, and historically people have tended to live by/on volcanoes because the soil is (reportedly) very fertile, so that would make some sense. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 176.24.44.161 (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The farmers at es:La Geria found that the lapilli that covered their fields reduced evapotranspiration. --Error (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Declaration from the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa) on the use of rock dust:

Therefore, Embrapa's official position on this topic is that, currently, there is not enough scientific information to recommend silicate agrominerals as a source of nutrients, especially potassium, or soil conditioners for agriculture.^[2]

They announce a project to assess its agronomic potential in various production systems, including biologically based ones, and, if there is scientific proof of their usefulness in agriculture, recommendations for these materials (dose, source, time and form of application) in different production systems, based on their characteristics and soil indicators. The project is now running and slated to end in April 2026.^[3]  --Lambiam 06:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a huge variety of rock and therefore of "rock dust", but the rock dust known as sand is of course widely used to improve drainage, which is generally regarded as a good thing. Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Correct. The growers I've been following recommend basalt and glacial rock to increase nutrient uptake, growth, yields, and flowering, but I'm not sure it would make much of a difference for hobbyist container growing. Viriditas (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Is "glacial rock" just a marketing buzzword? Glacial erratics are rocks and boulders that have been picked up by glaciers and deposited some distance from their origin, but it's not clear to me how that makes them helpful to plant growth more than, say, rocks that have been moved around by human labour. Matt Deres (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

It's discussed in the article on rock flour. Viriditas (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

March 13

US metric units

Is there any newspaper in the US that also uses metric units on its weather page, so that the forecasted temperatures would also be given in Celsius in addition to Fahrenheit, or the weather page would have a metric conversion table? Is there any US media that consistently uses metric units as primary, or only units? --40bus (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It's been a while since I read Scientific American, but I would certainly expect metric units to be primary there and other magazines of that kind. --142.112.220.50 (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The National Weather Service in the US uses Fahrenheit temperatures, as does The Weather Channel and similar weather reporting services. Newspapers normally follow the same practice. I cannot say that there is no newspaper in the US that uses Celsius in weather reports, but the vast majority don't. When Americans talk about the weather, they overwhelmingly express temperatures in Fahrenheit, and the same is true of home heating and oven cooking. Why? Fahrenheit temperatures are 1.8 times more granular than Celsius temperatures, and the 100 degrees from 0 to 100 neatly covers the range from a very cold but normal winter day to a very hot but normal summer day. Plus, many Americans take a certain delight in doing things differently than the rest of the world does. The metric system is widely used in scientific and techological contexts, though. Cullen328 (talk) 08:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

But the question was about media, not general usage. --142.112.220.50 (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I discussed the media. I then discussed general usage because the popular media reflects and incorporates general usage and so they are intimately interrelated. Cullen328 (talk) 08:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

You told us why Americans use Fahrenheit. I submit that really, most Americans have never made a choice to use Fahrenheit. They just do. HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

By now, that's likely the case with Celsius around the world, too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

HiLo48, you are correct that younger Americans are largely unexposed to debates about metrification. But older Americans participated in fairly detailed national discussions about metrification in the late 20th century, and consensus for the change simply did not emerge, except in scientific and technical fields. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. Cullen328 (talk) 08:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Were those discussions better informed and rational than those about COVID and vaccines? HiLo48 (talk) 09:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

They could have had a similar core premise: "What's in it for me?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 11:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

HiLo48, this Time magazine article gives a good overview of American practices and attitudes about metrification. Cullen328 (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It implies that Americans somehow chose to not go metric. But were they ever given a vote? HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

A while back, I read that Canada imposed the metric system by fiat and forced it upon their citizenry. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, I'm just saying that's how they managed to do it, from what I understand. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Governments, being elected to govern, frequently impose things by fiat and force them upon their citizenry. There are taxes, for example. Australians certainly didn't get a vote on metrication, but it was a progressive time, and most of us just saw it as a logical, even exciting, thing to to. Perhaps more like this argument is the abolition of the death penalty. It is almost always removed by legislation, rather than giving the citizens a vote. A little while later, it's always found that most citizens are happy with the change. HiLo48 (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a fascinating topic, to be honest. I wish I could remember the book I read it in. It basically said something like "Canadians didn't want the metric system, but they got it anyway, and now they love it." Viriditas (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes. HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

As an elderly Brit, I can cope with weather reports in Celsius, in part because the mental arithmetic to convert to Fahrenheit is trivial*: only Fahrenheit gives me an instant understanding of exactly what the given temperature feels like.

(* for an approximation at usual ambient temperatures, double and add 30; for an exact figure at all temperatures, double, subtract 10%, and add 32.)

{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.186.221 (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Around 50 years ago, when Australia went metric, one of the first useful jobs I did as a beginner computer programmer at the Bureau of Meteorology (Australia's national weather service) was to write the program to convert Australia's weather records from Fahrenheit to Celsius. For the aficionados, it was in FORTRAN 4. HiLo48 (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• I'll just mention that the USA, being the only major country to reject the metric system, still feels it's their right to change the spelling of the foundation unit, the metre, to "meter". (mumble ... hypocrites ... grumble ... Trumpian arrogance ... mumble) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  JackofOz, no need to get all emotional. First, the US does not reject the metric system. It is legal for all purposes and its usage is encouraged although not mandatory except in a few cases. In many industries, the metric system is now standard and universal. It is universal in wine and liquor bottling. Soft drinks are sold in two liter bottles. Auto parts are metric. Pharmaceuticals are metric. High tech manufacturing is metric.

All packaged foods are required by law to have both common and metric quantities. And so on. This has absolutely nothing to do with Trump, who I personally oppose quite strongly. 81 million adult Americans voted against Trump last election, over three times the population of Australia including children. As for spelling, Americans should not try to impose our ENGVAR spellings on others, and others should not try to impose their preferred spellings on Americans. I know exactly what you mean when you write "colour" and you know exactly what I mean when I write "meter". Cullen328 (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily. "Meter" in the US has two distinct meanings related to measurement, one for the unit, and one for a device for measuring something, typically the rate of flow of something. The words with those two meanings have different spelling in most of the English speaking world. HiLo48 (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

HiLo48, you know that many words have two or more meanings that can easily be differentiated in context. The word is also used in music and poetry. If I said "I need to put some money in the parking meter", you would not think that I was talking about a unit of measurement, would you? I wonder why so many Australians enjoy such great success in the United States when things are so screwed up here, from your point of view? Cullen328 (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the spelling of metre as meter as silly especially since they seem excessively disinterested in using the unit. But I find the general complaint just weird since Cullen328 is right that it's surely very rare that it can genuinely be confusing with only the minimal of contextual clues. What's even funnier is that AFAIK, like in Kiwi English, the phrases like "I'm eating some chips" might genuinely be confusing in Australian English without more contextual clues. And ironically while the disambiguator "I'm eating some hot chips" or "I'm eating a packet of chips" might be understandable to someone slightly familiar with the two possible meaning of chips, "I'm eating some potato chips" is probably not unless the person is also familiar with what "potato chips" means since obviously both are technically potato chips. (Well I mean let's not get into complexities like kumara/sweet potato chips.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I know this is not strictly on topic, but I'm hardly the first here. I get the impression that there's a common opinion that the metric system, or maybe even specifically SI, is the One True System of Weights and Measures, and is uniformly superior to other systems like US Customary or Imperial.

This is of course complete and utter nonsense. All systems of measurement, with the possible exception of Planck units or similar, are essentially arbitrary. Temperatures in Celsius or Fahrenheit are equally arbitrary — it's true that Celsius divides the difference between the freezing and boiling points of water into a power-of-10 number of degrees, but (a) there's nothing special about 10, and (b) there's nothing that special about water.

The thing about 10 seems to be a particular stumbling block. Metric measurements love to emphasize powers of 10, but as I think I already mentioned, there's nothing special about 10. It's true that for base-10 mental arithmetic, there are some minor advantages for trivial calculations if units have power-of-10 relationships. But for non-trivial calculations, there's no real difference, because you usually have to throw in fudge factors anyway.

There is one major thing that metric does better, and that's not overloading the same term with lots of different meanings. Old joke: Which is heavier, a pound of feathers or a pound of gold? A pound of feathers, of course, because that's an avoirdupois pound, whereas a pound of gold is a pound Troy. That is the one legitimate criticism of Imperial and US Customary, and it can be a real thorn in the side. But it's more a language issue than one of measurement system per se. --Trovatore (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

But I think for a lot of people, trivial calculations are what they encounter most of the time. If see a packet of sweets that is 590g and another is 1.1kg, it's simple for me to compare the two. If I see a packet of sweets that is 14 ounces and another that is 2 pound 3 ounces, it's far more difficult and for no reason. Similarly, if I measure something as 1.35m, if I want the distance in mm it's trivial. If I measure a distance in 3 feet 2 inches and want it in feet or inches, it's decidedly non trivial. I appreciate things might be different for mathematician (or a programmer perhaps) but for someone who just wants to be able to look at packets, weigh stuff on scales, use a measuring tape etc; the benefits metric over any system which is not base-10 when I am using base-10 are clear. If we were the ancient Sumerians or something weren't using base-10 things would be different but we're not and we do. I mean we already have to do enough mental maths precisely because manufacturers do stuff like I suggested earlier and the small size might be 590g and the large size 1.1kg that there's absolutely zero reason to add to that by using a system not based on base-10. Note that the arguments that something like base 12 or base 16 are better bases have decent arguments behind them but it seems unlikely we're going to change our numbering system anytime soon. I mean for starters, if Americans can't even handle the change to metric, imagine how they would not cope with changing what base they use for basic numbers? I mean I have doubts English speakers are every going to abandon QWERTY anytime soon unless they just end up abandoning keyboards and that seems a far easier change to make and also has some arguments for it. And yes I'm typing this on a QWERTY keyboard without looking at the keyboard.

NB I'd also disagree with the nothing special about water. Water has a big influence on our lives, whether cooking, rain, snow, etc. So yes, my fridge is set to something like 4 degrees C because it's not intended to be my freezer. My freezer is something like -20 degrees and I know if it ever gets close to 0, then it starts to be a concern.) Likewise when I'm cooking, I know that if I set a temperature of 110 degrees C, that's above the boiling point but 90 degrees C is below. It's not perfect since people live at different altitudes but it tends to be close enough and for me, makes it far easier to visualise stuff. This applies even when you're not using water, e.g when deep frying. Likewise while weather is fairly complicated, still at a basic level it's not hard to figure out that if temperatures are regularly dropping to -10 degrees C you might get ice outside and maybe even snow. OTOH, if lows tend to be 5 degrees C, you might get limited ice and frost etc, but you're probably not getting a frozen pond. Again, if we were methane-based then yeah we'd be asking WTF does water matter? Likewise if we are able to live somewhere that the temperatures are different enough that 0 as freezing and 100 as boiling is too imprecise to be useful. But since neither of those are true, it is what it is.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I should be clear that I'm not afraid of a little mental maths. I'm the sort of person who always tries to get the best deal, to the extent I make sure I check the number of sheets in toilet paper since yes manufacturers at least in NZ might sell a 40 pack of toilet rolls with 150 sheets per roll but their 18 pack has 180 sheets per roll. So working out the best price does require calculation and while I do often just use my phone, sometimes I don't. But while I do remember that there are 12 inches in a foot and I might have remembered there are 16 ounces in a pound, I have absolutely zero desire to do dumb pointless calculations when just going about my everyday life for which there's absolutely no reason except some weird preference for history. Sometimes calculations are needed e.g. if I'm cutting a recipe in half or worse a 1/3 then yes working out what I should use in 50g does require some calculation. Or likewise since 1kg of milk power (+ water) might make 10L or 8L of milk depending on the type of power then yes I do need to calculate to work out what I needed for e.g. 200 mL or 150mL or whatever so they're not unavoidable. But dumb ones at least can be.

And I didn't mention this before because more might disagree but frankly, I find it nice that envisioning the difference between day "3 nm" (as arbitary as the "3" part of that is) process node or 400nm light wave length or 0.5–5.0 micrometres for for a reasonable size estimate for general bacteria cell length or 0.5 mm mechanical pencil lead, or a 10 cm ruler, or a 3.5m traffic lane, or 100m run, or a 1.3km walk to local shopping complex or whatever, or a 8km drive to some shop or friend's house or whatever or a 130 km drive to another city or something, or the 8900km distance between Malaysia and New Zealand or the 40000km of so circumference of the earth at the equator, or the 384,400km or so distance to the moon is something you can fairly trivial consider from orders of magnitude. Yes there's a fudge factor but it's still close enough. By comparison, I have no idea and no desire to learn whatever the fuck the difference is between whatever is smaller than an inch, an inch, a foot, a yard, a mile and well I think you seem to stop at miles and try to work imagine orders of magnitude when comparing different things like that. Some might feel it's not useful or humans are still too bad at properly understanding differences in orders of magnitude. I stopped at the moon in part because I acknowledge once you get much past that, I'm probably not properly imagining the difference even if it seems trivial.

I mean even when it doesn't mean much, it's also sort of interesting to think if I eat 500g of chocolate then holy crap I just ate 1/200 of my body weight in chocolate or whatever. (I don't actually weigh 100kg.)

Of course there is also an aspect of familiarity hence why it's so hard for people to change like in the US. Beyond the simplicity of something based on water when we're so heavily affected by water, I do like celsius just because it's what I'm used to. So I know what 180 degrees C is for my oven, or deep frying. And I likewise know what to expect if it's 20 degrees C or 10 degrees C or whatever. Because of American recipes etc, I do have some vague idea what 375 degrees Fahrenheit is but I really have no idea what the fuck 60 degrees Fahrenheit means for weather and no desire to know either. Likewise when I learn someone is 2m it's much more meaningful then when I learn they are 6 foot even if I hear the latter a lot due to US and UK media etc.

Nautical miles is the only non metric unit that still makes sense in some contexts for humans living on earth IMO. (To be clear, I'm excluding stuff like litre, Angstrom, metric tonne etc where it's more a matter of naming than anything. While I do think for base units we don't really need things like Angstom, cm etc, and should probably just stick with units for every 3, it doesn't matter a great deal IMO unlike having to work out WTF a yard is etc.) Oh and I didn't mention earlier, but likewise while Kelvin obviously has significant advantages in certain scientific fields, it's something that is arguably even worse than Fahrenheit which a terrible enough system as it is, for most mundane aspects of life on earth. So despite being the SI unit, is unlikely to take over in everyday life IMO. OTOH, arguably decimal time did make sense too, but not surprising that changing that was a bridge too far.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

March 14

ID for credit card purchases

Why and when did stores stop asking to see ID when you use a credit card? I remember as a kid (say around 2004) they would almost always ask my mom to see ID if it was over a certain amount (I think about $20). Then eventually the practice slowly faded away, and I can't recall any times she was asked after about 2008-2010ish maybe. — THORNFIELD HALL ^(Talk) 01:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Where are you? I don't recall that ever being the case in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The US — THORNFIELD HALL ^(Talk) 08:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't recall that ever being the case in Australia — The Australian standard for EFTPOS transactions, including by credit card, is (was?) AS 2805. That standard includes a response code 08 (in 1987) or 001 (since 1993) which means "Honour with identification". The only case that I can recall this happening was when the terminal could not connect to the bank and verify the PIN - in which case the transaction could be approved (stored in the terminal and sent later) if the cardholder provided ID. (Although it could happen with large transactions, even online with PIN - the rules varied between banks and merchants.) In theory any form of ID would do, but the most common form of "ID" was the signature on the card - ie the customer signed the receipt and the merchant checked that signature against the card. In fact the latter was so common that many terminals displayed "Approved with signature" rather than "with identification".

(I wrote software for Australian EFTPOS terminals in the late 1990s.) Mitch Ames (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

MasterCard and Visa prohibit this practice, but I am not sure when that started. [4]. Other card brands may have similar rules. RudolfRed (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The Visa Core Rules of 22 April 2017 said, "A Merchant may request Cardholder identification in a Face-to-Face Environment."^[5] Those of 13 October 2018 said, "Unless specified in the Visa Rules, a Merchant must not request Cardholder identification as a condition of purchase."^[6] This has remained unchanged since. There is an exception that applies in the US, Canada, and several other regions, for when the merchant suspects fraud in a face-to-face environment. The oldest version of the MasterCard Tules I found, of 12 May 2010, already states, "A Merchant must not refuse to complete a Transaction solely because a Cardholder who has complied with the conditions for presentment of a Card at the POI refuses to provide additional identification information, except as specifically permitted or required by the Standards." ^[7]  --Lambiam 09:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Money question

In Carl Barks's story A Financial Fable, Scrooge McDuck's money gets spread all over the land and people grab it for themselves. However, they soon find that their new wealth is not of much use, as there are not enough things left to buy with it, which leads to increased prices.

How analogous is this situation to real life? If the richest people in the world suddenly decided to spend all their money, would it happen that there are not enough things in the world to buy with it, making the money useless? JIP | Talk 12:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I guess a real-life situation would be the introduction of a guaranteed minimum income for everyone. Some might fear that most people would simply stop working if they had a guaranteed income to cover their basic needs, removing the need to work, and this would lead to the situation described in Barks' fable. I don't agree with that interpretation, and I don't believe this situation could arise in real life, at least as long as only money is involved. --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

This has happened repeatedly in history. It was more common before the ability to travel easily. A rich person travels across the land. Town by town, the rich person spreads wealth. The people are initially happy at the wealth, but quickly find that all prices have increased and there is no continued income. So, they end up poorer than before. It has continued with increases in wages. When wages increase, people are initially happy. Then, prices increase and they find they have less purchasing power. For more detailed information, look into the Big Mac index. It attempts to separate the concept of money vs buying power. 75.136.148.8 (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

On a larger scale, large amounts of silver and gold looted by Spain from the New World resulted in the Price revolution. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

See also Mansa Musa#Wealth. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.186.221 (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The richest person in the world today is worth about $215 billion.[8]. If that money were distributed equally to each of the 8.1 billion people in the world, each person would receive about $26. I would think that that would make essentially no impact on the economy. CodeTalker (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Expanding this somewhat, according to Forbes, the world’s billionaires were worth $12.2 trillion in 2023. If this were divided ratably among the people of the world, each person would receive a little over $1500. That would probably be inflationary in some poor countries, but would have little effect in wealthier countries. John M Baker (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

If every recipient spends the money wisely, it will very likely provide a noticeable boost to the economies of the poorest countries. Consider the positive impact of microcredit, without the burden of having to pay back a loan. It is not likely that most would spend the money wisely, but it is not likely that the world’s billionaires will let their wealth be redistributed in the first place.  --Lambiam 08:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Micro credit loans do have to be repaid, and often at what many would consider high interest rates (20%+).DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 10:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

That is why I added the words "without the burden of having to pay back a loan", so as to focus solely on the positive impact.  --Lambiam 17:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

"If every recipient spends the money wisely." Hahaha! During Covid, the Federal government handed out free money. How many Americans still have any of that money? I simply purchased an SP500 index with the first check, a DOW index with the second one, and a Nasdaq index with the third stimulus check. I assume I am in a very tiny minority. I'm not saying that I spent the money wisely. I haven't spent it yet. I invested it. When I do spend it, I will likely spend it on something rather stupid, but I will have a lot more money to be stupid with. 75.136.148.8 (talk) 11:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I bet most of the American recipients were not particularly impoverished, unlike the target groups of microcredit programs. The whole point of the CoVID stimulus was that they would spend this money, never mind how, to avoid the contraction that was to be expected because many people were going out less and therefore spending less. If everyone had instead invested it "wisely", this would have thwarted the goal.  --Lambiam 17:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

March 15

Putting a small pile of salt on the side of one's plate

Both my sister and I (raised mostly in London in the 1960s by parents from Dundee and Newcastle) have always added salt to our meals by putting small pile of salt on the edge of our plates rather than salting the food directly, and then dipping forkfuls of food in the pile as needed. Neither of us have ever met anyone else who does this; I have visited central Scotland and Northumberland many times and nobody else has ever heard of this practice. I have searched in vain for some clue as to where this practice is (or more likely, was) associated with -- was it a working class northern British habit that has died out? I can't think of a way to research this question but I'm hoping someone here can think of a way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

See Salt and pepper shakers#Distinguishing salt from pepper: "In the UK, salt was often poured onto the side of one's plate and used for dipping, rather than shaken across the whole dish, hence salt cellars having a single, larger, hole", however as a Yorkshireman whose parents came from the Midlands and Yorkshire, I've never done it nor seen it done. Maybe some "posh" upper-class thing, certainly not how I'd eat my chips! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

For the perplexed: in the UK, the term salt cellar means what is called salt shaker at the other end of the pond.  --Lambiam 16:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

"Salt cellar" is a known but kind of old-fashioned term in America. And what we call "chips", youse guys call "crisps", right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The term is known, but isn't an American "salt cellar" more like an open bowl with a small spoon to dispense the salt,^[9] not something one turns upside down over one's dish to pour out some salt, like the one-hole salt dispenser seen here?  --Lambiam 13:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Also: "chips" are what our American friends call French Fries, not a 1970s cop series. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks -- just makes me more curious, of course. My parents were both working-class so I don't think it's a posh thing. I wonder when and why it died out? And that line in the Wikipedia article is helpful but unsourced; if I ever run across a source for this information I'll remember and add it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Just thought I'd add that my dad was posh and he did it. --Viennese Waltz 17:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

That, plus the Debrett's reference below, makes me think they picked it up as they moved into the middle class -- senior civil servant and secondary school department head -- from working class -- an army NCO and mining background in one case and a farming and shoe-making background in the other. The Debrett's reference makes me wonder how pervasive this is in the upper class -- do they teach this at Eton? Would one see this at high table at Oxbridge? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Your chips are typically thicker than our pommes frites, but yes. —Tamfang (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The pile instead of sprinked salt is listed in Debrett's Essential Table Manners. 75.136.148.8 (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

When I was growing up in a UK upper-working class family, salt and pepper were sprinkled, but optional sauces (ketchup, brown sauce, horseradish sauce, mint sauce, cranberry sauce) were put in a blob on the side of the plate. I still do this if eating in company.

A salt cellar was originally a communal open pot, containing salt which tended to 'cake' into loose lumps, so rather than everybody repeatedly dipping into it, it made sense to transfer a smaller quantity to one's plate where forkfuls of specific foods could be dabbed onto it; the salt shaker (facilitated by freely flowing salt, an early 20th century development) and the habit of sprinkling the whole plate were later developments: doing the latter can suggest that one assumes the cook has under-salted the entire dish – my mother used sometimes to complain when my father did it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.186.221 (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I was taught as a child in London to make a pile of salt at the side (skilled working class but with middle class habits). My understanding is that this is the reason why a salt cellar has a single apperture, whereas the pepper pot has multiple holes for sprinkling, like this. A quick Google search suggests that this is a British peculiarity, Continental cruet sets seem to have multiple holes for both. Alansplodge (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Gun that swings to reload

I've been trying to find out about a kind of gun or shotgun I saw in a movie (maybe the Pirates of the Caribbean or a western) which has to be swung around like a cowboy swinging a lasso after shooting a bullet to shoot again. I think the barrel or at least a large mechanical part of the device is rotated a full circle with a ratcheting sound. I can't find anything similar on Wikipedia. Does this sound familiar to anyone? 78.1.207.150 (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

You might be thinking about the one they used in The Rifleman. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Or the one John Wayne liked to use, as in this famous scene from True Grit:[10] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's it, thanks :) I already read about lever action while searching for this but it didn't occur to me that rifles could be sturdy enough to swing around while holding on to such a small part! 78.1.207.150 (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Should you ever wish to attempt this, YouTube has a tutorial. Alansplodge (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, you know, rifles have to be sturdy enough to take repeated concussions. —Tamfang (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Smiling in photos, redux

There's been plenty of discussion here on refdesk about why people don't smile in old photos, with popular answers ranging from poor teeth to no access to dentistry, to even cultural taboos against smiling in general (see for example Russia and some Asian countries). However, there's now a somewhat newer phenomenon occurring that I want to discuss that may draw upon these ideas. In the 2020s, writers and cultural commentators began noticing that smiling in advertising photos began to diminish and disappear in some instances. For an easy and simple example that anyone can verify, department store advertising photos in the US (for example, circulars), from the 1980s, 1990s, and early to mid-2010s, mostly featured smiling models displaying clothing. This has almost disappeared in some market segments in more recent years.

Take the Banana Republic, Old Navy, Gap line as one example. On the Banana Republic and Gap websites, none of the models are smiling, not even the kids. However, on the Old Navy website, all of the models are smiling. I have a weird theory about this. Old Navy is predominately for the US market, but they do have stores in Manila, and Mexico City. But the culture of smiling in Mexico and the Philippines is highly regarded and acceptable. In other words, people love to smile in all three countries. However, Banana Republic and The Gap have a more international presence, and are making inroads into Asia, unlike Old Navy. My theory is that because the culture of smiling in Asia isn't as popular, the advertising team for Gap and Banana Republic are designing ads that are more globalized in terms of appeal to those cultures. Is there any truth to my idea? Viriditas (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

In my experience, non-smiling models on the catwalk have been a feature of Parisian and other fashion shows for more than half a century. I would speculate that this is intended to focus the viewers' attention on the clothes rather than the models. Speaking personally, I find excessive smiling in ads to be unnatural, and often an obviously false attempt to create a 'bond' with the model and hence the product, while more neutral expressions, not directed at the viewer, seem more natural. Others doubless have different perceptions. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.186.221 (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe, but there's a 2007 article about this in Reuters that supports the idea that this changed in haute couture fashion, even on the catwalk, in 2007.[11] The idea comes from the 1990s, when it was said that models who smile take attention away from their clothing. I didn't raise this as an alternative explanation because it is an entirely different phenomenon than the one I'm discussing. There's a long-form discussion of some of the possible reasons for the modern trend I'm discussing here. Viriditas (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's a trend there. You can see the same thing with women in '60s movies or even American 40s/50s hipster/beatnik culture. People who smile too much can't come off as serious and self-assertive. 78.1.207.150 (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

There's definitely something happening. This study blames the use of phones for the decline of smiling in general. Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I won't mention the name for BLP reasons, but there's an infamous case of a female politician in the US who recently got much criticism for many reasons but including for her odd smiling during a speech where she was talking about rape, death and other things, and expressed fears for her children. Women and especially women politicians are often controversially told they need to smile or smile more [12] [13]. Nil Einne (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

All true, but it's interesting how this discussion quickly shifted to sex and gender, and seems to have assumed I was talking about women, when my original post specified neither, quite intentionally, as the phenomenon I observed in fashion ads occurred equally among men and women that were depicted. Viriditas (talk) 08:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Explanations vary. NYT: "Why do runway models always look miserable? They always look as if they would bite your head off if you spoke to them."^[14] — Because it's awfully hard to maintain a believable expression of great joy when you are walking in front of hundreds, if not thousands, of strangers, all there to render their judgment on what you are wearing. WSJ: "Why do fashion models look so cranky?"^[15] — Because the designers think a smile detracts from the clothes. The Guardian: "Why do fashion models look so grumpy?"^[16] — Because they are grumpy; try being a model: you can't eat, you barely get to sleep and you often have to wear really stupid clothes yet keep a straight face while the photographer shouts about how you should shag the camera, or something. (Perhaps all of the above apply.)  --Lambiam 13:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

As for the public's interest in what models are wearing, that must account for the godlike adulation afforded to "supermodels" and their richly-deserved lifestyles, and the almost total lack of attention given to their clothing. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Where I live, the Victoria's Secret Angels used to do an annual photo shoot. A lot of famous fashion designers used to vacation in my area as well. Although I met most of them, the only one I got to hang out and talk with in any depth was Miranda Kerr, who I found to be a lovely person. Everything Lambiam says is true, and a lot more. More telling, was the discussions I had with the designers who spent time here while trying to recharge. They told me a lot of things about the fashion industry that are pretty sad. Viriditas (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

When appearing at fashion shows, etc., the models are not presenting themselves and the clothes to 'the public', but mostly to fashion-industry professionals who regard them as little more than animated mannequins.

I suspect the 'public's godlike adulation' is in large part a fictional narrative created by the media, on the behest of the fashion advertisers on whose advertising revenue the media is greatly dependent. I myself have never met anyone who adulates any 'supermodel', though admittedly I am not part of any demographic that might. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.188.170 (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Funny, in French mannequin is the common term for a fashion model. ("Twiggy, aussi connue sous le nom de Twiggy Lawson, et depuis 2019, Dame Twiggy Lawson, (née Lesley Hornby), est un mannequin et une actrice et chanteuse britannique, née le 19 septembre 1949.") One doesn't need animatronics to animate them.  --Lambiam 09:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

March 16

Counting string

In Princess Caraboo (film), a professor tries to get the supposed "Princess Caraboo" to show the number 6 on a "counting string", which he says is "common to every known culture of the Orient". "Princess Caraboo" clearly does not know how to use the string, as she ends up indicating 2000 (?). Is this "counting string" a real thing, and if so, how is it used exactly? How would one indicate the number 6 on such a string? 32.217.240.174 (talk) 08:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The South American quipu comes to mind, but whatever people meant by the word "Orient" then, it would not have included South America. --142.112.220.50 (talk) 10:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Unlikely, but possible: Abacus. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

This article suggests that knotted strings were in use in China as a counting device more than 5,000 years ago. Mikenorton (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah, and Wikipedia has Chinese knotting#Recordkeeping on this. --142.112.220.50 (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

But this (as a recording method rather than decoration) was being referred to as a past practice as early as the third century CE. Is there any evidence of it being contemporary in the 19th century? I don't recall the detail being in the book by Catherine Johnson I have read (unfortunately no longer to hand) about the character – perhaps the film's script writers invented it: our article on the actual person states the film "added fictional elements to the story". {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.188.170 (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The traditional problem with string is measuring it, not counting it. DuncanHill (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

“But there's a snag, you see, the hundred and twenty-two thousand miles [of string] is in three-inch lengths.” In that case it probably was counted. —Tamfang (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

China's leadership in crops

I've noticed that China has a staggering proportion in the world production of several agricultural crops: peach (61%), plum (56%), apple (49%), tomato (35%), potato (25%), wheat, etc. Why is that and what role, if any, does the field area allocated for those crops play? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

China also has a staggering proportion of the world's population. Peach production in China notes that "most of China's peaches are for domestic consumption". As for plums, China produces the most, but was still the largest importer of plums and sloes in 2022.[17] They also ate the most apples in 2021, accounting for "39.5 % of apple consumption in the world".[18] Clarityfiend (talk) 07:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

What on earth do they use sloes for? Alansplodge (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Probably nothing really. This seems to be just because those two are counted together in market reports for whatever reason. Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, Szechuan sloe gin is apparently a thing, and this reports that China is also the World's biggest sloe (as opposed to other types of plum) producer, so they must use them for something. One can presumably use sloes for pretty well anything that other types of plum are used for. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.241.39.117 (talk) 05:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Well that source claims "As of 2022, China produced 6,752,221 tonnes of Sloe plum, accounting for 54.49% of the total production." Except according to List of countries by plum production, China also produces about 7 million plums and sloes. So either China produces almost entirely sloes or the source is simply wrong. I'm going by the later since after talking a lot about "sloe plum" production, it ends with: "The world's total production of sloe and plum was estimated at 12,391,469 tonnes in 2022." And the other figures also look a lot like the figures for other countries suggesting almost no one produces other plums. And the header where all this happens is "Sloe and Plum Production in the World". If I had to guess it used some sort of algorithmic generation probably strongly predating a lot of the recent generative AI stuff. Perhaps it's even one of those sites which has translated back and forth. As for use sloes in place of other plums, well there are a lot of different kinds of plums and I know very little of sloes. But Prunus spinosa#Uses makes me doubt sloes are consumed that much as a simple raw fruit unlike many kinds of other plums, probably even in China. Although yes I should have gone with "not much" rather than "nothing really". Nil Einne (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

March 17

National identity in England (ethnic groups)

Hello. The link below shows a survey done on the national identity of ethnic groups in England, ethnic groups, I repeat, not in general; it is the groups I am interested in, just out of curiosity. Has a new survey been done, if so where can I find it? Because I would like to see it, if it exists, because this page dates back to 2013 and the survey itself to 2011. Thank you very much. https://hummedia.manchester.ac.uk/institutes/code/briefingsupdated/who-feels-british.pdf 37.182.78.11 (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

That excellent briefing was based entirely on data about England in the 2011 United Kingdom census. More recent data is available from the 2021 United Kingdom census. The data about the national identities of people in different ethnic groups is available from the UK Data Service. The Office for National Statistics was scheduled to release a commentary discussing this data in early 2023, but as far as I can see, they never did. This is probably because there is a critical problem: the order of answers on the national identity question was changed between 2011 (when the first answer on the list was "English") and 2021 (when the first answer was "British"). IIRC, this change was not made in the other three nations of the UK. ONS has issued a quality notice that warns you should "Take care when interpreting results for these groups", which is civil-servant speak for "we completely messed this up so you can't compare the two censuses". Matt's talk 10:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

How to escape sample bias in life?

How to even discover that you may be at a sample bias situation and need to discover if you are at it or not (and then escape it)? 179.134.102.52 (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

By introspection in the light of your knowledge of this sort of bias? By discussing the issue in question with a variety of people outside your cultural circle, or at least reading/watching their views online? By accessing and studying scholarly works on the subject? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.188.170 (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Ask Kurt Gödel. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

March 18

Origins of religion and the hunting hypothesis

I am not as familiar with paleoanthropology, as I should be, but I keep running into discussions about the evolution and origin of religion and the hunting hypothesis in the literature, going back about 80 years. This has me very curious. Is this still considered a viable hypothesis? Our article on the hunting hypothesis asserts that it is, saying, "advocates of the hunting hypothesis tend to believe that tool use and toolmaking essential to effective hunting were an extremely important part of human evolution, and trace the origin of language and religion to a hunting context." Our article reads as if it might be a touch outdated, so I'm curious as to the current state of the research paradigm in 2024. It seems to connect a lot of the missing dots, but that has me a touch skeptical, as it could be too good to be true. Viriditas (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Update: more recent commentary in the book article The Hunting Hypothesis argues that it is now the accepted hypothesis, but to support this idea it cites a popular magazine article from 2014. I would appreciate some clarity on this. More specifically, is there good evidence that religion arose out of hunting culture? It is interesting to note that in the ethnology literature, there is a larger pattern of religious traditions and practices focusing on the success of the hunt, how to find the animals, etc, particularly in Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, and elsewhere. I assume this is also true for North America. I ran across an older, interesting quote from Frederic Spiegelberg circa 1948 that expands upon this idea. Spiegelberg writes about older Buddhist iconography discussed by Suzuki (presumably from ancient China and Japan?) that focuses on the use of hunting and cowherding imagery as a metaphor for Buddhist practice. Spiegelberg goes on to connect all the major religious traditions to hunting. One small quote from 1948 stands out: "So we might presume that of the three types of early mankind which the anthropologists have discovered—hunter, farmer and herdsman—the hunter was the first and decisive one to supply the material for religious ideas, while the "cult" (agriculture) and the "pastor" (herdsman) probably entered the religious field much later. The hunter cannot think about the basic reality behind or within this ordinary so-called reality in other terms but in his hunter's terms, and he calls it a deer. Later, the farmer calls it the spirit of the crops and of fertility, and thus this basic principle takes up the shape of the prevailing ideas within any group of mankind. The Ancients used to call that the metamorphoses of their gods. And Aristotle gives the philosophical explanation for this fact by saying 'Whatsoever is received comes to him that receives it after the manner of the recipient?' The picture of the hunter's trail and of the traces we must look for, is surprisingly widespread and famous throughout the history of religions." Viriditas (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Without direct evidence, it's possible to create all sorts of plausible hypotheses. Hunting was certainly an important and probably ubiquitous factor in human development, and religion seems similarly ubiquitous, but hunting was not the only thing going on, and correlation does not prove causation.

It would seem to me that early human attempts to understand how the World works would embrace other factors, such as the Sun, Moon and stars, weather, seasons, plant growth, etc. The earliest forms of religion I have casually read of do not seem to be particularly hunting based, though they include it as elements, and certainly the origins of religion lie earlier than any evidence we have, or probably can have. It's been suggested (though it's a stretch) that even chimpanzees may have glimmerings of 'religious' ideas.

What, at its simplest, is religion anyway (see Theories about religion for a variety of ideas, in which hunting is only referred to once, and Evolutionary origin of religion). In the classical world it was not usually thought of as a separate topic – it was just assumed that gods were part of the world, and 'religion' was a label you might apply to the things you did in regard to that, not essentially different to the things you did to craft something, or grow something, etc. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.241.39.117 (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Religion implies religious leaders, people who have the spare time to think about abstracts, and the charisma to convince other people to feed them while they do it. (The same is true of government, but much later.) Hence, the rise in food availability associated with hunting (vs. gathering) might well create that surplus. So sad. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 08:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Does it? There's plenty of time for woolgathering while woolgathering. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Anthropologists of religion classify animism, a belief system in which not only humans but also animals, plants, rivers and mountains have a spiritual essence of their own, as a form of religion. But it is not organized religion; it does not require leaders or philosophers.  --Lambiam 09:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

It does not require them, but Shintoism, which is certainly animist, does to some extent. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.241.39.117 (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Even still, DOR’s point about abstract thought is super interesting. Philosopher Richard Kover at the University of Alberta talks about this: "Even more importantly the hunter needs to be able to actively inhabit the subjective awareness of the prey, to perceive the world almost viscerally through its eyes and ears. Hunting, the poet and environmental philosopher Gary Snyder notes, requires that one “use (one’s) body and senses to the fullest”; it also entails between the hunter and hunted an inter-subjective dimension whereby one “strains (one’s) consciousness to feel what the deer is thinking today at this moment” (Snyder, 1969: 120). This ability comes in useful not only as the hunter tracks the prey over great distances but particularly when he is closing in on the quarry and must come well within the sensory defenses of the prey. To come even close to taking a shot, the hunters must exercise the utmost stealth, caution, and keen attention to the behavioural nuances of the prey, continually asking themselves, “Has the prey caught sight of them or smelled their scent? Did it hear the slightest rustle of grass as the hunter crept forward?” Consequently, successful hunting, far from requiring the hunter to violently hate, or forgo all thoughts of empathy with the prey, requires exactly the opposite: the hunter must respect the prey and constantly imagine the subjective state of their quarry, attempting to quite literally perceive the situation through its senses. Little wonder then that hunter-gatherer cultures place such emphasis on “thinking like the prey” or that the myths and discursive forms of reasoning of foragers accord such high esteem and respect to other animals, particularly the prey, as the very taskscape of technologically primitive hunting demands not only a profound sense of humility and respect towards the prey but also the ability to subjectively identify with it." Viriditas (talk) 09:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)