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.
Re: Do the IBM Watson videos with the different robots still exist, or are they gone?[edit]
Over a decade ago, I once saw some videos that featured several fictional robots that were each interested in doing something that Watson could already do. In each video, one of the robots was interviewed. For example, one video showed a robot talking about how it wants to help improve air quality in Beijing, to which the interviewer responds that Beijing's smog problem is "a bit more complicated than that". In another video, another robot talks about how "Back in my day, vacuum tubes were" and I forget the rest of what it said, but I hope you get the idea. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I've seen this done with RfD discussions, so I don't see why I shouldn't try to do a similar thing with my unanswered Reference Desk question. (though I can see how this would be annoying if someone were to continuously repeat questions that have already received plenty of responses) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~
If no one can answer my question at the moment, then I need to know that. Total silence isn't always a helpful way to get that point across.
My best guess is that nobody else scrolling through this page was familiar with the particular videos I was trying to describe. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is, however, not more than a guess. I guess that nobody who saw this question knows for certain that nobody who saw this question can answer it, so no one of us can reply, "No one here can answer your question." One might reply, "Perhaps nobody seeing this question can answer it." This might be added to any question that has gone unanswered. A bot might even automatically add this to any question when it is posted, so we don't need to do this. --Lambiam 07:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the question was odd. I don't recall ever seeing these videos, and for the most part, I keep on top of some of this stuff (I take a few months off from popular culture and media every year for my own health, so I do end up missing some things). Was this video only seen in China? Viriditas (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how any RefDesk editor can be expected to know that other editors don't know the answer to a question. Alansplodge (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are discouraged from guessing, speculating, and other forms of shooting the breeze. Even an editor stating that they do not know the answer is of no value to an OP, who is interested only in hearing from those who do know the answer. So if nobody who's seen the question knows the answer, silence is what the OP is going to get. Another possibility is that someone who's seen the question does have the answer or at least some pertinent information, but has neither the time nor the interest in providing same, and is either assuming that some other editor will come along soon and help the OP out, or perhaps doesn't care either way. In no case are they going to actually type: "I have the answer/some relevant information but do not have the time or interest in providing them", because if they could type that, they could just as easily have provided the answer itself. So, again, silence is what the OP is going to be getting. So, an assumption that silence always means that nobody who's seen the question knows the answer, is not justified. A bot might usefully say: "Your question has not attracted any answers so far. This may be for a range of reasons, including but not limited to: Nobody who has seen the question knows the answer." -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 21:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It could have been. Digital displays were common by then. I doubt you'll find a reference for such a trivial question. Shantavira|feed me 08:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By 1980, digital watches were cheap enough that anyone could buy one. I got my first one in 1979. By 1983, they were so common and cheap that they began coming out with digital watches that also had games on them like PacMan. So, not only could he have had a digital watch, he could have had a digital watch with a soccer game built into it. 75.136.148.8 (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zooming in on some of the better images, it looks a bit like a Swatch, which was launched in the spring of that year, but it's hard to be certain. Alansplodge (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like an analog watch to me. If I were a referee I would not like a digital display without seconds pointer that rounds off to the nearest whole minute and I get too much real soccer to need more pretend soccer game.Philvoids (talk) 10:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's analogue. It is much quicker and easier to read an analogue watch. It's difficult enough to keep an eye on the action at the same time as timekeeping. Shantavira|feed me 10:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It is much quicker and easier to read an analogue watch" Wouldn't that vary from person to person? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you assume that a digital watch wouldn't indicate seconds? I had a digital watch back then that could show hours, minutes, and seconds. And could also display the date or function as a stopwatch. (Not to mention that it could also transform into a toy robot.) --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made no such categorical assumption and like not the provocative Straw man questioning. As a referee watching the conduct of 22 soccer players I would be merely irritated by a watch that keeps flashing ..53 54 55 56 57 58.. seconds, that threatens to turn into a toy robot or that shows phases of the Moon, whether you could buy such watches in 1983 or not. Philvoids (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now that I've clarified where this question is coming from, here it is again: if the Federal Reserve was abolished, what effect would it have on the money supply? My educated guess as a non-expert is that it would greatly decrease the money supply -- is that correct? 2601:646:8082:BA0:E19D:4C11:C950:1DA8 (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Money is not created by the Federal Reserve, which is a system, but by banks providing credit to customers. I assume that "abolishing the Federal Reserve" also removes the banking regulation and supervision assigned by law to the Federal Reserve, and thereby the capital requirement that is meant to ensure that banks do not overextend the credits granted and remain solvent, that is, can honour their obligations to depositors. As the brakes are removed, the immediate effect is most likely a huge influx of newly created, easy money. The FDIC will be unable to keep providing deposit insurance, which depends on the assumption that the banks are regulated. Some banks will fail spectacularly and take others with them, and as depositors see their deposits are not safe they will want to see cash – bank runs will ensue. As banks go serially belly up and the economy contracts to a depression that becomes world-wide, the money that was abundantly available will dry up. --Lambiam 05:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The abolition of the Fed would only arise under extreme political circumstances that cannot be ignored in favor of a purely economic answer, except in some fantasy world. In that world, the author would decide what would make a good story. In the real world, the most likely outcome would be a combination of hoarding and skyrocketing inflation, arising from a comprehensive loss of faith in both institutions and the currency. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are people who actually advocate the idea. Which is better, to ignore them, because they live in a fantasy world, or explain why this is maybe not the best idea, as long as the economy is still based on money? --Lambiam 19:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply (I was busy with other political stuff which mainly had to do with defending Israel and denouncing Hamas sympathizers as the terrorists they are) -- yes, I'm asking this question because me and my followers want to formulate an argument against abolishing the Fed and in favor of keeping it, but we want to make an argument based on national security considerations rather than purely economic ones! (And for how the money supply affects national security, see Balance of trade and Autarky, first and foremost!) 2601:646:8082:BA0:180E:97CC:ADFB:D01C (talk) 08:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm looking for tarot decks by renowned illustrators to print. Hebrew letter inclusion a plus.
Temerarius (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are loads of images on Commons that are identified as being "Tarot". The image quality varies a lot, but it's a free option to start your search. Matt Deres (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Enemies with wallrunning in single-player first-person shooters[edit]
I already saw the scrapped Pilot AI for Titanfall 2 single-player campaign many times and I wonder why that such thing were cut from TF|2 campaign and are there other first-person shooter single-player games where players have wallrunning ability and there are also enemies that have same abilities as you including wallrunning (much like the Evolved from Prototype 2 has similar set of abilities to the player)? And what is most difficult part for wallrunning in enemy AI to implement in a hypothetical singleplayer campaign of third Titanfall installment? 2001:448A:3070:E47D:A9C7:4A5A:80E5:29EF (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ISO 7010 gives standards for signs. It includes prohibition signs (red border circles, most with a diagonal strikeout); Warning signs (red border triangles); Mandatory signs (blue circles); and emergency signs. Is there a standard for "Permissive signs"? (Eg the oppositite of "No dogs" being "Dogs are permitted" rather than "Dogs are required"? -- SGBailey (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ISO 7010 does not explicitly use the term "permissive signs", it does standardize a category of green "safe condition" signs that convey permitted or allowed actions. These signs typically have a green background with a white symbol or text. The design principles for these permissive symbols are outlined in ISO 3864-3,[1][2] --136.54.106.120 (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A green-background sign of a person showering does not mean "Showering permitted here", just like a sign EXIT does not mean one is granted permission to leave. These signs are meant to facilitate safety actions in case of emergency situations. Using signs that are similar in design to convey permitted or allowed actions not related to safety will dilute the intended signalling function of the ISO 7010 standard. --Lambiam 06:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In free countries, at least, the lack of a warning or prohibiting sign would imply permission. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However there are some situations - buildings, locations - where a sign could contradict assumptions, saying something like "photography permitted", "firearms permitted on premises", "designated smoking area", or "nude beach". Just in case anybody was being too meek. Card Zero (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In those cases, there is no lack of a sign. I'm reminded of an old story: A guy's looking for a parking space. He sees a bunch of parked cars. He asks a cop, "Can I park there?" The cop says, "No." The guy says, "What about those others?" The cop says, "They didn't ask." ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the Highway Code, rectangular blue signs convey information. The signs you see on the approaches to roundabouts are rectangular - blue for motorways, green for primary routes, white for local routes. See [3]. 2A00:23D0:492:6301:40F:D36D:A5E5:18CB (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking of traffic signs in Europe (which are either basedon ISO or the other way around), that's the rule's the same here. If it's not prohibited by law or sign, it's allowed. There are only a few signs/signage that specifically mean allowed. For example, you can cross the street on a zebra crossing or a green light or you can just keep walking on your side. Or there's a square blue sign for recommended speed (I've only ever seen it painted on the pavement in city downtowns in situations where it's useless). There are also yellow lanes here marked for example BUS TAXI, which means that buses and taxis can drive there and no one else, but buses and taxis can obviously drive in other lanes too.
Of all signs except like stop signs these are the most ignored. People cross streets on red or walk next to zebra crossings, ignore recommended speeds in cars. Regular cars take shortcuts on taxi lanes and even public transport only lanes. Even ubers and similar drivers don't know that not all yellow lanes are for taxis (at least the 5-6 I've asked). Prohibitions and requirements seem to work better unless you just don't care (none of this creates noticeable problems in traffic as much as people bitch about it). 31.217.10.156 (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ISO 7001 includes a sign for "smoking allowed". It doesn't seem to have one for "dogs allowed". PF 015: Smoking area or smoking allowedAlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome. What is your question? RudolfRed (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry I was not precise. If you look towards 12 o'clock in the picture (upwards) there seems to be something that looks like an electronic scoreboard, that's my impression. Or maybe it actually wasn't there and still needed to be installed? Because you can't really see much. Thank you.
This British manufacturer says that their wooden cutlery is made "from natural Birch Wood that is fully sustainable and FSC® (Forest Stewardship Council®) certified". According to this, China, Vietnam and Russia are the leading exporters of birch, with Germany being the leading EU exporter, although their output seems to be in the form of decorative veneers. Alansplodge (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why doesn't the "film template" include a section on age ratings or sequels and prequels?[edit]
~ ~ ~
This is a question that has been on my mind for several years. It would also be interesting to include sequels and prequels for navigation, and age classifications for added security.
Has there ever been a time when these details were included?
The earliest discussion I've found of prequels and sequels in the infobox was WT:WikiProject Film/Archive 1#Movie sequels in the infobox .. in 2005, but there was no resolution. I'm guessing both of these questions have been discussed many times since: please search the archives of that WikiProject talk page. ColinFine (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Age ratings can change over time, and will tend to vary from region to region. Wikipedia is not censored for content, so I wonder what "added security" you're referring to? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't say which template, so I am going by {{Infobox film}}. That documention page explains why that infobox does not include the film's rating, and suggests that information should be in the article body instead. There is also a link to the discussion where prequels and sequels were removed from this infobox in 2011. RudolfRed (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like an analog watch to me. If I were a referee I would not like a digital display without seconds pointer that rounds off to the nearest whole minute and I get too much real soccer to need more pretend soccer game.Philvoids (talk) 10:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
