Humanities desk
< April 25	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 27 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 26[edit]

What is a "det. officer?"[edit]

(This was misposted to the Science Desk, and has been answered there, but it might as well be put where it belongs. --69.159.62.113 (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Admiral Ronny Jackson served as a "det. officer in charge" per his article. What is a "det. officer?" "Detective officer?" "Detonation officer?" "Detention officer?" "Data entry terminal officer?" Edison (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a commonly used military term. My best guess is "detached", bt I'm sure someone will be able to confirm or correct that. Meters (talk) 04:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or "detachment" Meters (talk) 04:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think detachment is more likely then detached. This source seems to be using it for detachment including in relation to officers in charge [1] as do under stories. However other stories use it for detail [2]. I think only knowing whether he was in a detachment or detail will answer the question for sure. Nil Einne (talk) 07:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think there could be some mistake or loose wording or something I don't understand. As detail seems a lot less common than detachment and while I think I have some idea of what a detail is [3], I wasn't sure whether it's common for it to be used these ways. So I was trying to find if this usage of detail is normal in military parlance when I came across this [4] which seems to use both detachment and detail to refer to the same thing. BTW, is this really a question for the science desk? Nil Einne (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph with the expression in seems to have been copied verbatim from this biography. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I googled on the two phrases "Ronny Jackson" "officer in charge". There were a lot of hits repeating the abbreviated "det. officer in charge" and one hit where someone had apparently guessed that "det." meant Detroit! But, way down the list, there was also this one that said he was "officer in charge (OIC) of the detachment".

Since the site Andrew mentioned was under the .mil domain, I then googled on "det officer" site:mil to look for other US military pages that might use the expression. Some of the hits, like this one, were about a Richard Rusnok. I then googled on "Richard Rusnok" "officer in charge" and found several references such as this one identifying him as having been a "Detachment Officer-in-Charge". That has to be the answer. --69.159.62.113 (talk) 09:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I aimed at the Humanities Desk and missed. "Detachment" seems the most likely so I will edit the Jackson article accordingly, though "detail" seems possible as well.Thanks. The abbreviation did not same much space and probably confused most every reader. Edison (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that it is "detached" because he is not a part of any command. He had been detached to the White House to serve as a medical officer. Prior to that he could have been a part of some, for example, pacific command as a medical officer, etc. AboutFace 22 (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But this article about the USN uses "det." to mean "detachment":

'A helicopter det. had been deployed for one week aboard a frigate engaged in counter-narcotics operations... At 1400 local time, the det. officer in charge (OIC) held an all air crew meeting... The det. OIC discussed this with the ship’s commanding officer".

Also this article from the US Marines:

'In July 2008, he deployed to Al Asad Airbase, Iraq to serve as the Det Officer-In-Charge of the combined VMGR-352/252 six plane detachment...'

Alansplodge (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AboutFace 22, if he's not a part of any command, how can he be "in charge"? —Tamfang (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this Dictionary of military terms [5] I seared for "detach" and had 25 hits. You may look at them. Most of them are "detachment." AboutFace 22 (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps more pertinently: "In 1995 Jackson got his Navy commission and graduated as a doctor of medicine from University of Texas Medical Branch. An emergency medicine specialist, he was detachment officer-in-charge and diving medical officer at Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit 8 in Sigonella, Sicily" which is exactly the post our article is referring to. See Stars and Stripes, March 29, 2018. Alansplodge (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job. Meters (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photo clarification[edit]

Several websites credit this photo of The Elephant's Foot to the US Department of Energy, including Resource magazine making it Template:PD-USGov-DOE. I couldn't find the photo directly at the Department of Energy website. But Resource says "similar photos accredited to Koryenev have helped deduce the idea that this photo was a selfie. With a slow shutter speed and timer, Koryenev was able to stage and take this photo of himself". Artur Koryenev was not from the Department of Energy, yet Resource credits DoE. What's going on? Brandmeister^talk 16:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Atlas Obscura article you cite, "This picture first came to America in the late 1990s...Tim Ledbetter was...tasked with creating a digital photo library that the DOE’s International Nuclear Safety Project...He had project members take photos while they were in Ukraine, hired a freelance photographer to grab some other shots, and solicited images from Ukrainian colleagues at the Chornobyl Center" My guess is that this was a photo obtained from that library, as the image clearly fits the last category "solicited images from Ukrainian colleagues at the Chornobyl Center." That doesn't mean the DOE owns all of the copyrights on the photos in the library, they may own many, but it was not produced by them, merely collected and organized by them. That's how I read the article in question. --Jayron 32 16:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How common are 1st world building codes that let you live in an exact* 2018 replica of an Ancient Greek or Roman house?[edit]

*except the pipes are lead-free. Of course the lack of electrical outlets and modern toilets would mean few would want to do this. And it'd likely be very inconvenient in winters much colder than Greece or Rome. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that average insulae would be considered totally unfit for human habitation by the standards of modern cities in rich countries. It might be different for a rural luxury villa with hypocausts... AnonMoos (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would help to know what sort of house you were considering. Many aspects of the Roman villa seem possible today, if on a property far away from neighbours. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know Greco-Roman architecture too well. I did find those houses with holes in the roof with pools under them particularly impractical (what are they called?) How'd they deal with burglars and really windy storms? Or could that part be sealed off with doors? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I found within a few clicks. I am no expert on Ancient Roman architecture, but fortunately WHAAOE. From Roman villa, I discovered that the town house was called a domus. The structure you appear to be referring to sounds like a standard courtyard, with a pool or fountain of some sort. One of our diagrams allowed me to learn that the Romans called this an impluvium, and the space above is the compluvium:

As the water evaporates, the surrounding air is cooled and becomes heavier and flows into the living spaces and is replaced by air drawn through the compluvium. The combination of the compluvium and impluvium formed an ingenious, effective and attractive manner of collecting, filtering and cooling rainwater and making it available for household use as well as providing cooling of the living spaces.

I see no reason why similar features should not be incorporated into modern dwellings, where the climate makes that sensible. (Side note: the Latin word was then used (presumably by European explorers or colonisers) to describe sophisticated vernacular architecture in Senegal: Impluvium (house).) Carbon Caryatid (talk) 00:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah so when I heard about it I got the wrong impression that it was less separated from the house than your standard interior courtyard and they just accepted the heating system inefficiency of having a open hole in the winter to get summer ventilation. It's certainly ingenious of them to get around air conditioning not being invented yet this way. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]