Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 May 23

= May 23 =

Is this bitcoin mining company using at least 1% of the electricity generated in China?
"Bitmain, a Chinese bitcoin miner and designer of chips, made $4bn last year"

Bitmain's facility is in Dalad Banner, Inner Mongolia. They had a payroll of only 50 at that facility according to a NYT article in 2017. Considering the lack of overhead except for electricity and amount of profit, it's possible to imagine they consumed tens of billions of dollars of electricity in a year.

Was this one company using 1%+ of China's electricity last year?

Muzzleflash (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * You appear to be confusing a company that makes money selling hardware for bit`coin mining with a company that makes money mining bitcoins. Bitmain is both. You also appear to be confusing companies that do mining for themselves and companies that run mining pools. Bitmain does both, and "how much of the computing power is their hardware as opposed to others contributing their devices is unknown." --Guy Macon (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * At the very least there is a huge facility in Inner Mongolia owned by Bitmain. And according to the Economist article most of Bitmain's earnings are from mining it does directly. This makes it possible to roughly assume the $4 billion profits figure is in the ballpark of what is earned by Bitmain from mining directly rather than selling hardware. Muzzleflash (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The Economist has no way of knowing how much of the computing power is their hardware as opposed to others contributing their devices. Show me evidence of a power plant in Inner Mongolia capable of supplying 1%+ of China's electricity to one location and I will at least conclude that your theory is plausible. Right now you are making too many assumptions. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Maternity leaves
I have some questions regarding maternity leaves.

SSS (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Do maternity leaves start before the childbirth? Has there been a time where the mother predicts inaccurately the baby's due date and thus, the baby comes out earlier or later than expected so the mother either has to give birth while at work or has to waste a couple of days of maternity leave?
 * Given that maternity leaves are about 3 months long, does that mean the new mother has to wean the child by the end of the 3 months?
 * Can the new mother extend the unpaid maternity leave a bit by consuming earned vacation leaves, extending another 3 weeks using paid vacation time? Alternatively, if the mother wants to breastfeed her young for a whole year or two, then she may exit the workforce and become a stay-at-home mother?
 * Suppose the mother wants to return to the workforce ASAP, because her husband doesn't make enough income to support the whole family. If she leaves the child at Grandpa and Grandma's house, then will the breastmilk stop producing during work hours? Or does the new mother have to keep track of time and make sure to wean the baby within 3 months?


 * Please specify which country/jurisdiction you are asking about. The regulations and policies vary widely. Thanks! 70.67.222.124 (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The first two questions do not seem to be concerned with legal regulations and policies. The third question seems to be a local policy question, so that can be omitted. The last question seems more related to biology, whether human females would stop lactating anytime they wish. SSS (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean. Maternity leave is strongly dependent on legal regulations and policies and local norms. In NZ paid parental leave is going to slowly increase to 26 weeks but the OECD average is 48 weeks. [//www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/99418622/paid-parental-leave-increased-to-26-weeks-as-government-bill-passes] Paid parental leave isn't quite the same thing as maternity leave since again, depending on location regulations, policies and norms, it may be possible for the father or some other caregiver to take some of that leave. But you mention 3 months which is clearly a short time in OECD terms considering that the former 18 weeks in NZ, which is longer than 3 months, was for good reasons considered short. I suspect your source is referring to the US. It's often remarked that the situation in the US is quite limited especially for those in low-wage jobs [//www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/paid-maternity-leave-us-worst-countres-world-donald-trump-family-leave-plan-women-republican-social-a7606036.html] probably at least in part due to few legal requirements hence why Trump's proposal received some attention despite still being very limited [//www.cnbc.com/2018/02/12/trumps-budget-calls-for-six-weeks-paid-family-leave.html].  With such a short period, it's reasonable that the mother may wish to take as much of it as they feel they can after the pregnancy rather than before. It's mentioned in my first source how the first 6 months are considered important by WHO guidelines implying that even with the future 26 weeks in NZ, there may still be a desire to minimise the time taken beforehand. And besides the parents wishes, again precisely when it can start will depend on local policies, regulations and norms.  As mentioned below, we're also talking about 'paid' leave here. Again unpaid leave may be an option but again how much of an option this is will depend on local policies, regulations and norms. Some jurisdictions may guarantee a period of unpaid leave. (I.E. It has to be offered on request with the job having to be held open probably with very limited exceptions.) Others may not, so it will depend on local norms and the specific employer. (Often large employers are better, but not always. To a point, a higher salary often also means better other conditions.) And there are all the additional complications like part time work, contract work and zero hour contracts.  You also mention paid vacation time. Again local regulations, policies and norms will influence how this interacts with any paid parental leave. Notably you mentioned 3 weeks but why? In NZ you're entitled to 4 weeks of annual leave in a simple situation [//www.employment.govt.nz/leave-and-holidays/annual-holidays/annual-holidays-entitlements/] and as our article illustrates that's often the minimum (e.g. required in the EU) but some countries have 5 weeks or more. (5.6 weeks in the UK.)  Nil Einne (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I would add that while not just a jurisdictional thing, age of weaning does tend to vary depending on several factors including local norms. Nil Einne (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There's some more discussion of the situation in NZ here . BTW I see you mentioned the mother returning to work because her husband (not sure why you assume she must have a husband) doesn't make enough. This makes me thinks you're only considering unpaid leave which isn't really the norm in a lot of the OECD further highlighting why your dismissal was wrong. For clarity, I'm not saying financial stress isn't possible since even in places with paid leave guarantees, it may not be the full salary or even close to it depending on the salary. E.g. in NZ the maximum is currently NZ$$538.55 a week before tax . In the UK it's evidently even lower after 6 weeks £145.18 per week [//www.gov.uk/maternity-pay-leave/pay]. Still the aim of such schemes tend to be to reduce the chance that financial stress will force an early return and there may be topups from the employer again depending on local norms etc. Incidentally, while investigating the UK I made up this case which gives some info on how things work in the UK including the guaranteed starting dates for leave for that scenario. I should also clarify that while sometimes the guaranteed leave may be shared in some fashion between parents, in other cases it may be a separate entitlement. Nil Einne (talk)


 * 2. mother can express milk and put milk in the fridge
 * 4. milk doesn't dry up when mother expresses milk Sleigh (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * At the end of her maternity leave, the mother may have access to other forms of leave, such as long service leave, or leave without pay. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Regarding the milk issue, see breast pump. I have not met a mother who has not used one.  It's fairly standard in the developed world for women to  pump milk as needed; even when both my wife an I were at home, she would pump so there would be excess milk, so that I could handle night-time feedings and give her a rest for a bit.  -- Jayron 32 11:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I revise my question. Now, I just want to know whether or not women generally wean the infants at the end of the maternity leave (however long it takes, depending on local regulations). So, if the local regulation says 3 weeks, then the mothers have to wean at 3 weeks. If the local regulation says half a year, then the mother has to wean at half a year. But regardless of the local regulation, the mother has to wean the child off her milk when the maternity leave is up. Otherwise, wouldn't she produce milk during inconvenient work hours? SSS (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * " . . . wouldn't she produce milk during inconvenient work hours?" I myself (male) produce urine during work hours, but dealing with it is not a problem. SSS, You seem to have some peculiar notions about milk expression: it doesn't squirt out of its own accord according to a set timetable; it is mostly released when the nipple is stimulated by the suckling of a baby, or by the suction of an artifact such as a breast pump, which latter can be done in privacy if and as necessary. It is usually expressed involuntarily in any quantity only if neither of these methods are being used. Moreover, there is generally a transition period during which lactation tapers off; it doesn't normally stop abruptly (there is no effective and safe way of making this happen), because weaning an infant is itself a prolonged process of overlapping nutrition, not an instant change from milk to solid food. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.221.82.140 (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, there are no laws mandating breast feeding for any length of time. Some women are unable to breastfeed, or find it very difficult to do so, and start babies on infant formula shortly after birth.  Regarding age when weaning occurs, this page has a huge amount of data on the subject.  -- Jayron 32 18:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You appear to be labouring under some misapprehensions which admittedly the current terminology does not help. The World Health Organisation recommends exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of an infant's life; to the best of my knowledge, this has always meant no other substance (water, formula milk, pablum, etc.) but I am not clear whether WHO means "only directly from the mother's breast". Some babies are fed by wet nurses (I worked on that article and yes, if you check the references, it is still - or once again - a thing). Some mothers exchange or sell their milk - not just to human milk banks but informally e.g. by eBay. And the word "wean" can mean different things to different people: are you using it to mean "cease lactating" or "cease bringing the baby to the breast"? It is certainly possible to feed an infant on nothing but the mother's milk, even if she is away at work. (See for example the US military's policy on breastfeeding as an active duty soldier.) Jayron32 said above that all the mothers of his acquaintance use breast pumps; that is in my experience an American perspective. The use of pumps is not widespread in many countries - here is some global industry data. US law, which grants its citizens the least maternity leave in the world, requires companies to provide lactation rooms for employees to pump, not places to which babies may be brought (as in other places and times). "Historian Jill Lepore argues that the "non-bathroom lactation room" and breast pumps generally are driven by corporate need for workers rather than mothers' wishes or babies' needs. " You wrote "the mother has to wean the child off her milk when the maternity leave is up" - no, that's not the case. If the infant has begun to accept what are called "solid foods" (but are in reality mush), then a six- or nine- or twelve-month old can be breastfed morning and night (i.e. before and after the mother's work day) and eat "solids" and/or formula milk in between. The mother's milk production waxes and wanes in tandem with her infant's needs. It's like any other organ emptying and filling; think of stomachs and bladders. Adults plan around bodily functions and are not controlled by them. Breastfeeding isn't an all or nothing deal. Like a lot of human life, it's flexible. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Sting credit card numbers - have they ever been tried?
I just got a call from the usual sort of scammer who has an apparently local number who tells me that they have an urgent message about my credit card account... I assume that if I stayed on the line, eventually I'd be presented with an opportunity to enter my credit card number, verification code, expiration date, etc., all in the name of "security". And then, ay caramba, a withdrawal might show up on the account! But I don't actually know because given I'm not going to give them a number there's no point to be made.

Still ... in theory, it should be possible to have a known invalid card number and data from some credit card company that, when all used together, causes them to give the appearance of a valid account, while they report that regrettably the credit limit is reached, server is temporarily down, some other excuse. While setting off an instant notification that the number is a scam and allowing the company to take some action. Of course, one could give a credit card number that fails the checksum scheme or otherwise doesn't exist, or is on some public list of sting numbers if it existed, but then scammers could look it up and know. Instead, it seems like an Irate Citizen would be best served by requesting his or her own special sting number from a company, then perhaps even submitting reports when they use it and with whom they shared it "just to confirm for security reasons".

Such a thing would seem in any given company's best interest ... but has it ever actually been implemented? Wnt (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * This was suggested five years ago in the FTC Robocall challenge. You can do 90% of what you suggested with a prepaid credit card that has a couple of cents left on it.


 * Alas, it won't help. The way credit card theft works is that the crooks get a bunch of credit card nummers (and associated names, SS numbers, etc. if they can get them) then sell the entire set of stolen cards on the black market all at once. If they can, they sell the whole thing to a single customer. If the price isn't right, they sell sell them one at a time on the dark web. Once someone starts using the numbers, the clock starts as the credit card issuing banks begin investigating. Once they've identified where the breach occurred they figure out when the crooks started stealing the data, make a list of all potentially stolen cards, notify the customers, and disable the stolen cards. The stolen cards are now worthless. This all happens way faster than you can submit a report. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Bollocks. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It might be better to have a government-operated sting operation that creates bogus customers using bogus names and real credit card numbers. When called by a scammer, provide the info and then do a real-time traceback when the scammer uses the number. Same for e-mail scammers. -Arch dude (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

On a much more basic level, I got a call about ten years ago which started "I'm from Cardholder Services--". Since I didn't have any cards at that point, I took great pleasure in interrupting the call right there, saying "I don't have any cards, so I know you're lying", and immediately slamming down the phone... -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Rachel from Cardmember Services (who calls me every few months) may be a crook, but she's not representing herself as acting for the issuer of your card: she's inviting you to switch your debts from that card to one with (for now) a lower rate. (I'm not sure about this, because when I press 9 to speak to a human they always hang up on me; I haven't any cards either.) —Tamfang (talk) 06:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have since searched for Rachel+services and read a webpage of the Federal Trade Commission that says "Rachel" seeks to charge you a fee to do what you could do yourself, like attempt to negotiate a lower rate with your present lender. It also says that many boiler rooms use the same "Rachel" recording. —Tamfang (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It was a person on the other end of the line, not a robocall. I admittedly didn't listen to the pitch, but I was quite confident that they would want me to read out a card number over the phone (something that I basically never do -- except when calling airline company reservation sites many years ago -- and I didn't even have a card at that point). AnonMoos (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)