Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2015 February 23

= February 23 =

What does it mean when a Youtube subscription gets a number next to it?
I used to think it meant "they've uploaded that many new videos you haven't seen," but check out hkl4dplayer in this screenshot: http://gyazo.com/b2cd239b26ff66f893ef721e1bca9e4f I added him less than a year ago, he's done nothing since, so why did he recently gain a 1 next to his name? 107.10.22.138 (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How many videos did he have when you added him? If only 1, then did you watch it?  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  20:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * He had ALL of those videos when I added him. He probably hasn't logged into Youtube for months, that's why I don't get why I got any sort of notification for him. Nothing at all has changed on his account. 107.10.22.138 (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

1957 Chevy frame
Did the hardtop come on a convertible frame, to help prevent roll overs?

Thanks, Sherman Oakes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.229.30 (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The type of top doesn't do anything to the stability of the vehicle. Also, a hard top is is just sheet  steel or fiber-glass and collapse with a 35 cwt car on top of it. One needs a roll cage for protection.  Roll over protection structures were common earlier but as far as   I know, not on cars until the 1960's. Ordinary saloons cars at the Daytona Races may have been retrofitted with roll cages because that would make sense but I don't have any info for which date they were introduced but I think it wasn't until the 1960's either.--Aspro (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The type of top makes a difference for the stability, affecting both chassis stiffness and centre of gravity. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In what way? A 1957 Chevy was not a monocoque. It had a separate chassis and body shell. So stiffness and C of G argument is moot. Whether the car was pillar-less or not, there was not much mass above the centre of gravity. That is not what causes a automobile  to turn over however. It was the forward kinetic energy being vectored in a direction were you did not want your car to follow.  A flat-six engine may have helped from the C of G point of view  but Chevy's did not have flats.  So stop trying to inject  nonsense into the OP's question.--Aspro (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Please don't bite. He was unaware that the stability issue with convertibles was limited to unibody/monocoque designs, or that a 1957 Chevy was a full frame vehicle, but that's no reason to yell at him.  He gave a good faith reply.


 * The one way I can think that a convertible top could cause a rollover even in a full-frame vehicle is if the top is half open while driving, and catches the wind. Probably not enough to flip the car alone, but if the car was taking a sharp turn at the time, it might be enough to push it over the line. StuRat (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hum. I'm willing to be corrected but was my 1957 Chevy a full frame? It looked like a body-on-frame to me at the time. But alas, my mind is ossifying with age You Are Old, Father William and my cherished Chev has probably returned to its natural state of iron oxide long ago, so the evidence has gone long, long ago. Oh What fun I had in that - but then my daddy got a job and a had a real auto!!!--Aspro (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Could be body-on-frame, too, I'm not sure.


 * I hope you took my point on not biting. We are here to answer Q's, not to criticize others who make good faith attempts to do so.


 * Yes, the cars we long for, once purchased, eventually turn into rust. How ironic. StuRat (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you considered buying a Land Rover  Aluminium! Or a DeLorean DMC-12 stainless steel. I'm sure my Chev had a body on frame. This is maybe not a very good WP reference but it and my eyes (and failing memory) says it all. Uni-body frame vs. Full frame explained But I did like it when my daddy could afford to buy me  real auto with self-seeking radio and an electric  antenna that came up when I switched on the ignition and I did not have to keep my foot on the gas peddle as the cruse control did it all for me …  but still, I did like the Chev. Trouble was, that it had cloth upholstery  and I could not get the stains off the back seats, regardless of what miracle cleaner I threw at them.--Aspro (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Optometry
What gas permeable contact lens base curve would you select first for a cornea with a keratometry reading of 42.00/44.00 @ 90?

You should split the difference and select a 43.00 base curve.

You should select a 42.00 base curve lens.

You should select a 44.00 base curve lens.

You should select a 40.00 base curve lens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.178.26.144 (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a question that should only be answered by your optometrist/optician/contact lens specialist. Wikipedia cannot give medical advice.  Consult a professional to find out what medical devices you should choose.  -- Jayron 32 21:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This sounds a lot more like a request for homework help than a patient's question, doesn't it? μηδείς (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If it's homework, the poster had probably better learn to spell optometry correctly. Meters (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe that's why he needs contacts. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My question wasn't meant to belittle the OP. If the guy knows what a keratometry reading is, and assuming contacts are given by prescription, we can assume the question is genuine, although it's probably outside our purview in one way or another.  Jayron should of hatted it if he thought it was a request for medical advice. μηδείς (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)