Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2016 March 1

= March 1 =

Enlistment in the military while pregnant
Suppose someone who is already pregnant tries to enlist in the military before the end of her pregnancy. In such cases, will the pregnancy itself result in an automatic disqualification from enlistment, or are there some military branches in some countries which do not disqualify enlistees solely for this reason? 96.246.144.195 (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see why pregnancy would be a disqualification. In the Australian Army pregnancy disqualifies someone from fighting on the front line, but there appear to be no issues with them continuing to work on the home front, so it seems logical that pregnancy at the time of enlistment also should not be a disqualification: see this FAQ but this news story, and this more detailed description of Australian Defence Force policy on pregnancy. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * suggests pregnancy is one of the things they look for during the medical test but not what they would do if it's detected. In both NZ and Australia, after enlisting there will be an Assessment day where your suitability for service including meeting the fitness requirements will be assessed. There's some description of the process in Australia here . While in NZ   and I'm guessing Australia  they will make adjustments to your fitness testing during pregnancy but I doubt they will do this for assessement day. I'm not really sure how much control you have over the timing of this e.g. . It may they have a special process in place for people who are pregnant they have a process in place to defer assessement day, or it may be they simply ask you to wait, I couldn't find any specific discussion. (I suspect it's something that rarely comes up. More likely is a woman finds out she is pregnant at some stage, after enlisting perhaps during the medical assessment on assessement day.) P.S. Of course if the lead time between joining and assessement day is very short, a woman who's pregnant when joining could potentially still meet the fitness requirements on assessment day presuming she's allowed to and her pregnancy isn't considered to mean she doesn't currently meet the requirements. Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * In the UK you cannot join the military if you are pregnant, or if you have given birth within the past three months.{http://www.army.mod.uk/join/How-to-join.aspx } — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.174.93 (talk) 10:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That makes sense, but I would expect they should be able to sign up during that time, for delayed entry, after the 3 months has ended. StuRat (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * If you're referring to the Delayed Entry Program, that's an American thing, not British. DuncanHill (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's an interesting article from 1994 about when the rules changed so that women were not automatically discharged when they became pregnant. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * about the US says "Air Force .... A woman could even be pregnant while signing up for boot camp" discusses the policy change and says something similar. Nil Einne (talk) 13:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Early pregnancy may not be a problem but basic military training is physically strenuous, so would probably be impossible or even dangerous after the first trimester of pregnancy. Per our Recruit training article the "boot camp" phase of training is three to four months long in most modern military forces. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Why the hell is Later-no-harm criterion considered a bad thing?
Why the hell is Later-no-harm criterion considered a bad thing?

I means if the one I prefer will not win, it would be good that the best one between the remaining people win.200.217.25.234 (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there some factual information we can give you? Wikipedia's reference desk is not the appropriate venue for debating the value of things like voting systems.  The best I can direct you to is to read the article in question, and to read other articles such as the Single transferable vote (of which this seems to be a variant of).  The main criticism of any ranked voting system (where voters give their preference to a slate of candidates rather than to selecting their single preferred candidate) is known as Arrow's theorem, which states that ranked order voting systems are universally flawed in the sense that no ranked-order voting system is capable of always producing the most preferred candidate among the community; there will always be the possibility of a paradoxical result (such as a candidate which received less first-place votes still winning the election).  -- Jayron 32 13:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A practical example of Arrow's theorem is the 2008 Heisman Trophy voting. Tim Tebow had the most first-place votes, but because of the rank-order voting system, ended up in third place over all.  -- Jayron 32 13:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not at all a "paradoxical" result- it's just that Tebow would've won using the plurality system, but didn't win using whatever system the Heisman uses. Arrow's theorem doesn't predict paradoxical results anyways- it just says that no ranked voting system can satisfy certain different criteria simultaneously. Whether or not various systems agree with the plurality system is not at all the point. Staecker (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you mean to ask why it would be good for a system to satisfy the later-no-harm criterion? I'm not familiar with anyone who actually thinks later-no-harm is bad. I'm not sure that your interpretation "if the one I prefer..." is appropriate for the later-no-harm criterion. It simply means that if I vote for candidate A over B and this results in a win for A, but then I change my mind to boost B's ranking, while still keeping them below A, then the winner should still be A. This on the surface seems to be a fairly reasonable criterion. Maybe you could explain your objection a bit more? Staecker (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Staecker that you seem to have misunderstood the criterion. The criterion means that the one you prefer (and vote accordingly) should not lose because of your vote towards one that you prefer less. Nil Einne (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Check out the condition for Independence_of_irrelevant_alternatives, of which later-no-harm is sort of an extension. IIA says that this scenario is bunk, and should be avoided:
 * Waiter:Would you like some pie? We have Apple, Blueberry, and Cherry.
 * Customer:Thanks, I'll have a slice of apple
 * Waiter (to others at the table):Sorry, I forgot we're all out of the Cherry
 * Customer:Oh wait, in that case, I'll have Blueberry!
 * Anyway, I think if you can see why it's philosophically good to have IIA criterion met, it might help you see why L-N-H is also good. Another thing to point out is that nobody designs a system to fail IIA or LNH, the challenge (per Arrow) is to design a system to fail as few of these desirable criteria as possible, or to fail in the most graceful way possible. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Note that your pie scenario isn't actually an analogy to a voting system, which aggregates individual preferences into one societal preference. The pie scenario shows that preferences can be nontransitive fail IIA even in an individual when preferences are probabilistic (it occurs, for example, when the customer weights apple as a 3 always, cherry as a 1 51% of the time and 5 49% of the time, and blueberry as 2 56% of the time, 4 22% of the time and 6 22% of the time).  IIA is not just desirable in an abstract philosophical way; it failed spectacularly in the 2000 US presidential election, when Gore would have won easily if Nader hadn't been in the race.  Mnudelman (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Using the pie example what I am talking about is:

Waiter:Would you like some pie? We have Apple, Blueberry, and Cherry.

3 Customers that are together: First prefer in order apple, blueberry and cherry (he HATES cherry, would really prefer to eat a pie with piss over it). Second prefer apple, blueberry and cherry in order, and third one prefer cherry, apple, and blueberry in order. They they say their favorite ones and the most said thing. Apple is selected.

Waiter (to others at the table):Sorry, I forgot we're all out of the Apple

3 Customers that are together: They say their favorites that aren't apple, and the most "voted" one wins. And so blueberry wins.

Anyway, the first guy vote made blueberry win while his preferred choice was apple. The thing is, he totally hates cherry, so it became a positive thing, because his vote avoided a cherry pie.

The idea, is that voting is not ONLY about getting what you like but not getting what you hate. Not getting punched in the face now as some example is preferred to actually receiving 5 cents now (when the 3 options where, receive one now, getting punched in the face now and receiving one dollar at the year2030) cent201.79.77.24 (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * In the simplest case, suppose we have candidates 'A' and 'B' who are in total opposition to each other and 'C' - a compromise candidate. What should happen if 51% of people prefer candidate 'A' as their first choice and 'C' as their second, 49% want 'B' as their first choice and 'C' as their second?  Is there a case to be made for having a system in which 'C' gets the job?  It's a matter for debate whether it's better that 51% of people are utterly happy and 49% are miserably unhappy versus 100% of people being fairly happy.   You can spin the numbers lots of ways: Suppose 51% want 'A' as their first choice and 'C' as their second, while 49% put 'C' first and 'B' second.  Now, you can make 51% completely happy and 49% very unhappy - or you can make 49% completely happy and 51% only slightly less happy.


 * Mathematics and logic can't tell you whether 'A' or 'C' should win in those two scenarios. It's a very human decision as to whether 'the greatest happiness for the greatest number' is a principle that's best handled by giving a small majority everything they want - or forcing the majority to somewhat dial back their demands so that far more people can be almost as happy.  If we could measure happiness, we could argue that we need to produce the best "average" happiness - but in mathematics, there are three ways to calculate an 'average'.  Should the right choice optimize the mean happiness, the median happiness or the modal happiness?   There is no arithmetic/logical reason to prefer one over the other - it's totally a matter of morals and 'soft' measurements of the relative value of universal semi-happiness versus a 50/50 split between utter happiness and misery.


 * IMHO, the best solution is to optimize to let 'C' win in both of the scenarios I posted. A system where the majority gets to be super-happy and the minority get dumped on is the kind of system that allows slavery, abuse of minorities and racial cleansing.


 * It's very, VERY hard to come up with a system that is fair, correct and affords the best choice to the most people...which is why we don't have such a thing.
 * SteveBaker (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not just very very hard- mathematically impossible. (probably- depending on exactly what you mean by "fair, correct and ...") Staecker (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant when I said "Mathematics and logic can't tell you whether 'A' or 'C' should win in those two scenarios.". SteveBaker (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your example with the pies doesn't seem to have anything to do with later-no-harm. Do you have a specific question about your example? Staecker (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The OP asks why anyone would not want LNH? I prefer to answer this more widely - is there any voting system that everyone would like?  No possible voting system can simultaneously guarantee that the majority of people gain maximum happiness and assure the maximum happiness averaged over all of the people.  Those are often contradictory requirements.  Since there are definitely some people who prefer "majority rules" - and definitely other people who prefer to aim for compromise candidates that everyone can tolerate - you can't find any voting system that all people will want because they have different outcomes.  So it's guaranteed that some people will reject the principles of LNH...just like any system you could dream up. SteveBaker (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Taiwan's really low taxes
List of countries by tax revenue as percentage of GDP From the list it seems among first world countries, Taiwan has the lowest taxes by far especially when offshore centers like Hong Kong and oil producers that collect revenue from royalties are excluded. The percentage of taxes as a part of GDP is so much lower than the average first world country, it would seem to even upend assumptions about what is the minimum necessary level of revenue for a first world government to function on. What's the on the ground reality like in Taiwan when the government collects so little revenue? Muzzleflash (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't necessarily mean they don't collect enough tax revenue to provide the required services. You could also generate the same results from having very high per capita GDP.  GDP and necessary government expenditures do not necessarily scale with each other.  -- Jayron 32 16:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But comparing Taiwan to other first world countries, it really stands out in how low this figure is compared to everyone else. That's why I assume that surely some kind of very different level or model of government services must be provided in Taiwan. Muzzleflash (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec) True, but Taiwan doesn't have a particularly high ranking for GDP per capita (32nd in the first of the tables in that article). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Another possibility: Does the Government have other sources of revenue which are not counted as tax revenue (such as direct revenue from government owned buisnesses?) -- Jayron 32 18:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Another thought: what about GDP per square meter? My point is that high density usually has a benefit of depressing the per capita cost of government services, for things like roads and pipelines. Taiwan is pretty high on this list of GDP per area . Come to think of it, why don't we ever hear about GDP per capita per area? I think that would highlight why certain countries are able to provide comparable services at different relative tax rates. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That's been an issue in Detroit, where, due to white flight, 2/3 of the population left for the suburbs, leaving mostly poor people. Thus there's no longer enough revenue to maintain the roads, keep the streetlights lit, provide police and ambulance services.  There have been proposals to shrink the city down to an area to match the current resources and population, but that would require moving lots of people, which seems impractical.  Getting the suburbs to pay a portion of the upkeep of Detroit is also a political non-starter. StuRat (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand GDP per capita, I understand GDP per area, but what would "GDP per capita per area" mean? —Tamfang (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Example: USA has 53,041.93 dollars per capita. Divide by 9,857,000 km2 equals $0.0058 per head per square kilometer. The New York Metropolitan Statistical Area has $1.4 trillion GDP divided by 20 million people. 70,000 dollars per capita divided by 17,405 km2 is $4/head/km2. The Vatican wins with $831,354.545/head/km2. I think GDP per area is more useful. Upon seeing what the edge of the suburbs was like I found out that exurbs don't have high pressure sodium streetlights but very dim low pressure sodium ones instead. (the least electricity per lumen at the expense of the ugliest and least white color ever. If it doesn't reflect 589.3 nm yellow-orange light (like a Crip) then it's won't be lit). There are no sidewalks of course and the blocks are twice as far apart as the city/inner burbs cause they can't afford to build more streets. They didn't bother to remove all the soil from the road and the trees are crooked because they're natural not planted and they couldn't be too picky about distance from the centerline to have anything resembling enough trees. Large parts of Manhattan have less efficient metal-halide streetlights because there's enough GDP per capita to afford whiter streetlights. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Some factors that may be relevent:


 * 1) Taiwan has a very low fertility rate of just over 1 child per woman . Thus education expenses are much lower per capita than in other nations.


 * 2) The military is another major expense for most nations, but, in the case of Taiwan, the biggest military threat is mainland China, and there's no way they could hope to defend themselves from a full scale attack from there, so they must rely on allies, like the US, to protect them. In this situation, they have no use for much more than a token military.  They have also historically relied on 1 year of required military service from all citizens, meaning they didn't need to rely on high pay to attract recruits. StuRat (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Taiwan spends 2% of GDP on defense which is in line with the world average. Muzzleflash (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * In the unlikely event of anyone deciding to provide a reference rather than indulging in the usual RefDesk speculative chat, one might start by comparing how much the Taiwanese government actually spends (overall and by sector) with other countries. (No, I'm not volunteering). 78.99.59.159 (talk) 05:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Many of us provided refs. You did not.  So, apparently you would rather complain about a lack of references than actually provide any. StuRat (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * According to this analysis by the other side, the reason for the low personal tax in Taiwan is simply political tension: tax rates reduced during the time of massive economic boom, and then incentives were built in to encourage a higher birth rate, and then for more than a decade Taiwan experienced a long period where political power was split - the party controlling the presidency usually did not control the legislature, and as each side tried to cripple the other politically and/or win popular support, there was only downward political pressure on the tax rate. The article also confirms what you (OP) observed: it reports that by the reckoning of Taiwan's tax office itself, Taiwan's overall tax burden as a percentage of GNP is the lowest amongst the four Asian Tiger economies (12% in 2010). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * So they try things like the government doing some entrepreneurship and fines and fees so only 70% of revenue is taxes. They put only 7% into pensions (much less than the US which is fairly low on taxation in the industrialized world) and their money is worth twice as much by purchasing power parity than by exchange rates so it'd go much further in country (Taiwan is not poor by first world standards!). They are an export-heavy economy like Japan so they would prefer devalued currency to encourage people to buy their exports. I don't know how they did it but apparently they succeeded. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That low pension contribution rate is going to bite them in the backside, since their low fertility rate means there will be fewer family members and taxpayers in the future to support the retirees, so they really need to save up for them now, not later. StuRat (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

the whitest man in argentina
Why does searching "the whitest man in argentina" in Google Images return images of a very black man? I'm aware it's some kind of internet joke, but could you explain it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeinsPatelpoo2 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Know Your Meme is a pretty comprehensive source for tracking the history of these things. I think this is the meme in question.  The man's name is Malik Agar, and in actuality, he has nothing to do with Argentina, near as I can tell.  The picture and meme is intended to be a sort of Don't judge a book by its cover thing.  Forget, for a moment that the person isn't white (and isn't Argentinian); I think his picture was used as a random "black person" picture along with the ironically worded title.  -- Jayron 32 17:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * KYM's "Argentina is White" article may be more relevant, but it doesn't say much. -- BenRG (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)