Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2017 July 1

= July 1 =

Patterns using two pairs in a set of four
We use two different pairs of components in a set of four and can form three different patterns plus three more vice versas (same patterns but each of the components switched). For example when earning a split in a four-game series in Major League Baseball, a team may win the first game, lose the next two and win the last one, forming WLLW and vice versa for an opponent which is LWWL. Another way to split is when a team loses the first game then wins the second game then loses the third and wins the fourth, forming LWLW while an opponent gets WLWL. And a team may lose the first two then win the last two, forming LLWW while an opponent earns WWLL. Let's apply that to what just happened. Chicago Cubs went WLLW following the four-game set against the Washington Nationals, while the Chicago White Sox went LWLW in the four-game set against the New York Yankees at the same time.

So is there's any such term for specific patterns using two pairs in a set of four; what do we call such patterns as WLLW, LWLW, and LLWW? Those patterns not just apply to sporting events, it may apply to four-letter words that uses just two letters, but the term for such words would end in -onym. There are such words as noon, deed, meem, and sees that have the same pattern as WLLW and LWWL in the four-game set. When rearranging a pattern would include toto, dodo, mama, and lulu. I don't think there is such English words as being analogous with LLWW and WWLL above. Planet Star  00:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't believe there is a term such as you're asking for. (I also don't believe that "meem" is a word.) Usually people would speak of things like "patterns of repeated letters" or "patterns of wins and losses" and make the meaning clearer by example. I can think of just one case where there is such a specific term, and that's rhyme schemes in poetry. --76.71.5.114 (talk) 07:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Probably misspelled meme. StuRat (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Must be, and that fits the WLWL and LWLW patterns. I've never heard a name for four-game win-loss individual patterns. He might be contrasting with a three game series where the first two games are split and hence the third game is the "rubber game" - WLW or LWL. If it was already WW and finishes WWL, the final game winner is said to have "salvaged" a win. In a four game series, 4-0 or 3-1 would be "winning" the series, which 2-2 would be "splitting" the series. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * "Meem" is the English transliterated name of an Arabic letter: "there are two meems in Muhammad". Equinox ◑ 23:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Uoh, I meant meme, not meem, so I can replace that with toot. Also WLL or LWW are patterns in a rubber game. Planet  Star  23:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I may call the LWLW and WLWL the "striped series" or the "banded series", LLWW and WWLL the "half series" or the "divided series" and LWWL and WLLW the "symmetrical series". I may call WLL and LWW the "left series", WLW and LWL the "center series" and WWL and LLW the "right series". Do they make sense to you or do you want to come up with better terms? Planet  Star  23:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * LWLW and WLWL are known as "alternating wins (and losses)". Clarityfiend (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * That's what I just thinking about in the form of "alternate series". Planet  Star  04:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Aircraft cockpit
From which aircraft model this is the cockpit? It's a machine of the RNZAF.--Balancing Act (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * A Boeing 757. Compare with File:Boeing 757-300 Cockpit.JPG. ---Sluzzelin talk  20:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Flat-like video
The guy in this video at times looks flat, distorted and cartoonish, as if cut from a cardboard, despite being genuinely there. The same stuff also appears in his other videos. Looks like unitended. Is it a camera issue? Brandmeistertalk  19:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The distortion maybe due to some antishake compensation that is processing the video. Varying distortions also occur in the background, such as clouds, yet the centre of the picture remains smooth. Even when the camera went down stairs it stayed smooth, so the alogrothm must be keeping the centre of the picture stable and distorting the edges to avoid having to clip off bits that would otherwise come and go from the picture as the camera is shaken. See Image stabilization. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Note that a moving camera not only changes what is in and out of frame, but also the scales and sides of the objects we see.  So, even if they could keep everything in frame in a less distorted way, say by clipping off the parts of the screen that intermittantly goes out of frame, seeing the sides of things where we only previously saw the front would still look rather strange, like the objects are twisting or distorting.  A Steadicam (or, more generally, a camera stabilizer) is a better, but far more expensive, option.  It mechanically keeps the camera from bouncing around while walking, rather than trying to fix the bouncy image later. StuRat (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It's a processing artifact. An anti-shake stabilisation algorithm that has gone overboard in removing "movement", such that it has also stripped the depth cues. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)