Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2019 February 25

= February 25 =

Talking into their wrist
Do Secret Service (and other such security) personnel really talk into wrist communicators? It seems silly if they do because then everyone will know who they are. . . 76.71.156.45 (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * According to this 2012 Slate article, yes they do, sort of (microphones under their sleeves). What are the alternatives? Talking into their lapels? Their shoes? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that most people don't already know who they are? There are several other signifiers apart from "talking to their wrists" which identifies them. Look for smartly dressed men, usually with dark glasses, that are close to the subject and keep looking around in a slightly nervous way; they are often wearing earpieces. These days I don't think there is so much emphasis put on them being invisible. Richard Avery (talk) 10:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I bet there's undercover agents too. Maybe they have a civilian thing to say into their phones for each Secret Service thing they might need to communicate. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a big difference between being invisible and being unobtrusive. Science hasn't yet worked out how to achieve the former, but the latter is relatively easily done.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There are certainly undercover ones as well. I remember when the President came to speak at my school. The undercover agents were dressed as East Coast college students and still stood out in a small Midwestern college. Rmhermen (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I am sure Maxwell Smart would be biased toward the shoe! lol I know that there are other ways to tell if someone is a security person but talking to the lapel mic or an invisible ear piece/mic combo would make more sense to me. 216.223.104.13 (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

From the Article 'Neoteny in humans'
''One theory of the premise that Stone Age humans did not record birth date but instead assumed age based on appearance holds that if milder punishment to juvenile delinquents existed in Paleolithic times, it would have imparted milder punishment for longer on those retaining a more youthful appearance into adulthood. This theory holds that those who got milder punishment for the same breach of rules had the evolutionary advantage, passing their genes on while those who got more severe punishment had more limited reproductive success due to either limiting their survival by following all rules or by being severely punished.''

Is it suggesting that prehistoric juveniles who obeyed every command given to them by their parents had a decreased chance of survival? déhanchements (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps that juveniles who obeyed every command given to them by their parents were too rare a beast to influence the gene pool? Alansplodge (talk) 10:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The statement seems a silly overreach in terms of evolution of a specific behavioral trait. I could see how something like Psychological resilience, which is the ability to adapt and respond to changes (and which would distinguish a child who obeyed rules vs. one who "did their own thing") to be something that may have some genetic components, but there is no specific "Child who obeys rules as a juvenile" gene, specifically.  That level of genetic control of behavior is just not a thing.  -- Jayron 32 13:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

How do chess hustler raises happen?
The people who sit in the unofficial chess hustling park and offer most comers $5 (or whatever the going rate is now) bets on blitz chess. Other big cities like London or Chicago have those too right? How long is the period when 2 prices coexist? (if any) What was the last price before $5? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * This one may answer some questions. The economics of chess hustling may be considered as a set of outcomes of a gamble between interested parties. Tamanoeconomico (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've never seen anything other than the three card trick outdoors in London or anywhere else in Britain.  I just turned to the article to see how it works.   You might see chess being played at a public library but no-one gambles on the outcome of the games. 2A00:23C4:7939:B000:74D4:2AD4:6C84:C5F2 (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Interestingly I've never seen the 3-card trick except once in a small city and I might've never seen chess in a public library despite spending a lot of time there. Is chess taught in British public schools? (instead of just one of the school's not that popular afterschool or lunchtime programs) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally the latter Sagittarian Milky Way, but things may be changing. Alansplodge (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed I've not seen chess hustling in UK, but I have seen Cups and balls as well as the aforementioned Find the lady. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, a "hustle" is not a faked game, per se. Those are Confidence tricks, and rely on cheating.  Hustling depends not on cheating per se, but on sandbagging, that is deliberately playing below one's level to instill false confidence in one's opponent.  A typical hustle works like this: The player at the table loses a few $5.00 games to their mark, intentionally (but still playing by the rules, and not cheating) and then feigns being upset at the lost money.  They ask the mark for a "double or nothing" game, that is offering to play one high stakes game for the chance to win back their losings, or double the mark's winnings.  The mark, feeling like they could win easily, accepts the higher stakes.  A good hustler can play with a style that mimics "lucky play", to further the ruse.  After a few more rounds, the mark suddenly finds themselves out a whole bunch of cash, and if played well, can even feel magnanimous for having run into an unlucky streak, and losing to a neophyte.  That's what's meant by a "hustle" in the context of "chess hustling".  You see hustling in other contexts too, "billiards hustling" is common, as is any sort of game of skill where betting is common.  I played a Texas Hold'em tournament (with relatively low stakes, like a $20 buy in, but about 40 players, so 1st was still taking home $500 or something) with this woman who played the "Little Old Lady" hustle perfectly, feigning ignorance, asking about the rules, playing dumb, pretending to be lucky, etc..  There was about 2-3 of us who caught on right away, and we were all at the final table with her, but by that point she'd taken so much money out of the room, we couldn't do anything about it, because her bankroll was so much higher than ours, and she won the tournament. -- Jayron 32 19:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking incorrect. Our article hustle correctly gives three meaning for "hustle", of which you recognise just one:
 * Hustle (noun), the tradecraft of a hustler, who deceives others by hustling, usually in sports
 * Hustle (noun), a confidence trick perpetrated by a grifter or other scam artist
 * Hustle (verb), to seek money by criminal or shady enterprise, especially pimping, prostitution, or drug dealing (this usage is principally American slang)
 * A popular British TV programme Hustle, about a group of confidence tricksters, ran for 8 series. According to the article, it also ran in the USA. It spawned a spin-off, The Real Hustle, where common scams and confidence tricks are explained to the audience. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Many words mean many different things. However, in the context of chess, which was the OP's question, hustling means to sandbag one's play in order to take more money from a rube, the same thing it means in billiards, poker, and other competitive endeavours where money is placed against one's own skill.  Your other definitions are true, but irrelevant, here.  -- Jayron 32 00:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * For those still puzzled, see sandbag: "To conceal or misrepresent one's true position, potential, or intent in order to gain an advantage. (transitive) To deceive someone by pretending to be weak, or (in cards) to have a weak hand". I thought it was just a bag of sand, but you learn something every day. Alansplodge (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I foreknew that it would cause confusion, which is why I had already linked to it so people could click the link and learn the likely meaning. But thanks for the second link and the explanation.  -- Jayron 32 06:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Many apologies User:Jayron32, I'm due a visit to the opticians in a couple of weeks' time. Alansplodge (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)