Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2019 November 7

= November 7 =

Construction companies
(Moved from Science Desk. SinisterLefty (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC))

Why is it that construction companies have a tendency to not follow rules and regulations and just focus on profit? 82.17.228.1 (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * (I assume this refers primarily to the USA.) You would need to confirm this with statistics, but what I've heard is that many were owned by Mafia families, since construction provides an ideal way to get rid of bodies (buried in foundations and such). Also, construction contracts are quite subject to bribery, since bribing a small number the government officials can produce millions in profit. And that industry is heavily unionized, with unions also having a tendency towards corruption, as in the current UAW and former Teamsters scandals (has anyone seen Jimmy Hoffa lately ?), forming a proper nexus. Finally, construction is heavily dependent on illegal immigrants, and hiring them is, well, illegal.  SinisterLefty (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Blanket accusations like that are not appropriate here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * On every single word of the OPs question and your response. At no time has the OP presented any evidence that his assertion that construction companies as a general classes or as standard price all ignore regulations, and we should refuse to answer any question to that end without that evidence.  We should also never answer questions with idle speculation.  Let the OP first show is where he learned this, and then let us provide referenced answers.  For the love of God, this is not what this desk is for. -- Jayron 32 23:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Idle speculation with no evidence is not suitable for the reference desk. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Let's start with the union/Mafia/construction nexus: . SinisterLefty (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Here's one on Mafia controlled construction: . SinisterLefty (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Here's the high percentage of illegal immigrants in the US construction industry: . SinisterLefty (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Here's a source on the current UAW scandal: . The Teamsters is involved in shipping construction materials to the work sites. See International_Brotherhood_of_Teamsters for the historic scandals and Jimmy Hoffa, for his involvement. SinisterLefty (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Here a source showing that unionization is higher than average in the construction industry: . SinisterLefty (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Here's a source showing higher than average rates of criminal activity in the construction industry: . SinisterLefty (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Here's a source on corruption in labor unions: . SinisterLefty (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Cherry-picking specific material just to confirm your own prejudices is worse than saying nothing at all. How bout you just stop and go away.-- Jayron 32 23:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * You asked for sources, and I provided them. Now let's see your sources showing, for example, that the US construction industry does not have a larger than average proportion of illegal immigrants or of unionization, as those should be easy to verify with stats. You have now made a claim, that my sources are not representative, and you must backup that claim with sources. SinisterLefty (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Due to the power of school web filters, I cannot check these sources myself. Going to need confirmation from someone else. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Precise wording matters; it's only illegal in the U.S. to knowingly hire an unauthorized alien, or to fail to request and retain documentation of work authorization from employees, but not independent contractors. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 10:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Also note that corruption has the effect of increasing costs, since everyone "gets their cut". This simply wouldn't work in many industries, like in fast food restaurants. If one restaurant's food was twice as expensive due to corruption, the customers would go elsewhere and it would shut down. But government-funded construction projects can, and often do, often go well over the projected cost, without being cancelled . Thus, the construction industry is more able to "support" corruption. SinisterLefty (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * [Edit Conflict] Could the OP clarify if they are just interested in the USA's construction industry, since all of the above contributions seem to focus on that country? We have numerous individual articles titles "Construction industry of [insert country here]".
 * In my experience, some companies (or employees thereof) in any industry anywhere will try to increase their profits by ignoring rules, regulations and laws if they think they can get away with it. The likelihood of doing so successfully will depend on the strength of relevant regulatory bodies' inspection regimes and enforcement powers and, I suppose, the general level of corruption in the country in question (see Corruption Perceptions Index). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.179.237 (talk) 00:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The OP has only posted once in the last 5 months. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please refer to the page header: We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions, or debate. I also fail to see what this has to do with science, being posted on the Science Ref Desk. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 04:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that it doesn't belong on the Science Desk (Misc would be better, and I've now moved it), but we can certainly supply refs that relate to the Q, as I have done. SinisterLefty (talk) 04:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The null hypothesis is that construction companies are as likely as companies in general to "not follow rules and regulations and just focus on profits", and I'm not aware of a strong consensus that this has been refuted. If there is strong evidence against the null hypothesis, I'm all for hearing about it, but until then, it's a debate over opinions about the construction industry, which is not what the Ref Desk is for. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 10:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Refuted by my links above and Iapetus below. Apparently, it depends on how you measure it.SinisterLefty (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * See cherry picking. Your sources have established that a number of individual construction companies are corrupt.  Starting with a hypothesis, and then only selecting that evidence which confirms your beliefs, is not intellectually honest.  To make the statement that the entirety of the industry, without qualification, is corrupt, requires more than "I found some articles about some corrupt construction companies".  -- Jayron 32 16:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * And you have provided zero evidence of cherry picking. You can't make it true just be repeating it. Prove that the sources we provided are wrong, or go away. As before, you should focus on refuting those sources with statistics in them, as those are more objective. SinisterLefty (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't say they were wrong, I said that you were choosing sources that confirm your hypothesis after you'd already assumed the hypothesis was true. That's what cherry picking means.  -- Jayron 32 17:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * And you've provided no evidence of cherry picking. Let's take just one of my sources: . What evidence do you have that the info it contains is not representative ? SinisterLefty (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Good luck proving that your null hypothesis is valid. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * You've missed the point entirely. The null hypothesis is the only hypothesis that doesn't have to be proven.  The null hypothesis is the hypothesis that proposition is not proven, so we do not treat the proposition as true.  That is, in the absence of evidence to confirm the proposition, null hypothesis, that the proposition has not been proven, is what we hold as true.  -- Jayron 32 16:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I question the validity of the assertion that "construction companies are as likely as companies in general to 'not follow rules and regulations and just focus on profits'." What is the basis for that claim? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, the chances of that industry turning out to have the exact same corruption index as the average for all industry is very low. SinisterLefty (talk) 01:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the point of the null hypothesis isn't that its more likely to be true, but that if you are making specific claims about something being different from the norm, its best to start from the assumption that it isn't, and then look for good evidence to disprove that assumption. Otherwise you run the risk of letting freak occurances (or your own personal experiences) bias your analysis. Iapetus (talk) 11:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not that complicated. The idea behind the null hypothesis is just that any assertion needs to have sufficient evidence for us to accept it.  The default assumption is that assertions without sufficient evidence are not taken as true.  -- Jayron 32 13:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * However, substantial evidence has now been offered to support the assertions, and none to refute them, so at this point that no longer applies. SinisterLefty (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Apparently, construction is one of the most corrupt industries in the world (along with resource extraction, transportation and storage, and information and communication). Sources:, .  Note though that this is as measured by total amount spent on bribes. As measured as % of transactions that are bribes, construction ranks much lower .  (And of course, this is all just talking about foreign bribes, not domestic bribary, or other forms of corruption). Iapetus (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's some good information Iapetus. Thank you.  -- Jayron 32 17:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

type of gun
What kind of gun is this (caliber and general characterization)? Don't particularly care about the exact make or model, but am basically wondering if it is a saturday night special, whether the type of person to own this gun is likely to be clueful, etc. Thanks. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 10:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Looks like one of the compact varieties of Smith & Wesson M&P. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks. Can you tell the caliber from looking at the bullets?  173.228.123.207 (talk) 11:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The ammunition looks like 9 mm Parabellum/Luger/NATO to me (going from the proportions; the M&P is also available in .40 S&W). -- The Great Zaganza (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks! 173.228.123.207 (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Watching TV while you pump gas
I'm not sure how to include this in an article, but I did make a note after seeing a newspaper article on the concept to come here and ask. Unfortunately, I forgot to list which paper. — Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  20:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * To come here and ask what? --76.69.116.4 (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * How should Wikipedia cover watching TV as you pump gas?— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  22:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Ask the "tiger" from the picture on your very own userfrontpage. I bet he has a fitting answer! --Kharon (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea where that serious kitty came from. I saw it somewhere and I liked it so I copied it.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  16:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * As The Little Red Hen said, I'll just do it myself, so no one complain if I did it wrong.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  23:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As opposed to putting a Tiger in Your Tank? :) These types of things, sometimes called GSTV (gas station television) are basically a little bit of something possibly useful, wrapped in commercials. I don't see how it could merit an article by itself, but it could be a sentence or two in an article about advertising. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Or maybe the article about gas stations. SinisterLefty (talk) 03:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's the GSTV home page, And here's some wry commentary on it from 11 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would have to be at a library that allows me free access to The Wall Street Journal'.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  16:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And here's an article from last year about the dark side of this thing. It's not just an annoyance, it's a Big Brother. So maybe the subject is worth putting in an article, maybe something about marketing analytics. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I say the gas pump or filling station articles would be the place.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  16:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Unrelated pro-tip: Pressing the second-to-last button next to the screen of one of those godforsaken gas station TVs mutes the blighter and stops it from blasting unwanted advertisements and tabloidiums into your ears.--WaltCip (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting idea. I'll try it next time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And this is actually useful information for the article. Unfortunately at this point it's only comments by individuals.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  20:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You could try moving this to the ref desk talk page and see if you can get some kind of agreement on where this belongs. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It probably belongs on the talk page of an article. Anyway, what I've done so far has not resulted in reverts or objections. I need to add more.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  16:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I added more yesterday and it would be helpful to know how to start a section. I'm not sure whether it fits under "pump design" in the gas pump article. And I had an experience which, If I can find a source, would be useful in an article about advertising. I was at a McDonald's which shared a building with a convenience store with gas pumps. But the TV screen played a Burger King ad.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  16:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)