Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

= July 10 =

Weird but totally reasonable question
How do I get my voice to sound like Hank Hill? Due to something called puberty, I think I can do a pretty good impression of him if I practice it long enough. also because I want more friends  TWOrantula  TM (enter the web) 23:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is the secret:

It's a flammable gas that's hard to surpass, Propane. Do the math, light your path, heat your bath, Propane.
 * 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:9BB0 (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hank Hill has a central Texas accent. It is very similar to the accent you will hear through central Oklahoma, Kansas, West Missouri, and up into Nebraska and Iowa. Speak from your chest, not your diaphram. It is very breathy. Then, lock your jaw. Don't use your jaw to form sounds. Use only your lips and tongue. It will make the words slur together a bit and words like "wash" and "here" become "wush" and "hur". That is the foundation of the "midwest" accent that the Taxes accent is part of. From there, you need to raise your pitch at the correct times by practicing phases he uses. Then, keep focusing on your jaw. Don't close it when saying anything ending with "ing". It is supposed to come out just "in". Don't try to enunciate your T's, they are supposed to sound like D's. If you get flustered, go into a Boomhowser accent, which is more like the Northmern Midwest and just run it all toghether. Of you REALLY want to learn to speak it correctly, just move to Texas. They'll learn you right. 75.136.148.8 (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It may help to practice with headphones and a mike. You'll hear your voice as it sounds to others. --Lambiam 06:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

= July 11 =

Jeep engine swap
Any idea what is involved in an engine swap for a 2000-era Jeep Wrangler? No I'm not going to attempt it myself, I just want to be able to discuss it intelligently with mechanics. Other than a crane to hoist the motors and a lift to get under the car, is it basically within reach of a clueful backyard mechanic? Any idea what would make the old engine lose oil pressure when it gets hot? There is no blue smoke or anything like that, but out-of-town garage says a replacement engine is needed. Sounds drastic. A remanufactured crate engine is around $2500 which is doable (it's a fairly nice car without too many other problems) but I gotta wonder whether some simpler repair is eluding everyone. Car isn't mine, I'm asking for a friend as the saying goes. It runs fine as long as it's not under too much prolonged load. Oil pump has been replaced, which didn't help. Thanks. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:9BB0 (talk) 07:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I think your chances of finding an experienced Jeep mechanic here are rather slim. You may be better off with a specialised forum like jeepgarage.org for example. Others are easliy found with a Google search/ Alansplodge (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks, yeah, might try that. I'm asking more about the complexity of engine swaps in general though.  Closest thing to that I've ever been involved with was a GM transmission swap, done in a friend's garage with the car up on ramps, plus multiple people muscling the stuff around.  It has to be a lot easier with real shop tools.  Maybe I'll check youtube. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:9BB0 (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It is important to note if you are swapping the engine with the exact same model engine. If it isn't exactly the same, there is no telling what problems might arise that will end up costing more. 75.136.148.8 (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

= July 12 =

Marie Van Brittan Brown
Apparently Marie Van Brittan Brown was presented with an award from the prestigious "National Scientists Committee". There are hundreds of references to support this. However I can find no trace of this body, except in said references.


 * Does this body or did this body exist?
 * If so, what awards did it make? Is there a list I can consult?
 * If not:
 * Was Marie Van Brittan Brown and/or her husband Albert L. Brown given any other award?
 * How do we explain this in the article. "Numerous references claim ... but there is no trace of such an organisation.[Citation needed]"

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC).


 * Perhaps the awarding organization was the National Safety Council, which issues a variety of awards, such as its "Distinguished Service to Safety Award". Someone may have made an incorrect guess what the initialism NSC stands for; others copied without checking. --Lambiam 19:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It could  be, but I can't find any matches.  I had already tried the National Science Board and Foundation. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC).


 * The earliest ref I could find in Google News was dated 7 March 2016. It gives "National Science Committee", a variant that was in the Wikipedia article, but not in its reference. It was introduced to the WP article in this edit, in February 2016. It cites this short article, which is undated, archived by archive.is on 29 April 2016 and by archive.org in January 2016 (It carries "© Copyright, African American Registry, 2000 to 2013" which however looks like a generic sitewide copyright notice).


 * However another source dated 11 April 2016 here, also mentioning the award, provides sources, namely:
 * Raymond B. Webster, African American firsts in science & technology, (1999);
 * The Inventor of the Home Security System: Marie Van Brittan Brown by Think Protection;
 * Patent: US 3482037 A;
 * “Brown Interview with the New York Times,” New York Times, December 6, 1969.
 * It's not in 1 or 3. I can't yet find 2, and I doubt it will be in 4, since this was a short while after the patent was granted.  It's not impossible that this author (Rebecca Hill) also consulted Wikipedia, which by then contained the claim.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC).


 * OK it's the thinkprotection source. Here at archive.org.  No visible author or date, but dated March 2016 by the upload directory.  Hence postdating the introduction into Wikipedia. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC).
 * A Google search for ["National Scientists Committee" -Brown ] does not yield any relevant results, so I recommend removing the statement, clearly incorrect in its present form and as far as we could figure out unfixable. The common origin may be this article, published February 16, 2012, on the website of 107 JAMZ, a radio station based in Lake Charles, Louisiana. --Lambiam 09:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Serious Facebook Issue
I can’t seem to get into a normal Facebook page. Is there anything you can do to help? The page is for Menchies Frozen Yogurt. Thank you. It just shows a generic page saying “this content isn’t available at the moment” even though I know for a fact the page is exactly as it normally is. Could you please have this checked for me? Thank you. Pablothepenguin (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It works fine for me. This is not a problem that anyone here on the ref desk can help you with. Try again later, reboot your PC, try a different browser. And so on. --Viennese Waltz 19:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you know anyone who can help? Pablothepenguin (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * What's the URL? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Facebook page is here Pablothepenguin (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It works for me, and I'm not even a Facebook user. It's a page full of ads about their products. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What do I do to get access to this page again? I need to see it again. Pablothepenguin (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Did you try what Viennese Waltz recommended? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Tried on my phone. Still doesn’t work. Pablothepenguin (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It works just fine on my Android smartphone. Cullen328 (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I can see why Pablothepenguin likes the page so much. It has a very interesting color palette that's visually appealing to some people. Viriditas (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Is it possible they have blocked you from their page? If you log out of Facebook and can then view the page, that seems the most likely reason why you cannot view it when you are logged in.-Gadfium (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Tried it when logged out and it worked. How do I ask to have my account unblocked? I’m not sure what to do now. I also don’t understand why I am blocked, as I said nothing vulgar or offensive. I also don’t understand why Facebook can’t just tell me about a block. Pablothepenguin (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * For the record, my comments on that page were along the lines of “sounds wonderful”, and “we need you in the UK”. Pablothepenguin (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Does Facebook have a "contact us" kind of thing or a place you can go for customer support? It does seem odd they would block your user ID without telling you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The "owner/operator" of any individual Facebook page has the power to block anybody from that page, without any involvement by Facebook employees. I have blocked many people from my Facebook page for what I consider to be good reasons, but have no obligation to explain why. It is my page., based on your edit history, you are highly focused on this frozen yogurt company, and are repeatedly lobbying them to expand the way that you want them to expand, as opposed to their own internal plans. If their employee responsible for their Facebook page has concluded that you are no longer a welcome presence on their Facebook page, then they have the power and the right to block you from it. Cullen328 (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Does the UK have a TV show analogous to Shark Tank? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Dragons' Den (British TV programme) Rojomoke (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * How do I reach out to them to get access back? Pablothepenguin (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

, if the person or people running that Facebook page have decided that you are no longer welcome there, then there is literally nothing you can do about it, except to move on and find another hobby. Cullen328 (talk) 08:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Or start your own competing company, drive them out of business with your superior products, and get the last laugh. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Watch out! The last time I gave them that advice, they got very angry! Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is I did nothing wrong and they blocked me by mistake. They even liked and replied to some of my comments Pablothepenguin (talk) 09:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Personally, I find that hard to believe. Cullen328 has it right – if your history of contact with this company is anything like your history of comments about it on this ref desk, I'm not surprised they've blocked you. --Viennese Waltz 10:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I can assure you it is true. I only ever leave short comments of a couple of words. I deserve a second change and I also believe the blocking system is unfair. I’ll explain why by reminding you of how blocks work on this very Wiki. As you may know, when a person is blocked here, they will receive a message on their talk page, and will have the ability to submit a block request. I don’t agree with the fact that this doesn’t happen on Facebook. At the very least there should be an official way to dispute a block. Pablothepenguin (talk) 11:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Whining about it here won't help you. Go and sort it out yourself. Nanonic (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I will. I just need to work out what to do. I’m thinking of writing a polite letter, but am not sure what to say. Pablothepenguin (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just dropping it...both here and there probably would be a healthy step at this point. Based on your edits on this topic here over the past several months, I'm sure you wore out their patience. People running Facebook pages don't have the same policies on assuming good faith and the like. They don't need a reason to block you. I'm starting to think a topic ban for you on discussing this company in any way on Wikipedia might be good for everyone involved. --Onorem (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I will probably take a break from it for a while at least. I still maintain my innocence and I can assure you once again that my comments on Facebook were polite and not offensive. I will admit they were a bit persistent and repetitive, but they definitely weren’t meant to cause upset or annoyance. Hopefully one day my dream will come true and Scotland and the UK will have the frozen yogurt stores I seek. Until then I have to be patient and not a pain in the rear end. I thank you for you understanding. Pablothepenguin (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Pablothepenguin While Wikipedia offers a fair process for dispute resolution among its own contributors, Wikipedia cannot give legal advice or formally endorse either side in a complaint you have with a media company and/or a yoghurt supplier. Both are companies that have prerogative to act according to their commercial interests as they see them. However there are other internet social media than Facebook where you with others like you may have your collective voices heard and noticed, in this example by over 200,000 viewers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKDD5t8FIY0 Philvoids (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Understood Pablothepenguin (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you want to talk about Menchies on my talk page, you are welcome to do so. I don't mind talking about it. Viriditas (talk) 09:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , a life lesson: even polite and inoffensive-in-themselves comments can be annoying if they are uninvited, unwanted and unrelenting; consider Sealioning, for example.
 * What you have been doing was not intended maliciously or applied knowingly, so was not sealioning, but consider another scenario: what if a sincere believer from a religion or sect you were not interested in continually pestered you, trying to persuade you to join it, day after day? Even if you had no particular dislike of that religion, I imagine you would soon get pretty annoyed.
 * It's easy to fall into such behaviour. When I was younger, I would sometimes 'lecture' my parents about some obscure-to-them topic I was interested in until they left the room to get away from me. One has to learn how others are responding to one's conversation (spoken or written), even when the signals are not explicit, and modify one's behaviour accordingly. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.82.201 (talk) 09:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your interesting comments. I do believe that from what I’ve heard from correspondence, Menchies do favour expanding more. I think that they are taking it very slowly, which annoys me, and I suspect that they would like to have UK stores someday. At the moment, they seem to be focusing on making sure they’ve recovered from post-Covid turbulence. I am quite impatient, so that is why I am the way I am. I am also blighted by the fact that I don’t fully understand how the economy works, so I don’t understand why a business would not prioritise growing as quickly as possible at all times. Pablothepenguin (talk) 10:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Expanding costs money. Recouping these costs takes time, and it is always uncertain whether this will eventually be successful. Companies have gone belly up by expanding too rapidly. Even if it is only the franchisee who goes bankrupt, this reflects badly on the company that granted the franchise. --Lambiam 20:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If I was a business owner, I'd prioritize both customer satisfaction and the well-being of my employees over growing the business. Pushing for more growth than is comfortably sustainable will tax the employees and may diminish the quality of the service offered. --Lambiam 21:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I still think Menchies would like to grow at some point. Presumably UK stores would be part of that. I think what Lambian said reinforces my post that maybe post-Covid recovery is still a more important concern. Hopefully over the next few years, the global economy will continue to recover and get to the point where it is at pre-covid levels. So maybe, the idea is to wait for this to be clearer before expansion is given more priority. Of course, nothing is ever certain in the economic world, and unexpected turbulence may appear, but hopefully if I keep my fingers crossed, things will improve in time. Pablothepenguin (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you truly care about the company as much as you claim, why not put your effort into opening a local franchise using their franchising contacts here. I know the knee-jerk response is "I don't have money." Businesses are created every day by people who don't have money. That is the best time to do it. If you are broke and you end up with a failed franchise and a business loan you will be... broke. The same as before. If you are doing well and you have a failed franchise and a business loan, you will have gone from doing well to being broke. So, it is much better to put it all on the line when you have nothing to lose and everything to gain. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There is also the matter of me having other goals that would take up a lot of my time. For example, I am currently studying sound engineering at a local college. I am aiming to become a recording studio engineer or perhaps a live sound technician. I am also worried that I will be refused a bank loan as I am on unemployment benefits. Pablothepenguin (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It strikes me that it's yourself who's holding you back. You may need to reorganize your priorities. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you're trolling us now. You've already been told that your refusal to disengage and go and do something else is irritating to others. Now we have a perfect example of it. You're just going on and on as if this is some bench outside a boxing gym and you're there talking about how you could've been a contender if it wasn't for all these people refusing to listen to you. Move on. Nanonic (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I can assure you I’m not trolling anyone. I am offended that you would think that. Pablothepenguin (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

= July 13 =

Meat preferences
Does it make sense for the same individual to prefer steaks rare and chops well-done? Is it logically rational? 102.33.34.102 (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes Nanonic (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that there's necessarily anything either "logical" or "rational" about food preferences. It's not uncommon to hear people say that they dislike a certain food except in one particular context or dish. ColinFine (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Are you talking beef chops or pork chops? The latter have to be fully cooked. If it's the former, it's likely just a matter of taste. Some folks like liver, which is supposed to be good for you. I hate the stuff. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Beef chops? Pork chops and lamb chops I know, but beef chops? DuncanHill (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not hard to find recipes for beef chops. Veal chops are fairly common. --Lambiam 22:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But where would one buy them? I have never seen a beef chop for sale. And believe me, I pay attention to meat. DuncanHill (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It may be called a "rib chop" where you live. It is basically a vertical cut of lean beef from the rib or loin, usually with a piece of bone attached. Your local butcher may understand the term "veal chop", which is a beef chop from a young cow, also called "veal cutlet". Traditional cuts vary greatly between countries; compare Dutch beef cuts with British beef cuts. --Lambiam 07:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's called rib of beef in Britain. Veal is now uncommon here after concerns about animal wilfare. Alansplodge (talk) 12:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The images show a rack rather than cutlets. --Lambiam 13:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We wouldn't cut a rack into chops. We do have veal cutlets, but veal is not seen as beef. DuncanHill (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Does it make sense for someone to prefer their tea hot and their beer cold? I'm not sure that such questions make sense – I don't even know what they mean. --Lambiam 22:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Food preferences are quite interesting, actually. Are they developed through trial and error, habit, or something that happens in the womb?  Speaking only for myself, I think they are a combination of all of the above. However, there are other factors to consider.  I've met people whose food preferences have been shaped by fear and traumatic incidents, particularly those that occurred during natural disasters when they were forced to eat certain food to survive.  Later in life, they avoid those foods because of the trauma.  On other social media sites, I've noticed other factors that are due purely to visual presentation.  In other words, there's a subset of people who won't eat food that looks a certain way, regardless of how it tastes. I've always found that to be very odd, but apparently it is very common.  I think one of the reasons I don't necessarily understand that approach is because I'm personally not so much a visual person when it comes to food. And that's where I stand out as odd.  I'm far more interested in the health aspects and nutritional qualities, which I've discovered has little bearing for most people. Viriditas (talk) 09:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * In the novel Lucifer's Hammer, a doctor character claims that you shouldn't eat pork (or long pig in the novel) rare because pigs can catch most of the same diseases as people, while cattle don't. Whether this is true or not, I don't know. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The book is from 1977, before the outbreak of mad cow disease in the 1980s and 1990s. --Lambiam 14:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Trichinella spiralis and Taenia solium were why we were taught not to eat underdone pork. DuncanHill (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

= July 16 =

AI abundance vs. AI servitude
Just to be clear, I am not asking a question about a prediction, I am asking a question about the finer points (data, evidence) that supports the techno-libertarian idea behind the theory that Elon Musk promotes, for example, when he says "AI would eventually replace all jobs on Earth, making employment optional and transforming jobs into hobbies as AI and robots would provide all necessary goods and services." My question relates to the bolded text. Why is this sunny outcome even considered likely, when the historical reality shows that a darker, dystopian Elysium-like outcome is far more likely to occur, where most of humanity is forced into dire poverty amidst deteriorating environmental and social conditions, while the wealthy who benefit from AI escape to their own walled gardens and new societies free from the teeming masses? Again, I’m not asking about a prediction about the future, I’m asking on what basis are we supposed to accept the idea that AI will benefit humanity? The technological innovation of agriculture clearly didn’t benefit the masses of humanity, and likely enslaved the great majority of them in some form or another. Why will AI be any different? Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I want to add something else. I’ve recently been working on several articles about the history of pineapple. One of the most interesting things I discovered within this 500 year time frame, was that the best tasting pineapple varieties were for the most part extirpated. It turns out that there is an inverse relationship between taste and commercial viability (canning size, preservation, etc). In other words, what we know as commercial pineapple in the modern era is representative of the worst tasting pineapple cultivars, but those also happened to be the easiest to grow, produce, and distribute, hence the reason they were chosen and the others were discarded and disappeared (Side note, this may be true for all fruit varieties, I don’t know, but there was a recent article that implied the same holds true for commercial strawberries and blueberries). Why would this kind of thing not also happen with AI, such that the most beneficial AI tailored to help humanity progress to a post-scarcity society would be weeded out to serve the interests of resource extraction and scarcity instead? Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The current pineapple you find in stores is in no way the worst tasting pineapple. There are many varieties that taste far worse. Some taste like chewing on wet grass. Similarly, the avacado you can purchase in a store is nowhere close to the worst tasting avacado. Both of these are not "easy" to cultivate. Pineapple is very difficult to cultivate and requires a lot of land and labor, which is why you don't see pineapple farms everywhere. Avacados are even harder to cultivate. It is possible that there is a relative to both the pineapple and avacado that tastes better, but implying that we only cultivate the worst tasting fruits to increase profits is not justified. Another example is the tomato. A much easier to cultivate tomato was developed, but it tasted terrible. So, it was abandoned. As for the overall claim that AI will create a few rich and many poor, there were few rich and many poor in the beginning of recorded history. They had oral traditions talking about the few rich and many poor long before recorded history. Throughout all of history, humans have created nations with a few rich and many poor. Why wouldn't the future be a world of a few rich and many poor? That isn't the result of AI. That is the result of humans. A few rich exploit the many poor until conditions are so bad that the poor overthrow the rich and replace them with a new group of few rich. Alternately, a few rich in one area get their many poor to fight with the many poor of another area so they can take away from another minority of rich. If humans were studied like we study all other animals, this would be labeled normal human behavior. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 11:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My source was Johanna Lausen-Higgins of Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh. She's notable for her hands on work on the Lost Gardens of Heligan. She's a horticulturist and garden historian who studied at Bristol University. In the event that I misrepresented her, and it sounds like I did, here's a transcription of her 2020 lecture:
 * "So the first classification that was done was by [Donald Monroe?] in 1835, and he lists around 52 different cultivars, many of which are thought to be lost now. And, this modern cultivar, iconically named [51MD?], really shows why many of these cultivars are lost now. [You've] got all the attributes of easier handling: you've got a smooth edge to the leaf, but also if you look at the outline of the fruit, it's basically been bred to fit neatly into a tin can, [so] cutting machines could cut equal slices with minimal loss...but the cultivars that were particularly favored in the 18th and 19th centuries, [are] very different. [You] see this strongly tapering outline to the fruit. And in the case of Sugarloaf and Queen...they also have very strongly outward protecting fruitlets. Which again is something that is not favored in the canning industry. And again, I can tell you the flavors are so incredible in these different old cultivars. So Abacaxi, so 'Black Prince' now, a lost cultivar, is probably an Abacaxi type, actually has white flesh and really unusual, subtle flavors. You can still read in modern treatises on the pineapple, that Smooth Cayenne...this is the one that dominates the trade, has by far the poorest flavour. It's got the highest acidity and also possibly the highest amount of bromelain. Whereas Queen or Sugarloaf, which were particularly favoured as well...the aroma and the flavours are extraordinary."
 * Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Throughout all of history, humans have created nations with a few rich and many poor. Why wouldn't the future be a world of a few rich and many poor...If humans were studied like we study all other animals, this would be labeled normal human behavior.
 * Forgive me, but this sounds identical to an appeal to tradition. It's also the same argument abolitionists were met with when they opposed slavery.  They were told that slavery was natural, and it was normal, and even that god approved of it.  They were also told that they were going against the natural order of things in their opposition to it. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Example: Thomas Roderick Dew (1802–1846) professor, public intellectual, president of The College of William & Mary (1836-1846). Best known for his pro-slavery advocacy based on his belief that blacks were racially inferior, "defending slavery based on race as consistent with the natural order". Viriditas (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not see it as an appeal to tradition. It is refuting the precedent. Your claim appears to be that because of AI, the future will change so that there will be a minority of rich people and a majority of poor people. That is refuted by stating that there has always been a minority of rich people and a majority of poor people. Therefore, the precent that the result is because of AI is invalid. You can make any claim you want. Because (whomever gets elected in November) the future will have a rich minority and poor majority. Because the Simpsons was signed for another season, the future will have a rich minority and a poor majority. Because Beyonce went into country music, the future will have a rich minority and a poor majority. etc... It isn't an appeal to tradition. It is a statement of history which should lead you to refine your claim. Because of AI, how will the rich minority and poor majority change? Will the minority become smaller? Will the gap widen, which is already does every generation? How much AI is required to make the change you are discussing? 75.136.148.8 (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think its refuted at all. You're ignoring the rise of economic inequality over the last several centuries.  What I think you are doing is ignoring recent history.  And this is, in fact, what all the discussion about AI focuses on. So, I just find your comment a bit odd.  Your comments are also highly reminiscent of all the discussions I've had with right-libertarians who refuse to accept there's even a problem and see the nation state and democracy as the true threat. Most of these types of people don't accept the concept of wealth disparity or income inequality and think it should be ignored. Viriditas (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * IMO bringing in this fruit analogy does not help to clarify the central issue. The best tasting varieties were not "extirpated" and are mostly still available – only not in your local supermarket. Growing and transporting produce requires resources, which have a limited capacity. Capacity is unlikely to be a major limiting factor in deploying beneficial AI. If AI and robots provide all necessary goods and services, no one will have an income to buy them. Can one expect the profit-driven owners of the means of production to make them available to all for free? Why should they do that? They'll be happy when they themselves are provided with all necessary goods and services and have no incentive for extending this to the rest of us. --Lambiam 12:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The example I was aiming for with the fruit analogy was to try and show that the agricultural preference for viable, commercial fruit that led one to select a certain variety for its qualities related to growing, packaging, shipping, and shelf stability, are comparably the same kind of commerical qualities we might expect with human-driven, artificial selection in AI development, leading to something like an algorithmic bias favoring poor outcomes for humanity, much as the flavor and palatability was selected against with the commerical dominance of Smooth Cayenne. According to Wikipedia "Smooth Cayenne is now the dominant cultivar in world production." Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that historical precedents suggest rather strongly and convincingly that the most powerful people are not likely to give up their relatively privileged position voluntarily and will even resort to brutal measures to stay on top. Total control over the use of AI will make it much easier for the rulers of the world to remain the most powerful. They will need us no longer, so something drastic is necessary to save humanity from getting stuck in an Elysium-like future, one I'm afraid Matt Damon will be of little help getting us out of. --Lambiam 11:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess my followup question is this: why do Musk and others in the tech community keep repeating this line? Are they merely hopeful, technological utopians, or are they deliberately lying?  Hacker News has thousands upon thousands of comments by people in the tech industry insisting that AI will make jobs a thing of the past and everyone will have leisure time to pursue their own hobbies.  The thing is, I'm familiar with the older literature.  People have been saying this for a little over a century.  It never happened, but what did happen  was the complete opposite: human productivity was expected to increase just as industrialization maximized output, resulting in less leisure time than in the past.  In fact, the conventional wisdom now is that feudal serfs had more leisure time 500 years ago than modern workers do today.  So are people deliberately lying about AI or are they just delusional?  Finally, if you're familiar with Musk, then you know his position is that humanity needs to merge with the machine as a cyborg.  That's literally his answer, I'm not making this up. Why am I the only person who finds this unacceptable?  If you're the least bit familiar with science fiction, the evil scientist who somehow convinces the public to become cyborgs always ends up removing their individuality and exerting complete control over them.  Surely, someone else has pointed this out? Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to add a bit to the cyborg argument: my understanding as to why Musk and others make this argument comes down to this: 1) They believe that humanity has evolved or gone as far as it can go without being threatened with extinction by machine intelligence 2) They believe that one way to insure survival into the foreseeable future is to compromise by becoming part-machine and merging with it as a kind of cyborg 3) This idea almost seems to contradict their assertion that we won’t need to work and everybody will have access to abundant resources 4) Newer data indicates that AI consumes far too many resources and energy requirements that makes it a direct threat to human existence. 5) See 1. Is this a self-fulfilling prophecy? Viriditas (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Hah, i recall an earlier question of yours concerning a passage in Consider Phlebas, did you continue past the cannibalism of the islanders living in a natural state to the comic passage of Horza delighting in his destruction of the shuttle AI? I am going to question your understanding of history. If you believe that the technological innovation of agriculture clearly didn’t benefit the masses of humanity then i wonder what kind of metrics you are using to evaluate the human condition? History has been a very long path out of darkness, towards greater standards of living and more liberal societies. While i think you are correct to take a skeptical look at the AI hype, i don't think you have a historical argument for imagining a future where most of humanity is forced into dire poverty. Many live in dire poverty now, and poverty is widespread, but along with technological innovation there has been a substantial positive trend:"The chart shows that almost 10% of the world's population live in extreme poverty. It also tells us that two hundred years ago, the same was true for almost 80% of the world’s population. In 1820, only a small elite enjoyed higher standards of living, while the vast majority of people lived in conditions that we call extreme poverty today. Since then, the share of extremely poor people fell continuously. More and more world regions industrialized and achieved economic growth which made it possible to lift more people out of poverty: In 1950 about half the world were living in extreme poverty; in 1990, it was still more than a third. By 2019 the share of the world population in extreme poverty has fallen below 10%."

- Max Roser

If you have a basis for your fears i'm not sure how it comes from "historical reality". fiveby(zero) 01:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstood what you read. I was citing the famous passage from Harari, which I assumed everyone was familiar with by now considering how much it has been quoted. His argument is that we didn’t so much as master agriculture as it mastered us and turned us into slaves. Harari argues that we were the ones domesticated by the plants, which changed our lives from one of leisure to one of toil. Keep in mind, Harari is intentionally turning the conventional narrative on its head. He’s arguing that the agricultural revolution was not as great as we make it out to be. It destroyed our bodies with labor, it eliminated our leisure time, it gave us a poor diet, it was less economically secure than hunting and gathering, and if the monoculture was threatened or the climate changed, it killed millions of peasants. It offered less security due to the need to protect possessions and provisions. “Since we enjoy affluence and security, and since our affluence and security are built on foundations laid by the Agricultural Revolution, we assume that the Agricultural Revolution was a wonderful improvement. Yet it is wrong to judge thousands of years of history from the perspective of today. A much more representative viewpoint is that of a three-year-old girl dying from malnutrition in first-century China because her father's crops have failed. Would she say 'I am dying from malnutrition, but in 2,000 years, people will have plenty to eat and live in big air-conditioned houses, so my suffering is a worthwhile sacrifice'?...Rather than heralding a new era of easy living, the Agricultural Revolution left farmers with lives generally more difficult and less satisfying than those of foragers.  Hunter-gatherers spent their time in more stimulating and varied ways, and were less in danger of starvation and disease. The Agricultural Revolution certainly enlarged the sum total of food at the disposal of humankind, but the extra food did not translate into a better diet or more leisure. Rather, it translated into population explosions and pampered elites. The average farmer worked harder than the average forager, and got a worse diet in return.  The Agricultural Revolution was history's biggest fraud." Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * From another POV, see Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists and the Ecology of New England (1983), which nicely illustrates the clash of civilizations in terms of agriculture. The colonists didn’t want to even try to understand how and why the indigenous people refused to settle down and stay put growing food on farms, aghast that they would even incorporate "lean times" into their worldview as an acceptable practice and normalized part of their life.  Why don’t you just store food so you don’t have to go hungry, they would ask? The author investigates this question, finding that the nomadic, always on the move practice could have serious ecological benefits for the land, providing a kind of harmonious resiliency when things went well.  Of course, when they didn’t, the risk of starving was very real. The book presents a very real look at an alternative way of life to agricultural farming in one place, perhaps a kind of living that has been entirely lost to history. And in spite of the ever present risks and dangers, there is a sense of a kind of special freedom and leisure that we no longer are aware of, one that has been lost to time. Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hah, i recall an earlier question of yours concerning a passage in Consider Phlebas, did you continue past the cannibalism of the islanders living in a natural state to the comic passage of Horza delighting in his destruction of the shuttle AI?
 * Yes, I made it all the way to the eighth book, Matter, which I have in front of me. I threw it against the wall after getting so depressed by the events in it. I made it halfway through.  I do plan on picking it up again so I can finish up with Surface Detail and The Hydrogen Sonata.  One of the things I don't like is how Banks constantly reuses the same words and imagery.  One of the things I do like, is how he manages to combine very serious drama, violence, and humor all in a single chapter.  That's quite an achievement, and I can't quite recall another author successfully mixing all those elements together before. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * By positioning the upcoming robot revolution in a general setting of revolutionary cultural transitions, its unique character gets obscured. Read this article by Noah Smith: "Drones will cause an upheaval of society like we haven’t seen in 700 years", until its last sentence, "the age of freedom and dignity and equality that much of humanity now enjoys may turn out to have been a bizarre, temporary aberration." --Lambiam 08:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I think it's pretty obvious where this is going.  This 2020 opinion piece from scholars around the world, "Do Democracy and Capitalism Really Need Each Other?" indicates to me, based on the trends that we are seeing, that AI will be used to eliminate democracy once and for all.  It's also interesting to note how the philosophical impetus for cryptocurrency fits into all of this.  Crypto was intended by anti-democractic libertarians to be used to bankrupt the state, paving the way for right-wing billionaires to take over and use AI to create a new world where they aren't taxed and where the general public works for them on corporate slave plantations (company towns) with no regulatory framework, no guarantee of human rights, and no public infrastructure for healthcare, safe water, food, or air, in an economy based on servicing the wealthy and powerful. Viriditas (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

= July 17 =

Little curiosity about 2016 Us election
If Hillary Clinton had won the Electoral College, in 2016, would there have been in reverse roles, faithless electors who would have prevented her election? Thanks. 2.35.188.164 (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * There is no way one can answer this question about a counterfactual hypothetical situation. There is no known reason to assume that some of the hypothetical pledged electors would have been faithless. --Lambiam 19:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please read Faithless elector which describes several such Clinton electors in the 2016 presidential election. These were, in effect, protest votes cast when it was clear that Trump had won. Personally, I doubt those protest votes would have been cast had Clinton won the Electoral College, but this is speculation about a hypothetical. Cullen328 (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * One can speculate about this counterfactual hypothetical, but there is no known reason to assume that some of the pledged electors in this hypothetical situation would have been faithless – unless Clinton had won by a landslide, but then any faithless electors would not have prevented her election. However, there are no known facts that imply it is impossible that many would have voted for Faith Spotted Eagle. Therefore there is no way one can answer this question. --Lambiam 06:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is very complicated because the electors are ruled by state law, not federal law. The Supreme Court (Jan 2020) affirmed that electors fall completely under state law. Since then, states have taken more and more action to stop and punish faithless electors, including proposing laws to invalidate and replace a faithless elector's vote. In the end, it is state law, so any complete answer would require a discussion of how each state would be handled, along with the changes in the laws from year to year. 75.136.148.8 (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * An exhaustive discussion of how each potential case would have been handled in each of the several states, informed by the changes in their laws from day to day, will not be of help in answering he question. --Lambiam 06:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's because, as you keep pointing out, nobody can ever say what would have happened if some event that didn't happen had happened. The closest we could ever get is reporting the opinion of some commentator about what would/might have happened. But that's just their opinion; no-one can say whether it would actually have happened that way or not. And that is why we do not entertain questions that call for hypothesis, speculation or debate. And that is why I'm closing this now. -- Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  07:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

= July 18 =

Lake Lats and Longs
Is there an accepted, standard location when finding latitude and longitude for ponds and lakes? Or, is wherever the pond lake first encounter? It is probably changed with GPS and Sats. DMc75771 (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * If there were one, I believe it would be the same for any type of geographic feature occupying an area with a somewhat defined shape, such as an island, a swamp, a salt flat, and so on. A plausible candidate, if one doesn't want to single out a specific feature of the area, is its geographical centre. As stated in a United States Geological Survey document quoted in our article, "There is no generally accepted definition of geographic center, and no completely satisfactory method for determining it." For most purposes, the centroid of the area will usually be satisfactory in practice. I suppose one will want the location to fall inside the area, but if the area is not even roughly convex, for example C-shaped, its centroid may fall outside the area.  --Lambiam 09:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed; the United States Geological Survey used "locations of lake centers in latitude and longitude" in its Digital Data Base of Lakes on the North Slope, Alaska (1986) p. 1. Alansplodge (talk) 11:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly hard to find a definitive statement from a major cartographic agency, but the Natural History Museum, London guidelines for recording the location of species says "It is best to use the geographic centre (the centroid/midpoint of both the latitude and longitude extremes) for the coordinates of named places".  Alansplodge (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This definition means that – in theory – two disjoint lakes can share their centres; look here. --Lambiam 23:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your long and curved lake is better suited to the advice for rivers: "Make a straight line from the mouth of the river to the head of the river. Calculate the centre of this line, and place the coordinates closest to the centre of the line on the river itself". Alansplodge (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Another twist here is that for feature geometries polygons can have holes, and water body features are often modeled with multipoloygons, that is a set of polygons each of which can have zero or more holes. So even for a convex polygon there is no guarantee the centroid or the center of the bounding box are inside the feature. fiveby(zero) 02:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * From : "The geometric centroid of a convex object always lies in the object." It is not hard to show that this also holds for the centre of its bounding box. --Lambiam 09:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A convex polygon with holes is not a convex set, but if there are holes i guess it's not a simple polygon and you can't really call it convex. fiveby(zero) 13:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that there's an actual requirement for perfect mathematical exactitude; if the co-ordinates indicate a point somewhere in the middle of a particular lake, then the job is done. Alansplodge (talk) 11:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As I wrote, "I suppose one will want the location to fall inside the area", but if one is writing a program for assigning locations to geological features of a known extent, one needs some more precise definition. For example, if the centroid is not inside the area, the algorithm could select the location inside the area as far away as possible from its boundary, and if there are several such locations (for example for the C-shaped lake in my illustration), one as close as possible to the centroid. --Lambiam 13:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

= July 19 =

Getting cash directly from the Internet
I got to thinking, would it be possible in some way to get cash directly from the Internet, by using one's bank account credentials but without using a debit card or going to a bank office to ask for cash in person? You would log in to your bank over the Internet, withdraw money, and have the money somehow physically appear in front of you in cash.

MikroBitti magazine published an article of a "home banknote printer" in the early 1990s as I recall. The article announced a new kind of home printer that would print cash. "Of course, the printer won't print cash out of thin air", the magazine said, "you have to go out and buy licences for it." But this was an April Fool's joke. Would such a machine actually work, by withdrawing money from your bank account over the Internet and then printing it out in cash? J I P &#124; Talk 20:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a term for printing your own money: Counterfeiting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * DigiCash had a cryptographic protocol that would allow this. The "cash" was, as for bitcoin, a digital identifier, which could be represented as a conventional string such as, but for the purpose of home-printed money should be machine readable, as for example a QR code. As with any form of digital money, there is a potential problem of someone attempting to spend the same digital string twice. One solution is that a central system keeps a list of the unspent digital identifiers issued, validates a digital identifier when the money is used for a payment and at the same time removes it from the list. The DigiCash solution was decentralized; a malicious user could in theory spend a digital identifier twice, but this would reveal their identity. Otherwise, the user would remain untraceable. --Lambiam 22:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

= July 20 =

Professional diving water jets?
during a diving competition that is aquatic diving. What is the purpose of the water jets that spray into the pool? Brad (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA) requires surface agitation to provide a visual cue that helps divers judge when to enter their rotation as they dive into the water. Philvoids (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * thank you for your prompt reply! Now I just wonder why that didn't show up in the first place and I tried to Google it. Thanks again

Farmer market "slogan"
Why do some farmers market stands say "We grow what we sell"? What does that mean, anyway? TWOrantula TM (enter the web) 21:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Because a lot of market stalls don't make what they sell. They buy their products from wholesalers. Nanonic (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

= July 21 =