qid int64 1 74.7M | question stringlengths 12 33.8k | date stringlengths 10 10 | metadata list | response_j stringlengths 0 115k | response_k stringlengths 2 98.3k |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
255,015 | If I answer a phone call from an english speaking client of my company, what is the polite way to ask why he is calling/what he wants? It seems impolite to me to just ask "what do you want?". Is there a better phrase for this?
edit, some additional context: When I ask "How can I help you?" The client sometimes asks to be connected to my manager, but my manager wants me to tell him what a client wants, before I connect the client to him. I am searching for phrases to ask for that. | 2015/06/25 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/255015",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | **"Can I help you sir/madam?"** is appropriate anywhere: anyone answering a business telephone call, shop assistants, etc. And, of course, you can also ask... **"Mr Smith from...? And your call is about...?"**
Variations exist and you could also ask **"How can I help you?" "Is he expecting your call?" "You're calling about...?"**
Some shop-assistants in the US can be very informal and just ask "....help you?" | "May I ask what you are calling about?" or "May I ask what your call is about?" would be the most natural phrases to me.
"May I ask what this call is regarding?" seems to be used most often by actual receptionists, if you google it. |
255,015 | If I answer a phone call from an english speaking client of my company, what is the polite way to ask why he is calling/what he wants? It seems impolite to me to just ask "what do you want?". Is there a better phrase for this?
edit, some additional context: When I ask "How can I help you?" The client sometimes asks to be connected to my manager, but my manager wants me to tell him what a client wants, before I connect the client to him. I am searching for phrases to ask for that. | 2015/06/25 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/255015",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | Such a question is hard to answer, because it depends on various things.
Do you always pass through to the manager, or can you intercept the enquiry and deal with it?
Do you know clients well; are you friendly with some?
Is it a corporate company, which has some specific requirements as to what you can say?
If the client is just very pushy, not giving info to you, would your manager be okay with you saying "Sorry, I have this client who won't give me info; do you want to speak with them?"
At small companies I've worked for, managers are happy to take the call, as clients can be in small numbers.
---
>
> It seems impolite to me to just ask, "What do you want?" Is there a
> better phrase for this?
>
>
>
Yes, it needs to be worded differently, but your opening line has to somehow be that question - "What do you want?"
Otherwise how do you know how to deal with the call if you do not know what they want? They may or may not want the manager, but you do not yet know.
So use an opening such as:
>
> Hi, how may I help you?
>
>
>
If they give you a name at any point, you can repeat it back to them, but don't *ever* change it. "Hi, it's Robert here." He's called "Robert", *not* "Bob" - unless he says he's "Bob", etc.
---
>
> The client sometimes asks to be connected to my manager, but my
> manager wants me to tell him what a client wants, before I connect the
> client to him. I am searching for phrases to ask for that.
>
>
>
It sounds like it's okay for the call to be put through to the manager, and you just need details of what the call is about to pass along.
So, if the reply is:
>
> I want to speak with the manager.
>
>
>
You just need to remain polite, and while avoiding committing yourself to anything until you know their exact query, make them feel like they are "going to get what they want."
Because they *will* get want they want, either it turns out you can deal with it and so help them, or the manager is required and they get put through.
So first off, try to "gently" steer them away from wanting to speak with the manager, and not committing yourself to anything, so respond with something like:
>
> Can I ask what it's regarding please? I'll likely be able to help you.
>
>
>
This will allow the client to explain, and using the word "likely" (or probably, etc.) leaves it open to:
Deal with it (if you can) and now the word is "definitely":
>
> Yes, I can definitely help you with that...
>
>
>
Then go on to whatever you need to do, confirm security details, or email the invoice - whatever.
OR
Pass through to the manager if it turns out that is necessary:
>
> Yes, it would actually be the manager, bear with me while...
>
>
>
As they've explained what their call is about, you now know the manager is required and you can pass the details on to your manager.
And the client is now getting exactly what they asked for.
*Alternative:*
If you always pass through to your manager (never deal with it yourself from such requests) then leave off the "I'll likely be able to help you."
And when you have the info, just say:
>
> Thank you, I'm trying to put you through now.
>
>
>
Keyword here is something non-committing, like "trying."
As saying "I'm putting you through now" is committing, and the manager might be unavailable.
---
If they are being pushy and won't explain, just remain calm, polite, and still trying to assure them that they are going to get what they want.
So make it clear that you need info to deal with the call:
Client:
>
> I just want to speak with the manager.
>
>
>
You:
>
> Ok, but I do need to know what your enquiry is so I can pass the details on to the manager.
>
>
>
The "okay" is important, as it's not confirming you're going to put them through, because you then state you need something. But it's a subtle way to make them feel they are now getting what they want, and are likely to explain.
Rather than (e.g.) less positive in their favour like: "Sorry, no, I need info."
If they are still refusing to give info, try not to get frustrated, because the client already is (rightly or wrongly) frustrated and both of you being frustrated will lead to a terrible outcome.
No matter how pushy they are, stand your ground while being polite, and continue to assert that you are not stopping them from speaking with the manager, they just need to explain their details so you can tell the manager.
---
Other info
----------
I think the biggest problem most people have is repeatedly asking the client "please explain," as if they're stopping the client from getting what they want or asked for.
But you are only trying to find out what they really want so you can actually help them appropriately.
*Always* avoid saying things which are not true (or *might* not be true), as this generally comes back on you.
Before you know what the call is about, avoid saying things such as, "It would be me who deals with this," as it might turn out your manager or someone else needs to deal with it.
Or pretending the manager is not there. Only do this if you know the manager would not want to speak with them.
What if the manager *does* need to deal with the call?
Or the client knows the manager is there.
Client was on their mobile, chatting to the manager who was on their office phone, and they got cut off or their battery went flat?
Sure, it's "unlikely," but annoying for a client, especially when the manager will find out, is not worth it.
Just be careful playing around with lies and "trickery" - especially when a friendly and assertive approach can deal with *any* situation.
Don't ever state where fault lies (e.g. "the manager said I couldn't" or "it's company policy") as this just annoys people.
You always need to make it clear they are going to get what they want, but you need something before that could possibly happen - "I'm happy to help you, but I really need to know..." | If you ask "What can I help you with today" and they ask to be connected to your manager, you can always say one of the following:
>
> I will connect you with him shortly, what can I tell him your call is about/regarding?
>
> I will connect you with him shortly, may I ask what you're calling about so that I can let him know?
>
>
>
This is similar to asking "Whom may I say is calling?", so that your boss knows who he's talking to rather than just picking up a call with a random person.
This should usually get you the information you need. If it's something that doesn't actually need your manager to handle, you can say:
>
> Actually, I'm the one that handles that and I can help you with it directly.
>
>
>
If they still want to talk to your manager, you can comply but you have the information he wants to know.
If the issue is something that does need your manager, or needs a different department entirely, you can route the call as is appropriate. |
255,015 | If I answer a phone call from an english speaking client of my company, what is the polite way to ask why he is calling/what he wants? It seems impolite to me to just ask "what do you want?". Is there a better phrase for this?
edit, some additional context: When I ask "How can I help you?" The client sometimes asks to be connected to my manager, but my manager wants me to tell him what a client wants, before I connect the client to him. I am searching for phrases to ask for that. | 2015/06/25 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/255015",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | If you ask "What can I help you with today" and they ask to be connected to your manager, you can always say one of the following:
>
> I will connect you with him shortly, what can I tell him your call is about/regarding?
>
> I will connect you with him shortly, may I ask what you're calling about so that I can let him know?
>
>
>
This is similar to asking "Whom may I say is calling?", so that your boss knows who he's talking to rather than just picking up a call with a random person.
This should usually get you the information you need. If it's something that doesn't actually need your manager to handle, you can say:
>
> Actually, I'm the one that handles that and I can help you with it directly.
>
>
>
If they still want to talk to your manager, you can comply but you have the information he wants to know.
If the issue is something that does need your manager, or needs a different department entirely, you can route the call as is appropriate. | "May I ask what you are calling about?" or "May I ask what your call is about?" would be the most natural phrases to me.
"May I ask what this call is regarding?" seems to be used most often by actual receptionists, if you google it. |
255,015 | If I answer a phone call from an english speaking client of my company, what is the polite way to ask why he is calling/what he wants? It seems impolite to me to just ask "what do you want?". Is there a better phrase for this?
edit, some additional context: When I ask "How can I help you?" The client sometimes asks to be connected to my manager, but my manager wants me to tell him what a client wants, before I connect the client to him. I am searching for phrases to ask for that. | 2015/06/25 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/255015",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | Such a question is hard to answer, because it depends on various things.
Do you always pass through to the manager, or can you intercept the enquiry and deal with it?
Do you know clients well; are you friendly with some?
Is it a corporate company, which has some specific requirements as to what you can say?
If the client is just very pushy, not giving info to you, would your manager be okay with you saying "Sorry, I have this client who won't give me info; do you want to speak with them?"
At small companies I've worked for, managers are happy to take the call, as clients can be in small numbers.
---
>
> It seems impolite to me to just ask, "What do you want?" Is there a
> better phrase for this?
>
>
>
Yes, it needs to be worded differently, but your opening line has to somehow be that question - "What do you want?"
Otherwise how do you know how to deal with the call if you do not know what they want? They may or may not want the manager, but you do not yet know.
So use an opening such as:
>
> Hi, how may I help you?
>
>
>
If they give you a name at any point, you can repeat it back to them, but don't *ever* change it. "Hi, it's Robert here." He's called "Robert", *not* "Bob" - unless he says he's "Bob", etc.
---
>
> The client sometimes asks to be connected to my manager, but my
> manager wants me to tell him what a client wants, before I connect the
> client to him. I am searching for phrases to ask for that.
>
>
>
It sounds like it's okay for the call to be put through to the manager, and you just need details of what the call is about to pass along.
So, if the reply is:
>
> I want to speak with the manager.
>
>
>
You just need to remain polite, and while avoiding committing yourself to anything until you know their exact query, make them feel like they are "going to get what they want."
Because they *will* get want they want, either it turns out you can deal with it and so help them, or the manager is required and they get put through.
So first off, try to "gently" steer them away from wanting to speak with the manager, and not committing yourself to anything, so respond with something like:
>
> Can I ask what it's regarding please? I'll likely be able to help you.
>
>
>
This will allow the client to explain, and using the word "likely" (or probably, etc.) leaves it open to:
Deal with it (if you can) and now the word is "definitely":
>
> Yes, I can definitely help you with that...
>
>
>
Then go on to whatever you need to do, confirm security details, or email the invoice - whatever.
OR
Pass through to the manager if it turns out that is necessary:
>
> Yes, it would actually be the manager, bear with me while...
>
>
>
As they've explained what their call is about, you now know the manager is required and you can pass the details on to your manager.
And the client is now getting exactly what they asked for.
*Alternative:*
If you always pass through to your manager (never deal with it yourself from such requests) then leave off the "I'll likely be able to help you."
And when you have the info, just say:
>
> Thank you, I'm trying to put you through now.
>
>
>
Keyword here is something non-committing, like "trying."
As saying "I'm putting you through now" is committing, and the manager might be unavailable.
---
If they are being pushy and won't explain, just remain calm, polite, and still trying to assure them that they are going to get what they want.
So make it clear that you need info to deal with the call:
Client:
>
> I just want to speak with the manager.
>
>
>
You:
>
> Ok, but I do need to know what your enquiry is so I can pass the details on to the manager.
>
>
>
The "okay" is important, as it's not confirming you're going to put them through, because you then state you need something. But it's a subtle way to make them feel they are now getting what they want, and are likely to explain.
Rather than (e.g.) less positive in their favour like: "Sorry, no, I need info."
If they are still refusing to give info, try not to get frustrated, because the client already is (rightly or wrongly) frustrated and both of you being frustrated will lead to a terrible outcome.
No matter how pushy they are, stand your ground while being polite, and continue to assert that you are not stopping them from speaking with the manager, they just need to explain their details so you can tell the manager.
---
Other info
----------
I think the biggest problem most people have is repeatedly asking the client "please explain," as if they're stopping the client from getting what they want or asked for.
But you are only trying to find out what they really want so you can actually help them appropriately.
*Always* avoid saying things which are not true (or *might* not be true), as this generally comes back on you.
Before you know what the call is about, avoid saying things such as, "It would be me who deals with this," as it might turn out your manager or someone else needs to deal with it.
Or pretending the manager is not there. Only do this if you know the manager would not want to speak with them.
What if the manager *does* need to deal with the call?
Or the client knows the manager is there.
Client was on their mobile, chatting to the manager who was on their office phone, and they got cut off or their battery went flat?
Sure, it's "unlikely," but annoying for a client, especially when the manager will find out, is not worth it.
Just be careful playing around with lies and "trickery" - especially when a friendly and assertive approach can deal with *any* situation.
Don't ever state where fault lies (e.g. "the manager said I couldn't" or "it's company policy") as this just annoys people.
You always need to make it clear they are going to get what they want, but you need something before that could possibly happen - "I'm happy to help you, but I really need to know..." | "May I ask what you are calling about?" or "May I ask what your call is about?" would be the most natural phrases to me.
"May I ask what this call is regarding?" seems to be used most often by actual receptionists, if you google it. |
64,472 | Let's say that there is a wind going 45 mph and the flight direction of the humanoid creature is in the same direction as the wind. As the flight is in the same direction as the wind, air resistance is minimum, so small it is basically 0. And let's say that this humanoid creature has a wingspan of 5 feet(2 feet per wing + 1 foot for the body) at the arms and a wingspan of 7 feet at the legs(3 feet per leg + 1 foot for the body). And let's say that the number of arm flaps per minute is 120 flaps(so 2 flaps per second) and the number of leg flaps per minute is 60 flaps(so 1 flap per second). And let's assume that it is synchronized so that the 2 arms flap at the same time, the 2 legs flap at the same time and for every 2 arm flaps completed, 1 leg flap is completed. Let's say that every arm flap moves you 3 feet and every leg flap moves you 5 feet in no wind. This makes it easier to calculate the speed.
Mass is going to be important here as is height so lets say those measures are 120 lbs and 5 feet.
Measures:
* Arm length: 2 feet
* Leg length: 3 feet
* Wind speed: 45 mph
* Arm wingspan: 5 feet
* Leg wingspan: 7 feet
* Arm flapping speed: 2 flaps per second
* Leg flapping speed: 1 flap per second
* Height of humanoid: 5 feet
* Mass of humanoid: 120 lbs
Now here are my questions:
1) Can the humanoid creature fly at all assuming his/her arms and legs don't get sore after 1 minute of flapping?
2) If the humanoid creature can fly, how fast can it fly assuming it follows the wind the whole way?
and
3) Is the maximum speed assuming 70 mph wind speed max for no storms anywhere close to the speed of sound at 767 mph?
You notice I am using 100% imperial measurements. That is because my Kepler Bb people use a system very similar to the imperial system but with different numbers of units equaling any given unit. They do however share some base units like inches and seconds and ounces. Once I know the answers in the imperial system, it will be easy for me to convert into the Kepler measurement system(a lot of multiplication and division but that is easy(so like I would convert mph into inches per second and then use the Kepler conversion factors to convert it into Kepler miles per Kepler hour)). | 2016/12/13 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/64472",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/2238/"
] | I'm going to take a stab at a very simple *no*, on the basis that the world's fastest bird can't even hit mach 0.15 in level flight [White-throated needletail - 105mph](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_birds_by_flight_speed).
In a dive you might have a bit more of a chance, birds can fly to nearly 40,000 feet. I'd have to let someone with a much better knowledge of terminal velocities to work out whether supersonic falling would be possible at that altitude. (I suspect not - Joseph Kittinger jumped from over 100,000 feet and didn't break the sound barrier, so if your humanoid has a similar drag co-efficient then he definitely won't).
Your person can definitely only fall though, as with a weight of 120lbs and an effective wingspan of about 10-12 feet he certainly isn't going to fly. Look at the wingspans of large birds - 8-12 feet - and their weight - about 15-25lbs. | Mach number depends on air density which in turn depends on altitude. Concorde could only do Mach 2 at high altitudes.
There are two more serious problems. The first is the reason there are no supersonic propellor-driven aircraft: having a shockwave across the blades severely impairs their operation. The same would apply to flapping, even if you could flap wings at the desired speed there would be a point where the leading edge would be breaking the sound barrier while the rest of the flyer is subsonic. This would cause loss of lift.
The second is that the impact of the air on a supersonic object causes it to heat up. This would compensate for the freezing air at high altitudes, but again would have to be managed in order to avoid cooking the flyer.
(A sub-problem would be energy consumption; I've no easy way of working this out, but supersonic flight is usually achieved only with the aid of afterburners and extremely high fuel consumption. Only some aircraft are capable of "supercruise" without afterburners, and even they need them in order to accelerate to that speed.) |
64,472 | Let's say that there is a wind going 45 mph and the flight direction of the humanoid creature is in the same direction as the wind. As the flight is in the same direction as the wind, air resistance is minimum, so small it is basically 0. And let's say that this humanoid creature has a wingspan of 5 feet(2 feet per wing + 1 foot for the body) at the arms and a wingspan of 7 feet at the legs(3 feet per leg + 1 foot for the body). And let's say that the number of arm flaps per minute is 120 flaps(so 2 flaps per second) and the number of leg flaps per minute is 60 flaps(so 1 flap per second). And let's assume that it is synchronized so that the 2 arms flap at the same time, the 2 legs flap at the same time and for every 2 arm flaps completed, 1 leg flap is completed. Let's say that every arm flap moves you 3 feet and every leg flap moves you 5 feet in no wind. This makes it easier to calculate the speed.
Mass is going to be important here as is height so lets say those measures are 120 lbs and 5 feet.
Measures:
* Arm length: 2 feet
* Leg length: 3 feet
* Wind speed: 45 mph
* Arm wingspan: 5 feet
* Leg wingspan: 7 feet
* Arm flapping speed: 2 flaps per second
* Leg flapping speed: 1 flap per second
* Height of humanoid: 5 feet
* Mass of humanoid: 120 lbs
Now here are my questions:
1) Can the humanoid creature fly at all assuming his/her arms and legs don't get sore after 1 minute of flapping?
2) If the humanoid creature can fly, how fast can it fly assuming it follows the wind the whole way?
and
3) Is the maximum speed assuming 70 mph wind speed max for no storms anywhere close to the speed of sound at 767 mph?
You notice I am using 100% imperial measurements. That is because my Kepler Bb people use a system very similar to the imperial system but with different numbers of units equaling any given unit. They do however share some base units like inches and seconds and ounces. Once I know the answers in the imperial system, it will be easy for me to convert into the Kepler measurement system(a lot of multiplication and division but that is easy(so like I would convert mph into inches per second and then use the Kepler conversion factors to convert it into Kepler miles per Kepler hour)). | 2016/12/13 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/64472",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/2238/"
] | I'm going to take a stab at a very simple *no*, on the basis that the world's fastest bird can't even hit mach 0.15 in level flight [White-throated needletail - 105mph](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_birds_by_flight_speed).
In a dive you might have a bit more of a chance, birds can fly to nearly 40,000 feet. I'd have to let someone with a much better knowledge of terminal velocities to work out whether supersonic falling would be possible at that altitude. (I suspect not - Joseph Kittinger jumped from over 100,000 feet and didn't break the sound barrier, so if your humanoid has a similar drag co-efficient then he definitely won't).
Your person can definitely only fall though, as with a weight of 120lbs and an effective wingspan of about 10-12 feet he certainly isn't going to fly. Look at the wingspans of large birds - 8-12 feet - and their weight - about 15-25lbs. | No, your humanoid won't fly
---------------------------
The lift to weight ratio for your humanoid isn't good enough for the speeds you're talking about. Assuming an earth like atmosphere, your humaniod is about 6 times too heavy to lift itself. Note that the albatross has the widest wingspan of living birds at about 9 feet across but it weighs just 19 pounds. Your humanoid could keep the same wing size but go much faster to generate the required lift but that's problematic because drag [increases quadratically](https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/drageq.html) $v^2$ as velocity increases. Going fast is hard.
For more general information on designing a flying humanoid, NASA has a [great introduction section](https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/short.html) (Specifically the Aircraft Forces section) and that will tell you a lot of what you need to get started. |
64,472 | Let's say that there is a wind going 45 mph and the flight direction of the humanoid creature is in the same direction as the wind. As the flight is in the same direction as the wind, air resistance is minimum, so small it is basically 0. And let's say that this humanoid creature has a wingspan of 5 feet(2 feet per wing + 1 foot for the body) at the arms and a wingspan of 7 feet at the legs(3 feet per leg + 1 foot for the body). And let's say that the number of arm flaps per minute is 120 flaps(so 2 flaps per second) and the number of leg flaps per minute is 60 flaps(so 1 flap per second). And let's assume that it is synchronized so that the 2 arms flap at the same time, the 2 legs flap at the same time and for every 2 arm flaps completed, 1 leg flap is completed. Let's say that every arm flap moves you 3 feet and every leg flap moves you 5 feet in no wind. This makes it easier to calculate the speed.
Mass is going to be important here as is height so lets say those measures are 120 lbs and 5 feet.
Measures:
* Arm length: 2 feet
* Leg length: 3 feet
* Wind speed: 45 mph
* Arm wingspan: 5 feet
* Leg wingspan: 7 feet
* Arm flapping speed: 2 flaps per second
* Leg flapping speed: 1 flap per second
* Height of humanoid: 5 feet
* Mass of humanoid: 120 lbs
Now here are my questions:
1) Can the humanoid creature fly at all assuming his/her arms and legs don't get sore after 1 minute of flapping?
2) If the humanoid creature can fly, how fast can it fly assuming it follows the wind the whole way?
and
3) Is the maximum speed assuming 70 mph wind speed max for no storms anywhere close to the speed of sound at 767 mph?
You notice I am using 100% imperial measurements. That is because my Kepler Bb people use a system very similar to the imperial system but with different numbers of units equaling any given unit. They do however share some base units like inches and seconds and ounces. Once I know the answers in the imperial system, it will be easy for me to convert into the Kepler measurement system(a lot of multiplication and division but that is easy(so like I would convert mph into inches per second and then use the Kepler conversion factors to convert it into Kepler miles per Kepler hour)). | 2016/12/13 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/64472",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/2238/"
] | I'm going to take a stab at a very simple *no*, on the basis that the world's fastest bird can't even hit mach 0.15 in level flight [White-throated needletail - 105mph](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_birds_by_flight_speed).
In a dive you might have a bit more of a chance, birds can fly to nearly 40,000 feet. I'd have to let someone with a much better knowledge of terminal velocities to work out whether supersonic falling would be possible at that altitude. (I suspect not - Joseph Kittinger jumped from over 100,000 feet and didn't break the sound barrier, so if your humanoid has a similar drag co-efficient then he definitely won't).
Your person can definitely only fall though, as with a weight of 120lbs and an effective wingspan of about 10-12 feet he certainly isn't going to fly. Look at the wingspans of large birds - 8-12 feet - and their weight - about 15-25lbs. | @pjc50 has the most basic physical constraint detailed very well but I'd like to expand on that answer a little bit.
In short, what you're asking is fundamentally impossible in our world of physics (but there's hope! Read to the end). Let's explore why with some simple examples.
Let's start with a definition. You want to break the sound barrier. The sound barrier is *how fast sound travels through air*. Thus, the direction of air flow is irrelevant, because if the air is moving 70mph west, the sound will have to move an additional 70mph west to compensate. However you would need 70mph (relative to the ground... this is why air speed is measured in knots, which are relative to the wind speed) *less* if you were going the opposite direction. This ends up being irrelevant to your question, however, because even if you're moving east against that current you still need to overcome the force of it. If it weren't for that effect, birds wouldn't be able to hover in the air [like they do](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaI_47gncsw).
Basically, there's a reason we have no supersonic propeller-powered aircraft. It takes epic amounts of compression to pump air backwards fast enough to reach supersonic speeds. A propeller is, simply put, a very efficient wing-flap. Propeller blades are essentially just wings, they carve a bit of air and push it back, using the leverage to push the aircraft forward. The reason they are more efficient than wings is because they have no down-time. A bird wing has a moment of zero-thrust while the wing is returned to its forward position, while a propeller takes advantage of the ability to freely rotate to be constantly pushing on the air.
Yet despite the efficiency of a propeller and its superior efficiency over an animal wing, it still can't break the sound barrier by spinning in open air. It would eventually reach a speed of rotation where it would push more air out of the way than it would effectively push behind it, so you get diminishing returns per your energy investment. Think about splashing your hand in a pool of water, trying to hit a target with it. The harder and faster you splash, the less water you throw in the direction you're trying to splash it. It just spreads out in different directions and becomes less accurate.
That's were [turbofans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbofan) come in. They keep the air from moving out of the way by sucking it into a confined space, allowing the propellers to get better leverage over it. This is a step in the right direction, though I'm not sure whether or not any basic turbofan engines can break the sound barrier.
Jets are basically super-high-performance turbofans, and they definitely have the potential to break the sound barrier, because they tend to dump lots of extra energy into that compressed air (by burning fuel) to make it exit the engine even faster.
So... Unless your creatures have enormous amounts of energy to spend (which you did hand-wave a bit) AND have the ability to internally compress air (IE: not basic animal wings like you're describing), they won't be able to accomplish supersonic speeds. You could possibly build this feature into them, but it will require a bit more hand-waving. See questions [like this](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/15278/sea-creature-moving-via-rotational-motions) for inspiration in that department. That one in particular might have an idea for you: Symbiotic creatures (the "turbofan" part would be a symbiotic creature, not directly part of the main body). |
64,472 | Let's say that there is a wind going 45 mph and the flight direction of the humanoid creature is in the same direction as the wind. As the flight is in the same direction as the wind, air resistance is minimum, so small it is basically 0. And let's say that this humanoid creature has a wingspan of 5 feet(2 feet per wing + 1 foot for the body) at the arms and a wingspan of 7 feet at the legs(3 feet per leg + 1 foot for the body). And let's say that the number of arm flaps per minute is 120 flaps(so 2 flaps per second) and the number of leg flaps per minute is 60 flaps(so 1 flap per second). And let's assume that it is synchronized so that the 2 arms flap at the same time, the 2 legs flap at the same time and for every 2 arm flaps completed, 1 leg flap is completed. Let's say that every arm flap moves you 3 feet and every leg flap moves you 5 feet in no wind. This makes it easier to calculate the speed.
Mass is going to be important here as is height so lets say those measures are 120 lbs and 5 feet.
Measures:
* Arm length: 2 feet
* Leg length: 3 feet
* Wind speed: 45 mph
* Arm wingspan: 5 feet
* Leg wingspan: 7 feet
* Arm flapping speed: 2 flaps per second
* Leg flapping speed: 1 flap per second
* Height of humanoid: 5 feet
* Mass of humanoid: 120 lbs
Now here are my questions:
1) Can the humanoid creature fly at all assuming his/her arms and legs don't get sore after 1 minute of flapping?
2) If the humanoid creature can fly, how fast can it fly assuming it follows the wind the whole way?
and
3) Is the maximum speed assuming 70 mph wind speed max for no storms anywhere close to the speed of sound at 767 mph?
You notice I am using 100% imperial measurements. That is because my Kepler Bb people use a system very similar to the imperial system but with different numbers of units equaling any given unit. They do however share some base units like inches and seconds and ounces. Once I know the answers in the imperial system, it will be easy for me to convert into the Kepler measurement system(a lot of multiplication and division but that is easy(so like I would convert mph into inches per second and then use the Kepler conversion factors to convert it into Kepler miles per Kepler hour)). | 2016/12/13 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/64472",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/2238/"
] | Mach number depends on air density which in turn depends on altitude. Concorde could only do Mach 2 at high altitudes.
There are two more serious problems. The first is the reason there are no supersonic propellor-driven aircraft: having a shockwave across the blades severely impairs their operation. The same would apply to flapping, even if you could flap wings at the desired speed there would be a point where the leading edge would be breaking the sound barrier while the rest of the flyer is subsonic. This would cause loss of lift.
The second is that the impact of the air on a supersonic object causes it to heat up. This would compensate for the freezing air at high altitudes, but again would have to be managed in order to avoid cooking the flyer.
(A sub-problem would be energy consumption; I've no easy way of working this out, but supersonic flight is usually achieved only with the aid of afterburners and extremely high fuel consumption. Only some aircraft are capable of "supercruise" without afterburners, and even they need them in order to accelerate to that speed.) | @pjc50 has the most basic physical constraint detailed very well but I'd like to expand on that answer a little bit.
In short, what you're asking is fundamentally impossible in our world of physics (but there's hope! Read to the end). Let's explore why with some simple examples.
Let's start with a definition. You want to break the sound barrier. The sound barrier is *how fast sound travels through air*. Thus, the direction of air flow is irrelevant, because if the air is moving 70mph west, the sound will have to move an additional 70mph west to compensate. However you would need 70mph (relative to the ground... this is why air speed is measured in knots, which are relative to the wind speed) *less* if you were going the opposite direction. This ends up being irrelevant to your question, however, because even if you're moving east against that current you still need to overcome the force of it. If it weren't for that effect, birds wouldn't be able to hover in the air [like they do](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaI_47gncsw).
Basically, there's a reason we have no supersonic propeller-powered aircraft. It takes epic amounts of compression to pump air backwards fast enough to reach supersonic speeds. A propeller is, simply put, a very efficient wing-flap. Propeller blades are essentially just wings, they carve a bit of air and push it back, using the leverage to push the aircraft forward. The reason they are more efficient than wings is because they have no down-time. A bird wing has a moment of zero-thrust while the wing is returned to its forward position, while a propeller takes advantage of the ability to freely rotate to be constantly pushing on the air.
Yet despite the efficiency of a propeller and its superior efficiency over an animal wing, it still can't break the sound barrier by spinning in open air. It would eventually reach a speed of rotation where it would push more air out of the way than it would effectively push behind it, so you get diminishing returns per your energy investment. Think about splashing your hand in a pool of water, trying to hit a target with it. The harder and faster you splash, the less water you throw in the direction you're trying to splash it. It just spreads out in different directions and becomes less accurate.
That's were [turbofans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbofan) come in. They keep the air from moving out of the way by sucking it into a confined space, allowing the propellers to get better leverage over it. This is a step in the right direction, though I'm not sure whether or not any basic turbofan engines can break the sound barrier.
Jets are basically super-high-performance turbofans, and they definitely have the potential to break the sound barrier, because they tend to dump lots of extra energy into that compressed air (by burning fuel) to make it exit the engine even faster.
So... Unless your creatures have enormous amounts of energy to spend (which you did hand-wave a bit) AND have the ability to internally compress air (IE: not basic animal wings like you're describing), they won't be able to accomplish supersonic speeds. You could possibly build this feature into them, but it will require a bit more hand-waving. See questions [like this](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/15278/sea-creature-moving-via-rotational-motions) for inspiration in that department. That one in particular might have an idea for you: Symbiotic creatures (the "turbofan" part would be a symbiotic creature, not directly part of the main body). |
64,472 | Let's say that there is a wind going 45 mph and the flight direction of the humanoid creature is in the same direction as the wind. As the flight is in the same direction as the wind, air resistance is minimum, so small it is basically 0. And let's say that this humanoid creature has a wingspan of 5 feet(2 feet per wing + 1 foot for the body) at the arms and a wingspan of 7 feet at the legs(3 feet per leg + 1 foot for the body). And let's say that the number of arm flaps per minute is 120 flaps(so 2 flaps per second) and the number of leg flaps per minute is 60 flaps(so 1 flap per second). And let's assume that it is synchronized so that the 2 arms flap at the same time, the 2 legs flap at the same time and for every 2 arm flaps completed, 1 leg flap is completed. Let's say that every arm flap moves you 3 feet and every leg flap moves you 5 feet in no wind. This makes it easier to calculate the speed.
Mass is going to be important here as is height so lets say those measures are 120 lbs and 5 feet.
Measures:
* Arm length: 2 feet
* Leg length: 3 feet
* Wind speed: 45 mph
* Arm wingspan: 5 feet
* Leg wingspan: 7 feet
* Arm flapping speed: 2 flaps per second
* Leg flapping speed: 1 flap per second
* Height of humanoid: 5 feet
* Mass of humanoid: 120 lbs
Now here are my questions:
1) Can the humanoid creature fly at all assuming his/her arms and legs don't get sore after 1 minute of flapping?
2) If the humanoid creature can fly, how fast can it fly assuming it follows the wind the whole way?
and
3) Is the maximum speed assuming 70 mph wind speed max for no storms anywhere close to the speed of sound at 767 mph?
You notice I am using 100% imperial measurements. That is because my Kepler Bb people use a system very similar to the imperial system but with different numbers of units equaling any given unit. They do however share some base units like inches and seconds and ounces. Once I know the answers in the imperial system, it will be easy for me to convert into the Kepler measurement system(a lot of multiplication and division but that is easy(so like I would convert mph into inches per second and then use the Kepler conversion factors to convert it into Kepler miles per Kepler hour)). | 2016/12/13 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/64472",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/2238/"
] | No, your humanoid won't fly
---------------------------
The lift to weight ratio for your humanoid isn't good enough for the speeds you're talking about. Assuming an earth like atmosphere, your humaniod is about 6 times too heavy to lift itself. Note that the albatross has the widest wingspan of living birds at about 9 feet across but it weighs just 19 pounds. Your humanoid could keep the same wing size but go much faster to generate the required lift but that's problematic because drag [increases quadratically](https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/drageq.html) $v^2$ as velocity increases. Going fast is hard.
For more general information on designing a flying humanoid, NASA has a [great introduction section](https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/short.html) (Specifically the Aircraft Forces section) and that will tell you a lot of what you need to get started. | @pjc50 has the most basic physical constraint detailed very well but I'd like to expand on that answer a little bit.
In short, what you're asking is fundamentally impossible in our world of physics (but there's hope! Read to the end). Let's explore why with some simple examples.
Let's start with a definition. You want to break the sound barrier. The sound barrier is *how fast sound travels through air*. Thus, the direction of air flow is irrelevant, because if the air is moving 70mph west, the sound will have to move an additional 70mph west to compensate. However you would need 70mph (relative to the ground... this is why air speed is measured in knots, which are relative to the wind speed) *less* if you were going the opposite direction. This ends up being irrelevant to your question, however, because even if you're moving east against that current you still need to overcome the force of it. If it weren't for that effect, birds wouldn't be able to hover in the air [like they do](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaI_47gncsw).
Basically, there's a reason we have no supersonic propeller-powered aircraft. It takes epic amounts of compression to pump air backwards fast enough to reach supersonic speeds. A propeller is, simply put, a very efficient wing-flap. Propeller blades are essentially just wings, they carve a bit of air and push it back, using the leverage to push the aircraft forward. The reason they are more efficient than wings is because they have no down-time. A bird wing has a moment of zero-thrust while the wing is returned to its forward position, while a propeller takes advantage of the ability to freely rotate to be constantly pushing on the air.
Yet despite the efficiency of a propeller and its superior efficiency over an animal wing, it still can't break the sound barrier by spinning in open air. It would eventually reach a speed of rotation where it would push more air out of the way than it would effectively push behind it, so you get diminishing returns per your energy investment. Think about splashing your hand in a pool of water, trying to hit a target with it. The harder and faster you splash, the less water you throw in the direction you're trying to splash it. It just spreads out in different directions and becomes less accurate.
That's were [turbofans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbofan) come in. They keep the air from moving out of the way by sucking it into a confined space, allowing the propellers to get better leverage over it. This is a step in the right direction, though I'm not sure whether or not any basic turbofan engines can break the sound barrier.
Jets are basically super-high-performance turbofans, and they definitely have the potential to break the sound barrier, because they tend to dump lots of extra energy into that compressed air (by burning fuel) to make it exit the engine even faster.
So... Unless your creatures have enormous amounts of energy to spend (which you did hand-wave a bit) AND have the ability to internally compress air (IE: not basic animal wings like you're describing), they won't be able to accomplish supersonic speeds. You could possibly build this feature into them, but it will require a bit more hand-waving. See questions [like this](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/15278/sea-creature-moving-via-rotational-motions) for inspiration in that department. That one in particular might have an idea for you: Symbiotic creatures (the "turbofan" part would be a symbiotic creature, not directly part of the main body). |
12,758,789 | I instlled R 2.14 with R Commander via Ubuntu Software Center at first.
And then I installed Rstudio and it worked fine with R 2.14.
After a while, I wanted to use R 2.15 but failed compiling the R 2.15 source code.
Therefore, I tried "sudo apt-get build-dep r-base".
After that I compiled R 2.15 successfully, and installed R 2.15.
But, now Rstudio keeps reporting
"R shared library (/usr/local/lib/R/lib/libR.so) not found. If this is a custom build of R, was it built with the --enable-R-shlib option?"
It seems that I should reinstall R 2.15 with option --enable-R-shlib.
But the problem is that how can I unstall R 2.15?
I tried "sudo apt-get autoremove r-base", but R 2.15 still works on my Ubuntu.
Any ideas on how I can make Rstudio works with custom compiled R?
Thanks, | 2012/10/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/12758789",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1305072/"
] | I found the solution myself.
Briefly, I should use make uninstall to remove R 12.5. | You're going about this in too-complicated a manner.
See the [README for Ubuntu binaries from CRAN](http://cran.r-project.org/bin/linux/ubuntu) to get 2.15 binaries as proper `.deb` packages.
These will be in the path, have proper Depends: and just work, from command-line or via RStudio. |
128,097 | I am quite new to freelancing, and I'm wondering how freelance software developers handle confidential projects in their CVs? I recently spoke to a developer who told me that he is working on a project that is confidential and that he cannot put on his resume. I didn't have the chance to ask more, so I am asking here:
* Why might a project be confidential? Why wouldn't I be able to put it on my CV?
* How would a freelancer deal with projects like these? Esp. when he's just starting out in his/her career, not putting it on the CV seems like quite a bad option? How would he/she talk about these projects to future employers/recruiters? | 2019/02/04 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/128097",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/99134/"
] | There are many reasons that a project could be confidential, from being a government job where you need a security clearance just to admit that the project exists, down to a basic business project where you don't want to signal to the competition that you are working in a certain field.
But regardless of what you are working on, the ability to place the project on your CV will be dependent on what paperwork you have signed with whoever you are doing the work for. If you signed something that says you have to keep your trap shut, then you keep your trap shut.
But that just because you can't talk about a particular project, doesn't mean that you can't talk about the technologies you used as long as you use broad, non-specific terminology.
EG If I worked on a project for Amazon that read peoples thoughts and then ordered stuff for them before they realized they wanted it, I could phrase that as:
>
> Spent 5 years working with C++ to drive advanced bio-medical
> hardware interfaced to the internet with the aim of analyzing patient data. During that time I increased
> measurement accuracy by 400% and decreased response time from 10
> seconds to 50ms
>
>
> | Skunk projects are a huge annoyance for this reason.
Note though, that **everyone is in the same boat, so it's clearly understood what you mean**.
There are two pretty formulaic, popular solutions:
All you can do is say things like:
>
> 3. Research group of a major telco, 2018
>
>
> Working directly for the senior discovery scientists, I *{made a web page, devolved convolutions, applied AI to rendering, whatever}* during my 9 month contract as the most senior Fortran engineer in the global organization, leading a team of 3 elite combat programmers with the most advanced research team of this top-2 telco.
>
>
>
So, if you work for "AT&T" or "Ford", you use a wiggle phrase in those two examples
* "An automotive major"
* "Top three telco"
and so on.
Regarding the specific project: really, just describe it exactly as you normally would:
>
> *"working with the cutting edge of generative VR in Fortran and sparse arrays with heuristic AI"*
>
>
>
but, **simply leaving out** the sentence fragment where you mention what it is:
>
> *"working with the cutting edge of generative VR in Fortran and sparse arrays with heuristic AI **for a first person shooter**"*
>
>
>
Really, that's the only formula you can do.
>
> on the CV? ... talk to employers ...
>
>
>
So, you follow the two points:
1. Instead of saying "Citibank" or "Viper" you say "Top two global finance corporation" or "Global Telco Major".
2. In describing the work, simply describe it exactly as you normally would, but, "leave out the sentence fragment" literally stating what it is.
This is pretty standard for skunk, stealth projects. Also, toss around the terms "skunk" and "stealth mode" as often as possible so you seem like an insider :)
---
You also ask
>
> Why might a project be confidential? ...
>
>
>
It's simply **completely commonplace** that this happens today in the world of apps, startups, and research software. "Stealth mode!" is completely commonplace.
Over and over you'll do projects or contracts of this nature - it's no big deal.
Like, if you look on angel.co or whatever there's literally a selector for "stealth mode", I think!
It's no big deal, and commonplace. |
128,097 | I am quite new to freelancing, and I'm wondering how freelance software developers handle confidential projects in their CVs? I recently spoke to a developer who told me that he is working on a project that is confidential and that he cannot put on his resume. I didn't have the chance to ask more, so I am asking here:
* Why might a project be confidential? Why wouldn't I be able to put it on my CV?
* How would a freelancer deal with projects like these? Esp. when he's just starting out in his/her career, not putting it on the CV seems like quite a bad option? How would he/she talk about these projects to future employers/recruiters? | 2019/02/04 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/128097",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/99134/"
] | Skunk projects are a huge annoyance for this reason.
Note though, that **everyone is in the same boat, so it's clearly understood what you mean**.
There are two pretty formulaic, popular solutions:
All you can do is say things like:
>
> 3. Research group of a major telco, 2018
>
>
> Working directly for the senior discovery scientists, I *{made a web page, devolved convolutions, applied AI to rendering, whatever}* during my 9 month contract as the most senior Fortran engineer in the global organization, leading a team of 3 elite combat programmers with the most advanced research team of this top-2 telco.
>
>
>
So, if you work for "AT&T" or "Ford", you use a wiggle phrase in those two examples
* "An automotive major"
* "Top three telco"
and so on.
Regarding the specific project: really, just describe it exactly as you normally would:
>
> *"working with the cutting edge of generative VR in Fortran and sparse arrays with heuristic AI"*
>
>
>
but, **simply leaving out** the sentence fragment where you mention what it is:
>
> *"working with the cutting edge of generative VR in Fortran and sparse arrays with heuristic AI **for a first person shooter**"*
>
>
>
Really, that's the only formula you can do.
>
> on the CV? ... talk to employers ...
>
>
>
So, you follow the two points:
1. Instead of saying "Citibank" or "Viper" you say "Top two global finance corporation" or "Global Telco Major".
2. In describing the work, simply describe it exactly as you normally would, but, "leave out the sentence fragment" literally stating what it is.
This is pretty standard for skunk, stealth projects. Also, toss around the terms "skunk" and "stealth mode" as often as possible so you seem like an insider :)
---
You also ask
>
> Why might a project be confidential? ...
>
>
>
It's simply **completely commonplace** that this happens today in the world of apps, startups, and research software. "Stealth mode!" is completely commonplace.
Over and over you'll do projects or contracts of this nature - it's no big deal.
Like, if you look on angel.co or whatever there's literally a selector for "stealth mode", I think!
It's no big deal, and commonplace. | >
> Why might a project be confidential? Why wouldn't I be able to put it on my CV?
>
>
>
It could be part of a government project that can not be discussed for security reasons. It could be related to some new commercial product that the company doesn't want discussed in public until the product isn't announced.
>
> How would a freelancer deal with projects like these? Esp. when he's just starting out in his/her career, not putting it on the CV seems like quite a bad option? How would he/she talk about these projects to future employers/recruiters?
>
>
>
Typically in these scenarios it is specifically written into the contract when, if ever, you can talk about this work. You deal with it by deciding whether or not you are willing to take on the work given those conditions. It will be tough when you are starting out, but those are the decisions you'll have to make. If you decide to take the work, then you abide by the contract. This will demonstrate that you are a dependable freelancer and could actually generate good reputation for you within that circle. |
128,097 | I am quite new to freelancing, and I'm wondering how freelance software developers handle confidential projects in their CVs? I recently spoke to a developer who told me that he is working on a project that is confidential and that he cannot put on his resume. I didn't have the chance to ask more, so I am asking here:
* Why might a project be confidential? Why wouldn't I be able to put it on my CV?
* How would a freelancer deal with projects like these? Esp. when he's just starting out in his/her career, not putting it on the CV seems like quite a bad option? How would he/she talk about these projects to future employers/recruiters? | 2019/02/04 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/128097",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/99134/"
] | Skunk projects are a huge annoyance for this reason.
Note though, that **everyone is in the same boat, so it's clearly understood what you mean**.
There are two pretty formulaic, popular solutions:
All you can do is say things like:
>
> 3. Research group of a major telco, 2018
>
>
> Working directly for the senior discovery scientists, I *{made a web page, devolved convolutions, applied AI to rendering, whatever}* during my 9 month contract as the most senior Fortran engineer in the global organization, leading a team of 3 elite combat programmers with the most advanced research team of this top-2 telco.
>
>
>
So, if you work for "AT&T" or "Ford", you use a wiggle phrase in those two examples
* "An automotive major"
* "Top three telco"
and so on.
Regarding the specific project: really, just describe it exactly as you normally would:
>
> *"working with the cutting edge of generative VR in Fortran and sparse arrays with heuristic AI"*
>
>
>
but, **simply leaving out** the sentence fragment where you mention what it is:
>
> *"working with the cutting edge of generative VR in Fortran and sparse arrays with heuristic AI **for a first person shooter**"*
>
>
>
Really, that's the only formula you can do.
>
> on the CV? ... talk to employers ...
>
>
>
So, you follow the two points:
1. Instead of saying "Citibank" or "Viper" you say "Top two global finance corporation" or "Global Telco Major".
2. In describing the work, simply describe it exactly as you normally would, but, "leave out the sentence fragment" literally stating what it is.
This is pretty standard for skunk, stealth projects. Also, toss around the terms "skunk" and "stealth mode" as often as possible so you seem like an insider :)
---
You also ask
>
> Why might a project be confidential? ...
>
>
>
It's simply **completely commonplace** that this happens today in the world of apps, startups, and research software. "Stealth mode!" is completely commonplace.
Over and over you'll do projects or contracts of this nature - it's no big deal.
Like, if you look on angel.co or whatever there's literally a selector for "stealth mode", I think!
It's no big deal, and commonplace. | >
> How do freelancers handle confidential projects
>
>
>
If it's confidential you leave out all the details or omit it altogether. With confidential freelance work you would normally charge a lot more, one of the reasons for this is because you're constrained by confidentiality. So you trade off that way. |
128,097 | I am quite new to freelancing, and I'm wondering how freelance software developers handle confidential projects in their CVs? I recently spoke to a developer who told me that he is working on a project that is confidential and that he cannot put on his resume. I didn't have the chance to ask more, so I am asking here:
* Why might a project be confidential? Why wouldn't I be able to put it on my CV?
* How would a freelancer deal with projects like these? Esp. when he's just starting out in his/her career, not putting it on the CV seems like quite a bad option? How would he/she talk about these projects to future employers/recruiters? | 2019/02/04 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/128097",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/99134/"
] | There are many reasons that a project could be confidential, from being a government job where you need a security clearance just to admit that the project exists, down to a basic business project where you don't want to signal to the competition that you are working in a certain field.
But regardless of what you are working on, the ability to place the project on your CV will be dependent on what paperwork you have signed with whoever you are doing the work for. If you signed something that says you have to keep your trap shut, then you keep your trap shut.
But that just because you can't talk about a particular project, doesn't mean that you can't talk about the technologies you used as long as you use broad, non-specific terminology.
EG If I worked on a project for Amazon that read peoples thoughts and then ordered stuff for them before they realized they wanted it, I could phrase that as:
>
> Spent 5 years working with C++ to drive advanced bio-medical
> hardware interfaced to the internet with the aim of analyzing patient data. During that time I increased
> measurement accuracy by 400% and decreased response time from 10
> seconds to 50ms
>
>
> | >
> Why might a project be confidential? Why wouldn't I be able to put it on my CV?
>
>
>
It could be part of a government project that can not be discussed for security reasons. It could be related to some new commercial product that the company doesn't want discussed in public until the product isn't announced.
>
> How would a freelancer deal with projects like these? Esp. when he's just starting out in his/her career, not putting it on the CV seems like quite a bad option? How would he/she talk about these projects to future employers/recruiters?
>
>
>
Typically in these scenarios it is specifically written into the contract when, if ever, you can talk about this work. You deal with it by deciding whether or not you are willing to take on the work given those conditions. It will be tough when you are starting out, but those are the decisions you'll have to make. If you decide to take the work, then you abide by the contract. This will demonstrate that you are a dependable freelancer and could actually generate good reputation for you within that circle. |
128,097 | I am quite new to freelancing, and I'm wondering how freelance software developers handle confidential projects in their CVs? I recently spoke to a developer who told me that he is working on a project that is confidential and that he cannot put on his resume. I didn't have the chance to ask more, so I am asking here:
* Why might a project be confidential? Why wouldn't I be able to put it on my CV?
* How would a freelancer deal with projects like these? Esp. when he's just starting out in his/her career, not putting it on the CV seems like quite a bad option? How would he/she talk about these projects to future employers/recruiters? | 2019/02/04 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/128097",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/99134/"
] | There are many reasons that a project could be confidential, from being a government job where you need a security clearance just to admit that the project exists, down to a basic business project where you don't want to signal to the competition that you are working in a certain field.
But regardless of what you are working on, the ability to place the project on your CV will be dependent on what paperwork you have signed with whoever you are doing the work for. If you signed something that says you have to keep your trap shut, then you keep your trap shut.
But that just because you can't talk about a particular project, doesn't mean that you can't talk about the technologies you used as long as you use broad, non-specific terminology.
EG If I worked on a project for Amazon that read peoples thoughts and then ordered stuff for them before they realized they wanted it, I could phrase that as:
>
> Spent 5 years working with C++ to drive advanced bio-medical
> hardware interfaced to the internet with the aim of analyzing patient data. During that time I increased
> measurement accuracy by 400% and decreased response time from 10
> seconds to 50ms
>
>
> | >
> How do freelancers handle confidential projects
>
>
>
If it's confidential you leave out all the details or omit it altogether. With confidential freelance work you would normally charge a lot more, one of the reasons for this is because you're constrained by confidentiality. So you trade off that way. |
77,801 | I'm aware of ["woke"](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/77592/what-does-woke-indoctrination-mean) and ["cancel culture"](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/63032/what-is-the-meaning-of-cancel-culture) being used by conservatives as pejorative terms *and* by others as non-pejorative attempts to describe the visible trend of fierce protest against (perceived) conservative agendas and for (perceived) progressive agendas.
Attempts to discuss the values or methods of "woke ideology" or "cancel culture" are often met with the claim that these things don't exist, which they don't inasmuch as there is no formal Woke Organization or Cancel Party. Or that they are "just normal people". Perhaps I'm wrong, but I would argue that there are common political values being expressed in:
* **What is being criticized.** Both conservative values and the status quo.
* **What is being advocated for.** Civil rights, with demands for certain types (?) of corrective action.
* **How political action is made.** Disruptive protest, including denial of access, shutting down events, shaming (?) professionals (usually celebrities), and technical (?) disruptions.
A conservative might reject any one of these actions because they reject the underlying political values. Someone apolitical might reject these actions as unnecessarily disruptive. A progressive activists might share *many* values with this movement, but strongly reject some arguments, values, actions or demands as illiberal or even regressive. Someone else might not participate at all, but still feel a strong political affiliation with this movement (they would support leaders who emerge from this movement).
Given that "woke" and "cancel" are rejected, what umbrella term do participants in these activities use to describe themselves? Alternatively, is there an existing term that accurately and completely describes this political philosophy? ("Progressive" would be far too broad, for example.) | 2023/01/20 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/77801",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/45152/"
] | [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke) defines "woke" as:
>
> a broader awareness of social inequalities such as sexism, and has also been used as shorthand for American Left ideas involving identity politics and social justice, such as the notion of white privilege and slavery reparations for African Americans.
>
>
>
The term actually used to be used as a self-description. As in "I woke up from my slumber and became aware of the systematic injustice around me". But since the term was appropriated by conservative circles as a derogatory fighting-word, it is rarely used as a self-description.
A more classic political term of the ideology that society is injust and should be progressed to one that gives more equity to marginalized groups is usually referred to as [progressivism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism) or [social liberalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism), which are labels most opponent of bigotry would probably be comfortable with. Some of the more radical adherents to this philosophy like to refer to themselves as [anti-fascist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-fascism) (or "antifa", for short). Their idea is that othering and discriminating groups of society and enforcing conformity with traditional lifestyles and means of self-expression is an inherent element of fascism.
(that's how they self-describe. Please, no debate about the definition of fascism again!)
---
"Cancel Culture", on the other hand, is a term which can not really be attributed to any particular political ideology. "Canceling" or demanding the deplatforming of celebrities with political opinions one does not agree with, is a strategy that is employed by pretty much all political ideologies. There were both people who demanded that TV entertainers should lose their shows for making racist posts on social media, as well as people who demanded that American football players who protested against racism by refusing to stand during the national anthem shouldn't be allowed to play anymore.
We could now of course debate about which adherents of which political idea use this strategy the most or who is most successful with it. But that's not really productive, because it's really just finger-pointing. It's like asking "how do people who participate in public protests with signs call themselves" or "how do people who participate in letter campaigns call themselves". The term would probably be **"political activist"**. But that's probably not what you are looking for. | "Woke"
======
I think it is a disservice to ignore the fact that "woke" is vernacular from the Black community. A kind of whitewashing, even. The reason I bring this up is because it strikes at the heart of your question: there are issues which concern the Black community which are also shared by whites and other groups, but Blacks don't necessarily align themselves with those other people on all issues. For instance, a lot of black people are conservative, to varying degrees. And yet, virtually all black people are wary of police and skeptical of government (c.f. the Tuskegee Experiment). Thus, the original people who called themselves "woke" didn't need a term that encompassed all the other social justice or progressive ideas in play, because they didn't see themselves as a kind of political monolith.
The very notion that there *ought* to be a term that so encompasses is a kind of reductionism that is common in the political sphere, but often to reduce complex ideas into trivial ones that are more easily ignored. Politics has to a great extent been reduced to boiling everything down to a label and demonizing it. The reason you are having trouble finding the word you are looking for is because you are trying to apply a label to a concept that doesn't exist.
The reason we don't solve grand problems any more is because we want ideas to be simple, but the world is complex. Just look at feminists vs. TERFs. Or MAGA vs. Log Cabin Republicans. The neat categories which our brains strive for are wholly synthetic and only loosely justified by reality. Should we make everyone drive electric cars? Even if that means supporting slave labor at lithium mines? Is natural gas really green? Is nuclear power really bad? Can you actually put 100 "progressives" in a room and get them to agree to the answers of all these questions?
The term you are looking for doesn't exist because the people you are trying to describe don't find a need to lump themselves into the artificial category you've invented. Each person is unique, and they find common cause with others who share a more clearly named set of values and principles.
"Slept"
=======
What about the dual of your question? What do you call the group of people who oppose "woke culture" or "cancel culture"? Are they "conservatives"? Does it really include all conservatives? Are they MAGA? QAnon? Republicans? Fox News viewers? Are these groups all the same, all different, all under one umbrella that has/deserves its own name?
The reality is that the line between "woke" and "slept" is just the same as "liberal" vs. "conservative". It has basically the same precision and failure to adequately describe each group. And just as there are pro-life Democrats and pro-choice Republicans, so also there are "conservative woke" and probably some "liberal anti-woke" folks out there. Reality is messy.
But hey, if you really want a single all-encompassing term for activist liberals that align strongly on "woke" issues, you could hardly do better than "social justice warrior", as dsollen@ notes. Certainly, this is the term that many opponents use, even if it is a little dated by now.
Left vs. Right
==============
You do notice a perennial truth: the world really can be divided into two groups, even if the line between them is fuzzy and imprecise. And yes, it really is "liberal/conservative", "Democrat/Republican", "Left/Right". But I would argue that the divide goes back to the majority of our history, when we were cavemen and cavewomen. And I would call the classes "Protector/Explorer".
You see, if you are a smooth-brained hominid living in a small tribe of people who are mostly related to you and living constantly at subsistence level, the world is a big, scary place. On the one hand, you want to stick with what you know, because that gives you the best odds for survival. And on the other, you need to strike out and find new hunting/gathering territory, because nature is fickle and disasters happen. Such Stone Age peoples constantly needed to balance protecting the tribe against exploiting new lands. And in the absence of some omniscience guiding them and telling them how much to prioritize each, it makes sense that a kind of equilibrium would be established when you have roughly half of each type of human.
And so, the explorers are the ones who would leave Africa, cross Asia, and make their way across the Bering land bridge. And the protectors are the ones that would build communities in all the places the explorers discovered. Game theory alone tells us in the absence of a strong prior, the optimal strategy is to split the risk between staying or leaving. Everything else, everything we have today in modern politics, is ultimately the inheritance of the cavemen who enshrined this optimal strategy in their genes and passed them down to us over thousands of generations.
Those hominids did not need an intellectual explanation for why they wanted to stay and protect their ancestral lands, or why they wanted to build boats and venture into a hostile ocean. They just did it. The wonderful thing about the human brain, especially the conscious part, is that it is a consummate storyteller. The primary purpose of consciousness appears to be to weave a consistent story about the raw stream of sensations that we have. And so, we often act, and then justify our actions after the fact, pretending all along that the justification was the cause of our action, when it was really an ad-hoc excuse invented on the fly.
When interviewers go and ask people on the street why they believe in the Confederate flag or gay rights or foreign aid, an embarrassing number of people have ridiculous reasons that they give out quite happily and without shame or remorse. And if you can observe some of the choices those people have made in other areas of their lives, you can probably guess whether they are an Explorer or a Protector, and thus, what kinds of answers they will give in response to these interviews. For all our supposed sophistication, we really are quite simple cave people.
Experience
==========
Now, it may seem like I have totally destroyed my own argument, by starting out saying we are all unique, then that we are all the same, just in two camps. I will finish by explaining how we are both at the same time.
The human brain, being a metabolically expensive device to operate, takes all the shortcuts it can. And when it comes to thinking, that means it has a default, canned answer for most situations that might arise. And this answer might be a reflex, an instinct, a learned social cue, or something more complex. But when the brain is challenged for a response, it judges the outcome and decides whether more effort is warranted. If the challenge turns out neutral to good, the brain says: "Job well done" and carries on. If the challenge results in failure, then the brain says: "Hmm...maybe my response was bad." So if a brain says: "red berries are tasty", that will work until you come across a bitter or poisonous berry, and then the brain says: "Welp, that myth is busted!"
And so, with politics, we are born with some inclination on the left/right spectrum, which is then influenced by our social environment, and then is finally molded by our personal experiences. We are far more likely to hold a diverging viewpoint on some issue if we have some kind of personal experience with it, even if that experience is just knowing a trusted person who shares a very strong view on the subject. And this is how you get fiscal conservatives who support TANF or progressive liberals who support their local LE.
The prediction here is that on some new issue that you don't know about, and for which you do not have a consensus opinion from others in your in-group, you will form a default opinion based first on your "genetic" left/right bias, then on your learned political orientation, and finally on your personal experience that is relevant to the topic at hand.
Since none of us have personal experience on *every* political topic, most of us tend to align at the broadest level with the left or the right side of the political spectrum. Even people who claim to be moderates/centrists will tend to use language that identifies them as leaning more towards the left or the right. And so, in broad strokes, there are only two groups, and we already have many names for those groups. But at a granular level, there are thousands, even millions of groups, all disagreeing on some important policy. There are no useful names for these groups, because there are just too many of them. |
77,801 | I'm aware of ["woke"](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/77592/what-does-woke-indoctrination-mean) and ["cancel culture"](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/63032/what-is-the-meaning-of-cancel-culture) being used by conservatives as pejorative terms *and* by others as non-pejorative attempts to describe the visible trend of fierce protest against (perceived) conservative agendas and for (perceived) progressive agendas.
Attempts to discuss the values or methods of "woke ideology" or "cancel culture" are often met with the claim that these things don't exist, which they don't inasmuch as there is no formal Woke Organization or Cancel Party. Or that they are "just normal people". Perhaps I'm wrong, but I would argue that there are common political values being expressed in:
* **What is being criticized.** Both conservative values and the status quo.
* **What is being advocated for.** Civil rights, with demands for certain types (?) of corrective action.
* **How political action is made.** Disruptive protest, including denial of access, shutting down events, shaming (?) professionals (usually celebrities), and technical (?) disruptions.
A conservative might reject any one of these actions because they reject the underlying political values. Someone apolitical might reject these actions as unnecessarily disruptive. A progressive activists might share *many* values with this movement, but strongly reject some arguments, values, actions or demands as illiberal or even regressive. Someone else might not participate at all, but still feel a strong political affiliation with this movement (they would support leaders who emerge from this movement).
Given that "woke" and "cancel" are rejected, what umbrella term do participants in these activities use to describe themselves? Alternatively, is there an existing term that accurately and completely describes this political philosophy? ("Progressive" would be far too broad, for example.) | 2023/01/20 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/77801",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/45152/"
] | Progressive groups
------------------
The "woke" ideology is, in essence, being conscious of various prevailing discriminations, and actively working to reform the system against such.
They would like to call themselves [Progressives](https://web.archive.org/web/20190321174257/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/progressivism), or Social Reformists. | *This is my attempt to synthesise the many excellent comments and answers, particularly [dsollen](https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/77810/45152), [Philipp](https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/77804/45152) and [whoisit](https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/77807/45152).*
No communal name
================
Although different protests share values and language, the participants have not united behind a communal name. At least some activists used to identify as "woke", but its pejorative use has now made it so unpopular that using "woke" identifies you as a member of the out-group. (Similar to the phrase "social justice warrior".)
Since then, attempts to name or classify this movement have been rejected, so a new self-descriptor is unlikely.
Simply "progressive" or "social reformist"
==========================================
The original "woke" ideology calls for participants to be conscious of various prevailing discriminations, and actively working to reform the system against such.
As such, they would likely accept being described as [Progressive](https://web.archive.org/web/20190321174257/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/progressivism), or Social Reformists, and likely reject any further qualification for fear of it too becoming a pejorative.
Other progressives
==================
But not all progressive philosophies align. One progressive activist might strongly reject another, including claiming that the other is *not progressive*. An outside observer might still assess them both, on balance, to be progressive.
There are progressives who strongly disagree with aspects of the "woke" movement, but there is no terminology that distinguishes "woke progressives" from "other progressives". |
77,801 | I'm aware of ["woke"](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/77592/what-does-woke-indoctrination-mean) and ["cancel culture"](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/63032/what-is-the-meaning-of-cancel-culture) being used by conservatives as pejorative terms *and* by others as non-pejorative attempts to describe the visible trend of fierce protest against (perceived) conservative agendas and for (perceived) progressive agendas.
Attempts to discuss the values or methods of "woke ideology" or "cancel culture" are often met with the claim that these things don't exist, which they don't inasmuch as there is no formal Woke Organization or Cancel Party. Or that they are "just normal people". Perhaps I'm wrong, but I would argue that there are common political values being expressed in:
* **What is being criticized.** Both conservative values and the status quo.
* **What is being advocated for.** Civil rights, with demands for certain types (?) of corrective action.
* **How political action is made.** Disruptive protest, including denial of access, shutting down events, shaming (?) professionals (usually celebrities), and technical (?) disruptions.
A conservative might reject any one of these actions because they reject the underlying political values. Someone apolitical might reject these actions as unnecessarily disruptive. A progressive activists might share *many* values with this movement, but strongly reject some arguments, values, actions or demands as illiberal or even regressive. Someone else might not participate at all, but still feel a strong political affiliation with this movement (they would support leaders who emerge from this movement).
Given that "woke" and "cancel" are rejected, what umbrella term do participants in these activities use to describe themselves? Alternatively, is there an existing term that accurately and completely describes this political philosophy? ("Progressive" would be far too broad, for example.) | 2023/01/20 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/77801",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/45152/"
] | [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke) defines "woke" as:
>
> a broader awareness of social inequalities such as sexism, and has also been used as shorthand for American Left ideas involving identity politics and social justice, such as the notion of white privilege and slavery reparations for African Americans.
>
>
>
The term actually used to be used as a self-description. As in "I woke up from my slumber and became aware of the systematic injustice around me". But since the term was appropriated by conservative circles as a derogatory fighting-word, it is rarely used as a self-description.
A more classic political term of the ideology that society is injust and should be progressed to one that gives more equity to marginalized groups is usually referred to as [progressivism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism) or [social liberalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism), which are labels most opponent of bigotry would probably be comfortable with. Some of the more radical adherents to this philosophy like to refer to themselves as [anti-fascist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-fascism) (or "antifa", for short). Their idea is that othering and discriminating groups of society and enforcing conformity with traditional lifestyles and means of self-expression is an inherent element of fascism.
(that's how they self-describe. Please, no debate about the definition of fascism again!)
---
"Cancel Culture", on the other hand, is a term which can not really be attributed to any particular political ideology. "Canceling" or demanding the deplatforming of celebrities with political opinions one does not agree with, is a strategy that is employed by pretty much all political ideologies. There were both people who demanded that TV entertainers should lose their shows for making racist posts on social media, as well as people who demanded that American football players who protested against racism by refusing to stand during the national anthem shouldn't be allowed to play anymore.
We could now of course debate about which adherents of which political idea use this strategy the most or who is most successful with it. But that's not really productive, because it's really just finger-pointing. It's like asking "how do people who participate in public protests with signs call themselves" or "how do people who participate in letter campaigns call themselves". The term would probably be **"political activist"**. But that's probably not what you are looking for. | *This is my attempt to synthesise the many excellent comments and answers, particularly [dsollen](https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/77810/45152), [Philipp](https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/77804/45152) and [whoisit](https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/77807/45152).*
No communal name
================
Although different protests share values and language, the participants have not united behind a communal name. At least some activists used to identify as "woke", but its pejorative use has now made it so unpopular that using "woke" identifies you as a member of the out-group. (Similar to the phrase "social justice warrior".)
Since then, attempts to name or classify this movement have been rejected, so a new self-descriptor is unlikely.
Simply "progressive" or "social reformist"
==========================================
The original "woke" ideology calls for participants to be conscious of various prevailing discriminations, and actively working to reform the system against such.
As such, they would likely accept being described as [Progressive](https://web.archive.org/web/20190321174257/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/progressivism), or Social Reformists, and likely reject any further qualification for fear of it too becoming a pejorative.
Other progressives
==================
But not all progressive philosophies align. One progressive activist might strongly reject another, including claiming that the other is *not progressive*. An outside observer might still assess them both, on balance, to be progressive.
There are progressives who strongly disagree with aspects of the "woke" movement, but there is no terminology that distinguishes "woke progressives" from "other progressives". |
77,801 | I'm aware of ["woke"](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/77592/what-does-woke-indoctrination-mean) and ["cancel culture"](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/63032/what-is-the-meaning-of-cancel-culture) being used by conservatives as pejorative terms *and* by others as non-pejorative attempts to describe the visible trend of fierce protest against (perceived) conservative agendas and for (perceived) progressive agendas.
Attempts to discuss the values or methods of "woke ideology" or "cancel culture" are often met with the claim that these things don't exist, which they don't inasmuch as there is no formal Woke Organization or Cancel Party. Or that they are "just normal people". Perhaps I'm wrong, but I would argue that there are common political values being expressed in:
* **What is being criticized.** Both conservative values and the status quo.
* **What is being advocated for.** Civil rights, with demands for certain types (?) of corrective action.
* **How political action is made.** Disruptive protest, including denial of access, shutting down events, shaming (?) professionals (usually celebrities), and technical (?) disruptions.
A conservative might reject any one of these actions because they reject the underlying political values. Someone apolitical might reject these actions as unnecessarily disruptive. A progressive activists might share *many* values with this movement, but strongly reject some arguments, values, actions or demands as illiberal or even regressive. Someone else might not participate at all, but still feel a strong political affiliation with this movement (they would support leaders who emerge from this movement).
Given that "woke" and "cancel" are rejected, what umbrella term do participants in these activities use to describe themselves? Alternatively, is there an existing term that accurately and completely describes this political philosophy? ("Progressive" would be far too broad, for example.) | 2023/01/20 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/77801",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/45152/"
] | "Woke"
======
I think it is a disservice to ignore the fact that "woke" is vernacular from the Black community. A kind of whitewashing, even. The reason I bring this up is because it strikes at the heart of your question: there are issues which concern the Black community which are also shared by whites and other groups, but Blacks don't necessarily align themselves with those other people on all issues. For instance, a lot of black people are conservative, to varying degrees. And yet, virtually all black people are wary of police and skeptical of government (c.f. the Tuskegee Experiment). Thus, the original people who called themselves "woke" didn't need a term that encompassed all the other social justice or progressive ideas in play, because they didn't see themselves as a kind of political monolith.
The very notion that there *ought* to be a term that so encompasses is a kind of reductionism that is common in the political sphere, but often to reduce complex ideas into trivial ones that are more easily ignored. Politics has to a great extent been reduced to boiling everything down to a label and demonizing it. The reason you are having trouble finding the word you are looking for is because you are trying to apply a label to a concept that doesn't exist.
The reason we don't solve grand problems any more is because we want ideas to be simple, but the world is complex. Just look at feminists vs. TERFs. Or MAGA vs. Log Cabin Republicans. The neat categories which our brains strive for are wholly synthetic and only loosely justified by reality. Should we make everyone drive electric cars? Even if that means supporting slave labor at lithium mines? Is natural gas really green? Is nuclear power really bad? Can you actually put 100 "progressives" in a room and get them to agree to the answers of all these questions?
The term you are looking for doesn't exist because the people you are trying to describe don't find a need to lump themselves into the artificial category you've invented. Each person is unique, and they find common cause with others who share a more clearly named set of values and principles.
"Slept"
=======
What about the dual of your question? What do you call the group of people who oppose "woke culture" or "cancel culture"? Are they "conservatives"? Does it really include all conservatives? Are they MAGA? QAnon? Republicans? Fox News viewers? Are these groups all the same, all different, all under one umbrella that has/deserves its own name?
The reality is that the line between "woke" and "slept" is just the same as "liberal" vs. "conservative". It has basically the same precision and failure to adequately describe each group. And just as there are pro-life Democrats and pro-choice Republicans, so also there are "conservative woke" and probably some "liberal anti-woke" folks out there. Reality is messy.
But hey, if you really want a single all-encompassing term for activist liberals that align strongly on "woke" issues, you could hardly do better than "social justice warrior", as dsollen@ notes. Certainly, this is the term that many opponents use, even if it is a little dated by now.
Left vs. Right
==============
You do notice a perennial truth: the world really can be divided into two groups, even if the line between them is fuzzy and imprecise. And yes, it really is "liberal/conservative", "Democrat/Republican", "Left/Right". But I would argue that the divide goes back to the majority of our history, when we were cavemen and cavewomen. And I would call the classes "Protector/Explorer".
You see, if you are a smooth-brained hominid living in a small tribe of people who are mostly related to you and living constantly at subsistence level, the world is a big, scary place. On the one hand, you want to stick with what you know, because that gives you the best odds for survival. And on the other, you need to strike out and find new hunting/gathering territory, because nature is fickle and disasters happen. Such Stone Age peoples constantly needed to balance protecting the tribe against exploiting new lands. And in the absence of some omniscience guiding them and telling them how much to prioritize each, it makes sense that a kind of equilibrium would be established when you have roughly half of each type of human.
And so, the explorers are the ones who would leave Africa, cross Asia, and make their way across the Bering land bridge. And the protectors are the ones that would build communities in all the places the explorers discovered. Game theory alone tells us in the absence of a strong prior, the optimal strategy is to split the risk between staying or leaving. Everything else, everything we have today in modern politics, is ultimately the inheritance of the cavemen who enshrined this optimal strategy in their genes and passed them down to us over thousands of generations.
Those hominids did not need an intellectual explanation for why they wanted to stay and protect their ancestral lands, or why they wanted to build boats and venture into a hostile ocean. They just did it. The wonderful thing about the human brain, especially the conscious part, is that it is a consummate storyteller. The primary purpose of consciousness appears to be to weave a consistent story about the raw stream of sensations that we have. And so, we often act, and then justify our actions after the fact, pretending all along that the justification was the cause of our action, when it was really an ad-hoc excuse invented on the fly.
When interviewers go and ask people on the street why they believe in the Confederate flag or gay rights or foreign aid, an embarrassing number of people have ridiculous reasons that they give out quite happily and without shame or remorse. And if you can observe some of the choices those people have made in other areas of their lives, you can probably guess whether they are an Explorer or a Protector, and thus, what kinds of answers they will give in response to these interviews. For all our supposed sophistication, we really are quite simple cave people.
Experience
==========
Now, it may seem like I have totally destroyed my own argument, by starting out saying we are all unique, then that we are all the same, just in two camps. I will finish by explaining how we are both at the same time.
The human brain, being a metabolically expensive device to operate, takes all the shortcuts it can. And when it comes to thinking, that means it has a default, canned answer for most situations that might arise. And this answer might be a reflex, an instinct, a learned social cue, or something more complex. But when the brain is challenged for a response, it judges the outcome and decides whether more effort is warranted. If the challenge turns out neutral to good, the brain says: "Job well done" and carries on. If the challenge results in failure, then the brain says: "Hmm...maybe my response was bad." So if a brain says: "red berries are tasty", that will work until you come across a bitter or poisonous berry, and then the brain says: "Welp, that myth is busted!"
And so, with politics, we are born with some inclination on the left/right spectrum, which is then influenced by our social environment, and then is finally molded by our personal experiences. We are far more likely to hold a diverging viewpoint on some issue if we have some kind of personal experience with it, even if that experience is just knowing a trusted person who shares a very strong view on the subject. And this is how you get fiscal conservatives who support TANF or progressive liberals who support their local LE.
The prediction here is that on some new issue that you don't know about, and for which you do not have a consensus opinion from others in your in-group, you will form a default opinion based first on your "genetic" left/right bias, then on your learned political orientation, and finally on your personal experience that is relevant to the topic at hand.
Since none of us have personal experience on *every* political topic, most of us tend to align at the broadest level with the left or the right side of the political spectrum. Even people who claim to be moderates/centrists will tend to use language that identifies them as leaning more towards the left or the right. And so, in broad strokes, there are only two groups, and we already have many names for those groups. But at a granular level, there are thousands, even millions of groups, all disagreeing on some important policy. There are no useful names for these groups, because there are just too many of them. | If I understood this right, you are asking for a unifying label for all people who participate in protests against conservative ideologies. And you are asking for a label those people would accept, not one that is imposed on them like "woke".
I think the most specific it gets is "left-wing protestor".
#### "woke or cancel people" who oppose conservatism
There certainly isn't a single umbrella term that "woke or cancel people" use to call themselves.
Terms like "woke" and "cancel" are to conservatism as "heresy" and "blasphemy" are to Christianity - they are made by taking *everyone who doesn't agree with a certain philosophy/ideology* and then assigning them a single label. What is the unifying philosophy that unites all heretics and blasphemers? Probably "not Christian." What is the unifying philosophy that unites all wokists and cancellers? Probably "not conservative."
I think it's reasonably obvious that if you asked a bunch of anti-conservative protestors "are you conservative?" almost all of them would say no. So "not conservative" could be the label you are looking for. Perhaps some would play with the label like "yes, I want to conserve the environment and human rights" but that isn't what it actually means.
Being "not Christian" and "not conservative" is the default state of human existence, so members of the group probably also think of themselves as "normal" and "not brainwashed".
#### ... who participate in protests
Since you are only interested in people who protest, I doubt you'll find many centrists, either. Centrists are generally people who don't care about the outcome either way, so there's no reason they should spend their time protesting. That leaves left-wing people... who protest. Hence "left-wing protestors" and I don't think, with the constraints in the question, you can get more specific than that.
#### Addendum: focused protest groups and the non-equivalence between right and left
You mentioned "protest groups with more focused agendas" separately from "organic movements", so I wanted to point out these "protest groups" are also organic.
For example, there is no Extinction Rebellion centralized leadership. It's more like a slogan. It is "loosely organized" in the sense that people who call themselves part of XR broadly agree on things (else they would not have joined) and some of them take the initiative to set up more formal meetings or plan protests. These people who take initiative may be called "local chapter leaders" by the press, but it's not a *position* as such - it's because of what they *do*. There is no sign-up sheet for XR - you just... do XR stuff, and then you are XR. Of course, sometimes they do have to formalize it, e.g. in order to rent an office for a meeting.
Since left-wing "protest groups" tend to draw from the general population, they can be more like slow-motion flash mobs, that suddenly appear out of nowhere and disperse just as quickly, unlike the more hierarchical, organizationally-centred approaches of right-wing groups such as the Proud Boys.
I'm definitely not a Proud Boy, since I haven't recited an oath to be a Western Chauvinist, passed the hazing rituals, and pledged to abstain from pornography. But I went to a protest against police brutality once, so does that mean I'm Antifa? |
77,801 | I'm aware of ["woke"](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/77592/what-does-woke-indoctrination-mean) and ["cancel culture"](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/63032/what-is-the-meaning-of-cancel-culture) being used by conservatives as pejorative terms *and* by others as non-pejorative attempts to describe the visible trend of fierce protest against (perceived) conservative agendas and for (perceived) progressive agendas.
Attempts to discuss the values or methods of "woke ideology" or "cancel culture" are often met with the claim that these things don't exist, which they don't inasmuch as there is no formal Woke Organization or Cancel Party. Or that they are "just normal people". Perhaps I'm wrong, but I would argue that there are common political values being expressed in:
* **What is being criticized.** Both conservative values and the status quo.
* **What is being advocated for.** Civil rights, with demands for certain types (?) of corrective action.
* **How political action is made.** Disruptive protest, including denial of access, shutting down events, shaming (?) professionals (usually celebrities), and technical (?) disruptions.
A conservative might reject any one of these actions because they reject the underlying political values. Someone apolitical might reject these actions as unnecessarily disruptive. A progressive activists might share *many* values with this movement, but strongly reject some arguments, values, actions or demands as illiberal or even regressive. Someone else might not participate at all, but still feel a strong political affiliation with this movement (they would support leaders who emerge from this movement).
Given that "woke" and "cancel" are rejected, what umbrella term do participants in these activities use to describe themselves? Alternatively, is there an existing term that accurately and completely describes this political philosophy? ("Progressive" would be far too broad, for example.) | 2023/01/20 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/77801",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/45152/"
] | *This is my attempt to synthesise the many excellent comments and answers, particularly [dsollen](https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/77810/45152), [Philipp](https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/77804/45152) and [whoisit](https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/77807/45152).*
No communal name
================
Although different protests share values and language, the participants have not united behind a communal name. At least some activists used to identify as "woke", but its pejorative use has now made it so unpopular that using "woke" identifies you as a member of the out-group. (Similar to the phrase "social justice warrior".)
Since then, attempts to name or classify this movement have been rejected, so a new self-descriptor is unlikely.
Simply "progressive" or "social reformist"
==========================================
The original "woke" ideology calls for participants to be conscious of various prevailing discriminations, and actively working to reform the system against such.
As such, they would likely accept being described as [Progressive](https://web.archive.org/web/20190321174257/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/progressivism), or Social Reformists, and likely reject any further qualification for fear of it too becoming a pejorative.
Other progressives
==================
But not all progressive philosophies align. One progressive activist might strongly reject another, including claiming that the other is *not progressive*. An outside observer might still assess them both, on balance, to be progressive.
There are progressives who strongly disagree with aspects of the "woke" movement, but there is no terminology that distinguishes "woke progressives" from "other progressives". | This answer covers the term "cancel culture".
Different groups will give themselves different names. There is no generic term, and in particular "cancel culture" exists on both sides of the political spectrum. Since other answers are already discussing progressive opposition to conservative or right-wing content, this answer will focus on conservative opposition to progressive content.
To take one example of a group that supports prohibiting certain books from school libraries, i.e. quite literally cancel culture, consider the [Moms for Liberty](https://www.newsweek.com/moms-liberty-banned-book-list-schools-1756574) and some of the books they want to cancel:
>
> Moms for Liberty formed last year and has become known since then for its opposition to critical race theory in public schools, and its efforts to get books with LGBTQ+ themes removed from school libraries.
>
>
>
>
> The list includes the modern classic Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut, Khaled Hosseini's acclaimed novel The Kite Runner and Sally Rooney's bestselling Normal People.
>
>
>
So, this particular cancel group describes cancelling and censorship as "liberty". Other cancel groups use different terms.
I believe the group is genuine and no satire is intended.
Other, similar groups [call themselves](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/24/us-conservatives-campaign-books-ban-schools) *Parents Defending Education* or *No Left Turn in Education*, but there does not appear to be a generic term encompassing this movement in general. Others yet might just call themselves [Republicans](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/10/us/texas-critical-race-theory-ban-books.html), at least in the U.S. context, but of course not all Republicans support banning titles from school libraries, so this term would be too broad. I'm not aware of similar campaigns to remove books from school libraries in other western countries.
NB: Groups described as "woke" have described themselves as "woke", or at least used to. Unlike "cancel culture", "woke" was initially a term used positively in self-description. How a positive term came to be used negatively is a different question (see also "social justice warrior" and "Obamacare"). |
77,801 | I'm aware of ["woke"](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/77592/what-does-woke-indoctrination-mean) and ["cancel culture"](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/63032/what-is-the-meaning-of-cancel-culture) being used by conservatives as pejorative terms *and* by others as non-pejorative attempts to describe the visible trend of fierce protest against (perceived) conservative agendas and for (perceived) progressive agendas.
Attempts to discuss the values or methods of "woke ideology" or "cancel culture" are often met with the claim that these things don't exist, which they don't inasmuch as there is no formal Woke Organization or Cancel Party. Or that they are "just normal people". Perhaps I'm wrong, but I would argue that there are common political values being expressed in:
* **What is being criticized.** Both conservative values and the status quo.
* **What is being advocated for.** Civil rights, with demands for certain types (?) of corrective action.
* **How political action is made.** Disruptive protest, including denial of access, shutting down events, shaming (?) professionals (usually celebrities), and technical (?) disruptions.
A conservative might reject any one of these actions because they reject the underlying political values. Someone apolitical might reject these actions as unnecessarily disruptive. A progressive activists might share *many* values with this movement, but strongly reject some arguments, values, actions or demands as illiberal or even regressive. Someone else might not participate at all, but still feel a strong political affiliation with this movement (they would support leaders who emerge from this movement).
Given that "woke" and "cancel" are rejected, what umbrella term do participants in these activities use to describe themselves? Alternatively, is there an existing term that accurately and completely describes this political philosophy? ("Progressive" would be far too broad, for example.) | 2023/01/20 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/77801",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/45152/"
] | Progressive groups
------------------
The "woke" ideology is, in essence, being conscious of various prevailing discriminations, and actively working to reform the system against such.
They would like to call themselves [Progressives](https://web.archive.org/web/20190321174257/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/progressivism), or Social Reformists. | This answer covers the term "cancel culture".
Different groups will give themselves different names. There is no generic term, and in particular "cancel culture" exists on both sides of the political spectrum. Since other answers are already discussing progressive opposition to conservative or right-wing content, this answer will focus on conservative opposition to progressive content.
To take one example of a group that supports prohibiting certain books from school libraries, i.e. quite literally cancel culture, consider the [Moms for Liberty](https://www.newsweek.com/moms-liberty-banned-book-list-schools-1756574) and some of the books they want to cancel:
>
> Moms for Liberty formed last year and has become known since then for its opposition to critical race theory in public schools, and its efforts to get books with LGBTQ+ themes removed from school libraries.
>
>
>
>
> The list includes the modern classic Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut, Khaled Hosseini's acclaimed novel The Kite Runner and Sally Rooney's bestselling Normal People.
>
>
>
So, this particular cancel group describes cancelling and censorship as "liberty". Other cancel groups use different terms.
I believe the group is genuine and no satire is intended.
Other, similar groups [call themselves](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/24/us-conservatives-campaign-books-ban-schools) *Parents Defending Education* or *No Left Turn in Education*, but there does not appear to be a generic term encompassing this movement in general. Others yet might just call themselves [Republicans](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/10/us/texas-critical-race-theory-ban-books.html), at least in the U.S. context, but of course not all Republicans support banning titles from school libraries, so this term would be too broad. I'm not aware of similar campaigns to remove books from school libraries in other western countries.
NB: Groups described as "woke" have described themselves as "woke", or at least used to. Unlike "cancel culture", "woke" was initially a term used positively in self-description. How a positive term came to be used negatively is a different question (see also "social justice warrior" and "Obamacare"). |
77,801 | I'm aware of ["woke"](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/77592/what-does-woke-indoctrination-mean) and ["cancel culture"](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/63032/what-is-the-meaning-of-cancel-culture) being used by conservatives as pejorative terms *and* by others as non-pejorative attempts to describe the visible trend of fierce protest against (perceived) conservative agendas and for (perceived) progressive agendas.
Attempts to discuss the values or methods of "woke ideology" or "cancel culture" are often met with the claim that these things don't exist, which they don't inasmuch as there is no formal Woke Organization or Cancel Party. Or that they are "just normal people". Perhaps I'm wrong, but I would argue that there are common political values being expressed in:
* **What is being criticized.** Both conservative values and the status quo.
* **What is being advocated for.** Civil rights, with demands for certain types (?) of corrective action.
* **How political action is made.** Disruptive protest, including denial of access, shutting down events, shaming (?) professionals (usually celebrities), and technical (?) disruptions.
A conservative might reject any one of these actions because they reject the underlying political values. Someone apolitical might reject these actions as unnecessarily disruptive. A progressive activists might share *many* values with this movement, but strongly reject some arguments, values, actions or demands as illiberal or even regressive. Someone else might not participate at all, but still feel a strong political affiliation with this movement (they would support leaders who emerge from this movement).
Given that "woke" and "cancel" are rejected, what umbrella term do participants in these activities use to describe themselves? Alternatively, is there an existing term that accurately and completely describes this political philosophy? ("Progressive" would be far too broad, for example.) | 2023/01/20 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/77801",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/45152/"
] | I mostly agree with [Phillip's answer](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/77801/what-do-woke-and-cancel-groups-call-themselves/77804#77804), but I want to get more in depth with how woke is used and why it's hard to give a good alternative.
The problem is that while woke was once a real term created and used by the left, it's not usually used in the left any more. Frankly, I don't think it ever got huge traction outside of specific circles that already were heavily focused on discussion and debate on such topics. At no point in time was a random democratic voter likely to say "I'm woke!" However, even those who used to use the term have backed off of it, mostly because of how it's been translated in meaning once conservatives started using it.
**What it was**
So first we have to look at the original definition:
>
> a broader awareness of social inequalities such as sexism, and has also been used as shorthand for American Left ideas involving identity politics and social justice, such as the notion of white privilege and slavery reparations for African Americans.
>
>
>
There isn't a single good alternative term I can think of that describes this concept perfectly. If you look at the part about *sexual* inequalities the term feminist fits quite nicely. However feminism is only focused on issues related to sex - and often gender, but let's not get into how those are different. Woke includes more then that. It is true many feminists are *also* woke when it comes to areas outside of sex/gender, but it's not required by the definition of feminism.
For the racial part, this is very similar to [critical race theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory), but since that term is also in the process of being misrepresented and turned into a snarl word, as I'll talk about lower, it's probably not a good 'safe' alternative. Anti-racism isn't a great alternative, but it works good enough.
Socially aware or social activist might better encompass all aspects that woke is trying to cover, but those are both very general terms and how closely they match up with the original definition of woke really depends on who you ask and how they define the terms.
I could go on trying to give you alternatives, but in a way it's pointless because what you are asking is not for an alternative for how to refer to what woke originally meant, but what it means when conservatives use it today...
**Woke as snarl word**
As it is now the term *woke* is used largely by conservatives, not liberals, and it is used not to refer to the original meaning but as a [snarl word](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/snarl_word). Snarl words—which are often phrases not just words, but we still call them snarl words for some reason—are very general terms meant to indicate the group you're referring to is one your suppose to hate.
These words usually had a specific meaning at one time, some still do have a legitimate and still in use meaning, but when they are used as a snarl word they really aren't about the actual definition or how exactly someone fits into it; they're catch-all terms that are meant to suggest you should hate this group. So, phrases like [PC](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/political_correctness#Noun) culture, [Social Justice Warrior](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/SJW#Noun) (SJW), [Welfare queen](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/welfare_queen#Noun), nazi, [mansplaining](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mansplaining#Noun), [gun nut](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_culture_in_the_United_States#Terms_applied_to_opponents), cult, [Bible thumper](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Bible_thumper#Noun) and many many others can or are often used by at least one group as a snarl word to refer to another.
These snarl words do somewhat refer to a group, for instance, a social justice warrior need not be a welfare queen; I could call a rich liberal person donating money to support some minority base scholarship program a SJW, but not a welfare queen. However, the definition of what is or isn't part of that group are very unclear to make it easier to toss the snarl word label on whoever you want other's to hate. So for instance I could arguable call anyone who criticizes anything I say a SJW, I could call anyone who gets any government assistance, no matter how little or rather they arguably earned it, a welfare queen. I could call anyone who likes, uses, or owns a gun, no matter how reasonable they are in their use or about legislation about them, a gun nut. You can argue the terms are supposed to refer to more heinous examples then the ones I listed, but when someone is painting the narrative to demonize a group they can do a great job of convincing others even relatively minor offenses warrant a snarl word label, and they often do. The point is snarl words tend to intentionally be undefined and unclear to make it easier to apply them to whoever you want to tell others to hate.
Let me be absolutely clear; snarl words are used by both sides of the political spectrum, and by plenty of other groups that don't fit in an easy left vs right division. Human nature is to create groups and factions and then tell everyone that is part of their group that anyone part of the other groups are somehow wrong or evil. It's been happening for as long as we had recorded history and likely far before that. Snarl words are useful for this, and so *everyone* uses them. I wish they didn't, that humanity didn't have to hate anyone they saw as not 'one of us', but well I can't change human nature.
While there may be some conservatives out there who understand the literal definition of woke and are making real criticisms about the actual meaning and interpretation, by and large when you see a conservative complain about a person or group being woke they are not using the original definition and instead using woke as a snarl word.
**So what do conservatives mean by woke?**
As I already explained, since it's being used as a snarl word, woke is very general and ill-defined. In fact, I'd argue the word woke is even less defined than most snarl words. It's so terribly ill-defined as to make any definition of 'who is woke' difficult to make.
However, in general woke tends to be used for 'anyone of the opposite political spectrum as us'. In effect, anyone who would call themselves a democratic, liberal, or progressive could be called woke. How much they do, or don't, fit the original literal definition of woke doesn't really matter; all that maters is that they fit close enough to 'not conservative' to allow throwing the snarl word at.
As such, pretty much any term for 'not conservative' could potentially be used in place of the word woke as it's used by most conservatives. This is why liberals have mostly given it up; it's been generalized and demonized so much that it doesn't have much meaning beyond 'bad liberal folks'. At this point, the only individuals I see actively calling themselves woke often are the ones who are using it semi-ironically to mean 'I'm one of those folks conservatives would hate'.
I will back what others have said, that 'progressive' or 'social progressive' is probably the closest you can get to answering your question, but I also stress it's not that great an answer. A progressive implies something more than what the original word woke meant; while it's plausible a very progressive person would likely believe they fit the original definition of woke, it is not required for one to be progressive. But how well progressive fits the *original* definition of the word doesn't matter, only how well it fits the snarl word and I'd say it a close enough fit. No word will be perfect since the very nature of being a snarl word is that it's too open-ended to clearly define who fits in.
**What about cancel culture?**
Well, cancel culture is also a snarl word, but at least it's a bit better defined of one.
As already said by Phillip, having things canceled you don't like is a technique used by both sides of the political spectrum, and it isn't new. When tv sitcoms first appeared it was considered scandalous and forbidden to show a toilet in a restroom, or a married couple sharing the same bed, and when Lucy from '[I Love Lucy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Love_Lucy)' revealed she was pregnant, the episode was titled "[Lucy Is Enceinte](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Love_Lucy#Pregnancy_and_Little_Ricky)", because apparently saying the word pregnant was a terrible thing. One of the first (though not the first as some like to claim) [onscreen interracial kiss](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_interracial_kiss_on_television#Star_Trek:_%22What_Are_Little_Girls_Made_Of%22_-_Uhura_and_Chapel_(1966)), in [Star Trek](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek), only happened because both actors effectively refused to film any alternative to force a network, afraid it would get them cancelled to air the kiss. And let's not get into the many books that have been banned or even burned over the centuries.
However, while there is no doubt forcing things to be canceled if you disagree with them existed for a long time when a conservative says cancel culture, they are using it as a snarl word. It's meant to be "canceling when it's something I don't agree with". Or, in other words "when a woke person gets things cancelled, but not when a conservative does it" There are progressives out there that vehemently argue comprehensive sex education would better protect teens from the dangers of [STI](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/STD#Noun), unwanted pregnancies, and abortions and would argue that the reason kids don't get full sex education they 'deserve' is that it was 'canceled' by conservatives; but I doubt any conservative would call that cancel culture.
As such, in theory you could say again that progressive is the closest to the left equivalent for someone the term cancel culture is trying to refer to. Really though, I'm not sure most who identify as 'progressive' would be vocal enough to push for cancelation. You might want a word that more accurately expresses not just that they have progressive views, but that they consider themselves someone who is going to vocally act on those views, so perhaps something like 'social activist' would work better.
Though again it's not perfect, the very nature of snarl words makes it hard to put a good definition and thus alternative term to them. | This answer covers the term "cancel culture".
Different groups will give themselves different names. There is no generic term, and in particular "cancel culture" exists on both sides of the political spectrum. Since other answers are already discussing progressive opposition to conservative or right-wing content, this answer will focus on conservative opposition to progressive content.
To take one example of a group that supports prohibiting certain books from school libraries, i.e. quite literally cancel culture, consider the [Moms for Liberty](https://www.newsweek.com/moms-liberty-banned-book-list-schools-1756574) and some of the books they want to cancel:
>
> Moms for Liberty formed last year and has become known since then for its opposition to critical race theory in public schools, and its efforts to get books with LGBTQ+ themes removed from school libraries.
>
>
>
>
> The list includes the modern classic Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut, Khaled Hosseini's acclaimed novel The Kite Runner and Sally Rooney's bestselling Normal People.
>
>
>
So, this particular cancel group describes cancelling and censorship as "liberty". Other cancel groups use different terms.
I believe the group is genuine and no satire is intended.
Other, similar groups [call themselves](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/24/us-conservatives-campaign-books-ban-schools) *Parents Defending Education* or *No Left Turn in Education*, but there does not appear to be a generic term encompassing this movement in general. Others yet might just call themselves [Republicans](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/10/us/texas-critical-race-theory-ban-books.html), at least in the U.S. context, but of course not all Republicans support banning titles from school libraries, so this term would be too broad. I'm not aware of similar campaigns to remove books from school libraries in other western countries.
NB: Groups described as "woke" have described themselves as "woke", or at least used to. Unlike "cancel culture", "woke" was initially a term used positively in self-description. How a positive term came to be used negatively is a different question (see also "social justice warrior" and "Obamacare"). |
77,801 | I'm aware of ["woke"](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/77592/what-does-woke-indoctrination-mean) and ["cancel culture"](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/63032/what-is-the-meaning-of-cancel-culture) being used by conservatives as pejorative terms *and* by others as non-pejorative attempts to describe the visible trend of fierce protest against (perceived) conservative agendas and for (perceived) progressive agendas.
Attempts to discuss the values or methods of "woke ideology" or "cancel culture" are often met with the claim that these things don't exist, which they don't inasmuch as there is no formal Woke Organization or Cancel Party. Or that they are "just normal people". Perhaps I'm wrong, but I would argue that there are common political values being expressed in:
* **What is being criticized.** Both conservative values and the status quo.
* **What is being advocated for.** Civil rights, with demands for certain types (?) of corrective action.
* **How political action is made.** Disruptive protest, including denial of access, shutting down events, shaming (?) professionals (usually celebrities), and technical (?) disruptions.
A conservative might reject any one of these actions because they reject the underlying political values. Someone apolitical might reject these actions as unnecessarily disruptive. A progressive activists might share *many* values with this movement, but strongly reject some arguments, values, actions or demands as illiberal or even regressive. Someone else might not participate at all, but still feel a strong political affiliation with this movement (they would support leaders who emerge from this movement).
Given that "woke" and "cancel" are rejected, what umbrella term do participants in these activities use to describe themselves? Alternatively, is there an existing term that accurately and completely describes this political philosophy? ("Progressive" would be far too broad, for example.) | 2023/01/20 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/77801",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/45152/"
] | I mostly agree with [Phillip's answer](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/77801/what-do-woke-and-cancel-groups-call-themselves/77804#77804), but I want to get more in depth with how woke is used and why it's hard to give a good alternative.
The problem is that while woke was once a real term created and used by the left, it's not usually used in the left any more. Frankly, I don't think it ever got huge traction outside of specific circles that already were heavily focused on discussion and debate on such topics. At no point in time was a random democratic voter likely to say "I'm woke!" However, even those who used to use the term have backed off of it, mostly because of how it's been translated in meaning once conservatives started using it.
**What it was**
So first we have to look at the original definition:
>
> a broader awareness of social inequalities such as sexism, and has also been used as shorthand for American Left ideas involving identity politics and social justice, such as the notion of white privilege and slavery reparations for African Americans.
>
>
>
There isn't a single good alternative term I can think of that describes this concept perfectly. If you look at the part about *sexual* inequalities the term feminist fits quite nicely. However feminism is only focused on issues related to sex - and often gender, but let's not get into how those are different. Woke includes more then that. It is true many feminists are *also* woke when it comes to areas outside of sex/gender, but it's not required by the definition of feminism.
For the racial part, this is very similar to [critical race theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory), but since that term is also in the process of being misrepresented and turned into a snarl word, as I'll talk about lower, it's probably not a good 'safe' alternative. Anti-racism isn't a great alternative, but it works good enough.
Socially aware or social activist might better encompass all aspects that woke is trying to cover, but those are both very general terms and how closely they match up with the original definition of woke really depends on who you ask and how they define the terms.
I could go on trying to give you alternatives, but in a way it's pointless because what you are asking is not for an alternative for how to refer to what woke originally meant, but what it means when conservatives use it today...
**Woke as snarl word**
As it is now the term *woke* is used largely by conservatives, not liberals, and it is used not to refer to the original meaning but as a [snarl word](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/snarl_word). Snarl words—which are often phrases not just words, but we still call them snarl words for some reason—are very general terms meant to indicate the group you're referring to is one your suppose to hate.
These words usually had a specific meaning at one time, some still do have a legitimate and still in use meaning, but when they are used as a snarl word they really aren't about the actual definition or how exactly someone fits into it; they're catch-all terms that are meant to suggest you should hate this group. So, phrases like [PC](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/political_correctness#Noun) culture, [Social Justice Warrior](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/SJW#Noun) (SJW), [Welfare queen](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/welfare_queen#Noun), nazi, [mansplaining](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mansplaining#Noun), [gun nut](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_culture_in_the_United_States#Terms_applied_to_opponents), cult, [Bible thumper](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Bible_thumper#Noun) and many many others can or are often used by at least one group as a snarl word to refer to another.
These snarl words do somewhat refer to a group, for instance, a social justice warrior need not be a welfare queen; I could call a rich liberal person donating money to support some minority base scholarship program a SJW, but not a welfare queen. However, the definition of what is or isn't part of that group are very unclear to make it easier to toss the snarl word label on whoever you want other's to hate. So for instance I could arguable call anyone who criticizes anything I say a SJW, I could call anyone who gets any government assistance, no matter how little or rather they arguably earned it, a welfare queen. I could call anyone who likes, uses, or owns a gun, no matter how reasonable they are in their use or about legislation about them, a gun nut. You can argue the terms are supposed to refer to more heinous examples then the ones I listed, but when someone is painting the narrative to demonize a group they can do a great job of convincing others even relatively minor offenses warrant a snarl word label, and they often do. The point is snarl words tend to intentionally be undefined and unclear to make it easier to apply them to whoever you want to tell others to hate.
Let me be absolutely clear; snarl words are used by both sides of the political spectrum, and by plenty of other groups that don't fit in an easy left vs right division. Human nature is to create groups and factions and then tell everyone that is part of their group that anyone part of the other groups are somehow wrong or evil. It's been happening for as long as we had recorded history and likely far before that. Snarl words are useful for this, and so *everyone* uses them. I wish they didn't, that humanity didn't have to hate anyone they saw as not 'one of us', but well I can't change human nature.
While there may be some conservatives out there who understand the literal definition of woke and are making real criticisms about the actual meaning and interpretation, by and large when you see a conservative complain about a person or group being woke they are not using the original definition and instead using woke as a snarl word.
**So what do conservatives mean by woke?**
As I already explained, since it's being used as a snarl word, woke is very general and ill-defined. In fact, I'd argue the word woke is even less defined than most snarl words. It's so terribly ill-defined as to make any definition of 'who is woke' difficult to make.
However, in general woke tends to be used for 'anyone of the opposite political spectrum as us'. In effect, anyone who would call themselves a democratic, liberal, or progressive could be called woke. How much they do, or don't, fit the original literal definition of woke doesn't really matter; all that maters is that they fit close enough to 'not conservative' to allow throwing the snarl word at.
As such, pretty much any term for 'not conservative' could potentially be used in place of the word woke as it's used by most conservatives. This is why liberals have mostly given it up; it's been generalized and demonized so much that it doesn't have much meaning beyond 'bad liberal folks'. At this point, the only individuals I see actively calling themselves woke often are the ones who are using it semi-ironically to mean 'I'm one of those folks conservatives would hate'.
I will back what others have said, that 'progressive' or 'social progressive' is probably the closest you can get to answering your question, but I also stress it's not that great an answer. A progressive implies something more than what the original word woke meant; while it's plausible a very progressive person would likely believe they fit the original definition of woke, it is not required for one to be progressive. But how well progressive fits the *original* definition of the word doesn't matter, only how well it fits the snarl word and I'd say it a close enough fit. No word will be perfect since the very nature of being a snarl word is that it's too open-ended to clearly define who fits in.
**What about cancel culture?**
Well, cancel culture is also a snarl word, but at least it's a bit better defined of one.
As already said by Phillip, having things canceled you don't like is a technique used by both sides of the political spectrum, and it isn't new. When tv sitcoms first appeared it was considered scandalous and forbidden to show a toilet in a restroom, or a married couple sharing the same bed, and when Lucy from '[I Love Lucy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Love_Lucy)' revealed she was pregnant, the episode was titled "[Lucy Is Enceinte](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Love_Lucy#Pregnancy_and_Little_Ricky)", because apparently saying the word pregnant was a terrible thing. One of the first (though not the first as some like to claim) [onscreen interracial kiss](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_interracial_kiss_on_television#Star_Trek:_%22What_Are_Little_Girls_Made_Of%22_-_Uhura_and_Chapel_(1966)), in [Star Trek](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek), only happened because both actors effectively refused to film any alternative to force a network, afraid it would get them cancelled to air the kiss. And let's not get into the many books that have been banned or even burned over the centuries.
However, while there is no doubt forcing things to be canceled if you disagree with them existed for a long time when a conservative says cancel culture, they are using it as a snarl word. It's meant to be "canceling when it's something I don't agree with". Or, in other words "when a woke person gets things cancelled, but not when a conservative does it" There are progressives out there that vehemently argue comprehensive sex education would better protect teens from the dangers of [STI](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/STD#Noun), unwanted pregnancies, and abortions and would argue that the reason kids don't get full sex education they 'deserve' is that it was 'canceled' by conservatives; but I doubt any conservative would call that cancel culture.
As such, in theory you could say again that progressive is the closest to the left equivalent for someone the term cancel culture is trying to refer to. Really though, I'm not sure most who identify as 'progressive' would be vocal enough to push for cancelation. You might want a word that more accurately expresses not just that they have progressive views, but that they consider themselves someone who is going to vocally act on those views, so perhaps something like 'social activist' would work better.
Though again it's not perfect, the very nature of snarl words makes it hard to put a good definition and thus alternative term to them. | "Woke"
======
I think it is a disservice to ignore the fact that "woke" is vernacular from the Black community. A kind of whitewashing, even. The reason I bring this up is because it strikes at the heart of your question: there are issues which concern the Black community which are also shared by whites and other groups, but Blacks don't necessarily align themselves with those other people on all issues. For instance, a lot of black people are conservative, to varying degrees. And yet, virtually all black people are wary of police and skeptical of government (c.f. the Tuskegee Experiment). Thus, the original people who called themselves "woke" didn't need a term that encompassed all the other social justice or progressive ideas in play, because they didn't see themselves as a kind of political monolith.
The very notion that there *ought* to be a term that so encompasses is a kind of reductionism that is common in the political sphere, but often to reduce complex ideas into trivial ones that are more easily ignored. Politics has to a great extent been reduced to boiling everything down to a label and demonizing it. The reason you are having trouble finding the word you are looking for is because you are trying to apply a label to a concept that doesn't exist.
The reason we don't solve grand problems any more is because we want ideas to be simple, but the world is complex. Just look at feminists vs. TERFs. Or MAGA vs. Log Cabin Republicans. The neat categories which our brains strive for are wholly synthetic and only loosely justified by reality. Should we make everyone drive electric cars? Even if that means supporting slave labor at lithium mines? Is natural gas really green? Is nuclear power really bad? Can you actually put 100 "progressives" in a room and get them to agree to the answers of all these questions?
The term you are looking for doesn't exist because the people you are trying to describe don't find a need to lump themselves into the artificial category you've invented. Each person is unique, and they find common cause with others who share a more clearly named set of values and principles.
"Slept"
=======
What about the dual of your question? What do you call the group of people who oppose "woke culture" or "cancel culture"? Are they "conservatives"? Does it really include all conservatives? Are they MAGA? QAnon? Republicans? Fox News viewers? Are these groups all the same, all different, all under one umbrella that has/deserves its own name?
The reality is that the line between "woke" and "slept" is just the same as "liberal" vs. "conservative". It has basically the same precision and failure to adequately describe each group. And just as there are pro-life Democrats and pro-choice Republicans, so also there are "conservative woke" and probably some "liberal anti-woke" folks out there. Reality is messy.
But hey, if you really want a single all-encompassing term for activist liberals that align strongly on "woke" issues, you could hardly do better than "social justice warrior", as dsollen@ notes. Certainly, this is the term that many opponents use, even if it is a little dated by now.
Left vs. Right
==============
You do notice a perennial truth: the world really can be divided into two groups, even if the line between them is fuzzy and imprecise. And yes, it really is "liberal/conservative", "Democrat/Republican", "Left/Right". But I would argue that the divide goes back to the majority of our history, when we were cavemen and cavewomen. And I would call the classes "Protector/Explorer".
You see, if you are a smooth-brained hominid living in a small tribe of people who are mostly related to you and living constantly at subsistence level, the world is a big, scary place. On the one hand, you want to stick with what you know, because that gives you the best odds for survival. And on the other, you need to strike out and find new hunting/gathering territory, because nature is fickle and disasters happen. Such Stone Age peoples constantly needed to balance protecting the tribe against exploiting new lands. And in the absence of some omniscience guiding them and telling them how much to prioritize each, it makes sense that a kind of equilibrium would be established when you have roughly half of each type of human.
And so, the explorers are the ones who would leave Africa, cross Asia, and make their way across the Bering land bridge. And the protectors are the ones that would build communities in all the places the explorers discovered. Game theory alone tells us in the absence of a strong prior, the optimal strategy is to split the risk between staying or leaving. Everything else, everything we have today in modern politics, is ultimately the inheritance of the cavemen who enshrined this optimal strategy in their genes and passed them down to us over thousands of generations.
Those hominids did not need an intellectual explanation for why they wanted to stay and protect their ancestral lands, or why they wanted to build boats and venture into a hostile ocean. They just did it. The wonderful thing about the human brain, especially the conscious part, is that it is a consummate storyteller. The primary purpose of consciousness appears to be to weave a consistent story about the raw stream of sensations that we have. And so, we often act, and then justify our actions after the fact, pretending all along that the justification was the cause of our action, when it was really an ad-hoc excuse invented on the fly.
When interviewers go and ask people on the street why they believe in the Confederate flag or gay rights or foreign aid, an embarrassing number of people have ridiculous reasons that they give out quite happily and without shame or remorse. And if you can observe some of the choices those people have made in other areas of their lives, you can probably guess whether they are an Explorer or a Protector, and thus, what kinds of answers they will give in response to these interviews. For all our supposed sophistication, we really are quite simple cave people.
Experience
==========
Now, it may seem like I have totally destroyed my own argument, by starting out saying we are all unique, then that we are all the same, just in two camps. I will finish by explaining how we are both at the same time.
The human brain, being a metabolically expensive device to operate, takes all the shortcuts it can. And when it comes to thinking, that means it has a default, canned answer for most situations that might arise. And this answer might be a reflex, an instinct, a learned social cue, or something more complex. But when the brain is challenged for a response, it judges the outcome and decides whether more effort is warranted. If the challenge turns out neutral to good, the brain says: "Job well done" and carries on. If the challenge results in failure, then the brain says: "Hmm...maybe my response was bad." So if a brain says: "red berries are tasty", that will work until you come across a bitter or poisonous berry, and then the brain says: "Welp, that myth is busted!"
And so, with politics, we are born with some inclination on the left/right spectrum, which is then influenced by our social environment, and then is finally molded by our personal experiences. We are far more likely to hold a diverging viewpoint on some issue if we have some kind of personal experience with it, even if that experience is just knowing a trusted person who shares a very strong view on the subject. And this is how you get fiscal conservatives who support TANF or progressive liberals who support their local LE.
The prediction here is that on some new issue that you don't know about, and for which you do not have a consensus opinion from others in your in-group, you will form a default opinion based first on your "genetic" left/right bias, then on your learned political orientation, and finally on your personal experience that is relevant to the topic at hand.
Since none of us have personal experience on *every* political topic, most of us tend to align at the broadest level with the left or the right side of the political spectrum. Even people who claim to be moderates/centrists will tend to use language that identifies them as leaning more towards the left or the right. And so, in broad strokes, there are only two groups, and we already have many names for those groups. But at a granular level, there are thousands, even millions of groups, all disagreeing on some important policy. There are no useful names for these groups, because there are just too many of them. |
77,801 | I'm aware of ["woke"](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/77592/what-does-woke-indoctrination-mean) and ["cancel culture"](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/63032/what-is-the-meaning-of-cancel-culture) being used by conservatives as pejorative terms *and* by others as non-pejorative attempts to describe the visible trend of fierce protest against (perceived) conservative agendas and for (perceived) progressive agendas.
Attempts to discuss the values or methods of "woke ideology" or "cancel culture" are often met with the claim that these things don't exist, which they don't inasmuch as there is no formal Woke Organization or Cancel Party. Or that they are "just normal people". Perhaps I'm wrong, but I would argue that there are common political values being expressed in:
* **What is being criticized.** Both conservative values and the status quo.
* **What is being advocated for.** Civil rights, with demands for certain types (?) of corrective action.
* **How political action is made.** Disruptive protest, including denial of access, shutting down events, shaming (?) professionals (usually celebrities), and technical (?) disruptions.
A conservative might reject any one of these actions because they reject the underlying political values. Someone apolitical might reject these actions as unnecessarily disruptive. A progressive activists might share *many* values with this movement, but strongly reject some arguments, values, actions or demands as illiberal or even regressive. Someone else might not participate at all, but still feel a strong political affiliation with this movement (they would support leaders who emerge from this movement).
Given that "woke" and "cancel" are rejected, what umbrella term do participants in these activities use to describe themselves? Alternatively, is there an existing term that accurately and completely describes this political philosophy? ("Progressive" would be far too broad, for example.) | 2023/01/20 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/77801",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/45152/"
] | This answer covers the term "cancel culture".
Different groups will give themselves different names. There is no generic term, and in particular "cancel culture" exists on both sides of the political spectrum. Since other answers are already discussing progressive opposition to conservative or right-wing content, this answer will focus on conservative opposition to progressive content.
To take one example of a group that supports prohibiting certain books from school libraries, i.e. quite literally cancel culture, consider the [Moms for Liberty](https://www.newsweek.com/moms-liberty-banned-book-list-schools-1756574) and some of the books they want to cancel:
>
> Moms for Liberty formed last year and has become known since then for its opposition to critical race theory in public schools, and its efforts to get books with LGBTQ+ themes removed from school libraries.
>
>
>
>
> The list includes the modern classic Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut, Khaled Hosseini's acclaimed novel The Kite Runner and Sally Rooney's bestselling Normal People.
>
>
>
So, this particular cancel group describes cancelling and censorship as "liberty". Other cancel groups use different terms.
I believe the group is genuine and no satire is intended.
Other, similar groups [call themselves](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/24/us-conservatives-campaign-books-ban-schools) *Parents Defending Education* or *No Left Turn in Education*, but there does not appear to be a generic term encompassing this movement in general. Others yet might just call themselves [Republicans](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/10/us/texas-critical-race-theory-ban-books.html), at least in the U.S. context, but of course not all Republicans support banning titles from school libraries, so this term would be too broad. I'm not aware of similar campaigns to remove books from school libraries in other western countries.
NB: Groups described as "woke" have described themselves as "woke", or at least used to. Unlike "cancel culture", "woke" was initially a term used positively in self-description. How a positive term came to be used negatively is a different question (see also "social justice warrior" and "Obamacare"). | If I understood this right, you are asking for a unifying label for all people who participate in protests against conservative ideologies. And you are asking for a label those people would accept, not one that is imposed on them like "woke".
I think the most specific it gets is "left-wing protestor".
#### "woke or cancel people" who oppose conservatism
There certainly isn't a single umbrella term that "woke or cancel people" use to call themselves.
Terms like "woke" and "cancel" are to conservatism as "heresy" and "blasphemy" are to Christianity - they are made by taking *everyone who doesn't agree with a certain philosophy/ideology* and then assigning them a single label. What is the unifying philosophy that unites all heretics and blasphemers? Probably "not Christian." What is the unifying philosophy that unites all wokists and cancellers? Probably "not conservative."
I think it's reasonably obvious that if you asked a bunch of anti-conservative protestors "are you conservative?" almost all of them would say no. So "not conservative" could be the label you are looking for. Perhaps some would play with the label like "yes, I want to conserve the environment and human rights" but that isn't what it actually means.
Being "not Christian" and "not conservative" is the default state of human existence, so members of the group probably also think of themselves as "normal" and "not brainwashed".
#### ... who participate in protests
Since you are only interested in people who protest, I doubt you'll find many centrists, either. Centrists are generally people who don't care about the outcome either way, so there's no reason they should spend their time protesting. That leaves left-wing people... who protest. Hence "left-wing protestors" and I don't think, with the constraints in the question, you can get more specific than that.
#### Addendum: focused protest groups and the non-equivalence between right and left
You mentioned "protest groups with more focused agendas" separately from "organic movements", so I wanted to point out these "protest groups" are also organic.
For example, there is no Extinction Rebellion centralized leadership. It's more like a slogan. It is "loosely organized" in the sense that people who call themselves part of XR broadly agree on things (else they would not have joined) and some of them take the initiative to set up more formal meetings or plan protests. These people who take initiative may be called "local chapter leaders" by the press, but it's not a *position* as such - it's because of what they *do*. There is no sign-up sheet for XR - you just... do XR stuff, and then you are XR. Of course, sometimes they do have to formalize it, e.g. in order to rent an office for a meeting.
Since left-wing "protest groups" tend to draw from the general population, they can be more like slow-motion flash mobs, that suddenly appear out of nowhere and disperse just as quickly, unlike the more hierarchical, organizationally-centred approaches of right-wing groups such as the Proud Boys.
I'm definitely not a Proud Boy, since I haven't recited an oath to be a Western Chauvinist, passed the hazing rituals, and pledged to abstain from pornography. But I went to a protest against police brutality once, so does that mean I'm Antifa? |
77,801 | I'm aware of ["woke"](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/77592/what-does-woke-indoctrination-mean) and ["cancel culture"](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/63032/what-is-the-meaning-of-cancel-culture) being used by conservatives as pejorative terms *and* by others as non-pejorative attempts to describe the visible trend of fierce protest against (perceived) conservative agendas and for (perceived) progressive agendas.
Attempts to discuss the values or methods of "woke ideology" or "cancel culture" are often met with the claim that these things don't exist, which they don't inasmuch as there is no formal Woke Organization or Cancel Party. Or that they are "just normal people". Perhaps I'm wrong, but I would argue that there are common political values being expressed in:
* **What is being criticized.** Both conservative values and the status quo.
* **What is being advocated for.** Civil rights, with demands for certain types (?) of corrective action.
* **How political action is made.** Disruptive protest, including denial of access, shutting down events, shaming (?) professionals (usually celebrities), and technical (?) disruptions.
A conservative might reject any one of these actions because they reject the underlying political values. Someone apolitical might reject these actions as unnecessarily disruptive. A progressive activists might share *many* values with this movement, but strongly reject some arguments, values, actions or demands as illiberal or even regressive. Someone else might not participate at all, but still feel a strong political affiliation with this movement (they would support leaders who emerge from this movement).
Given that "woke" and "cancel" are rejected, what umbrella term do participants in these activities use to describe themselves? Alternatively, is there an existing term that accurately and completely describes this political philosophy? ("Progressive" would be far too broad, for example.) | 2023/01/20 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/77801",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/45152/"
] | *This is my attempt to synthesise the many excellent comments and answers, particularly [dsollen](https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/77810/45152), [Philipp](https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/77804/45152) and [whoisit](https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/77807/45152).*
No communal name
================
Although different protests share values and language, the participants have not united behind a communal name. At least some activists used to identify as "woke", but its pejorative use has now made it so unpopular that using "woke" identifies you as a member of the out-group. (Similar to the phrase "social justice warrior".)
Since then, attempts to name or classify this movement have been rejected, so a new self-descriptor is unlikely.
Simply "progressive" or "social reformist"
==========================================
The original "woke" ideology calls for participants to be conscious of various prevailing discriminations, and actively working to reform the system against such.
As such, they would likely accept being described as [Progressive](https://web.archive.org/web/20190321174257/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/progressivism), or Social Reformists, and likely reject any further qualification for fear of it too becoming a pejorative.
Other progressives
==================
But not all progressive philosophies align. One progressive activist might strongly reject another, including claiming that the other is *not progressive*. An outside observer might still assess them both, on balance, to be progressive.
There are progressives who strongly disagree with aspects of the "woke" movement, but there is no terminology that distinguishes "woke progressives" from "other progressives". | If I understood this right, you are asking for a unifying label for all people who participate in protests against conservative ideologies. And you are asking for a label those people would accept, not one that is imposed on them like "woke".
I think the most specific it gets is "left-wing protestor".
#### "woke or cancel people" who oppose conservatism
There certainly isn't a single umbrella term that "woke or cancel people" use to call themselves.
Terms like "woke" and "cancel" are to conservatism as "heresy" and "blasphemy" are to Christianity - they are made by taking *everyone who doesn't agree with a certain philosophy/ideology* and then assigning them a single label. What is the unifying philosophy that unites all heretics and blasphemers? Probably "not Christian." What is the unifying philosophy that unites all wokists and cancellers? Probably "not conservative."
I think it's reasonably obvious that if you asked a bunch of anti-conservative protestors "are you conservative?" almost all of them would say no. So "not conservative" could be the label you are looking for. Perhaps some would play with the label like "yes, I want to conserve the environment and human rights" but that isn't what it actually means.
Being "not Christian" and "not conservative" is the default state of human existence, so members of the group probably also think of themselves as "normal" and "not brainwashed".
#### ... who participate in protests
Since you are only interested in people who protest, I doubt you'll find many centrists, either. Centrists are generally people who don't care about the outcome either way, so there's no reason they should spend their time protesting. That leaves left-wing people... who protest. Hence "left-wing protestors" and I don't think, with the constraints in the question, you can get more specific than that.
#### Addendum: focused protest groups and the non-equivalence between right and left
You mentioned "protest groups with more focused agendas" separately from "organic movements", so I wanted to point out these "protest groups" are also organic.
For example, there is no Extinction Rebellion centralized leadership. It's more like a slogan. It is "loosely organized" in the sense that people who call themselves part of XR broadly agree on things (else they would not have joined) and some of them take the initiative to set up more formal meetings or plan protests. These people who take initiative may be called "local chapter leaders" by the press, but it's not a *position* as such - it's because of what they *do*. There is no sign-up sheet for XR - you just... do XR stuff, and then you are XR. Of course, sometimes they do have to formalize it, e.g. in order to rent an office for a meeting.
Since left-wing "protest groups" tend to draw from the general population, they can be more like slow-motion flash mobs, that suddenly appear out of nowhere and disperse just as quickly, unlike the more hierarchical, organizationally-centred approaches of right-wing groups such as the Proud Boys.
I'm definitely not a Proud Boy, since I haven't recited an oath to be a Western Chauvinist, passed the hazing rituals, and pledged to abstain from pornography. But I went to a protest against police brutality once, so does that mean I'm Antifa? |
20,800 | **I just want to hear some pro and con's - it's obvious that there is no right answer**
So would Java be a better choice for a long term career? Or should I opt for .Net since it could be the platform having all the latest advances?
**I just want to hear others point of view, so please don't close this question just because it's being subjective** | 2010/11/23 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/20800",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | I think you should consider being proficient in both, since I believe it will make you a better programmer than one just knowing one.
For where to start? Well, where you can pick up a job. Then learn what they need you to know, and then start picking up what you lack.
Programming is a never ending process of learning, because there is so much to learn that you cannot keep up. | Choose programming, not a language. If I were still in school, java and C# would be the last things on my list. Look at the crazy academic stuff while you can, like Haskell and Lisp. Then come back to the mundane code you will spend 95% of your professional career slinging. |
20,800 | **I just want to hear some pro and con's - it's obvious that there is no right answer**
So would Java be a better choice for a long term career? Or should I opt for .Net since it could be the platform having all the latest advances?
**I just want to hear others point of view, so please don't close this question just because it's being subjective** | 2010/11/23 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/20800",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | Both languages are very similar.
I came from a Java background but took a C# job. I got some time to learn the language and it felt like a Java copy.
Pick one and the second language will not be hard to learn. | Choose programming, not a language. If I were still in school, java and C# would be the last things on my list. Look at the crazy academic stuff while you can, like Haskell and Lisp. Then come back to the mundane code you will spend 95% of your professional career slinging. |
20,800 | **I just want to hear some pro and con's - it's obvious that there is no right answer**
So would Java be a better choice for a long term career? Or should I opt for .Net since it could be the platform having all the latest advances?
**I just want to hear others point of view, so please don't close this question just because it's being subjective** | 2010/11/23 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/20800",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | Both languages are very similar.
I came from a Java background but took a C# job. I got some time to learn the language and it felt like a Java copy.
Pick one and the second language will not be hard to learn. | I'm a java guy by trade, but it does look that C# is the language/platform that people are migrating to. This is just my observation from jobs advertised, and my previous and current employers.
However, I also think (and hope) that Java will be relevant for a good few years yet.
Also, I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I'd rather work with a decent C# programmer on a Java project, than a rubbish Java guy.
Lots of knowledge and skills are transferable. |
20,800 | **I just want to hear some pro and con's - it's obvious that there is no right answer**
So would Java be a better choice for a long term career? Or should I opt for .Net since it could be the platform having all the latest advances?
**I just want to hear others point of view, so please don't close this question just because it's being subjective** | 2010/11/23 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/20800",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | I think you should consider being proficient in both, since I believe it will make you a better programmer than one just knowing one.
For where to start? Well, where you can pick up a job. Then learn what they need you to know, and then start picking up what you lack.
Programming is a never ending process of learning, because there is so much to learn that you cannot keep up. | I'm a java guy by trade, but it does look that C# is the language/platform that people are migrating to. This is just my observation from jobs advertised, and my previous and current employers.
However, I also think (and hope) that Java will be relevant for a good few years yet.
Also, I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I'd rather work with a decent C# programmer on a Java project, than a rubbish Java guy.
Lots of knowledge and skills are transferable. |
20,800 | **I just want to hear some pro and con's - it's obvious that there is no right answer**
So would Java be a better choice for a long term career? Or should I opt for .Net since it could be the platform having all the latest advances?
**I just want to hear others point of view, so please don't close this question just because it's being subjective** | 2010/11/23 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/20800",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | I think you should consider being proficient in both, since I believe it will make you a better programmer than one just knowing one.
For where to start? Well, where you can pick up a job. Then learn what they need you to know, and then start picking up what you lack.
Programming is a never ending process of learning, because there is so much to learn that you cannot keep up. | The number one benefit of Java over .NET is it's platform independence.You can only write .NET codes for Windows environment.
I have somewhat of limited experience in both and in my opinion, if you are only going to be developing applications for Windows, then .NET is better.
Also, those who come from C++ background, would fit into C# easily because a lot of the base structures are same. This is true of Java also, but I feel C++ is closer to C# than Java. After all, C# actually means, **c++++**.
Someone more adept in both technologies can given better and diverse range of suggestions. |
20,800 | **I just want to hear some pro and con's - it's obvious that there is no right answer**
So would Java be a better choice for a long term career? Or should I opt for .Net since it could be the platform having all the latest advances?
**I just want to hear others point of view, so please don't close this question just because it's being subjective** | 2010/11/23 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/20800",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | I think you should consider being proficient in both, since I believe it will make you a better programmer than one just knowing one.
For where to start? Well, where you can pick up a job. Then learn what they need you to know, and then start picking up what you lack.
Programming is a never ending process of learning, because there is so much to learn that you cannot keep up. | Both languages are very similar.
I came from a Java background but took a C# job. I got some time to learn the language and it felt like a Java copy.
Pick one and the second language will not be hard to learn. |
20,800 | **I just want to hear some pro and con's - it's obvious that there is no right answer**
So would Java be a better choice for a long term career? Or should I opt for .Net since it could be the platform having all the latest advances?
**I just want to hear others point of view, so please don't close this question just because it's being subjective** | 2010/11/23 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/20800",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | I think you should consider being proficient in both, since I believe it will make you a better programmer than one just knowing one.
For where to start? Well, where you can pick up a job. Then learn what they need you to know, and then start picking up what you lack.
Programming is a never ending process of learning, because there is so much to learn that you cannot keep up. | C# and Java are similar enough that if you know one, you'll be able to pick up the other easily. Contrary to popular belief, you *can* develop C# on non-Windows platforms, although the level of support may not be as great.
As for the long term, that's up in the air; it depends on how much Oracle continues to act like Oracle and the effect that will have on the Java ecosystem. I'm not optimistic, myself. |
20,800 | **I just want to hear some pro and con's - it's obvious that there is no right answer**
So would Java be a better choice for a long term career? Or should I opt for .Net since it could be the platform having all the latest advances?
**I just want to hear others point of view, so please don't close this question just because it's being subjective** | 2010/11/23 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/20800",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | Both languages are very similar.
I came from a Java background but took a C# job. I got some time to learn the language and it felt like a Java copy.
Pick one and the second language will not be hard to learn. | Learn whatever's in demand in the area where you want to live. The languages are very similar, so it doesn't take a whole lot of time to learn one once you know the other. Check out job listings for the area and see what's in demand. Part of making yourself marketable is knowing the market. |
20,800 | **I just want to hear some pro and con's - it's obvious that there is no right answer**
So would Java be a better choice for a long term career? Or should I opt for .Net since it could be the platform having all the latest advances?
**I just want to hear others point of view, so please don't close this question just because it's being subjective** | 2010/11/23 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/20800",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | Both languages are very similar.
I came from a Java background but took a C# job. I got some time to learn the language and it felt like a Java copy.
Pick one and the second language will not be hard to learn. | The number one benefit of Java over .NET is it's platform independence.You can only write .NET codes for Windows environment.
I have somewhat of limited experience in both and in my opinion, if you are only going to be developing applications for Windows, then .NET is better.
Also, those who come from C++ background, would fit into C# easily because a lot of the base structures are same. This is true of Java also, but I feel C++ is closer to C# than Java. After all, C# actually means, **c++++**.
Someone more adept in both technologies can given better and diverse range of suggestions. |
20,800 | **I just want to hear some pro and con's - it's obvious that there is no right answer**
So would Java be a better choice for a long term career? Or should I opt for .Net since it could be the platform having all the latest advances?
**I just want to hear others point of view, so please don't close this question just because it's being subjective** | 2010/11/23 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/20800",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | Both languages are very similar.
I came from a Java background but took a C# job. I got some time to learn the language and it felt like a Java copy.
Pick one and the second language will not be hard to learn. | C# and Java are similar enough that if you know one, you'll be able to pick up the other easily. Contrary to popular belief, you *can* develop C# on non-Windows platforms, although the level of support may not be as great.
As for the long term, that's up in the air; it depends on how much Oracle continues to act like Oracle and the effect that will have on the Java ecosystem. I'm not optimistic, myself. |
199,350 | If air of a certain temperature blows through a car radiator (or a computer case), what effect will air humidity (non-condensing) have on cooling rate? | 2015/08/08 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/199350",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/88763/"
] | The cooling effect of air will depend in the flow rate and thermal conductivity of air. The latter is in turn a function of temperature, pressure and water content. Counter-intuitively, if we keep pressure constant, the most water the less thermal conductivity, and the decrease in thermal conductivity is more significant for higher temperatures, as shown by the following graph:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/aj3bh.png)
A more detailed explanation of the causes of this behavior can be found at the original source of the image: [electronics-cooling.com](https://www.electronics-cooling.com/2003/11/the-thermal-conductivity-of-moist-air/#) | The fins don't have moisture so no difference from evaporative cooling there.
Air with higher humidity has a higher capacitance. As humid air passes from the front the back it will adsorb the same amount of heat and temperature at the trailing edge will be lower than the dry air. So humid air will maintain a greater temperature difference which results in more heat transfer. You should never have condensing as the air is being heated. |
117,645 | I have this USB flash drive which has two partitions separated by the manufacturer. The interface included doesn't allow me to merge them and I was wondering if someone has come across such problem. | 2010/03/08 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/117645",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/30566/"
] | If it's one of those silly\* U3 flash drives where one piece masquerades as a CD-RW, you will need to run the uninstaller to remove that partition.
\*silly because it's amazing how much malware you can cram into that CD-RW piece and autorun will happily execute it because it's supposed to be a CD-ROM drive. | See [this discussion](http://help.lockergnome.com/general/repartition-flash-drive--ftopict51786.html). It covers, among other things, getting the flash drive recognized so you can fdisk it. |
117,645 | I have this USB flash drive which has two partitions separated by the manufacturer. The interface included doesn't allow me to merge them and I was wondering if someone has come across such problem. | 2010/03/08 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/117645",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/30566/"
] | If it's one of those silly\* U3 flash drives where one piece masquerades as a CD-RW, you will need to run the uninstaller to remove that partition.
\*silly because it's amazing how much malware you can cram into that CD-RW piece and autorun will happily execute it because it's supposed to be a CD-ROM drive. | Some flash drives appear as two partitions because, internally, they are literally two separate devices.
Older flash drives, or cheaper units, might use a memory controller that can only address X memory, but the manufacturer wants to provide a device of 2X capacity. Each controller is detected by Windows as a separate drive of X size.
On such a device there is no way to repartition and make Windows see it as one single partition of 2X size. Doing so would require physically hacking the device, and replacing the multiple cheapie controllers with one controller that could address all the memory at once. |
194,383 | I am using LM2596 for a dc supply where I could alter the output voltage. [Datasheet here.](http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/lm2596.pdf)
I have setup according to page 9 "Adjustable Output Voltage Versions". Everything worked fine. The output voltage alters as I changes the value of R2 (potentiometer used for R2, R1 remains 1K).
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/eCfs5.png)
Now, I was thinking that the feedback pin is just taking a the voltage potential between R1 and R2. Thus instead of using R1 and R2, I supply a voltage (0-2V) from the bench power supply directly to the feedback pin. But as I vary the bench power supply, the output voltage does not vary. The power supply and the chip is common grounded.
Why is that? When using R1 and R2, the voltage on the feedback pin is around 1.3V. Removing R1 and R2, and supply feedback pin with a 1.3V does not yield the same output voltage. Or must there be a certain current flow?
The final destination would be to digitally control the chip (e.g. using a digital potentiometer or DAC). | 2015/10/09 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/194383",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/38481/"
] | It's a feedback loop. It will vary the output and read the output voltage, compare that with the internal reference and set the output voltage one way or the other until the output voltage divided by the resistors matches the internal reference.
What you have done is cut the loop. The regulation of the output will have no effect on the input to the feedback pin, so it will basically do all sorts of stuff, if you hit the internal reference exactly it should stop changing the output, but that is only a theoretical case.
If you want to regulate your output you can inject a current on the bottom feedback resistor, but you need to have the resistor divider still connected:
[simulate this circuit](/plugins/schematics?image=http%3a%2f%2fi.stack.imgur.com%2f0hBGi.png) – Schematic created using [CircuitLab](https://www.circuitlab.com/)
Depending on the choice of R1 and R3 you get a settable range of the output. | The voltage at the feedback pin is typically 1.23 volts but can be as low as 1.18 volts or as high as 1.28 volts (see top of page 4 of the data sheet). Somewhere in that small range will be a voltage that, if exceeded by a millivolt or so, will turn the output off completely. If you were a milli volt under that voltage, the output would turn on completely and produce an output voltage limited only by the incoming power supply rail.
So meddling with it comes with a big caution because you can easily destroy the target circuit due to over voltage. Think of it like a high gain amplifier that within the range of 1 milli volt (or thereabouts) the output can swing between 0V and Vsupply.
You definitely need that feedback connection intact but you can force a current into the node with a little bit of care - maybe use a pot and an op-amp unity gain buffer feeding the node thru a 10k resistor to experiment with - this should provide +/-10% variation and if you get confident you can lower the 10k to maybe 2k2 and experiment to see what happens.
Be prepared for instability though if you push it too far. |
6,049 | Have you ever used conky? More precisely Crunchbang Linux? Crunchbang comes with conky installed by default on desktop and inside conky you'll see useful shortcuts that you can use, and it's visible all the time. See shortcut keys section.
I'm an emacs newbie, not new to emacs, I use it all the time when doing lisp but I don't do lisp that much, I spend most of the time using sublime.
So still emacs newbie and would be helpful if I can have such menu displayed all the time in a little corner inside the text editor. It should take no more than 10% of the screen or so.
Is there such plugin or option allowing me to display the shortcuts? | 2015/01/05 | [
"https://emacs.stackexchange.com/questions/6049",
"https://emacs.stackexchange.com",
"https://emacs.stackexchange.com/users/4079/"
] | *As @Dan asked me to write up my comment to an aswer:*
What I've done once to achieve what you want:
Use an already existing [Emacs cheatsheet](https://i.imgur.com/RxlwP.png) or a customized one, as your desktop wallpaper. And whenever you need to use Emacs, launch it inside a terminal with a transparent background (using Crunchbang, it should be easy).
Also, what about edit the Conky configuration and add the Emacs shortcuts besides the already displayed ones?
Finally, and already stated by the others, you may be interested by [guide-key](https://github.com/kai2nenobu/guide-key). This package will automatically pops up the keys following your favorite prefixes.
 | FWIW, A similar feature to guide-key is that provided by [**Icicles**](http://www.emacswiki.org/Icicles) [*key completion*](http://www.emacswiki.org/Icicles_-_Key_Completion). You can see all of the keys currently available to you.
After you type a prefix key, you see, for example, only the possible keys that continue from there.
You can use completion against the key names or the associated command names, to finish entering a key and so invoke a command.
By default, key completion is on-demand (via `S-TAB`), but you could make it always visible if you wanted (e.g., after a short delay, as for guide-key). |
43,453,823 | tl;dr: i need help to setup drupal mailchimp campaigns.
Hi.
I'm struggling to set up mailchimp campaigns for a drupal website.
Following the mailchimp tutorial on drupalize.me (<https://drupalize.me/videos/send-campaigns-drupal?p=2235>)
I have succesfully linked mailchimp module with my mailchimp account with app API keys, subscribed drupal users to mailchimp list and sent test campaign from mailchimp to my drupal users. Works as designed so far.
I have a problem with sending mailchimp campaign from drupal. According to documentation and tutorials provided, i should be able to insert content into template sections from within drupal mailchimp campaign configuration page.
The thing is: there are no content sections to edit. I tried with both default mailhimp templates and themes, also made some templates on mailchimp app, exported them then imported as html. All templates appear in drupal mailchimp campaigns tab as available, but when i click any of them, the ajax content sections form is just empty. When there are no templates selected, the form allows me to insert some content or node into template, therefore i can tell that the ajax form component is working as designed.
Troubleshooting so far: I tried to make this work on 3 drupal 7 installations and a drupal 8 installation, across two vps instances, with no success.
On one instance i got an ajax error witn var dump for data sent back from mailchimp, and the sections object is simply empty.
I run out of ideas here, and would appreciate some input from successful mailchimp campaigns users. | 2017/04/17 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/43453823",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/4682827/"
] | You need to code your own template at the Mailchimp site. The Mailchimp templates seem to miss the editable areas which are needed to insert content in Drupal.
You can export and re-import an existing template and add the editable section. There is a simple tutorial which explains this step.
<https://drupalize.me/videos/create-custom-email-template?p=2235> | Same problem here found. So far i found out two things:
A few of the Mailchimp templates showing the content section, e. g. Order invoice, Refund confirmation or Cancellation information.
Do not use development environment with localhost. Your Drupal needs to be accessible via internet. |
278,251 | Normally I'm a software guy, but I've recently decided to try my hand at some electronics projects. What I want to do is make my own impact sensor for target shooting. What I'm picturing is a piece of AR-500 steel for the target, and a sensor that can detect when the round hits the target. I've started by using an Arduino Uno, a piezo and 1MOhm resistor, like in the arduino tutorial.
My main problem is lessening the sensitivity of the piezo, so that I don't get false positives. For example, if the round hits in front of the plate and splashes dirt on it, I don't want it to pick that up. Or if the round passes by, I don't want the sonic boom to trigger it either. Currently I have it set that so that a light tap on the piezo sensor housing won't set it off, but a harder tap will (with a threshold of 100 from my arduino adc).
My question is, will the piezo output max voltage with a hard tap from my finger, or will it send out a really high voltage if I were to hit the steel hard with a hammer (to simulate a rifle round). If the voltage will keep increasing as the impacts increase (is there a limit?), then I guess it's as simple as reducing the voltage coming out of the piezo. If the voltage hits it's maximum output prematurely, is my only option to isolate the vibration with rubber mounts, or padding or something so that it takes a good wallop to set it off? | 2017/01/03 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/278251",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/134863/"
] | Yes, the output of a piezo-electric sensor should keep increasing as the target is whacked harder. There should be a substantial difference between tapping the target with your fingers and hitting it with a hammer or a bullet. One problems with piezo sensors is to keep them from frying the input stage if accidentally whacked hard.
Of course, the obvious thing to do is simply try it. Set up something that triggers if a signal gets over a couple of volts or so. Then feed the piezo signal thru a pot so that you can adjust the attenuation, then into the comparator. After some experimentation, you should be able to find a setting that detects hard whacks but not casual bumps. | Any Piezo-electric sensor can be used including an Electret mic. a piezo sensor (or even a ceramic capacitor with signal amp). All being high resistance with some capacitance with varying sensitivities, the output is a current proportional to sound vibration and the voltage is proportional to resistance. Thus the gain depends on the load pullup R value . I suggest 1K is small enough to attenuate signal. Then add tape over orifice.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/VOSyI.jpg)
The signal is AC coupled and pulled up to Vcc for "half-wave negative peak detection" pulses down with an envelope burst of noise. The cap voltage drops with this current pulse when the diode conducts, dropping from Vcc to some voltage below Vcc/2 which is enough to drive the next stage to a logic "1" out. The 10M resistor pullup R3, slowly "rearms" the circuit back at Vcc.
This produces a +ve voltage on the noise impulse with a duration of C2 \* R3 or 100 ms in this case. This may be extended to a 5 seconds by increasing C to 1uF. ( with a good quality cap > 20M leakage resistance )
[simulate this circuit](/plugins/schematics?image=http%3a%2f%2fi.stack.imgur.com%2fn1OFu.png) – Schematic created using [CircuitLab](https://www.circuitlab.com/)
Attenuation of gunshot or any noise is easily muted with tape to also vary sensitivity over the sensor and proximity of sensor to target. |
278,251 | Normally I'm a software guy, but I've recently decided to try my hand at some electronics projects. What I want to do is make my own impact sensor for target shooting. What I'm picturing is a piece of AR-500 steel for the target, and a sensor that can detect when the round hits the target. I've started by using an Arduino Uno, a piezo and 1MOhm resistor, like in the arduino tutorial.
My main problem is lessening the sensitivity of the piezo, so that I don't get false positives. For example, if the round hits in front of the plate and splashes dirt on it, I don't want it to pick that up. Or if the round passes by, I don't want the sonic boom to trigger it either. Currently I have it set that so that a light tap on the piezo sensor housing won't set it off, but a harder tap will (with a threshold of 100 from my arduino adc).
My question is, will the piezo output max voltage with a hard tap from my finger, or will it send out a really high voltage if I were to hit the steel hard with a hammer (to simulate a rifle round). If the voltage will keep increasing as the impacts increase (is there a limit?), then I guess it's as simple as reducing the voltage coming out of the piezo. If the voltage hits it's maximum output prematurely, is my only option to isolate the vibration with rubber mounts, or padding or something so that it takes a good wallop to set it off? | 2017/01/03 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/278251",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/134863/"
] | Yes, the output of a piezo-electric sensor should keep increasing as the target is whacked harder. There should be a substantial difference between tapping the target with your fingers and hitting it with a hammer or a bullet. One problems with piezo sensors is to keep them from frying the input stage if accidentally whacked hard.
Of course, the obvious thing to do is simply try it. Set up something that triggers if a signal gets over a couple of volts or so. Then feed the piezo signal thru a pot so that you can adjust the attenuation, then into the comparator. After some experimentation, you should be able to find a setting that detects hard whacks but not casual bumps. | May be put a resistor with the correct value at the out of the piezo, to find the correct value you could solder a potentiometer (in the correct Ohm range of the piezo) and do some test until the arduino will detect the signal. Then you mesure the potentiometer with your ohm/voltmeter and replace it with the correct resistor. The other simple solution is to isolated the piezo from external sound, for that you can use a cylinder of fixing paste and/or some layer of cork wood, I think ity will be the best one because the impact of a bullet make a really strong noise, I think may be it can damage your piezzo. Also may be you can replace the piezzo by another device less sensitive like a small headphone speaker (in the correct ohm range). |
44,475 | I'm creating a database that will be used by researchers in population genetics with different goals and sampling strategies. The database needs to accommodate locations as points, lines, or polygons and I'm puzzling over whether those should be kept in a single "locations" table, or in separate tables for "point\_locations", "line\_locations", and "polygon\_locations". The single-table design is appealing because it would make it simple to enforce the required one-to-one relationship between samples and their locations with a foreign key constraint. I can imagine that there may be reasons to split locations out into separate tables for points, lines, and polygons, however. If I can keep all locations' spatial data in a single column, then which geography datatype should I use (I know geometry would be more flexible, but that's a topic for another post)? I'm thinking geography(polygon,4326). | 2012/12/20 | [
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/44475",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/users/6697/"
] | You could create one Parent table called 'location' that doesn't actually contain any data, then create three child tables related to that table, each with constraints on geom\_type, and load all data into those tables. You could also create triggers on the parent table, so that any geom type loaded into it will be automatically sorted into the appropriate child tables.
Depending on the amount of data you have, this will yield better performance when querying, as well as better data organization.
This approach is outlined in detail in *PostGIS in Action*, chapter 3 (I believe). | I do not recommend put all stuff into a single table.
But you can create at least um column for each geometry type
a point\_location, line\_location, polygon\_location. This will avoid using the geometry type that allows geometrycollections etc.
Using separate tables, or columns would allow for additional checks on each location type.
You going to need answer question like those below:
* Is the location an attribute of relation sample.
* Do all the samples have the location know and defined?
* Why locations should have different geometry representations? |
223,096 | I have a project where a DC motor needs to pull on a yarn and keep it a constant tension. The tension also needs to be adjustable.
I have tried to google this but it seems like I am not asking the right questions...
Would it be as simple as reading the motor current and adjusting the voltage to reduce the current or do I have it totally wrong?
Also would it be bad for a dc motor to be energized all the time and not moving? | 2016/03/17 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/223096",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/38464/"
] | Ideally, you want a motor control that allows you to set the current to the motor. Most controllers have this ability, sometimes by directly accepting a torque reference, or indirectly by controlling the current limits.
It is probably best to control the current limit, and leave the controller in speed mode... with this approach, the motor will not run away (overspeed) on a yarn break, but most low end DC Drives do not have the ability to control the current limit via a voltage signal. You would have to find one that does. Most digital DC drives allow this type of operation.
To go even further, it wouldn't be a bad idea to mount a load cell idler roll in order to directly measure the tension on your web. Then you can use either an external PID controller or one internal to a digital drive to actually control tension if the motor is used as a winder. If it is just a pull roll, a constant torque (current limit) should be sufficient. | Typically in a motor current is proportional to torque, so you need to have a motor controller that can deliver a controlled current.
Whether or not it is bad to have the motor engaged and not moving depends on the motor and how much current you are pushing through it while stalled. You could easily push too much power into it and overheat it if you do not control current to a reasonable level based on how much power the motor can dissipate. |
223,096 | I have a project where a DC motor needs to pull on a yarn and keep it a constant tension. The tension also needs to be adjustable.
I have tried to google this but it seems like I am not asking the right questions...
Would it be as simple as reading the motor current and adjusting the voltage to reduce the current or do I have it totally wrong?
Also would it be bad for a dc motor to be energized all the time and not moving? | 2016/03/17 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/223096",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/38464/"
] | Typically in a motor current is proportional to torque, so you need to have a motor controller that can deliver a controlled current.
Whether or not it is bad to have the motor engaged and not moving depends on the motor and how much current you are pushing through it while stalled. You could easily push too much power into it and overheat it if you do not control current to a reasonable level based on how much power the motor can dissipate. | I've a very similar application for pulling string to a constant and repeatable tension, I'm considering using a worm motor such as the ones for opening windows and pair with a adjustable current limiter.
I need a precise tension between 20-30 lbs every time it is pulled, would this setup work, or there is a better alternative ? |
223,096 | I have a project where a DC motor needs to pull on a yarn and keep it a constant tension. The tension also needs to be adjustable.
I have tried to google this but it seems like I am not asking the right questions...
Would it be as simple as reading the motor current and adjusting the voltage to reduce the current or do I have it totally wrong?
Also would it be bad for a dc motor to be energized all the time and not moving? | 2016/03/17 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/223096",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/38464/"
] | Ideally, you want a motor control that allows you to set the current to the motor. Most controllers have this ability, sometimes by directly accepting a torque reference, or indirectly by controlling the current limits.
It is probably best to control the current limit, and leave the controller in speed mode... with this approach, the motor will not run away (overspeed) on a yarn break, but most low end DC Drives do not have the ability to control the current limit via a voltage signal. You would have to find one that does. Most digital DC drives allow this type of operation.
To go even further, it wouldn't be a bad idea to mount a load cell idler roll in order to directly measure the tension on your web. Then you can use either an external PID controller or one internal to a digital drive to actually control tension if the motor is used as a winder. If it is just a pull roll, a constant torque (current limit) should be sufficient. | I've a very similar application for pulling string to a constant and repeatable tension, I'm considering using a worm motor such as the ones for opening windows and pair with a adjustable current limiter.
I need a precise tension between 20-30 lbs every time it is pulled, would this setup work, or there is a better alternative ? |
641,320 | Let's say I have some stranded wire that was cut in half and I want to splice the ends back together. Easily done with some solder and a heat shrink tube, which will make a good electrical connection with high tensile strength, and looks quite clean if done well. Unfortunately, it's also much more rigid than the flexible wire, and in fact bending it repeatedly will break it. Any alternatives I know of are even more rigid (those crimped on tube thingies) or ugly (wire nuts).
Given that I care enough that I'm willing to spend extra time and/or money, is there a method of splicing wires that more closely approaches the aesthetic, electrical and mechanical properties of an uncut wire? Or one that looks different but still good.
And sure, replacing the entire wire might often be easier, but I'm interested in cases where that's not an option. | 2022/11/05 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/641320",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/233001/"
] | Brazing more closely approaches the aesthetic, electrical and mechanical properties of an uncut wire. Welding even closer.
By definition, solder uses a low temperature fill material: brazing uses a medium temperature filler material, and welding uses a high temperature filler material.
Because of the superiority of the brazed joint, less filler material can be used. With a brazed joint, the increase in volume is minimal. With a welded joint the increase in volume is even less: often zero, and the join can be as strong or stronger than the base material.
Unfortunately, welding is much more difficult than soldering, and welding of fine wires is either automated or jewelry making: it's not a production technique suitable for typical discrete-element production electronics. | Simply put, no. Find a point where the wire doesn't need to be as flexible to make the splice. Add more wire and use two splices if you must. Or just replace the entire wire, as you suggested.
You might be able to use something that looks nicer than a wire nut, though. Wago (no affiliation) makes some reasonably nice-looking clamp connectors that some even claim are more reliable than wire nuts, for instance. |
15,965 | I have a baby bearded dragon that's 28 days old and haven't had any feeding nor pooping problems until today in the morning.
I ran out of crickets 2 days ago and went to buy more crickets at a different shop that I usually go to. They didn't have any pinhead crickets but they had "small" crickets available and I took them. It had spent about half day without eating that day and fed I with no problems.
This morning I noticed her poop but it had a good part that looked like crickets. I tried feeding her again and didn't want to eat the smallest crickets I have. It would eat them if I dropped a few in the tank - if I grab the pinhead crickets with tweezers or let them crawl on my hand and let her catch them, but she's not interested.
Should I stop feeding her these "small" crickets or should I go purchase actual pinhead crickets? | 2016/12/26 | [
"https://pets.stackexchange.com/questions/15965",
"https://pets.stackexchange.com",
"https://pets.stackexchange.com/users/8564/"
] | If they seemed too big for her they may have upset her belly, it happens sometimes that the bugs haven't digested properly. Feel free to feed her some greens as well, a bit easier to digest.
Another thing to consider are parasites, always good to bring a fecal sample to your vet hospital to check, I have yet to look at a sample with no parasites. Those little buggers will cause GI issues, lethargy and innapitence.
Feel free to post a picture of your Beardie and the crickets if you're unsure if they're too big or not. Typical rule of thumb is no bigger then the width of their head. | A good way to tell if your bearded dragon Should be able to eat a cricket is if the cricket is big enough to fit in the gap between their eyes. Never feed a bearded dragon anything bigger than that gap. I have had my bearded dragon since she was a baby and I have always fed her small crickets and she loves them. Unfortunately I don't know what a pinhead is. |
132,648 | I connected my Gamecube to my HDTV using a PS3 composite cable (shown below). However, the image displayed is blurry, in black and white, and without sound. The cable fits perfectly on the analog AV out port, so I'm not sure whether this is a problem of incompatibility. Before buying a new cable I was wondering: are there any known issues when connecting Gamecubes to newer TVs? Does the Gamecube composite output have some proprietary hardware that will only allow Nintendo AV cables to work with the console?
 | 2013/09/30 | [
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/132648",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/8583/"
] | This is what you see when you plug a [composite video](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_video) output (yellow cable) into a [component video](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Component_video) luminance input (green port).
Put simply, a Yellow/Red/White cable does not connect to Green/Red/Blue ports because Yellow (Video) and Red/White (Audio) do not match the signals for Green/Red/Blue (all Video).
(For a full explanation, read on; or for the fix, just skip to the bottom.)
Technical background
--------------------
Composite and component, though confusingly having very similar names, are not compatible with each other.
Composite is a single-cable video signal. The main signal is *luminance*, which is the black/grey/white or "brightness" signal. There is a hidden sub-signal on the same cable that carries colour (*chrominance*) information, but it is weak and needs dedicated hardware to find and decode it so it can be combined with the brightness information. There's also some other buried signals about frame timing that aren't relevant here.
Component is a three-cable video signal. The green cable carries *only* luminance information, the blue carries the delta-from-luminance needed for the blue-spectrum colour information, and the red cable carries the delta-from-luminance needed to reconstruct the colours from the red end of the spectrum.
(The way I remember the difference is that "composite" combines all the information in one cable [that's what composite means, sorta], while "component" splits the components into separate cables. It's not a great mneumonic, but it works for me.)
Your problem
------------
So what's happening is that your HDTV is expecting to consume a luminance-only signal in the green input port, and you're plugging in a combined luminance-chrominance-timing signal which *just accidentally happens* to have a very strong luminance signal. The HDTV is happily consuming the brightness part of the signal and ignoring the rest because it doesn't know to look for the colour on the same carrier signal, instead of where it is expecting it (the blue and red ports), so it's showing you the black-and-white signal you're feeding it. (It's blurry because some of the edges are only visible when luminance is combined with the colour signals that the TV is not receiving.)
Fixing it
---------
There are some HDTVs that have combined composite/component inputs, and these will either intelligently look for the extra composite signals and internally switch how they decode, or you have to use a menu/remote setting to tell it what kind of signal to decode. Your HDTV is obviously not one of the auto-switching ones, but if it's a menu-switchable one then you just need to figure out the settings and it'll work.
If your HDTV doesn't have a feature to switch the input though, you have to somehow contrive to get it a proper 3-cable component signal. Either you need a composite-to-component converter box, or you need to buy a component cable for your GameCube. The latter is probably challenging because the hardware is so old. The converter is going to be a matter of shopping around, since there are a lot of them, and a specific recommendation is something this site isn't really suited to.
Since your HDTV (a Sharp Aquos LC-46D65U) has an [S-Video](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-Video) input, another possibility is using a composite to S-Video converter. (These are cheaper/simpler than composite to component converters, because the composite and S-Video signals are very similar and the conversion can be done with much simpler circuitry.)
What about sound?
-----------------
The lack of sound is because you're probably plugging the red/white audio cables into something that's not an audio input, such as the red/blue component video inputs. If your HDTV has red/white audio inputs (they will be labelled as **Audio In** or similar if it does) then you just have to move the red/white cables to those.
If the HDTV doesn't have red/white RCA audio ports, then it either doesn't accept audio input at all, or it only accepts something like HDMI or optical audio inputs. In that case, you'll have to hook the audio cables up directly to your speaker system, get a converter of some kind, or some other way of getting the audio into speakers or headphones. | The problem is due to using a PLAYSTATION VIDEO CABLE for a NINTENDO GAMECUBE. I just now tried it on my normal tiny composite TV and it yields the same result. It's the cable not getting all of the channels because they don't line up just right probably, so it gets the basic stuff. It's an incompatibility issue. Not with your TV, but your console and the cable. |
267,901 | I have inherited a Dell PowerEdge R410 and no disks. I have downloaded the Dell Systems Build and Update Utility for the R410 and booted from the optical drive. In the management console you have the option to deploy and O/S which is what I have done, selected Windows Server 2003 and then all seems okay, until I have received a pop-up saying "missing CD/DVD Drivers".
I have downloaded all drivers from the Dell website and thrown them onto a USB. When I have selected the location for these nothing appears to be recognised. I'm at a loss as to how to move forward with getting an O/S onto the server and any advise would be appreciated. | 2011/05/09 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/267901",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/48043/"
] | with w2k3 if you need additional drivers not provide by the oem on the install cd you'll need to have a floppy disk then hit f5/6 can't remember during the install and it will use the drivers found on the floppy. | 1. Assuming that you have already configured a RAID array on your new drives, you can boot and install directly from the installation media without using the Dell utilities. Depending on your BIOS settings, you may need to press F12 at boot to specify CD or USB. Because your version of Windows is much older than your hardware, you should be prepared to provide a third-party RAID driver if your contoller is not recognized. This driver can be downloaded from [support.dell.com](http://support.dell.com/).
2. If you are having trouble installing Server 2003 from the optical drive, you certainly can [install Windows Server 2003 directly from your USB device by following this tutorial](http://www.windowsvalley.com/install-windows-2000-xp-2003-using-usb-storage-device-pen-drive/).
3. Are you sure that you want to be installing an outdated OS on contemporary hardware? It might make more sense to install Server 2008 R2 (or the free [MS Hyper-V Server](http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?familyid=48359dd2-1c3d-4506-ae0a-232d0314ccf6&displaylang=en), or [VMware ESXi](http://www.vmware.com/products/vsphere-hypervisor/overview.html)) and then set up Server 2003 in a virtual machine. Any of the above will recognize your hardware out of the box, while providing provide a layer of abstraction that should eliminate the usual driver issues that one expects when installing old OS software on new hardware. |
32,017,650 | I have a Visual Studio online Team Project with a repository. I have been using this with VS 2013 for a while now.
I installed VS 2015 and connected to Visual Studio online in team explorer and chose the project in question.
however, under solutions it says:
You must clone the repository to open solutions for this project.
I did go to settings and edit my global settings to set my repository root correctly. (same location as set in Visual Studio 2013)
But, it is already cloned and on my local machine.
Why isn't VS 2015 Team Explorer seeing the existing repository folder?
How can I fix this other than deleting the folder and doing clone again? | 2015/08/14 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/32017650",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/76674/"
] | Because Visual Studio 2013 maintains a list of the repositories that it's seen (and their remotes) separately from where VS 2015 stores this information.
Open Team Explorer, go to the Connect page, and in the Local Git Repositories section, click the Add button. Navigate to the repository that you cloned previously.
Since you're connected to the server, VS will realize that the repository you just opened is a clone of a repository in your server and enable the TFS functionality. | At least for Visual Studio 2017 and Visual Studio Team Services:
If you have several repositories in your Team Foundation Server or VSTS project make sure you are connected to the specific repo your clone is for, not just the project. You can then enter the location at the bottom of the "Connect to Project" dialog or just add it as described in the other answer. |
32,017,650 | I have a Visual Studio online Team Project with a repository. I have been using this with VS 2013 for a while now.
I installed VS 2015 and connected to Visual Studio online in team explorer and chose the project in question.
however, under solutions it says:
You must clone the repository to open solutions for this project.
I did go to settings and edit my global settings to set my repository root correctly. (same location as set in Visual Studio 2013)
But, it is already cloned and on my local machine.
Why isn't VS 2015 Team Explorer seeing the existing repository folder?
How can I fix this other than deleting the folder and doing clone again? | 2015/08/14 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/32017650",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/76674/"
] | Because Visual Studio 2013 maintains a list of the repositories that it's seen (and their remotes) separately from where VS 2015 stores this information.
Open Team Explorer, go to the Connect page, and in the Local Git Repositories section, click the Add button. Navigate to the repository that you cloned previously.
Since you're connected to the server, VS will realize that the repository you just opened is a clone of a repository in your server and enable the TFS functionality. | Or just close VS, then navigate to the directory that you have cloned and open the solution in your newer Visual studio.
You will see VS changes "applicationhost.config" file, and then remembers that it was cloned |
32,017,650 | I have a Visual Studio online Team Project with a repository. I have been using this with VS 2013 for a while now.
I installed VS 2015 and connected to Visual Studio online in team explorer and chose the project in question.
however, under solutions it says:
You must clone the repository to open solutions for this project.
I did go to settings and edit my global settings to set my repository root correctly. (same location as set in Visual Studio 2013)
But, it is already cloned and on my local machine.
Why isn't VS 2015 Team Explorer seeing the existing repository folder?
How can I fix this other than deleting the folder and doing clone again? | 2015/08/14 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/32017650",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/76674/"
] | Because Visual Studio 2013 maintains a list of the repositories that it's seen (and their remotes) separately from where VS 2015 stores this information.
Open Team Explorer, go to the Connect page, and in the Local Git Repositories section, click the Add button. Navigate to the repository that you cloned previously.
Since you're connected to the server, VS will realize that the repository you just opened is a clone of a repository in your server and enable the TFS functionality. | I suddenly had the same problem. VS2015 didn't longer recognize, that one of the local repos is a clone and I should make a new clone to "[ProjName]2"...
For me it helped to reconnect to the remote Team Project:
1. Open the local repository solution
2. Go to the connection manager ("Manage Connections")
3. Uncheck the remote project ("Team Projects")
4. Close Window by click on Connect
5. Reopen the Connection Manager
6. Check the Team Project again and "Connect"
and everything was fine again! |
32,017,650 | I have a Visual Studio online Team Project with a repository. I have been using this with VS 2013 for a while now.
I installed VS 2015 and connected to Visual Studio online in team explorer and chose the project in question.
however, under solutions it says:
You must clone the repository to open solutions for this project.
I did go to settings and edit my global settings to set my repository root correctly. (same location as set in Visual Studio 2013)
But, it is already cloned and on my local machine.
Why isn't VS 2015 Team Explorer seeing the existing repository folder?
How can I fix this other than deleting the folder and doing clone again? | 2015/08/14 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/32017650",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/76674/"
] | At least for Visual Studio 2017 and Visual Studio Team Services:
If you have several repositories in your Team Foundation Server or VSTS project make sure you are connected to the specific repo your clone is for, not just the project. You can then enter the location at the bottom of the "Connect to Project" dialog or just add it as described in the other answer. | Or just close VS, then navigate to the directory that you have cloned and open the solution in your newer Visual studio.
You will see VS changes "applicationhost.config" file, and then remembers that it was cloned |
32,017,650 | I have a Visual Studio online Team Project with a repository. I have been using this with VS 2013 for a while now.
I installed VS 2015 and connected to Visual Studio online in team explorer and chose the project in question.
however, under solutions it says:
You must clone the repository to open solutions for this project.
I did go to settings and edit my global settings to set my repository root correctly. (same location as set in Visual Studio 2013)
But, it is already cloned and on my local machine.
Why isn't VS 2015 Team Explorer seeing the existing repository folder?
How can I fix this other than deleting the folder and doing clone again? | 2015/08/14 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/32017650",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/76674/"
] | At least for Visual Studio 2017 and Visual Studio Team Services:
If you have several repositories in your Team Foundation Server or VSTS project make sure you are connected to the specific repo your clone is for, not just the project. You can then enter the location at the bottom of the "Connect to Project" dialog or just add it as described in the other answer. | I suddenly had the same problem. VS2015 didn't longer recognize, that one of the local repos is a clone and I should make a new clone to "[ProjName]2"...
For me it helped to reconnect to the remote Team Project:
1. Open the local repository solution
2. Go to the connection manager ("Manage Connections")
3. Uncheck the remote project ("Team Projects")
4. Close Window by click on Connect
5. Reopen the Connection Manager
6. Check the Team Project again and "Connect"
and everything was fine again! |
46,035,573 | Is it possible to query all the transactions that contain a specific asset in Hyperledger Composer?.
Is it also possible to query the transaction history by identifier? | 2017/09/04 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/46035573",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/3446115/"
] | Looks like you should use the Historian if you want to search through transactions.
<https://hyperledger.github.io/composer/reference/historian.html> | Please add the below JSON into your .qry file and try to access it from logic file.
query transactionHistory{
description: "It will return all transaction history record."
statement: SELECT org.acme.sample.NAME\_OF\_TRANSACTION\_CLASS
} |
330,495 | Albeit a general question my scope is rather C# as I am aware that languages like C++ have different semantics regarding constructor execution, memory management, undefined behaviour, etc.
Somebody asked me an interesting question which was for me not easily answered.
Why (or is it at all?) regarded as bad design to let a constructor of a class start a never ending loop (i.e. game loop)?
There are some concepts that are broken by this:
* like the principle of least astonishment, the user does not expect the constructor to behave like this.
* Unit tests are harder as you cannot create this class or inject it as it never exits the loop.
* The end of the loop (game end) is then conceptually the time where the constructor finishes, which is also odd.
* Technically such a class has no public members except the constructor, which makes it harder to understand (especially for languages where no implementation is available)
And then there are technical issues:
* The constructor actually never finishes, so what happens with GC here? Is this object already in Gen 0?
* Deriving from such a class is impossible or at least very complicated due to the fact that the base constructor never returns
Is there something more obviously bad or devious with such an approach? | 2016/09/08 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/330495",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/245342/"
] | +1 For least astonishment, but this is a hard concept to articulate to new devs.
At a pragmatic level, it is hard to debug exceptions raised within constructors, if the object fails to initialise it will not exist for you to inspect the state of or log from outside of that constructor.
If you feel the need to do this sort of code pattern, please use static methods on the class instead.
A constructor exists to provide the initialisation logic when an object is instantiated from a class definition. You construct this object instance because it as a container that encapsulates a set of properties and functionality that you wish to call from the rest of your application logic.
If you do not intend to use the object that you are "constructing" then what is the point of instantiating the object in the first place? Having a while(true) loop in a constructor effectively means you never intend for it to complete...
C# is a very rich object oriented language with many different constructs and paradigms for you to explore, know your tools and when to use them, bottom line:
>
> In C# do not execute extended or never-ending logic within constructors because... there are better alternatives
>
>
> | The purpose of a constructor is to, well, contruct your object. Before the constructor has completed, it is in principle unsafe to use any methods of that object. Of course, we may call methods of the object within the constructor, but then each time we do so, we have to make sure that doing so is valid for the object in its current half-baken state.
By indirectly putting all logic into the constructor, you add more burden of this kind onto yourself. This suggests that you did not design the difference between initialization and use well enough. |
41,501,419 | I am looking for building an iOS/Android and Angular app with Java at the backend(REST API). Java will use spring framework. I am looking for the options for User authentication. iOS/Android App will be used by the client and Angular web app will be used my management. Angular web users will have different roles so requirement requires authentication(email and password) as well as authorization. Considering this I was thinking of using Spring Security with a custom UserDetailService. However I guess that will have issues with cookies. I looked into AWS Cognito Identity and Firebase and got more confused. It will be a great help if someone can share there experience with such requirement. | 2017/01/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/41501419",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/5828621/"
] | i had created basic login application in angular application by referring the links:
1. <http://jasonwatmore.com/post/2015/03/10/angularjs-user-registration-and-login-example-tutorial>
and i have used cakePHP3 for rest API generation and Token is generated on the the basis of JWT, JSON Web Token (JWT) is a JSON-based open standard used for passing claims between two parties in the context of web application environment. These token are specially designed to be very compact and URL safe. Their usability in the context of web browser single sign-on is also remarkable. JWT claims are useful for passing identities’ verification between service providers and identity providers. you'll find the reference links on internet.
for android and IOS you need to learn JSON parsing first. In android, JSON parsing can be done using OKHttpclient/Volley "android hive" is best site to learn jsonParsing and in IOS jsonParsing can be done using AFNetworking.
Hope this will help you. | The Ideal Project for you is [Spring Security OAuth2](https://projects.spring.io/spring-security-oauth/docs/oauth2.html). With this you can make your REST API Stateless and no need to worry about Cookies and Sessions. |
222,116 | I have a 5630 LED strip ~3.5 length powered by a 12V 1A wall PSU. After 30 min of operation the PSU gets very hot and the light gets dimmed down a bit. I assume that 1Ampere is not enough but I am a newbie to electronics so I am not sure at all.
If the ampere is low how can I calculate it and find the ideal amount?
I appreciate your help | 2016/03/11 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/222116",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/103257/"
] | **Assuming you do not want to modify your current source, and only want to modify the load:** Instead of inserting the switch in series, it is more important to provide an alternate path for the current to take. If I understand you correctly, you are considering the schematic on the left. Replacing it with the one on the right should work better. Your control signal will be inverted; when the signal is high, the load will be shorted so not drawing current.
[simulate this circuit](/plugins/schematics?image=http%3a%2f%2fi.stack.imgur.com%2fvaNC9.png) – Schematic created using [CircuitLab](https://www.circuitlab.com/) | With the output side series switch the OP may be justifiably nervous about the instantaneous higher than rated voltage at the time of switch on. These can cause a current spike outside the safe operating range every time the load is switched on though not a problem usually for a filament bulb it can be a problem for an LED and certainly for a laser diode. If there is stray or unintended capacitance before the switch there may be more energy waiting to discharge repeatedly through the LED than is good for it.
The shunt switch to turn off the laser diode is used in sensitive applications and can be designed to drop the voltage to just below the operating voltage of the load for fast response (though even a low voltage will cause a little conduction and light with an LED, almost no laser action is achieved before the threshold current is reached). The shunt method obviously does consume the full load current at all times but in some situations this can be a good thing if you want your power supply to see a constant load, in a simple illumination scenario it is just wasted energy.
I would suggest that the sense pin of the current regulator be controlled. If this pin is driven to ground the regulator output voltage will be limited to 1.2V and through the shunt resistor it is unlikely to be able to pass much current through the LED that is held way below the rated forward voltage. A resistor (say 1 kOhm) to replace the sense terminal link and a open collector/drain output to pull it to ground.
**EDIT:**
Here is a [thread](http://forum.arduino.cc/index.php?topic=102101.0) that has gone through all the same iterations as the answers to this SEE question. I just found it using Google image search with the following search phrase *lm317 current source switched*.
They [link to an image](http://forum.arduino.cc/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=102101.0;attach=17185) of a circuit that looks just like what I was suggesting. It was about the third image in the thread if the direct link does not work.
**Further EDIT:**
There are a number of regulators with a shutdown pin that may be even better suited to the task at hand. Parts such as LM2941, LT3022 and UCC281 may be worth checking out. |
45,869 | >
> The first level, the Realm of Formlessness (Arupaloka), consists of
> four planes of brahmas who have no physical body, consisting entirely
> of mind, but who may create a physical body if they want to be seen.
> They are not completely free from the fetters of suffering (dukkha),
> but the dukkha experienced here is much less intense than that
> suffered in the Rupaloka. These brahmas are unable to hear the
> teachings of the Buddha (dhamma) and they can never become
> enlightened.
>
>
>
[Buddhist rebirth in different planes of existence](https://blogs.bl.uk/asian-and-african/2016/03/buddhist-rebirth-in-different-planes-of-existence.html)
Q1) What is the difference between Arupaloka and Nibbana except Nibbana has no incarnation, no dukkha and has Buddhism teaching ?
Q2) Why brahmas unable to hear the teachings of the Buddha at Arupaloka?
>
> These brahmas are unable to hear the teachings of the Buddha (dhamma)
>
>
> | 2021/09/21 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/45869",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/19338/"
] | The difference between the formless realms and extinguishment is the degree of emptiness. In MN121, the Buddha advises Venerable Ānanda on the progressive stages of the meditation on emptiness. Here is the transition leaving the realm of form:
>
> [MN121:6.1](https://suttacentral.net/mn121/en/sujato#mn121:6.1): Furthermore, a mendicant—ignoring the perception of wilderness and the perception of earth—focuses on the oneness dependent on the perception of the dimension of infinite space.
>
>
>
In the above, the perception of wilderness is unsatisfactory in its impermanence, so it is natural to proceed onward to the formless. Indeed, the meditation on emptiness proceeds deeper and passes through the formless, leaving it here:
>
> [MN121:10.1](https://suttacentral.net/mn121/en/sujato#mn121:10.1): Furthermore, a mendicant—ignoring the perception of the dimension of nothingness and the perception of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception—focuses on the oneness dependent on the signless immersion of the heart.
>
>
>
In each transition noted during meditation, the preceding stage is perceived as unsatisfactory and impermanent. Relinquishing each attachment opens up greater freedom. Indeed, the transition out of the formless is the eighth and final liberation.
>
> [DN34:2.1.206](https://suttacentral.net/dn34/en/sujato#dn34:2.1.206): Going totally beyond the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, they enter and remain in the cessation of perception and feeling.
>
> [DN34:2.1.207](https://suttacentral.net/dn34/en/sujato#dn34:2.1.207): This is the eighth liberation.
>
>
>
Note that the conceit "I am" still permeates the formless. The observer still sees. When the observer sees, there is "this and that". With "this and that" in mind, perception and feeling still bubble and perturb. That perturbation is disturbing and unsatisfactory because it is also impermanent--"that" appeared and "that" will disappear. If "that" is impermanent, then "this" might also be--that attachment to "this" causes anxiety. So one might attempt to perfect the formless, but that is pointless, an unsatisfactory dead end. Those who are stuck in the formless, are unwilling to accept "this" as impermanent. They cling to the notion that somehow perfecting the formless will lead to a subtle perpetuation of "this". But just as "that" appeared and disappeared, so too must "this".
Only in letting go of "this", the conceit "I am", does suffering cease:
>
> [DN34:1.4.27](https://suttacentral.net/dn34/en/sujato#dn34:1.4.27): Renunciation is the escape from sensual pleasures. The formless is the escape from form. **Cessation is the escape from whatever is created, conditioned, and dependently originated.**
>
>
> | **What is the difference between Arupaloka and Nibbana except Nibbana has no incarnation, no dukkha and has Buddhism teaching ?**
The arupa ayatanas are the subtle enclaves of the coarse human
consciousness. The word *consciousness* here means the continuum of experience derived from the arising of sensate phenomenon, which is more accurately described using the five aggregate model: with the arising of form, feeling/perception come into play from which two reactions arise: aversion and attraction. In this world/body relationship consciousness becomes a self-replicating repository, and it is in its very ability to self-replicate that one finds a continuum called Sue, Bob or John. Those entities then haul around the regrets of their history - which is akin to hauling around a slab of concrete - and make feeble attempts to offset these regrates by projecting favourable images of a better future. In essence, it is a neurotic consciousness where one creates a stressful here and now. That is the delusion, and that is what Dogen calls The Ten Thousand Things.
This is a very noisy situation - so noisy that one cannot discern or even conceive of another way. Practice aims to reduce this type of noisy consciousness so that illuminating knowledge of another way can be discerned. Once one has reduced a substantial degree of this type of consciousness, you enter into the arupa ayatanas. A comparison between the arupa ayatanas and nirvana only serves a mind intent on food for thought. It gives something for the mind to lick - like an ice cream. It is better to not alight on anything with regard to comparisons.
**Q2) Why brahmas unable to hear the teachings of the Buddha at Arupaloka?**
They don't have ears... but to bring an answer closer to earth in terms of meditative qualities: it is only the last two arupa ayatanas where one cannot discern a state, a non-state, or neither a state nor a non-state simply because the consciousness there is extremely tenuous. In other words, a teaching cannot be accessed. It is only in retrospect that can one come to understand the last two arupa ayatanas; when one has emerged from those states, then it is possible, by means of reflection, to know those states. But when you are in those states, you cannot be taught anything. Regardless, the mind is radically changed by such subtle types of consciousness. It becomes a wafer several microns thick, primed to snap at the mercy of the lakshanas. |
45,869 | >
> The first level, the Realm of Formlessness (Arupaloka), consists of
> four planes of brahmas who have no physical body, consisting entirely
> of mind, but who may create a physical body if they want to be seen.
> They are not completely free from the fetters of suffering (dukkha),
> but the dukkha experienced here is much less intense than that
> suffered in the Rupaloka. These brahmas are unable to hear the
> teachings of the Buddha (dhamma) and they can never become
> enlightened.
>
>
>
[Buddhist rebirth in different planes of existence](https://blogs.bl.uk/asian-and-african/2016/03/buddhist-rebirth-in-different-planes-of-existence.html)
Q1) What is the difference between Arupaloka and Nibbana except Nibbana has no incarnation, no dukkha and has Buddhism teaching ?
Q2) Why brahmas unable to hear the teachings of the Buddha at Arupaloka?
>
> These brahmas are unable to hear the teachings of the Buddha (dhamma)
>
>
> | 2021/09/21 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/45869",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/19338/"
] | **What is the difference between Arupaloka and Nibbana except Nibbana has no incarnation, no dukkha and has Buddhism teaching ?**
The arupa ayatanas are the subtle enclaves of the coarse human
consciousness. The word *consciousness* here means the continuum of experience derived from the arising of sensate phenomenon, which is more accurately described using the five aggregate model: with the arising of form, feeling/perception come into play from which two reactions arise: aversion and attraction. In this world/body relationship consciousness becomes a self-replicating repository, and it is in its very ability to self-replicate that one finds a continuum called Sue, Bob or John. Those entities then haul around the regrets of their history - which is akin to hauling around a slab of concrete - and make feeble attempts to offset these regrates by projecting favourable images of a better future. In essence, it is a neurotic consciousness where one creates a stressful here and now. That is the delusion, and that is what Dogen calls The Ten Thousand Things.
This is a very noisy situation - so noisy that one cannot discern or even conceive of another way. Practice aims to reduce this type of noisy consciousness so that illuminating knowledge of another way can be discerned. Once one has reduced a substantial degree of this type of consciousness, you enter into the arupa ayatanas. A comparison between the arupa ayatanas and nirvana only serves a mind intent on food for thought. It gives something for the mind to lick - like an ice cream. It is better to not alight on anything with regard to comparisons.
**Q2) Why brahmas unable to hear the teachings of the Buddha at Arupaloka?**
They don't have ears... but to bring an answer closer to earth in terms of meditative qualities: it is only the last two arupa ayatanas where one cannot discern a state, a non-state, or neither a state nor a non-state simply because the consciousness there is extremely tenuous. In other words, a teaching cannot be accessed. It is only in retrospect that can one come to understand the last two arupa ayatanas; when one has emerged from those states, then it is possible, by means of reflection, to know those states. But when you are in those states, you cannot be taught anything. Regardless, the mind is radically changed by such subtle types of consciousness. It becomes a wafer several microns thick, primed to snap at the mercy of the lakshanas. | >
> Q1) What is the difference between Arupaloka and Nibbana except Nibbana has no incarnation, no dukkha and has Buddhism teaching ?
>
>
>
Arupaloka beings still attach to their "atta" (self conception). |
45,869 | >
> The first level, the Realm of Formlessness (Arupaloka), consists of
> four planes of brahmas who have no physical body, consisting entirely
> of mind, but who may create a physical body if they want to be seen.
> They are not completely free from the fetters of suffering (dukkha),
> but the dukkha experienced here is much less intense than that
> suffered in the Rupaloka. These brahmas are unable to hear the
> teachings of the Buddha (dhamma) and they can never become
> enlightened.
>
>
>
[Buddhist rebirth in different planes of existence](https://blogs.bl.uk/asian-and-african/2016/03/buddhist-rebirth-in-different-planes-of-existence.html)
Q1) What is the difference between Arupaloka and Nibbana except Nibbana has no incarnation, no dukkha and has Buddhism teaching ?
Q2) Why brahmas unable to hear the teachings of the Buddha at Arupaloka?
>
> These brahmas are unable to hear the teachings of the Buddha (dhamma)
>
>
> | 2021/09/21 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/45869",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/19338/"
] | The difference between the formless realms and extinguishment is the degree of emptiness. In MN121, the Buddha advises Venerable Ānanda on the progressive stages of the meditation on emptiness. Here is the transition leaving the realm of form:
>
> [MN121:6.1](https://suttacentral.net/mn121/en/sujato#mn121:6.1): Furthermore, a mendicant—ignoring the perception of wilderness and the perception of earth—focuses on the oneness dependent on the perception of the dimension of infinite space.
>
>
>
In the above, the perception of wilderness is unsatisfactory in its impermanence, so it is natural to proceed onward to the formless. Indeed, the meditation on emptiness proceeds deeper and passes through the formless, leaving it here:
>
> [MN121:10.1](https://suttacentral.net/mn121/en/sujato#mn121:10.1): Furthermore, a mendicant—ignoring the perception of the dimension of nothingness and the perception of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception—focuses on the oneness dependent on the signless immersion of the heart.
>
>
>
In each transition noted during meditation, the preceding stage is perceived as unsatisfactory and impermanent. Relinquishing each attachment opens up greater freedom. Indeed, the transition out of the formless is the eighth and final liberation.
>
> [DN34:2.1.206](https://suttacentral.net/dn34/en/sujato#dn34:2.1.206): Going totally beyond the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, they enter and remain in the cessation of perception and feeling.
>
> [DN34:2.1.207](https://suttacentral.net/dn34/en/sujato#dn34:2.1.207): This is the eighth liberation.
>
>
>
Note that the conceit "I am" still permeates the formless. The observer still sees. When the observer sees, there is "this and that". With "this and that" in mind, perception and feeling still bubble and perturb. That perturbation is disturbing and unsatisfactory because it is also impermanent--"that" appeared and "that" will disappear. If "that" is impermanent, then "this" might also be--that attachment to "this" causes anxiety. So one might attempt to perfect the formless, but that is pointless, an unsatisfactory dead end. Those who are stuck in the formless, are unwilling to accept "this" as impermanent. They cling to the notion that somehow perfecting the formless will lead to a subtle perpetuation of "this". But just as "that" appeared and disappeared, so too must "this".
Only in letting go of "this", the conceit "I am", does suffering cease:
>
> [DN34:1.4.27](https://suttacentral.net/dn34/en/sujato#dn34:1.4.27): Renunciation is the escape from sensual pleasures. The formless is the escape from form. **Cessation is the escape from whatever is created, conditioned, and dependently originated.**
>
>
> | >
> Q1) What is the difference between Arupaloka and Nibbana except Nibbana has no incarnation, no dukkha and has Buddhism teaching ?
>
>
>
Arupaloka beings still attach to their "atta" (self conception). |
5,177,895 | CPython uses a [Global Interpreter Lock](http://docs.python.org/release/2.5.2/api/threads.html). Linux has removed all traces of the [Big Kernel Lock](http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Removing_the_Big_Kernel_Lock). What is the alternative to these locks? How can a system make full use of a truly multi-core or multi-processor system without grinding everything to a halt? | 2011/03/03 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5177895",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/183528/"
] | A GIL wouldn't be necessary if python used a more advanced Garbage Collector like [IBM's Recycler](http://www.research.ibm.com/people/d/dfb/recycler.html) instated of a primitive reference counting method. This is something that [Unladen Swallow](http://code.google.com/p/unladen-swallow/wiki/ProjectPlan#Global_Interpreter_Lock) is doing to improve the performance of python. A more prommising answer is [Stackless Python](http://www.python.org/download/), which uses its own micro-thread implementation instead of relying on the operating system like traditional CPython. | The GIL is process specific, so you can get around it by launching several Python processes. The [multiprocessing module](http://docs.python.org/library/multiprocessing.html) provides an easy-to-use API for this.
Another way is to use C-extensions (or write your own) which release the GIL while doing the kind of data processing you need. |
5,177,895 | CPython uses a [Global Interpreter Lock](http://docs.python.org/release/2.5.2/api/threads.html). Linux has removed all traces of the [Big Kernel Lock](http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Removing_the_Big_Kernel_Lock). What is the alternative to these locks? How can a system make full use of a truly multi-core or multi-processor system without grinding everything to a halt? | 2011/03/03 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5177895",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/183528/"
] | The GIL is process specific, so you can get around it by launching several Python processes. The [multiprocessing module](http://docs.python.org/library/multiprocessing.html) provides an easy-to-use API for this.
Another way is to use C-extensions (or write your own) which release the GIL while doing the kind of data processing you need. | Simple. Have no mutable state, much like Haskell and other functional programming languages do. Since nothing in memory needs to be changed, no global lock is ever needed. |
5,177,895 | CPython uses a [Global Interpreter Lock](http://docs.python.org/release/2.5.2/api/threads.html). Linux has removed all traces of the [Big Kernel Lock](http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Removing_the_Big_Kernel_Lock). What is the alternative to these locks? How can a system make full use of a truly multi-core or multi-processor system without grinding everything to a halt? | 2011/03/03 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5177895",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/183528/"
] | The GIL is process specific, so you can get around it by launching several Python processes. The [multiprocessing module](http://docs.python.org/library/multiprocessing.html) provides an easy-to-use API for this.
Another way is to use C-extensions (or write your own) which release the GIL while doing the kind of data processing you need. | You can get rid of the GIL in quite the same way the Linux guys got rid of the Big Kernel Lock: simply add lots of more fine grained locks or use atomic primitives that don't need locks.
The downside and main reason Python doesn't do it, is performance. For example the Tcl interpreter has no GIL but can be compiled threaded and non-threaded, if you use the threaded version, you get around 10-20% less performance than in the single threaded case. So unless you use threads, it is actually slower. There have been Python patches to add smaller locks, but those had even worse performance impacts, so were rejected.
It is just a trade-off, the python devs decided that single thread performance (and backward compatibility with C-extensions) is much more important than the option to use many threads on the python level. You can still use threads freely inside a C-extension, just not meaningfully on the python language level. |
5,177,895 | CPython uses a [Global Interpreter Lock](http://docs.python.org/release/2.5.2/api/threads.html). Linux has removed all traces of the [Big Kernel Lock](http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Removing_the_Big_Kernel_Lock). What is the alternative to these locks? How can a system make full use of a truly multi-core or multi-processor system without grinding everything to a halt? | 2011/03/03 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5177895",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/183528/"
] | A GIL wouldn't be necessary if python used a more advanced Garbage Collector like [IBM's Recycler](http://www.research.ibm.com/people/d/dfb/recycler.html) instated of a primitive reference counting method. This is something that [Unladen Swallow](http://code.google.com/p/unladen-swallow/wiki/ProjectPlan#Global_Interpreter_Lock) is doing to improve the performance of python. A more prommising answer is [Stackless Python](http://www.python.org/download/), which uses its own micro-thread implementation instead of relying on the operating system like traditional CPython. | Simple. Have no mutable state, much like Haskell and other functional programming languages do. Since nothing in memory needs to be changed, no global lock is ever needed. |
5,177,895 | CPython uses a [Global Interpreter Lock](http://docs.python.org/release/2.5.2/api/threads.html). Linux has removed all traces of the [Big Kernel Lock](http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Removing_the_Big_Kernel_Lock). What is the alternative to these locks? How can a system make full use of a truly multi-core or multi-processor system without grinding everything to a halt? | 2011/03/03 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5177895",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/183528/"
] | A GIL wouldn't be necessary if python used a more advanced Garbage Collector like [IBM's Recycler](http://www.research.ibm.com/people/d/dfb/recycler.html) instated of a primitive reference counting method. This is something that [Unladen Swallow](http://code.google.com/p/unladen-swallow/wiki/ProjectPlan#Global_Interpreter_Lock) is doing to improve the performance of python. A more prommising answer is [Stackless Python](http://www.python.org/download/), which uses its own micro-thread implementation instead of relying on the operating system like traditional CPython. | You can get rid of the GIL in quite the same way the Linux guys got rid of the Big Kernel Lock: simply add lots of more fine grained locks or use atomic primitives that don't need locks.
The downside and main reason Python doesn't do it, is performance. For example the Tcl interpreter has no GIL but can be compiled threaded and non-threaded, if you use the threaded version, you get around 10-20% less performance than in the single threaded case. So unless you use threads, it is actually slower. There have been Python patches to add smaller locks, but those had even worse performance impacts, so were rejected.
It is just a trade-off, the python devs decided that single thread performance (and backward compatibility with C-extensions) is much more important than the option to use many threads on the python level. You can still use threads freely inside a C-extension, just not meaningfully on the python language level. |
5,177,895 | CPython uses a [Global Interpreter Lock](http://docs.python.org/release/2.5.2/api/threads.html). Linux has removed all traces of the [Big Kernel Lock](http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Removing_the_Big_Kernel_Lock). What is the alternative to these locks? How can a system make full use of a truly multi-core or multi-processor system without grinding everything to a halt? | 2011/03/03 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5177895",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/183528/"
] | Simple. Have no mutable state, much like Haskell and other functional programming languages do. Since nothing in memory needs to be changed, no global lock is ever needed. | You can get rid of the GIL in quite the same way the Linux guys got rid of the Big Kernel Lock: simply add lots of more fine grained locks or use atomic primitives that don't need locks.
The downside and main reason Python doesn't do it, is performance. For example the Tcl interpreter has no GIL but can be compiled threaded and non-threaded, if you use the threaded version, you get around 10-20% less performance than in the single threaded case. So unless you use threads, it is actually slower. There have been Python patches to add smaller locks, but those had even worse performance impacts, so were rejected.
It is just a trade-off, the python devs decided that single thread performance (and backward compatibility with C-extensions) is much more important than the option to use many threads on the python level. You can still use threads freely inside a C-extension, just not meaningfully on the python language level. |
13,428,397 | Hi using font forge in windows when i load the font file it creates glyph name for each glyph in font file. My area of interest is how this name are generated in fontforge? | 2012/11/17 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/13428397",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1787818/"
] | By default, FontForge uses the [Adobe Glyph List](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Glyph_List) as its name list, which provides glyph names like *ydieresis*; these are the names used within FontForge .sfd files. FontForge also displays Unicode names such as *LATIN SMALL LETTER Y WITH DIAERESIS*.
If you like, you can [change the namelist](https://fontforge.github.io/encodingmenu.html#namelist) for a given font. | These names are decided by the Unicode consortium.
<https://github.com/fontforge/libuninameslist> is a C library that FontForge uses to look the information up. |
13,428,397 | Hi using font forge in windows when i load the font file it creates glyph name for each glyph in font file. My area of interest is how this name are generated in fontforge? | 2012/11/17 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/13428397",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1787818/"
] | By default, FontForge uses the [Adobe Glyph List](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Glyph_List) as its name list, which provides glyph names like *ydieresis*; these are the names used within FontForge .sfd files. FontForge also displays Unicode names such as *LATIN SMALL LETTER Y WITH DIAERESIS*.
If you like, you can [change the namelist](https://fontforge.github.io/encodingmenu.html#namelist) for a given font. | Most unicode character has a unique name.
See: <http://unicode.org/charts/charindex.html> |
52,864 | I'm rereading my draft, and there is a part in the book where when the main character is helping others escape prison, she accidentally reveals herself to the prison guards who chase her down and kill one of the people she was trying to rescue.
Is this too brutal? I don't want my reader to hate the main character for indirectly killing someone, but should I keep it or scrap it? I do have a backup idea that could easily take the place of her revealing herself and instead have someone else do it and have my main character swoop in as the hero, but I'm not sure which version to do.
Edit: Thanks to @M.A.Golding and @FeRD for pointing out that I should add that the prisoners were wrongfully imprisoned. | 2020/10/01 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/52864",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46701/"
] | You've really got two questions here:
1. Is killing too brutal for my book?
2. Do my characters need to make mistakes?
No one here can answer #1 for you. It depends on your audience and the tone of your book. I won't go so far to say that books for kids shouldn't have killing; people die in Harry Potter and even in nursery rhymes. You should be careful about how graphic the descriptions get if your audience is young though.
As for #2, mistakes are often an important plot point, especially at the beginning of the story. Many stories start with the main character making a mistake that starts the central conflict. Mistakes are also important when it comes to making characters relatable. No one in real life is perfect, so a perfect main character often comes off as flat. | Yes. It’s fine to have someone die. Just make sure that you don’t only kill side Characters, because then it makes the main characters seem immortal, and the reader expects them to turn out okay.
The way I avoided this in my book is creating a main character who’s sole purpose is to get really important, draw a lot of empathy from the reader, and then be killed in a horrific tragic way that was the main characters fault. |
52,864 | I'm rereading my draft, and there is a part in the book where when the main character is helping others escape prison, she accidentally reveals herself to the prison guards who chase her down and kill one of the people she was trying to rescue.
Is this too brutal? I don't want my reader to hate the main character for indirectly killing someone, but should I keep it or scrap it? I do have a backup idea that could easily take the place of her revealing herself and instead have someone else do it and have my main character swoop in as the hero, but I'm not sure which version to do.
Edit: Thanks to @M.A.Golding and @FeRD for pointing out that I should add that the prisoners were wrongfully imprisoned. | 2020/10/01 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/52864",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46701/"
] | You've really got two questions here:
1. Is killing too brutal for my book?
2. Do my characters need to make mistakes?
No one here can answer #1 for you. It depends on your audience and the tone of your book. I won't go so far to say that books for kids shouldn't have killing; people die in Harry Potter and even in nursery rhymes. You should be careful about how graphic the descriptions get if your audience is young though.
As for #2, mistakes are often an important plot point, especially at the beginning of the story. Many stories start with the main character making a mistake that starts the central conflict. Mistakes are also important when it comes to making characters relatable. No one in real life is perfect, so a perfect main character often comes off as flat. | I have a slightly different take from other people on this. I don't think it is true protagonists should never be perfect; it might depend on what we mean by "perfect" but I think interesting and compelling stories can be written with characters that don't have deep flaws (or not flaws the author or reader sees as such or cares about). I think giving flaws to a character just for the sake of them having flaws is misguided. We talk about "humanizing" characters but that doesn't have to take only one shape. You can engage with a character's internality, show them having relatable doubts and fears and struggles and joys and internal contradictions without giving them a trait you feel is a "flaw" (for example [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jz5nB7erEXw) is someone arguing that good stories can be written about a character that is as perfect as they get). You can also have a character who you don't explore particularly well, but you know they "should have a flaw" so you make them clumsy in a way that has little impact on the story, or conversely have them run over someone in their car and not actually explore how awful this event is, but yay your character is flawed it's fine. I think we should not ignore the potential issues with a character being flawed in a way that is unacceptable to the reader, I have absolutely rejected stories because the protagonist was flawed in ways that did not make me want to read about them. Or more precisely I should say: *their flaws were written* in ways that did not make me want to read about them.
I think the important thing to consider is, why is a flaw a flaw? What makes a perfect protagonist perfect? The answer I think is *the moral convictions of the author and reader*. An author with well-thought out and consistent moral convictions will present a perfect protagonist in ways that highlight and defend these convictions. They will present a flawed or even villainous protagonist in ways that *also* highlight those convictions, by presenting a coherent view of why those flaws are bad, how they impact the protagonist and those around them, and so on. This will in turn make a story that is coherent and well-constructed in terms of themes, plot consequences, emotional resonance, what have you, and readers will respond to that.
I think the danger with writing "perfect protagonists" or the kind of flawed protagonist that makes you nope out of the book, is when the author does not have a coherent moral philosophy or has one that is so abhorrent to the reader that they cannot stand reading it. A reader can forgive a flawed protagonist; it is much harder to forgive a protagonist who acts terribly (or in ways the reader thinks are terrible) but who the author clearly thinks is perfect, where the consequences of the terrible actions are not explored in their terribleness and who faces no negative repercussions for their behavior. It is similarly hard to forgive a protagonist who *is* presented as flawed, but where the author seems to have little concept of *how flawed* they've really made their protagonist, or treats as flaws things the reader thinks are fine while treating as fine things the reader thinks are awful.
The issue IMO isn't just that we want to be morally validated by what we read, but that insofar as a plot has moral elements (and any story that worries about its protagonist being perfect or flawed has a moral element to it), like every other aspect of the work they need to have a realism or at least internal coherence to them to avoid pushing the reader out of the story. I see it as a form of suspension of disbelief. In a fantasy or science-fiction work you can accept some foundational premises and then enjoy the story insofar as everything derives from those premises, but you start getting in trouble when more and more inconsistent elements are thrown at you such that you spend more time making the effort to suspend your disbelief than enjoying the story, or find the story drained of tension because you cannot anticipate what will happen next given all the inconsistencies. Similarly you can temporarily adopt an alternate moral framework (within limits) to enjoy a story, but if it is badly thought-out then one has to constantly update the "moral suspension of disbelief" as actions get presented as good or bad with little in-universe consistency, and it becomes hard to root for an outcome if you aren't given a stable value system to judge outcomes by.
Here is an example of what I mean with how someone can enjoy a work of art they morally disagree with, because they think it presents its own moral universe well (and how it contrasts with one that doesn't) :
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oHa2XT89x8>
In your story, what do YOU think about the mistake you propose your character make? It doesn't strike me as a shocking mistake in the universe of mistakes action protagonists make, but I find it very interesting that *you* are worried about it. Do YOU think this is an egregious mistake? Why? Do you imagine the feelings of the friends and loved ones of the victims, and what they would think of your protagonist? Do you have a mental view of your protagonist as someone righteous, wise and reliable and you feel this action might be too far out of character for them? Do you feel *you*, as a moral arbiter, would not be able to respect this character as much as you want your reader to respect her? Conversely, do you actually think it's fine but are worried a reader would disagree? If so, why do you think it's fine, how would you argue your case to this hypothetical reader? I think this is all valuable to explore! And it should inform your writing. As you explore it hopefully your own views may become more coherent and something you feel confident in, and once that happens it matters less what your readers think - you can try to *sell* them on what *you* think. Maybe you'll decide that no, this is not a mistake you feel is forgivable for your character... If so I think it would be a bit cheap to have it just not happen, or happen to someone else. Because if it just happens to someone else for your own convenience, that means your character is just *lucky* to be "good". That's not very morally compelling! If this mistake is so awful that your protagonist must not make it, but *someone* easily could, what does it make the poor sap of a secondary character who *did* make it? Do they have a basic character flaw your protagonist lacks, is your protagonist conscienscious enough about human life that they will put the care into not making this mistake? Then portray that, think about what it would take to be such a good and competent person so as to not make that mistake and use your protagonist to show how this good person would be and work. Is this secondary character a good, competent person but the mistake is still a horrible one you find hard to reconcile with, if so how shall *they* reconcile with it? Is this moral journey interesting to you, and if so might it not be worth giving it to your protagonist? If you struggle to reconcile being a good person who has made this mistake - what does that mean for the world you built, that this is a thing that can happen? How do people exist in it? Can it be changed, should it be changed? |
52,864 | I'm rereading my draft, and there is a part in the book where when the main character is helping others escape prison, she accidentally reveals herself to the prison guards who chase her down and kill one of the people she was trying to rescue.
Is this too brutal? I don't want my reader to hate the main character for indirectly killing someone, but should I keep it or scrap it? I do have a backup idea that could easily take the place of her revealing herself and instead have someone else do it and have my main character swoop in as the hero, but I'm not sure which version to do.
Edit: Thanks to @M.A.Golding and @FeRD for pointing out that I should add that the prisoners were wrongfully imprisoned. | 2020/10/01 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/52864",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46701/"
] | Does it serve the story? Then, yes.
Putting that particular mistake in will alter who your target audience is, though. Some people will find it too brutal; some people will find the lack of such things means that the stakes are too low.
Also, how you treat it will affect how your audience reacts to your character. How serious the mistake is, whether it was neglience, what she did to try to retrieve it will all affect that.
You may need to rope in beta readers to help determine what the effect is. | I say let em' die.
My reasoning? Simple. **Protagonists are human too. You can't expect them to be perfect and neither will the reader.**
I don't know about the rest of you. But I read books for two reasons. The first reason is obvious: because they're entertaining. But the second reason is different: To show that 1. Even heroes make mistakes. And 2. To remind myself that nobody's perfect, even the protagonist of the book I'm reading. I've never really been the type of guy to read superhero books or comics, simply because the people in those types of things are too perfect. Let's take Superman, for example. If you could name 5 major mistakes that lead to death or something of that magnitude I'd probably pay you. A lot of the time heroes are shown to be perfect, but no one is. So I say that it's definitely the right choice to make your protagonist make that mistake. The reader isn't going to hate them, and if they do their hate will be short-lived. But either way, who really cares? It's your book and you should do what you want in it. If that's making the protagonist indirectly kill someone then make the protagonist indirectly kill someone. I support you completely and I'm positive the readers will too.
That's also why I hate your "backup plan." Once again that plan makes the protagonist look perfect, always cleaning up after other's messes, and never messing up themselves. This isn't Thor. Your protagonist (I assume) isn't a god from Asgard who has to be perfect in order to keep him big metal hammer. So please, don't make her seem that way. |
52,864 | I'm rereading my draft, and there is a part in the book where when the main character is helping others escape prison, she accidentally reveals herself to the prison guards who chase her down and kill one of the people she was trying to rescue.
Is this too brutal? I don't want my reader to hate the main character for indirectly killing someone, but should I keep it or scrap it? I do have a backup idea that could easily take the place of her revealing herself and instead have someone else do it and have my main character swoop in as the hero, but I'm not sure which version to do.
Edit: Thanks to @M.A.Golding and @FeRD for pointing out that I should add that the prisoners were wrongfully imprisoned. | 2020/10/01 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/52864",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46701/"
] | Well, first off, I kind of *hate* your backup plan. It's just... simply because someone is the hero of the *story*, doesn't mean they have to be unflinchingly, superhumanly *heroic* at every turn. The larger-than-life hero archetype has been done to death. Sciborg is right to invoke the Mary Sue trope. It's not that it doesn't work, it's that it's boring. Your original idea is *far* more interesting.
As far as how the audience takes it, that'll all depend on you. You haven't given us enough information about the **outcome** of that event to interpret its effect on the story, and how your audience views the protagonist will hinge entirely on the *outcome*, not the event itself.
1. Is the person who was killed a stranger, a random scene extra with no personal connection to the protagonist? Does your hero shrug off the event and go about her business with barely an acknowledgement of her role in the other character's death? Then, sure, she will look like a complete asshole, and the audience will want nothing to do with her. Would you?
2. Is the hero *affected* by the death, deeply and profoundly? Does she spend the rest of the story haunted by the memory of the dead character? Well — maybe good, maybe bad. It's possible to blow that kind of thing by failing to sufficiently build a foundation for it *before* the incident. If you want to dump something like that on your story, it's gotta be able to support it. A strong emotional reaction like that requires a strong emotional *connection* between the characters, or it will feel hollow to the audience. OTOH, if the character who's killed is the protagonist's relative, or close friend, or the past associate she was attempting to rescue in the first place, then you've built a plausibly devastating event that you can use to shake her right down to her core. At which point you've got carte blanche to rebuild her in a dozen different ways, should the story require it.
3. If the protagonist *doesn't* have a connection to the character who's killed, can you proxy those strong emotions via a third character who **does**? Perhaps the dead character's brother, or child, or best friend, is also among the group being rescued, and has to deal with both the loss of their loved one, *and* the knowledge that your main character is partly to blame for that loss. Now you've created a believable, totally organic conflict engine that you can mine to create tension between that character and your protagonist. (...Holy crap, did that metaphor get away from me.)
If that's the case, then the audience reaction comes back to: How does the protagonist *handle* the events that follow? Does she take responsibility for her mistake? Does she respect and validate the feelings of the surviving loved one, even when they manifest as anger or disrespect directed at her? Does she make a promise that, while she can't bring back the lost loved one or ever undo the mistake she made, she will do everything in her power to succeed against their common foe / mutual oppressors, and ensure that $character's death was not in vain?
Your audience won't hate your protagonist for a mistake, or for her role in events that were beyond her control. But they will *judge* her for **everything** that happens after. | I have a slightly different take from other people on this. I don't think it is true protagonists should never be perfect; it might depend on what we mean by "perfect" but I think interesting and compelling stories can be written with characters that don't have deep flaws (or not flaws the author or reader sees as such or cares about). I think giving flaws to a character just for the sake of them having flaws is misguided. We talk about "humanizing" characters but that doesn't have to take only one shape. You can engage with a character's internality, show them having relatable doubts and fears and struggles and joys and internal contradictions without giving them a trait you feel is a "flaw" (for example [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jz5nB7erEXw) is someone arguing that good stories can be written about a character that is as perfect as they get). You can also have a character who you don't explore particularly well, but you know they "should have a flaw" so you make them clumsy in a way that has little impact on the story, or conversely have them run over someone in their car and not actually explore how awful this event is, but yay your character is flawed it's fine. I think we should not ignore the potential issues with a character being flawed in a way that is unacceptable to the reader, I have absolutely rejected stories because the protagonist was flawed in ways that did not make me want to read about them. Or more precisely I should say: *their flaws were written* in ways that did not make me want to read about them.
I think the important thing to consider is, why is a flaw a flaw? What makes a perfect protagonist perfect? The answer I think is *the moral convictions of the author and reader*. An author with well-thought out and consistent moral convictions will present a perfect protagonist in ways that highlight and defend these convictions. They will present a flawed or even villainous protagonist in ways that *also* highlight those convictions, by presenting a coherent view of why those flaws are bad, how they impact the protagonist and those around them, and so on. This will in turn make a story that is coherent and well-constructed in terms of themes, plot consequences, emotional resonance, what have you, and readers will respond to that.
I think the danger with writing "perfect protagonists" or the kind of flawed protagonist that makes you nope out of the book, is when the author does not have a coherent moral philosophy or has one that is so abhorrent to the reader that they cannot stand reading it. A reader can forgive a flawed protagonist; it is much harder to forgive a protagonist who acts terribly (or in ways the reader thinks are terrible) but who the author clearly thinks is perfect, where the consequences of the terrible actions are not explored in their terribleness and who faces no negative repercussions for their behavior. It is similarly hard to forgive a protagonist who *is* presented as flawed, but where the author seems to have little concept of *how flawed* they've really made their protagonist, or treats as flaws things the reader thinks are fine while treating as fine things the reader thinks are awful.
The issue IMO isn't just that we want to be morally validated by what we read, but that insofar as a plot has moral elements (and any story that worries about its protagonist being perfect or flawed has a moral element to it), like every other aspect of the work they need to have a realism or at least internal coherence to them to avoid pushing the reader out of the story. I see it as a form of suspension of disbelief. In a fantasy or science-fiction work you can accept some foundational premises and then enjoy the story insofar as everything derives from those premises, but you start getting in trouble when more and more inconsistent elements are thrown at you such that you spend more time making the effort to suspend your disbelief than enjoying the story, or find the story drained of tension because you cannot anticipate what will happen next given all the inconsistencies. Similarly you can temporarily adopt an alternate moral framework (within limits) to enjoy a story, but if it is badly thought-out then one has to constantly update the "moral suspension of disbelief" as actions get presented as good or bad with little in-universe consistency, and it becomes hard to root for an outcome if you aren't given a stable value system to judge outcomes by.
Here is an example of what I mean with how someone can enjoy a work of art they morally disagree with, because they think it presents its own moral universe well (and how it contrasts with one that doesn't) :
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oHa2XT89x8>
In your story, what do YOU think about the mistake you propose your character make? It doesn't strike me as a shocking mistake in the universe of mistakes action protagonists make, but I find it very interesting that *you* are worried about it. Do YOU think this is an egregious mistake? Why? Do you imagine the feelings of the friends and loved ones of the victims, and what they would think of your protagonist? Do you have a mental view of your protagonist as someone righteous, wise and reliable and you feel this action might be too far out of character for them? Do you feel *you*, as a moral arbiter, would not be able to respect this character as much as you want your reader to respect her? Conversely, do you actually think it's fine but are worried a reader would disagree? If so, why do you think it's fine, how would you argue your case to this hypothetical reader? I think this is all valuable to explore! And it should inform your writing. As you explore it hopefully your own views may become more coherent and something you feel confident in, and once that happens it matters less what your readers think - you can try to *sell* them on what *you* think. Maybe you'll decide that no, this is not a mistake you feel is forgivable for your character... If so I think it would be a bit cheap to have it just not happen, or happen to someone else. Because if it just happens to someone else for your own convenience, that means your character is just *lucky* to be "good". That's not very morally compelling! If this mistake is so awful that your protagonist must not make it, but *someone* easily could, what does it make the poor sap of a secondary character who *did* make it? Do they have a basic character flaw your protagonist lacks, is your protagonist conscienscious enough about human life that they will put the care into not making this mistake? Then portray that, think about what it would take to be such a good and competent person so as to not make that mistake and use your protagonist to show how this good person would be and work. Is this secondary character a good, competent person but the mistake is still a horrible one you find hard to reconcile with, if so how shall *they* reconcile with it? Is this moral journey interesting to you, and if so might it not be worth giving it to your protagonist? If you struggle to reconcile being a good person who has made this mistake - what does that mean for the world you built, that this is a thing that can happen? How do people exist in it? Can it be changed, should it be changed? |
52,864 | I'm rereading my draft, and there is a part in the book where when the main character is helping others escape prison, she accidentally reveals herself to the prison guards who chase her down and kill one of the people she was trying to rescue.
Is this too brutal? I don't want my reader to hate the main character for indirectly killing someone, but should I keep it or scrap it? I do have a backup idea that could easily take the place of her revealing herself and instead have someone else do it and have my main character swoop in as the hero, but I'm not sure which version to do.
Edit: Thanks to @M.A.Golding and @FeRD for pointing out that I should add that the prisoners were wrongfully imprisoned. | 2020/10/01 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/52864",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46701/"
] | Yes, absolutely. Protagonists aren't perfect.
---------------------------------------------
In many ways, **protagonists making mistakes helps to humanize them**. Of course, it seems wrong to write a scene where your hero, the good guy of the story, accidentally gets somebody killed or completely screws things up for other characters - after all, won't that make them unlikable? [Doesn't everybody hate that fool of a Took?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cZ4ABUo6TU)
I say no. (And of course we still love that fool of a Took.)
For one thing, every [Hero's Journey](https://blog.reedsy.com/heros-journey/#:%7E:text=The%20Hero%27s%20Journey%20is%20a,and%20ultimately%20triumphs%20over%20adversity.) needs a falling action, and the trope of the hero falling out with the other characters only to reconcile with them later is a well-known story device. Done right, this scene and its consequences will help to build the friendship and the relationship between your cast, as the protagonist has to find a way to make up for what they've done and ask for forgiveness from the other characters. They also have to struggle with their likely trauma from what they did, maybe even some PTSD, as of course survivor's guilt and the pain of their mistake will eat away at them and affect them in the chapters to come. This is all *excellent* for creating inner conflict for your protagonist, and making them much more relatable and three-dimensional. If anything, I think this storyline you've presented, done right, is a **great idea.**
We are all flawed people, after all, and we empathize more with characters who are flawed and make mistakes, not characters who are perfect in every way and always do the right thing in every situation. (See [Mary Sue](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue).) Nor will readers enjoy characters who always, constantly "swoop in" and save the day with perfect solutions after the other characters mess up, because that gets old after a while and makes the protagonist out to be some kind of savior character at best and an author scrambling to fix their plot at worst. (See [Deus Ex Machina](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeusExMachina).)
So if your character makes a mistake that gets somebody killed, will the reader be shocked and horrified? Yes, probably. But will they hate or dislike the character? Not if you've done a good job of making the mistake realistic and understandable, a mistake anybody could make in their shoes, and made the character feel regret and remorse and work to fix what they've done. If anything, this scene could improve the story, and flesh out your protagonist in a great new direction. But of course, as with all things, you'll have to write it with care. | You've really got two questions here:
1. Is killing too brutal for my book?
2. Do my characters need to make mistakes?
No one here can answer #1 for you. It depends on your audience and the tone of your book. I won't go so far to say that books for kids shouldn't have killing; people die in Harry Potter and even in nursery rhymes. You should be careful about how graphic the descriptions get if your audience is young though.
As for #2, mistakes are often an important plot point, especially at the beginning of the story. Many stories start with the main character making a mistake that starts the central conflict. Mistakes are also important when it comes to making characters relatable. No one in real life is perfect, so a perfect main character often comes off as flat. |
52,864 | I'm rereading my draft, and there is a part in the book where when the main character is helping others escape prison, she accidentally reveals herself to the prison guards who chase her down and kill one of the people she was trying to rescue.
Is this too brutal? I don't want my reader to hate the main character for indirectly killing someone, but should I keep it or scrap it? I do have a backup idea that could easily take the place of her revealing herself and instead have someone else do it and have my main character swoop in as the hero, but I'm not sure which version to do.
Edit: Thanks to @M.A.Golding and @FeRD for pointing out that I should add that the prisoners were wrongfully imprisoned. | 2020/10/01 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/52864",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46701/"
] | You've really got two questions here:
1. Is killing too brutal for my book?
2. Do my characters need to make mistakes?
No one here can answer #1 for you. It depends on your audience and the tone of your book. I won't go so far to say that books for kids shouldn't have killing; people die in Harry Potter and even in nursery rhymes. You should be careful about how graphic the descriptions get if your audience is young though.
As for #2, mistakes are often an important plot point, especially at the beginning of the story. Many stories start with the main character making a mistake that starts the central conflict. Mistakes are also important when it comes to making characters relatable. No one in real life is perfect, so a perfect main character often comes off as flat. | I say let em' die.
My reasoning? Simple. **Protagonists are human too. You can't expect them to be perfect and neither will the reader.**
I don't know about the rest of you. But I read books for two reasons. The first reason is obvious: because they're entertaining. But the second reason is different: To show that 1. Even heroes make mistakes. And 2. To remind myself that nobody's perfect, even the protagonist of the book I'm reading. I've never really been the type of guy to read superhero books or comics, simply because the people in those types of things are too perfect. Let's take Superman, for example. If you could name 5 major mistakes that lead to death or something of that magnitude I'd probably pay you. A lot of the time heroes are shown to be perfect, but no one is. So I say that it's definitely the right choice to make your protagonist make that mistake. The reader isn't going to hate them, and if they do their hate will be short-lived. But either way, who really cares? It's your book and you should do what you want in it. If that's making the protagonist indirectly kill someone then make the protagonist indirectly kill someone. I support you completely and I'm positive the readers will too.
That's also why I hate your "backup plan." Once again that plan makes the protagonist look perfect, always cleaning up after other's messes, and never messing up themselves. This isn't Thor. Your protagonist (I assume) isn't a god from Asgard who has to be perfect in order to keep him big metal hammer. So please, don't make her seem that way. |
52,864 | I'm rereading my draft, and there is a part in the book where when the main character is helping others escape prison, she accidentally reveals herself to the prison guards who chase her down and kill one of the people she was trying to rescue.
Is this too brutal? I don't want my reader to hate the main character for indirectly killing someone, but should I keep it or scrap it? I do have a backup idea that could easily take the place of her revealing herself and instead have someone else do it and have my main character swoop in as the hero, but I'm not sure which version to do.
Edit: Thanks to @M.A.Golding and @FeRD for pointing out that I should add that the prisoners were wrongfully imprisoned. | 2020/10/01 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/52864",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46701/"
] | Yes, absolutely. Protagonists aren't perfect.
---------------------------------------------
In many ways, **protagonists making mistakes helps to humanize them**. Of course, it seems wrong to write a scene where your hero, the good guy of the story, accidentally gets somebody killed or completely screws things up for other characters - after all, won't that make them unlikable? [Doesn't everybody hate that fool of a Took?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cZ4ABUo6TU)
I say no. (And of course we still love that fool of a Took.)
For one thing, every [Hero's Journey](https://blog.reedsy.com/heros-journey/#:%7E:text=The%20Hero%27s%20Journey%20is%20a,and%20ultimately%20triumphs%20over%20adversity.) needs a falling action, and the trope of the hero falling out with the other characters only to reconcile with them later is a well-known story device. Done right, this scene and its consequences will help to build the friendship and the relationship between your cast, as the protagonist has to find a way to make up for what they've done and ask for forgiveness from the other characters. They also have to struggle with their likely trauma from what they did, maybe even some PTSD, as of course survivor's guilt and the pain of their mistake will eat away at them and affect them in the chapters to come. This is all *excellent* for creating inner conflict for your protagonist, and making them much more relatable and three-dimensional. If anything, I think this storyline you've presented, done right, is a **great idea.**
We are all flawed people, after all, and we empathize more with characters who are flawed and make mistakes, not characters who are perfect in every way and always do the right thing in every situation. (See [Mary Sue](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue).) Nor will readers enjoy characters who always, constantly "swoop in" and save the day with perfect solutions after the other characters mess up, because that gets old after a while and makes the protagonist out to be some kind of savior character at best and an author scrambling to fix their plot at worst. (See [Deus Ex Machina](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeusExMachina).)
So if your character makes a mistake that gets somebody killed, will the reader be shocked and horrified? Yes, probably. But will they hate or dislike the character? Not if you've done a good job of making the mistake realistic and understandable, a mistake anybody could make in their shoes, and made the character feel regret and remorse and work to fix what they've done. If anything, this scene could improve the story, and flesh out your protagonist in a great new direction. But of course, as with all things, you'll have to write it with care. | I have a slightly different take from other people on this. I don't think it is true protagonists should never be perfect; it might depend on what we mean by "perfect" but I think interesting and compelling stories can be written with characters that don't have deep flaws (or not flaws the author or reader sees as such or cares about). I think giving flaws to a character just for the sake of them having flaws is misguided. We talk about "humanizing" characters but that doesn't have to take only one shape. You can engage with a character's internality, show them having relatable doubts and fears and struggles and joys and internal contradictions without giving them a trait you feel is a "flaw" (for example [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jz5nB7erEXw) is someone arguing that good stories can be written about a character that is as perfect as they get). You can also have a character who you don't explore particularly well, but you know they "should have a flaw" so you make them clumsy in a way that has little impact on the story, or conversely have them run over someone in their car and not actually explore how awful this event is, but yay your character is flawed it's fine. I think we should not ignore the potential issues with a character being flawed in a way that is unacceptable to the reader, I have absolutely rejected stories because the protagonist was flawed in ways that did not make me want to read about them. Or more precisely I should say: *their flaws were written* in ways that did not make me want to read about them.
I think the important thing to consider is, why is a flaw a flaw? What makes a perfect protagonist perfect? The answer I think is *the moral convictions of the author and reader*. An author with well-thought out and consistent moral convictions will present a perfect protagonist in ways that highlight and defend these convictions. They will present a flawed or even villainous protagonist in ways that *also* highlight those convictions, by presenting a coherent view of why those flaws are bad, how they impact the protagonist and those around them, and so on. This will in turn make a story that is coherent and well-constructed in terms of themes, plot consequences, emotional resonance, what have you, and readers will respond to that.
I think the danger with writing "perfect protagonists" or the kind of flawed protagonist that makes you nope out of the book, is when the author does not have a coherent moral philosophy or has one that is so abhorrent to the reader that they cannot stand reading it. A reader can forgive a flawed protagonist; it is much harder to forgive a protagonist who acts terribly (or in ways the reader thinks are terrible) but who the author clearly thinks is perfect, where the consequences of the terrible actions are not explored in their terribleness and who faces no negative repercussions for their behavior. It is similarly hard to forgive a protagonist who *is* presented as flawed, but where the author seems to have little concept of *how flawed* they've really made their protagonist, or treats as flaws things the reader thinks are fine while treating as fine things the reader thinks are awful.
The issue IMO isn't just that we want to be morally validated by what we read, but that insofar as a plot has moral elements (and any story that worries about its protagonist being perfect or flawed has a moral element to it), like every other aspect of the work they need to have a realism or at least internal coherence to them to avoid pushing the reader out of the story. I see it as a form of suspension of disbelief. In a fantasy or science-fiction work you can accept some foundational premises and then enjoy the story insofar as everything derives from those premises, but you start getting in trouble when more and more inconsistent elements are thrown at you such that you spend more time making the effort to suspend your disbelief than enjoying the story, or find the story drained of tension because you cannot anticipate what will happen next given all the inconsistencies. Similarly you can temporarily adopt an alternate moral framework (within limits) to enjoy a story, but if it is badly thought-out then one has to constantly update the "moral suspension of disbelief" as actions get presented as good or bad with little in-universe consistency, and it becomes hard to root for an outcome if you aren't given a stable value system to judge outcomes by.
Here is an example of what I mean with how someone can enjoy a work of art they morally disagree with, because they think it presents its own moral universe well (and how it contrasts with one that doesn't) :
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oHa2XT89x8>
In your story, what do YOU think about the mistake you propose your character make? It doesn't strike me as a shocking mistake in the universe of mistakes action protagonists make, but I find it very interesting that *you* are worried about it. Do YOU think this is an egregious mistake? Why? Do you imagine the feelings of the friends and loved ones of the victims, and what they would think of your protagonist? Do you have a mental view of your protagonist as someone righteous, wise and reliable and you feel this action might be too far out of character for them? Do you feel *you*, as a moral arbiter, would not be able to respect this character as much as you want your reader to respect her? Conversely, do you actually think it's fine but are worried a reader would disagree? If so, why do you think it's fine, how would you argue your case to this hypothetical reader? I think this is all valuable to explore! And it should inform your writing. As you explore it hopefully your own views may become more coherent and something you feel confident in, and once that happens it matters less what your readers think - you can try to *sell* them on what *you* think. Maybe you'll decide that no, this is not a mistake you feel is forgivable for your character... If so I think it would be a bit cheap to have it just not happen, or happen to someone else. Because if it just happens to someone else for your own convenience, that means your character is just *lucky* to be "good". That's not very morally compelling! If this mistake is so awful that your protagonist must not make it, but *someone* easily could, what does it make the poor sap of a secondary character who *did* make it? Do they have a basic character flaw your protagonist lacks, is your protagonist conscienscious enough about human life that they will put the care into not making this mistake? Then portray that, think about what it would take to be such a good and competent person so as to not make that mistake and use your protagonist to show how this good person would be and work. Is this secondary character a good, competent person but the mistake is still a horrible one you find hard to reconcile with, if so how shall *they* reconcile with it? Is this moral journey interesting to you, and if so might it not be worth giving it to your protagonist? If you struggle to reconcile being a good person who has made this mistake - what does that mean for the world you built, that this is a thing that can happen? How do people exist in it? Can it be changed, should it be changed? |
52,864 | I'm rereading my draft, and there is a part in the book where when the main character is helping others escape prison, she accidentally reveals herself to the prison guards who chase her down and kill one of the people she was trying to rescue.
Is this too brutal? I don't want my reader to hate the main character for indirectly killing someone, but should I keep it or scrap it? I do have a backup idea that could easily take the place of her revealing herself and instead have someone else do it and have my main character swoop in as the hero, but I'm not sure which version to do.
Edit: Thanks to @M.A.Golding and @FeRD for pointing out that I should add that the prisoners were wrongfully imprisoned. | 2020/10/01 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/52864",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46701/"
] | Does it serve the story? Then, yes.
Putting that particular mistake in will alter who your target audience is, though. Some people will find it too brutal; some people will find the lack of such things means that the stakes are too low.
Also, how you treat it will affect how your audience reacts to your character. How serious the mistake is, whether it was neglience, what she did to try to retrieve it will all affect that.
You may need to rope in beta readers to help determine what the effect is. | I have a slightly different take from other people on this. I don't think it is true protagonists should never be perfect; it might depend on what we mean by "perfect" but I think interesting and compelling stories can be written with characters that don't have deep flaws (or not flaws the author or reader sees as such or cares about). I think giving flaws to a character just for the sake of them having flaws is misguided. We talk about "humanizing" characters but that doesn't have to take only one shape. You can engage with a character's internality, show them having relatable doubts and fears and struggles and joys and internal contradictions without giving them a trait you feel is a "flaw" (for example [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jz5nB7erEXw) is someone arguing that good stories can be written about a character that is as perfect as they get). You can also have a character who you don't explore particularly well, but you know they "should have a flaw" so you make them clumsy in a way that has little impact on the story, or conversely have them run over someone in their car and not actually explore how awful this event is, but yay your character is flawed it's fine. I think we should not ignore the potential issues with a character being flawed in a way that is unacceptable to the reader, I have absolutely rejected stories because the protagonist was flawed in ways that did not make me want to read about them. Or more precisely I should say: *their flaws were written* in ways that did not make me want to read about them.
I think the important thing to consider is, why is a flaw a flaw? What makes a perfect protagonist perfect? The answer I think is *the moral convictions of the author and reader*. An author with well-thought out and consistent moral convictions will present a perfect protagonist in ways that highlight and defend these convictions. They will present a flawed or even villainous protagonist in ways that *also* highlight those convictions, by presenting a coherent view of why those flaws are bad, how they impact the protagonist and those around them, and so on. This will in turn make a story that is coherent and well-constructed in terms of themes, plot consequences, emotional resonance, what have you, and readers will respond to that.
I think the danger with writing "perfect protagonists" or the kind of flawed protagonist that makes you nope out of the book, is when the author does not have a coherent moral philosophy or has one that is so abhorrent to the reader that they cannot stand reading it. A reader can forgive a flawed protagonist; it is much harder to forgive a protagonist who acts terribly (or in ways the reader thinks are terrible) but who the author clearly thinks is perfect, where the consequences of the terrible actions are not explored in their terribleness and who faces no negative repercussions for their behavior. It is similarly hard to forgive a protagonist who *is* presented as flawed, but where the author seems to have little concept of *how flawed* they've really made their protagonist, or treats as flaws things the reader thinks are fine while treating as fine things the reader thinks are awful.
The issue IMO isn't just that we want to be morally validated by what we read, but that insofar as a plot has moral elements (and any story that worries about its protagonist being perfect or flawed has a moral element to it), like every other aspect of the work they need to have a realism or at least internal coherence to them to avoid pushing the reader out of the story. I see it as a form of suspension of disbelief. In a fantasy or science-fiction work you can accept some foundational premises and then enjoy the story insofar as everything derives from those premises, but you start getting in trouble when more and more inconsistent elements are thrown at you such that you spend more time making the effort to suspend your disbelief than enjoying the story, or find the story drained of tension because you cannot anticipate what will happen next given all the inconsistencies. Similarly you can temporarily adopt an alternate moral framework (within limits) to enjoy a story, but if it is badly thought-out then one has to constantly update the "moral suspension of disbelief" as actions get presented as good or bad with little in-universe consistency, and it becomes hard to root for an outcome if you aren't given a stable value system to judge outcomes by.
Here is an example of what I mean with how someone can enjoy a work of art they morally disagree with, because they think it presents its own moral universe well (and how it contrasts with one that doesn't) :
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oHa2XT89x8>
In your story, what do YOU think about the mistake you propose your character make? It doesn't strike me as a shocking mistake in the universe of mistakes action protagonists make, but I find it very interesting that *you* are worried about it. Do YOU think this is an egregious mistake? Why? Do you imagine the feelings of the friends and loved ones of the victims, and what they would think of your protagonist? Do you have a mental view of your protagonist as someone righteous, wise and reliable and you feel this action might be too far out of character for them? Do you feel *you*, as a moral arbiter, would not be able to respect this character as much as you want your reader to respect her? Conversely, do you actually think it's fine but are worried a reader would disagree? If so, why do you think it's fine, how would you argue your case to this hypothetical reader? I think this is all valuable to explore! And it should inform your writing. As you explore it hopefully your own views may become more coherent and something you feel confident in, and once that happens it matters less what your readers think - you can try to *sell* them on what *you* think. Maybe you'll decide that no, this is not a mistake you feel is forgivable for your character... If so I think it would be a bit cheap to have it just not happen, or happen to someone else. Because if it just happens to someone else for your own convenience, that means your character is just *lucky* to be "good". That's not very morally compelling! If this mistake is so awful that your protagonist must not make it, but *someone* easily could, what does it make the poor sap of a secondary character who *did* make it? Do they have a basic character flaw your protagonist lacks, is your protagonist conscienscious enough about human life that they will put the care into not making this mistake? Then portray that, think about what it would take to be such a good and competent person so as to not make that mistake and use your protagonist to show how this good person would be and work. Is this secondary character a good, competent person but the mistake is still a horrible one you find hard to reconcile with, if so how shall *they* reconcile with it? Is this moral journey interesting to you, and if so might it not be worth giving it to your protagonist? If you struggle to reconcile being a good person who has made this mistake - what does that mean for the world you built, that this is a thing that can happen? How do people exist in it? Can it be changed, should it be changed? |
52,864 | I'm rereading my draft, and there is a part in the book where when the main character is helping others escape prison, she accidentally reveals herself to the prison guards who chase her down and kill one of the people she was trying to rescue.
Is this too brutal? I don't want my reader to hate the main character for indirectly killing someone, but should I keep it or scrap it? I do have a backup idea that could easily take the place of her revealing herself and instead have someone else do it and have my main character swoop in as the hero, but I'm not sure which version to do.
Edit: Thanks to @M.A.Golding and @FeRD for pointing out that I should add that the prisoners were wrongfully imprisoned. | 2020/10/01 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/52864",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46701/"
] | Well, first off, I kind of *hate* your backup plan. It's just... simply because someone is the hero of the *story*, doesn't mean they have to be unflinchingly, superhumanly *heroic* at every turn. The larger-than-life hero archetype has been done to death. Sciborg is right to invoke the Mary Sue trope. It's not that it doesn't work, it's that it's boring. Your original idea is *far* more interesting.
As far as how the audience takes it, that'll all depend on you. You haven't given us enough information about the **outcome** of that event to interpret its effect on the story, and how your audience views the protagonist will hinge entirely on the *outcome*, not the event itself.
1. Is the person who was killed a stranger, a random scene extra with no personal connection to the protagonist? Does your hero shrug off the event and go about her business with barely an acknowledgement of her role in the other character's death? Then, sure, she will look like a complete asshole, and the audience will want nothing to do with her. Would you?
2. Is the hero *affected* by the death, deeply and profoundly? Does she spend the rest of the story haunted by the memory of the dead character? Well — maybe good, maybe bad. It's possible to blow that kind of thing by failing to sufficiently build a foundation for it *before* the incident. If you want to dump something like that on your story, it's gotta be able to support it. A strong emotional reaction like that requires a strong emotional *connection* between the characters, or it will feel hollow to the audience. OTOH, if the character who's killed is the protagonist's relative, or close friend, or the past associate she was attempting to rescue in the first place, then you've built a plausibly devastating event that you can use to shake her right down to her core. At which point you've got carte blanche to rebuild her in a dozen different ways, should the story require it.
3. If the protagonist *doesn't* have a connection to the character who's killed, can you proxy those strong emotions via a third character who **does**? Perhaps the dead character's brother, or child, or best friend, is also among the group being rescued, and has to deal with both the loss of their loved one, *and* the knowledge that your main character is partly to blame for that loss. Now you've created a believable, totally organic conflict engine that you can mine to create tension between that character and your protagonist. (...Holy crap, did that metaphor get away from me.)
If that's the case, then the audience reaction comes back to: How does the protagonist *handle* the events that follow? Does she take responsibility for her mistake? Does she respect and validate the feelings of the surviving loved one, even when they manifest as anger or disrespect directed at her? Does she make a promise that, while she can't bring back the lost loved one or ever undo the mistake she made, she will do everything in her power to succeed against their common foe / mutual oppressors, and ensure that $character's death was not in vain?
Your audience won't hate your protagonist for a mistake, or for her role in events that were beyond her control. But they will *judge* her for **everything** that happens after. | Yes. It’s fine to have someone die. Just make sure that you don’t only kill side Characters, because then it makes the main characters seem immortal, and the reader expects them to turn out okay.
The way I avoided this in my book is creating a main character who’s sole purpose is to get really important, draw a lot of empathy from the reader, and then be killed in a horrific tragic way that was the main characters fault. |
52,864 | I'm rereading my draft, and there is a part in the book where when the main character is helping others escape prison, she accidentally reveals herself to the prison guards who chase her down and kill one of the people she was trying to rescue.
Is this too brutal? I don't want my reader to hate the main character for indirectly killing someone, but should I keep it or scrap it? I do have a backup idea that could easily take the place of her revealing herself and instead have someone else do it and have my main character swoop in as the hero, but I'm not sure which version to do.
Edit: Thanks to @M.A.Golding and @FeRD for pointing out that I should add that the prisoners were wrongfully imprisoned. | 2020/10/01 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/52864",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46701/"
] | Yes, absolutely. Protagonists aren't perfect.
---------------------------------------------
In many ways, **protagonists making mistakes helps to humanize them**. Of course, it seems wrong to write a scene where your hero, the good guy of the story, accidentally gets somebody killed or completely screws things up for other characters - after all, won't that make them unlikable? [Doesn't everybody hate that fool of a Took?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cZ4ABUo6TU)
I say no. (And of course we still love that fool of a Took.)
For one thing, every [Hero's Journey](https://blog.reedsy.com/heros-journey/#:%7E:text=The%20Hero%27s%20Journey%20is%20a,and%20ultimately%20triumphs%20over%20adversity.) needs a falling action, and the trope of the hero falling out with the other characters only to reconcile with them later is a well-known story device. Done right, this scene and its consequences will help to build the friendship and the relationship between your cast, as the protagonist has to find a way to make up for what they've done and ask for forgiveness from the other characters. They also have to struggle with their likely trauma from what they did, maybe even some PTSD, as of course survivor's guilt and the pain of their mistake will eat away at them and affect them in the chapters to come. This is all *excellent* for creating inner conflict for your protagonist, and making them much more relatable and three-dimensional. If anything, I think this storyline you've presented, done right, is a **great idea.**
We are all flawed people, after all, and we empathize more with characters who are flawed and make mistakes, not characters who are perfect in every way and always do the right thing in every situation. (See [Mary Sue](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue).) Nor will readers enjoy characters who always, constantly "swoop in" and save the day with perfect solutions after the other characters mess up, because that gets old after a while and makes the protagonist out to be some kind of savior character at best and an author scrambling to fix their plot at worst. (See [Deus Ex Machina](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeusExMachina).)
So if your character makes a mistake that gets somebody killed, will the reader be shocked and horrified? Yes, probably. But will they hate or dislike the character? Not if you've done a good job of making the mistake realistic and understandable, a mistake anybody could make in their shoes, and made the character feel regret and remorse and work to fix what they've done. If anything, this scene could improve the story, and flesh out your protagonist in a great new direction. But of course, as with all things, you'll have to write it with care. | Does it serve the story? Then, yes.
Putting that particular mistake in will alter who your target audience is, though. Some people will find it too brutal; some people will find the lack of such things means that the stakes are too low.
Also, how you treat it will affect how your audience reacts to your character. How serious the mistake is, whether it was neglience, what she did to try to retrieve it will all affect that.
You may need to rope in beta readers to help determine what the effect is. |
7,770,005 | I am working on a module that will allow the customer to not only sign up with our webstore, but also give them the ability to register with another site via a web service. How do I determine, from within my module, when a customer is registering so that I can send the appropriate information off to the other site? | 2011/10/14 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7770005",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/843195/"
] | Magento has a good event system that dispatches events to registered observers when they occur. This allows you to do exactly what you want.
Take a look at customer\_register\_success event ( app/code/core/Mage/Customer/controllers/AccountController.php : 322 )
More on event/observer pattern in magento:
<http://www.magentocommerce.com/wiki/5_-_modules_and_development/0_-_module_development_in_magento/customizing_magento_using_event-observer_method> | ~~actually there is no event for user registring~~ Ok, there is one (see [code\_burgar's answer](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/7770005/determine-when-a-new-customer-registers-from-within-custom-module-magento/7770190#7770190)), but it ain't fired when customer register during checkout. So your best shot is the customer\_save\_before and check if there is an id (if there is not, it means he's new) |
16,832,302 | I'm studying Software Engineering at the moment and some of my courses include the theory of computation and analyzing algorithms. I find it hard to relate a Turing Machine for example, to Software Engineering or just plain programming. So my question is:
Why include theoretical subjects that play an important role in Computer Science in the field of Software Engineering? Or how can I apply the knowledge of PDA,TM,P,NP and so on in developing software? I fail to see the link between the two. | 2013/05/30 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/16832302",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2312939/"
] | A bit of theory is always required. It helps you thinking in the right way.
I know it may seem very detached at the first approach, but if you are able to catch the true meaning of it, you'll have that extra oomph, especially in your field.
The **Turing machine**, for example, you have mentioned, is a classical logic and mathematically model to understand *the limits and the potential of mechanical computation* as well as the study of the algorithmic complexity.
Of Course, a software engineer needs less theory and more technology than a scientist, but here we are talking about the theoretical basis that all we should have. | There are two reasons why these subjects are included.
1. As Gengiolo says, these form the theoretical basis that we should, arguably, all have.
2. In attempting to understand these fundamental principles, we develop our reasoning skills and can apply them to complex multi-disciplinary problems.
I rarely use any of the theoretical - or even practical - subjects that I learned whilst studying Software Engineering in their raw form. But I believe that a good fundamental knowledge of these principles makes me a better engineer - more employable too. |
16,832,302 | I'm studying Software Engineering at the moment and some of my courses include the theory of computation and analyzing algorithms. I find it hard to relate a Turing Machine for example, to Software Engineering or just plain programming. So my question is:
Why include theoretical subjects that play an important role in Computer Science in the field of Software Engineering? Or how can I apply the knowledge of PDA,TM,P,NP and so on in developing software? I fail to see the link between the two. | 2013/05/30 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/16832302",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2312939/"
] | A bit of theory is always required. It helps you thinking in the right way.
I know it may seem very detached at the first approach, but if you are able to catch the true meaning of it, you'll have that extra oomph, especially in your field.
The **Turing machine**, for example, you have mentioned, is a classical logic and mathematically model to understand *the limits and the potential of mechanical computation* as well as the study of the algorithmic complexity.
Of Course, a software engineer needs less theory and more technology than a scientist, but here we are talking about the theoretical basis that all we should have. | Well,
Software Engineering education is problematic. And Computer Science also.
I do not think that to study Turing Machine, will give you more insight about algoritmic complexity nor limits of computation. But they are part of our history.We should know them.
At least we should know Alan Turing :-)
And It is hard to talk about "theoretical basis" of software engineering and computer science.
It is also not realistic that someguy will ask you to solve an NP hard problem.And you will say that "Oh that is NP hard sir". Many software developers do "routine development" task.
So you are "right at your feelings". But software development is not just "writing codes" or "learning new buzz technologies". If you just do it, you will make your thinking tools "dull".
To keep them sharp, consider Algoritmic Complexity, Problem Classifications like NP and other courses as an thinking exercise. To develop your imagination take also some other interesting courses from other departments such as "String Theory" [ physics] or to understand human nature why not take a "Anthropology" course . :-)
The truth is that our education is try to make **a swiss knife** from us.To know from everthing a little bit , but not a real knife or real can opener etc.[no deep knowledge] They think that if you consider to be a "real can opener" you can start with "miniature can opener" they proive it to you. |
16,832,302 | I'm studying Software Engineering at the moment and some of my courses include the theory of computation and analyzing algorithms. I find it hard to relate a Turing Machine for example, to Software Engineering or just plain programming. So my question is:
Why include theoretical subjects that play an important role in Computer Science in the field of Software Engineering? Or how can I apply the knowledge of PDA,TM,P,NP and so on in developing software? I fail to see the link between the two. | 2013/05/30 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/16832302",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2312939/"
] | There are two reasons why these subjects are included.
1. As Gengiolo says, these form the theoretical basis that we should, arguably, all have.
2. In attempting to understand these fundamental principles, we develop our reasoning skills and can apply them to complex multi-disciplinary problems.
I rarely use any of the theoretical - or even practical - subjects that I learned whilst studying Software Engineering in their raw form. But I believe that a good fundamental knowledge of these principles makes me a better engineer - more employable too. | Well,
Software Engineering education is problematic. And Computer Science also.
I do not think that to study Turing Machine, will give you more insight about algoritmic complexity nor limits of computation. But they are part of our history.We should know them.
At least we should know Alan Turing :-)
And It is hard to talk about "theoretical basis" of software engineering and computer science.
It is also not realistic that someguy will ask you to solve an NP hard problem.And you will say that "Oh that is NP hard sir". Many software developers do "routine development" task.
So you are "right at your feelings". But software development is not just "writing codes" or "learning new buzz technologies". If you just do it, you will make your thinking tools "dull".
To keep them sharp, consider Algoritmic Complexity, Problem Classifications like NP and other courses as an thinking exercise. To develop your imagination take also some other interesting courses from other departments such as "String Theory" [ physics] or to understand human nature why not take a "Anthropology" course . :-)
The truth is that our education is try to make **a swiss knife** from us.To know from everthing a little bit , but not a real knife or real can opener etc.[no deep knowledge] They think that if you consider to be a "real can opener" you can start with "miniature can opener" they proive it to you. |
48,697,976 | I am trying to use SQS on aws (on a linux box) using generic C. Not using any sdk (not that there is one for C). I can not find an example I can relate to. Sorry, I don't relate to these newfangled languages. I am proficient in Cobol, fortran, pascal and C. Not python, c++, c# or java. There are "steps" on amazon site, but honestly they expect proficiency on aws and an object oriented language. I just want to create my own https get command for accessing SQS/SNS, can anyone provide a 'C' snipet that creates a complete url with the version 4 signature? Or point me in the correct direction? | 2018/02/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/48697976",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/9336265/"
] | Have a look at <https://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/sigv4-signed-request-examples.html>
If you're proficient with any programming language, you should be able to understand all of that code. It's just string operations and some hashing for which you'll have to use another library. There's also lots of comments to help you with the details. | You can use libcurl for the call:
Use CURLOPT\_AWS\_SIGV4 argument for the signature <https://curl.se/libcurl/c/CURLOPT_AWS_SIGV4.html>
You can take a look at CURLOPT\_WRITEFUNCTION if you want to store the result into a variable: <https://curl.se/libcurl/c/CURLOPT_WRITEFUNCTION.html>
And for debugging purpose CURLOPT\_VERBOSE can be useful too: <https://curl.se/libcurl/c/CURLOPT_VERBOSE.html>
Note that you need a version of libcurl superior to 7.75. |
7,656,554 | I want to request a list of sizes from a database on my server (which is obviously not on ebay.co.uk's domain). I could do it entirely through flash... but it seems clumsy for a simple form. I think the ideal solution would be a javascript + flash solution. The problem is all of the sites I have found seem to have very complete solutions and ebay does not like huge chunks of javascript (I am not sure exactly which functions it allows and doesn't... but the less javascript the better).
So what I am looking for is a very small and simple cross domain ajax solution that will allow me to make requests from my server. Anyone any ideas?
TIA | 2011/10/05 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7656554",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/187227/"
] | Read [Ways to circumvent the same-origin policy](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3076414/ways-to-circumvent-the-same-origin-policy) for many ways of circumventing the same-origin policy.
In your case, I would suggest <http://anyorigin.com> - it's simple to use and (unless you're sending volatile information) perfectly viable. It could all be done in a couple of lines of js! | eBay will not allow including javascript or even iframes in item description.
The only solution for that will probably be using Flash object(that is allowed by eBay) that will communicate with server side scripting page(php/asp) which will make the request to your database.
The cross-domain communication will be between the flash and the server side page, this issue can be easily solved. |
57,046 | I'm trying to date a circuit from an organ. It contains transistors in a TO-92 (plastic) package.
Approximately when did these transistors first appear?
 | 2013/02/04 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/57046",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/13746/"
] | **Edit**
Thanks for the picture, by any chance are their any identifying text left on the packages or the boards? Just a shot in the dark, but I would say that board was from the aprox: 1972 to 1985. But it depends on so many other factors. And it also my not be original to the organ it'self.
---
**Original Answer**
>
> I'm trying to date a circuit from an organ.
>
>
>
It would be the easiest to just look up the organ...
>
> Date of introduction of TO-92 transistors. Approximately when did
> these transistors first appear?
>
>
>
The [TO-92](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TO-92) spec was introduced in the 1960's (I believe but can't find a source,) and became a standard by [JEDEC Solid State Technology Association](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JEDEC) years later.
FYI, none of this information will help you date the organ's board!
**It depends on the actual model of the transistor and a few other factors. Semiconductor material (date first used):**
* the metalloids germanium (1947) and silicon (1954)
* in amorphous, polycrystalline and monocrystalline form
* the compounds gallium arsenide (1966)
* silicon carbide (1997)
* the alloy silicon-germanium (1989)
* the allotrope of carbon graphene (research ongoing since 2004) | Look for date codes on (unlikely) the transistors; (likely) any TO3 transistors in the power supply; definitely ICs if there are any; and (sometimes) large electrolytic capacitors, again in the PSU. Also that screened can (inductor?).
Earlier than 1970 I think the TO18 can would be more common (there's 1 in your picture) and much later, ICs would start appearing (along with 5% resistors rather than 10%) so I doubt it's as late as 1980. |
618,152 | [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/T7uX6.jpg)
This is for a 24V 6.25A power supply. The power supply brick will feed into the connector then power a prototype device.
What are the conventions or best practices to solder a wire to a much smaller diameter connector, as pictured here? The (outer) diameter of the gold connector is 1.54mm (~14 AWG) and the diameter of the unjacketed portion of the wire is 1.9mm (~10 AWG).
Intuition suggests I will have to solder as I normally would and try to be as neat as possible, using heat shrink at the outset.
I am also thinking of a product and a quick google search confirms it exists: a "step down" connector: <https://www.waytekwire.com/item/38247/External-Step-Down-Butt-Connector-38247-/> . Considering the wire entering the gold connector would be perhaps 16 AWG and 16 AWG can handle (according to Google) 13A, would this be a reasonable alternative? Of course, it may not be feasible as I may not have the time available to wait for shipping. | 2022/05/02 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/618152",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/311386/"
] | The best practice is to use the correct cable/connector sizes, period. Everything else falls under the category "dirty hacks/lab junk", including:
* It is bad practice to forcefully twist the strands tighter to make them fit a smaller connector. This makes for a worse solder joint with potential strain built-in.
* It is bad practice to remove a number of strands. Not only does this make the connection mechanically weaker, it also means that the rated current of the cable no longer applies.
* It is bad practice to split signals into multiple wires/connector pins, particularly if this is done to be able to use higher current. It's a potential fire hazard. | Since the maximum current is 6 A, switch to a smaller wire, such as 22 AWG ([reference](https://www.powerstream.com/Wire_Size.htm)). |
618,152 | [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/T7uX6.jpg)
This is for a 24V 6.25A power supply. The power supply brick will feed into the connector then power a prototype device.
What are the conventions or best practices to solder a wire to a much smaller diameter connector, as pictured here? The (outer) diameter of the gold connector is 1.54mm (~14 AWG) and the diameter of the unjacketed portion of the wire is 1.9mm (~10 AWG).
Intuition suggests I will have to solder as I normally would and try to be as neat as possible, using heat shrink at the outset.
I am also thinking of a product and a quick google search confirms it exists: a "step down" connector: <https://www.waytekwire.com/item/38247/External-Step-Down-Butt-Connector-38247-/> . Considering the wire entering the gold connector would be perhaps 16 AWG and 16 AWG can handle (according to Google) 13A, would this be a reasonable alternative? Of course, it may not be feasible as I may not have the time available to wait for shipping. | 2022/05/02 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/618152",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/311386/"
] | The best practice is to use the correct cable/connector sizes, period. Everything else falls under the category "dirty hacks/lab junk", including:
* It is bad practice to forcefully twist the strands tighter to make them fit a smaller connector. This makes for a worse solder joint with potential strain built-in.
* It is bad practice to remove a number of strands. Not only does this make the connection mechanically weaker, it also means that the rated current of the cable no longer applies.
* It is bad practice to split signals into multiple wires/connector pins, particularly if this is done to be able to use higher current. It's a potential fire hazard. | The industry standard that covers this - IPC/WHMA-A-620 - explicitly forbids severing individual strands in stranded wire and does not allow for wire strands outside the cup of a solder terminal, so there's probably a good reason not to do it. Mechanical weakness/breakage, inadvertently overloading a cut-down section of wire, or the possibility of shorts from cut ends all come to mind. That said, 16 AWG is plenty of copper for 6.25A under most circumstances. When I've needed to do something similar, I splice a short leader wire of the correct gauge onto the original wire and solder the leader into the connector. |
618,152 | [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/T7uX6.jpg)
This is for a 24V 6.25A power supply. The power supply brick will feed into the connector then power a prototype device.
What are the conventions or best practices to solder a wire to a much smaller diameter connector, as pictured here? The (outer) diameter of the gold connector is 1.54mm (~14 AWG) and the diameter of the unjacketed portion of the wire is 1.9mm (~10 AWG).
Intuition suggests I will have to solder as I normally would and try to be as neat as possible, using heat shrink at the outset.
I am also thinking of a product and a quick google search confirms it exists: a "step down" connector: <https://www.waytekwire.com/item/38247/External-Step-Down-Butt-Connector-38247-/> . Considering the wire entering the gold connector would be perhaps 16 AWG and 16 AWG can handle (according to Google) 13A, would this be a reasonable alternative? Of course, it may not be feasible as I may not have the time available to wait for shipping. | 2022/05/02 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/618152",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/311386/"
] | The best practice is to use the correct cable/connector sizes, period. Everything else falls under the category "dirty hacks/lab junk", including:
* It is bad practice to forcefully twist the strands tighter to make them fit a smaller connector. This makes for a worse solder joint with potential strain built-in.
* It is bad practice to remove a number of strands. Not only does this make the connection mechanically weaker, it also means that the rated current of the cable no longer applies.
* It is bad practice to split signals into multiple wires/connector pins, particularly if this is done to be able to use higher current. It's a potential fire hazard. | As stated before, any use of a wire whose gauge is larger than the receptacle would be a hack. You could, however, use crimping pins(not the sort mentioned earlier which are meant for connecting two different gauged wires together), cutting off the long tip and soldering it into the connector. NASA provides an [illustration](https://workmanship.nasa.gov/lib/insp/2%20books/links/sections/201%20General%20Requirements.html) of the type of pin to which I'm referring:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/LnklL.jpg) |
618,152 | [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/T7uX6.jpg)
This is for a 24V 6.25A power supply. The power supply brick will feed into the connector then power a prototype device.
What are the conventions or best practices to solder a wire to a much smaller diameter connector, as pictured here? The (outer) diameter of the gold connector is 1.54mm (~14 AWG) and the diameter of the unjacketed portion of the wire is 1.9mm (~10 AWG).
Intuition suggests I will have to solder as I normally would and try to be as neat as possible, using heat shrink at the outset.
I am also thinking of a product and a quick google search confirms it exists: a "step down" connector: <https://www.waytekwire.com/item/38247/External-Step-Down-Butt-Connector-38247-/> . Considering the wire entering the gold connector would be perhaps 16 AWG and 16 AWG can handle (according to Google) 13A, would this be a reasonable alternative? Of course, it may not be feasible as I may not have the time available to wait for shipping. | 2022/05/02 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/618152",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/311386/"
] | The industry standard that covers this - IPC/WHMA-A-620 - explicitly forbids severing individual strands in stranded wire and does not allow for wire strands outside the cup of a solder terminal, so there's probably a good reason not to do it. Mechanical weakness/breakage, inadvertently overloading a cut-down section of wire, or the possibility of shorts from cut ends all come to mind. That said, 16 AWG is plenty of copper for 6.25A under most circumstances. When I've needed to do something similar, I splice a short leader wire of the correct gauge onto the original wire and solder the leader into the connector. | Since the maximum current is 6 A, switch to a smaller wire, such as 22 AWG ([reference](https://www.powerstream.com/Wire_Size.htm)). |
618,152 | [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/T7uX6.jpg)
This is for a 24V 6.25A power supply. The power supply brick will feed into the connector then power a prototype device.
What are the conventions or best practices to solder a wire to a much smaller diameter connector, as pictured here? The (outer) diameter of the gold connector is 1.54mm (~14 AWG) and the diameter of the unjacketed portion of the wire is 1.9mm (~10 AWG).
Intuition suggests I will have to solder as I normally would and try to be as neat as possible, using heat shrink at the outset.
I am also thinking of a product and a quick google search confirms it exists: a "step down" connector: <https://www.waytekwire.com/item/38247/External-Step-Down-Butt-Connector-38247-/> . Considering the wire entering the gold connector would be perhaps 16 AWG and 16 AWG can handle (according to Google) 13A, would this be a reasonable alternative? Of course, it may not be feasible as I may not have the time available to wait for shipping. | 2022/05/02 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/618152",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/311386/"
] | As stated before, any use of a wire whose gauge is larger than the receptacle would be a hack. You could, however, use crimping pins(not the sort mentioned earlier which are meant for connecting two different gauged wires together), cutting off the long tip and soldering it into the connector. NASA provides an [illustration](https://workmanship.nasa.gov/lib/insp/2%20books/links/sections/201%20General%20Requirements.html) of the type of pin to which I'm referring:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/LnklL.jpg) | Since the maximum current is 6 A, switch to a smaller wire, such as 22 AWG ([reference](https://www.powerstream.com/Wire_Size.htm)). |
20,646 | We have heard that Lord Parashurama killed Kshatriya kings one by one. He was a very angry person. So, I want to know why he killed many Kshatriya kings?
Was he alive during Ramayana and as well as Mahabharata times? Because I have heard that he did fight with the Pandava sons. | 2017/09/04 | [
"https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/20646",
"https://hinduism.stackexchange.com",
"https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/users/4172/"
] | Story of Parashurama is mentioned in many Puranas and in the Mahabharata. I'm quoting a section of the [Chapter 116](http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m03/m03116.htm) and [117](http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m03/m03117.htm) of the **Vana Parva of Mahabharata.**
Parashurama was the son of Rishi Jamadagni and Renuka.
There was once a King named Kartavirya Arjuna of the Haihaya dyanasty. Rishi Jamadagni and Renuka offered hospitality to Kartavirya Arjuna and his army at their ashram. Jamadagni had a Kamadhenu (wish fulfiling) cow that produced food etc for the King and his army. Kartavirya on seeing the cow's utility stole her away from the sage and his wife.
>
> Once, however, O lord, when his sons had gone out as before, **the
> valourous son of Kartavirya,** the lord of the country near the shore
> of the sea, came up to the hermitage. **And when he arrived at that
> hermitage, the wife of the saint received him hospitably.** He,
> however, intoxicated with a warrior's pride, was not at all pleased
> with the reception accorded to him, and by force and in defiance of
> all resistance, **seized and carried off from that hermitage the chief
> of the cows whose milk supplied the sacred butter, not heeding the
> loud lowing of the cow.** And he wantonly pulled down the large trees
> of the wood.
>
>
>
When Parashurama came to know he went to Haiheya and attacked the King and decimated his army. After killing Kartavirya, by cutting off his 1000 arms Parashurama brought the cow back to the ashram.
>
> When Rama came home, his father himself told him all that had
> happened. Then when Rama saw how the cow was lowing for its calf,
> resentment arose in his heart. **And he rushed towards Kartavirya's
> son, whose last moments had drawn nigh. Then the descendant of Bhrigu,
> the exterminator of hostile heroes, put forth his valour on the field
> of battle, and with sharpened arrows with flattened tips, which were
> shot from a beautiful bow, cut down Arjuna's arms, which numbered a
> thousand, and were massive like (wooden) bolts for barring the door.**
> He, already touched by the hand of death, was overpowered by Rama, his
> foe.
>
>
>
Kartavirya's sons were enraged at the murder of their father so they attacked a defenseless Jamadagni at his ashram when Parashurama and his other sons were away. They killed the rishi and stole the cow and its calf.
>
> **Then the kinsmen of Arjuna, their wrath excited against Rama, rushed at Jamadagni in his hermitage, while Rama was away.** And they slew
> him there; for although his strength was great, yet being at the time
> engaged in penances, he would not fight. **And while thus attacked by
> his foes, he repeatedly shouted the name of Rama in a helpless and
> piteous way. And, O Yudhishthira, the sons of Kartavirya shot
> Jamadagni, with their arrows, and having thus chastised their foe,
> went their way.** And when they had gone away, and when Jamadagni had
> breathed his last, Rama, the delight of Bhrigu's race, returned to the
> hermitage, bearing in his arms, fuel for religious rites. **And the
> hero beheld his father who had been put to death.**
>
>
>
Parashurama on seeing his father dead made a vow to kill all Kshatriya generations as they sprung up.
>
> **And Rama, the conqueror of hostile cities, cremated his father on the funeral pyre, and vowed, O scion of Bharata's race, the slaughter
> of the entire military caste,** and of exceeding strength in the field
> of battle, and possessed of valour suited to a heroic soul, and
> comparable to the god of death himself, **he took up his weapon in
> wrathful mood, and singlehanded put Kartavirya's sons to death. And, O
> chieftain of the military caste, Rama, the leader of all capable of
> beating their foes, thrice smote down all the Kashatriya followers of
> Kartavirya's sons. And seven times did that powerful lord exterminate
> the military tribes of the earth. In the tract of land, called
> Samantapanchaka five lakes of blood were made by him.**
>
>
>
[Canto 9 Chapter 15](https://www.vedabase.com/en/sb/9/15) of **Srimad Bhagvatam** gives reasons why Parashurama killed the kshatriyas.
>
> SB 9.15.14 — Learned scholars accept this Paraśurāma as the celebrated
> incarnation of Vāsudeva who annihilated the dynasty of Kārtavīrya.
> **Paraśurāma killed all the kṣatriyas on earth twenty-one times.**
>
>
> SB 9.15.15 — **When the royal dynasty, being excessively proud because
> of the material modes of passion and ignorance, became irreligious** and
> ceased to care for the laws enacted by the brāhmaṇas, **Paraśurāma
> killed them.** Although their offense was not very severe, **he killed
> them to lessen the burden of the world.**
>
>
>
[Chapters 74-76](http://www.valmikiramayan.net/bala/sarga74/bala_74_prose.htm) of **Bala Kanda of Ramayana** describes a meeting between Rama and Parashurama. After Rama breaks the bow of Shiva at Sita Swayamvar,
Parashurama accosts the wedding party and challenges Rama to string the bow of Vishnu. Rama does so and asks Parashurama what should be his target as an arrow stretched on the bow should not be wasted. Parashurama allows him to destory his tapasya merit and returns to Mt Mahendra.
>
> In that catastrophic darkness, that sand-muffled military of king
> **Dasharatha has seen the son of Sage Jamadagni, namely Bhaargava Rama,
> the subjugator of kings of kings.**
>
>
> **"Oh, valiant Rama of Dasharatha, your valour is bruited as a
> sensational valour, and sensational is your smashing of Shiva's bow,**
>
>
> That way, smashing of that particular bow of Shiva is wondrous and
> even unimaginable... on hearing that alone I happened upon you,
> bringing another outranking bow...
>
>
> **This alone is that catastrophic bow received through Sage Jamadagni...
> flex it with an arrow on bowstring stretching up to your ear, and in
> that way show your capability...** Thereby, on examining your strength
> in your taking aim with this bow, and should you be deservedly
> valorous, I will give you a combative duel..." So said Parashu Rama to
> Dasharatha Rama.
>
>
>
>
> **Raghava, the nimble-handed vanquisher of his opponents, speaking thus
> in high dudgeon expropriated that estimable weapon, namely the longbow
> of Vishnu, from the hand of Bhaargava Rama, along with the long-arrow
> that is already fitted on it...**
>
>
> Then, when Rama is ready to take aim with the arrow on that
> inscrutable longbow, and when the worlds are being rendered as
> insentient, then that Rama of Jamadagni is rendered vigourless and he
> stared up at Rama of Dasharatha.
>
>
>
>
> **Rama of Jamadagni is calloused as his vitality is subdued by the
> radiance of that lotus-petal eyed Rama of Dasharatha, and he spoke to
> Rama of Dasharatha, slowly and softly.**
>
>
> "Once, when I donated entire earth to Sage Kashyapa, Kashyapa told me
> 'uninhabitable is my domain, viz., this earth for you...' thus...
>
>
> "Such as I was, in my observance of my mentor Kashyapa's order I do
> not spend nights on this earth from then afterwards, oh, Kakutstha
> Rama, as I made over this earth for Kashyapa, indeed... Thereby oh,
> valiant one, it will be inapt of you to impair this motility of mine,
> oh, Raghava, I will depart with the speed of cerebration to Mt.
> Mahendra, a par excellent mountain... **But I triumphed over matchless
> realms of heavens with my ascesis, oh, Rama, you may hash them up with
> that irreversible arrow... let there be no time-lag...** I have realized
> your touch of nature as that of the Immutable Supreme Being, God of
> Gods, the Exterminator of the demon Madhu, namely Vishnu, by the touch
> of your handling that bow... oh, enemy-inflamer, blessedness alone
> betides you...
>
>
> **While Rama of Jamadagni is speaking that way, that venturesome and
> blessed Rama of Dasharatha shot off that nonpareil arrow from that
> longbow of Vishnu. On seeing all of his realms of heavens are
> shot-blasted by Rama of Dasharatha, Rama of Jamadagni vanished in a
> trice to Mt. Mahendra, the heavenly mountain.**
>
>
>
Parashurama is referenced numerous times in Mahabharata. He was the guru of Bhishma, Drona and Karna. He also fought with Bhishma which is described in [this answer](https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/2172/why-did-bhishma-fight-with-lord-parashurama).
**Adi Parva** [Ch 101](http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01101.htm)
>
> And Ganga said, 'O tiger among men, that eighth son whom thou hadst
> some time before begat upon me is this.
>
>
> **And all the weapons known to the powerful and invincible Rama, the son of Jamadagni are known to this thy illustrious son of mighty
> arms.** O king of superior courage, take this thy own heroic child
> given unto thee by me.
>
>
>
**Adi Parva** [Chapter 132](http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01132.htm):
>
> **O king, it was about this time that Drona heard that the illustrious Brahmana Jamadagnya, that slayer of foes, that foremost one among all
> wielders of weapons, versed in all kinds of knowledge, had expressed a
> desire of giving away all his wealth to Brahmanas. Having heard of
> Rama's knowledge of arms and of his celestial weapons also, Drona set
> his heart upon them as also upon the knowledge of morality that Rama
> possessed.**
>
>
> 'O thou of ascetic wealth, returned Rama, 'My gold and whatever other
> wealth I had, have all been given away unto Brahmanas! I have now my
> body only and my various valuable weapons left. I am prepared to give
> either my body or my weapons. Say, which thou wouldst have! I would
> give it thee! Say quickly!'
>
>
> **"Drona answered, O son of Bhrigu, it behoveth thee to give me all thy weapons together with the mysteries of hurling and recalling
> them.'**
>
>
> **"Saying, 'So be it,' the son of Bhrigu gave all his weapons unto Drona,--indeed, the whole science of arms with its rules and
> mysteries.**
>
>
>
**Santi Parva** [Chapter 2](http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m12/m12a002.htm)
>
> When Drona had answered thus, **Karna, having worshipped him,** obtained
> his leave, and proceeded without delay to **Rama then residing on the
> Mahendra mountains.** Approaching Rama, he bent his head unto him and
> said, 'I am a Brahmana of Bhrigu's race.' This procured honour for
> him. With this knowledge about his birth and family, Rama received him
> kindly and said, 'Thou art welcome!' at which Karna became highly
> glad.
>
>
>
Parashurama was present in the Kaurava court when Krishna came to arrange a peace treaty with Duryodhana. He tried to counsel Duryodhana and narrated the story of Nara Narayana as referenced in **Udyoga Parva** [Ch 128](http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05128.htm)
>
> "Vaisampayana said, 'Hearing these words uttered by the high-souled
> Kesava, all the persons who sat in that assembly remained silent,
> their hair standing on their ends. And all the kings thought within
> themselves that there was no man who could dare reply to that speech.
> **And seeing that all the kings sat silent, Jamadagni's son (addressing Duryodhana) then said these words in that assembly of
> Kurus,** 'Listen confidingly to my words illustrated by an example,
> and seek thy own good if my speech recommends itself to thee.
>
>
>
[Chapter 39](http://mahabharata-resources.org/harivamsa/vishnuparva/hv_2_039.html) of **Harivamsa Parva of the Harivamsa** describes a meeting between Krishna Balarama and Parashurama when they are fleeing from Jarasandha. I am only quoting the paragraph when they see him. The entire story is given in the link.
>
> **(vaishampAyana said) Saying this, both sa~NkarShaNa (balarAma) and
> kR^iShNa, competent, proceeded on the southern route, without any
> anxiety.** Those two, capable of taking forms they desire, traveled in
> many countries in the southern direction. The south bound valiant
> balarAma and kR^iShNa happily went along the beautiful places behind
> the sahya mountains.
>
>
> Under that tree, ( both together saw) the sage, sparkling with the
> wealth of penance, carrying the axe on his shoulder, wearing twisted
> locks of hair and bark garments. (Both together saw) the sage,
> sparkling like yellow flames of fire, with a splendour similar to sun,
> who caused the death of kShatriya-s, imperturbable, appearing like
> ocean, personified. (Both together saw the sage) seated in a posture,
> having worshipped the sacred fire and taken ritual bath thrice as
> ordained, like the preceptor of deva-s. (Both together saw the sage)
> residing on the mahendra mountain, preparing to milk the white
> kAmadhenu, the divine cow with its calf. **Both together saw rAma,
> bhArgava, the tireless, eternal sage without any decline seated like
> the sun on mount mandara.**
>
>
> Seeing the sage, both the valiant sons of vasudeva, sparkling like the
> sacrificial fire, worshipped his feet as ordained.
>
>
>
Parashurama was seen by the Pandavas and some sages on Mt Mahendra when the latter were on their Tirtha Yatra. However I can't find any references of him having fought the Pandavas sons.
>
> **"Vaisampayana said, 'Then on the fourteenth day of the moon, the mighty-souled Rama at the proper hour showed himself to those members
> of the priestly caste and also to the virtuous king (Yudhishthira) and
> his younger brothers.** And, O king of kings, the lord together with
> his brothers, worshipped Rama, and, O most righteous of the rulers of
> men, the very highest honours were paid by him to all those members of
> the twice-born class. And after worshipping Jamadagni's son and having
> received words of praise from him, at his direction he spent the night
> on the Mahendra hill, and then started on his journey towards the
> southern regions.'"
>
>
> | According to Puranas, Parasurama was the 6th incarnation of Lord Vishnu. He makes a brief appearance in Srimad Ramayana in penultimate Sargas of Bala Kanda.
His story was described in those penultimate Sargas of Bala Kanda of Srimad Ramayana as follows:
Vishnu handed over a supreme bow to Sage Riciika, the son of Bhrigu, as a trustworthy trust. That great-resplendent Sage Riciika on his part has handed over this divine bow to his son Sage Jamadagni.
Adhering to a barbarous mentality Kaartvaviirya Arjuna put Sage Jamadagni to death.
>
> वधम् अप्रतिरूपम् तु पितुः श्रुत्वा सु दारुणम् |
> क्षत्रम् उत्सादयन् रोषात् जातम् जातम् अनेकशः ||
> पृथिवीम् च अखिलाम् प्राप्य काश्यपाय महात्मने |
> यज्ञस्य अन्ते तदा राम दक्षिणाम् पुण्य कर्मणे ||
> दत्त्वा महेन्द्र निलयः तपो बल समन्वितः |
> श्रुत्वा तु धनुषो भेदम् ततो अहम् द्रुतम् आगतः ||
> तत् एवम् वैष्णवम् राम पितृ पैतामहम् महत् |
> क्षत्र धर्मम् पुरस् कृत्य गृह्णीष्व धनुर् उत्तमम् || (Bala kanda 75th Sarga 24 -27 Slokas)
>
>
> “On hearing the unregenerate and highly perfidious murdering of my father, I rancorously extirpated Kshatriya-s as and when they are born, that too not for one time, going around the earth... and on getting the entire earth under my control I performed Vedic-ritual, and at the end of that Vedic-ritual, I gave all that earth to sage Kashyapa, a sage with divine soul and with pious observances, as a ritualistic-generosity... and I am at present on Mt. Mahendra practising ascesis and thus conjoined are the powers of ascesis in me."
>
>
> "On hearing about the breakage of Shiva's longbow, then I promptly came here. Thereby, oh, Rama, wield this supernatural and superlative longbow of Vishnu, which is passed on to me from my forefathers and my father. Keep your fealty to Kshatriya-hood in view, and wield this as you have wielded Shiva's longbow”
>
>
>
---
The Story of Parasurama also appears in Mahabharata, wherein it was mentioned that Drona obtained all his divine weapons from the former.
Drona heard that the illustrious Brahmana Jamadagnya, Rama the son of Jamadagni, had expressed a desire of giving away all his wealth to Brahmanas. Having heard of Rama's knowledge of arms and of his celestial weapons also, Drona, who set his heart upon them as also upon the knowledge of morality that Rama possessed, set out for the Mahendra mountains.
Arrived at Mahendra, Drona approached Rama the son of Jamadagni, worshipped Rama's feet, and told him that he came there with the desire of obtaining his wealth.'
On hearing him, Rama said that he gave away his gold and whatever other wealth he had to Brahmanas! He further stated that the earth also, to the verge of the sea, decked with towns and cities, as with a garland of flowers, was given unto Kasyapa. And, he added that he was left with his body only and his various valuable weapons and that he was prepared to give either his body or his weapons.
Drona prayed to give him all his weapons together with the mysteries of hurling and recalling them and Rama gave all his weapons to Drona,
---
If we study these 2 stories in depth, we will find 2 contradictions.
1) If the Parasu Rama the son of Jamadagni extirpated Kshatriya-s many times by going around the earth, then lineage of both Ikshvaku's, to which Dasaratha belonged, and Nimi's, to which Janaka belonged to, must have been broken, as Parasu Rama might have eliminated Kshatriya-s of both lineages.
However, while describing the lineages of Ikshvaku's and Nimi's during the marriage ceremony of Sri Rama and Sita, Sage Valmiki did not mention about breakage of those lineages due to Parasu Rama's adventures.
2) In Mahabharata it was mentioned that Drona obtained all his divine weapons from Parasu Rama.
Mahabharata followed Srimad Ramayana, as mention about Sri Rama can be found in Mahabharata but not about Pandavas in Srimad Ramayana. Many such instances can be quoted.
So if Parasu Rama distributed all his riches along with entire land on earth to Kashyapa and retired to Mt. Mahendra for practising ascesis,bduring Ramayan era itself, how can he still wait in the main land, for Drona of Mahabharata era for imparting knowledge in divine weapons, and then retire to Mt. Mahendra?
The answer is clear.
Parasu Rama existed only in Mahabharata era but not in Srimad Ramayana era. |
161,698 | In my current architecture, my backend issues a JWT back to the (mobile) client. The primary reason to opt for a JWT is stateless authentication, i.e. the server doesn't need to store data in the session/database, which means less overhead and scalability issues.
A common strategy is to log in the user and return back the short-lived JWT (approximately 15 minutes - as I read), together with a refresh token that the user stores in the client. The refresh token never expires, and can only be revoked. The purpose would be to avoid sending a long-lived JWT over the wire too many times, and only refresh the JWT when expired; when an attacker would get hold of the short-lived token, the attack time window is brief.
The problem is that this story seems to be full of holes when I think about it. Please help me clarify.
1. A 15 minute expiration time would mean that some users might as well send a refresh token over the wire 10 times/day. That might just be as high a frequency as some user would make requests with a regular, short-lived access token. Therefore the argument of the refresh token seems questionable.
2. If you question SSL, then I don't know why so many companies use basic authentication. To use JWT with refresh token, you probably should use HTTPS anyway.
3. What is the benefit of JWT if you then need to store a refresh token in the session/database in order to issue a new jwt to the client. In this case, the refresh token would act as a sort of password (although I realise it's not exactly the same) that gets stored in the backend. This makes the authentication flow essentially stateful and seems to take away the benefit of using JWT altogether. Also, with a brief expiration period of 15 minutes, it means that you have a lot of overhead, needing to get a refreshed access token almost every time you check your phone if there is a 30 minutes interval.
Not only is there the overhead to check the stored refresh token, additionally you need to check whether the refresh token is blacklisted, which means another performance overhead. (Edit: the last check can be removed by just removing the refresh token from the db when revoked).
4. A refresh token requires multiple server roundtrips:
* 401 is returned when the access token has expired (resource server).
* A new access token needs to be requested at the auth server
* The request to the resource server needs to be re-initiated.
Can someone explain to me what I'm missing here? | 2017/06/10 | [
"https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/161698",
"https://security.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.stackexchange.com/users/47567/"
] | One of the main criticisms of stateless session tokens is the lack of a secure logout. Having a separate access/refresh token allows a compromise. You can greatly reduce the amount of database access, while having a secure logout function with a 15-minute delay.
The design doesn't do anything to protect against session hijacking, i.e. malicious capture of the token. Just use SSL, it is ubiquitous these days.
You can reduce the amount of round trips with some care. Many client HTTP libraries allow you to perform proactive authentication, which avoids the extra round-trip to get a 401.
I agree that it's not a particularly sensible design. Most web site are database heavy anyway, so checking a token on each request isn't much more overhead. And while the basic concept of access/refresh tokens is secure, I worry that the extra complexity invites implementation flaws. | Unless there are other answers to this question, my own current solution is that it is a question of assessing the tradeoffs of security risk against performance.
My main consideration is to increase the time window of the "short lived" jwt access token of 15 minutes to a day.
This given that HTTPS is required, and that requests are only made internally, i.e. the tokens don't travel cross-domain.
This means that in terms of performance, the token refresh only happens once a day. Theoretically, SSL should provide sufficient security in my case; a single day of attack window is merely a security measure on top of something that shouldn't happen in the first place.
Although refresh tokens essentially make the authentication process stateful, this may be acceptable since most requests (in this case over a day) to the resource server still happen using the jwt. |
129,555 | I wish to create a personalized google map (as is shown [here](http://earth.google.com/outreach/tutorial_mymaps.html)),
I see it is possible to import a geo file (KML, KMZ or GeoRSS) with many points. I would love to use that but don't know how to create such a geo file in the first place.
Which one should I use? What is the best way to create them?
Thanks. | 2010/04/10 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/129555",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/28536/"
] | As mentioned in Gnoupi's answer, you can export from [Google Earth](http://earth.google.com/). You can also create them directly in the browser though. Log in to your Google account, then go to [Google Maps](http://maps.google.com/), and click on "My Maps". Then click "create new map".
You can then enter a title and description, and start adding points and lines to the map using the buttons on the upper left hand corner of the map area. Click on the balloon, then drop it anywhere on the map. You can also search for a location, then click on a result and choose "Save to..." to add it to one of your saved maps. You can also set up sharing so that other Google users you authorize can add to the map, using the "collaborate" link.
 | [Google Earth](http://earth.google.com/) allows you to create such files. You can mark several locations, and save a folder with all of them as a kml or kmz file.
Also, [here is the documentation](http://code.google.com/apis/kml/documentation/whatiskml.html) from Google about kml files. |
140,872 | When I mount my Android phone with USB cable to Ubuntu 12.04 I get "these files are on a digital audio player" and open with rhythmbox in nautilus.This means that I am not able to see any file within my android.
Is it possible to disable the recognition of digital audio player and just list all files as usual?
EDIT
I found the issue. The issue was completely different than I thought. I actually have a Samsung galaxy S2. If you plug in the phone via USB you can see the device but you are not able to see any files.
But if you follow this guide, you will be able to see all files;
<http://www.the-computer-geek.co.uk/?p=435>
Thanks everybody for your efforts. | 2012/05/22 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/140872",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/65391/"
] | Each USB device presents itself to the operating system with a [device class code](http://www.usb.org/developers/defined_class). This determines what kind of device is plugged into your computer and thus enables your OS to initiate class dependent actions.
It is likely that your phone sends the device class identifier `01h Audio` to Ubuntu. Therefore seemingly correct Rhythmbox is opened as we believed it was an mp3-player.
Unless you are able to change this code from settings on your phone the easiest approach to avoid starting a media player is to [turn off the default behaviour](https://askubuntu.com/a/140890/3940) on what to do when a "audio"-USB-device is plugged in.
A more basic approach would be to define a [udev rule](http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=168221) for a given device.
We have no experience with this software, but you may also be able to change the USB mode of a flip-flop device with the help of [usb-modeswitch](http://packages.ubuntu.com/usb-modeswitch) [](http://apt.ubuntu.com/p/usb-modeswitch).
See the [instructions on the support page](http://www.draisberghof.de/usb_modeswitch/) for details on usage. | You may disable this behaviour by going to system settings, details, removable media and select the 'do nothing' option. |
296,955 | Im trying to calculate certain values of a newly calculated point. So I use the field calculator to write an equation to determine the values.
Is there a way to save that equation, so that if and when I start a new job, I don't have to retype it in?
Something similar to how you save styles and symbology for a array of points. | 2018/09/25 | [
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/296955",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/users/128184/"
] | QGIS saves the last equation used in the field calculator under the tab "Recent" where you can reuse it by double-clicking it
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/wvkVF.png) | Additionally to the solution by @LaughU, you may incorporate any field calculator operation into a graphical model and then save and run the model. This but requires your column names always to be the same. |
123,000 | ServerFault Community,
It seems there are two positions SysAdmins find themselves in, either you are working for a non-IT services based single client (your employer) and providing in-house IT support or you work for a company who provides out sourced IT services to multiple clients.
Right now I work for a company who does the latter, and I often consider how nice it would be doing the in-house side of things, to just have one network I am focused on and instead of feeling like I have a dozen bosses between clients and internal management, I would just have one set of management and people to appease.
There is also the technical aspect of every client wanting something different, and having to manage numerous different technology platforms, or trying to force clients into using the technologies we prefer, neither situation is enjoyable.
Is this just "the grass is greener on the other side" syndrome, or is there some legitimacy to the the stress of client based IT work compared to being an in-house IT guy?
Thanks! | 2010/03/16 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/123000",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/7829/"
] | I've done both.
The first six years of my career was for a software company where I was on a team which did desktop support, server operations, backups, network architecture -- you name it, we did it. All that and the configuration management/release management for the product too. Through that six years I was twice offered the open door into entry-level management.
Since then I've been an employee at a company which provides contract services to customers of varying sizes (think being a consultant without having to find my own customers). I've had both long-term customers (like eight of the nine years I've been here) and one-visit, hit-and-run jobs. I've done everything from being a one-man IT department to being highly focused on one small part of a massive project.
There are advantages and disadvantages to both.
Currently I enjoy being the go-to guy for my long-term customers (even though coincidentally both are ending shortly for unrelated reasons). I have built fairly robust networks at both pieces and I have the architecture, and reasons for that architecture, in my head. Even though one site is fairly well documented, it is kind of neat to me to be able to tell people the reasoning behind the choices made.
Of course the goal is to document everything, and that philosophy is what drives answers like this: [If you got hit by a bus, would your company be in trouble?](https://serverfault.com/questions/18309/if-you-got-hit-by-a-bus-would-your-company-be-in-trouble/18327#18327)
There is also the constant change of scenery and moving around to visit different sites at different times. Plus the occasional rush when something blows up somewhere and you have to rush to be the hero of the hour. (Or try, anyways).
There are downsides. Some of our customers go against our recommendations, resulting in the very fires we have to rush to fix. Sometimes it is tiring to be on the road all the time. Sometimes it is worrying when there isn't enough to do and you start to wonder how your employer will pay you.
My big negative right now is that it is hard to take comp time when overtime or special jobs happen. The problem is that even if you work an extra 8 hours for customer A, you can't take the comp time the next day because those are scheduled visits to customers B C and D, none of which had anything to do with the overtime happened.
And a long-term negative, one which surprised me, is that I miss having a regular, daily commute and a cubical to hang all the artwork the kids do in school in.
I periodically look at the help-wanted and jobs boards to see what is available, but I have not hit that magic combination where the job was interesting and I was at a negative enough point in my cycle with my current job to want to apply.
Eventually I'll probably switch back if I find an interesting enough job. | In house IT ususally has no money, doesn't keep up with the latest versions of software, and increasingly, rather than invest in training the staff management will call in out sourced talent to perform "interesting" tasks like domain upgrades, exchange upgrades etc. Saying that you've worked with windows 2003 (only) on your resume isn't exactly career enhancing. in house IT has to justify every penny and even when you've justified the expense you migh get told to find an alternative.
Of course this is some of the worst case stuff I've seen. |
123,000 | ServerFault Community,
It seems there are two positions SysAdmins find themselves in, either you are working for a non-IT services based single client (your employer) and providing in-house IT support or you work for a company who provides out sourced IT services to multiple clients.
Right now I work for a company who does the latter, and I often consider how nice it would be doing the in-house side of things, to just have one network I am focused on and instead of feeling like I have a dozen bosses between clients and internal management, I would just have one set of management and people to appease.
There is also the technical aspect of every client wanting something different, and having to manage numerous different technology platforms, or trying to force clients into using the technologies we prefer, neither situation is enjoyable.
Is this just "the grass is greener on the other side" syndrome, or is there some legitimacy to the the stress of client based IT work compared to being an in-house IT guy?
Thanks! | 2010/03/16 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/123000",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/7829/"
] | I've done both.
The first six years of my career was for a software company where I was on a team which did desktop support, server operations, backups, network architecture -- you name it, we did it. All that and the configuration management/release management for the product too. Through that six years I was twice offered the open door into entry-level management.
Since then I've been an employee at a company which provides contract services to customers of varying sizes (think being a consultant without having to find my own customers). I've had both long-term customers (like eight of the nine years I've been here) and one-visit, hit-and-run jobs. I've done everything from being a one-man IT department to being highly focused on one small part of a massive project.
There are advantages and disadvantages to both.
Currently I enjoy being the go-to guy for my long-term customers (even though coincidentally both are ending shortly for unrelated reasons). I have built fairly robust networks at both pieces and I have the architecture, and reasons for that architecture, in my head. Even though one site is fairly well documented, it is kind of neat to me to be able to tell people the reasoning behind the choices made.
Of course the goal is to document everything, and that philosophy is what drives answers like this: [If you got hit by a bus, would your company be in trouble?](https://serverfault.com/questions/18309/if-you-got-hit-by-a-bus-would-your-company-be-in-trouble/18327#18327)
There is also the constant change of scenery and moving around to visit different sites at different times. Plus the occasional rush when something blows up somewhere and you have to rush to be the hero of the hour. (Or try, anyways).
There are downsides. Some of our customers go against our recommendations, resulting in the very fires we have to rush to fix. Sometimes it is tiring to be on the road all the time. Sometimes it is worrying when there isn't enough to do and you start to wonder how your employer will pay you.
My big negative right now is that it is hard to take comp time when overtime or special jobs happen. The problem is that even if you work an extra 8 hours for customer A, you can't take the comp time the next day because those are scheduled visits to customers B C and D, none of which had anything to do with the overtime happened.
And a long-term negative, one which surprised me, is that I miss having a regular, daily commute and a cubical to hang all the artwork the kids do in school in.
I periodically look at the help-wanted and jobs boards to see what is available, but I have not hit that magic combination where the job was interesting and I was at a negative enough point in my cycle with my current job to want to apply.
Eventually I'll probably switch back if I find an interesting enough job. | There are many different IT shops. It is not simply a choice between contract shops and in-house IT.
IT can be many things:
* Internal support/helpdesk
* Development environments
* Windows intranet, internal tools focused.
* Service provider based/external facing services
* Internet Service Provider based
The previous list is far from comprehensive. Depending on the type of IT shop, there are varieties of differing roles within that. Roles can involve responsibilities ranging from architect to support. Some of these roles are not available in all shops and some roles are very different between shops.
External IT services can be many things. Consulting services and contract or staff augmentation services often overlap, which are often contact to hire. 1099 and corp. to corp. consulting are very different, which are often contract based and better resemble freelance consulting.
What do you want to do? I do not want to do many of these things, as they are entirely outside of my career focus and not things I enjoy.
One consulting firm can may large interesting projects using the technologies you enjoy, where another may churn out support contracts as the primary focus. Most fall somewhere in between.
My favorite type of internal IT shop is where one can have substantial involvement in the direction of technology, which seems to be more common in technology-focused companies. These shops often involve higher-level architecture as well. The contrast would be an internal IT shop focused on providing support to the intranet and internal end-users, which can have a substantially smaller budget and less responsibility as opposed to engineer roles.
Ultimately, IT is a big space. If you feel that you are stuck in a support role and not interested in business or management, chances are you can find a highly technical role that does not involve support. These choices are not necessarily distinct between consulting and in-house IT departments. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.