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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
91,010 | The dictionary explains this as:
>
> To show somebody that you are interested in them and/or want to help them
>
>
>
The explanation indicates the subject of the sentence is the one that offers help, but I think this one is also correct:
>
> I'll try it first, and if I can't handle it, I'll reach out to you for help.
>
>
>
I am confused about who offers help because I saw my native speaker colleague write this in an email:
>
> Thanks for reaching out to me.
>
>
>
Is this a "thanks" for helping or being asked to help? | 2012/11/12 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/91010",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/2796/"
] | “Reach out” is just so much mindless business twaddle. There are lots of web pages excoriating its promulgators.
For example, John Smurf’s [MBA Jargon Watch](http://www.johnsmurf.com/jargon2.htm) defines it as follows:
>
> **reach out** (*v.*)
>
>
> To call or email. For this one, we can blame those old AT&T ads that encouraged folks to "reach out and touch someone." Obviously, you can't actually reach out and TOUCH anyone due to your company's stringent sexual-harrassent policy. But you can "reach out" (but, again, no touching) to a co-worker for information, support, or to start one of those crucial conversations. But keep any interaction to a phone call or email just to be on the safe side.
>
>
>
And here, from the [Ridiculous Business Jargon Dictionary](http://www.theofficelife.com/business-jargon-dictionary-R.html):
>
> **Reach out** [*v.*]
>
>
> To contact. A dramatic way of saying a very mundane thing."I'll have my people reach out sometime next week."
>
>
>
And here from *Forbes Magazine* no less, in their now very famous and frequently cited page of [Most Annoying Business Jargon](http://www.forbes.com/special-report/2012/annoying-business-jargons-12.html) or [via this link](http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-most-annoying--pretentious-and-useless-business-jargon.html) of the most annoying, pretentious, and useless business jargon, where *reaching out* made it to position #7 in their 32-bracket run-off:
>
> The next time you feel the need to reach out, shift a paradigm, leverage a best practice or join a tiger team, by all means do it. Just don’t say you’re doing it, because all that meaningless business jargon makes you sound like a complete moron.
>
>
>
And here from the Daily Muse’s [Business Buzzwords to Banish from Your Vocabulary](http://www.thedailymuse.com/career/business-jargon/):
>
> **Reach Out**
>
>
> “Let’s reach out to someone in accounting to get those numbers.”
>
>
> “If you want to follow up, feel free to reach out to me by phone.”
>
>
> “Reach out” is one of the best examples of how corporate jargon makes things unnecessarily complicated. The English language already has lots of useful words related to communication. “Reach out to me by phone?” Seriously? How about just “call me?” In an age when most people are overwhelmed by crowded email inboxes, it’s best to be brief and clear. Never use “reach out” when “email” or “contact” will do just fine.
>
>
>
Whereas *Forbes Magazine* put the phrase at position ⁷⁄₃₂, at Lackuna.com’s site for Tech and Language News, “reaching out” made it to the #2 slot in their article on [Business Language — is it all just mumbo jumbo?](http://www.lackuna.com/2012/06/13/business-language-is-it-all-just-mumbo-jumbo/). In fact, only “blue-sky thinking” outranks it:
>
> **#2 – Reaching Out**
>
>
> This one seems to be popular with American workers. Given today’s global economy, with businesses doing more and more international trade, you’re probably no stranger to receiving speculative emails saying something along the lines of: “Hi there! I’m reaching out to you in the hope that….”
>
>
> They want to say they are getting in touch. You think they want to touch you, literally. It’s ok…really…
>
>
> Why they can’t just say “I am contacting you because?”. There’s no need to use such ridiculously emotive language, especially if you’re emailing me for the first time and that we’ve never met before. It won’t make me like you any more, so stop it.
>
>
>
On the Hot To Write Better website, their article on [Do you speak Touchy-Feely?](http://howtowritebetter.net/do-you-speak-touchy-feely/) writes:
>
> **Reach out**
>
>
> Means contact. Reach out suggests to me an almost-drowning loser grasping unsuccessfully at a life-saver ring. I suspect this is not quite what the originators of this term had in mind. Why does anyone have to *reach out* merely to get in touch with someone? Why can’t you just contact them?
>
>
>
On a somewhat more reflective and perhaps linguistically relevant note, Global Results Communiations’ article on [Word Up: Having Fun with Business Jargon](http://blog.globalresultspr.com/word-up-having-fun-with-business-jargon/) observes:
>
> Even when geography, culture, gender, social class and age group are relatively similar, two people can find themselves speaking entirely different languages if their professions are different. For example, one of my closest girlfriends is a college professor, and I am in public relations in the technology industry. She once asked me what “close the loop” meant and under what circumstances someone would say it. She had literally never heard the expression! She said that there are certain expressions used in “business” that she and her academic colleagues never use or have never heard of, such as “ping,” “reach out,” and “circle back.” These words make her laugh. I am equally amused by the words she and her academic colleagues regularly use in their field, like “rigorous” and “empirical.” Once you’ve heard the same expressions so many times, you become inured and take for granted that if you know and use these expressions, just about everyone else must know and use them, too.
>
>
>
To people coming from a different background, these in-group and in-vogue expressions sound ridiculous. But if you are part of that in-group, they mark you as being just that to the others who are there. To you, it may sound funny if they use that language, while to them, you may sound funny if you do not. I’ve observed first-hand the mismatch between academic and business language when groups from those respective communities interact, and it really does take them quite some time to figure out what each other are saying. | Hard to tell what exactly he/she means without more of the context.
In general, I think when someone says "Thanks for reaching out to me", they are both taking it as a compliment that you would consult their help (when you are obviously working on something or in the process of doing or researching something), and simply thanking you for, when reaching a point where you need some sort of help, seeking help and being responsible enough to ask for outside help.
>
> I'm glad you're taking the time to consult someone about your problem, and I take it as a compliment that you value my opinion and insight on the particular topic.
>
>
>
...is how I translate this. Sounds like something a professor would say! |
91,010 | The dictionary explains this as:
>
> To show somebody that you are interested in them and/or want to help them
>
>
>
The explanation indicates the subject of the sentence is the one that offers help, but I think this one is also correct:
>
> I'll try it first, and if I can't handle it, I'll reach out to you for help.
>
>
>
I am confused about who offers help because I saw my native speaker colleague write this in an email:
>
> Thanks for reaching out to me.
>
>
>
Is this a "thanks" for helping or being asked to help? | 2012/11/12 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/91010",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/2796/"
] | Leaving aside the twaddleity of *reach out*, the matter of who is helping whom is resolved thus:
* *reach out **for** help* signifies “get in touch with in order to obtain help”
* *reach out **to** help* signifies “get in touch with in order to offer help”
* *thank you **for** reaching out* signifies “I feel gratitude toward you because you got in touch and offered help” | Hard to tell what exactly he/she means without more of the context.
In general, I think when someone says "Thanks for reaching out to me", they are both taking it as a compliment that you would consult their help (when you are obviously working on something or in the process of doing or researching something), and simply thanking you for, when reaching a point where you need some sort of help, seeking help and being responsible enough to ask for outside help.
>
> I'm glad you're taking the time to consult someone about your problem, and I take it as a compliment that you value my opinion and insight on the particular topic.
>
>
>
...is how I translate this. Sounds like something a professor would say! |
32,614 | Is it possible to create Sandbox for PE. I think its not, but just want to double check | 2014/04/14 | [
"https://salesforce.stackexchange.com/questions/32614",
"https://salesforce.stackexchange.com",
"https://salesforce.stackexchange.com/users/7476/"
] | **No**, as mentioned at the top of the [Sandbox Overview](http://help.salesforce.com/HTViewHelpDoc?id=create%5ftest%5finstance.htm&language=en%5fUS) in the documentation:
>
> Available in: Enterprise, Performance, Unlimited, and Database.com
> Editions
>
>
> | You can get a Dev Pro sandbox for Professional Edition. The link from Bob's comment above show's the sandbox versions available in each Salesforce edition.
[Salesforce Edition Comparison - UK](http://www.sfdcstatic.com/uk/assets/pdf/datasheets/DS_SalesCloud_EdCompare.pdf) |
32,614 | Is it possible to create Sandbox for PE. I think its not, but just want to double check | 2014/04/14 | [
"https://salesforce.stackexchange.com/questions/32614",
"https://salesforce.stackexchange.com",
"https://salesforce.stackexchange.com/users/7476/"
] | **No**, as mentioned at the top of the [Sandbox Overview](http://help.salesforce.com/HTViewHelpDoc?id=create%5ftest%5finstance.htm&language=en%5fUS) in the documentation:
>
> Available in: Enterprise, Performance, Unlimited, and Database.com
> Editions
>
>
> | From Summer 16 , You can have 10 Developer Sandbox for Professional edition |
32,614 | Is it possible to create Sandbox for PE. I think its not, but just want to double check | 2014/04/14 | [
"https://salesforce.stackexchange.com/questions/32614",
"https://salesforce.stackexchange.com",
"https://salesforce.stackexchange.com/users/7476/"
] | From Summer 16 , You can have 10 Developer Sandbox for Professional edition | You can get a Dev Pro sandbox for Professional Edition. The link from Bob's comment above show's the sandbox versions available in each Salesforce edition.
[Salesforce Edition Comparison - UK](http://www.sfdcstatic.com/uk/assets/pdf/datasheets/DS_SalesCloud_EdCompare.pdf) |
289,231 | I have a Windows 7 laptop and I need UNIX/LINUX for an application. I have run across Cygwin which creates a UNIX 'shell' so that you can run software that requires this on your PC. One of the applications recommend FreeBSD which requires Virtual PC and to be installed as a guest OS. I am trying to figure out the pros and cons and which I should go with. I don't think I would need both since they seem to do the same thing. | 2011/05/27 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/289231",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/83189/"
] | Agreeing with what Ian C wrote, let me say that if the mysterious "application" you require is not something already available with Cygwin, you're better off using a virtual OS like FreeBSD. However, one point he didn't make: Cygwin apps will tend to be much *faster* than running that application in a virtual OS, particularly if you don't use a "bare metal" hypervisor like Xen or HyperV.
NOTE: I used the word "mysterious" because it would be easier to help you if you just named the application. | I recommend VirtualBox + Ubuntu or Linux Mint over FreeBSD. VBox has better Linux/Unix support than VirtualPC, and Linux has better integration with VBox than FreeBSD. Ubuntu & Linux Mint are nice, easy to work with distros. |
945,763 | Is it possible to create a mod 11 check digit routine with a regex statement?
THe nubmer is a 10 digit number,
Step 1:
A = (2nd number \* 2) + (3rd number \* 4) + (4th number \* 8) + (5th number \* 5) + (6th number \* 10) + (7th number \* 9) + (8th number \* 7) + (9th number \* 3))
Step 2:
B = A / 11 (ignor remainder)
Step 3:
C = B \* 11
Step 4:
D = A - C
Step 5:
11 - D must = the 10th digit | 2009/06/03 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/945763",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/9266/"
] | No - fundamentally you're wanting to do maths here, and that doesn't really fit with regular expressions which are just about patterns.
I mean, *theoretically* it's certainly possible - you could list all valid numbers, and combine them into one enormous regex. However, it's not *practically* feasible. | Regex does pattern matching, not really parsing. You need to parse the number to get the digits. I would suggest using the regex to ensure it is a 10 digit number and then ToString() it and chop it up. |
945,763 | Is it possible to create a mod 11 check digit routine with a regex statement?
THe nubmer is a 10 digit number,
Step 1:
A = (2nd number \* 2) + (3rd number \* 4) + (4th number \* 8) + (5th number \* 5) + (6th number \* 10) + (7th number \* 9) + (8th number \* 7) + (9th number \* 3))
Step 2:
B = A / 11 (ignor remainder)
Step 3:
C = B \* 11
Step 4:
D = A - C
Step 5:
11 - D must = the 10th digit | 2009/06/03 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/945763",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/9266/"
] | No - fundamentally you're wanting to do maths here, and that doesn't really fit with regular expressions which are just about patterns.
I mean, *theoretically* it's certainly possible - you could list all valid numbers, and combine them into one enormous regex. However, it's not *practically* feasible. | Use regex as a finite state machine. <http://quaxio.com/triple/> |
945,763 | Is it possible to create a mod 11 check digit routine with a regex statement?
THe nubmer is a 10 digit number,
Step 1:
A = (2nd number \* 2) + (3rd number \* 4) + (4th number \* 8) + (5th number \* 5) + (6th number \* 10) + (7th number \* 9) + (8th number \* 7) + (9th number \* 3))
Step 2:
B = A / 11 (ignor remainder)
Step 3:
C = B \* 11
Step 4:
D = A - C
Step 5:
11 - D must = the 10th digit | 2009/06/03 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/945763",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/9266/"
] | Use regex as a finite state machine. <http://quaxio.com/triple/> | Regex does pattern matching, not really parsing. You need to parse the number to get the digits. I would suggest using the regex to ensure it is a 10 digit number and then ToString() it and chop it up. |
53,371 | If I cast [Stonecoil Serpent](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=%2b%5bStonecoil%20Serpent%5d) with X = 0, it starts with 0/0, and immediately resolves so it dies?
Is there a way to save it? | 2020/11/04 | [
"https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/53371",
"https://boardgames.stackexchange.com",
"https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/users/13339/"
] | Yes, you can save the Serpent, but it must be set up ahead of time. There are two main ways of saving it that I can think of.
1. An anthem effect (called a *static ability*), like the namesake [Glorious Anthem](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=%2b%5bGlorious%20Anthem%5d)
2. Another card that says it enters the battlefield with +1/+1 counters on it (called a *replacement effect*), like [Bloodspore Thrinax](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=%2b%5bBloodspore%20Thrinax%5d)
Either of these will make sure the Serpent has toughness greater than 0 by the time state-based actions are checked. Note that this (in particular point 2) is in contrast to triggered abilities (like [The Great Henge](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=%2b%5bThe%20Great%20Henge%5d)), which are too late to save the serpent. | Between the time that the Stonecoil Serpent spell actually resolves and when it is put into the graveyard, no player gets priority to do anything. This is because state-based actions are checked when a player is about to get priority. So any method of saving it would have to be done either before the servant resolves (or before it is cast), or after it has already entered the graveyard.
For example, if you had a [Always Watching](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=%2b%5bAlways%20Watching%5d) in play before you cast the serpent, then that would save it. Or you could return it from the graveyard to your hand with various cards. If you just returned it to the battlefield from the graveyard, it would just die again immediately, unless something else had changed that matters. |
53,371 | If I cast [Stonecoil Serpent](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=%2b%5bStonecoil%20Serpent%5d) with X = 0, it starts with 0/0, and immediately resolves so it dies?
Is there a way to save it? | 2020/11/04 | [
"https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/53371",
"https://boardgames.stackexchange.com",
"https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/users/13339/"
] | Between the time that the Stonecoil Serpent spell actually resolves and when it is put into the graveyard, no player gets priority to do anything. This is because state-based actions are checked when a player is about to get priority. So any method of saving it would have to be done either before the servant resolves (or before it is cast), or after it has already entered the graveyard.
For example, if you had a [Always Watching](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=%2b%5bAlways%20Watching%5d) in play before you cast the serpent, then that would save it. Or you could return it from the graveyard to your hand with various cards. If you just returned it to the battlefield from the graveyard, it would just die again immediately, unless something else had changed that matters. | Arthur's answer pretty much covers everything you need to know. I'd only add that, in a Silver Bordered game, you can also use [Rules Lawyer](https://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=439409) to save a 0 toughness creature. |
53,371 | If I cast [Stonecoil Serpent](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=%2b%5bStonecoil%20Serpent%5d) with X = 0, it starts with 0/0, and immediately resolves so it dies?
Is there a way to save it? | 2020/11/04 | [
"https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/53371",
"https://boardgames.stackexchange.com",
"https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/users/13339/"
] | Yes, you can save the Serpent, but it must be set up ahead of time. There are two main ways of saving it that I can think of.
1. An anthem effect (called a *static ability*), like the namesake [Glorious Anthem](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=%2b%5bGlorious%20Anthem%5d)
2. Another card that says it enters the battlefield with +1/+1 counters on it (called a *replacement effect*), like [Bloodspore Thrinax](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=%2b%5bBloodspore%20Thrinax%5d)
Either of these will make sure the Serpent has toughness greater than 0 by the time state-based actions are checked. Note that this (in particular point 2) is in contrast to triggered abilities (like [The Great Henge](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=%2b%5bThe%20Great%20Henge%5d)), which are too late to save the serpent. | Arthur's answer pretty much covers everything you need to know. I'd only add that, in a Silver Bordered game, you can also use [Rules Lawyer](https://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=439409) to save a 0 toughness creature. |
49,825 | This is a question for all the ladies of StackExchange.
As a frequent traveller, I've found a [few ways to pack bras better](http://maphappy.org/2015/03/how-to-protect-and-pack-bras-for-the-road/) but I wanted to reach out to the peanut gallery and see if there was any other way to pack these things any more efficiently. | 2015/06/22 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/49825",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/30247/"
] | * Pad it with socks and underwear. (default strategy)
* Pack them near the top. (not sure how helpful this really is in actual execution since you can't control baggage handling after check-in...)
* Stack them. (strength in numbers! my go-to move.)
* Fold one cup inside another. (I see this everywhere in FlyerTalk forums but according to [experts](http://maphappy.org/2015/03/how-to-protect-and-pack-bras-for-the-road/), this actually stretches the bra out??)
* Use a [special case](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/B0054M2IUO). (this seems excessive but I could see how a packing-cube-like system would help)
I know this is more of an opinion-based question but has anyone out there actually found an objectively best way to pack bras on a trip? Let me know! :) | Use sport bras which can be folded whatever way you want, scrunched up even.
I never needed to be careful with bras when packing, most of the time my bras fill the things I have to be careful with. |
49,825 | This is a question for all the ladies of StackExchange.
As a frequent traveller, I've found a [few ways to pack bras better](http://maphappy.org/2015/03/how-to-protect-and-pack-bras-for-the-road/) but I wanted to reach out to the peanut gallery and see if there was any other way to pack these things any more efficiently. | 2015/06/22 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/49825",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/30247/"
] | * Pad it with socks and underwear. (default strategy)
* Pack them near the top. (not sure how helpful this really is in actual execution since you can't control baggage handling after check-in...)
* Stack them. (strength in numbers! my go-to move.)
* Fold one cup inside another. (I see this everywhere in FlyerTalk forums but according to [experts](http://maphappy.org/2015/03/how-to-protect-and-pack-bras-for-the-road/), this actually stretches the bra out??)
* Use a [special case](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/B0054M2IUO). (this seems excessive but I could see how a packing-cube-like system would help)
I know this is more of an opinion-based question but has anyone out there actually found an objectively best way to pack bras on a trip? Let me know! :) | This may work for some type of [fancy lingerie](https://allforfashiondesign.com/14-surprising-clothing-hacks-that-will-change-your-daily-routine/)
[](https://allforfashiondesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/db-5.jpg)
Some other tips:
* [How to Fold a Bra to Pack in a Suitcase : Smart Packing & Travel Tips](https://youtu.be/v5zbx7bGfUs)
* [How to Pack Undergarments](https://youtu.be/i3Nuj86SXzg)
* [How to Pack Bras](https://www.wikihow.com/Pack-Bras)
* [How To Correctly Pack Your Lingerie](https://youtu.be/gj86gGmZB6A)
* [How To Fold And Organise Your Lingerie](https://youtu.be/eyhFQ4Up8gA)
Probably if you travel a lot it'll be better to have a hard case for those purposes |
49,825 | This is a question for all the ladies of StackExchange.
As a frequent traveller, I've found a [few ways to pack bras better](http://maphappy.org/2015/03/how-to-protect-and-pack-bras-for-the-road/) but I wanted to reach out to the peanut gallery and see if there was any other way to pack these things any more efficiently. | 2015/06/22 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/49825",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/30247/"
] | Whenever the topic of packing something in an optimal way comes up, it's useful to see if the Navy has anything to say about it. The Navy is a good place to look because sailors need to be especially diligent about [packing economically](http://www.public.navy.mil/airfor/vaq134/Documents/VAQ-134%20Deployment%20Guide%20for%20CVN-77.pdf), and women sailors are no exception.
Specifically, women in the US Navy are issued 11 bras and should have 2 in their seabag ready for deployment. The rest should be stored in their locker at port. These are of the type: *sports, white or beige*. Your question did not specify a given bra type, so this answer would apply to sports bras rather than the cantilevered or balconette or contoured or other bra types.
Pursuing this topic, it turns out that the [US Naval Academy](http://www.usna.edu/homepage.php) provides female midshipmen with instructions on folding their bras...
>
> b. Brassieres. Divide into thirds; fold right third and then left third back; fold top straps down to form a square; stack in locker with bottom sweatbands flush and facing out (Figure 6-B).
>
>
>
...and to help get the point across, they provide an image...
Source: [Midshipmen Uniform Regulations](http://www.usna.edu/Commandant/Directives/Instructions/1000-1999/COMDTMIDNINST_1020.3B_WITH_CH-9_MIDSHIPMEN_UNIFORM_REGULATIONS.pdf)
Presumably the required square shape is the result of computing [optimized surface area](http://missn.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/49895257/Optimal%20Surface%20Area%20%26%20Volume.ppt) versus volume.
They make a point of explaining how the bras should be stored in the locker, but it's implied that storage for deployment would follow the same pattern. It's a good bet that the Navy hired external contractors to study the problem and produce a report which then informed the regulations.
---
Nobody likes a tired, frumpy bra that's been crushed in a suitcase, and if you eschew the sports bra in favour of the cupped bra style, then consider some of the recent innovations in [specialist luggage](https://www.google.com/search?q=HARD-SHELL%20BRA%20CASE). | Use sport bras which can be folded whatever way you want, scrunched up even.
I never needed to be careful with bras when packing, most of the time my bras fill the things I have to be careful with. |
49,825 | This is a question for all the ladies of StackExchange.
As a frequent traveller, I've found a [few ways to pack bras better](http://maphappy.org/2015/03/how-to-protect-and-pack-bras-for-the-road/) but I wanted to reach out to the peanut gallery and see if there was any other way to pack these things any more efficiently. | 2015/06/22 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/49825",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/30247/"
] | Use sport bras which can be folded whatever way you want, scrunched up even.
I never needed to be careful with bras when packing, most of the time my bras fill the things I have to be careful with. | This may work for some type of [fancy lingerie](https://allforfashiondesign.com/14-surprising-clothing-hacks-that-will-change-your-daily-routine/)
[](https://allforfashiondesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/db-5.jpg)
Some other tips:
* [How to Fold a Bra to Pack in a Suitcase : Smart Packing & Travel Tips](https://youtu.be/v5zbx7bGfUs)
* [How to Pack Undergarments](https://youtu.be/i3Nuj86SXzg)
* [How to Pack Bras](https://www.wikihow.com/Pack-Bras)
* [How To Correctly Pack Your Lingerie](https://youtu.be/gj86gGmZB6A)
* [How To Fold And Organise Your Lingerie](https://youtu.be/eyhFQ4Up8gA)
Probably if you travel a lot it'll be better to have a hard case for those purposes |
49,825 | This is a question for all the ladies of StackExchange.
As a frequent traveller, I've found a [few ways to pack bras better](http://maphappy.org/2015/03/how-to-protect-and-pack-bras-for-the-road/) but I wanted to reach out to the peanut gallery and see if there was any other way to pack these things any more efficiently. | 2015/06/22 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/49825",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/30247/"
] | Whenever the topic of packing something in an optimal way comes up, it's useful to see if the Navy has anything to say about it. The Navy is a good place to look because sailors need to be especially diligent about [packing economically](http://www.public.navy.mil/airfor/vaq134/Documents/VAQ-134%20Deployment%20Guide%20for%20CVN-77.pdf), and women sailors are no exception.
Specifically, women in the US Navy are issued 11 bras and should have 2 in their seabag ready for deployment. The rest should be stored in their locker at port. These are of the type: *sports, white or beige*. Your question did not specify a given bra type, so this answer would apply to sports bras rather than the cantilevered or balconette or contoured or other bra types.
Pursuing this topic, it turns out that the [US Naval Academy](http://www.usna.edu/homepage.php) provides female midshipmen with instructions on folding their bras...
>
> b. Brassieres. Divide into thirds; fold right third and then left third back; fold top straps down to form a square; stack in locker with bottom sweatbands flush and facing out (Figure 6-B).
>
>
>
...and to help get the point across, they provide an image...
Source: [Midshipmen Uniform Regulations](http://www.usna.edu/Commandant/Directives/Instructions/1000-1999/COMDTMIDNINST_1020.3B_WITH_CH-9_MIDSHIPMEN_UNIFORM_REGULATIONS.pdf)
Presumably the required square shape is the result of computing [optimized surface area](http://missn.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/49895257/Optimal%20Surface%20Area%20%26%20Volume.ppt) versus volume.
They make a point of explaining how the bras should be stored in the locker, but it's implied that storage for deployment would follow the same pattern. It's a good bet that the Navy hired external contractors to study the problem and produce a report which then informed the regulations.
---
Nobody likes a tired, frumpy bra that's been crushed in a suitcase, and if you eschew the sports bra in favour of the cupped bra style, then consider some of the recent innovations in [specialist luggage](https://www.google.com/search?q=HARD-SHELL%20BRA%20CASE). | This may work for some type of [fancy lingerie](https://allforfashiondesign.com/14-surprising-clothing-hacks-that-will-change-your-daily-routine/)
[](https://allforfashiondesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/db-5.jpg)
Some other tips:
* [How to Fold a Bra to Pack in a Suitcase : Smart Packing & Travel Tips](https://youtu.be/v5zbx7bGfUs)
* [How to Pack Undergarments](https://youtu.be/i3Nuj86SXzg)
* [How to Pack Bras](https://www.wikihow.com/Pack-Bras)
* [How To Correctly Pack Your Lingerie](https://youtu.be/gj86gGmZB6A)
* [How To Fold And Organise Your Lingerie](https://youtu.be/eyhFQ4Up8gA)
Probably if you travel a lot it'll be better to have a hard case for those purposes |
29,283 | I'm trying to understand the difference between weak and strong AI. For an example, let's say we would pass the turing test - would it show strong AI or weak AI then?
I don't believe that this is standard terminology, but more philosophical. It was mentioned by John Searle in his "Chinese room argument". As I understand, strong AI is about computers really being intelligent such as having a mind and thus a conciousness, and weak AI refers more to computers being able to simulate the behaviour of human intelligence on only specific problems (think chess, etc.)
Now, the question is - if we would be able to pass the turing test, would it be called weak or strong AI then? Could it be strong AI due to the fact that the turing test is not limited to a certain area or a specific problem?
I came across it on wikipedia: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room> | 2014/08/21 | [
"https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/29283",
"https://cs.stackexchange.com",
"https://cs.stackexchange.com/users/21018/"
] | The usual distinction is that [strong AI](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligence), also known as artificial *general* intelligence, refers to systems that can perform arbitrary tasks requiring intellect, whereas a weak AI is only able to perform specific intellectual tasks. So, for example, a computer chess program or a system that was able to compose interesting music would be a weak AI, since it only does one thing.
Passing the Turing test would indicate something close a strong AI. Although one could argue that it only requires performing a specific intellectual task (i.e., conversation), that conversation could range over just about anything that humans can intellectualize about. Indeed, the Wikipedia page I linked above mentions the ability to pass the Turing test as a component of an operational definition of strong AI. | I believe in order to really answer your question; it will take many more years of research in neuroscience, computer science, psychology, and chemistry. Even within this thread itself, how can you be so sure that there are intelligent beings parsing the thread who know english. One would have to clearly define what it truly means to **know** something. Well, we philosophically understand knowledge as something we have personally experienced empirically, which is known as a posteriori knowledge, or a priori knowledge , that is knowledge that is not from direct personal experience. But who can really deny that there is such a mechanism for a computer to experience things in their own way of experiencing, that which is to be experienced.
The true crux of the problem is that we can't experience another conscience empirically except that of our own, that is, with today's current technology, which is also to say a priori. And yet even our own consciences is mysterious to us, because it does not directly present itself to you as you would normally perceive an entity. When you do perceive an entity, you are using your very conscience, and so, how do you begin to perceive that which gives you the ability to perceive in the first place.
What is essential to remember that just because one has not experienced something yet, does not imply that it will not be experienced. Who is to say that there are not even greater forms of AI, then that of our own Intelligence? What would be so inherently special about our species, that we would experience the "greatest" kind of "intelligence" that we have, that could not somehow be emulated outside of the constructs of nature.
I recommend reading the following philosophical book, that I myself have currently started reading. Sein Und Zeit von Martin Heidegger, that is "Being And Time", and there is an english translation for it. |
29,283 | I'm trying to understand the difference between weak and strong AI. For an example, let's say we would pass the turing test - would it show strong AI or weak AI then?
I don't believe that this is standard terminology, but more philosophical. It was mentioned by John Searle in his "Chinese room argument". As I understand, strong AI is about computers really being intelligent such as having a mind and thus a conciousness, and weak AI refers more to computers being able to simulate the behaviour of human intelligence on only specific problems (think chess, etc.)
Now, the question is - if we would be able to pass the turing test, would it be called weak or strong AI then? Could it be strong AI due to the fact that the turing test is not limited to a certain area or a specific problem?
I came across it on wikipedia: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room> | 2014/08/21 | [
"https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/29283",
"https://cs.stackexchange.com",
"https://cs.stackexchange.com/users/21018/"
] | The usual distinction is that [strong AI](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligence), also known as artificial *general* intelligence, refers to systems that can perform arbitrary tasks requiring intellect, whereas a weak AI is only able to perform specific intellectual tasks. So, for example, a computer chess program or a system that was able to compose interesting music would be a weak AI, since it only does one thing.
Passing the Turing test would indicate something close a strong AI. Although one could argue that it only requires performing a specific intellectual task (i.e., conversation), that conversation could range over just about anything that humans can intellectualize about. Indeed, the Wikipedia page I linked above mentions the ability to pass the Turing test as a component of an operational definition of strong AI. | it is worth mentioning some of the historical/ philosophical debates behind AI that have persisted for over a half century. AI as a field has absolutely/ unequivocally made major progress and evolution in sophistication over many decades. however it has succumbed to early hype and optimism about its achievements. so in some ways it has not been an "even" advance.
there is a so-called [moving the goalposts](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts) problem in AI. not sure who first originated this observation but it can be found in many papers. it is mainly levelled by AI proponents in favor of AI research and they have stated that critics argue that no matter what is achieved by AI technology, it is not human. there is clearly some validity to this observation. so there is some psychological component to attempting to measure AI progress that tends to normalize/ [minimize](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimisation_(psychology)) significant advances.
so in short "weak" and "strong" AI are informal notions mainly used in philosophical/ meta analysis of AI. the problem with AI is that there are no hard-quantitative ways to measure it. even the Turing test with its dressings of impartiality (of so called "judges") involves a large amount of human subjectivity. unfortunately Turing did not seem to reference this subjectivity much in his original statement and its in some ways "haunted" the field ever since.
if any hard-quantitative way of measuring AI were formulated, it would probably fail as far as anyone can tell. there are quantitative ways of measuring the performance of AI related applications, eg say chess scores. and computers did very poorly at chess originally, and those scores improved to become superior to humans. in earlier philosophical writing, some AI critics did accept that chess or game playing was a sign of intelligence, but that concept melted away after computers successfully played chess and there seemed to be no "human like" aspect to their operation or play. on the other hand some chess experts felt that in the [legendary Kasparov/ Deep Blue game](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_versus_Garry_Kasparov), the computer seemed to exhibit a kind of "creativity".
as a particular case study, the "moving the goalposts" phenomenon happened on both sides of this match. Deep Blue became more powerful with software and hardware advances, and Kasparov increasingly complained that the match rules were unfair. Kasparov had long said that a computer would never beat him. when it did, he asserted it was through cheating. so similar caveats apply to the study of "weak" and "strong" AI. |
29,283 | I'm trying to understand the difference between weak and strong AI. For an example, let's say we would pass the turing test - would it show strong AI or weak AI then?
I don't believe that this is standard terminology, but more philosophical. It was mentioned by John Searle in his "Chinese room argument". As I understand, strong AI is about computers really being intelligent such as having a mind and thus a conciousness, and weak AI refers more to computers being able to simulate the behaviour of human intelligence on only specific problems (think chess, etc.)
Now, the question is - if we would be able to pass the turing test, would it be called weak or strong AI then? Could it be strong AI due to the fact that the turing test is not limited to a certain area or a specific problem?
I came across it on wikipedia: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room> | 2014/08/21 | [
"https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/29283",
"https://cs.stackexchange.com",
"https://cs.stackexchange.com/users/21018/"
] | it is worth mentioning some of the historical/ philosophical debates behind AI that have persisted for over a half century. AI as a field has absolutely/ unequivocally made major progress and evolution in sophistication over many decades. however it has succumbed to early hype and optimism about its achievements. so in some ways it has not been an "even" advance.
there is a so-called [moving the goalposts](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts) problem in AI. not sure who first originated this observation but it can be found in many papers. it is mainly levelled by AI proponents in favor of AI research and they have stated that critics argue that no matter what is achieved by AI technology, it is not human. there is clearly some validity to this observation. so there is some psychological component to attempting to measure AI progress that tends to normalize/ [minimize](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimisation_(psychology)) significant advances.
so in short "weak" and "strong" AI are informal notions mainly used in philosophical/ meta analysis of AI. the problem with AI is that there are no hard-quantitative ways to measure it. even the Turing test with its dressings of impartiality (of so called "judges") involves a large amount of human subjectivity. unfortunately Turing did not seem to reference this subjectivity much in his original statement and its in some ways "haunted" the field ever since.
if any hard-quantitative way of measuring AI were formulated, it would probably fail as far as anyone can tell. there are quantitative ways of measuring the performance of AI related applications, eg say chess scores. and computers did very poorly at chess originally, and those scores improved to become superior to humans. in earlier philosophical writing, some AI critics did accept that chess or game playing was a sign of intelligence, but that concept melted away after computers successfully played chess and there seemed to be no "human like" aspect to their operation or play. on the other hand some chess experts felt that in the [legendary Kasparov/ Deep Blue game](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_versus_Garry_Kasparov), the computer seemed to exhibit a kind of "creativity".
as a particular case study, the "moving the goalposts" phenomenon happened on both sides of this match. Deep Blue became more powerful with software and hardware advances, and Kasparov increasingly complained that the match rules were unfair. Kasparov had long said that a computer would never beat him. when it did, he asserted it was through cheating. so similar caveats apply to the study of "weak" and "strong" AI. | I believe in order to really answer your question; it will take many more years of research in neuroscience, computer science, psychology, and chemistry. Even within this thread itself, how can you be so sure that there are intelligent beings parsing the thread who know english. One would have to clearly define what it truly means to **know** something. Well, we philosophically understand knowledge as something we have personally experienced empirically, which is known as a posteriori knowledge, or a priori knowledge , that is knowledge that is not from direct personal experience. But who can really deny that there is such a mechanism for a computer to experience things in their own way of experiencing, that which is to be experienced.
The true crux of the problem is that we can't experience another conscience empirically except that of our own, that is, with today's current technology, which is also to say a priori. And yet even our own consciences is mysterious to us, because it does not directly present itself to you as you would normally perceive an entity. When you do perceive an entity, you are using your very conscience, and so, how do you begin to perceive that which gives you the ability to perceive in the first place.
What is essential to remember that just because one has not experienced something yet, does not imply that it will not be experienced. Who is to say that there are not even greater forms of AI, then that of our own Intelligence? What would be so inherently special about our species, that we would experience the "greatest" kind of "intelligence" that we have, that could not somehow be emulated outside of the constructs of nature.
I recommend reading the following philosophical book, that I myself have currently started reading. Sein Und Zeit von Martin Heidegger, that is "Being And Time", and there is an english translation for it. |
2,414 | I plan on setting up my bicycle with one of those devices that holds the rear tire and gives some resistance so I can exercise through the winter. I think it's called a bicycle trainer.
When using one of those for weight loss: Is it better to ride for a long time on low resistance or at a low speed? Or is it better to ride harder, spinning your legs faster or with more resistance for a shorter amount of time?
Sorry; there isn't even an exercise tag on here. Feel free to retag as appropriate. | 2010/12/20 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/2414",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/913/"
] | The answer to this question is dependent on a number of factors, but the short answer is just 'yes'.
If you are purely looking for weight loss then the equation is calores in minus calories out equals delta, and so long as the delta is negative, i.e. that you burn more than you consume, then you **will** lose weight. It's just simple arithmetic.
So, in the first place, just eat the same as you have ever done and do more exercise, then the weight **will** come off.
To do more training, though, will also require a balanced diet. If you up your training load without changing your diet, you will get more tired and notice other negative effects. You'll be hungrier, you'll eat more, it's not as easy as just upping the workload.
What you're actually asking is about making this weight loss more efficient, maybe even drastic, and getting the bang for your buck. So if you sprint, on a higher resistance, with higher cadence, then your heart rate will be higher and you'll burn more - but you'll be able to maintain it for less time. But if you try for a low cadence, with low stress, you'll maintain for a lot longer, but you'll burn less quickly. You'll lose weight either way, but you'll also do it differently and prepare your body differently.
To do this properly, you'll probably want to work just below the anaerobic threshold, this is the point at which the body is still able to consume enough oxygen to assist the work through using sustainable sources within the body (i.e. fat stores), but without all that pesky lactic acid being produced (and burning other sources, e.g. muscle). This is the point where many endurance athletes will try and aim their training (also known as LSD - Long, Slow, Distance), to sit for extended periods at a heart rate set at a maintainable point. You'll need a heart rate monitor and [a means to test yourself](https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/998/how-do-you-calculate-aerobic-and-anaerobic-heart-rates). For a reasonably trained athlete, this will likely be around 150 bpm.
For what it's worth, my rule of thumb is that I'll burn about 40 calories per mile almost irrespective of speed ... but if you **really** want to lose weight, go running. I reckon I burn about 120 calories a mile when running. | The equipment you are talking about is called a turbo trainer. In terms of weight loss I'm not sure which is best, spinning (pedalling quickly against low resistance) is good for cardiovascular stuff, whereas grinding along in a high gear or against a higher resistance is going to improve your strength and build muscle.
My gut feeling (if you'll excuse the slight pun) is that spinning will help you drop weight, but that's just intuition not knowledge talking. |
2,414 | I plan on setting up my bicycle with one of those devices that holds the rear tire and gives some resistance so I can exercise through the winter. I think it's called a bicycle trainer.
When using one of those for weight loss: Is it better to ride for a long time on low resistance or at a low speed? Or is it better to ride harder, spinning your legs faster or with more resistance for a shorter amount of time?
Sorry; there isn't even an exercise tag on here. Feel free to retag as appropriate. | 2010/12/20 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/2414",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/913/"
] | The 'best' way is by measuring your bodies response to whatever you are doing. The best method by todays understanding is while using a heart-rate monitor. As Unsliced mentioned, riding just below the anaerobic threshold. You achieve that by monitoring your heart rate as you exercise, and holding it in that zone as long as possible. That allows you to continuously work very hard, but not so hard that you deplete your bodies ability to deliver oxygen and get tired. | The equipment you are talking about is called a turbo trainer. In terms of weight loss I'm not sure which is best, spinning (pedalling quickly against low resistance) is good for cardiovascular stuff, whereas grinding along in a high gear or against a higher resistance is going to improve your strength and build muscle.
My gut feeling (if you'll excuse the slight pun) is that spinning will help you drop weight, but that's just intuition not knowledge talking. |
2,414 | I plan on setting up my bicycle with one of those devices that holds the rear tire and gives some resistance so I can exercise through the winter. I think it's called a bicycle trainer.
When using one of those for weight loss: Is it better to ride for a long time on low resistance or at a low speed? Or is it better to ride harder, spinning your legs faster or with more resistance for a shorter amount of time?
Sorry; there isn't even an exercise tag on here. Feel free to retag as appropriate. | 2010/12/20 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/2414",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/913/"
] | [Gary Taubes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Taubes) makes a very [reasonable argument](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIGV9VOOtew) that you can't "exercise to lose weight".
Or rather, that the conventional view that manipulating calories in through diet and calories out through exercise will cause you to gain or lose weight is not backed up by science. That is, while "Energy in - energy out" is true, it is not useful, as the cause of fat gain or loss is elsewhere.
(He argues that carbohydrates in the diet are the "true cause" of fat gain, but this part of his argument is not as strong.) | The equipment you are talking about is called a turbo trainer. In terms of weight loss I'm not sure which is best, spinning (pedalling quickly against low resistance) is good for cardiovascular stuff, whereas grinding along in a high gear or against a higher resistance is going to improve your strength and build muscle.
My gut feeling (if you'll excuse the slight pun) is that spinning will help you drop weight, but that's just intuition not knowledge talking. |
2,414 | I plan on setting up my bicycle with one of those devices that holds the rear tire and gives some resistance so I can exercise through the winter. I think it's called a bicycle trainer.
When using one of those for weight loss: Is it better to ride for a long time on low resistance or at a low speed? Or is it better to ride harder, spinning your legs faster or with more resistance for a shorter amount of time?
Sorry; there isn't even an exercise tag on here. Feel free to retag as appropriate. | 2010/12/20 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/2414",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/913/"
] | The answer to this question is dependent on a number of factors, but the short answer is just 'yes'.
If you are purely looking for weight loss then the equation is calores in minus calories out equals delta, and so long as the delta is negative, i.e. that you burn more than you consume, then you **will** lose weight. It's just simple arithmetic.
So, in the first place, just eat the same as you have ever done and do more exercise, then the weight **will** come off.
To do more training, though, will also require a balanced diet. If you up your training load without changing your diet, you will get more tired and notice other negative effects. You'll be hungrier, you'll eat more, it's not as easy as just upping the workload.
What you're actually asking is about making this weight loss more efficient, maybe even drastic, and getting the bang for your buck. So if you sprint, on a higher resistance, with higher cadence, then your heart rate will be higher and you'll burn more - but you'll be able to maintain it for less time. But if you try for a low cadence, with low stress, you'll maintain for a lot longer, but you'll burn less quickly. You'll lose weight either way, but you'll also do it differently and prepare your body differently.
To do this properly, you'll probably want to work just below the anaerobic threshold, this is the point at which the body is still able to consume enough oxygen to assist the work through using sustainable sources within the body (i.e. fat stores), but without all that pesky lactic acid being produced (and burning other sources, e.g. muscle). This is the point where many endurance athletes will try and aim their training (also known as LSD - Long, Slow, Distance), to sit for extended periods at a heart rate set at a maintainable point. You'll need a heart rate monitor and [a means to test yourself](https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/998/how-do-you-calculate-aerobic-and-anaerobic-heart-rates). For a reasonably trained athlete, this will likely be around 150 bpm.
For what it's worth, my rule of thumb is that I'll burn about 40 calories per mile almost irrespective of speed ... but if you **really** want to lose weight, go running. I reckon I burn about 120 calories a mile when running. | The 'best' way is by measuring your bodies response to whatever you are doing. The best method by todays understanding is while using a heart-rate monitor. As Unsliced mentioned, riding just below the anaerobic threshold. You achieve that by monitoring your heart rate as you exercise, and holding it in that zone as long as possible. That allows you to continuously work very hard, but not so hard that you deplete your bodies ability to deliver oxygen and get tired. |
2,414 | I plan on setting up my bicycle with one of those devices that holds the rear tire and gives some resistance so I can exercise through the winter. I think it's called a bicycle trainer.
When using one of those for weight loss: Is it better to ride for a long time on low resistance or at a low speed? Or is it better to ride harder, spinning your legs faster or with more resistance for a shorter amount of time?
Sorry; there isn't even an exercise tag on here. Feel free to retag as appropriate. | 2010/12/20 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/2414",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/913/"
] | The answer to this question is dependent on a number of factors, but the short answer is just 'yes'.
If you are purely looking for weight loss then the equation is calores in minus calories out equals delta, and so long as the delta is negative, i.e. that you burn more than you consume, then you **will** lose weight. It's just simple arithmetic.
So, in the first place, just eat the same as you have ever done and do more exercise, then the weight **will** come off.
To do more training, though, will also require a balanced diet. If you up your training load without changing your diet, you will get more tired and notice other negative effects. You'll be hungrier, you'll eat more, it's not as easy as just upping the workload.
What you're actually asking is about making this weight loss more efficient, maybe even drastic, and getting the bang for your buck. So if you sprint, on a higher resistance, with higher cadence, then your heart rate will be higher and you'll burn more - but you'll be able to maintain it for less time. But if you try for a low cadence, with low stress, you'll maintain for a lot longer, but you'll burn less quickly. You'll lose weight either way, but you'll also do it differently and prepare your body differently.
To do this properly, you'll probably want to work just below the anaerobic threshold, this is the point at which the body is still able to consume enough oxygen to assist the work through using sustainable sources within the body (i.e. fat stores), but without all that pesky lactic acid being produced (and burning other sources, e.g. muscle). This is the point where many endurance athletes will try and aim their training (also known as LSD - Long, Slow, Distance), to sit for extended periods at a heart rate set at a maintainable point. You'll need a heart rate monitor and [a means to test yourself](https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/998/how-do-you-calculate-aerobic-and-anaerobic-heart-rates). For a reasonably trained athlete, this will likely be around 150 bpm.
For what it's worth, my rule of thumb is that I'll burn about 40 calories per mile almost irrespective of speed ... but if you **really** want to lose weight, go running. I reckon I burn about 120 calories a mile when running. | [Gary Taubes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Taubes) makes a very [reasonable argument](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIGV9VOOtew) that you can't "exercise to lose weight".
Or rather, that the conventional view that manipulating calories in through diet and calories out through exercise will cause you to gain or lose weight is not backed up by science. That is, while "Energy in - energy out" is true, it is not useful, as the cause of fat gain or loss is elsewhere.
(He argues that carbohydrates in the diet are the "true cause" of fat gain, but this part of his argument is not as strong.) |
213,128 | Does "floor" mean right to speak, time to speak?
I looked at the definition of floor:
>
> The right to address an assembly, as granted under parliamentary
> procedure.
>
>
>
This seemed to fit what I saw in certain legal texts. I am wondering if it can be used to mean "time during which a person is allowed to talk" and not just "the right to do so". Also, I have been wondering if assembly also included G20 meetings, or a diplomatic meetings.
I am not sure if I understand how to use the word correctly. Here's an example I thought out:
>
> The representative of Italy monopolized the floor and tried to talk
> for 2 hours, which forced the representative of the U.S. to protest.
>
>
> | 2019/06/02 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/213128",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/93377/"
] | "Underrated" is another way of saying "underappreciated" or "undervalued"; it's a bit more colloquial than either of those words, and probably a bit more common, as well.
However, it isn't really nicer, *per se,* and I don't think most English speakers would consider it rude, disparaging or "not nice" to describe something as "undervalued" or "underappreciated." | You don’t miss the water until the well runs dry.
>
> [you never miss the water till the well runs dry](https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/you+never+miss+the+water+till+the+well+runs+dry)
>
> It is only when someone or something is gone that we truly appreciate them or it.
>
>
> *I was in such a rush to start a career and become an adult, but now all I want is the carefree life I had when I was in college! You never miss the water till the well runs dry, huh?*
> *I should have made a greater effort to show Janet just how much she meant to me, but you never miss the water till the well runs dry. Now she's married and living on the other side of the planet.*
>
>
> (TFD)
>
>
> |
67,875 | I'm looking at this [article about pacing in entertainment and games](https://i.stack.imgur.com/EQiUx.png). It suggests that all good entertainment roughly follows a pacing/engagement curve like Star Wars(below).
I'm interested in **how I can procedurally generate random-looking curve that would conform to the Star Wars engagement intensity pattern** (linear increase and oscillating peaks-valleys). The simplest implementation I can think of is a rectified sine wave and a sloped line, but that would be very predictable. I have an algorithm for [perlin noise](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Y49By.png) already in the game and am interested **if I can leverage perlin noise algorithm to procedurally generate a varying sequence of peaks and valleys on an increasing slope.**
Here's my attempt so far:
Once I have an algorithm, I can reference it to get engagement difficulty in relation to game turn or progress through some level.
---
I will add my thoughts to this question in hopes that **someone can correct or point out flaws in my approach below:**
* I get the basic XP system in place (previous level \*1000 to advance to next level)
* Decide on the level cap (lets say 20 levels)
* Plot available equipment tiers vs 20 levels (regular at lvl 1, magical at lvl 10, epic at lvl 20)
* Using the peak-valley graph decide how many fights are in each peak-valley cycle (5 to reach lvl 2, 12 to reach lvl 20).
* estimate number of turns per fight, let's say 5 turns per fight
* calculate xp needed and turns needed to reach to each new level
* Plot turn number and hypothetical xp the party has at each level.
Now for each peak I have a number of turns and the amount of XP that the curve should have between two valleys.
Using whatever formula the curve follows at that peak (let's assume a bell curve), I can get the xp value of monsters I have to spawn during that turn. These monsters have their equipment adjusted according to the equipment vs tier/turn number that was calculated above.
Now I need to adjust monster XP and test it at different levels. A simple sanity check: a party of 6 players must kill:
* 750 xp of monsters in first fight in 5 turns, that is 30 actions.
* 1500 in second fight
* 1800 in third fight
* 1350 in fourth
* 555 in fifth
 | 2013/12/26 | [
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/67875",
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com",
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/users/39950/"
] | Yes, you can leverage the noise algorithm. Use your attempt so far as a baseline. Then, using a single dimension perlin noise function, use the x axis as an input to add noise to your baseline function. You can either do this at every point along the axis, or you can do it just for the peaks and valleys and interpolate the values between.
This will be pretty unrelated to your terrain height algorithm. The only similarities being that you're using perlin noise for both.
Another algorithm available to you is [midpoint displacement](http://www.avanderw.co.za/midpoint-displacement-in-one-dimension/):
You will have to modify the algorithm a bit, since it doesn't usually expect baseline values other than zeros. Once modified, use your sloped sine wave as an input. | This is sounding a bit like Valve's "Game Director" in the Left For Dead series.
The idea is that there's an AI "watching" the player to make sure they're having fun. When things are tough it generates fewer and weaker enemies. When you seem to be picking the zombies apart effortlessly, it creates more and harder zombies.
Not only that, it also tries to create suspense by leaving periods of dead time where there are no enemies, then unleashing zombie hell on the player.
Personally, I found it pretty effective. I liked the pacing in those games.
I'm wondering what sort of RPG you're coding. Is this the retro style RPG where monsters attack you randomly as you wander the map/ (like the old final fantasy games?) Or is it more action / adventure like Diablo?
I think either way, you could probably create the same effect. Instead of a continuous stream of enemies, which is psychologically taxing, create some dead time in between your battles so that the player has time to adjust inventory, heal, etc.
Rather than planning all this out in advance, why not just do it on the fly? come up with some algorithm that tells your "game director" how much trouble the player is having at any set time in the game, (You can look at things like player level, hitpoints, recent potions used, etc.) then use that information to adjust the difficulty of the enemies.
Leave some room in the director for a few pushover battles, and some fairly epic fights, regardless of how hard the player's doing, but set it up to where the player should have a reasonable expectation of winning, at least most of the time. (But not all the time... See Dwarf Fortress's motto: [Losing is fun](http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2010%3aLosing)) |
67,875 | I'm looking at this [article about pacing in entertainment and games](https://i.stack.imgur.com/EQiUx.png). It suggests that all good entertainment roughly follows a pacing/engagement curve like Star Wars(below).
I'm interested in **how I can procedurally generate random-looking curve that would conform to the Star Wars engagement intensity pattern** (linear increase and oscillating peaks-valleys). The simplest implementation I can think of is a rectified sine wave and a sloped line, but that would be very predictable. I have an algorithm for [perlin noise](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Y49By.png) already in the game and am interested **if I can leverage perlin noise algorithm to procedurally generate a varying sequence of peaks and valleys on an increasing slope.**
Here's my attempt so far:
Once I have an algorithm, I can reference it to get engagement difficulty in relation to game turn or progress through some level.
---
I will add my thoughts to this question in hopes that **someone can correct or point out flaws in my approach below:**
* I get the basic XP system in place (previous level \*1000 to advance to next level)
* Decide on the level cap (lets say 20 levels)
* Plot available equipment tiers vs 20 levels (regular at lvl 1, magical at lvl 10, epic at lvl 20)
* Using the peak-valley graph decide how many fights are in each peak-valley cycle (5 to reach lvl 2, 12 to reach lvl 20).
* estimate number of turns per fight, let's say 5 turns per fight
* calculate xp needed and turns needed to reach to each new level
* Plot turn number and hypothetical xp the party has at each level.
Now for each peak I have a number of turns and the amount of XP that the curve should have between two valleys.
Using whatever formula the curve follows at that peak (let's assume a bell curve), I can get the xp value of monsters I have to spawn during that turn. These monsters have their equipment adjusted according to the equipment vs tier/turn number that was calculated above.
Now I need to adjust monster XP and test it at different levels. A simple sanity check: a party of 6 players must kill:
* 750 xp of monsters in first fight in 5 turns, that is 30 actions.
* 1500 in second fight
* 1800 in third fight
* 1350 in fourth
* 555 in fifth
 | 2013/12/26 | [
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/67875",
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com",
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/users/39950/"
] | Yes, you can leverage the noise algorithm. Use your attempt so far as a baseline. Then, using a single dimension perlin noise function, use the x axis as an input to add noise to your baseline function. You can either do this at every point along the axis, or you can do it just for the peaks and valleys and interpolate the values between.
This will be pretty unrelated to your terrain height algorithm. The only similarities being that you're using perlin noise for both.
Another algorithm available to you is [midpoint displacement](http://www.avanderw.co.za/midpoint-displacement-in-one-dimension/):
You will have to modify the algorithm a bit, since it doesn't usually expect baseline values other than zeros. Once modified, use your sloped sine wave as an input. | Another possibility is that instead of adding Perlin noise to the y axis of your graph, you could use it to scale the x axis. This would mean that you have a fixed difficulty curve, but it takes a different amount of time to get through different bits of it. For example the Perlin noise could be in the range 0.5 to 2.0, and that could be how quickly time passes on that curve. |
7,168,086 | I need your help. Is it possible to write a game in 3d on a canvas? If so, how. Maybe a small example of 2 blocks?
\*\* With 3d I don't mean 3d graphics in OpenGL, or on canvas while you use your brain to apply vector calculus to project the 3d graphics on a 2d screen. I mean program for LG Op3d/HTC Evo 3d!
Thanks in advance | 2011/08/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7168086",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/908564/"
] | There is a link to download HTC stereoscopic API at:
<http://htcdev.com/devcenter/opensense-sdk> | Nvidia seems to have a driver or library that automatically converts a conventional 3D game to the 3D stereo game. <http://www.nvidia.com/object/product-geforce-3d-vision-wired-glasses-us.html>
I guess if you want to do it yourself, you just need to render the same scene twice with slightly shifted camera. and somehow you combine the two rendered result together, you will make your game real 3D. |
7,168,086 | I need your help. Is it possible to write a game in 3d on a canvas? If so, how. Maybe a small example of 2 blocks?
\*\* With 3d I don't mean 3d graphics in OpenGL, or on canvas while you use your brain to apply vector calculus to project the 3d graphics on a 2d screen. I mean program for LG Op3d/HTC Evo 3d!
Thanks in advance | 2011/08/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7168086",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/908564/"
] | For the HTC Evo 3D go to HTC developer website **htcdev.com** There you can download the OpenSense SDK which contains the S3D API and sample code for S3D rendering (Stereoscopic 3D rendering).
You have to render the scene twice which gives you more control on the S3D effect on the one hand, but on the other hand you have to choose your camera view's carefully.
(With other hardware accessories, like nVIDIA's 3d vision, a 3D scene is rendered twice by the driver, no options to change the views of the two cameras from the programmer's point of view). | Nvidia seems to have a driver or library that automatically converts a conventional 3D game to the 3D stereo game. <http://www.nvidia.com/object/product-geforce-3d-vision-wired-glasses-us.html>
I guess if you want to do it yourself, you just need to render the same scene twice with slightly shifted camera. and somehow you combine the two rendered result together, you will make your game real 3D. |
7,168,086 | I need your help. Is it possible to write a game in 3d on a canvas? If so, how. Maybe a small example of 2 blocks?
\*\* With 3d I don't mean 3d graphics in OpenGL, or on canvas while you use your brain to apply vector calculus to project the 3d graphics on a 2d screen. I mean program for LG Op3d/HTC Evo 3d!
Thanks in advance | 2011/08/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7168086",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/908564/"
] | There is a link to download HTC stereoscopic API at:
<http://htcdev.com/devcenter/opensense-sdk> | Short answer: [link](http://blog.us.playstation.com/2010/12/20/stereoscopic-3d-on-the-ps3-full-list-of-all-3d-games-and-blu-rays/).
More elaborate answer:
Many 3D TVs have accept multiple types of input to render 3D, most notably - side by side.
If you are interested in getting a quick start at producing a 3D game (or just a 3D scene), you could use a graphics engine (such as [jMonkeyEngine](http://jmonkeyengine.com/)), create 2 view ports side by side, and render your scene in each of the view ports from separate camera angles. If you connect your 3D TV and set its 3D mode to side by side - you will see the scene in 3D. |
7,168,086 | I need your help. Is it possible to write a game in 3d on a canvas? If so, how. Maybe a small example of 2 blocks?
\*\* With 3d I don't mean 3d graphics in OpenGL, or on canvas while you use your brain to apply vector calculus to project the 3d graphics on a 2d screen. I mean program for LG Op3d/HTC Evo 3d!
Thanks in advance | 2011/08/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7168086",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/908564/"
] | For the HTC Evo 3D go to HTC developer website **htcdev.com** There you can download the OpenSense SDK which contains the S3D API and sample code for S3D rendering (Stereoscopic 3D rendering).
You have to render the scene twice which gives you more control on the S3D effect on the one hand, but on the other hand you have to choose your camera view's carefully.
(With other hardware accessories, like nVIDIA's 3d vision, a 3D scene is rendered twice by the driver, no options to change the views of the two cameras from the programmer's point of view). | Short answer: [link](http://blog.us.playstation.com/2010/12/20/stereoscopic-3d-on-the-ps3-full-list-of-all-3d-games-and-blu-rays/).
More elaborate answer:
Many 3D TVs have accept multiple types of input to render 3D, most notably - side by side.
If you are interested in getting a quick start at producing a 3D game (or just a 3D scene), you could use a graphics engine (such as [jMonkeyEngine](http://jmonkeyengine.com/)), create 2 view ports side by side, and render your scene in each of the view ports from separate camera angles. If you connect your 3D TV and set its 3D mode to side by side - you will see the scene in 3D. |
7,168,086 | I need your help. Is it possible to write a game in 3d on a canvas? If so, how. Maybe a small example of 2 blocks?
\*\* With 3d I don't mean 3d graphics in OpenGL, or on canvas while you use your brain to apply vector calculus to project the 3d graphics on a 2d screen. I mean program for LG Op3d/HTC Evo 3d!
Thanks in advance | 2011/08/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7168086",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/908564/"
] | There is a link to download HTC stereoscopic API at:
<http://htcdev.com/devcenter/opensense-sdk> | HTC has an sdk for the use in thair HTC EVO 3d MPhone. |
7,168,086 | I need your help. Is it possible to write a game in 3d on a canvas? If so, how. Maybe a small example of 2 blocks?
\*\* With 3d I don't mean 3d graphics in OpenGL, or on canvas while you use your brain to apply vector calculus to project the 3d graphics on a 2d screen. I mean program for LG Op3d/HTC Evo 3d!
Thanks in advance | 2011/08/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7168086",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/908564/"
] | For the HTC Evo 3D go to HTC developer website **htcdev.com** There you can download the OpenSense SDK which contains the S3D API and sample code for S3D rendering (Stereoscopic 3D rendering).
You have to render the scene twice which gives you more control on the S3D effect on the one hand, but on the other hand you have to choose your camera view's carefully.
(With other hardware accessories, like nVIDIA's 3d vision, a 3D scene is rendered twice by the driver, no options to change the views of the two cameras from the programmer's point of view). | HTC has an sdk for the use in thair HTC EVO 3d MPhone. |
70,287 | I'm new to D&D and I'm building a Beast Master ranger. Is there a full list of companions that I can use? That way, I know which ones are at my disposal. | 2015/10/25 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/70287",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/25531/"
] | Rangers can only choose a *beast* type monster that is no larger than Medium in size and has a Challenge Rating of 1/4 or lower. Page 317, Appendix A of the Monster Manual covers at least 90% of the beasts that have been statted for 5e. Although it's not a comprehensive list of the Ranger's animal companion options, it's really not that hard to sort out what you can and can't use.
Some of these beasts are also covered starting on page 304, Appendix D, of the PHB.
WoTC has also created a PDF of [monsters by type.](http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/DnD_MonstersByType_1.0.pdf) Again, it's not a list tailored for the Ranger's companions but it does list all the beasts and their Challenge Ratings so you should be able to work it out from there.
With the release of *Volo's Guide to Monsters* there is also a 'monsters by type' list on page 221 that has additional beasts that were added in that book.
[And as BlueMoon has already pointed out](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/136410/14878), [dndbeyond](https://www.dndbeyond.com/) has the ability to [filter](https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters?filter-type=0&filter-type=2&filter-search=&filter-cr-min=1&filter-cr-max=3&filter-size=2&filter-size=3&filter-size=4&filter-armor-class-min=&filter-armor-class-max=&filter-average-hp-min=&filter-average-hp-max=&filter-is-legendary=&filter-has-lair=) monsters by type, size, CR, etc. and that will give you an even more comprehensive list of available beasts that also includes those from official adventure modules. It should, however, be noted that you do need to have purchased the material on dndbeyond should you wish to have access to the stat blocks of the creatures not covered by the Basic Rules. | D&D Beyond has such a list.
===========================
If you [filter](https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters?filter-type=0&filter-type=2&filter-search=&filter-cr-min=1&filter-cr-max=3&filter-size=2&filter-size=3&filter-size=4&filter-armor-class-min=&filter-armor-class-max=&filter-average-hp-min=&filter-average-hp-max=&filter-is-legendary=&filter-has-lair=) the monsters in D&D Beyond, you will have ALL the possible animal companions you can have (I don't think you can filter out *swarms*, but all others are fair game).
The list has all their stats, source-books, etc. It is exceedingly useful for me, and is unlikely to disappear. |
51 | I have been suffering from IT band problems on my outer knee, which I'm pretty sure were caused by raising my seat height too much. I raised the seat on the advice of a friend who said that a higher seat gives more power in each stroke.
By trial and error over several months I have found a (lower) seat height that seems to be acceptable, but I still get occasional twinges if I cycle a lot, so I suspect it's still not quite right.
Is there a well-understood way to correctly determine the best height for a bicycle seat? Are there factors other than seat height that are important to consider? | 2010/08/25 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/51",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/44/"
] | For a quick fit, the general goal is to keep the seat high enough that you can get a nearly-full leg extension, without 'locking' the knee.
Over a long period of time, if you find that you are having knee, foot or hip pains, try making small adjustments with the saddle, about 0.5-1.0cm at a time, either up, down, forwards or backwards. If the pain gets worse, try the other direction. Give it some time, and eventually you should find a painless position.
A tip I recently got from a friend having a similar problem proved interesting: Those of us who are males typically 'dress' right or left. For him, aligning his saddle with the nose turned slightly off-center (away from the direction of 'dressing') alleviated all of his knee discomfort! | Adapted from Brooks catalogue:
1. Adjust your saddle up, but not so much that you have to tilt your hips side to side to fully extend the pedals;
2. Adjust your saddle forward, but not so much that you feel your body thrown forward while pedalling hard;
3. Adjust the nose of your saddle down, but not so much that you slip forward over your hands.
I find the "numerical bike fitting" methods not to work everytime, and they do not consider rider's preference, comfort and interpersonal variability. Also, on some of my bikes, the best position I end up settling down with is against some widespread fitting rules.
As for me, a good way of measuring saddle fit is to ride no hands: you could be able to do it "almost" comfortably. If it is more comfortable to ride no hands than the normal position, the saddle is too back and/or too nose up. If it is hard to maintain balance, it could be too nose-down and/or too forward.
At last, saddle shape and front geometry (handlebar, fork, etc.) have some effect in saddle adjustment, I think. |
51 | I have been suffering from IT band problems on my outer knee, which I'm pretty sure were caused by raising my seat height too much. I raised the seat on the advice of a friend who said that a higher seat gives more power in each stroke.
By trial and error over several months I have found a (lower) seat height that seems to be acceptable, but I still get occasional twinges if I cycle a lot, so I suspect it's still not quite right.
Is there a well-understood way to correctly determine the best height for a bicycle seat? Are there factors other than seat height that are important to consider? | 2010/08/25 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/51",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/44/"
] | For a quick fit, the general goal is to keep the seat high enough that you can get a nearly-full leg extension, without 'locking' the knee.
Over a long period of time, if you find that you are having knee, foot or hip pains, try making small adjustments with the saddle, about 0.5-1.0cm at a time, either up, down, forwards or backwards. If the pain gets worse, try the other direction. Give it some time, and eventually you should find a painless position.
A tip I recently got from a friend having a similar problem proved interesting: Those of us who are males typically 'dress' right or left. For him, aligning his saddle with the nose turned slightly off-center (away from the direction of 'dressing') alleviated all of his knee discomfort! | The saddle can be moved forward or backwards too, besides being raised or lowered. Here is a link form Sheldon Brown on the adjustments of a saddle to the rider on the bike.
<http://sheldonbrown.com/saddles.html> |
51 | I have been suffering from IT band problems on my outer knee, which I'm pretty sure were caused by raising my seat height too much. I raised the seat on the advice of a friend who said that a higher seat gives more power in each stroke.
By trial and error over several months I have found a (lower) seat height that seems to be acceptable, but I still get occasional twinges if I cycle a lot, so I suspect it's still not quite right.
Is there a well-understood way to correctly determine the best height for a bicycle seat? Are there factors other than seat height that are important to consider? | 2010/08/25 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/51",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/44/"
] | Depending on how much you ride, you may want to consider having your bike professionally fit at a bike store.
My wife received a free fit when we bought her Dolce at [Peleton Cycles](http://peloton-cycles.com/), but they told me they will fit anyone to their bike for about $70. It's pricey, but if you are riding your bike constantly, it may be worth the money.
It took them about an hour to fit my wife's new bike - they measured the angle of her knee throughout the stroke, did knee-foot alignment, adjusted her seat height, repositioned and gave her a new head, did a butt test and got the proper sized seat for her sit bones1, and even went as far as adjusting the angle of her brakes so they were easier to reach. Then, after all of that, they send you home to ride your bikes for a few weeks and then have you come back and tell them what's bothering you, and they adjust it some more.
1 This was the #1 thing I did for my bike that made riding so much more comfortable. | One other thing to consider is when your thighs are parallel to the ground the front of your knee should be breaking over the axis of the pedal so make sure your seat is set back far enough |
51 | I have been suffering from IT band problems on my outer knee, which I'm pretty sure were caused by raising my seat height too much. I raised the seat on the advice of a friend who said that a higher seat gives more power in each stroke.
By trial and error over several months I have found a (lower) seat height that seems to be acceptable, but I still get occasional twinges if I cycle a lot, so I suspect it's still not quite right.
Is there a well-understood way to correctly determine the best height for a bicycle seat? Are there factors other than seat height that are important to consider? | 2010/08/25 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/51",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/44/"
] | The best advice I heard on the topic is to sit comfortably on the bike while placing your heel on the pedal. Move the seat up until your leg is fully extended, and then tighten the seat. This way, the leg will be only slightly bent at full extension when the ball of the foot is on the pedal.
You definitely don't want the leg to be fully extended while pedaling, or else you can hurt your knees.
Here's some other guides on the subject:
* <http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/fitting.htm>
* <http://www.rei.com/expertadvice/articles/bike+fit.html> | When you cycle, you leg should be almost straight when the pedal is down, but not completely. It should have a slight bend in the knee. |
51 | I have been suffering from IT band problems on my outer knee, which I'm pretty sure were caused by raising my seat height too much. I raised the seat on the advice of a friend who said that a higher seat gives more power in each stroke.
By trial and error over several months I have found a (lower) seat height that seems to be acceptable, but I still get occasional twinges if I cycle a lot, so I suspect it's still not quite right.
Is there a well-understood way to correctly determine the best height for a bicycle seat? Are there factors other than seat height that are important to consider? | 2010/08/25 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/51",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/44/"
] | For a quick fit, the general goal is to keep the seat high enough that you can get a nearly-full leg extension, without 'locking' the knee.
Over a long period of time, if you find that you are having knee, foot or hip pains, try making small adjustments with the saddle, about 0.5-1.0cm at a time, either up, down, forwards or backwards. If the pain gets worse, try the other direction. Give it some time, and eventually you should find a painless position.
A tip I recently got from a friend having a similar problem proved interesting: Those of us who are males typically 'dress' right or left. For him, aligning his saddle with the nose turned slightly off-center (away from the direction of 'dressing') alleviated all of his knee discomfort! | One other thing to consider is when your thighs are parallel to the ground the front of your knee should be breaking over the axis of the pedal so make sure your seat is set back far enough |
51 | I have been suffering from IT band problems on my outer knee, which I'm pretty sure were caused by raising my seat height too much. I raised the seat on the advice of a friend who said that a higher seat gives more power in each stroke.
By trial and error over several months I have found a (lower) seat height that seems to be acceptable, but I still get occasional twinges if I cycle a lot, so I suspect it's still not quite right.
Is there a well-understood way to correctly determine the best height for a bicycle seat? Are there factors other than seat height that are important to consider? | 2010/08/25 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/51",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/44/"
] | Depending on how much you ride, you may want to consider having your bike professionally fit at a bike store.
My wife received a free fit when we bought her Dolce at [Peleton Cycles](http://peloton-cycles.com/), but they told me they will fit anyone to their bike for about $70. It's pricey, but if you are riding your bike constantly, it may be worth the money.
It took them about an hour to fit my wife's new bike - they measured the angle of her knee throughout the stroke, did knee-foot alignment, adjusted her seat height, repositioned and gave her a new head, did a butt test and got the proper sized seat for her sit bones1, and even went as far as adjusting the angle of her brakes so they were easier to reach. Then, after all of that, they send you home to ride your bikes for a few weeks and then have you come back and tell them what's bothering you, and they adjust it some more.
1 This was the #1 thing I did for my bike that made riding so much more comfortable. | When you cycle, you leg should be almost straight when the pedal is down, but not completely. It should have a slight bend in the knee. |
51 | I have been suffering from IT band problems on my outer knee, which I'm pretty sure were caused by raising my seat height too much. I raised the seat on the advice of a friend who said that a higher seat gives more power in each stroke.
By trial and error over several months I have found a (lower) seat height that seems to be acceptable, but I still get occasional twinges if I cycle a lot, so I suspect it's still not quite right.
Is there a well-understood way to correctly determine the best height for a bicycle seat? Are there factors other than seat height that are important to consider? | 2010/08/25 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/51",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/44/"
] | Adapted from Brooks catalogue:
1. Adjust your saddle up, but not so much that you have to tilt your hips side to side to fully extend the pedals;
2. Adjust your saddle forward, but not so much that you feel your body thrown forward while pedalling hard;
3. Adjust the nose of your saddle down, but not so much that you slip forward over your hands.
I find the "numerical bike fitting" methods not to work everytime, and they do not consider rider's preference, comfort and interpersonal variability. Also, on some of my bikes, the best position I end up settling down with is against some widespread fitting rules.
As for me, a good way of measuring saddle fit is to ride no hands: you could be able to do it "almost" comfortably. If it is more comfortable to ride no hands than the normal position, the saddle is too back and/or too nose up. If it is hard to maintain balance, it could be too nose-down and/or too forward.
At last, saddle shape and front geometry (handlebar, fork, etc.) have some effect in saddle adjustment, I think. | One other thing to consider is when your thighs are parallel to the ground the front of your knee should be breaking over the axis of the pedal so make sure your seat is set back far enough |
51 | I have been suffering from IT band problems on my outer knee, which I'm pretty sure were caused by raising my seat height too much. I raised the seat on the advice of a friend who said that a higher seat gives more power in each stroke.
By trial and error over several months I have found a (lower) seat height that seems to be acceptable, but I still get occasional twinges if I cycle a lot, so I suspect it's still not quite right.
Is there a well-understood way to correctly determine the best height for a bicycle seat? Are there factors other than seat height that are important to consider? | 2010/08/25 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/51",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/44/"
] | Adapted from Brooks catalogue:
1. Adjust your saddle up, but not so much that you have to tilt your hips side to side to fully extend the pedals;
2. Adjust your saddle forward, but not so much that you feel your body thrown forward while pedalling hard;
3. Adjust the nose of your saddle down, but not so much that you slip forward over your hands.
I find the "numerical bike fitting" methods not to work everytime, and they do not consider rider's preference, comfort and interpersonal variability. Also, on some of my bikes, the best position I end up settling down with is against some widespread fitting rules.
As for me, a good way of measuring saddle fit is to ride no hands: you could be able to do it "almost" comfortably. If it is more comfortable to ride no hands than the normal position, the saddle is too back and/or too nose up. If it is hard to maintain balance, it could be too nose-down and/or too forward.
At last, saddle shape and front geometry (handlebar, fork, etc.) have some effect in saddle adjustment, I think. | When you cycle, you leg should be almost straight when the pedal is down, but not completely. It should have a slight bend in the knee. |
51 | I have been suffering from IT band problems on my outer knee, which I'm pretty sure were caused by raising my seat height too much. I raised the seat on the advice of a friend who said that a higher seat gives more power in each stroke.
By trial and error over several months I have found a (lower) seat height that seems to be acceptable, but I still get occasional twinges if I cycle a lot, so I suspect it's still not quite right.
Is there a well-understood way to correctly determine the best height for a bicycle seat? Are there factors other than seat height that are important to consider? | 2010/08/25 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/51",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/44/"
] | For a quick fit, the general goal is to keep the seat high enough that you can get a nearly-full leg extension, without 'locking' the knee.
Over a long period of time, if you find that you are having knee, foot or hip pains, try making small adjustments with the saddle, about 0.5-1.0cm at a time, either up, down, forwards or backwards. If the pain gets worse, try the other direction. Give it some time, and eventually you should find a painless position.
A tip I recently got from a friend having a similar problem proved interesting: Those of us who are males typically 'dress' right or left. For him, aligning his saddle with the nose turned slightly off-center (away from the direction of 'dressing') alleviated all of his knee discomfort! | Depending on how much you ride, you may want to consider having your bike professionally fit at a bike store.
My wife received a free fit when we bought her Dolce at [Peleton Cycles](http://peloton-cycles.com/), but they told me they will fit anyone to their bike for about $70. It's pricey, but if you are riding your bike constantly, it may be worth the money.
It took them about an hour to fit my wife's new bike - they measured the angle of her knee throughout the stroke, did knee-foot alignment, adjusted her seat height, repositioned and gave her a new head, did a butt test and got the proper sized seat for her sit bones1, and even went as far as adjusting the angle of her brakes so they were easier to reach. Then, after all of that, they send you home to ride your bikes for a few weeks and then have you come back and tell them what's bothering you, and they adjust it some more.
1 This was the #1 thing I did for my bike that made riding so much more comfortable. |
51 | I have been suffering from IT band problems on my outer knee, which I'm pretty sure were caused by raising my seat height too much. I raised the seat on the advice of a friend who said that a higher seat gives more power in each stroke.
By trial and error over several months I have found a (lower) seat height that seems to be acceptable, but I still get occasional twinges if I cycle a lot, so I suspect it's still not quite right.
Is there a well-understood way to correctly determine the best height for a bicycle seat? Are there factors other than seat height that are important to consider? | 2010/08/25 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/51",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/44/"
] | The best advice I heard on the topic is to sit comfortably on the bike while placing your heel on the pedal. Move the seat up until your leg is fully extended, and then tighten the seat. This way, the leg will be only slightly bent at full extension when the ball of the foot is on the pedal.
You definitely don't want the leg to be fully extended while pedaling, or else you can hurt your knees.
Here's some other guides on the subject:
* <http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/fitting.htm>
* <http://www.rei.com/expertadvice/articles/bike+fit.html> | Adapted from Brooks catalogue:
1. Adjust your saddle up, but not so much that you have to tilt your hips side to side to fully extend the pedals;
2. Adjust your saddle forward, but not so much that you feel your body thrown forward while pedalling hard;
3. Adjust the nose of your saddle down, but not so much that you slip forward over your hands.
I find the "numerical bike fitting" methods not to work everytime, and they do not consider rider's preference, comfort and interpersonal variability. Also, on some of my bikes, the best position I end up settling down with is against some widespread fitting rules.
As for me, a good way of measuring saddle fit is to ride no hands: you could be able to do it "almost" comfortably. If it is more comfortable to ride no hands than the normal position, the saddle is too back and/or too nose up. If it is hard to maintain balance, it could be too nose-down and/or too forward.
At last, saddle shape and front geometry (handlebar, fork, etc.) have some effect in saddle adjustment, I think. |
217,793 | According to this [website](https://idiomation.wordpress.com/2010/07/12/suffering-succotash/):
>
> In the mid-1800s, during the Victorian era, there was a rejection of all profanity and so the common people developed a wide variety of malapropisms to avoid swearing on Holy names. Soon, one could hear Cripes and Crikey replace “Christ” and Dangnabit replace “G\*d damn it” and Cheese ‘n’ Rice replace “Jesus Christ.” The phrase Suffering Succotash replaced “Suffering Savior.”
>
>
>
Today the latter phrase is known only as an expression of annoyance and surprise by animated cartoon characters such as Sylvester the Cat and Daffy Duck. Was the expression still in vogue when the Looney Tunes cartoons were made, or did the cartoons resurrect an expression that had already lapsed from the American lexicon? | 2014/12/31 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/217793",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/38718/"
] | I don't see any evidence that it was ever a common expression before the cartoon.
Minced oaths generally date back much further than the 1800s. Socrates and Aristophanes give us examples in ancient Greek, and several slurrings of oaths exist in English from the early modern period on.
They exist today too in people saying "gosh" and so on, along with a variation for lavatorial and sexual expletives (*sugar* for *shit*, *fricken* for *fucking* and so on). They tend to be often localised in form, with for example *jaysus* for *Jesus* only appearing in and around Dublin, Ireland (a pronunciation that would once have been used only in some Dublin accents being adapted by other Dubliners exclusively for non-religious senses) and various expressions coming in and out of favour as with local slang expressions one finds varying greatly around the world.
Because of the great variety in real use, and the added requirement for such uses in some media (where the writer is not allowed to have Sylvester the Cat say "God-damn that fucking mouse!"), and the fact that most writers are writers and writers like playing with words, minced oaths have a greater variety in fiction than in real life (though life often imitates art in this regard). Holy Inventive Phrasing, Batman!
As such, "suffering succotash" was likely used precisely because it wasn't very likely to be heard as an actual minced oath and that, combined with the chiming of /sʌ/ in both words, and so is humorous. Indeed, in this case it would not so much be a matter of the cat's swearing being replaced by a minced oath as with the *naff* of "Porridge" and the *smeg* of "Red Dwarf" (where we could expect expletives to be a larger part of the characters' vocabulary if allowed) but rather he uses funny minced oaths purely because they are funny. | Usage - "The Dick Van Dyke Show" - Season 3 Episode 21: "The Pen is Mightier Than the Mouth" (19 February, 1964) The character Buddy Sorrell (Buddy Sorrell) verbally reacted to Rob Petrie (Dick Van Dyke) announcing he was going to fire Sally Rogers (Rose Marie) by exclaiming, "suc-co-tash!" |
217,793 | According to this [website](https://idiomation.wordpress.com/2010/07/12/suffering-succotash/):
>
> In the mid-1800s, during the Victorian era, there was a rejection of all profanity and so the common people developed a wide variety of malapropisms to avoid swearing on Holy names. Soon, one could hear Cripes and Crikey replace “Christ” and Dangnabit replace “G\*d damn it” and Cheese ‘n’ Rice replace “Jesus Christ.” The phrase Suffering Succotash replaced “Suffering Savior.”
>
>
>
Today the latter phrase is known only as an expression of annoyance and surprise by animated cartoon characters such as Sylvester the Cat and Daffy Duck. Was the expression still in vogue when the Looney Tunes cartoons were made, or did the cartoons resurrect an expression that had already lapsed from the American lexicon? | 2014/12/31 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/217793",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/38718/"
] | I don't see any evidence that it was ever a common expression before the cartoon.
Minced oaths generally date back much further than the 1800s. Socrates and Aristophanes give us examples in ancient Greek, and several slurrings of oaths exist in English from the early modern period on.
They exist today too in people saying "gosh" and so on, along with a variation for lavatorial and sexual expletives (*sugar* for *shit*, *fricken* for *fucking* and so on). They tend to be often localised in form, with for example *jaysus* for *Jesus* only appearing in and around Dublin, Ireland (a pronunciation that would once have been used only in some Dublin accents being adapted by other Dubliners exclusively for non-religious senses) and various expressions coming in and out of favour as with local slang expressions one finds varying greatly around the world.
Because of the great variety in real use, and the added requirement for such uses in some media (where the writer is not allowed to have Sylvester the Cat say "God-damn that fucking mouse!"), and the fact that most writers are writers and writers like playing with words, minced oaths have a greater variety in fiction than in real life (though life often imitates art in this regard). Holy Inventive Phrasing, Batman!
As such, "suffering succotash" was likely used precisely because it wasn't very likely to be heard as an actual minced oath and that, combined with the chiming of /sʌ/ in both words, and so is humorous. Indeed, in this case it would not so much be a matter of the cat's swearing being replaced by a minced oath as with the *naff* of "Porridge" and the *smeg* of "Red Dwarf" (where we could expect expletives to be a larger part of the characters' vocabulary if allowed) but rather he uses funny minced oaths purely because they are funny. | When you think about it, Suffering is a star of on going pain, and Succotash is a an American dish. America is, as everyone knows a very religious place and there have been many other ongoing debates as to whether this 'catchphrase' was ever real. There was a rejection of Profanity in the mid 1800's, Victorian Age, so the common people developed a wide variety of malapropisms to avoid swearing on Holy names. They were used for swearing and other types of interjections. With time they came to have a mildly comedic effect.
People are not so concerned about blasphemy, nowadays. We have worse problems.
Crikey = 'Christ'
Cripes = 'Christ'
Jeez = 'Jesus'
Dangnabit = 'Damnation"
by gum = "by g-d"
by gosh =" by g-d"
by golly = "by the name of g-d"
jumping jehosaphat
suffering succotash = 'Suffering Saviour'
Proof of this came down to many, not many, but some recollected diary entries from young children of this time. Many people claim that their grandparents had told stories about such prevailer things and used the phrase 'Suffering succotash'. You may be sitting in your chai in bliss with a grin on your face thinking, this persons an idiot, people could have easily just said that even if it didn't happen. Well, if you dig a little deeper you find that currently 25% and up of the world still has no interest access. That's right an entire quarter has no access to internet and in many cases those which do don't have many people who can afford it anyway. And the funny things is that many people that remember these stories come from these countries meaning the chances of them knowing what the looney tunes are is rather small.
So to some this up in simple terms, for all those people out there that fell asleep halfway, Yes, 'Suffering Succotash' is a real thing that was used by many people throughout the mid 1800's and I absolutly LOVE the phrase. |
9,791 | When I was working on my earlier project, the project management diplomatically played with the communication. There was big mess related to expectations, commitments and promises. At one point, I made it clear that they had not disclosed certain information at beginning while signing off for the project and they purposefully hide some information, sidestepped certain information, and understated certain points so that it escaped my close attention. They had promised certain things verbally which they ended up denying. Unfortunately, none of these conversations are documented. Hence at the end I don't have any proof to fight back or to go to HR or higher management. I feel that is was a very bad experience with project management.
Recently, I have joined a new project, for an altogether new client and with a new team. I had developed good rapport and communication with project management and the most critical points were documented.
The Senior Project Manager (SPM) who took me onto the project has since left the organization and been replaced. The new SPM had a one-on-one with me and set his expectations, targets and promises. After the meeting, I wrote up all the points in an email, along with his promises to me, and sent it to him as MOM. My intent was to document this communication so that there wouldn't be any confusion or issues down the line. And I clearly stated in the mail that *the objective of the mail is to recheck weather I understand all the points correctly and there are not mis interpretations*. And also stated at the end of the mail that *he is welcome and feel free to correct if any points are not correct and add if I had missed any thing*. However, the SPM seems to have taken it in a negative way and says that *"I believe in the people and we have to believe in each other"* and asked me to resend the email, adding some conditions related to deliverables. I did that. I believe that he has taken this whole thing in a negative way and formed a negative impression that I don't trust him, but I have done this based on my recent experience with the project management. I can not afford one more such experience.
Now my specific questions are
(1) Given the situation, what I have done wrong? How should I have handled this situation and documented the communication?
(2) Now I have got negative impression and it burned the bridges with my new super boss(Boss's boss)? How can I mitigate the impact on our work relationship and form a good relationship with him?
I have done this specifically to avoid the earlier incident. What if the person denies his promises later? What if that person claims that he had already communicated certain aspects which he didn't communicate? These things happened to me just before joining this project with my previous project management. How else I can avoid such things in this project (and future projects)? | 2013/02/20 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/9791",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/19430/"
] | A project manager should never be upset about documentation of verbal communication, if they take exception to a written follow up of a verbal conversation then try to work with that project manager to find out if you had written something incorrect.
Since this is a one-sided written account of a two-sided verbal conversation, it is very likely that the other party may have had a different interpretation of the conversation and what was talked about. Most of the time this is all it is, and another meeting to resolve confusions on the written record can help the two of you communicate the things that you do not yet agree on.
If however the PM is simply taking exception of written accounts of verbal agreements with no other issues with what specifically was written, then they may have an agenda. Rats don't like to have the light shined down on them after all.
Trust really shouldn't enter the equation here. The following items are perfectly acceptable to capture on written record:
* Deadlines
* Targets
* Expectations
* Assumptions
* Requirements
* Prerequisites
* Etc...
Promises are not a good thing to track because a promise requires trust in another person. We want to capture written record of agreements and facts, **not** promises, hopes and wishes. Perhaps this may be another reason that the PM took offense.
Another good habit to get into is taking meeting minutes. There is a good explanation of how to do meeting minutes on WikiHow.
<http://www.wikihow.com/Take-Minutes>
Perhaps the full formal practice of meeting minutes is a bit much, but if you take notes on conversations in a meeting and share with the members of the meeting afterwards, then there will always be a written record of motions and consensus.
All of this should be done without passion or prejudice. Only discuss facts and don't enter conversations with the PM on emotional grounds or reasoning as many corrupt PM's will try to use emotional reasoning or arguments to gain advantage over others as opposed to doing actual project management.
Keeping the information free and open for all to see prevents shadowy corners for individuals to hide under whenever stakeholders are not happy with the progress. It also protects you and you should not stop doing this because it makes people uncomfortable. It may be making them uncomfortable because they are used to hiding in shadowy corners for protection. The light is your protection, don't give it up. | You do realize this sounds *extremely* defensive, right? I wonder how you phrased that you wanted to document the expectations and did you cover how this may cause additional delays but not jeopardize the project? Consider how it may take more than a few e-mails back and forth to nail down a requirement that could take days in some cases that then leads to a meeting where someone wants to say, "Hey, why is this so late?!?" that then the attention turns to you for wanting this all documented. This is part of the trade-off that in wanting that documentation are you prepared to take on this risk? I question if that was discussed or if you sent it after the meeting without it being covered beforehand. In this case, you may have blindsided him with this document that may have upset him. How would you feel if after a meeting that you suddenly got told, "Hey, you said this and that and another thing..." out of the blue? Do you see how you may be creating some mistrust by having this record and wanting to use it like a weapon? That is where I could see the trouble being formed so I'd consider reframing why you want these records. What is the good reason for having these records that creates a win/win scenario for each side rather than having it as insurance in case something goes wrong?
My suggestion for how to reconcile the relationship is to consider talking with him about how has he handled previous projects where he had these kinds of issues. Perhaps he has his own way of dealing with this that may be what the company is supposed to do. Consider the question that if someone does break a promise, what are you really going to do? Are you going to go to your boss or a company legal person and ask, "What do we do to make this person uphold their promise?" That does seem like a reasonable course of action and then what? While you may have had the headache of things not working out before, I question how well have you considered what you are doing now will actually fix this if other people don't necessarily play by the same rules as you do. |
9,791 | When I was working on my earlier project, the project management diplomatically played with the communication. There was big mess related to expectations, commitments and promises. At one point, I made it clear that they had not disclosed certain information at beginning while signing off for the project and they purposefully hide some information, sidestepped certain information, and understated certain points so that it escaped my close attention. They had promised certain things verbally which they ended up denying. Unfortunately, none of these conversations are documented. Hence at the end I don't have any proof to fight back or to go to HR or higher management. I feel that is was a very bad experience with project management.
Recently, I have joined a new project, for an altogether new client and with a new team. I had developed good rapport and communication with project management and the most critical points were documented.
The Senior Project Manager (SPM) who took me onto the project has since left the organization and been replaced. The new SPM had a one-on-one with me and set his expectations, targets and promises. After the meeting, I wrote up all the points in an email, along with his promises to me, and sent it to him as MOM. My intent was to document this communication so that there wouldn't be any confusion or issues down the line. And I clearly stated in the mail that *the objective of the mail is to recheck weather I understand all the points correctly and there are not mis interpretations*. And also stated at the end of the mail that *he is welcome and feel free to correct if any points are not correct and add if I had missed any thing*. However, the SPM seems to have taken it in a negative way and says that *"I believe in the people and we have to believe in each other"* and asked me to resend the email, adding some conditions related to deliverables. I did that. I believe that he has taken this whole thing in a negative way and formed a negative impression that I don't trust him, but I have done this based on my recent experience with the project management. I can not afford one more such experience.
Now my specific questions are
(1) Given the situation, what I have done wrong? How should I have handled this situation and documented the communication?
(2) Now I have got negative impression and it burned the bridges with my new super boss(Boss's boss)? How can I mitigate the impact on our work relationship and form a good relationship with him?
I have done this specifically to avoid the earlier incident. What if the person denies his promises later? What if that person claims that he had already communicated certain aspects which he didn't communicate? These things happened to me just before joining this project with my previous project management. How else I can avoid such things in this project (and future projects)? | 2013/02/20 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/9791",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/19430/"
] | You do realize this sounds *extremely* defensive, right? I wonder how you phrased that you wanted to document the expectations and did you cover how this may cause additional delays but not jeopardize the project? Consider how it may take more than a few e-mails back and forth to nail down a requirement that could take days in some cases that then leads to a meeting where someone wants to say, "Hey, why is this so late?!?" that then the attention turns to you for wanting this all documented. This is part of the trade-off that in wanting that documentation are you prepared to take on this risk? I question if that was discussed or if you sent it after the meeting without it being covered beforehand. In this case, you may have blindsided him with this document that may have upset him. How would you feel if after a meeting that you suddenly got told, "Hey, you said this and that and another thing..." out of the blue? Do you see how you may be creating some mistrust by having this record and wanting to use it like a weapon? That is where I could see the trouble being formed so I'd consider reframing why you want these records. What is the good reason for having these records that creates a win/win scenario for each side rather than having it as insurance in case something goes wrong?
My suggestion for how to reconcile the relationship is to consider talking with him about how has he handled previous projects where he had these kinds of issues. Perhaps he has his own way of dealing with this that may be what the company is supposed to do. Consider the question that if someone does break a promise, what are you really going to do? Are you going to go to your boss or a company legal person and ask, "What do we do to make this person uphold their promise?" That does seem like a reasonable course of action and then what? While you may have had the headache of things not working out before, I question how well have you considered what you are doing now will actually fix this if other people don't necessarily play by the same rules as you do. | I found there two main types of people while my carrier: First there are those who do this contracts/documentation/... and direct orders or are managed by theese.
And then there are people (especially from the older generation) in our country we would call "with handshake quality". It means that they make better contracts signed by handshake than a 100 page contract with fines for every possible misbehavior. They would do everything to keep their word or when they can't they would give you 100 times worth because otherwise it would be dishonor for whole life. So promising something towards them and breaking your word would be very bad and they will never trust you again and will have big consequencies on future contracts (if there even will be any). For those the integrity and trustworthiness of people is very important. Their motto is "Why should I trust a 100 page contract when I can't trust the contract partner or his word."
There are seldom people with just only one of theese sides, but you will see that a person is mostly one of these sides.
For the second type it might be embarrassing if you don't seem to trust his word and have every little detail documented/in a contract.
Or there might be the case that this person really isn't that exact with his words or had written promises which backfired because they were interpreted another way later in their disfavor.
So it mostly depends on the type of person the other is and it requires very much experience to distinguish those types especially when you meet them the first time. This is, why many project manager make a nice coming together at project start when the team members don't know each other.
For this time you can explain your bad experience and maybe shorten the document to only the main expectations, targets, and promises and only about 2-3 words (not too detailed) for each like "10% higher ROI", "better teamwork".
For the next projects, ...: earn experience. Or do it in one way and ignore the other type. Or try guessing. If you are new, you will make mistakes. |
9,791 | When I was working on my earlier project, the project management diplomatically played with the communication. There was big mess related to expectations, commitments and promises. At one point, I made it clear that they had not disclosed certain information at beginning while signing off for the project and they purposefully hide some information, sidestepped certain information, and understated certain points so that it escaped my close attention. They had promised certain things verbally which they ended up denying. Unfortunately, none of these conversations are documented. Hence at the end I don't have any proof to fight back or to go to HR or higher management. I feel that is was a very bad experience with project management.
Recently, I have joined a new project, for an altogether new client and with a new team. I had developed good rapport and communication with project management and the most critical points were documented.
The Senior Project Manager (SPM) who took me onto the project has since left the organization and been replaced. The new SPM had a one-on-one with me and set his expectations, targets and promises. After the meeting, I wrote up all the points in an email, along with his promises to me, and sent it to him as MOM. My intent was to document this communication so that there wouldn't be any confusion or issues down the line. And I clearly stated in the mail that *the objective of the mail is to recheck weather I understand all the points correctly and there are not mis interpretations*. And also stated at the end of the mail that *he is welcome and feel free to correct if any points are not correct and add if I had missed any thing*. However, the SPM seems to have taken it in a negative way and says that *"I believe in the people and we have to believe in each other"* and asked me to resend the email, adding some conditions related to deliverables. I did that. I believe that he has taken this whole thing in a negative way and formed a negative impression that I don't trust him, but I have done this based on my recent experience with the project management. I can not afford one more such experience.
Now my specific questions are
(1) Given the situation, what I have done wrong? How should I have handled this situation and documented the communication?
(2) Now I have got negative impression and it burned the bridges with my new super boss(Boss's boss)? How can I mitigate the impact on our work relationship and form a good relationship with him?
I have done this specifically to avoid the earlier incident. What if the person denies his promises later? What if that person claims that he had already communicated certain aspects which he didn't communicate? These things happened to me just before joining this project with my previous project management. How else I can avoid such things in this project (and future projects)? | 2013/02/20 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/9791",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/19430/"
] | A project manager should never be upset about documentation of verbal communication, if they take exception to a written follow up of a verbal conversation then try to work with that project manager to find out if you had written something incorrect.
Since this is a one-sided written account of a two-sided verbal conversation, it is very likely that the other party may have had a different interpretation of the conversation and what was talked about. Most of the time this is all it is, and another meeting to resolve confusions on the written record can help the two of you communicate the things that you do not yet agree on.
If however the PM is simply taking exception of written accounts of verbal agreements with no other issues with what specifically was written, then they may have an agenda. Rats don't like to have the light shined down on them after all.
Trust really shouldn't enter the equation here. The following items are perfectly acceptable to capture on written record:
* Deadlines
* Targets
* Expectations
* Assumptions
* Requirements
* Prerequisites
* Etc...
Promises are not a good thing to track because a promise requires trust in another person. We want to capture written record of agreements and facts, **not** promises, hopes and wishes. Perhaps this may be another reason that the PM took offense.
Another good habit to get into is taking meeting minutes. There is a good explanation of how to do meeting minutes on WikiHow.
<http://www.wikihow.com/Take-Minutes>
Perhaps the full formal practice of meeting minutes is a bit much, but if you take notes on conversations in a meeting and share with the members of the meeting afterwards, then there will always be a written record of motions and consensus.
All of this should be done without passion or prejudice. Only discuss facts and don't enter conversations with the PM on emotional grounds or reasoning as many corrupt PM's will try to use emotional reasoning or arguments to gain advantage over others as opposed to doing actual project management.
Keeping the information free and open for all to see prevents shadowy corners for individuals to hide under whenever stakeholders are not happy with the progress. It also protects you and you should not stop doing this because it makes people uncomfortable. It may be making them uncomfortable because they are used to hiding in shadowy corners for protection. The light is your protection, don't give it up. | I found there two main types of people while my carrier: First there are those who do this contracts/documentation/... and direct orders or are managed by theese.
And then there are people (especially from the older generation) in our country we would call "with handshake quality". It means that they make better contracts signed by handshake than a 100 page contract with fines for every possible misbehavior. They would do everything to keep their word or when they can't they would give you 100 times worth because otherwise it would be dishonor for whole life. So promising something towards them and breaking your word would be very bad and they will never trust you again and will have big consequencies on future contracts (if there even will be any). For those the integrity and trustworthiness of people is very important. Their motto is "Why should I trust a 100 page contract when I can't trust the contract partner or his word."
There are seldom people with just only one of theese sides, but you will see that a person is mostly one of these sides.
For the second type it might be embarrassing if you don't seem to trust his word and have every little detail documented/in a contract.
Or there might be the case that this person really isn't that exact with his words or had written promises which backfired because they were interpreted another way later in their disfavor.
So it mostly depends on the type of person the other is and it requires very much experience to distinguish those types especially when you meet them the first time. This is, why many project manager make a nice coming together at project start when the team members don't know each other.
For this time you can explain your bad experience and maybe shorten the document to only the main expectations, targets, and promises and only about 2-3 words (not too detailed) for each like "10% higher ROI", "better teamwork".
For the next projects, ...: earn experience. Or do it in one way and ignore the other type. Or try guessing. If you are new, you will make mistakes. |
4,881,419 | Short of buying a SPARC processor, what emulators are there? Thanks. | 2011/02/03 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4881419",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/50305/"
] | Pickup a second hand Power Mac G5 and you can run a fairly recent version of a mainstream OS (ie. OS X 10.5.8) and a modern development environment (Xcode 3.1.4).
You get a pretty fast, modern RISC machine running an OS that is still highly used (for the time being, I admit.)
You could also install Linux onto it if that would be better for your needs.
Probably a lot easier to find and cheaper than a SPARC machine. | You could also install the SPIM emulator for MIPS |
4,881,419 | Short of buying a SPARC processor, what emulators are there? Thanks. | 2011/02/03 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4881419",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/50305/"
] | Pickup a second hand Power Mac G5 and you can run a fairly recent version of a mainstream OS (ie. OS X 10.5.8) and a modern development environment (Xcode 3.1.4).
You get a pretty fast, modern RISC machine running an OS that is still highly used (for the time being, I admit.)
You could also install Linux onto it if that would be better for your needs.
Probably a lot easier to find and cheaper than a SPARC machine. | On revisiting this, it's worth noting that nearly all modern smartphones run on ARM processors, which is short for 'Acorn **RISC** Machine'. So, an easy answer is 'Android Studio' or anything else targeting phone applications.
Similarly, there's a plethora of simple development boards available inexpensively, such as the BeagleBone Black and the Raspberry Pi, that also carry ARM processors. |
4,881,419 | Short of buying a SPARC processor, what emulators are there? Thanks. | 2011/02/03 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4881419",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/50305/"
] | You could also install the SPIM emulator for MIPS | On revisiting this, it's worth noting that nearly all modern smartphones run on ARM processors, which is short for 'Acorn **RISC** Machine'. So, an easy answer is 'Android Studio' or anything else targeting phone applications.
Similarly, there's a plethora of simple development boards available inexpensively, such as the BeagleBone Black and the Raspberry Pi, that also carry ARM processors. |
342,076 | **Preface**
I'm a newer contributor, but a long time visitor. As a result, my view is more of an outsider's view. Take my points with that in mind.
---
Stack Exchange appeared to flourish under the direction of meaningful development guided by community feedback. Community elected moderators were the bridge between the user base at large and the community managers. Those community managers then relayed the feedback we gave to the development teams, who tried their best to ensure a smooth user experience.
All was (relatively) well.
Now, however, it seems as though we're stepping backwards. Leaping backwards, almost.
With the [recent departure of two monumental community managers](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/342039/firing-community-managers-stackexchange-is-not-interested-in-cooperating-with-t) with next to NO warning, and a [rather disastrous series of events](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/firing-mods-and-forced-relicensing-is-stack-exchange-still-interested-in-cooper), Stack Exchange is demonstrating to me that transparency is a thing of the past... And I feel absolutely helpless as I watch it fade into the night.
We've tried [giving feedback](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/339050/the-loop-has-arrived-what-does-the-community-think-about-it) on what we would like to see from [The Loop](https://stackoverflow.blog/2019/11/25/introducing-the-loop-a-foundation-in-listening/), which was meant to be a "foundation in listening."
Yet I, and I'm sure many others, feel woefully ignored.
We've tried [writing open letters](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334015/an-open-letter-on-the-state-of-curation-and-moderation) from general users, and we've tried [writing another letter](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334575/dear-stack-exchange-a-statement-and-a-letter-from-your-moderators) specifically from community elected moderators - who, with power users, are the pillars of the community.
Yet [the response](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/335868/622284) is not detailed enough to address close to the number of concerns that have been raised.
All of these questions, all of this feedback, and yet I, like many others, are still under the impression that the response is *hollow.*
I want to be useful. I want to contribute meaningfully to the site that has helped me in many times of intellectual need when I was a silent reader. The recent changes have me very worried for the future of the community here.
While it feels to me as though we've very clearly placed the ball in their court... My question/discussion topic is, simply:
**What more can we do? What more can *I* do?** | 2020/01/14 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/342076",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/622284/"
] | Nothing. Not one thing.
We collected ideas up and down. Dozens of users (some of them being important contributors) went "on strike". Others changed nick names to create awareness. To a certain degree, protest was raised via other channels. Most importantly, plenty of elected moderators resigned or suspended their activities.
And the results? Nothing. Repeat: not one thing.
At least for me, trying to convince SE Inc of anything feels like trying to kick a dead horse. Futile, won't achieve anything.
The only meaningful things left: engage with the community for the sake of the community. And if contribution in terms of providing high quality Q&A content is your concern, then consider doing that in different places (like [here](https://writing.codidact.com/), the first "community" that tries to leave this network for a better place).
Seriously, we have no power. The "best" I came up with lately: Facebook showed me ads for "StackOverflow for teams". I clicked some buttons and told Facebook that I never want to see ads from that company again. Wooow. I felt sooooo strong doing that ;-( | You and I can't do anything. At one point I thought that [pressuring through social networks](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/336032) may have an effect, but now it's absolutely clear it won't.
On the other hand, moderators and employees can do something. Stack Overflow Inc pretended to not notice 50 moderators resigning. It just wrote them off as if they never existed — decreased the stats and acted as if it always was this way. However, if 200 moderators and 20 employees decide to leave, the higher ups may start scratching their heads.
I doubt something like this will happen, but it's always a possibility. Things are escalating quickly. Way quicker than I expected. |
342,076 | **Preface**
I'm a newer contributor, but a long time visitor. As a result, my view is more of an outsider's view. Take my points with that in mind.
---
Stack Exchange appeared to flourish under the direction of meaningful development guided by community feedback. Community elected moderators were the bridge between the user base at large and the community managers. Those community managers then relayed the feedback we gave to the development teams, who tried their best to ensure a smooth user experience.
All was (relatively) well.
Now, however, it seems as though we're stepping backwards. Leaping backwards, almost.
With the [recent departure of two monumental community managers](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/342039/firing-community-managers-stackexchange-is-not-interested-in-cooperating-with-t) with next to NO warning, and a [rather disastrous series of events](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/firing-mods-and-forced-relicensing-is-stack-exchange-still-interested-in-cooper), Stack Exchange is demonstrating to me that transparency is a thing of the past... And I feel absolutely helpless as I watch it fade into the night.
We've tried [giving feedback](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/339050/the-loop-has-arrived-what-does-the-community-think-about-it) on what we would like to see from [The Loop](https://stackoverflow.blog/2019/11/25/introducing-the-loop-a-foundation-in-listening/), which was meant to be a "foundation in listening."
Yet I, and I'm sure many others, feel woefully ignored.
We've tried [writing open letters](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334015/an-open-letter-on-the-state-of-curation-and-moderation) from general users, and we've tried [writing another letter](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334575/dear-stack-exchange-a-statement-and-a-letter-from-your-moderators) specifically from community elected moderators - who, with power users, are the pillars of the community.
Yet [the response](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/335868/622284) is not detailed enough to address close to the number of concerns that have been raised.
All of these questions, all of this feedback, and yet I, like many others, are still under the impression that the response is *hollow.*
I want to be useful. I want to contribute meaningfully to the site that has helped me in many times of intellectual need when I was a silent reader. The recent changes have me very worried for the future of the community here.
While it feels to me as though we've very clearly placed the ball in their court... My question/discussion topic is, simply:
**What more can we do? What more can *I* do?** | 2020/01/14 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/342076",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/622284/"
] | Nothing. Not one thing.
We collected ideas up and down. Dozens of users (some of them being important contributors) went "on strike". Others changed nick names to create awareness. To a certain degree, protest was raised via other channels. Most importantly, plenty of elected moderators resigned or suspended their activities.
And the results? Nothing. Repeat: not one thing.
At least for me, trying to convince SE Inc of anything feels like trying to kick a dead horse. Futile, won't achieve anything.
The only meaningful things left: engage with the community for the sake of the community. And if contribution in terms of providing high quality Q&A content is your concern, then consider doing that in different places (like [here](https://writing.codidact.com/), the first "community" that tries to leave this network for a better place).
Seriously, we have no power. The "best" I came up with lately: Facebook showed me ads for "StackOverflow for teams". I clicked some buttons and told Facebook that I never want to see ads from that company again. Wooow. I felt sooooo strong doing that ;-( | Sadly, I no longer believe that there is anything that us small time users can do; even the high rep users and moderators don't seem to have much impact. |
342,076 | **Preface**
I'm a newer contributor, but a long time visitor. As a result, my view is more of an outsider's view. Take my points with that in mind.
---
Stack Exchange appeared to flourish under the direction of meaningful development guided by community feedback. Community elected moderators were the bridge between the user base at large and the community managers. Those community managers then relayed the feedback we gave to the development teams, who tried their best to ensure a smooth user experience.
All was (relatively) well.
Now, however, it seems as though we're stepping backwards. Leaping backwards, almost.
With the [recent departure of two monumental community managers](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/342039/firing-community-managers-stackexchange-is-not-interested-in-cooperating-with-t) with next to NO warning, and a [rather disastrous series of events](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/firing-mods-and-forced-relicensing-is-stack-exchange-still-interested-in-cooper), Stack Exchange is demonstrating to me that transparency is a thing of the past... And I feel absolutely helpless as I watch it fade into the night.
We've tried [giving feedback](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/339050/the-loop-has-arrived-what-does-the-community-think-about-it) on what we would like to see from [The Loop](https://stackoverflow.blog/2019/11/25/introducing-the-loop-a-foundation-in-listening/), which was meant to be a "foundation in listening."
Yet I, and I'm sure many others, feel woefully ignored.
We've tried [writing open letters](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334015/an-open-letter-on-the-state-of-curation-and-moderation) from general users, and we've tried [writing another letter](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334575/dear-stack-exchange-a-statement-and-a-letter-from-your-moderators) specifically from community elected moderators - who, with power users, are the pillars of the community.
Yet [the response](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/335868/622284) is not detailed enough to address close to the number of concerns that have been raised.
All of these questions, all of this feedback, and yet I, like many others, are still under the impression that the response is *hollow.*
I want to be useful. I want to contribute meaningfully to the site that has helped me in many times of intellectual need when I was a silent reader. The recent changes have me very worried for the future of the community here.
While it feels to me as though we've very clearly placed the ball in their court... My question/discussion topic is, simply:
**What more can we do? What more can *I* do?** | 2020/01/14 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/342076",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/622284/"
] | Nothing. Not one thing.
We collected ideas up and down. Dozens of users (some of them being important contributors) went "on strike". Others changed nick names to create awareness. To a certain degree, protest was raised via other channels. Most importantly, plenty of elected moderators resigned or suspended their activities.
And the results? Nothing. Repeat: not one thing.
At least for me, trying to convince SE Inc of anything feels like trying to kick a dead horse. Futile, won't achieve anything.
The only meaningful things left: engage with the community for the sake of the community. And if contribution in terms of providing high quality Q&A content is your concern, then consider doing that in different places (like [here](https://writing.codidact.com/), the first "community" that tries to leave this network for a better place).
Seriously, we have no power. The "best" I came up with lately: Facebook showed me ads for "StackOverflow for teams". I clicked some buttons and told Facebook that I never want to see ads from that company again. Wooow. I felt sooooo strong doing that ;-( | What do you want to *accomplish*?
Do you want to contribute to a community? You can do that now, and the actions that have taken place over the last few months can be...largely ignored. Heck, most of Stack Overflow's contributors don't really know what happened here, and aren't that in-context to what's going on *now*.
Do you want to provide valuable feedback? That's a tougher thing to do. It's hard to actually provide actionable and meaningful feedback at times, but it can be done even if the process feels like you're calving a glacier.
Do you want to feel valued? This might be the toughest one of them all. We as a community build the network, but we don't pay for the systems or keep any of the lights on. Consequently, our seat at the table feels smaller.
Do you want to feel like you're engaging with the company? I'm not seeing a path forward on that one, since the days of interpersonal staff interactions are pretty much up. But my pessimism runneth over on this one, simply because what we once had we don't get anymore, and what we get in terms of company interaction feels less personable than what it used to be, or what we think it should be.
Do you want to be upset about what's happened? You can do that...but you're wasting your energy. Energy which may be better spent doing something of the above, or not on this list at all. Being upset isn't the key to being listened to.
---
Right now, I'm not sure what ***I*** want, and I don't know if there's anything I could do to "help" because I'm not entirely sure that "help" is the operative verb.
I wanted to ***participate***, but I don't know if I want that. I can't be assured that it will bring value.
So...I think what I'll accomplish in these next few days is similar to what I did back in October. I'm not interested in starting new fires. We've got enough kerosene and matches floating around. But, what I want to know is what purpose putting fires out would actually serve. Sometimes, the best way to fix a long-standing problem with a process or a service is to make it painful enough to make someone - *anyone* want to take action. |
342,076 | **Preface**
I'm a newer contributor, but a long time visitor. As a result, my view is more of an outsider's view. Take my points with that in mind.
---
Stack Exchange appeared to flourish under the direction of meaningful development guided by community feedback. Community elected moderators were the bridge between the user base at large and the community managers. Those community managers then relayed the feedback we gave to the development teams, who tried their best to ensure a smooth user experience.
All was (relatively) well.
Now, however, it seems as though we're stepping backwards. Leaping backwards, almost.
With the [recent departure of two monumental community managers](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/342039/firing-community-managers-stackexchange-is-not-interested-in-cooperating-with-t) with next to NO warning, and a [rather disastrous series of events](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/firing-mods-and-forced-relicensing-is-stack-exchange-still-interested-in-cooper), Stack Exchange is demonstrating to me that transparency is a thing of the past... And I feel absolutely helpless as I watch it fade into the night.
We've tried [giving feedback](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/339050/the-loop-has-arrived-what-does-the-community-think-about-it) on what we would like to see from [The Loop](https://stackoverflow.blog/2019/11/25/introducing-the-loop-a-foundation-in-listening/), which was meant to be a "foundation in listening."
Yet I, and I'm sure many others, feel woefully ignored.
We've tried [writing open letters](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334015/an-open-letter-on-the-state-of-curation-and-moderation) from general users, and we've tried [writing another letter](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334575/dear-stack-exchange-a-statement-and-a-letter-from-your-moderators) specifically from community elected moderators - who, with power users, are the pillars of the community.
Yet [the response](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/335868/622284) is not detailed enough to address close to the number of concerns that have been raised.
All of these questions, all of this feedback, and yet I, like many others, are still under the impression that the response is *hollow.*
I want to be useful. I want to contribute meaningfully to the site that has helped me in many times of intellectual need when I was a silent reader. The recent changes have me very worried for the future of the community here.
While it feels to me as though we've very clearly placed the ball in their court... My question/discussion topic is, simply:
**What more can we do? What more can *I* do?** | 2020/01/14 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/342076",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/622284/"
] | What do you want to *accomplish*?
Do you want to contribute to a community? You can do that now, and the actions that have taken place over the last few months can be...largely ignored. Heck, most of Stack Overflow's contributors don't really know what happened here, and aren't that in-context to what's going on *now*.
Do you want to provide valuable feedback? That's a tougher thing to do. It's hard to actually provide actionable and meaningful feedback at times, but it can be done even if the process feels like you're calving a glacier.
Do you want to feel valued? This might be the toughest one of them all. We as a community build the network, but we don't pay for the systems or keep any of the lights on. Consequently, our seat at the table feels smaller.
Do you want to feel like you're engaging with the company? I'm not seeing a path forward on that one, since the days of interpersonal staff interactions are pretty much up. But my pessimism runneth over on this one, simply because what we once had we don't get anymore, and what we get in terms of company interaction feels less personable than what it used to be, or what we think it should be.
Do you want to be upset about what's happened? You can do that...but you're wasting your energy. Energy which may be better spent doing something of the above, or not on this list at all. Being upset isn't the key to being listened to.
---
Right now, I'm not sure what ***I*** want, and I don't know if there's anything I could do to "help" because I'm not entirely sure that "help" is the operative verb.
I wanted to ***participate***, but I don't know if I want that. I can't be assured that it will bring value.
So...I think what I'll accomplish in these next few days is similar to what I did back in October. I'm not interested in starting new fires. We've got enough kerosene and matches floating around. But, what I want to know is what purpose putting fires out would actually serve. Sometimes, the best way to fix a long-standing problem with a process or a service is to make it painful enough to make someone - *anyone* want to take action. | Let's use a "school with after-class activities" analogy. We've been going to this school for almost a decade. It's been rough at first, but then we all became good friends and learned a lot from each other and shared good memories together. Then the school board decided they want to focus on profits more than offering the best education and activity space for its public. It's bad for students, their parents, teachers, and everyone can see what's going on now.
What do you do when the school your kids go to turns bad? You take them to another school. What do you do when the bar you go to every Friday with your friends and colleagues turns sour? You take your friends and go to another bar together.
Ten years ago the Q&A site landscape became so bad, and it was so impossible to stay in the old places, that Stack Overflow was born. Look around to see if there is a better place to be today. If not, and you have the skills, maybe collect your friends and let's build a better place for us all. They'll be waiting for an invite :) |
342,076 | **Preface**
I'm a newer contributor, but a long time visitor. As a result, my view is more of an outsider's view. Take my points with that in mind.
---
Stack Exchange appeared to flourish under the direction of meaningful development guided by community feedback. Community elected moderators were the bridge between the user base at large and the community managers. Those community managers then relayed the feedback we gave to the development teams, who tried their best to ensure a smooth user experience.
All was (relatively) well.
Now, however, it seems as though we're stepping backwards. Leaping backwards, almost.
With the [recent departure of two monumental community managers](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/342039/firing-community-managers-stackexchange-is-not-interested-in-cooperating-with-t) with next to NO warning, and a [rather disastrous series of events](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/firing-mods-and-forced-relicensing-is-stack-exchange-still-interested-in-cooper), Stack Exchange is demonstrating to me that transparency is a thing of the past... And I feel absolutely helpless as I watch it fade into the night.
We've tried [giving feedback](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/339050/the-loop-has-arrived-what-does-the-community-think-about-it) on what we would like to see from [The Loop](https://stackoverflow.blog/2019/11/25/introducing-the-loop-a-foundation-in-listening/), which was meant to be a "foundation in listening."
Yet I, and I'm sure many others, feel woefully ignored.
We've tried [writing open letters](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334015/an-open-letter-on-the-state-of-curation-and-moderation) from general users, and we've tried [writing another letter](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334575/dear-stack-exchange-a-statement-and-a-letter-from-your-moderators) specifically from community elected moderators - who, with power users, are the pillars of the community.
Yet [the response](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/335868/622284) is not detailed enough to address close to the number of concerns that have been raised.
All of these questions, all of this feedback, and yet I, like many others, are still under the impression that the response is *hollow.*
I want to be useful. I want to contribute meaningfully to the site that has helped me in many times of intellectual need when I was a silent reader. The recent changes have me very worried for the future of the community here.
While it feels to me as though we've very clearly placed the ball in their court... My question/discussion topic is, simply:
**What more can we do? What more can *I* do?** | 2020/01/14 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/342076",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/622284/"
] | Nothing. Not one thing.
We collected ideas up and down. Dozens of users (some of them being important contributors) went "on strike". Others changed nick names to create awareness. To a certain degree, protest was raised via other channels. Most importantly, plenty of elected moderators resigned or suspended their activities.
And the results? Nothing. Repeat: not one thing.
At least for me, trying to convince SE Inc of anything feels like trying to kick a dead horse. Futile, won't achieve anything.
The only meaningful things left: engage with the community for the sake of the community. And if contribution in terms of providing high quality Q&A content is your concern, then consider doing that in different places (like [here](https://writing.codidact.com/), the first "community" that tries to leave this network for a better place).
Seriously, we have no power. The "best" I came up with lately: Facebook showed me ads for "StackOverflow for teams". I clicked some buttons and told Facebook that I never want to see ads from that company again. Wooow. I felt sooooo strong doing that ;-( | Let's use a "school with after-class activities" analogy. We've been going to this school for almost a decade. It's been rough at first, but then we all became good friends and learned a lot from each other and shared good memories together. Then the school board decided they want to focus on profits more than offering the best education and activity space for its public. It's bad for students, their parents, teachers, and everyone can see what's going on now.
What do you do when the school your kids go to turns bad? You take them to another school. What do you do when the bar you go to every Friday with your friends and colleagues turns sour? You take your friends and go to another bar together.
Ten years ago the Q&A site landscape became so bad, and it was so impossible to stay in the old places, that Stack Overflow was born. Look around to see if there is a better place to be today. If not, and you have the skills, maybe collect your friends and let's build a better place for us all. They'll be waiting for an invite :) |
342,076 | **Preface**
I'm a newer contributor, but a long time visitor. As a result, my view is more of an outsider's view. Take my points with that in mind.
---
Stack Exchange appeared to flourish under the direction of meaningful development guided by community feedback. Community elected moderators were the bridge between the user base at large and the community managers. Those community managers then relayed the feedback we gave to the development teams, who tried their best to ensure a smooth user experience.
All was (relatively) well.
Now, however, it seems as though we're stepping backwards. Leaping backwards, almost.
With the [recent departure of two monumental community managers](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/342039/firing-community-managers-stackexchange-is-not-interested-in-cooperating-with-t) with next to NO warning, and a [rather disastrous series of events](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/firing-mods-and-forced-relicensing-is-stack-exchange-still-interested-in-cooper), Stack Exchange is demonstrating to me that transparency is a thing of the past... And I feel absolutely helpless as I watch it fade into the night.
We've tried [giving feedback](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/339050/the-loop-has-arrived-what-does-the-community-think-about-it) on what we would like to see from [The Loop](https://stackoverflow.blog/2019/11/25/introducing-the-loop-a-foundation-in-listening/), which was meant to be a "foundation in listening."
Yet I, and I'm sure many others, feel woefully ignored.
We've tried [writing open letters](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334015/an-open-letter-on-the-state-of-curation-and-moderation) from general users, and we've tried [writing another letter](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334575/dear-stack-exchange-a-statement-and-a-letter-from-your-moderators) specifically from community elected moderators - who, with power users, are the pillars of the community.
Yet [the response](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/335868/622284) is not detailed enough to address close to the number of concerns that have been raised.
All of these questions, all of this feedback, and yet I, like many others, are still under the impression that the response is *hollow.*
I want to be useful. I want to contribute meaningfully to the site that has helped me in many times of intellectual need when I was a silent reader. The recent changes have me very worried for the future of the community here.
While it feels to me as though we've very clearly placed the ball in their court... My question/discussion topic is, simply:
**What more can we do? What more can *I* do?** | 2020/01/14 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/342076",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/622284/"
] | TL;DR: don't bother.
---
From the very beginning of the crisis (with Monica, not talking about earlier events), I decided that I wasn't going to spend time trying to figure out ways to "help SE".
1. I could tell anyone in advance that SE isn't going to listen to any such advice; it was clear to me.
2. SE is not misguided. At this point it's clear to me the actions are result of a plan — a plan to keep SE alive and profitable, and they'll do anything to stick to the plan, no matter how difficult the decisions can be, or who gets hit by those decisions.
It is worth mentioning that I do also believe there are people **who do care** inside Stack Exchange, and who are truly sorry to see some of the results on those actions, e.g. Monica, Shog, and Robert leaving their positions of power. But they can't change what's done, nor can they affect future actions. | Sadly, I no longer believe that there is anything that us small time users can do; even the high rep users and moderators don't seem to have much impact. |
342,076 | **Preface**
I'm a newer contributor, but a long time visitor. As a result, my view is more of an outsider's view. Take my points with that in mind.
---
Stack Exchange appeared to flourish under the direction of meaningful development guided by community feedback. Community elected moderators were the bridge between the user base at large and the community managers. Those community managers then relayed the feedback we gave to the development teams, who tried their best to ensure a smooth user experience.
All was (relatively) well.
Now, however, it seems as though we're stepping backwards. Leaping backwards, almost.
With the [recent departure of two monumental community managers](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/342039/firing-community-managers-stackexchange-is-not-interested-in-cooperating-with-t) with next to NO warning, and a [rather disastrous series of events](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/firing-mods-and-forced-relicensing-is-stack-exchange-still-interested-in-cooper), Stack Exchange is demonstrating to me that transparency is a thing of the past... And I feel absolutely helpless as I watch it fade into the night.
We've tried [giving feedback](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/339050/the-loop-has-arrived-what-does-the-community-think-about-it) on what we would like to see from [The Loop](https://stackoverflow.blog/2019/11/25/introducing-the-loop-a-foundation-in-listening/), which was meant to be a "foundation in listening."
Yet I, and I'm sure many others, feel woefully ignored.
We've tried [writing open letters](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334015/an-open-letter-on-the-state-of-curation-and-moderation) from general users, and we've tried [writing another letter](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334575/dear-stack-exchange-a-statement-and-a-letter-from-your-moderators) specifically from community elected moderators - who, with power users, are the pillars of the community.
Yet [the response](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/335868/622284) is not detailed enough to address close to the number of concerns that have been raised.
All of these questions, all of this feedback, and yet I, like many others, are still under the impression that the response is *hollow.*
I want to be useful. I want to contribute meaningfully to the site that has helped me in many times of intellectual need when I was a silent reader. The recent changes have me very worried for the future of the community here.
While it feels to me as though we've very clearly placed the ball in their court... My question/discussion topic is, simply:
**What more can we do? What more can *I* do?** | 2020/01/14 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/342076",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/622284/"
] | What do you want to *accomplish*?
Do you want to contribute to a community? You can do that now, and the actions that have taken place over the last few months can be...largely ignored. Heck, most of Stack Overflow's contributors don't really know what happened here, and aren't that in-context to what's going on *now*.
Do you want to provide valuable feedback? That's a tougher thing to do. It's hard to actually provide actionable and meaningful feedback at times, but it can be done even if the process feels like you're calving a glacier.
Do you want to feel valued? This might be the toughest one of them all. We as a community build the network, but we don't pay for the systems or keep any of the lights on. Consequently, our seat at the table feels smaller.
Do you want to feel like you're engaging with the company? I'm not seeing a path forward on that one, since the days of interpersonal staff interactions are pretty much up. But my pessimism runneth over on this one, simply because what we once had we don't get anymore, and what we get in terms of company interaction feels less personable than what it used to be, or what we think it should be.
Do you want to be upset about what's happened? You can do that...but you're wasting your energy. Energy which may be better spent doing something of the above, or not on this list at all. Being upset isn't the key to being listened to.
---
Right now, I'm not sure what ***I*** want, and I don't know if there's anything I could do to "help" because I'm not entirely sure that "help" is the operative verb.
I wanted to ***participate***, but I don't know if I want that. I can't be assured that it will bring value.
So...I think what I'll accomplish in these next few days is similar to what I did back in October. I'm not interested in starting new fires. We've got enough kerosene and matches floating around. But, what I want to know is what purpose putting fires out would actually serve. Sometimes, the best way to fix a long-standing problem with a process or a service is to make it painful enough to make someone - *anyone* want to take action. | Sadly, I no longer believe that there is anything that us small time users can do; even the high rep users and moderators don't seem to have much impact. |
342,076 | **Preface**
I'm a newer contributor, but a long time visitor. As a result, my view is more of an outsider's view. Take my points with that in mind.
---
Stack Exchange appeared to flourish under the direction of meaningful development guided by community feedback. Community elected moderators were the bridge between the user base at large and the community managers. Those community managers then relayed the feedback we gave to the development teams, who tried their best to ensure a smooth user experience.
All was (relatively) well.
Now, however, it seems as though we're stepping backwards. Leaping backwards, almost.
With the [recent departure of two monumental community managers](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/342039/firing-community-managers-stackexchange-is-not-interested-in-cooperating-with-t) with next to NO warning, and a [rather disastrous series of events](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/firing-mods-and-forced-relicensing-is-stack-exchange-still-interested-in-cooper), Stack Exchange is demonstrating to me that transparency is a thing of the past... And I feel absolutely helpless as I watch it fade into the night.
We've tried [giving feedback](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/339050/the-loop-has-arrived-what-does-the-community-think-about-it) on what we would like to see from [The Loop](https://stackoverflow.blog/2019/11/25/introducing-the-loop-a-foundation-in-listening/), which was meant to be a "foundation in listening."
Yet I, and I'm sure many others, feel woefully ignored.
We've tried [writing open letters](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334015/an-open-letter-on-the-state-of-curation-and-moderation) from general users, and we've tried [writing another letter](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334575/dear-stack-exchange-a-statement-and-a-letter-from-your-moderators) specifically from community elected moderators - who, with power users, are the pillars of the community.
Yet [the response](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/335868/622284) is not detailed enough to address close to the number of concerns that have been raised.
All of these questions, all of this feedback, and yet I, like many others, are still under the impression that the response is *hollow.*
I want to be useful. I want to contribute meaningfully to the site that has helped me in many times of intellectual need when I was a silent reader. The recent changes have me very worried for the future of the community here.
While it feels to me as though we've very clearly placed the ball in their court... My question/discussion topic is, simply:
**What more can we do? What more can *I* do?** | 2020/01/14 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/342076",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/622284/"
] | TL;DR: don't bother.
---
From the very beginning of the crisis (with Monica, not talking about earlier events), I decided that I wasn't going to spend time trying to figure out ways to "help SE".
1. I could tell anyone in advance that SE isn't going to listen to any such advice; it was clear to me.
2. SE is not misguided. At this point it's clear to me the actions are result of a plan — a plan to keep SE alive and profitable, and they'll do anything to stick to the plan, no matter how difficult the decisions can be, or who gets hit by those decisions.
It is worth mentioning that I do also believe there are people **who do care** inside Stack Exchange, and who are truly sorry to see some of the results on those actions, e.g. Monica, Shog, and Robert leaving their positions of power. But they can't change what's done, nor can they affect future actions. | You and I can't do anything. At one point I thought that [pressuring through social networks](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/336032) may have an effect, but now it's absolutely clear it won't.
On the other hand, moderators and employees can do something. Stack Overflow Inc pretended to not notice 50 moderators resigning. It just wrote them off as if they never existed — decreased the stats and acted as if it always was this way. However, if 200 moderators and 20 employees decide to leave, the higher ups may start scratching their heads.
I doubt something like this will happen, but it's always a possibility. Things are escalating quickly. Way quicker than I expected. |
342,076 | **Preface**
I'm a newer contributor, but a long time visitor. As a result, my view is more of an outsider's view. Take my points with that in mind.
---
Stack Exchange appeared to flourish under the direction of meaningful development guided by community feedback. Community elected moderators were the bridge between the user base at large and the community managers. Those community managers then relayed the feedback we gave to the development teams, who tried their best to ensure a smooth user experience.
All was (relatively) well.
Now, however, it seems as though we're stepping backwards. Leaping backwards, almost.
With the [recent departure of two monumental community managers](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/342039/firing-community-managers-stackexchange-is-not-interested-in-cooperating-with-t) with next to NO warning, and a [rather disastrous series of events](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/firing-mods-and-forced-relicensing-is-stack-exchange-still-interested-in-cooper), Stack Exchange is demonstrating to me that transparency is a thing of the past... And I feel absolutely helpless as I watch it fade into the night.
We've tried [giving feedback](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/339050/the-loop-has-arrived-what-does-the-community-think-about-it) on what we would like to see from [The Loop](https://stackoverflow.blog/2019/11/25/introducing-the-loop-a-foundation-in-listening/), which was meant to be a "foundation in listening."
Yet I, and I'm sure many others, feel woefully ignored.
We've tried [writing open letters](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334015/an-open-letter-on-the-state-of-curation-and-moderation) from general users, and we've tried [writing another letter](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334575/dear-stack-exchange-a-statement-and-a-letter-from-your-moderators) specifically from community elected moderators - who, with power users, are the pillars of the community.
Yet [the response](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/335868/622284) is not detailed enough to address close to the number of concerns that have been raised.
All of these questions, all of this feedback, and yet I, like many others, are still under the impression that the response is *hollow.*
I want to be useful. I want to contribute meaningfully to the site that has helped me in many times of intellectual need when I was a silent reader. The recent changes have me very worried for the future of the community here.
While it feels to me as though we've very clearly placed the ball in their court... My question/discussion topic is, simply:
**What more can we do? What more can *I* do?** | 2020/01/14 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/342076",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/622284/"
] | Let's use a "school with after-class activities" analogy. We've been going to this school for almost a decade. It's been rough at first, but then we all became good friends and learned a lot from each other and shared good memories together. Then the school board decided they want to focus on profits more than offering the best education and activity space for its public. It's bad for students, their parents, teachers, and everyone can see what's going on now.
What do you do when the school your kids go to turns bad? You take them to another school. What do you do when the bar you go to every Friday with your friends and colleagues turns sour? You take your friends and go to another bar together.
Ten years ago the Q&A site landscape became so bad, and it was so impossible to stay in the old places, that Stack Overflow was born. Look around to see if there is a better place to be today. If not, and you have the skills, maybe collect your friends and let's build a better place for us all. They'll be waiting for an invite :) | Sadly, I no longer believe that there is anything that us small time users can do; even the high rep users and moderators don't seem to have much impact. |
342,076 | **Preface**
I'm a newer contributor, but a long time visitor. As a result, my view is more of an outsider's view. Take my points with that in mind.
---
Stack Exchange appeared to flourish under the direction of meaningful development guided by community feedback. Community elected moderators were the bridge between the user base at large and the community managers. Those community managers then relayed the feedback we gave to the development teams, who tried their best to ensure a smooth user experience.
All was (relatively) well.
Now, however, it seems as though we're stepping backwards. Leaping backwards, almost.
With the [recent departure of two monumental community managers](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/342039/firing-community-managers-stackexchange-is-not-interested-in-cooperating-with-t) with next to NO warning, and a [rather disastrous series of events](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/firing-mods-and-forced-relicensing-is-stack-exchange-still-interested-in-cooper), Stack Exchange is demonstrating to me that transparency is a thing of the past... And I feel absolutely helpless as I watch it fade into the night.
We've tried [giving feedback](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/339050/the-loop-has-arrived-what-does-the-community-think-about-it) on what we would like to see from [The Loop](https://stackoverflow.blog/2019/11/25/introducing-the-loop-a-foundation-in-listening/), which was meant to be a "foundation in listening."
Yet I, and I'm sure many others, feel woefully ignored.
We've tried [writing open letters](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334015/an-open-letter-on-the-state-of-curation-and-moderation) from general users, and we've tried [writing another letter](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334575/dear-stack-exchange-a-statement-and-a-letter-from-your-moderators) specifically from community elected moderators - who, with power users, are the pillars of the community.
Yet [the response](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/335868/622284) is not detailed enough to address close to the number of concerns that have been raised.
All of these questions, all of this feedback, and yet I, like many others, are still under the impression that the response is *hollow.*
I want to be useful. I want to contribute meaningfully to the site that has helped me in many times of intellectual need when I was a silent reader. The recent changes have me very worried for the future of the community here.
While it feels to me as though we've very clearly placed the ball in their court... My question/discussion topic is, simply:
**What more can we do? What more can *I* do?** | 2020/01/14 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/342076",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/622284/"
] | It's strange how well the couples allegory works for me here: I've invested too much, even emotionally, here. I'm not ready to see it losing interest in me and telling me I don't matter anymore. But the thing is that it doesn't tell me directly, it spins around and hurts me, mining all of the relationship bit by bit. So in the end the best thing to do is what couples do in this situation.
Abandon SE and hope that the aggregated loss will be too much to ignore. If it doesn't work (and I strongly suspect it won't), I've got bad news for you: you are about to get a (sort of) heartbreak from a website. And as painful heartbreaks can be, the best thing to do is walk away and let time heal you. You won't get anything out of a toxic relationship but anger and pain. | You and I can't do anything. At one point I thought that [pressuring through social networks](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/336032) may have an effect, but now it's absolutely clear it won't.
On the other hand, moderators and employees can do something. Stack Overflow Inc pretended to not notice 50 moderators resigning. It just wrote them off as if they never existed — decreased the stats and acted as if it always was this way. However, if 200 moderators and 20 employees decide to leave, the higher ups may start scratching their heads.
I doubt something like this will happen, but it's always a possibility. Things are escalating quickly. Way quicker than I expected. |
10,343 | I am interested in music which is purely rhythmic (where there is little variation in notes and instruments, the main interest of the music is the rhythmic patterns) preferably with unusual rhythmic patterns.
Is there any sub genre which corresponds with this?
Otherwise, are there specific songs/artists I could look at?
I haven't been able to find much on Google. | 2020/03/12 | [
"https://musicfans.stackexchange.com/questions/10343",
"https://musicfans.stackexchange.com",
"https://musicfans.stackexchange.com/users/8859/"
] | Taiko music. There aren't many unusual patterns but sure as hell the rhythms are intense and interesting.
As an example, see (because seeing is, IMHO, part of the experience) [this show](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UajKUdALiLE). | There is no musical genre to my knowledge that is purely rhythmic as the whole point of music is the changes of pitches using different instruments. However, some cool genres that have cool rhythmic patterns with varying pitches include but are not limited to Ars antiqua, Baião, and Math Rock. You can check out the full list of musical styles [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_styles_of_music:_A%E2%80%93F).
Hope that helped |
10,343 | I am interested in music which is purely rhythmic (where there is little variation in notes and instruments, the main interest of the music is the rhythmic patterns) preferably with unusual rhythmic patterns.
Is there any sub genre which corresponds with this?
Otherwise, are there specific songs/artists I could look at?
I haven't been able to find much on Google. | 2020/03/12 | [
"https://musicfans.stackexchange.com/questions/10343",
"https://musicfans.stackexchange.com",
"https://musicfans.stackexchange.com/users/8859/"
] | If you're looking for unique rhythms, definitely listen to some mathcore bands. I'd highly recommend [Frontierer](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miT0-qrdB3I); their music has very complex rhythms and is also somewhat atonal (the guitars are so downtuned that you can barely tell what notes are being played), so it might be right up your alley. Some others I'd recommend are Sectioned, Tony Danza Tapdance Extravaganza, and Dillinger Escape Plan.
Another genre that focuses less on rhythmic complexity but more on sound design, but is still very atonal, is [power noise](https://rateyourmusic.com/customchart?page=1&chart_type=top&type=album&year=alltime&genre_include=1&include_child_genres=1&genres=power+noise&include_child_genres_chk=1&include=both&origin_countries=&limit=none&countries=) (a.k.a. rhythmic noise). It's a subgenre of industrial music. One of my favorites in the genre (and of electronic music in general) is Shock Front by Converter. | Taiko music. There aren't many unusual patterns but sure as hell the rhythms are intense and interesting.
As an example, see (because seeing is, IMHO, part of the experience) [this show](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UajKUdALiLE). |
10,343 | I am interested in music which is purely rhythmic (where there is little variation in notes and instruments, the main interest of the music is the rhythmic patterns) preferably with unusual rhythmic patterns.
Is there any sub genre which corresponds with this?
Otherwise, are there specific songs/artists I could look at?
I haven't been able to find much on Google. | 2020/03/12 | [
"https://musicfans.stackexchange.com/questions/10343",
"https://musicfans.stackexchange.com",
"https://musicfans.stackexchange.com/users/8859/"
] | If you're looking for unique rhythms, definitely listen to some mathcore bands. I'd highly recommend [Frontierer](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miT0-qrdB3I); their music has very complex rhythms and is also somewhat atonal (the guitars are so downtuned that you can barely tell what notes are being played), so it might be right up your alley. Some others I'd recommend are Sectioned, Tony Danza Tapdance Extravaganza, and Dillinger Escape Plan.
Another genre that focuses less on rhythmic complexity but more on sound design, but is still very atonal, is [power noise](https://rateyourmusic.com/customchart?page=1&chart_type=top&type=album&year=alltime&genre_include=1&include_child_genres=1&genres=power+noise&include_child_genres_chk=1&include=both&origin_countries=&limit=none&countries=) (a.k.a. rhythmic noise). It's a subgenre of industrial music. One of my favorites in the genre (and of electronic music in general) is Shock Front by Converter. | There is no musical genre to my knowledge that is purely rhythmic as the whole point of music is the changes of pitches using different instruments. However, some cool genres that have cool rhythmic patterns with varying pitches include but are not limited to Ars antiqua, Baião, and Math Rock. You can check out the full list of musical styles [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_styles_of_music:_A%E2%80%93F).
Hope that helped |
39,825,915 | I am new to Cordova and Phonegap and I am trying to develop a reminder application. I used cordova-plugin-local-notifications ( <https://github.com/katzer/cordova-plugin-local-notifications> ).
I installed the plugin using the the installation command
>
> cordova plugin add <https://github.com/katzer/cordova-plugin-local-notification>
>
>
>
Then I tried to run the app on the browser and there was an error on browser console:
>
> Error: exec proxy not found for :: LocalNotification :: deviceready
>
>
>
Not sure what I am doing wrong.
**Questions:**
1. What is this problem?
2. What am I doing wrong and how to fix this?
Thanks in advance and sorry for my bad English. | 2016/10/03 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/39825915",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2488919/"
] | The plugin is simply not supported on the browser platform.
[See the docs](https://github.com/katzer/cordova-plugin-local-notifications) as of 10th of April, 2017:
>
> Supported Platforms
> ===================
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
>
> The current 0.8 branch supports the following platforms:
>
>
> * iOS (>= 8)
> * Android (SDK >=7)
> * Windows 8.1 (added with v0.8.2)
> * Windows Phone 8.1 (added with v0.8.2)
> * Windows 10 (added with v0.8.3)
>
>
>
Your browser console states that it can not execute the plugin, since it supports only the mobile OS stated above. | needs https connection..otherwise chrome/firefox gonna block it..
localhost will work though.
can try this for free certificate
<https://letsencrypt.org/> |
11,145 | Should I make sure that I get all of the uids associated to my OpenPGP key signed, or is it enough to have one of them signed?
If Bob can guarantee that alice@example.com belongs to Alice, I can't see any security problem in assuming that Bob also guarantees alice@example.org to belong to Alice as well, if alice@example.com says so. | 2012/01/28 | [
"https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/11145",
"https://security.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.stackexchange.com/users/7303/"
] | OpenPGP relies on a kind of [Public Key Infrastructure](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_key_infrastructure) known as [Web of Trust](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_trust). PKI is all about trust delegation: you gain confidence in the association between a given key and an identity through signatures which are verified with public keys you already trust. You "know" that Alice's public key is the one you see because Bob signed it, and you can verify it because you know Bob's public key; and you know Bob's public key because Charlie signed it.
Trust delegation does not scale well vertically. In the Alice/Bob/Charlie scenario, you know Charlie (you met him) and he gave you his public key, so you are quite sure that Charlie's key, as you know it, is correct. Thus you can verify the signature Charlie computed over Bob's key (that is, a signature over the pair "name=Bob,key=..."). So you can have confidence in that key being owned by Bob, but this requires Charlie to be honest and not too gullible. That might be a bit too much to ask; knowing Charlie's key does not automatically mean that whatever Charlie signs is Gospel. Yet you met Charlie (physically), so maybe you can trust him. For the third step, Bob signing Alice's key, you need even more from Charlie: indeed, you never met Bob. So, by trusting Bob's signature over Alice's key, you are actually betting on the idea that Bob is honest and not gullible; so you are relying on Charlie not only to be honest, but also to refuse to sign keys of other people who are not equally honest and not gullible. So Charlie has to be good at psychology and evaluating reliability of other people as well.
So, to sum up, the more [certification](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_key_certificate) steps there are, the looser the name/key binding is. There are two ways out of this:
* In hierarchical PKI (like X.509), name/key binding (i.e. guaranteeing that a key really belongs to a given entity) and trust delegation are distinct; someone with the power to assert such bindings (a *certificate authority*) will accept to delegate that power only after making thorough investigations, and through a legally binding contract which lists responsibilities in full lawyer-compatible language. This makes certification trees acceptable, up to a depth of about three or four certificates.
* In Web of Trust PKI, each "link" in a certification chain (a chain of signed keys, from a key you know to the key you want to use) is awarded a level of reliability, and you accumulate *many* chains until the accumulated reliability achieves a preset level. WoT PKI relies on mass effect: an active attacker may swindle one or two gullible users, but not the whole "community". The certification graph is supposed to be strongly overconnected.
**Therefore**, if Bob signs the key of alice@example.com, and alice@example.com signs the key of alice@example.org, then that's one extra step, hence one extra unreliability, which will have to be compensated by other chains -- chains which must end on alice@example.org *without* going through alice@example.com. From this, we conclude that you should get all your UID signed: this will make verification of your key easier. | If Bob is willing to delegate that level of trust to alice@example.com then that sounds reasonable. |
11,145 | Should I make sure that I get all of the uids associated to my OpenPGP key signed, or is it enough to have one of them signed?
If Bob can guarantee that alice@example.com belongs to Alice, I can't see any security problem in assuming that Bob also guarantees alice@example.org to belong to Alice as well, if alice@example.com says so. | 2012/01/28 | [
"https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/11145",
"https://security.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.stackexchange.com/users/7303/"
] | OpenPGP relies on a kind of [Public Key Infrastructure](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_key_infrastructure) known as [Web of Trust](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_trust). PKI is all about trust delegation: you gain confidence in the association between a given key and an identity through signatures which are verified with public keys you already trust. You "know" that Alice's public key is the one you see because Bob signed it, and you can verify it because you know Bob's public key; and you know Bob's public key because Charlie signed it.
Trust delegation does not scale well vertically. In the Alice/Bob/Charlie scenario, you know Charlie (you met him) and he gave you his public key, so you are quite sure that Charlie's key, as you know it, is correct. Thus you can verify the signature Charlie computed over Bob's key (that is, a signature over the pair "name=Bob,key=..."). So you can have confidence in that key being owned by Bob, but this requires Charlie to be honest and not too gullible. That might be a bit too much to ask; knowing Charlie's key does not automatically mean that whatever Charlie signs is Gospel. Yet you met Charlie (physically), so maybe you can trust him. For the third step, Bob signing Alice's key, you need even more from Charlie: indeed, you never met Bob. So, by trusting Bob's signature over Alice's key, you are actually betting on the idea that Bob is honest and not gullible; so you are relying on Charlie not only to be honest, but also to refuse to sign keys of other people who are not equally honest and not gullible. So Charlie has to be good at psychology and evaluating reliability of other people as well.
So, to sum up, the more [certification](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_key_certificate) steps there are, the looser the name/key binding is. There are two ways out of this:
* In hierarchical PKI (like X.509), name/key binding (i.e. guaranteeing that a key really belongs to a given entity) and trust delegation are distinct; someone with the power to assert such bindings (a *certificate authority*) will accept to delegate that power only after making thorough investigations, and through a legally binding contract which lists responsibilities in full lawyer-compatible language. This makes certification trees acceptable, up to a depth of about three or four certificates.
* In Web of Trust PKI, each "link" in a certification chain (a chain of signed keys, from a key you know to the key you want to use) is awarded a level of reliability, and you accumulate *many* chains until the accumulated reliability achieves a preset level. WoT PKI relies on mass effect: an active attacker may swindle one or two gullible users, but not the whole "community". The certification graph is supposed to be strongly overconnected.
**Therefore**, if Bob signs the key of alice@example.com, and alice@example.com signs the key of alice@example.org, then that's one extra step, hence one extra unreliability, which will have to be compensated by other chains -- chains which must end on alice@example.org *without* going through alice@example.com. From this, we conclude that you should get all your UID signed: this will make verification of your key easier. | There are two dimensions to trust in OpenPGP. There's the question of trusting that the key really belongs to the person in question, and then there's trusting the person to take care of their keys. If Alice is careless with her keys, then an attacker might get her to sign a key under his control, or he might be able to steal her private key. For paranoia's sake, I would recommend getting everything signed. |
2,227,945 | Is there a book, other than Lang's, that treats the general theory of manifolds over Banach spaces? | 2017/04/10 | [
"https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2227945",
"https://math.stackexchange.com",
"https://math.stackexchange.com/users/371463/"
] | Here are two suggestions, both available freely (and legally!) online:
* Richard Palais, [*Foundations of Global Non-Linear Analysis*](http://vmm.math.uci.edu/PalaisPapers/FoundationsOfGlobalNonlinearAnalysis.pdf)
* Richard Hamilton, [*The Inverse Function Theorem of Nash and Moser*](http://www.ams.org/journals/bull/1982-07-01/S0273-0979-1982-15004-2/)
Hamilton's monograph is really about Fréchet manifolds, which are more general than Banach manifolds, but his writing is spectacularly clear and he usually takes care to explain how things simplify when you're looking at Banach manifolds. | Many of the books by Mardsen and coauthors, e.g. "Manifold tensor analysis and applications" or "Foundation of Mechanics" develop most of the machinery over Banach spaces. I am not familiar with the books though, so you should check if they contain whatever specific you are looking for. |
1,333,327 | I've got a Setup & Deployment Project in VS2005. One of the files that i'm installing is a SQLite data file.
I'm about to release a new version for the software, but i found that if i run the update on existing installation it overwrites the data file.
I've got an updated data file in the setup project so it's newer than already installed, but i don't want to overwrite it.
I've tries setting the Permanent property for that file to True, but to no avail.
Any suggestions? | 2009/08/26 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1333327",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/10793/"
] | Ok, here's a workaround that i've used:
* In my setup project I've renamed my blank database file from Database.db to Database-blank.db.
* In my app i'm checking if Database.db is missing and copying Database-blank.db to Database.db if it is.
* then just load existing Database.db
This way i can ensure the local copy of the data file (Database.db) does not get replaced by newer versions of the software. | In MSI, the best way would be to make a record in the [Upgrade table](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa372379(VS.85).aspx), determining whether this is an upgrade installation, and setting a property if it is. Then put the data file in a [component](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa368007(VS.85).aspx), and place a condition on the component. Alternatively, make an entry in the [AppSearch table](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa367579(VS.85).aspx), checking for the presence of the file (through the [DrLocator table](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa367579(VS.85).aspx)).
I don't know whether a Setup & Deployment project supports any of this. So as a fallback, install the file with a different name, and then create a custom action that copies over the file conditionally. |
1,333,327 | I've got a Setup & Deployment Project in VS2005. One of the files that i'm installing is a SQLite data file.
I'm about to release a new version for the software, but i found that if i run the update on existing installation it overwrites the data file.
I've got an updated data file in the setup project so it's newer than already installed, but i don't want to overwrite it.
I've tries setting the Permanent property for that file to True, but to no avail.
Any suggestions? | 2009/08/26 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1333327",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/10793/"
] | Ok, here's a workaround that i've used:
* In my setup project I've renamed my blank database file from Database.db to Database-blank.db.
* In my app i'm checking if Database.db is missing and copying Database-blank.db to Database.db if it is.
* then just load existing Database.db
This way i can ensure the local copy of the data file (Database.db) does not get replaced by newer versions of the software. | Because VS2005 setup when upgrading a program first it remove the original installed instance
and then install a new one, so for that the file will be removed every time.
to avoid replacing or overwriting the file I suggest the following:
1- mark the file as readonly in the setup project.
2- mark the file as permanent in the setup project.
now after upgrading the file it will not be overwriten, but your application can't deal with this file because it's readonly, so in the startup of your application check if the datafile is readonly uncheck it. |
15,903 | One main reason why the law of excluded middle can fail is that some operations are simply undefined in some contexts. This doesn't even mean that they are undefinable in principle, it just means that they are not defined in the current context. If I have a real computer and a real bound on the time I'm willing to wait, then some programs will simply fail to give a definitive answer for some inputs under these constraints.
Forcing the answer arbitrarily to some definite value in such cases will often only obscure the true structure of the problem. This doesn't mean that logical inconsistencies will arise if we insist to do so, but we may be trading a finite context for an infinite context just to avoid undefined operations.
There is good evidence that we can avoid partially undefined operations in most practically relevant cases, if we are willing to cope with infinity. But what about the opposite? Can we avoid infinity in most practically relevant cases, if we are willing to cope with partially undefined operations? | 2014/09/14 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/15903",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/1172/"
] | Your question trades on a mistake. Truth and falsity are properties of sentences. The law of the excluded middle therefore is a rule about sentences. An undefined operation isn't a sentence hence it is neither true or false, but this doesn't imply that it has some kind of third truth value. It simply lacks a truth value all together. My toaster also lacks a truth value, in just the same sense.
This is why in logic, we don't regard formula with free variables as sentences. To see why, think of, "I gave the ball to . . . " This is not a sentence---and so neither true or false---until we fill in the dots with something to be the direct object of the verb.
A function that is undefined over some range is like that incomplete sentence. The function isn't taking the values in that range and spitting out "Undefined". The function isn't taking values from that range at all. (We program our calculators and software to spit out "undefined" to warn us that we can't input that value to that function.) | Mathematicians have only become fond of infinity after Cantor; this is a relatively recent innovation; still one can say that the mathematical infinite differs in important ways from the philosophical infinite. When Spinoza for example talks about an infinite substance its quite clear that there is no fundamental relation between this and any conception of cardinality.
It was Aristotle that smuggled in the LEM into philosophy; and it has remained there. It was Brouwer in mathematics and Hegel in Philosophy that reintroduced it; for Brouwer it led to intuitionism; for Hegel it led to the dialectic. Given the apparatus of formal logic, it is usually taken that a contradiction will allow one to prove anything: the principle of explosion - *ex falso quodlibet*; a question then introduces itself: can one deny this principle by changing the formal structure of the logic? This is indeed possible as the Peruvian Philosopher [Quesado](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic) showed.
Brouwers Intuitionism also known as Constructivism was put on a formal basis by his student Heyting. There is a correspondance between Boolean algebras and propositional logic; similarly there is one between Heyting Algebra and intuitionistic logic.
Formally, Boolean algebras are exactly bounded distributed lattices that are complemented. Their models (ie semantics) are fields of sets (set theoretically) or Venn diagrams (geometrically).
Correspondingly, Heyting algebras are exactly bounded distributive lattice with an additional implication operation which satisfies: x and a is 'less true' then b iff a is 'less true' than x implies b. Further their models are toposes (set theoretically) or topological spaces (geometrically).
Heyting algebras generalise Boolean algebras since the ones that satisfy the LEM are exactly the Boolean Algebras. In their set theoretic avatar, we can say toposes are set theory when it loses the notion of an element (which may be difficult to comprehend - the canonical book here is Lawveres [Sets for Mathematicans](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sets-Mathematics-F-William-Lawvere/dp/0521804442)); and geometrically when topological spaces lose their points ( this may be easier to understand as typically we consider a space of points *together* with its space of open sets; one then need only 'forget' the points).
**Note**: All operations are *fully* defined.
Philosophically: Contra Leibniz, taking properties of points not to include their location; we can consider the atomic point to be a bare point; one without any distinguishing features. This has been the norm since Descarte; forgetting points amounts to, in one sense, of having atomic points with structure, this is more inline with the Epicurean notion of an atom; and has had a contemporary impact in Physics: String Theory - a string is an atomic point with structure; secondly, it amounts to a relational view of space as there are no 'absolute points' to anchor to; this is a synthesis of Leibnizs view and Aristotle who denied the existence of points in the continuum and relied on cohesion (ie topology in modern language). |
15,903 | One main reason why the law of excluded middle can fail is that some operations are simply undefined in some contexts. This doesn't even mean that they are undefinable in principle, it just means that they are not defined in the current context. If I have a real computer and a real bound on the time I'm willing to wait, then some programs will simply fail to give a definitive answer for some inputs under these constraints.
Forcing the answer arbitrarily to some definite value in such cases will often only obscure the true structure of the problem. This doesn't mean that logical inconsistencies will arise if we insist to do so, but we may be trading a finite context for an infinite context just to avoid undefined operations.
There is good evidence that we can avoid partially undefined operations in most practically relevant cases, if we are willing to cope with infinity. But what about the opposite? Can we avoid infinity in most practically relevant cases, if we are willing to cope with partially undefined operations? | 2014/09/14 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/15903",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/1172/"
] | Your question trades on a mistake. Truth and falsity are properties of sentences. The law of the excluded middle therefore is a rule about sentences. An undefined operation isn't a sentence hence it is neither true or false, but this doesn't imply that it has some kind of third truth value. It simply lacks a truth value all together. My toaster also lacks a truth value, in just the same sense.
This is why in logic, we don't regard formula with free variables as sentences. To see why, think of, "I gave the ball to . . . " This is not a sentence---and so neither true or false---until we fill in the dots with something to be the direct object of the verb.
A function that is undefined over some range is like that incomplete sentence. The function isn't taking the values in that range and spitting out "Undefined". The function isn't taking values from that range at all. (We program our calculators and software to spit out "undefined" to warn us that we can't input that value to that function.) | Maybe I have to write an answer myself. But this is not really an answer, it is more the background which caused me to ask this question. But it answers some of the objections brought up in comments, even if it could and should be probably elaborated much more thoroughly. (Sorry for misusing the "community answer" feature in that way.)
After reading simultaneously in a number of German introductory quantum mechanics books, I suddenly noticed that not a single one had the courage to say that a Hermitian operator is in general only partially defined on the corresponding Hilbert space. The theory of rigged Hilbert spaces seems simple enough to me, so I started to wonder where this overwhelming fear against partially defined operations comes from. It's a bit ironic too, considering that quantum mechanic itself is so fond of some interpretation which make claims about some sort of fundamental undefinedness. The fear seems to come from mathematics itself, i.e. mathematics is unbelievably dismissive towards partially (un)defined operations. Then I thought a bit about whether the theory of rigged Hilbert spaces could me made even simpler, if the corresponding mathematics embraced partial undefinedness even more fully, and that's the context where families of semi-norms, partially defined norms and partially defined semilattices seemed to paint a simple and beautiful picture.
I had struggled before how to best get the point across that semilattices are different from lattices, and that turning every semilattice into a lattice by "adjoining" the "missing" elements doesn't make live easier. I'm still working on a theory that has a generalized implication operation in addition to meet and join, that allows to "rescue" the original semilattice structure, even if it has been compromised by adding "unnecessary" elements.
If we have an axiom of choice like in ZFC, then every partially ordered structure can be embedded into a complete Boolean lattice. Hence it is pretty clear why we can get away with the LEM, if we really want to. But then we also have to accept all the consequences, i.e. infinite structures with unbelievably big cardinality. But as already the fact that a logic can be seen as a preordered structure where the derivability is the order relation between different propositions or formulas seems to be unbelievably hard to swallow, this logic based approach to these question is likely to be unconvincing.
Both infinity and undefined operations have much more mundane applications where they make life significantly easier. If we adjoin the points at infinity to an affine space, we get a projective space with much nicer properties than the corresponding affine space. But if we adjoin infinity to the possible values of a norm, we don't really do ourself a favor. If we instead allow a norm to be only partially defined, we seem to really get something nice in return, similar to the projective spaces, but of course different. The poorest current "loser" from the fear against partially (un)defined operations are probably inverse semigroups, and semilattices are a special case of inverse semigroups (i.e. idempotent and commutative).
One nice example here would be how an inverse semigroup can represent an equivalence relation with essentially the same amount of information as the corresponding binary relation, while a group requires exponentially more (artificial) elements, if it doesn't want to add structure to the underlying set that wasn't there before. This would also partly explain what I mean by trading a finite context for an infinite one. If I require exponentially more (artificial) elements than the natural numbers, than I have to cope with the continuum. The natural numbers are still a finite context in a certain sense, but the continuum is definitively an infinite context.
---
The connection between the law of excluded middle and partially defined operations is probably hard to appreciate without some background. Sadly, this background might be slightly too mathematical for a philosophy site, but let me add it nevertheless. A Boolean algebra is a distributive lattice with an involutive negate operation. A lattice is a partially ordered set where any two elements have a greatest lower bound (meet) a least upper bound (join). A semilattice has only one of these two operations guaranteed to be defined everywhere. A semilattice can also be defined as an idempotent commutative inverse semigroup. And an inverse semigroup can be represented as a subsemigroup of the partial one-one transformations of a set.
The connection to the law of excluded middle is that often the structure of a complete semilattice (among propositions, formulas or sentences) arises naturally, but a complete semilattice is nearly indistinguishable from a complete lattice. But you can define an implication operation ("from A follows B" for a Heyting algebra, but in general rather "from A, B, C, ... follows Z") which allows to distinguish "and" and "or" (or "meet" and "join") properly. This is important, because the symmetry between "and" and "or" so typical for classical logic is often just an illusion caused by the fact that complete semilattices are so hard to distinguish from complete lattices. But if the maximal element (infinity) is removed from the complete semilattice, then it becomes much easier to distinguish it from a complete lattice. |
15,903 | One main reason why the law of excluded middle can fail is that some operations are simply undefined in some contexts. This doesn't even mean that they are undefinable in principle, it just means that they are not defined in the current context. If I have a real computer and a real bound on the time I'm willing to wait, then some programs will simply fail to give a definitive answer for some inputs under these constraints.
Forcing the answer arbitrarily to some definite value in such cases will often only obscure the true structure of the problem. This doesn't mean that logical inconsistencies will arise if we insist to do so, but we may be trading a finite context for an infinite context just to avoid undefined operations.
There is good evidence that we can avoid partially undefined operations in most practically relevant cases, if we are willing to cope with infinity. But what about the opposite? Can we avoid infinity in most practically relevant cases, if we are willing to cope with partially undefined operations? | 2014/09/14 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/15903",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/1172/"
] | Your question trades on a mistake. Truth and falsity are properties of sentences. The law of the excluded middle therefore is a rule about sentences. An undefined operation isn't a sentence hence it is neither true or false, but this doesn't imply that it has some kind of third truth value. It simply lacks a truth value all together. My toaster also lacks a truth value, in just the same sense.
This is why in logic, we don't regard formula with free variables as sentences. To see why, think of, "I gave the ball to . . . " This is not a sentence---and so neither true or false---until we fill in the dots with something to be the direct object of the verb.
A function that is undefined over some range is like that incomplete sentence. The function isn't taking the values in that range and spitting out "Undefined". The function isn't taking values from that range at all. (We program our calculators and software to spit out "undefined" to warn us that we can't input that value to that function.) | Perhaps a better example of a partially undefined operation would be 0^0 (zero to the power of zero). It is *possible* to leave it undefined (like your high school math teachers taught you) without much in the way of consequences. (See [Oh, the ambiguity!](http://www.dcproof.com/0-to-the-power-of-0.html) at my math blog.) So, we can have infinity and partially undefined operations coexisting quite happily. |
15,903 | One main reason why the law of excluded middle can fail is that some operations are simply undefined in some contexts. This doesn't even mean that they are undefinable in principle, it just means that they are not defined in the current context. If I have a real computer and a real bound on the time I'm willing to wait, then some programs will simply fail to give a definitive answer for some inputs under these constraints.
Forcing the answer arbitrarily to some definite value in such cases will often only obscure the true structure of the problem. This doesn't mean that logical inconsistencies will arise if we insist to do so, but we may be trading a finite context for an infinite context just to avoid undefined operations.
There is good evidence that we can avoid partially undefined operations in most practically relevant cases, if we are willing to cope with infinity. But what about the opposite? Can we avoid infinity in most practically relevant cases, if we are willing to cope with partially undefined operations? | 2014/09/14 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/15903",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/1172/"
] | Your question trades on a mistake. Truth and falsity are properties of sentences. The law of the excluded middle therefore is a rule about sentences. An undefined operation isn't a sentence hence it is neither true or false, but this doesn't imply that it has some kind of third truth value. It simply lacks a truth value all together. My toaster also lacks a truth value, in just the same sense.
This is why in logic, we don't regard formula with free variables as sentences. To see why, think of, "I gave the ball to . . . " This is not a sentence---and so neither true or false---until we fill in the dots with something to be the direct object of the verb.
A function that is undefined over some range is like that incomplete sentence. The function isn't taking the values in that range and spitting out "Undefined". The function isn't taking values from that range at all. (We program our calculators and software to spit out "undefined" to warn us that we can't input that value to that function.) | I don't know how well received/welcome this will be, but I am a mathematician and would like to share my opinion.
When it comes to practicing mathematics, there is no "should," there is only what is. We worry about whether something exists or does not, and if it does, then it does. If a function is partially undefined, then it is partially undefined. Whether or not this makes us feel good has no bearing on whether or not it is partially undefined. If you decide to define it in places where it is undefined, this does not make the original function any more defined; you have constructed a new function.
In truth we have moved far beyond worrying about the existence of pathological objects and have come to accept that mathematics sometimes produces terrible things. This question may have provoked a lot of interest from mathematicians in the time of Brouwer, but modern mathematicians are well-initiated and can remain unmoved in the face of paradox or the misbehavior of the things we have created. When we write, we make a definition and stick to it. Someone reading the paper may not like the definition, and maybe they'll send a nasty letter about it. More likely, when they cite the paper they will simply use different definitions and translate them into terms they prefer. |
15,903 | One main reason why the law of excluded middle can fail is that some operations are simply undefined in some contexts. This doesn't even mean that they are undefinable in principle, it just means that they are not defined in the current context. If I have a real computer and a real bound on the time I'm willing to wait, then some programs will simply fail to give a definitive answer for some inputs under these constraints.
Forcing the answer arbitrarily to some definite value in such cases will often only obscure the true structure of the problem. This doesn't mean that logical inconsistencies will arise if we insist to do so, but we may be trading a finite context for an infinite context just to avoid undefined operations.
There is good evidence that we can avoid partially undefined operations in most practically relevant cases, if we are willing to cope with infinity. But what about the opposite? Can we avoid infinity in most practically relevant cases, if we are willing to cope with partially undefined operations? | 2014/09/14 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/15903",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/1172/"
] | Mathematicians have only become fond of infinity after Cantor; this is a relatively recent innovation; still one can say that the mathematical infinite differs in important ways from the philosophical infinite. When Spinoza for example talks about an infinite substance its quite clear that there is no fundamental relation between this and any conception of cardinality.
It was Aristotle that smuggled in the LEM into philosophy; and it has remained there. It was Brouwer in mathematics and Hegel in Philosophy that reintroduced it; for Brouwer it led to intuitionism; for Hegel it led to the dialectic. Given the apparatus of formal logic, it is usually taken that a contradiction will allow one to prove anything: the principle of explosion - *ex falso quodlibet*; a question then introduces itself: can one deny this principle by changing the formal structure of the logic? This is indeed possible as the Peruvian Philosopher [Quesado](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic) showed.
Brouwers Intuitionism also known as Constructivism was put on a formal basis by his student Heyting. There is a correspondance between Boolean algebras and propositional logic; similarly there is one between Heyting Algebra and intuitionistic logic.
Formally, Boolean algebras are exactly bounded distributed lattices that are complemented. Their models (ie semantics) are fields of sets (set theoretically) or Venn diagrams (geometrically).
Correspondingly, Heyting algebras are exactly bounded distributive lattice with an additional implication operation which satisfies: x and a is 'less true' then b iff a is 'less true' than x implies b. Further their models are toposes (set theoretically) or topological spaces (geometrically).
Heyting algebras generalise Boolean algebras since the ones that satisfy the LEM are exactly the Boolean Algebras. In their set theoretic avatar, we can say toposes are set theory when it loses the notion of an element (which may be difficult to comprehend - the canonical book here is Lawveres [Sets for Mathematicans](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sets-Mathematics-F-William-Lawvere/dp/0521804442)); and geometrically when topological spaces lose their points ( this may be easier to understand as typically we consider a space of points *together* with its space of open sets; one then need only 'forget' the points).
**Note**: All operations are *fully* defined.
Philosophically: Contra Leibniz, taking properties of points not to include their location; we can consider the atomic point to be a bare point; one without any distinguishing features. This has been the norm since Descarte; forgetting points amounts to, in one sense, of having atomic points with structure, this is more inline with the Epicurean notion of an atom; and has had a contemporary impact in Physics: String Theory - a string is an atomic point with structure; secondly, it amounts to a relational view of space as there are no 'absolute points' to anchor to; this is a synthesis of Leibnizs view and Aristotle who denied the existence of points in the continuum and relied on cohesion (ie topology in modern language). | Maybe I have to write an answer myself. But this is not really an answer, it is more the background which caused me to ask this question. But it answers some of the objections brought up in comments, even if it could and should be probably elaborated much more thoroughly. (Sorry for misusing the "community answer" feature in that way.)
After reading simultaneously in a number of German introductory quantum mechanics books, I suddenly noticed that not a single one had the courage to say that a Hermitian operator is in general only partially defined on the corresponding Hilbert space. The theory of rigged Hilbert spaces seems simple enough to me, so I started to wonder where this overwhelming fear against partially defined operations comes from. It's a bit ironic too, considering that quantum mechanic itself is so fond of some interpretation which make claims about some sort of fundamental undefinedness. The fear seems to come from mathematics itself, i.e. mathematics is unbelievably dismissive towards partially (un)defined operations. Then I thought a bit about whether the theory of rigged Hilbert spaces could me made even simpler, if the corresponding mathematics embraced partial undefinedness even more fully, and that's the context where families of semi-norms, partially defined norms and partially defined semilattices seemed to paint a simple and beautiful picture.
I had struggled before how to best get the point across that semilattices are different from lattices, and that turning every semilattice into a lattice by "adjoining" the "missing" elements doesn't make live easier. I'm still working on a theory that has a generalized implication operation in addition to meet and join, that allows to "rescue" the original semilattice structure, even if it has been compromised by adding "unnecessary" elements.
If we have an axiom of choice like in ZFC, then every partially ordered structure can be embedded into a complete Boolean lattice. Hence it is pretty clear why we can get away with the LEM, if we really want to. But then we also have to accept all the consequences, i.e. infinite structures with unbelievably big cardinality. But as already the fact that a logic can be seen as a preordered structure where the derivability is the order relation between different propositions or formulas seems to be unbelievably hard to swallow, this logic based approach to these question is likely to be unconvincing.
Both infinity and undefined operations have much more mundane applications where they make life significantly easier. If we adjoin the points at infinity to an affine space, we get a projective space with much nicer properties than the corresponding affine space. But if we adjoin infinity to the possible values of a norm, we don't really do ourself a favor. If we instead allow a norm to be only partially defined, we seem to really get something nice in return, similar to the projective spaces, but of course different. The poorest current "loser" from the fear against partially (un)defined operations are probably inverse semigroups, and semilattices are a special case of inverse semigroups (i.e. idempotent and commutative).
One nice example here would be how an inverse semigroup can represent an equivalence relation with essentially the same amount of information as the corresponding binary relation, while a group requires exponentially more (artificial) elements, if it doesn't want to add structure to the underlying set that wasn't there before. This would also partly explain what I mean by trading a finite context for an infinite one. If I require exponentially more (artificial) elements than the natural numbers, than I have to cope with the continuum. The natural numbers are still a finite context in a certain sense, but the continuum is definitively an infinite context.
---
The connection between the law of excluded middle and partially defined operations is probably hard to appreciate without some background. Sadly, this background might be slightly too mathematical for a philosophy site, but let me add it nevertheless. A Boolean algebra is a distributive lattice with an involutive negate operation. A lattice is a partially ordered set where any two elements have a greatest lower bound (meet) a least upper bound (join). A semilattice has only one of these two operations guaranteed to be defined everywhere. A semilattice can also be defined as an idempotent commutative inverse semigroup. And an inverse semigroup can be represented as a subsemigroup of the partial one-one transformations of a set.
The connection to the law of excluded middle is that often the structure of a complete semilattice (among propositions, formulas or sentences) arises naturally, but a complete semilattice is nearly indistinguishable from a complete lattice. But you can define an implication operation ("from A follows B" for a Heyting algebra, but in general rather "from A, B, C, ... follows Z") which allows to distinguish "and" and "or" (or "meet" and "join") properly. This is important, because the symmetry between "and" and "or" so typical for classical logic is often just an illusion caused by the fact that complete semilattices are so hard to distinguish from complete lattices. But if the maximal element (infinity) is removed from the complete semilattice, then it becomes much easier to distinguish it from a complete lattice. |
15,903 | One main reason why the law of excluded middle can fail is that some operations are simply undefined in some contexts. This doesn't even mean that they are undefinable in principle, it just means that they are not defined in the current context. If I have a real computer and a real bound on the time I'm willing to wait, then some programs will simply fail to give a definitive answer for some inputs under these constraints.
Forcing the answer arbitrarily to some definite value in such cases will often only obscure the true structure of the problem. This doesn't mean that logical inconsistencies will arise if we insist to do so, but we may be trading a finite context for an infinite context just to avoid undefined operations.
There is good evidence that we can avoid partially undefined operations in most practically relevant cases, if we are willing to cope with infinity. But what about the opposite? Can we avoid infinity in most practically relevant cases, if we are willing to cope with partially undefined operations? | 2014/09/14 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/15903",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/1172/"
] | Mathematicians have only become fond of infinity after Cantor; this is a relatively recent innovation; still one can say that the mathematical infinite differs in important ways from the philosophical infinite. When Spinoza for example talks about an infinite substance its quite clear that there is no fundamental relation between this and any conception of cardinality.
It was Aristotle that smuggled in the LEM into philosophy; and it has remained there. It was Brouwer in mathematics and Hegel in Philosophy that reintroduced it; for Brouwer it led to intuitionism; for Hegel it led to the dialectic. Given the apparatus of formal logic, it is usually taken that a contradiction will allow one to prove anything: the principle of explosion - *ex falso quodlibet*; a question then introduces itself: can one deny this principle by changing the formal structure of the logic? This is indeed possible as the Peruvian Philosopher [Quesado](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic) showed.
Brouwers Intuitionism also known as Constructivism was put on a formal basis by his student Heyting. There is a correspondance between Boolean algebras and propositional logic; similarly there is one between Heyting Algebra and intuitionistic logic.
Formally, Boolean algebras are exactly bounded distributed lattices that are complemented. Their models (ie semantics) are fields of sets (set theoretically) or Venn diagrams (geometrically).
Correspondingly, Heyting algebras are exactly bounded distributive lattice with an additional implication operation which satisfies: x and a is 'less true' then b iff a is 'less true' than x implies b. Further their models are toposes (set theoretically) or topological spaces (geometrically).
Heyting algebras generalise Boolean algebras since the ones that satisfy the LEM are exactly the Boolean Algebras. In their set theoretic avatar, we can say toposes are set theory when it loses the notion of an element (which may be difficult to comprehend - the canonical book here is Lawveres [Sets for Mathematicans](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sets-Mathematics-F-William-Lawvere/dp/0521804442)); and geometrically when topological spaces lose their points ( this may be easier to understand as typically we consider a space of points *together* with its space of open sets; one then need only 'forget' the points).
**Note**: All operations are *fully* defined.
Philosophically: Contra Leibniz, taking properties of points not to include their location; we can consider the atomic point to be a bare point; one without any distinguishing features. This has been the norm since Descarte; forgetting points amounts to, in one sense, of having atomic points with structure, this is more inline with the Epicurean notion of an atom; and has had a contemporary impact in Physics: String Theory - a string is an atomic point with structure; secondly, it amounts to a relational view of space as there are no 'absolute points' to anchor to; this is a synthesis of Leibnizs view and Aristotle who denied the existence of points in the continuum and relied on cohesion (ie topology in modern language). | Perhaps a better example of a partially undefined operation would be 0^0 (zero to the power of zero). It is *possible* to leave it undefined (like your high school math teachers taught you) without much in the way of consequences. (See [Oh, the ambiguity!](http://www.dcproof.com/0-to-the-power-of-0.html) at my math blog.) So, we can have infinity and partially undefined operations coexisting quite happily. |
15,903 | One main reason why the law of excluded middle can fail is that some operations are simply undefined in some contexts. This doesn't even mean that they are undefinable in principle, it just means that they are not defined in the current context. If I have a real computer and a real bound on the time I'm willing to wait, then some programs will simply fail to give a definitive answer for some inputs under these constraints.
Forcing the answer arbitrarily to some definite value in such cases will often only obscure the true structure of the problem. This doesn't mean that logical inconsistencies will arise if we insist to do so, but we may be trading a finite context for an infinite context just to avoid undefined operations.
There is good evidence that we can avoid partially undefined operations in most practically relevant cases, if we are willing to cope with infinity. But what about the opposite? Can we avoid infinity in most practically relevant cases, if we are willing to cope with partially undefined operations? | 2014/09/14 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/15903",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/1172/"
] | Mathematicians have only become fond of infinity after Cantor; this is a relatively recent innovation; still one can say that the mathematical infinite differs in important ways from the philosophical infinite. When Spinoza for example talks about an infinite substance its quite clear that there is no fundamental relation between this and any conception of cardinality.
It was Aristotle that smuggled in the LEM into philosophy; and it has remained there. It was Brouwer in mathematics and Hegel in Philosophy that reintroduced it; for Brouwer it led to intuitionism; for Hegel it led to the dialectic. Given the apparatus of formal logic, it is usually taken that a contradiction will allow one to prove anything: the principle of explosion - *ex falso quodlibet*; a question then introduces itself: can one deny this principle by changing the formal structure of the logic? This is indeed possible as the Peruvian Philosopher [Quesado](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic) showed.
Brouwers Intuitionism also known as Constructivism was put on a formal basis by his student Heyting. There is a correspondance between Boolean algebras and propositional logic; similarly there is one between Heyting Algebra and intuitionistic logic.
Formally, Boolean algebras are exactly bounded distributed lattices that are complemented. Their models (ie semantics) are fields of sets (set theoretically) or Venn diagrams (geometrically).
Correspondingly, Heyting algebras are exactly bounded distributive lattice with an additional implication operation which satisfies: x and a is 'less true' then b iff a is 'less true' than x implies b. Further their models are toposes (set theoretically) or topological spaces (geometrically).
Heyting algebras generalise Boolean algebras since the ones that satisfy the LEM are exactly the Boolean Algebras. In their set theoretic avatar, we can say toposes are set theory when it loses the notion of an element (which may be difficult to comprehend - the canonical book here is Lawveres [Sets for Mathematicans](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sets-Mathematics-F-William-Lawvere/dp/0521804442)); and geometrically when topological spaces lose their points ( this may be easier to understand as typically we consider a space of points *together* with its space of open sets; one then need only 'forget' the points).
**Note**: All operations are *fully* defined.
Philosophically: Contra Leibniz, taking properties of points not to include their location; we can consider the atomic point to be a bare point; one without any distinguishing features. This has been the norm since Descarte; forgetting points amounts to, in one sense, of having atomic points with structure, this is more inline with the Epicurean notion of an atom; and has had a contemporary impact in Physics: String Theory - a string is an atomic point with structure; secondly, it amounts to a relational view of space as there are no 'absolute points' to anchor to; this is a synthesis of Leibnizs view and Aristotle who denied the existence of points in the continuum and relied on cohesion (ie topology in modern language). | I don't know how well received/welcome this will be, but I am a mathematician and would like to share my opinion.
When it comes to practicing mathematics, there is no "should," there is only what is. We worry about whether something exists or does not, and if it does, then it does. If a function is partially undefined, then it is partially undefined. Whether or not this makes us feel good has no bearing on whether or not it is partially undefined. If you decide to define it in places where it is undefined, this does not make the original function any more defined; you have constructed a new function.
In truth we have moved far beyond worrying about the existence of pathological objects and have come to accept that mathematics sometimes produces terrible things. This question may have provoked a lot of interest from mathematicians in the time of Brouwer, but modern mathematicians are well-initiated and can remain unmoved in the face of paradox or the misbehavior of the things we have created. When we write, we make a definition and stick to it. Someone reading the paper may not like the definition, and maybe they'll send a nasty letter about it. More likely, when they cite the paper they will simply use different definitions and translate them into terms they prefer. |
84,648 | We are running an online-press media-library. On this site many brands are uploading images and track press users download and views per image.
But some brand now want to add unique code in image so they can track their own images.
We tried some steganography tools:
1. <http://www.outguess.org/info.php> (**support JPG**)
2. <http://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/transform/#stegano> (**support PNG**)
Both works fine, but issue is that secure code disappeared after image resize or crop.
Simple way would be watermark, but we don't want to disturb images, because images are being used in press printing.
Is there any way to put secure code in **JPG** format image and track that code after resize or cropping of that image?
**Update**
Our brands want to publish them as web image(light version), so press users could use images on blog and forums.
We will target press blog / forum site from crawler engine(~4500 blogs) and check if our image exist on these blogs. | 2015/03/26 | [
"https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/84648",
"https://security.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.stackexchange.com/users/70885/"
] | You can add information to JPEG images in two ways:
* you add information out of any image data, that is to say the JPEG headers
* you add information in the image data, that is to say you modify the image
The first technique can be easily bypassed by simply removing the relevant data from the header.
The second technique can be broken down into:
* Watermarking
* Steganography
Steganography is used when you want to distribute information in images and want to remain as stealth as possible. You don't say you are putting information into the images and you try by all mean to minimise your impact on the image statistics.
Watermarking is used mostly for [DRM](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management) purposes, you want to put information in the image and ensure it stays when modifications are made to this image (it is called a robust watermark). Robustness usually comes at the price of image alteration (we can say degradation here), there is no actual way of achieving a robust watermarking without "disturbing" the image as you say. There are many, many techniques of watermarking (which are off-topic for this question) with different type of robustness (cropping and resizing included) with different impact on quality. You should ask google scholar about that.
You'd probably better have two copies of the image, one for online display (with watermark) and one for printing (without watermark).
Edit: since you're not convinced yet, here is some link to relevant articles:
* [A Comprehensive Survey of Contemporary Researches in Watermarking for Copyright Protection of Digital Images](http://paper.ijcsns.org/07_book/200904/20090414.pdf)
* [Geometric attacks on image watermarking systems](http://ftp.gunadarma.ac.id/research/IEEE/Multimedia/Oct_05/u3068.pdf)
* [A Survey of Digital Watermarking Scheme](http://www.mitpublications.org/yellow_images/1341754578_logo_File%2011.pdf)
* [Semi fragile watermark with self authentication and self recovery](http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Binh_Pham2/publication/251493206_SEMI_FRAGILE_WATERMARK_WITH_SELF_AUTHENTICATION_AND_SELF_RECOVERY/links/00463529bd28a002f9000000.pdf)
they should give you a good overview of the state of watermarking and its properties and possible attacks on it.
For further inquiry see at : <https://scholar.google.com/> | Your're probably dealing with two different causes for loosing the hidden data:
* Resize: this will operation will use an image scaling algorithm to create a new scaled version of the image, all pixel data (including your hidden data) will be lost.
* Crop: some of the hidden data may be stored in the areas removed by the crop, then typically upon saving the cropped image a fresh pass of jpeg compression will be applied which will also destroy the hidden data.
I'm pretty sure that image owners such as Getty use complicated algorithms to decide if a given image is a match to an image in their library. Without the use of watermarking (something visible on the image) I can't think of another option I'm afraid (well none which wouldn't be easy to remove anyway).
Hope this helps! |
84,648 | We are running an online-press media-library. On this site many brands are uploading images and track press users download and views per image.
But some brand now want to add unique code in image so they can track their own images.
We tried some steganography tools:
1. <http://www.outguess.org/info.php> (**support JPG**)
2. <http://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/transform/#stegano> (**support PNG**)
Both works fine, but issue is that secure code disappeared after image resize or crop.
Simple way would be watermark, but we don't want to disturb images, because images are being used in press printing.
Is there any way to put secure code in **JPG** format image and track that code after resize or cropping of that image?
**Update**
Our brands want to publish them as web image(light version), so press users could use images on blog and forums.
We will target press blog / forum site from crawler engine(~4500 blogs) and check if our image exist on these blogs. | 2015/03/26 | [
"https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/84648",
"https://security.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.stackexchange.com/users/70885/"
] | You can add information to JPEG images in two ways:
* you add information out of any image data, that is to say the JPEG headers
* you add information in the image data, that is to say you modify the image
The first technique can be easily bypassed by simply removing the relevant data from the header.
The second technique can be broken down into:
* Watermarking
* Steganography
Steganography is used when you want to distribute information in images and want to remain as stealth as possible. You don't say you are putting information into the images and you try by all mean to minimise your impact on the image statistics.
Watermarking is used mostly for [DRM](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management) purposes, you want to put information in the image and ensure it stays when modifications are made to this image (it is called a robust watermark). Robustness usually comes at the price of image alteration (we can say degradation here), there is no actual way of achieving a robust watermarking without "disturbing" the image as you say. There are many, many techniques of watermarking (which are off-topic for this question) with different type of robustness (cropping and resizing included) with different impact on quality. You should ask google scholar about that.
You'd probably better have two copies of the image, one for online display (with watermark) and one for printing (without watermark).
Edit: since you're not convinced yet, here is some link to relevant articles:
* [A Comprehensive Survey of Contemporary Researches in Watermarking for Copyright Protection of Digital Images](http://paper.ijcsns.org/07_book/200904/20090414.pdf)
* [Geometric attacks on image watermarking systems](http://ftp.gunadarma.ac.id/research/IEEE/Multimedia/Oct_05/u3068.pdf)
* [A Survey of Digital Watermarking Scheme](http://www.mitpublications.org/yellow_images/1341754578_logo_File%2011.pdf)
* [Semi fragile watermark with self authentication and self recovery](http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Binh_Pham2/publication/251493206_SEMI_FRAGILE_WATERMARK_WITH_SELF_AUTHENTICATION_AND_SELF_RECOVERY/links/00463529bd28a002f9000000.pdf)
they should give you a good overview of the state of watermarking and its properties and possible attacks on it.
For further inquiry see at : <https://scholar.google.com/> | You might get good mileage out of merely adding this information as JPEG [EXIF data](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchangeable_image_file_format), which will survive most modern image manipulations ... but is easily stripped out by somebody wanting to remove it. (A downside: PNG, GIF, and JPEG 2000 do not support EXIF. See my update below for XMP, which doesn't have that issue.)
Just to reiterate, EXIF data is rather well organized, easily viewed, and easy to remove (or modify), so it is not a *security* solution, but I don't think you'll find a viable security solution without watermarking the image.
If you don't want people to see the contents, encrypt it or use a code the requires looking up in your database. Then all somebody can do is remove it or modify it (which will destroy it).
Of course, if a database is on the table, you might be able to save a 32x32 pixel grayscale version of the image and use that as a hash (you'd be surprised at how few [collisions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collision_(computer_science)) you get). This will survive resizing and minor color correction, but it will not survive aggressive cropping or other manipulations.
EXIF and the db are not mutually exclusive; you could do both.
---
**Update:** I wrote this about EXIF, which is decently well understood and supported, but only supports JPEG. You could consider [XMP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Metadata_Platform "Extensible Metadata Platform"), which supports pretty much all image types (and beyond, e.g. PDF and MP3) instead. I'm not as sure about its ability to survive edits made by editors that may not support it, but it looks pretty supported.
The XMP Wikipedia article doesn't mention [ImageMagick](http://imagemagick.org/) support, and a quick web search reveals that [ImageMagick probably supports XMP data](http://www.imagemagick.org/discourse-server/viewtopic.php?t=14025); you'll want to verify that before deploying. I'd advise *against* XMP if edits from ImageMagick end up removing it. (ImageMagick is extremely common in web apps and shell scripts.) |
84,648 | We are running an online-press media-library. On this site many brands are uploading images and track press users download and views per image.
But some brand now want to add unique code in image so they can track their own images.
We tried some steganography tools:
1. <http://www.outguess.org/info.php> (**support JPG**)
2. <http://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/transform/#stegano> (**support PNG**)
Both works fine, but issue is that secure code disappeared after image resize or crop.
Simple way would be watermark, but we don't want to disturb images, because images are being used in press printing.
Is there any way to put secure code in **JPG** format image and track that code after resize or cropping of that image?
**Update**
Our brands want to publish them as web image(light version), so press users could use images on blog and forums.
We will target press blog / forum site from crawler engine(~4500 blogs) and check if our image exist on these blogs. | 2015/03/26 | [
"https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/84648",
"https://security.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.stackexchange.com/users/70885/"
] | You might get good mileage out of merely adding this information as JPEG [EXIF data](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchangeable_image_file_format), which will survive most modern image manipulations ... but is easily stripped out by somebody wanting to remove it. (A downside: PNG, GIF, and JPEG 2000 do not support EXIF. See my update below for XMP, which doesn't have that issue.)
Just to reiterate, EXIF data is rather well organized, easily viewed, and easy to remove (or modify), so it is not a *security* solution, but I don't think you'll find a viable security solution without watermarking the image.
If you don't want people to see the contents, encrypt it or use a code the requires looking up in your database. Then all somebody can do is remove it or modify it (which will destroy it).
Of course, if a database is on the table, you might be able to save a 32x32 pixel grayscale version of the image and use that as a hash (you'd be surprised at how few [collisions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collision_(computer_science)) you get). This will survive resizing and minor color correction, but it will not survive aggressive cropping or other manipulations.
EXIF and the db are not mutually exclusive; you could do both.
---
**Update:** I wrote this about EXIF, which is decently well understood and supported, but only supports JPEG. You could consider [XMP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Metadata_Platform "Extensible Metadata Platform"), which supports pretty much all image types (and beyond, e.g. PDF and MP3) instead. I'm not as sure about its ability to survive edits made by editors that may not support it, but it looks pretty supported.
The XMP Wikipedia article doesn't mention [ImageMagick](http://imagemagick.org/) support, and a quick web search reveals that [ImageMagick probably supports XMP data](http://www.imagemagick.org/discourse-server/viewtopic.php?t=14025); you'll want to verify that before deploying. I'd advise *against* XMP if edits from ImageMagick end up removing it. (ImageMagick is extremely common in web apps and shell scripts.) | Your're probably dealing with two different causes for loosing the hidden data:
* Resize: this will operation will use an image scaling algorithm to create a new scaled version of the image, all pixel data (including your hidden data) will be lost.
* Crop: some of the hidden data may be stored in the areas removed by the crop, then typically upon saving the cropped image a fresh pass of jpeg compression will be applied which will also destroy the hidden data.
I'm pretty sure that image owners such as Getty use complicated algorithms to decide if a given image is a match to an image in their library. Without the use of watermarking (something visible on the image) I can't think of another option I'm afraid (well none which wouldn't be easy to remove anyway).
Hope this helps! |
63,088 | I have a large fresh log from a tree my neighbors cut down earlier this year in my yard. I got it to serve as a bench and grow mushrooms on, with the hope that it would eventually start decomposing and contribute to my garden ecosystem (with bugs that would attract woodpeckers, etc). I'm new to homeownership though, and I'm worried that having a rotting log in my yard ~15 feet from the home (it's a small yard) will spread things like termites or rot to the wood of my house, making it a very costly and destructive piece of lawn decor. Is what I'm doing a bad idea? | 2022/08/17 | [
"https://gardening.stackexchange.com/questions/63088",
"https://gardening.stackexchange.com",
"https://gardening.stackexchange.com/users/24416/"
] | Slowly decomposing wood is a great place for carpenter ants to live in. We found that they started living in a neighbours garage that had wood siding and then moved to some pine trees which were over 75 feet away. Then they chewed through the wood frame windows and set up shop in the basement. They were happy to live in fiberglass insulation and tunnel through the joists in the house.
If carpenter ants are in your area and your house is older with possible entry points through wood I would avoid having wood in the yard.
You could elevate the log off the ground with some rocks or concrete blocks which would keep it drier. | A distance of 15 feet should not be a problem. I had a wooden rain barrel next to a house and termites built a mud tunnel from the barrel to an opening in the brick house. Here I have old wood several feet from the house and no termites |
63,088 | I have a large fresh log from a tree my neighbors cut down earlier this year in my yard. I got it to serve as a bench and grow mushrooms on, with the hope that it would eventually start decomposing and contribute to my garden ecosystem (with bugs that would attract woodpeckers, etc). I'm new to homeownership though, and I'm worried that having a rotting log in my yard ~15 feet from the home (it's a small yard) will spread things like termites or rot to the wood of my house, making it a very costly and destructive piece of lawn decor. Is what I'm doing a bad idea? | 2022/08/17 | [
"https://gardening.stackexchange.com/questions/63088",
"https://gardening.stackexchange.com",
"https://gardening.stackexchange.com/users/24416/"
] | I called around to several pest control companies, reasoning that if anyone had expertise on what constitutes a termite risk in my area it would be them. The answer is that 15 feet is definitely not enough to prevent termites finding the house once they've set up shop in the log - once established, they can range over an acre of land. Furthermore, while intentionally placed decomposing logs aren't common enough for a pest company to be directly familiar with, old stumps are basically the same thing from a termite's point of view - and those can definitely attract termites.
The bottom line is this: yes, a large piece of rotting wood in the garden can attract termites, which can then spread to nearby houses. It's not a guaranteed thing though, and there are treatments that can be done to mitigate the risk. | A distance of 15 feet should not be a problem. I had a wooden rain barrel next to a house and termites built a mud tunnel from the barrel to an opening in the brick house. Here I have old wood several feet from the house and no termites |
122,696 | What does "beyond the YouTube variety" suppose to refer to here? and what does " illicit sex" mean ? | 2013/08/15 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/122696",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/49775/"
] | [Context](http://www.theguardian.com/books/2009/aug/01/david-mitchell-short-story-rat):
>
> Three miles away Patrick Beeman would be working down a list of bullet points with Lorna: General Procedure, Custody, Money, House, Pensions, Miscellaneous, Standard Fees. My mother is going to crumple up: we've kept The Troubles well hidden. "Whose idea was it first?" she'll want to know, meaning, "Whose fault is it?" There's no Somebody Else on Lorna's side, I'm sure – she's too miserable to be in love – and God knows I've been too busy trying to keep my alleged consultancy afloat to think about illicit sex, beyond the YouTube variety. Though sure, there's no denying that the money stuff hasn't helped the marital stuff.
>
>
>
This is someone contemplating marital difficulties (The Troubles1). Sex outside the marriage ("illicit sex") is not part of the cause, because his wife Lorna is too miserable and he is too busy. Worrying about money and the need to keep what should be a consultancy business in business is contributing to the difficulty, though.
The "YouTube variety" of sex is online pornography, which presumably he has been partaking of, probably in lieu of the real thing.
1 The conflict in Northern Ireland (1969–1998) was called [The Troubles](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles). Mitchell is indulging in black humour in comparing the marriage to that situation. | Let me answer with illustrating with examples:
>
> Do you know there are ice-cream flavours beyond those found on the shelves?
>
>
>
>
> I am reading news of illicit affairs beyond the variety found in the Variety magazine.
>
>
>
Perhaps, this is a scenario which could result in someone making that statement:
>
> *I have a business to run. Some people don't think I could even call it a consultancy. Allegedly, it might not even qualify as a consultancy. I am too busy keeping that business afloat. Sometimes I take a break watching youtube. I do find occasional incidences of illicit sex on youtube. I am not interested in looking for videos on illicit sex. I don't have time to pay attention to videos of illicit sex, beyond the various types that I occasionally encounter on youtube.*
>
>
> |
186,757 | Is there a google voice dialer that runs as a stand-alone application? I would prefer to login through the application and not the web browser if possible.
Walter | 2010/09/09 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/186757",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/-1/"
] | Google developed a [desktop Google Voice app](http://lifehacker.com/5578339/a-sneak-preview-of-the-google-voice-desktop-app) based on the Gizmo5 software they acquired, but it's [likely it will never be released](http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/11/google-voice-desktop-app-launch-delayed-may-be-scrapped/) due to Google's strategy and focus on web-based apps.
There are a couple of apps that let you make google voice calls from the Desktop. The [Adobe Air utility for Google Voice](http://rstoeber.com/apps/Google_Voice_Utility.html) is one that will run on Linux as well as windows. This doesn't have a system tray icon but is the most feature-rich.
There is also the windows-only [Google Voice Notifier](http://www.daveamenta.com/2009-11/gvnotifier-net-brings-google-voice-sms-to-the-desktop/), which doesn't help you for linux. Finally there is [GoogSysTray](http://googsystray.sourceforge.net/), which is a catch-all notifier for google services that runs on Linux as well as windows. It doesn't support making calls but will let you know of voicemails and SMS.
It's possible that by using both the Air app and GoogSysTray would provide functionality equaivalent to what you're looking for. | Do you mean some kind of software not in the cloud? I have been using google voice through my phone and its working pretty good. I am not sure if this is the kind of thing you are asking for: [google voice app for blackberry](http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Google%20Mobile/thread?tid=31c15af75f15f081&hl=en) or may be [google chrome extension for google voice](https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/beoddpfedeggnbomdpakbobkklaphllf) |
186,757 | Is there a google voice dialer that runs as a stand-alone application? I would prefer to login through the application and not the web browser if possible.
Walter | 2010/09/09 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/186757",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/-1/"
] | I don't know if your question still stands anymore, but I've [written an app](http://code.google.com/p/qgvdial/) that works (in addition to others) on Linux.
Integrates with SIP through telepathy and Skype through dbus.
Call out (skype/SIP) and call back.
Integration with Google contacts. | Do you mean some kind of software not in the cloud? I have been using google voice through my phone and its working pretty good. I am not sure if this is the kind of thing you are asking for: [google voice app for blackberry](http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Google%20Mobile/thread?tid=31c15af75f15f081&hl=en) or may be [google chrome extension for google voice](https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/beoddpfedeggnbomdpakbobkklaphllf) |
186,757 | Is there a google voice dialer that runs as a stand-alone application? I would prefer to login through the application and not the web browser if possible.
Walter | 2010/09/09 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/186757",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/-1/"
] | Google developed a [desktop Google Voice app](http://lifehacker.com/5578339/a-sneak-preview-of-the-google-voice-desktop-app) based on the Gizmo5 software they acquired, but it's [likely it will never be released](http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/11/google-voice-desktop-app-launch-delayed-may-be-scrapped/) due to Google's strategy and focus on web-based apps.
There are a couple of apps that let you make google voice calls from the Desktop. The [Adobe Air utility for Google Voice](http://rstoeber.com/apps/Google_Voice_Utility.html) is one that will run on Linux as well as windows. This doesn't have a system tray icon but is the most feature-rich.
There is also the windows-only [Google Voice Notifier](http://www.daveamenta.com/2009-11/gvnotifier-net-brings-google-voice-sms-to-the-desktop/), which doesn't help you for linux. Finally there is [GoogSysTray](http://googsystray.sourceforge.net/), which is a catch-all notifier for google services that runs on Linux as well as windows. It doesn't support making calls but will let you know of voicemails and SMS.
It's possible that by using both the Air app and GoogSysTray would provide functionality equaivalent to what you're looking for. | I don't know if your question still stands anymore, but I've [written an app](http://code.google.com/p/qgvdial/) that works (in addition to others) on Linux.
Integrates with SIP through telepathy and Skype through dbus.
Call out (skype/SIP) and call back.
Integration with Google contacts. |
193,416 | Alright, while trying to figure out the cultural impact of my (Dnd-style) class system, I realized that there was a problem with the Dancer Class:
Bewitching Dance-This dance only works on a small group of people who can see the Dancer; three people max. This Dance also works best on men; it rarely works on women. Basically, it takes advantage of the user's charisma (and allure) and has a 99%-10% chance to work (95% at best, 20% at worst) and cause those affected to have decreased judgment. All those shows where the guy does something dumb for a girl? This is a perfectly good explanation for that.
If it fails, there's an 80-20 chance they can't attack the Dancer, and there's a chance of them becoming smitten (99-5% for men, for women it depends on their orientation if you know what I mean....)
95% of Dancers are female, so this is essentially a question of how men can protect themselves from magical manipulation. Magical manipulation that *derives its power from men's natural attraction to women!* So, **How Would Men Protect Themselves From Bewitchment?**
Consider:
1. The chance of Bewitching Dance succeeding is determined by how affected the man (or woman) is affected by their hormones/emotions. If someone is married and LOYAL, chances are they can't be Bewitched. On the other hand, a single man longing for female companionship? Chances are he's going to get Bewitched *and* smitten.
Furthermore, 85% or more of men *can't* just look away when they see a Dancer using Bewitching Dance. The movements of this dance are hypnotic, magically and otherwise, so they hold someone's attention. And the longer someone looks, the worse their chances of not getting Bewitched become.
2. There is nothing stopping Dancers from ganging up on someone and using Bewitching Dance all at once to increase their chances of success; granted, it's unlikely to ever happen because if it *did* work, he'd be Bewitched and possibly smitten with the group.
3. Gay or asexual men are still affected by Bewitching Dance; I assume their brain structure is the same as regular people (because as far as I know, they *are* regular people) just not as much. Think 1/2 effectiveness.
4. This is a fantasy-style setting, and here's my problem: a burqa-like garment seemed like a possible solution, but seductive or hypnotic movements still work even in such a thing.
Additionally, blindfolding the men won't be effective, as there are *monsters* in Alendyias, like trolls or vampires, and men would have to defend themselves *blind* if using that strategy. Sure, they could take off the blindfold, but what if the Dancers *planned* the monster attack so they could use Bewitching Dance on them?
As far as I can tell, clothing *can't* be the solution here.
Isolating men and women isn't an option either; in medieval times, women were often expected to help their husbands in their work. Since Bewitchment can potentially get Dancers out of any place they're imprisoned in, and society wouldn't want to give up the valuable buffs Dancers can give, they can't be killed or imprisoned either. So the solution will most likely be magical.
Finally, I have two other Classes who *might* be able to help; Enforcers, which administer justice (AKA make things fair); the problem is that their powers are derived from the law, either laws of morality (right or wrong) or the laws of the government and since you can break laws...
Paladins derive their powers from their virtue, being able to manipulate light itself. It's possible that the Paladins could use their spiritual influence to give men better self-control, leaving them still vulnerable but able to *choose* whether or not they end up bewitched. However, since this enchantment is derived from virtue, lust will drive it away. In other words, it's useless for those who can't control their emotions.
Thank you, I really appreciate it! | 2021/01/05 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/193416",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/80953/"
] | Aside from the non-answer of "it's magic problem, make magic to solve it", (D&D bards, for instance, can disrupt this sort of thing...) there are some totally normal things this mostly-male subpopulation can do.
Some simple, cultural countermeasures:
* **Female or Magic-User Chaperones for Men** If a woman sees another doing the dance (and is unaffected), they can attempt to stop the dance or talk sense into the man. If a woman does the dance to her husband, it's really between them and is maybe a magical method for strengthening their marriage. :D
* **Ratify Major Choices** Since the worst consequence is a friendly disposition and maybe some dumb-struck men, maybe this something society can let slide. This being said, forcing major choices to be ratified by another entity will stop random women being written into old guys' wills. Okay, that's placing a lot of power on the women of the family, essentially giving them power of attorney for the men in their lives, but this is how a lot of real-life families and societies work. Clan and family come before the individual- and besides, you cannot dance your way through a bureaucracy!
* **Embrace the Matriarchal Society** Since the movers/shakers of the world are generally not affected, this becomes *less* of an issue.
* **Aid Money/Time** Each person carries a set amount of aid money, and it is culturally inappropriate to ask for more than that.
There are also the common issues with Charm spells in Table-top rpgs- like what does "aid" mean? How far does "aid" go and is it the aid the charmer is expecting? This can vary from "take a bullet for me" to "give me a compliment"- that's all "aid". This is also why some re-writes of D&D rules of these not-full-mind-control spells/abilities sometime affect a creature's disposition to the charmer or attempt to establish limits. | First you could balance the power out by giving it a male counterpart or just making it available to both genders. Although it may not be in line with gender stereotypes, I see no reason why a male dancer or similar class would not be able to enthrall a woman.
Then there is how you determine your success range. A 20-95% chance to succeed may be your range, but depending on how your your system works, it would not be hard to make it so most targets in most circumstances are closer to the 20% making it only useful against people are predisposed to being manipulated by the opposite gender, or make it scale by level such that a 95% chance to succeed would require a top-tier legendary status dancer.
Another option would be to add a buddy system mechanic so that people who succeed resisting the power can still talk their friends down from being manipulated.
Lastly, since you said that dancers are a class, you can simply withhold this power until you reach a level that it becomes appropriately potent compared to other classes. A dancer can do more than just betwitch people, they are natural athletes; so, they may have many lower level abilities that are all about being able to run, jump, climb, balance, etc. with supernatural grace, plus they may have a lower level alurment power that requires them to interact with a target 1-on-1. Assuming your 500 levels scale similar in potency to most other RPGs, I would introduce this ability somewhere between level 200-300 and make it scale up or have more potent versions in the higher levels.
So generally speaking, common men do not need to worry about protecting themselves from dancers because so few women are good enough at it to be a real problem, and any men high level enough to be facing off against such a distinguished dancer already have equally potent abilities of their own so that they are still quite capable, even if they have to fight blind. A high level Mage vs high level Dancer: close your eyes and fill the room with fire balls. High level Warrior vs high level Dancer: close your eyes walk around throwing random wide arching strikes. etc. |
193,416 | Alright, while trying to figure out the cultural impact of my (Dnd-style) class system, I realized that there was a problem with the Dancer Class:
Bewitching Dance-This dance only works on a small group of people who can see the Dancer; three people max. This Dance also works best on men; it rarely works on women. Basically, it takes advantage of the user's charisma (and allure) and has a 99%-10% chance to work (95% at best, 20% at worst) and cause those affected to have decreased judgment. All those shows where the guy does something dumb for a girl? This is a perfectly good explanation for that.
If it fails, there's an 80-20 chance they can't attack the Dancer, and there's a chance of them becoming smitten (99-5% for men, for women it depends on their orientation if you know what I mean....)
95% of Dancers are female, so this is essentially a question of how men can protect themselves from magical manipulation. Magical manipulation that *derives its power from men's natural attraction to women!* So, **How Would Men Protect Themselves From Bewitchment?**
Consider:
1. The chance of Bewitching Dance succeeding is determined by how affected the man (or woman) is affected by their hormones/emotions. If someone is married and LOYAL, chances are they can't be Bewitched. On the other hand, a single man longing for female companionship? Chances are he's going to get Bewitched *and* smitten.
Furthermore, 85% or more of men *can't* just look away when they see a Dancer using Bewitching Dance. The movements of this dance are hypnotic, magically and otherwise, so they hold someone's attention. And the longer someone looks, the worse their chances of not getting Bewitched become.
2. There is nothing stopping Dancers from ganging up on someone and using Bewitching Dance all at once to increase their chances of success; granted, it's unlikely to ever happen because if it *did* work, he'd be Bewitched and possibly smitten with the group.
3. Gay or asexual men are still affected by Bewitching Dance; I assume their brain structure is the same as regular people (because as far as I know, they *are* regular people) just not as much. Think 1/2 effectiveness.
4. This is a fantasy-style setting, and here's my problem: a burqa-like garment seemed like a possible solution, but seductive or hypnotic movements still work even in such a thing.
Additionally, blindfolding the men won't be effective, as there are *monsters* in Alendyias, like trolls or vampires, and men would have to defend themselves *blind* if using that strategy. Sure, they could take off the blindfold, but what if the Dancers *planned* the monster attack so they could use Bewitching Dance on them?
As far as I can tell, clothing *can't* be the solution here.
Isolating men and women isn't an option either; in medieval times, women were often expected to help their husbands in their work. Since Bewitchment can potentially get Dancers out of any place they're imprisoned in, and society wouldn't want to give up the valuable buffs Dancers can give, they can't be killed or imprisoned either. So the solution will most likely be magical.
Finally, I have two other Classes who *might* be able to help; Enforcers, which administer justice (AKA make things fair); the problem is that their powers are derived from the law, either laws of morality (right or wrong) or the laws of the government and since you can break laws...
Paladins derive their powers from their virtue, being able to manipulate light itself. It's possible that the Paladins could use their spiritual influence to give men better self-control, leaving them still vulnerable but able to *choose* whether or not they end up bewitched. However, since this enchantment is derived from virtue, lust will drive it away. In other words, it's useless for those who can't control their emotions.
Thank you, I really appreciate it! | 2021/01/05 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/193416",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/80953/"
] | First you could balance the power out by giving it a male counterpart or just making it available to both genders. Although it may not be in line with gender stereotypes, I see no reason why a male dancer or similar class would not be able to enthrall a woman.
Then there is how you determine your success range. A 20-95% chance to succeed may be your range, but depending on how your your system works, it would not be hard to make it so most targets in most circumstances are closer to the 20% making it only useful against people are predisposed to being manipulated by the opposite gender, or make it scale by level such that a 95% chance to succeed would require a top-tier legendary status dancer.
Another option would be to add a buddy system mechanic so that people who succeed resisting the power can still talk their friends down from being manipulated.
Lastly, since you said that dancers are a class, you can simply withhold this power until you reach a level that it becomes appropriately potent compared to other classes. A dancer can do more than just betwitch people, they are natural athletes; so, they may have many lower level abilities that are all about being able to run, jump, climb, balance, etc. with supernatural grace, plus they may have a lower level alurment power that requires them to interact with a target 1-on-1. Assuming your 500 levels scale similar in potency to most other RPGs, I would introduce this ability somewhere between level 200-300 and make it scale up or have more potent versions in the higher levels.
So generally speaking, common men do not need to worry about protecting themselves from dancers because so few women are good enough at it to be a real problem, and any men high level enough to be facing off against such a distinguished dancer already have equally potent abilities of their own so that they are still quite capable, even if they have to fight blind. A high level Mage vs high level Dancer: close your eyes and fill the room with fire balls. High level Warrior vs high level Dancer: close your eyes walk around throwing random wide arching strikes. etc. | Ah, girls, always making fools of us, such as [tricking men into believing women are women](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/142539/21222).
If the men in your fantasy world are so afraid of [catching the cooties](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooties), they can take a page from ultra orthodox men in our own real world and take the [bird box challenge](https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/bird-box-challenge). You see, looking at scantly clad women (defined as: you can see anything other than their face (YMMV)) is sinful. In order to not sin, some young men will as far as wearing blindfolds where women may appear.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/xXOAU.jpg)
In order to not get lost amidst the sinful, tradition demands they be guided by an elder. The elder might be resistant to women's charms because, well, faith and old age.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/hJauY.jpg)
The only way a woman would seduce these guys with dance would be through a lap dance, but the guys may be trained to resist that. |
193,416 | Alright, while trying to figure out the cultural impact of my (Dnd-style) class system, I realized that there was a problem with the Dancer Class:
Bewitching Dance-This dance only works on a small group of people who can see the Dancer; three people max. This Dance also works best on men; it rarely works on women. Basically, it takes advantage of the user's charisma (and allure) and has a 99%-10% chance to work (95% at best, 20% at worst) and cause those affected to have decreased judgment. All those shows where the guy does something dumb for a girl? This is a perfectly good explanation for that.
If it fails, there's an 80-20 chance they can't attack the Dancer, and there's a chance of them becoming smitten (99-5% for men, for women it depends on their orientation if you know what I mean....)
95% of Dancers are female, so this is essentially a question of how men can protect themselves from magical manipulation. Magical manipulation that *derives its power from men's natural attraction to women!* So, **How Would Men Protect Themselves From Bewitchment?**
Consider:
1. The chance of Bewitching Dance succeeding is determined by how affected the man (or woman) is affected by their hormones/emotions. If someone is married and LOYAL, chances are they can't be Bewitched. On the other hand, a single man longing for female companionship? Chances are he's going to get Bewitched *and* smitten.
Furthermore, 85% or more of men *can't* just look away when they see a Dancer using Bewitching Dance. The movements of this dance are hypnotic, magically and otherwise, so they hold someone's attention. And the longer someone looks, the worse their chances of not getting Bewitched become.
2. There is nothing stopping Dancers from ganging up on someone and using Bewitching Dance all at once to increase their chances of success; granted, it's unlikely to ever happen because if it *did* work, he'd be Bewitched and possibly smitten with the group.
3. Gay or asexual men are still affected by Bewitching Dance; I assume their brain structure is the same as regular people (because as far as I know, they *are* regular people) just not as much. Think 1/2 effectiveness.
4. This is a fantasy-style setting, and here's my problem: a burqa-like garment seemed like a possible solution, but seductive or hypnotic movements still work even in such a thing.
Additionally, blindfolding the men won't be effective, as there are *monsters* in Alendyias, like trolls or vampires, and men would have to defend themselves *blind* if using that strategy. Sure, they could take off the blindfold, but what if the Dancers *planned* the monster attack so they could use Bewitching Dance on them?
As far as I can tell, clothing *can't* be the solution here.
Isolating men and women isn't an option either; in medieval times, women were often expected to help their husbands in their work. Since Bewitchment can potentially get Dancers out of any place they're imprisoned in, and society wouldn't want to give up the valuable buffs Dancers can give, they can't be killed or imprisoned either. So the solution will most likely be magical.
Finally, I have two other Classes who *might* be able to help; Enforcers, which administer justice (AKA make things fair); the problem is that their powers are derived from the law, either laws of morality (right or wrong) or the laws of the government and since you can break laws...
Paladins derive their powers from their virtue, being able to manipulate light itself. It's possible that the Paladins could use their spiritual influence to give men better self-control, leaving them still vulnerable but able to *choose* whether or not they end up bewitched. However, since this enchantment is derived from virtue, lust will drive it away. In other words, it's useless for those who can't control their emotions.
Thank you, I really appreciate it! | 2021/01/05 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/193416",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/80953/"
] | Aside from the non-answer of "it's magic problem, make magic to solve it", (D&D bards, for instance, can disrupt this sort of thing...) there are some totally normal things this mostly-male subpopulation can do.
Some simple, cultural countermeasures:
* **Female or Magic-User Chaperones for Men** If a woman sees another doing the dance (and is unaffected), they can attempt to stop the dance or talk sense into the man. If a woman does the dance to her husband, it's really between them and is maybe a magical method for strengthening their marriage. :D
* **Ratify Major Choices** Since the worst consequence is a friendly disposition and maybe some dumb-struck men, maybe this something society can let slide. This being said, forcing major choices to be ratified by another entity will stop random women being written into old guys' wills. Okay, that's placing a lot of power on the women of the family, essentially giving them power of attorney for the men in their lives, but this is how a lot of real-life families and societies work. Clan and family come before the individual- and besides, you cannot dance your way through a bureaucracy!
* **Embrace the Matriarchal Society** Since the movers/shakers of the world are generally not affected, this becomes *less* of an issue.
* **Aid Money/Time** Each person carries a set amount of aid money, and it is culturally inappropriate to ask for more than that.
There are also the common issues with Charm spells in Table-top rpgs- like what does "aid" mean? How far does "aid" go and is it the aid the charmer is expecting? This can vary from "take a bullet for me" to "give me a compliment"- that's all "aid". This is also why some re-writes of D&D rules of these not-full-mind-control spells/abilities sometime affect a creature's disposition to the charmer or attempt to establish limits. | Ah, girls, always making fools of us, such as [tricking men into believing women are women](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/142539/21222).
If the men in your fantasy world are so afraid of [catching the cooties](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooties), they can take a page from ultra orthodox men in our own real world and take the [bird box challenge](https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/bird-box-challenge). You see, looking at scantly clad women (defined as: you can see anything other than their face (YMMV)) is sinful. In order to not sin, some young men will as far as wearing blindfolds where women may appear.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/xXOAU.jpg)
In order to not get lost amidst the sinful, tradition demands they be guided by an elder. The elder might be resistant to women's charms because, well, faith and old age.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/hJauY.jpg)
The only way a woman would seduce these guys with dance would be through a lap dance, but the guys may be trained to resist that. |
33,290,275 | I couldn't find any documentation on IPad Pro iTunes connect screenshots sizes.
i tried to look up the screenshot sizes on apple documentation but it does not include the iPad pro yet.
what App Preview and Screenshots sizes should i design to for the iPad Pro? | 2015/10/22 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/33290275",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/5059005/"
] | It is 2048x2732. If you want to create it in xcode 7.1 simulator then you have to set the scale to 100%, otherwise it creates lower resolution screenshot. | It is written in the itunesConnect when you log in to your account.
You can now upload screenshots that are optimized for the iPad Pro. Screenshots for iPad Pro must be 2732 x 2048 pixels or 2048 x 2732 pixels in the JPG or PNG format. They also must be in the RGB color space and can’t contain alpha channels. |
33,290,275 | I couldn't find any documentation on IPad Pro iTunes connect screenshots sizes.
i tried to look up the screenshot sizes on apple documentation but it does not include the iPad pro yet.
what App Preview and Screenshots sizes should i design to for the iPad Pro? | 2015/10/22 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/33290275",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/5059005/"
] | It is written in the itunesConnect when you log in to your account.
You can now upload screenshots that are optimized for the iPad Pro. Screenshots for iPad Pro must be 2732 x 2048 pixels or 2048 x 2732 pixels in the JPG or PNG format. They also must be in the RGB color space and can’t contain alpha channels. | (4 years later..)
New requirements are:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/H0HNq.png)
From Apple site: <https://help.apple.com/app-store-connect/#/devd274dd925> |
33,290,275 | I couldn't find any documentation on IPad Pro iTunes connect screenshots sizes.
i tried to look up the screenshot sizes on apple documentation but it does not include the iPad pro yet.
what App Preview and Screenshots sizes should i design to for the iPad Pro? | 2015/10/22 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/33290275",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/5059005/"
] | It is 2048x2732. If you want to create it in xcode 7.1 simulator then you have to set the scale to 100%, otherwise it creates lower resolution screenshot. | (4 years later..)
New requirements are:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/H0HNq.png)
From Apple site: <https://help.apple.com/app-store-connect/#/devd274dd925> |
197,203 | I'm working on a document in Word 2007. Somehow, when I was moving things around, a phantom footnote was introduced. (See attached image.) I have not been able to delete it. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
 | 2010/10/07 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/197203",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/35950/"
] | 1. Go to beginning of document.
2. Click the References tab.
3. Click Show Notes.
4. Click Next Footnote until the cursor moves to a position where a footnote does not exist.
5. That is the phantom footnote.
6. Delete the next around the cursor. | Turn on the Show/hide feature. Search through the document for the 'hidden' footnotes in the body of the text and delete. |
197,203 | I'm working on a document in Word 2007. Somehow, when I was moving things around, a phantom footnote was introduced. (See attached image.) I have not been able to delete it. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
 | 2010/10/07 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/197203",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/35950/"
] | 1. Go to beginning of document.
2. Click the References tab.
3. Click Show Notes.
4. Click Next Footnote until the cursor moves to a position where a footnote does not exist.
5. That is the phantom footnote.
6. Delete the next around the cursor. | I did not see a Next Footnote option in Word 365. But I realized that what happened is that the text of the endnotes was deleted but the endnotes themselves were left intact. The endnote numbers were particularly phantom-like because the Find utility doesn't find footnote or endnote numbers. But by manually searching the text where the sequential endnote numbers should be, I found them and was able to delete them. This also deleted the blank endnotes themselves. |
197,203 | I'm working on a document in Word 2007. Somehow, when I was moving things around, a phantom footnote was introduced. (See attached image.) I have not been able to delete it. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
 | 2010/10/07 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/197203",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/35950/"
] | 1. Go to beginning of document.
2. Click the References tab.
3. Click Show Notes.
4. Click Next Footnote until the cursor moves to a position where a footnote does not exist.
5. That is the phantom footnote.
6. Delete the next around the cursor. | After spending (way too much) time, I realized I was editing my document using *track changes*... Aaaand I found out that if I switched view to seeing *All markup* I was able to see - and delete - my already deleted (and hence invisible) footnotes.
Bloody hell... |
197,203 | I'm working on a document in Word 2007. Somehow, when I was moving things around, a phantom footnote was introduced. (See attached image.) I have not been able to delete it. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
 | 2010/10/07 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/197203",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/35950/"
] | I did not see a Next Footnote option in Word 365. But I realized that what happened is that the text of the endnotes was deleted but the endnotes themselves were left intact. The endnote numbers were particularly phantom-like because the Find utility doesn't find footnote or endnote numbers. But by manually searching the text where the sequential endnote numbers should be, I found them and was able to delete them. This also deleted the blank endnotes themselves. | Turn on the Show/hide feature. Search through the document for the 'hidden' footnotes in the body of the text and delete. |
197,203 | I'm working on a document in Word 2007. Somehow, when I was moving things around, a phantom footnote was introduced. (See attached image.) I have not been able to delete it. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
 | 2010/10/07 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/197203",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/35950/"
] | After spending (way too much) time, I realized I was editing my document using *track changes*... Aaaand I found out that if I switched view to seeing *All markup* I was able to see - and delete - my already deleted (and hence invisible) footnotes.
Bloody hell... | Turn on the Show/hide feature. Search through the document for the 'hidden' footnotes in the body of the text and delete. |
61,233 | Do *special* numbers (transcendental number, first few elements of a certain sequences and so on ...) make good passwords in terms of brute force breaking ?
EDIT: Why am I asking this ?
A friend of mine is composing a list of few recommendations on how people in his workplace should choose passwords. From what he told me, he used a "standard" one at first (you know, "choose your password from one to six letters and two numbers ...") and came to a conclusion that most people just ignore those recommendations and just uses passwords like "password", "date of birth", ...
So he decided to *invent* a list of *more interesting* recommendations, hoping it will motivate people to at least give it some thought. And so we started thinking on what to put on the list that could prove useful. | 2009/10/27 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/61233",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/2127/"
] | One easy way to test this yourself would be to create a document in Word (or a new zipfile in Winzip) and password the file. Now download one of the many free password cracking programs and see how long it takes to crack the file. I've done a few of these lately (for legitimate work reasons, people leaving on short notice, leaving behind important files with unknown passwords).
Throwing a dictionary-based cracker at a file with a simple password takes milliseconds to crack. Brute-forcing a file with a six digit numeric password (especially when you know its numeric) takes a few seconds, it really doesn't matter how mathematically obscure your number is, a brute force cracker just tries them all.
Once you expand to non-dictionary words with more than six characters with a mix of character types (lower-case, upper-case, numbers, keyboard symbols, special characters) the time taken goes up exponentially. | If you really want to be secure, you don't want to use any word from the dictionary in your password; even if you replace all "a" with "@", or "s" with "5", or "e" with "3", etc. If it's a word from the dictionary it can be guessed, and most people choose a word that means something to them any which would make it easier for someone who knows them to guess.
What you really want to do is pick a completely random combination of letters, numbers and symbols. This way the only way to brute force attack the password is to guess all combinations possible, instead of doing what is called a "Dictionary Attack". A "Dictionary Attack" is when the attacker guesses passwords based on going through the dictionary. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.