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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
151,183 | I had a paper ready for journal publication, but decided to break it into 2 conference papers and submitted them to a conference.
Now, one of them is accepted but the other one is rejected! The thing is, the 2 papers are related and I think they should be published together. The paper which is rejected, had 3 reviewers. One accepted it, one weak-accepted and the other one rejected it. The two who accepted it, marked it as innovative, highly useful and relevant. (All 3 reviewers mentioned they are highly confident on being able to judge my paper)
Now, can I write to the conference and tell them to review the paper or argue with them that the paper could be accepted based on points made by the two reviewers?
PS: I had to break them into two papers because of the page limit. Furthermore, it makes more sense for them to be published together since they are parts of a single framework. However, this doesn't mean that one cannot be published without the other; as I mentioned, I believe publishing them together just makes more sense. Moreover, I was very confident that both will be accepted! | 2020/06/29 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/151183",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/122003/"
] | >
> Now, can I write to the conference and tell them to review the paper or argue with them that the paper could be accepted based on points made by the two reviewers?
>
>
>
You can try, but what do you have to tell them that they do not already know? They have already read the reviews, thought about them and reached a decision. Unless you can think of a compelling argument that invalidates or rebuts the criticism of the unfavorable review, your chances of success are essentially zero. | You state the large publication was split into two smaller ones because of a page limit. Possibly, to meet these constraints, you reorganized the presentation of the work such the second one builds upon the one accepted which you then cite. Thus it need not be a case of «salami research».
In mathematics and natural sciences, it happens that the first publication describes only one aspect, and under subsequent work this is extended and generalized. For example, Einstein's published on [special relativity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity) in 1905, and continued till 1915 to publish then about [general relativity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity). In your case, you possibly have the results of both the particular case, and the more general application already in hand, and could submit it elsewhere. It may be even easier to publish the two in different venues than back-to-back in the very same issue of the journal ([this](https://pubs.acs.org/toc/oprdfk/21/8) is rather an exception). |
151,183 | I had a paper ready for journal publication, but decided to break it into 2 conference papers and submitted them to a conference.
Now, one of them is accepted but the other one is rejected! The thing is, the 2 papers are related and I think they should be published together. The paper which is rejected, had 3 reviewers. One accepted it, one weak-accepted and the other one rejected it. The two who accepted it, marked it as innovative, highly useful and relevant. (All 3 reviewers mentioned they are highly confident on being able to judge my paper)
Now, can I write to the conference and tell them to review the paper or argue with them that the paper could be accepted based on points made by the two reviewers?
PS: I had to break them into two papers because of the page limit. Furthermore, it makes more sense for them to be published together since they are parts of a single framework. However, this doesn't mean that one cannot be published without the other; as I mentioned, I believe publishing them together just makes more sense. Moreover, I was very confident that both will be accepted! | 2020/06/29 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/151183",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/122003/"
] | >
> Now, can I write to the conference and tell them to review the paper or argue with them that the paper could be accepted based on points made by the two reviewers?
>
>
>
You can try, but what do you have to tell them that they do not already know? They have already read the reviews, thought about them and reached a decision. Unless you can think of a compelling argument that invalidates or rebuts the criticism of the unfavorable review, your chances of success are essentially zero. | (CS perspective / I was conference chair and program committee chair several times):
You made your choice and now you have to live with it. You have until submission of the final version to make sure that the paper is readable and self-contained. Since the accepted paper was reviewed independently from your other submission, that should be quite possible. You might disagree, but the reviewers thought it could live on its own.
You can publish your other paper on a preview server or as a technical report at your university / department / personal web-page. Pre-publishing it there should not hurt its chances of being accepted elsewhere. This way, you can cite and refer to it.
You can either submit the other half to a different conference or you can work both of them together and submit to a journal. This is standard practice in CS.
If you were to try to negotiate with me, I would be quite annoyed, though of course trying to be polite. |
151,183 | I had a paper ready for journal publication, but decided to break it into 2 conference papers and submitted them to a conference.
Now, one of them is accepted but the other one is rejected! The thing is, the 2 papers are related and I think they should be published together. The paper which is rejected, had 3 reviewers. One accepted it, one weak-accepted and the other one rejected it. The two who accepted it, marked it as innovative, highly useful and relevant. (All 3 reviewers mentioned they are highly confident on being able to judge my paper)
Now, can I write to the conference and tell them to review the paper or argue with them that the paper could be accepted based on points made by the two reviewers?
PS: I had to break them into two papers because of the page limit. Furthermore, it makes more sense for them to be published together since they are parts of a single framework. However, this doesn't mean that one cannot be published without the other; as I mentioned, I believe publishing them together just makes more sense. Moreover, I was very confident that both will be accepted! | 2020/06/29 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/151183",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/122003/"
] | In my field, that would almost certainly not work. If anything, it will send the signal to the program chairs that you're very inexperienced with how the conference process works.
Conferences have a certain timeframe for reviewing, followed by a discussion period and a decision about each paper. It's practically unheard of that a paper that was rejected in this stage still got accepted due to some authors appealing. | Honestly, you shouldn't be splitting a research paper into two and trying to submit as two publications, unless there is a page limit or something. You even are admitting that it doesn't make sense to publish one of these without the other.
I would say you're better off asking them to combine the two papers back into a single paper to publish. But doing this risks making you look bad, as it is admitting that they shouldn't have been split up in the first place. An alternative is to add to the second paper to make it strong enough to stand on its own and submit it to a different conference as a follow up. |
151,183 | I had a paper ready for journal publication, but decided to break it into 2 conference papers and submitted them to a conference.
Now, one of them is accepted but the other one is rejected! The thing is, the 2 papers are related and I think they should be published together. The paper which is rejected, had 3 reviewers. One accepted it, one weak-accepted and the other one rejected it. The two who accepted it, marked it as innovative, highly useful and relevant. (All 3 reviewers mentioned they are highly confident on being able to judge my paper)
Now, can I write to the conference and tell them to review the paper or argue with them that the paper could be accepted based on points made by the two reviewers?
PS: I had to break them into two papers because of the page limit. Furthermore, it makes more sense for them to be published together since they are parts of a single framework. However, this doesn't mean that one cannot be published without the other; as I mentioned, I believe publishing them together just makes more sense. Moreover, I was very confident that both will be accepted! | 2020/06/29 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/151183",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/122003/"
] | In my field, that would almost certainly not work. If anything, it will send the signal to the program chairs that you're very inexperienced with how the conference process works.
Conferences have a certain timeframe for reviewing, followed by a discussion period and a decision about each paper. It's practically unheard of that a paper that was rejected in this stage still got accepted due to some authors appealing. | You state the large publication was split into two smaller ones because of a page limit. Possibly, to meet these constraints, you reorganized the presentation of the work such the second one builds upon the one accepted which you then cite. Thus it need not be a case of «salami research».
In mathematics and natural sciences, it happens that the first publication describes only one aspect, and under subsequent work this is extended and generalized. For example, Einstein's published on [special relativity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity) in 1905, and continued till 1915 to publish then about [general relativity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity). In your case, you possibly have the results of both the particular case, and the more general application already in hand, and could submit it elsewhere. It may be even easier to publish the two in different venues than back-to-back in the very same issue of the journal ([this](https://pubs.acs.org/toc/oprdfk/21/8) is rather an exception). |
151,183 | I had a paper ready for journal publication, but decided to break it into 2 conference papers and submitted them to a conference.
Now, one of them is accepted but the other one is rejected! The thing is, the 2 papers are related and I think they should be published together. The paper which is rejected, had 3 reviewers. One accepted it, one weak-accepted and the other one rejected it. The two who accepted it, marked it as innovative, highly useful and relevant. (All 3 reviewers mentioned they are highly confident on being able to judge my paper)
Now, can I write to the conference and tell them to review the paper or argue with them that the paper could be accepted based on points made by the two reviewers?
PS: I had to break them into two papers because of the page limit. Furthermore, it makes more sense for them to be published together since they are parts of a single framework. However, this doesn't mean that one cannot be published without the other; as I mentioned, I believe publishing them together just makes more sense. Moreover, I was very confident that both will be accepted! | 2020/06/29 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/151183",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/122003/"
] | (CS perspective / I was conference chair and program committee chair several times):
You made your choice and now you have to live with it. You have until submission of the final version to make sure that the paper is readable and self-contained. Since the accepted paper was reviewed independently from your other submission, that should be quite possible. You might disagree, but the reviewers thought it could live on its own.
You can publish your other paper on a preview server or as a technical report at your university / department / personal web-page. Pre-publishing it there should not hurt its chances of being accepted elsewhere. This way, you can cite and refer to it.
You can either submit the other half to a different conference or you can work both of them together and submit to a journal. This is standard practice in CS.
If you were to try to negotiate with me, I would be quite annoyed, though of course trying to be polite. | **The outcome:** Some members kindly gave me good comments in reply to my question. Actually, I used some of them in preparing my email to the conference committee. Here, I'll mention what the process was and what happened for those who find themselves in a similar situation:
I have contacted the conference with the reasons I had in support of my paper, and argued that my paper had the required qualities to be accepted. However, they respectfully denied it almost immediately! :)
So, to sum it up and for clarification purposes for others that might one day need to do the same thing: It does not seem that there is anything wrong with contacting the conference committee to argue that your paper deserved to be accepted. However, there is a little chance of changing the conference judgement even despite having sufficient reasons.
PS: Something I learnt during this process, is to always ask direct and accurate questions without going into unnecessary details. In this question, I first talked about my journal paper,and I shouldn't have done It! Since the majority of comments were in regard and around reasons for why I should or shouldn't have broken one paper into two papers and that was not my question! I had already made my decision and divided the paper into two and I believe I had good reasons for that! As a result, not only I got many unrelated comments and answers, but also someone changed the topic of my question to something that I do not agree with, but since I didn't have enough points, I couldn't discard their changes! Now, how funny is that? :))
Thanks everyone and good luck with your publications! |
151,183 | I had a paper ready for journal publication, but decided to break it into 2 conference papers and submitted them to a conference.
Now, one of them is accepted but the other one is rejected! The thing is, the 2 papers are related and I think they should be published together. The paper which is rejected, had 3 reviewers. One accepted it, one weak-accepted and the other one rejected it. The two who accepted it, marked it as innovative, highly useful and relevant. (All 3 reviewers mentioned they are highly confident on being able to judge my paper)
Now, can I write to the conference and tell them to review the paper or argue with them that the paper could be accepted based on points made by the two reviewers?
PS: I had to break them into two papers because of the page limit. Furthermore, it makes more sense for them to be published together since they are parts of a single framework. However, this doesn't mean that one cannot be published without the other; as I mentioned, I believe publishing them together just makes more sense. Moreover, I was very confident that both will be accepted! | 2020/06/29 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/151183",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/122003/"
] | >
> Now, can I write to the conference and tell them to review the paper or argue with them that the paper could be accepted based on points made by the two reviewers?
>
>
>
You can try, but what do you have to tell them that they do not already know? They have already read the reviews, thought about them and reached a decision. Unless you can think of a compelling argument that invalidates or rebuts the criticism of the unfavorable review, your chances of success are essentially zero. | In my field, that would almost certainly not work. If anything, it will send the signal to the program chairs that you're very inexperienced with how the conference process works.
Conferences have a certain timeframe for reviewing, followed by a discussion period and a decision about each paper. It's practically unheard of that a paper that was rejected in this stage still got accepted due to some authors appealing. |
151,183 | I had a paper ready for journal publication, but decided to break it into 2 conference papers and submitted them to a conference.
Now, one of them is accepted but the other one is rejected! The thing is, the 2 papers are related and I think they should be published together. The paper which is rejected, had 3 reviewers. One accepted it, one weak-accepted and the other one rejected it. The two who accepted it, marked it as innovative, highly useful and relevant. (All 3 reviewers mentioned they are highly confident on being able to judge my paper)
Now, can I write to the conference and tell them to review the paper or argue with them that the paper could be accepted based on points made by the two reviewers?
PS: I had to break them into two papers because of the page limit. Furthermore, it makes more sense for them to be published together since they are parts of a single framework. However, this doesn't mean that one cannot be published without the other; as I mentioned, I believe publishing them together just makes more sense. Moreover, I was very confident that both will be accepted! | 2020/06/29 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/151183",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/122003/"
] | Honestly, you shouldn't be splitting a research paper into two and trying to submit as two publications, unless there is a page limit or something. You even are admitting that it doesn't make sense to publish one of these without the other.
I would say you're better off asking them to combine the two papers back into a single paper to publish. But doing this risks making you look bad, as it is admitting that they shouldn't have been split up in the first place. An alternative is to add to the second paper to make it strong enough to stand on its own and submit it to a different conference as a follow up. | **The outcome:** Some members kindly gave me good comments in reply to my question. Actually, I used some of them in preparing my email to the conference committee. Here, I'll mention what the process was and what happened for those who find themselves in a similar situation:
I have contacted the conference with the reasons I had in support of my paper, and argued that my paper had the required qualities to be accepted. However, they respectfully denied it almost immediately! :)
So, to sum it up and for clarification purposes for others that might one day need to do the same thing: It does not seem that there is anything wrong with contacting the conference committee to argue that your paper deserved to be accepted. However, there is a little chance of changing the conference judgement even despite having sufficient reasons.
PS: Something I learnt during this process, is to always ask direct and accurate questions without going into unnecessary details. In this question, I first talked about my journal paper,and I shouldn't have done It! Since the majority of comments were in regard and around reasons for why I should or shouldn't have broken one paper into two papers and that was not my question! I had already made my decision and divided the paper into two and I believe I had good reasons for that! As a result, not only I got many unrelated comments and answers, but also someone changed the topic of my question to something that I do not agree with, but since I didn't have enough points, I couldn't discard their changes! Now, how funny is that? :))
Thanks everyone and good luck with your publications! |
151,183 | I had a paper ready for journal publication, but decided to break it into 2 conference papers and submitted them to a conference.
Now, one of them is accepted but the other one is rejected! The thing is, the 2 papers are related and I think they should be published together. The paper which is rejected, had 3 reviewers. One accepted it, one weak-accepted and the other one rejected it. The two who accepted it, marked it as innovative, highly useful and relevant. (All 3 reviewers mentioned they are highly confident on being able to judge my paper)
Now, can I write to the conference and tell them to review the paper or argue with them that the paper could be accepted based on points made by the two reviewers?
PS: I had to break them into two papers because of the page limit. Furthermore, it makes more sense for them to be published together since they are parts of a single framework. However, this doesn't mean that one cannot be published without the other; as I mentioned, I believe publishing them together just makes more sense. Moreover, I was very confident that both will be accepted! | 2020/06/29 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/151183",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/122003/"
] | In my field, that would almost certainly not work. If anything, it will send the signal to the program chairs that you're very inexperienced with how the conference process works.
Conferences have a certain timeframe for reviewing, followed by a discussion period and a decision about each paper. It's practically unheard of that a paper that was rejected in this stage still got accepted due to some authors appealing. | **The outcome:** Some members kindly gave me good comments in reply to my question. Actually, I used some of them in preparing my email to the conference committee. Here, I'll mention what the process was and what happened for those who find themselves in a similar situation:
I have contacted the conference with the reasons I had in support of my paper, and argued that my paper had the required qualities to be accepted. However, they respectfully denied it almost immediately! :)
So, to sum it up and for clarification purposes for others that might one day need to do the same thing: It does not seem that there is anything wrong with contacting the conference committee to argue that your paper deserved to be accepted. However, there is a little chance of changing the conference judgement even despite having sufficient reasons.
PS: Something I learnt during this process, is to always ask direct and accurate questions without going into unnecessary details. In this question, I first talked about my journal paper,and I shouldn't have done It! Since the majority of comments were in regard and around reasons for why I should or shouldn't have broken one paper into two papers and that was not my question! I had already made my decision and divided the paper into two and I believe I had good reasons for that! As a result, not only I got many unrelated comments and answers, but also someone changed the topic of my question to something that I do not agree with, but since I didn't have enough points, I couldn't discard their changes! Now, how funny is that? :))
Thanks everyone and good luck with your publications! |
128 | Like a lot of academics, I'm way more narrowly specialized than is really convenient. So a lot of the questions I'd be inclined to ask here would be of the form "Can anyone point me to research on X question from Y perspective?" — where Y is some subfield within linguistics that I'm not terribly familiar with. Is this a legitimate use of the site? | 2011/09/26 | [
"https://linguistics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/128",
"https://linguistics.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://linguistics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/306/"
] | Yes, that is perfectly acceptable. It is about linguistics, and has a clear but arguable correct answer. | I think it is acceptable as long as the scope is specific and unambiguous enough. Keep in mind we [decided](https://linguistics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/49/should-we-welcome-via-community-wiki-useful-questions-that-dont-have-concrete-or) to discourage open ended questions. |
343,999 | I'm using Dropbox to sync files. There's a big disadvantage that files are stored somewhere unencrypted. I'd like to encrypt and decrypt them on the client, but have no clue how to do it.
Tried Truecrypt, but it seems to be complicated to sync the Truecrypt volume file because of its size. Even a small change in the Truecrypt filesystem can cause big changes in the encrypted volume file.
Is there probably a good open source alternative to Dropbox that can be run on an own server? | 2011/10/06 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/343999",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/100551/"
] | Possibilities:
* Have a look at [SpiderOak](https://spideroak.com/) - it allows for encrypted at client end
* Try [pgp](http://www.pgpi.org/)/[gpg](http://www.gnupg.org) or one of the alternatives - encrypt files, not the entire volume | This looks like it might fit the bill nicely:
<https://github.com/meltingice/RubyDrop> |
343,999 | I'm using Dropbox to sync files. There's a big disadvantage that files are stored somewhere unencrypted. I'd like to encrypt and decrypt them on the client, but have no clue how to do it.
Tried Truecrypt, but it seems to be complicated to sync the Truecrypt volume file because of its size. Even a small change in the Truecrypt filesystem can cause big changes in the encrypted volume file.
Is there probably a good open source alternative to Dropbox that can be run on an own server? | 2011/10/06 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/343999",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/100551/"
] | [SparkleShare](http://sparkleshare.org/) looks interesting as a self-hosted Dropbox equivalent, though I haven't tried it. You can use encfs to encrypt the files on a Linux server, and it uses Git as its data store.
For transparent encryption of files within Dropbox, [BoxCryptor](http://www.boxcryptor.com/) looks quite good on Windows (you didn't mention a platform). It uses the same format and algorithm as encfs, which is available on MacOS X and Linux - here's an [example of the Ubuntu setup](http://blog.boxcryptor.com/how-to-use-boxcryptor-with-encfs-in-ubuntu-ma) for use with BoxCryptor. The only downside is that you then can't use the website to view files, nor can you use iPhone/Android clients (though Android might be possible if you set up encfs).
If you really need cross-platform encryption within Dropbox or similar, you could use either:
* ZIP files with the Winzip AES encryption format (not the PKWare SES format), which is supported by zip and 7-zip on Linux, and almost all ZIP programs generally. Also has many iPhone clients such as iZip.com (not iZip).
* 7-Zip .7z files - less widely supported but encrypt the filenames in the archive, unlike ZIP files, and iUnarchive on iPhone supports this.
Although TrueCrypt is mentioned a lot for encryption within Dropbox, I don't recommend it if you are using more than one computer (and if you aren't, why use Dropbox?)- you must be careful to unmount the TrueCrypt volume, so that the same volume contents is not mounted on two systems simultaneously, causing corruption. This turns Dropbox into much less of an "unconscious sharing" tool.
I found SpiderOak was quite unreliable when I tried it extensively in 2009 - syncing large number of files from two home PCs never completed, restores didn't work, and it was generally very hard to work out what was going on through its GUI (many undefined terms). Support was not able to solve the problems I reported. Perhaps it's better now, but I would try Wuala first if you want a commercial service. | This looks like it might fit the bill nicely:
<https://github.com/meltingice/RubyDrop> |
19,831,825 | I need to find a way to read all contacts and chat messages from Skype without API.
By Microsoft they will not support the Skype API any more. This is why I need it.
In the C:\Documents and Settings\*\*username\*\*\Application Data\Skype there are some files but need to parse them and not sure how if it is the right approach.
Of course the chat messages are always synchronized from the cloud. I need at least the messages saved on the disk. | 2013/11/07 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/19831825",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/634311/"
] | The StackoverFlow answer link in @Viliam comment is the correct answer, at least in theory... there is a bug that prevents this from working for Strings: [Settings "Operation sign on next line" does not work for automatically breaking strings](http://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/IDEA-80495). I recommend you vote for it. | For tab/space:
open Settings (Ctrl + Alt + S), go to:
Code Style / Java under Tabs and Indents you have "Use tab character".
For String with + on new line, I searched also this one few weeks ago and didn't find it! |
275,166 | >
> You can train your Pokémon in a friendly battle, where **you select a single Pokémon to battle against another Pokémon in a friendly Gym**. The more you train, the more Prestige you can earn for your team’s Gym. ([Source](https://support.pokemongo.nianticlabs.com/hc/en-us/articles/222049647-Train-your-Pok%C3%A9mon-at-friendly-Gyms))
>
>
>
Provided you have the potions to heal your Pokemon, can you battle back-to-back and select the same trainer every time to battle, increasing Prestige and getting an XP bonus every time?
The wording of the official Niantic Labs source makes it seem as if you can select which trainer in a friendly gym you want to battle (and so I assume that is true). Is there a cooldown, or possibly do you have to battle the *next* trainer after defeating the first? | 2016/07/15 | [
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/275166",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/125786/"
] | Yes, you can keep attacking a gym as often as you wish, provided you have the Pokémon with health to do it. I think there is a limit to how much prestige you can have and the level of the gym, but you can train at a gym as much as you want without a cooldown, and you will get experience from it every time.
source: personal experience | Believe there is
After a few trainings it will just keep bouncing you to the gym screen
Probably implemented to save their servers |
275,166 | >
> You can train your Pokémon in a friendly battle, where **you select a single Pokémon to battle against another Pokémon in a friendly Gym**. The more you train, the more Prestige you can earn for your team’s Gym. ([Source](https://support.pokemongo.nianticlabs.com/hc/en-us/articles/222049647-Train-your-Pok%C3%A9mon-at-friendly-Gyms))
>
>
>
Provided you have the potions to heal your Pokemon, can you battle back-to-back and select the same trainer every time to battle, increasing Prestige and getting an XP bonus every time?
The wording of the official Niantic Labs source makes it seem as if you can select which trainer in a friendly gym you want to battle (and so I assume that is true). Is there a cooldown, or possibly do you have to battle the *next* trainer after defeating the first? | 2016/07/15 | [
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/275166",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/125786/"
] | Yes, you can keep attacking a gym as often as you wish, provided you have the Pokémon with health to do it. I think there is a limit to how much prestige you can have and the level of the gym, but you can train at a gym as much as you want without a cooldown, and you will get experience from it every time.
source: personal experience | No, there is no cooldown, but I think the bigger issue is that you are misunderstanding what it's saying. It's saying you select one of **your** Pokemon to battle against the gym. You do not get to choose who in the gym you battle. It's always in order from lowest CP to highest CP. So your question about having to battle a different trainer doesn't make sense; you always battle the same Pokemon in the same order unless the Pokemon in the gym have changed for some reason. |
275,166 | >
> You can train your Pokémon in a friendly battle, where **you select a single Pokémon to battle against another Pokémon in a friendly Gym**. The more you train, the more Prestige you can earn for your team’s Gym. ([Source](https://support.pokemongo.nianticlabs.com/hc/en-us/articles/222049647-Train-your-Pok%C3%A9mon-at-friendly-Gyms))
>
>
>
Provided you have the potions to heal your Pokemon, can you battle back-to-back and select the same trainer every time to battle, increasing Prestige and getting an XP bonus every time?
The wording of the official Niantic Labs source makes it seem as if you can select which trainer in a friendly gym you want to battle (and so I assume that is true). Is there a cooldown, or possibly do you have to battle the *next* trainer after defeating the first? | 2016/07/15 | [
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/275166",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/125786/"
] | No, there is no cooldown, but I think the bigger issue is that you are misunderstanding what it's saying. It's saying you select one of **your** Pokemon to battle against the gym. You do not get to choose who in the gym you battle. It's always in order from lowest CP to highest CP. So your question about having to battle a different trainer doesn't make sense; you always battle the same Pokemon in the same order unless the Pokemon in the gym have changed for some reason. | Believe there is
After a few trainings it will just keep bouncing you to the gym screen
Probably implemented to save their servers |
42,926,843 | I am trying to find the name of a chart in excel 2016, however the layout tab isn't displayed on the ribbon under chart tools. Does anyone know how to add it or find an alternative way of finding the chart name? | 2017/03/21 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/42926843",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/7267457/"
] | When you select the chart, it's now to the left of the formula bar. | In Excel 2016, the old ribbon tab *Layout* no longer appears when you select a chart. In previous versions of Excel, this tab contained the properties box that you could use to name or rename a chart.
You can rename a chart in two ways in Excel 2016. When you select the chart, the chart's name appears in the Name box, which is located to the left of the formula bar, as noted in previous answer. The default name will be something like *Chart 2*. By selecting *Chart 2* in the name box, and typing over it with your new name, you are renaming the chart. After you type in your new name, press the ENTER key to complete the process.
Somewhat confusingly, chart names *do not* appear in the dropdown list of the name box. Once you've named a chart, the only way to immediately see the chart's name again is to click into it to select it. The chart name will then appear in the name box. And you can't use the name box to navigate directly to a chart, as you can with a range or a table.
There's another, and more arcane method of changing the name. Select the chart, and go to the *Format* tab under *Chart Tools* in the ribbon. On the right side of the Format ribbon, click *Selection Pane*. This pops out a menu bar on the right side of the worksheet. This bar lists all the charts on the current sheet. A slow double-click opens the chart name in a textbox, and you can rename it. Pressing ENTER or clicking outside the textbox completes the process.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/9I6F2.png) |
42,926,843 | I am trying to find the name of a chart in excel 2016, however the layout tab isn't displayed on the ribbon under chart tools. Does anyone know how to add it or find an alternative way of finding the chart name? | 2017/03/21 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/42926843",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/7267457/"
] | When you select the chart, it's now to the left of the formula bar. | In Excel 2016:
Click chart, then click on Name box then rename the chart and press Enter |
42,926,843 | I am trying to find the name of a chart in excel 2016, however the layout tab isn't displayed on the ribbon under chart tools. Does anyone know how to add it or find an alternative way of finding the chart name? | 2017/03/21 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/42926843",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/7267457/"
] | In Excel 2016, the old ribbon tab *Layout* no longer appears when you select a chart. In previous versions of Excel, this tab contained the properties box that you could use to name or rename a chart.
You can rename a chart in two ways in Excel 2016. When you select the chart, the chart's name appears in the Name box, which is located to the left of the formula bar, as noted in previous answer. The default name will be something like *Chart 2*. By selecting *Chart 2* in the name box, and typing over it with your new name, you are renaming the chart. After you type in your new name, press the ENTER key to complete the process.
Somewhat confusingly, chart names *do not* appear in the dropdown list of the name box. Once you've named a chart, the only way to immediately see the chart's name again is to click into it to select it. The chart name will then appear in the name box. And you can't use the name box to navigate directly to a chart, as you can with a range or a table.
There's another, and more arcane method of changing the name. Select the chart, and go to the *Format* tab under *Chart Tools* in the ribbon. On the right side of the Format ribbon, click *Selection Pane*. This pops out a menu bar on the right side of the worksheet. This bar lists all the charts on the current sheet. A slow double-click opens the chart name in a textbox, and you can rename it. Pressing ENTER or clicking outside the textbox completes the process.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/9I6F2.png) | In Excel 2016:
Click chart, then click on Name box then rename the chart and press Enter |
307,775 | there's a computer ("server") that has **no Internet connection**, and it is located in a place with **no GSM signal**. The only way to get connection to it is an analog modem (US Robotics 56Kbit/s). This modem is connected to a national PSTN line with a geographical number, and the server (running a modern Linux distribution) is configured to offer a dial-in serial terminal. To clarify, when you phone to this PSTN line, the modem handshakes (I think it's the V90 protocol), then you're presented with the login and then you are in on ttyS0. There's no IP/PPP protocol stack, just the serial terminal.
I would like to connect to this server in any way that does not require me to carry around a physical analog modem and (what's worse) finding around a physical PSTN line which is really a scarce resource at least in business context here in Italy. To clarify: the PSTN line on the server side is the only way through, but I would like to be able to connect to it without a physical PSTN line on the client side.
Some ideas that came through my mind but I do not know if they can be really implemented or not:
* Having a mobile phone connected through bluetooth/USB. Old phones exported a ttyUSB that handled AT commands, but then there was no way (AFAICT) to get the audio stream. I don't know if it's technically possible to write an Android app that makes a phone call, then encodes the audio into a semi-raw UDP stream.
* Routing the call through VOIP. Googling around, some people seems to have had mixed success with doing analog modem calls through a VOIP termination with g711 (uLaw/aLaw). It looks like it is possible to get at least 9600bps, which is enough for me.
* Even if one of the above is possible, is there any software available that emulates the full V90 protocol/handshake/whatever and en/decodes audio into bytes?
* Is there any online service that offers a battery of analog modems to subscribers? Doesn't sound a business I would personally invest on, but you never know :)
* Is there any physical object that is the modern UMTS equivalent of an analog modem, like a box connected through USB where you put the SIM inside, it does all the magic, and gives you a ttyUSB on your PC?
* Assuming that I can physically access the server just once, is there anything I can install (either hardware or software) on the server and that would make my life easier? The only requisite is that must go through a standard national PSTN line (dual twisted copper), there's no other way to get any other signal. The modem looked like the best option, at first, but you never know.
Thanks! | 2011/09/02 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/307775",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/57276/"
] | There are a variety of terminal servers on the market -- you telnet/ssh to them and upon connection, you can interact with one or more serial ports on the console server, which are typically hooked via a null-modem cable to other servers. If the server has a serial port, this is the best way to go. You can then use a mobile broadband device to get a connection, and add some dynamic DNS or VPN magic to deal with changes of the IP.
Older GPRS/EDGE USB modules (or handsets with USB) would present as a serial device (ttyUSB or ttyACM) in Linux; it should be possible to switch the server's inittab to bind the getty to that. I've done this in the past with an external (actual-serial-port connected) GSM modem; I'd imagine it should work with USB as well.
If the server has an internal modem, not a serial port, and you can't replace it, things get more complicated. VoIP might work -- the closer to raw PCM, the better the odds are. Fixed wireless terminals (basically a cell phone but with an FXS port instead of a speaker/mic/keypad) might work as well, but are likely to have the same issues as VoIP. | I'm no t sure I completely understand your requirements. I'll type what I think you are asking and go from there:
1) There's a server with only a pstn line conected to an analog modem.
2) You want to free the phone line (for other uses) and want to keep having accesss to the server.
Iff 1 & 2 are correct, then I don't see other choice but to use some form of internet connection, an USB 3G stick should give you a connection you can tap on via ssh to make any administrative task you may need.
You could also install some sort of xDSL line, that will free your pstn line to use as regular phone and give you internet access at the same time. |
3,516,981 | I want write a PHP registry code That when a User registried than go to PayPal site and give some money to us and after her payment , her account activation in our site Automatically .
what am i going to do ?
Thanks in Advance . | 2010/08/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3516981",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/409069/"
] | Check out Paypal's Payflow Link : <https://cms.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/?&cmd=_render-content&content_ID=developer/howto_gateway_payflow_link>
The user on your website clicks the Paypal buy button, gets transferred to Paypal to do their payment, and then returns to your website (wherever you specify) to finish. | Look into Paypal's IPN functionality.
Here is the link to [Paypal's IPN PHP API](https://cms.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/?cmd=_render-content&content_ID=developer/library_code) setup that they provide. There should be plenty of snippets / tutorials available from Google though.
**EDIT**
Also a great resource is <http://developer.paypal.com> it gives you access to a sandbox to setup test accounts with money etc to test the functionality of your newly implemented system before you send it live. |
11,692 | I am currently finishing my undergraduate math studies, and I am really interested in computer science (especially theoretical). However, I realize that most CS departments expect their applicants to have a CS major or at least a significant amount of coursework in CS. I have taken a couple of programming courses and a course in data structures, languages and machines, and design of algorithms, but all very basic (so I would probably be rejected because of insufficient background). Therefore, I have been looking for math departments that do theoretical CS research, but I have found very few.
Is is possible for a mathematician to successfully enter a program of theoretical computer science with few previous experience in CS? | 2013/08/06 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/11692",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8062/"
] | I thought this question was asked and answered before, but I couldn't find it. In any case, people with a strong math background can do very well in TCS. The only stumbling block might be the breadth of CS material (including things like architecture, compilers and operating systems) that might be required of a CS grad student.
However there are certain programs (CMU/Georgia Tech/Waterloo) in which TCS is a separate discipline: if you applied to one of these programs, you might be able to to circumvent core CS requirements that you don't have. | Just to add to Suresh's excellent answer, a couple of practical steps you could consider doing:
* Contact the admissions people at your favoured universities; at the same time, caontact potential supervisors and ask about your concerns.
* Read more about the topics related to the research interests of potential advisors, this is to gauge your level of knowledge and confidence in the topics (this is what I did before my MSc, now I have followed through into my PhD).
I hope this helps. |
11,692 | I am currently finishing my undergraduate math studies, and I am really interested in computer science (especially theoretical). However, I realize that most CS departments expect their applicants to have a CS major or at least a significant amount of coursework in CS. I have taken a couple of programming courses and a course in data structures, languages and machines, and design of algorithms, but all very basic (so I would probably be rejected because of insufficient background). Therefore, I have been looking for math departments that do theoretical CS research, but I have found very few.
Is is possible for a mathematician to successfully enter a program of theoretical computer science with few previous experience in CS? | 2013/08/06 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/11692",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8062/"
] | Many people in Theoretical Computer Science have undergraduate (and sometimes graduate) degrees in Mathematics, and some do not know how to program at all: do not be afraid and go on. Having a solid background of both mathematics and computers is an asset.
The only warning: be ready to learn by yourself, especially as you might be asked to TA or teach courses you never took (e.g. I had to learn a lot for teaching Operating Systems, or Networking, as this was never taught in my undergraduate degree in Mathematics). But if you go to Academia, you should be ready to learn by yourself anyway... | Just to add to Suresh's excellent answer, a couple of practical steps you could consider doing:
* Contact the admissions people at your favoured universities; at the same time, caontact potential supervisors and ask about your concerns.
* Read more about the topics related to the research interests of potential advisors, this is to gauge your level of knowledge and confidence in the topics (this is what I did before my MSc, now I have followed through into my PhD).
I hope this helps. |
78,966 | I hope this question is not a duplicate. I use a lot of pdfLaTeX in my daily work on OSX (10.8). I've been using Skim and its SyncTeX support to preview PDFs and link forward and backward and that's fine. There are a bunch of PDF viewers on OSX and I'm wondering if others also support SyncTeX (commercial or not). I tend to prefer standalone editors and previewers instead of integrated environments such as TeXShop, but I'd like to hear about all types of PDF viewers that offer SyncTeX support. I'm not finding that this information is easily accessible on the web so answers to this question might serve as a handy reference.
For starters, it seems the standard OSX Preview doesn't support SyncTeX. Is that correct? | 2013/01/15 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/78966",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/5064/"
] | The SyncTex page offers a SyncTex Viewer. Its a free app and works fine on regular PDFs. | A popular non-free option is [Skim](http://skim-app.sourceforge.net/). It supports SyncTEx. |
38,179 | I am most likely leaving my permanent position at my current university for a permanent position at a new university. I have been given an unofficial offer and we have agreed to terms. I have been told it could take over a month to generate an official offer and contract and that I should not give notice until then. I would prefer not to broadcast the news widely since nothing is set in stone until I am given the contact. Obviously I do not care that much since I am asking here.
In the few days I have known, I have told:
* My current department chair since he wrote a reference and my other references
* A couple of close colleagues since I valued their opinions
* A collaborator in my department since we were beginning to to write a grant together since the move, it is international, would cause major problems
* I am now faced with having to turn down a prospective graduate student which would require me to tell at least the head of our graduate admissions committee and maybe the whole committee
I am clearly failing at keeping it quiet. How do you not screw over your colleagues, but still keep the job change quiet until it is official? | 2015/02/03 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/38179",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/929/"
] | This is common in academia. I think you have to be honest with everyone who might rely on you being at your current job in the future, let them know what stage you are at, and ask them to keep it to themselves until you get the official offer. You can only control what you say to others while asking others to respect your privacy in the meantime.
Suppose that you told everyone in your current department exactly what you have told us, and for some reason your new position falls through at this late date, what's the worst case situation you're worried about? It seems to me that, assuming your current job is held for you, your worst problems will be interpersonal with other faculty that resented your desire to leave. Is that it, or are you worried about some specific ramifications if word got around? | >
> "If you would keep your secret from an enemy, tell it not to a friend." - Poor Richard's Almanack
>
>
>
The wheels in academia turn slowly but with momentum. Nevertheless, I think it would be wise to not tell a single other person going forward that you want to leave for any reason.
If you need to turn down others, you should do so expressing your concern about your availability, or a desire to put what you can on hold for personal reasons. This weakens your position should you stay, but at least you don't give away your intentions to leave.
But you've already told your department chair. You mentioned in a comment that you are not sure what you are worried about. You're worried that you may not actually get the offer! And having set everyone else's expectations for the end of your continued work there, you possibly lose face and certainly have some difficulty resuming your relationships. And meanwhile, your department chair, who was perhaps anxiously searching for your replacement, now may be in a difficult position.
What's done is done, but going forward, I would not mention it to a single other person. |
157,039 | I am not a native English speaker. It is very confusing how to answering "Yes." or "No." for a negative question with "right?" added at the end.
>
> Tom: She doesn't hate me, right?
>
>
> Tom's Friend: 1. Yes. 2. No.
>
>
>
Let's say, Tom's friend said "yes". If the "yes" is for the part of the question before "right", it means she hates Tom. But if the "yes" is interpreted as an answer for "right?" part, it sounds like she doesn't hate Tom.
Which is right?
A lot of thanks to you for the help. | 2018/02/19 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/157039",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/21771/"
] | I think 'right' is a red herring. With or without 'right', 'huh', 'eh', or 'does she' or whatever tag they put at the end, always go with 'yes' if you mean 'yes, she hates me', and 'no' if you mean 'no, she doesn't hate me'. | Because a simple "yes" or "no" answer to a negative question can mean anything, negative questions are difficult to answer even for native speakers.
>
> Tom: She doesn't hate me, does she?
>
> Friend: Yes.
>
> Tom: Wait, yes she **does hate me** or yes she **doesn't hate me**?
>
>
>
It can get even more confusing.
>
> Tom: She doesn't hate me, does she?
>
> Friend: No.
>
> Tom: Are you saying she **doesn't hate me** or she **doesn't *not* hate me**?
>
> Friend: I have no idea what you're asking anymore.
>
>
>
The correct answer to your question is that you should avoid saying simply "yes" or "no", at least if you want to be clear:
>
> Tom: She doesn't hate me, does she?
>
> Friend: **Yes, she doesn't hate you**. But she doesn't really like you either.
>
>
>
You have to wonder why English speakers bother asking negative questions when they are so easily misunderstood, but the language is the way it is. |
157,039 | I am not a native English speaker. It is very confusing how to answering "Yes." or "No." for a negative question with "right?" added at the end.
>
> Tom: She doesn't hate me, right?
>
>
> Tom's Friend: 1. Yes. 2. No.
>
>
>
Let's say, Tom's friend said "yes". If the "yes" is for the part of the question before "right", it means she hates Tom. But if the "yes" is interpreted as an answer for "right?" part, it sounds like she doesn't hate Tom.
Which is right?
A lot of thanks to you for the help. | 2018/02/19 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/157039",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/21771/"
] | When the question is
>
> She doesn't hate me, right?
>
>
>
the idiomatic response will contain either "right" or "wrong". Any mere negative or affirmative will be unclear, an ambiguity that is the stock-in-trade of bad comedy:
>
> Yes.
>
> -- Yes she does or yes she doesn't?
>
>
>
But "right" is unambiguous.
>
> Right.
>
>
>
would mean the answering party concurs with the statement, "She doesn't hate you".
>
> Wrong
>
>
>
would mean the opposite. | I think 'right' is a red herring. With or without 'right', 'huh', 'eh', or 'does she' or whatever tag they put at the end, always go with 'yes' if you mean 'yes, she hates me', and 'no' if you mean 'no, she doesn't hate me'. |
157,039 | I am not a native English speaker. It is very confusing how to answering "Yes." or "No." for a negative question with "right?" added at the end.
>
> Tom: She doesn't hate me, right?
>
>
> Tom's Friend: 1. Yes. 2. No.
>
>
>
Let's say, Tom's friend said "yes". If the "yes" is for the part of the question before "right", it means she hates Tom. But if the "yes" is interpreted as an answer for "right?" part, it sounds like she doesn't hate Tom.
Which is right?
A lot of thanks to you for the help. | 2018/02/19 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/157039",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/21771/"
] | This article might help: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv330.shtml>
>
> if you want to confirm a negative statement, you say no and if you want to disagree with a negative statement, you say yes.
>
>
>
> >
> > You didn't know that Wendy married Brian after all, did you?
> >
> >
> > No, I didn't.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> | Because a simple "yes" or "no" answer to a negative question can mean anything, negative questions are difficult to answer even for native speakers.
>
> Tom: She doesn't hate me, does she?
>
> Friend: Yes.
>
> Tom: Wait, yes she **does hate me** or yes she **doesn't hate me**?
>
>
>
It can get even more confusing.
>
> Tom: She doesn't hate me, does she?
>
> Friend: No.
>
> Tom: Are you saying she **doesn't hate me** or she **doesn't *not* hate me**?
>
> Friend: I have no idea what you're asking anymore.
>
>
>
The correct answer to your question is that you should avoid saying simply "yes" or "no", at least if you want to be clear:
>
> Tom: She doesn't hate me, does she?
>
> Friend: **Yes, she doesn't hate you**. But she doesn't really like you either.
>
>
>
You have to wonder why English speakers bother asking negative questions when they are so easily misunderstood, but the language is the way it is. |
157,039 | I am not a native English speaker. It is very confusing how to answering "Yes." or "No." for a negative question with "right?" added at the end.
>
> Tom: She doesn't hate me, right?
>
>
> Tom's Friend: 1. Yes. 2. No.
>
>
>
Let's say, Tom's friend said "yes". If the "yes" is for the part of the question before "right", it means she hates Tom. But if the "yes" is interpreted as an answer for "right?" part, it sounds like she doesn't hate Tom.
Which is right?
A lot of thanks to you for the help. | 2018/02/19 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/157039",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/21771/"
] | When the question is
>
> She doesn't hate me, right?
>
>
>
the idiomatic response will contain either "right" or "wrong". Any mere negative or affirmative will be unclear, an ambiguity that is the stock-in-trade of bad comedy:
>
> Yes.
>
> -- Yes she does or yes she doesn't?
>
>
>
But "right" is unambiguous.
>
> Right.
>
>
>
would mean the answering party concurs with the statement, "She doesn't hate you".
>
> Wrong
>
>
>
would mean the opposite. | This article might help: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv330.shtml>
>
> if you want to confirm a negative statement, you say no and if you want to disagree with a negative statement, you say yes.
>
>
>
> >
> > You didn't know that Wendy married Brian after all, did you?
> >
> >
> > No, I didn't.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> |
157,039 | I am not a native English speaker. It is very confusing how to answering "Yes." or "No." for a negative question with "right?" added at the end.
>
> Tom: She doesn't hate me, right?
>
>
> Tom's Friend: 1. Yes. 2. No.
>
>
>
Let's say, Tom's friend said "yes". If the "yes" is for the part of the question before "right", it means she hates Tom. But if the "yes" is interpreted as an answer for "right?" part, it sounds like she doesn't hate Tom.
Which is right?
A lot of thanks to you for the help. | 2018/02/19 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/157039",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/21771/"
] | When the question is
>
> She doesn't hate me, right?
>
>
>
the idiomatic response will contain either "right" or "wrong". Any mere negative or affirmative will be unclear, an ambiguity that is the stock-in-trade of bad comedy:
>
> Yes.
>
> -- Yes she does or yes she doesn't?
>
>
>
But "right" is unambiguous.
>
> Right.
>
>
>
would mean the answering party concurs with the statement, "She doesn't hate you".
>
> Wrong
>
>
>
would mean the opposite. | Because a simple "yes" or "no" answer to a negative question can mean anything, negative questions are difficult to answer even for native speakers.
>
> Tom: She doesn't hate me, does she?
>
> Friend: Yes.
>
> Tom: Wait, yes she **does hate me** or yes she **doesn't hate me**?
>
>
>
It can get even more confusing.
>
> Tom: She doesn't hate me, does she?
>
> Friend: No.
>
> Tom: Are you saying she **doesn't hate me** or she **doesn't *not* hate me**?
>
> Friend: I have no idea what you're asking anymore.
>
>
>
The correct answer to your question is that you should avoid saying simply "yes" or "no", at least if you want to be clear:
>
> Tom: She doesn't hate me, does she?
>
> Friend: **Yes, she doesn't hate you**. But she doesn't really like you either.
>
>
>
You have to wonder why English speakers bother asking negative questions when they are so easily misunderstood, but the language is the way it is. |
56,344 | Looking for a launchbar that has the following capabilities:
1. Icons only.
2. Can be free-floating OR pinned to a specific window's title bar.
3. In pinned mode, it has to smartly handle fitting between the title bar icons on the left and right. BONUS points for allowing title bar caption to remain visible.
4. Applications can be dropped on the bar to add them.
5. Data files can be dropped ON existing icons to launch the app with the designated data file.
6. Each bar starts with a drop down menu icon that will allow for editing settings, organize order of existing icons, etc.
An example of something that fulfills all but the pinning aspect would be something like RocketDock. But what I'm looking for is something akin to adding a hotkey bar to an application that doesn't have it already.
Any ideas? | 2009/10/16 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/56344",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/14431/"
] | Use [Rocketdock](http://www.rocketdock.com)... | RocketDock can actually get down to using 16x16 pixel icons, which puts it in the ballpark of fitting onto a titlebar. But it can't be pinned to a window. At least I think it can't. Been awhile. When I ran it, I used 40 pixel size, but I distinctly remember trying it at the smallest size and it would have fit, or come within a pixel or two of fitting. The behaviour is very much what I want, except for the pinning issue. Heck, I'd even go for attaching the solution to the edge of the top window border, if being actually ON the titlebar is impossible. |
160,269 | I came across a website specific to my country (EU/Hungary) that offers to commit academic fraud. Basically, they offer to solve assignments, homework, even online tests, for money. The student sends them the assignment and the money, and he gets back the written solutions. No coaching or live discussion involved.
This website is actively advertised in sponsored posts on a Facebook page that is very popular among the student in my country - more than 50.000 followers - so I'm sure a lot of them this. I feel like something must be done against a service offering services that are "academically illegal", even if they probably made up some half-sound legal ground.
I'm worried about the existence and widespread advertisement of this "service". I don't like that it enables unfair advantage of rich students, who can pay them for every assignment they have. Also, maybe some desperate students use their service and gets in big trouble. Even it's very existence degrades the common belief in academic integrity.
Should I take some actions, or let it go? What are the best actions I, a student, could take against this website? | 2020/12/20 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/160269",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/71042/"
] | This is called contract cheating. It is an old and very well known problem.
Students cannot do anything about advertisements for contract cheating. Since the sellers are usually unaffiliated with universities, universities cannot punish them either.
If you have evidence that someone is purchasing contract cheating services, turn that evidence in to the person responsible for academic integrity at your university. | Several countries have legislated to criminalize the offering of this kind of service. AFAICT, Hungary is not yet among them. So one thing you could do is lobby your local member of the National Assembly to support such legislation. |
160,269 | I came across a website specific to my country (EU/Hungary) that offers to commit academic fraud. Basically, they offer to solve assignments, homework, even online tests, for money. The student sends them the assignment and the money, and he gets back the written solutions. No coaching or live discussion involved.
This website is actively advertised in sponsored posts on a Facebook page that is very popular among the student in my country - more than 50.000 followers - so I'm sure a lot of them this. I feel like something must be done against a service offering services that are "academically illegal", even if they probably made up some half-sound legal ground.
I'm worried about the existence and widespread advertisement of this "service". I don't like that it enables unfair advantage of rich students, who can pay them for every assignment they have. Also, maybe some desperate students use their service and gets in big trouble. Even it's very existence degrades the common belief in academic integrity.
Should I take some actions, or let it go? What are the best actions I, a student, could take against this website? | 2020/12/20 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/160269",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/71042/"
] | This is called contract cheating. It is an old and very well known problem.
Students cannot do anything about advertisements for contract cheating. Since the sellers are usually unaffiliated with universities, universities cannot punish them either.
If you have evidence that someone is purchasing contract cheating services, turn that evidence in to the person responsible for academic integrity at your university. | Those services provide assistance with homework assignments, which reveals a critical flaw of such assessments: the school can't be sure that the student really did the assessment themself.
Hell, even without such online pay-to-do-my-homework services, a student could ask their parent, friend, or another classmate to do the assessment for them.
The way the school can balance this is by putting more weight on in-person examinations, where they can be sure the student is the one doing the assessment (by checking ID etc).
As a student, you can bring such issues to their attention, and if your school only does homework-type assessments, you can persuade them to also do in-person examinations. |
549,900 | So I got ibs pinyin working on Ubuntu, but the input candidates appear at the bottom of my screen not near the cursor where they're supposed to.
This is quite annoying as you gotta look in two places on the screen at once: eg. if i'm typing in my browser's address bar. | 2014/11/15 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/549900",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/348265/"
] | To solve the ibus pinyin candidate appear at bottom of some application, You need to install extra packet, which I think is ibus-gtk.
Synaptic Package Manager -> search for ibus -> Mark recommended for installation -> install ibus-gtk and log out. | I solved this by installing the `ibus-gtk3` package, logging out and then logging in again. I'm using Linux Mint 17.3, but this should work on any other distros. No need to install all of the ibus-\* packages. |
1,787,351 | I'm having problems with a Joomla install (problem exists in both 1.5.13 and 1.5.15) that won't order articles in a category or section blog layout.
I've tried setting the sort order on the layout manually to all the different sort options but it has no effect.
Ordering on the front page works fine.
Any ideas? | 2009/11/24 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1787351",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | You need to Enable Custom Ordering...
install-climber.blogspot.com/2011/09/set-custom-articles-order-parameter-or.html | In the options for the menu item (i.e. when you click the item name), look on the right hand side and click "Parameters (Advanced)".
You should set *Category Order* to "No, order by Primary Order only" and *Primary Order* to "Default" (or "Most recent first" if that doesn't work). |
1,787,351 | I'm having problems with a Joomla install (problem exists in both 1.5.13 and 1.5.15) that won't order articles in a category or section blog layout.
I've tried setting the sort order on the layout manually to all the different sort options but it has no effect.
Ordering on the front page works fine.
Any ideas? | 2009/11/24 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1787351",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | You need to Enable Custom Ordering...
install-climber.blogspot.com/2011/09/set-custom-articles-order-parameter-or.html | If a Category is tuned to be shown in several columns (f.e. 2), but only 1 column fits in template, the soring may be broken. |
657 | Someone (singular or plural) seem to be down voting a lot of my answers. I do not really care that much about a meaningless reputation number. However, I do care about the overall quality of this site. So, here comes my plea:
**When you down vote, would you please leave a feedback as to either how to improve the question or why you think the answer is erroneous or irrelevant?**
I would be happy to edit my answers to make them more relevant but I cannot do this if all I have is a +7/-1 with no explanations whatsoever. It is possible that this is a vendetta from someone but I am not a mod and cannot check who down votes me. *I really hope no one is that pathetic on this site...* So, down voters:
**Make your reasons be known so the site content gets better.**
Pretty please, with sugar and a cherry on top.
---
After taking my own advise and leaving feedback, I got so much abuse that now I just down vote and leave it at that. Clearly, I was not as jaded then as I am now. | 2013/07/29 | [
"https://history.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/657",
"https://history.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.meta.stackexchange.com/users/103/"
] | A few jumbled thoughts:
* I've been hit too in the last few hours. It *is* frustrating when your old posting history is clearly being "trawled" and lots of old (and well liked - as in historically upvoted - posts) are all being hit with -2. But at the end of the day, it matters so little.
* Eugene says "Report it!" as abuse. However, there is a theory that a user *may* (even objectively and impartially) find one of your posts rubbish and have a look at some of your other posts and mark them down too. It isn't necessarily a vendetta.
* Downvotes are a really important part of the site, and help with site quality. As does closing.
* You say you are not a mod so cannot see who is downvoting you. I'm almost certain mods can't see this either.
* A last point to justify commentless downvoting. If my downvote and comment is very aggressively challenged by the poster (leading to a long comment war) then I can feel put off adding a comment to the downvote the next time. In other words, to reflect your title - **a plea to downvoted posters** - don't take it too personally. Edit your post if you think the downvoting commenter makes a valid criticism. If you think his point is bogus, move on. | I'm a relative newbie here. But I have noticed that across SE some are very quick to downvote. While there are obvious situations which possibly justify downvoting- such as a question asking whether Hitler was an alien, I do feel that giving first time posters a chance to understand the modalities of SE would be in good spirit.
Also, sometimes a simple comment such as "This is not what I asked for" is possibly a better way to handle than a downvote- which is, to be fair, overly harsh when it is simply an answer that is off-track, but possibly researched. Again- I do understand that there are obvious situations which are deliberately obtuse or so completely incoherent that they do demand censure.
I feel a little less rigidity in "History" which is subject to interpretation anyway, would make the site more welcoming for freshers. Your thoughts on these? |
657 | Someone (singular or plural) seem to be down voting a lot of my answers. I do not really care that much about a meaningless reputation number. However, I do care about the overall quality of this site. So, here comes my plea:
**When you down vote, would you please leave a feedback as to either how to improve the question or why you think the answer is erroneous or irrelevant?**
I would be happy to edit my answers to make them more relevant but I cannot do this if all I have is a +7/-1 with no explanations whatsoever. It is possible that this is a vendetta from someone but I am not a mod and cannot check who down votes me. *I really hope no one is that pathetic on this site...* So, down voters:
**Make your reasons be known so the site content gets better.**
Pretty please, with sugar and a cherry on top.
---
After taking my own advise and leaving feedback, I got so much abuse that now I just down vote and leave it at that. Clearly, I was not as jaded then as I am now. | 2013/07/29 | [
"https://history.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/657",
"https://history.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.meta.stackexchange.com/users/103/"
] | There is a reason for anonymous voting. People vote anonymously because they can express their opinions without fear of retribution. H:SE is doing better, but explanations still invite as much personal abuse as they do changes to questions.
I'll continue to strongly advocate anonymous voting; public voting is an incentive to abuse. | A few jumbled thoughts:
* I've been hit too in the last few hours. It *is* frustrating when your old posting history is clearly being "trawled" and lots of old (and well liked - as in historically upvoted - posts) are all being hit with -2. But at the end of the day, it matters so little.
* Eugene says "Report it!" as abuse. However, there is a theory that a user *may* (even objectively and impartially) find one of your posts rubbish and have a look at some of your other posts and mark them down too. It isn't necessarily a vendetta.
* Downvotes are a really important part of the site, and help with site quality. As does closing.
* You say you are not a mod so cannot see who is downvoting you. I'm almost certain mods can't see this either.
* A last point to justify commentless downvoting. If my downvote and comment is very aggressively challenged by the poster (leading to a long comment war) then I can feel put off adding a comment to the downvote the next time. In other words, to reflect your title - **a plea to downvoted posters** - don't take it too personally. Edit your post if you think the downvoting commenter makes a valid criticism. If you think his point is bogus, move on. |
657 | Someone (singular or plural) seem to be down voting a lot of my answers. I do not really care that much about a meaningless reputation number. However, I do care about the overall quality of this site. So, here comes my plea:
**When you down vote, would you please leave a feedback as to either how to improve the question or why you think the answer is erroneous or irrelevant?**
I would be happy to edit my answers to make them more relevant but I cannot do this if all I have is a +7/-1 with no explanations whatsoever. It is possible that this is a vendetta from someone but I am not a mod and cannot check who down votes me. *I really hope no one is that pathetic on this site...* So, down voters:
**Make your reasons be known so the site content gets better.**
Pretty please, with sugar and a cherry on top.
---
After taking my own advise and leaving feedback, I got so much abuse that now I just down vote and leave it at that. Clearly, I was not as jaded then as I am now. | 2013/07/29 | [
"https://history.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/657",
"https://history.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.meta.stackexchange.com/users/103/"
] | A few jumbled thoughts:
* I've been hit too in the last few hours. It *is* frustrating when your old posting history is clearly being "trawled" and lots of old (and well liked - as in historically upvoted - posts) are all being hit with -2. But at the end of the day, it matters so little.
* Eugene says "Report it!" as abuse. However, there is a theory that a user *may* (even objectively and impartially) find one of your posts rubbish and have a look at some of your other posts and mark them down too. It isn't necessarily a vendetta.
* Downvotes are a really important part of the site, and help with site quality. As does closing.
* You say you are not a mod so cannot see who is downvoting you. I'm almost certain mods can't see this either.
* A last point to justify commentless downvoting. If my downvote and comment is very aggressively challenged by the poster (leading to a long comment war) then I can feel put off adding a comment to the downvote the next time. In other words, to reflect your title - **a plea to downvoted posters** - don't take it too personally. Edit your post if you think the downvoting commenter makes a valid criticism. If you think his point is bogus, move on. | I've been downvoted 3 times. On one occasion, I reviewed the downvoted answer I had given and thought 'Yes, my post answer deserved that' so fair enough (even though the downvoter didn't give a reason).
The two other occasions (concerning two different questions) annoyed me as the reasons given were clearly untrue (they also voted to close, but no one else did). There should be some kind of appeal to moderators to review such cases (but maybe the moderators would be swamped...?).
Downvoting is negative, and negativity rarely has any benefits, but inaccurate or offensive posts should definitely be downvoted to discourage such posts. Otherwise, give people a chance to clarify. |
657 | Someone (singular or plural) seem to be down voting a lot of my answers. I do not really care that much about a meaningless reputation number. However, I do care about the overall quality of this site. So, here comes my plea:
**When you down vote, would you please leave a feedback as to either how to improve the question or why you think the answer is erroneous or irrelevant?**
I would be happy to edit my answers to make them more relevant but I cannot do this if all I have is a +7/-1 with no explanations whatsoever. It is possible that this is a vendetta from someone but I am not a mod and cannot check who down votes me. *I really hope no one is that pathetic on this site...* So, down voters:
**Make your reasons be known so the site content gets better.**
Pretty please, with sugar and a cherry on top.
---
After taking my own advise and leaving feedback, I got so much abuse that now I just down vote and leave it at that. Clearly, I was not as jaded then as I am now. | 2013/07/29 | [
"https://history.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/657",
"https://history.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.meta.stackexchange.com/users/103/"
] | I don't downvote that much and do try to provide an explanation when I do, but when I see that my reason for downvoting is already in there, I generally don't add a "+1" post. It's not helpful and I think that in its own way it encourages more comment-argument. It's also against SE guidelines to do so. | I'm a relative newbie here. But I have noticed that across SE some are very quick to downvote. While there are obvious situations which possibly justify downvoting- such as a question asking whether Hitler was an alien, I do feel that giving first time posters a chance to understand the modalities of SE would be in good spirit.
Also, sometimes a simple comment such as "This is not what I asked for" is possibly a better way to handle than a downvote- which is, to be fair, overly harsh when it is simply an answer that is off-track, but possibly researched. Again- I do understand that there are obvious situations which are deliberately obtuse or so completely incoherent that they do demand censure.
I feel a little less rigidity in "History" which is subject to interpretation anyway, would make the site more welcoming for freshers. Your thoughts on these? |
657 | Someone (singular or plural) seem to be down voting a lot of my answers. I do not really care that much about a meaningless reputation number. However, I do care about the overall quality of this site. So, here comes my plea:
**When you down vote, would you please leave a feedback as to either how to improve the question or why you think the answer is erroneous or irrelevant?**
I would be happy to edit my answers to make them more relevant but I cannot do this if all I have is a +7/-1 with no explanations whatsoever. It is possible that this is a vendetta from someone but I am not a mod and cannot check who down votes me. *I really hope no one is that pathetic on this site...* So, down voters:
**Make your reasons be known so the site content gets better.**
Pretty please, with sugar and a cherry on top.
---
After taking my own advise and leaving feedback, I got so much abuse that now I just down vote and leave it at that. Clearly, I was not as jaded then as I am now. | 2013/07/29 | [
"https://history.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/657",
"https://history.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.meta.stackexchange.com/users/103/"
] | There is a reason for anonymous voting. People vote anonymously because they can express their opinions without fear of retribution. H:SE is doing better, but explanations still invite as much personal abuse as they do changes to questions.
I'll continue to strongly advocate anonymous voting; public voting is an incentive to abuse. | I don't downvote that much and do try to provide an explanation when I do, but when I see that my reason for downvoting is already in there, I generally don't add a "+1" post. It's not helpful and I think that in its own way it encourages more comment-argument. It's also against SE guidelines to do so. |
657 | Someone (singular or plural) seem to be down voting a lot of my answers. I do not really care that much about a meaningless reputation number. However, I do care about the overall quality of this site. So, here comes my plea:
**When you down vote, would you please leave a feedback as to either how to improve the question or why you think the answer is erroneous or irrelevant?**
I would be happy to edit my answers to make them more relevant but I cannot do this if all I have is a +7/-1 with no explanations whatsoever. It is possible that this is a vendetta from someone but I am not a mod and cannot check who down votes me. *I really hope no one is that pathetic on this site...* So, down voters:
**Make your reasons be known so the site content gets better.**
Pretty please, with sugar and a cherry on top.
---
After taking my own advise and leaving feedback, I got so much abuse that now I just down vote and leave it at that. Clearly, I was not as jaded then as I am now. | 2013/07/29 | [
"https://history.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/657",
"https://history.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.meta.stackexchange.com/users/103/"
] | I don't downvote that much and do try to provide an explanation when I do, but when I see that my reason for downvoting is already in there, I generally don't add a "+1" post. It's not helpful and I think that in its own way it encourages more comment-argument. It's also against SE guidelines to do so. | I've been downvoted 3 times. On one occasion, I reviewed the downvoted answer I had given and thought 'Yes, my post answer deserved that' so fair enough (even though the downvoter didn't give a reason).
The two other occasions (concerning two different questions) annoyed me as the reasons given were clearly untrue (they also voted to close, but no one else did). There should be some kind of appeal to moderators to review such cases (but maybe the moderators would be swamped...?).
Downvoting is negative, and negativity rarely has any benefits, but inaccurate or offensive posts should definitely be downvoted to discourage such posts. Otherwise, give people a chance to clarify. |
657 | Someone (singular or plural) seem to be down voting a lot of my answers. I do not really care that much about a meaningless reputation number. However, I do care about the overall quality of this site. So, here comes my plea:
**When you down vote, would you please leave a feedback as to either how to improve the question or why you think the answer is erroneous or irrelevant?**
I would be happy to edit my answers to make them more relevant but I cannot do this if all I have is a +7/-1 with no explanations whatsoever. It is possible that this is a vendetta from someone but I am not a mod and cannot check who down votes me. *I really hope no one is that pathetic on this site...* So, down voters:
**Make your reasons be known so the site content gets better.**
Pretty please, with sugar and a cherry on top.
---
After taking my own advise and leaving feedback, I got so much abuse that now I just down vote and leave it at that. Clearly, I was not as jaded then as I am now. | 2013/07/29 | [
"https://history.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/657",
"https://history.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.meta.stackexchange.com/users/103/"
] | There is a reason for anonymous voting. People vote anonymously because they can express their opinions without fear of retribution. H:SE is doing better, but explanations still invite as much personal abuse as they do changes to questions.
I'll continue to strongly advocate anonymous voting; public voting is an incentive to abuse. | I'm a relative newbie here. But I have noticed that across SE some are very quick to downvote. While there are obvious situations which possibly justify downvoting- such as a question asking whether Hitler was an alien, I do feel that giving first time posters a chance to understand the modalities of SE would be in good spirit.
Also, sometimes a simple comment such as "This is not what I asked for" is possibly a better way to handle than a downvote- which is, to be fair, overly harsh when it is simply an answer that is off-track, but possibly researched. Again- I do understand that there are obvious situations which are deliberately obtuse or so completely incoherent that they do demand censure.
I feel a little less rigidity in "History" which is subject to interpretation anyway, would make the site more welcoming for freshers. Your thoughts on these? |
657 | Someone (singular or plural) seem to be down voting a lot of my answers. I do not really care that much about a meaningless reputation number. However, I do care about the overall quality of this site. So, here comes my plea:
**When you down vote, would you please leave a feedback as to either how to improve the question or why you think the answer is erroneous or irrelevant?**
I would be happy to edit my answers to make them more relevant but I cannot do this if all I have is a +7/-1 with no explanations whatsoever. It is possible that this is a vendetta from someone but I am not a mod and cannot check who down votes me. *I really hope no one is that pathetic on this site...* So, down voters:
**Make your reasons be known so the site content gets better.**
Pretty please, with sugar and a cherry on top.
---
After taking my own advise and leaving feedback, I got so much abuse that now I just down vote and leave it at that. Clearly, I was not as jaded then as I am now. | 2013/07/29 | [
"https://history.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/657",
"https://history.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.meta.stackexchange.com/users/103/"
] | I've been downvoted 3 times. On one occasion, I reviewed the downvoted answer I had given and thought 'Yes, my post answer deserved that' so fair enough (even though the downvoter didn't give a reason).
The two other occasions (concerning two different questions) annoyed me as the reasons given were clearly untrue (they also voted to close, but no one else did). There should be some kind of appeal to moderators to review such cases (but maybe the moderators would be swamped...?).
Downvoting is negative, and negativity rarely has any benefits, but inaccurate or offensive posts should definitely be downvoted to discourage such posts. Otherwise, give people a chance to clarify. | I'm a relative newbie here. But I have noticed that across SE some are very quick to downvote. While there are obvious situations which possibly justify downvoting- such as a question asking whether Hitler was an alien, I do feel that giving first time posters a chance to understand the modalities of SE would be in good spirit.
Also, sometimes a simple comment such as "This is not what I asked for" is possibly a better way to handle than a downvote- which is, to be fair, overly harsh when it is simply an answer that is off-track, but possibly researched. Again- I do understand that there are obvious situations which are deliberately obtuse or so completely incoherent that they do demand censure.
I feel a little less rigidity in "History" which is subject to interpretation anyway, would make the site more welcoming for freshers. Your thoughts on these? |
657 | Someone (singular or plural) seem to be down voting a lot of my answers. I do not really care that much about a meaningless reputation number. However, I do care about the overall quality of this site. So, here comes my plea:
**When you down vote, would you please leave a feedback as to either how to improve the question or why you think the answer is erroneous or irrelevant?**
I would be happy to edit my answers to make them more relevant but I cannot do this if all I have is a +7/-1 with no explanations whatsoever. It is possible that this is a vendetta from someone but I am not a mod and cannot check who down votes me. *I really hope no one is that pathetic on this site...* So, down voters:
**Make your reasons be known so the site content gets better.**
Pretty please, with sugar and a cherry on top.
---
After taking my own advise and leaving feedback, I got so much abuse that now I just down vote and leave it at that. Clearly, I was not as jaded then as I am now. | 2013/07/29 | [
"https://history.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/657",
"https://history.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.meta.stackexchange.com/users/103/"
] | There is a reason for anonymous voting. People vote anonymously because they can express their opinions without fear of retribution. H:SE is doing better, but explanations still invite as much personal abuse as they do changes to questions.
I'll continue to strongly advocate anonymous voting; public voting is an incentive to abuse. | I've been downvoted 3 times. On one occasion, I reviewed the downvoted answer I had given and thought 'Yes, my post answer deserved that' so fair enough (even though the downvoter didn't give a reason).
The two other occasions (concerning two different questions) annoyed me as the reasons given were clearly untrue (they also voted to close, but no one else did). There should be some kind of appeal to moderators to review such cases (but maybe the moderators would be swamped...?).
Downvoting is negative, and negativity rarely has any benefits, but inaccurate or offensive posts should definitely be downvoted to discourage such posts. Otherwise, give people a chance to clarify. |
310,460 | I am looking for ways to have a permanent custom message/note on the primary lock screen on iOS 10+
Have tried [Lock Screen Note](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/lock-screen-note/id930049673?mt=8 "Lock Screen Note") which does it via push notification, but problem is that as soon as I unlock the screen, the notification disappears and I have to re-activate the message in order to have it again.
Any other suggestions? I've seen it work with Norwegian app, that you have a constant message on the screen within a time span before your flight, and I would like to do the same for custom notes.
**Note** I cannot jailbreak my device | 2017/12/28 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/310460",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/36554/"
] | Turns out that the easiest way is to actually use the native Reminders.
* Write a reminder
* Set it to notify you 5 minutes from when you create it
* Enjoy a permanent message on the lock screen until you mark it done
Create as many reminders/notes/messages as you want.
 | If you want it permanent and not just a notification, you could use Photoshop (or similar program) or the built in iPhone photo editor to create a custom lock-screen background that includes the note. Depending on your frequency of changing the note and preference for it looking good anything from a imitation notification to a hand scribbled note could be achieved. |
310,460 | I am looking for ways to have a permanent custom message/note on the primary lock screen on iOS 10+
Have tried [Lock Screen Note](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/lock-screen-note/id930049673?mt=8 "Lock Screen Note") which does it via push notification, but problem is that as soon as I unlock the screen, the notification disappears and I have to re-activate the message in order to have it again.
Any other suggestions? I've seen it work with Norwegian app, that you have a constant message on the screen within a time span before your flight, and I would like to do the same for custom notes.
**Note** I cannot jailbreak my device | 2017/12/28 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/310460",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/36554/"
] | Turns out that the easiest way is to actually use the native Reminders.
* Write a reminder
* Set it to notify you 5 minutes from when you create it
* Enjoy a permanent message on the lock screen until you mark it done
Create as many reminders/notes/messages as you want.
 | You could try Apple Configurator, available for free on the Mac App Store. Once you’ve downloaded the app, you can set up a configuration that includes a persistent message. Be warned that this forces you to wipe your device, and that restoring from a backup will (as one may expect) wipe the configuration. It installs on the device as a profile. |
8,837 | I recall seeing a hand-drawn picture of spec of a ring (maybe of $\mathbb Z$?) that had been passed around in the early days of the Zariski topology. Does anyone know where I can find a copy? | 2010/11/03 | [
"https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/8837",
"https://math.stackexchange.com",
"https://math.stackexchange.com/users/3009/"
] | I think you mean [this image](https://pbelmans.wordpress.com/2011/05/25/a-latex-version-of-mumfords-impression-of-spec-zx-or-some-tikz-tricks/) by Mumford.
[![spec Z[x] by Mumford](https://i.stack.imgur.com/2e9Cd.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/2e9Cd.jpg) | You are thinking of the picture of Spec($Z[X]$) in Mumford's Red Book of Varieties and Schemes. A reproduction is downloadable at the link posted in the other answer, and other (less famous) pictures of prime spectra appear in the Eisenbud and Harris introductory book on schemes. |
8,837 | I recall seeing a hand-drawn picture of spec of a ring (maybe of $\mathbb Z$?) that had been passed around in the early days of the Zariski topology. Does anyone know where I can find a copy? | 2010/11/03 | [
"https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/8837",
"https://math.stackexchange.com",
"https://math.stackexchange.com/users/3009/"
] | I think you mean [this image](https://pbelmans.wordpress.com/2011/05/25/a-latex-version-of-mumfords-impression-of-spec-zx-or-some-tikz-tricks/) by Mumford.
[![spec Z[x] by Mumford](https://i.stack.imgur.com/2e9Cd.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/2e9Cd.jpg) | Be sure not to miss this very interesting paper (in English) on "Mumford's treasure map" and related concepts: Lieven Le Bruyn: [Un dessins d'enfants](http://matrix.cmi.ua.ac.be/DATA2/Alev60.pdf) |
12,396,533 | Mainly I'm looking for a tool which supports batch conversion to PDF/HTML from some markup language (reST/Markdown/Textile), but... there are few conditions:
* Markup language has to be reST/Markdown or like them
* there should be simple editor with preview (for example Gedit3 + Markdown plugin or something like that)
* there has to be batch converter between many formats - just like Pandoc, but with full markup language support
Pandoc is great, but unfortunately it doesn't support reST directives ex. ..container
Right now I can't decide which markup lang is the best for me. I was using Markdown, because I had quite simple Gedit's plugin to preview output during writing. Right now I'm testing Sphinx, because I have to find a tool to create good documentation and Sphinx uses reST. reST also supports custom directives and today I found out that "container" directive would help me a lot. I've never tried Textile.
I'm trying to write almost all documents in some markup language - I'd like to avoid DOC, DOCX, pure Latex, but still I can't find the one. Some of them supports tables, other with extensions, another ones has no simple editor with preview etc. | 2012/09/12 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/12396533",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/342843/"
] | The reference (Python) implementation of reStructuredText is [docutils](http://docutils.sourceforge.net/), which obviously has full support for the reStructuredText language specification and which Sphinx is in fact built upon. It is not as versatile as Pandoc, but if you are looking for a full implementation of reStructuredText and are already using Sphinx then docutils may be a good bet. Some limitations of docutils to note:
* Less output formats than Pandoc.
* Only supports reStructuredText as an input format, Pandoc supports reStructuredText, markdown, HTML, LaTeX etc.
* One way only conversion (Pandoc, for example can convert, say, reStructuredText to HTML and then HTML to reStructuredText; docutils can only perform the former conversion).
I have never come across a markdown or reStructuredText editor with a built-in preview window.
Docutils is very easy to script, so should be more than suitable for batch processing of text files. I have seen a number of websites written in reStructuredText which use a simple makefile rule to build the HTML and deploy to a server. | You can use [Pandoc with a preprocessor](http://randomdeterminism.wordpress.com/2012/06/01/how-i-stopped-worring-and-started-using-markdown-like-tex/) like `gpp`.
A markdown editor with beautiful typography (but not so complete) preview is [iA Writer](http://www.iawriter.com/). |
24,713 | I have 2 malfunctioning keys in my laptop's keyboard. First I tried to buy replacement keys online, but they are only available in foreign countries and charges are too high. Then I tried to buy a full replacement keyboard, but again payment problems in foreign. Finally I bought a keyboard from India only, but the quality was very bad. I had planned I will remove keys from the new one and replace on my laptop, but they were different kind of keys. So I returned it as it was expensive and not very good quality.
Then I talked to my laptop's customer care. They told me installation charges which I can't afford as they were much more than the price of the laptop.
Finally, I was very depressed as just because of 2 malfunctioning keys, I'm facing so much trouble.
Here are photos of problems with the keys:
**Key 1 (~):** The one part of hinge became very loose because maybe of friction. So it keeps coming out. See photos:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/CrrKd.jpg)[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/QtImp.jpg)
**Key 2 (R):** The problem is with key itself. A slight part of the key is broken (I have the broken tiny part still with me incase possible to *glue* it again). See photos:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4ZdQq.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/i7onq.jpg)
R isn't causing much problem because only one part is broken, but soon it will affect other parts too.
[Here](https://laptopkey.com/dell-inspiron-7570-laptop-keyboard-keys/) is a page that has more details about similar key types (D206) in case you want to see better images.
So is there any way to buy some less expensive tools and fix these keys at home? Maybe *glue* them to hinge? Or fix those tiny broken/loose parts? | 2021/04/27 | [
"https://lifehacks.stackexchange.com/questions/24713",
"https://lifehacks.stackexchange.com",
"https://lifehacks.stackexchange.com/users/24513/"
] | Maybe you can find an old laptop for cheap and salvage the keyboard.
I don't know which resources are available to you, but you might
* Go to a scrap yard (preferably one specialized in electronics) and search for a broken laptop with the same keyboard. Scrap dealers are mostly interested in the metals, but plastic keys are worthless for them.
* Use online platforms like ebay or facebook or whatever is available to you to search for a cheap old laptop. (Where I live there's "ebay" for professional traders and there's "ebay small ads" for private people to sell used and second hand stuff)
* Ask in electronics shops around you if they may have an old and broken laptop with the same keyboard. Maybe a customer recently had their keyboard replaced and the shop still has the broken keyboard. All you need is some keys.
If a laptop is broken and doesn't work anymore, it's useless for most people and they may give it to you for free or very cheap. All you need is the keyboard. | If possible, exchange the part(s) with their twins from rarely-used keys.
After you have gotten the weakened part into a low-traffic position, some replacement or repair can be done to lengthen its useful life.
Comment: I find that some of the materials used by dentists and dental technicians are as high-tech as they come. Many materials exist to bond, build-up, weld, reinforce, and attach which are activated by heat, chemical interactions, and ultraviolet radiation. Some pride themselves as skilled structural engineers in miniature. Perhaps a mold can be made for a cast replacement. I would seek their advice for the scale of your requirements.
Good luck. |
24,713 | I have 2 malfunctioning keys in my laptop's keyboard. First I tried to buy replacement keys online, but they are only available in foreign countries and charges are too high. Then I tried to buy a full replacement keyboard, but again payment problems in foreign. Finally I bought a keyboard from India only, but the quality was very bad. I had planned I will remove keys from the new one and replace on my laptop, but they were different kind of keys. So I returned it as it was expensive and not very good quality.
Then I talked to my laptop's customer care. They told me installation charges which I can't afford as they were much more than the price of the laptop.
Finally, I was very depressed as just because of 2 malfunctioning keys, I'm facing so much trouble.
Here are photos of problems with the keys:
**Key 1 (~):** The one part of hinge became very loose because maybe of friction. So it keeps coming out. See photos:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/CrrKd.jpg)[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/QtImp.jpg)
**Key 2 (R):** The problem is with key itself. A slight part of the key is broken (I have the broken tiny part still with me incase possible to *glue* it again). See photos:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4ZdQq.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/i7onq.jpg)
R isn't causing much problem because only one part is broken, but soon it will affect other parts too.
[Here](https://laptopkey.com/dell-inspiron-7570-laptop-keyboard-keys/) is a page that has more details about similar key types (D206) in case you want to see better images.
So is there any way to buy some less expensive tools and fix these keys at home? Maybe *glue* them to hinge? Or fix those tiny broken/loose parts? | 2021/04/27 | [
"https://lifehacks.stackexchange.com/questions/24713",
"https://lifehacks.stackexchange.com",
"https://lifehacks.stackexchange.com/users/24513/"
] | If possible, exchange the part(s) with their twins from rarely-used keys.
After you have gotten the weakened part into a low-traffic position, some replacement or repair can be done to lengthen its useful life.
Comment: I find that some of the materials used by dentists and dental technicians are as high-tech as they come. Many materials exist to bond, build-up, weld, reinforce, and attach which are activated by heat, chemical interactions, and ultraviolet radiation. Some pride themselves as skilled structural engineers in miniature. Perhaps a mold can be made for a cast replacement. I would seek their advice for the scale of your requirements.
Good luck. | I have worked around broken keys on a laptop keyboard by setting up keyboard remappings using the operating system and free software. In Linux it's trivial and built-in. In MacOS it's a little harder ... some common remappings are built-in but for others you'll need Karabiner Elements or Hammerspoon or the like. I'm less familiar with Windows 10 solutions but I think Autohotkey is a reasonable choice; you may also be able to remap keys using Windows Powertoys from Microsoft. For example you could remap 4 to R and F4 to 4 (and maybe all the Fi keys to numbers so you don't get confused ... you can customize it however you want).
For an extra weird solution, that I've never tried but might work, turn on voice control and just say R when you want that key ... type all the others. That could be annoying, though, if you're in a quiet or loud environment.
A very lightweight and cool looking solution, if you're willing to spend some money, is a projection keyboard aka laser keyboard. I got one for my wife as a joke, but it turned out it really works well and she loves it. Read reviews and check return policy before you commit. It's not really practical if you do a lot of typing, however. |
24,713 | I have 2 malfunctioning keys in my laptop's keyboard. First I tried to buy replacement keys online, but they are only available in foreign countries and charges are too high. Then I tried to buy a full replacement keyboard, but again payment problems in foreign. Finally I bought a keyboard from India only, but the quality was very bad. I had planned I will remove keys from the new one and replace on my laptop, but they were different kind of keys. So I returned it as it was expensive and not very good quality.
Then I talked to my laptop's customer care. They told me installation charges which I can't afford as they were much more than the price of the laptop.
Finally, I was very depressed as just because of 2 malfunctioning keys, I'm facing so much trouble.
Here are photos of problems with the keys:
**Key 1 (~):** The one part of hinge became very loose because maybe of friction. So it keeps coming out. See photos:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/CrrKd.jpg)[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/QtImp.jpg)
**Key 2 (R):** The problem is with key itself. A slight part of the key is broken (I have the broken tiny part still with me incase possible to *glue* it again). See photos:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4ZdQq.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/i7onq.jpg)
R isn't causing much problem because only one part is broken, but soon it will affect other parts too.
[Here](https://laptopkey.com/dell-inspiron-7570-laptop-keyboard-keys/) is a page that has more details about similar key types (D206) in case you want to see better images.
So is there any way to buy some less expensive tools and fix these keys at home? Maybe *glue* them to hinge? Or fix those tiny broken/loose parts? | 2021/04/27 | [
"https://lifehacks.stackexchange.com/questions/24713",
"https://lifehacks.stackexchange.com",
"https://lifehacks.stackexchange.com/users/24513/"
] | Maybe you can find an old laptop for cheap and salvage the keyboard.
I don't know which resources are available to you, but you might
* Go to a scrap yard (preferably one specialized in electronics) and search for a broken laptop with the same keyboard. Scrap dealers are mostly interested in the metals, but plastic keys are worthless for them.
* Use online platforms like ebay or facebook or whatever is available to you to search for a cheap old laptop. (Where I live there's "ebay" for professional traders and there's "ebay small ads" for private people to sell used and second hand stuff)
* Ask in electronics shops around you if they may have an old and broken laptop with the same keyboard. Maybe a customer recently had their keyboard replaced and the shop still has the broken keyboard. All you need is some keys.
If a laptop is broken and doesn't work anymore, it's useless for most people and they may give it to you for free or very cheap. All you need is the keyboard. | I have worked around broken keys on a laptop keyboard by setting up keyboard remappings using the operating system and free software. In Linux it's trivial and built-in. In MacOS it's a little harder ... some common remappings are built-in but for others you'll need Karabiner Elements or Hammerspoon or the like. I'm less familiar with Windows 10 solutions but I think Autohotkey is a reasonable choice; you may also be able to remap keys using Windows Powertoys from Microsoft. For example you could remap 4 to R and F4 to 4 (and maybe all the Fi keys to numbers so you don't get confused ... you can customize it however you want).
For an extra weird solution, that I've never tried but might work, turn on voice control and just say R when you want that key ... type all the others. That could be annoying, though, if you're in a quiet or loud environment.
A very lightweight and cool looking solution, if you're willing to spend some money, is a projection keyboard aka laser keyboard. I got one for my wife as a joke, but it turned out it really works well and she loves it. Read reviews and check return policy before you commit. It's not really practical if you do a lot of typing, however. |
39,103 | I'm working on a workflow in WSS 3.0 that involves copying an item from list #1 to list #2.
The issue I'm having is that the user that initiates the workflow on list #1 must have contribute permission on list #2 for the workflow to work but the user must not be able to see or find list #2.
Is there any way of letting a user create items in a list through a workflow but not being able to see it?
I didn't think this would be a problem when I started setting up the workflow as I somehow thought I could run a workflow as a specific user but it looks like that isn't possible.
Does anyone have any ideas?
Thanks! | 2012/06/21 | [
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/questions/39103",
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com",
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/users/6089/"
] | In SharePoint Designer, right click on list #2 and select Properties. Click on the Settings tab and select the option Hide from Browsers and click OK. This will remove the list from the interface.
Those working with the data in that list will need hooks into it or separate web part pages with access to the list. | You can create a 2cd workflow an run it from the first workflow. As a secondary workflow it will run under the system account not the users account. I usual name these workflow starting with "x\_" I build the system to hide workflow starting these characters so they are never seen by end users. |
5,327,340 | I am currently building a game server (not an engine), and I want it to be extendable, like a plugin system.
The solution I found is to use a scripting language. So far, so good.
I'm not sure if I should use Ruby or Lua. Lua is easier to embed, but Ruby has a larger library, and better syntax (in my opinion). The problem is, there is no easy way I found to use Ruby as scripting language with C++, whereas it's very easy with Lua.
Toughs about this? Suggestions for using Ruby as scripting language (I tried SWIG, but it isn't nearly as neat as using Lua)?
Thanks. | 2011/03/16 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5327340",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/548224/"
] | You may be interested in learning about [Squirrel](http://squirrel-lang.org/). I believe it was the scripting language used by [Left 4 Dead 2](http://modsonline.com/Tutorials-read-686.html). It is more advanced than lua (uses objects and classes) and is meant to easily be embedded in a C++ app, which sounds like exactly what you are looking for. | Go for lua, though i'd recommend luajit, not only for speed, but for the new ffi library, boosting intercommunication to the max :). Lua also has tones of modules, and new ones are very easy to create, this makes up for the lack in its stdlib. |
5,327,340 | I am currently building a game server (not an engine), and I want it to be extendable, like a plugin system.
The solution I found is to use a scripting language. So far, so good.
I'm not sure if I should use Ruby or Lua. Lua is easier to embed, but Ruby has a larger library, and better syntax (in my opinion). The problem is, there is no easy way I found to use Ruby as scripting language with C++, whereas it's very easy with Lua.
Toughs about this? Suggestions for using Ruby as scripting language (I tried SWIG, but it isn't nearly as neat as using Lua)?
Thanks. | 2011/03/16 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5327340",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/548224/"
] | You may be interested in learning about [Squirrel](http://squirrel-lang.org/). I believe it was the scripting language used by [Left 4 Dead 2](http://modsonline.com/Tutorials-read-686.html). It is more advanced than lua (uses objects and classes) and is meant to easily be embedded in a C++ app, which sounds like exactly what you are looking for. | I would go with whatever was easiest to learn/has the most gamers using it. You want it to be as accessible to your customers as possible. |
5,327,340 | I am currently building a game server (not an engine), and I want it to be extendable, like a plugin system.
The solution I found is to use a scripting language. So far, so good.
I'm not sure if I should use Ruby or Lua. Lua is easier to embed, but Ruby has a larger library, and better syntax (in my opinion). The problem is, there is no easy way I found to use Ruby as scripting language with C++, whereas it's very easy with Lua.
Toughs about this? Suggestions for using Ruby as scripting language (I tried SWIG, but it isn't nearly as neat as using Lua)?
Thanks. | 2011/03/16 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5327340",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/548224/"
] | I've used Lua extensively in the past.
Luabind is really easy to use, there is no need for an external generator like SWIG, the doc is great. Compile times remain decent.
Biggest problem I've seen : lua is mostly ... write-only. You don't really have classes, but only associative arrays with a bit of syntaxic sugar ( object['key'] can be written object.key ), so you easily end up adding a 'member' in an obscure function, completely forget about it, and have side effects later.
For this reason, and this reason only, I'd prefer Python. Boost::Python is the basis for Luabind so both have a similar API (Luabind used to be slightly easier to build but not anymore). In terms of functionality, they are quite equivalent.
Not directly related : None of these can be reliably used in a multithreaded environment (so this depends on the complexity of your server).
* N Python threads : the GIL ( Global Interpreter Lock ) is on your way. Each and every time you use a variable in a thread, it's locked, so it kinda ruins the point, except for long I/O operations and calls to C functions.
* lua has coroutines, but they aren't parallelisable.
* Ruby threads aren't really threads, but similar to Lua's coroutines
Note that you can still create one environement for each thread, but they won't be able to communicate (except with a C++ machinery). This is especially easy in Lua. | You may be interested in learning about [Squirrel](http://squirrel-lang.org/). I believe it was the scripting language used by [Left 4 Dead 2](http://modsonline.com/Tutorials-read-686.html). It is more advanced than lua (uses objects and classes) and is meant to easily be embedded in a C++ app, which sounds like exactly what you are looking for. |
5,327,340 | I am currently building a game server (not an engine), and I want it to be extendable, like a plugin system.
The solution I found is to use a scripting language. So far, so good.
I'm not sure if I should use Ruby or Lua. Lua is easier to embed, but Ruby has a larger library, and better syntax (in my opinion). The problem is, there is no easy way I found to use Ruby as scripting language with C++, whereas it's very easy with Lua.
Toughs about this? Suggestions for using Ruby as scripting language (I tried SWIG, but it isn't nearly as neat as using Lua)?
Thanks. | 2011/03/16 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5327340",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/548224/"
] | I've looked at embedding Ruby into C/C++ before, and it seemed extremely difficult. There are a lot of challenges you'll face:
* Calling into Ruby from C/C++ requires 2 layers of functions to be written (one layer to call, and one to catch exceptions)
* Calling back into C/C++ from Ruby requires the normal SWIG-type work
* Moving data back and forth requires keeping careful track of allocations, since Ruby will want to garbage collect anything it can
I'm sure that this *can* be done, but it seemed extremely difficult to me, only doable if you can jump into Ruby in a minimum of entry points. | You may be interested in learning about [Squirrel](http://squirrel-lang.org/). I believe it was the scripting language used by [Left 4 Dead 2](http://modsonline.com/Tutorials-read-686.html). It is more advanced than lua (uses objects and classes) and is meant to easily be embedded in a C++ app, which sounds like exactly what you are looking for. |
5,327,340 | I am currently building a game server (not an engine), and I want it to be extendable, like a plugin system.
The solution I found is to use a scripting language. So far, so good.
I'm not sure if I should use Ruby or Lua. Lua is easier to embed, but Ruby has a larger library, and better syntax (in my opinion). The problem is, there is no easy way I found to use Ruby as scripting language with C++, whereas it's very easy with Lua.
Toughs about this? Suggestions for using Ruby as scripting language (I tried SWIG, but it isn't nearly as neat as using Lua)?
Thanks. | 2011/03/16 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5327340",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/548224/"
] | I've looked at embedding Ruby into C/C++ before, and it seemed extremely difficult. There are a lot of challenges you'll face:
* Calling into Ruby from C/C++ requires 2 layers of functions to be written (one layer to call, and one to catch exceptions)
* Calling back into C/C++ from Ruby requires the normal SWIG-type work
* Moving data back and forth requires keeping careful track of allocations, since Ruby will want to garbage collect anything it can
I'm sure that this *can* be done, but it seemed extremely difficult to me, only doable if you can jump into Ruby in a minimum of entry points. | Go for lua, though i'd recommend luajit, not only for speed, but for the new ffi library, boosting intercommunication to the max :). Lua also has tones of modules, and new ones are very easy to create, this makes up for the lack in its stdlib. |
5,327,340 | I am currently building a game server (not an engine), and I want it to be extendable, like a plugin system.
The solution I found is to use a scripting language. So far, so good.
I'm not sure if I should use Ruby or Lua. Lua is easier to embed, but Ruby has a larger library, and better syntax (in my opinion). The problem is, there is no easy way I found to use Ruby as scripting language with C++, whereas it's very easy with Lua.
Toughs about this? Suggestions for using Ruby as scripting language (I tried SWIG, but it isn't nearly as neat as using Lua)?
Thanks. | 2011/03/16 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5327340",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/548224/"
] | One thing Lua has going for it is its ability to shuttle data between C++ (or C) and itself very easily. Essentially you're just pushing/popping data onto a stack in order to communicate between the two. Having multiple Lua environments up and running at the same time is quite simple as well (should you need that functionality). Although Lua is a garbage collected language, it's easy to prevent it from doing so on data that needs to stick around in your C++ code. Creating an extensible plugin system should be easy with Lua once you lay the groundwork. Swapping plugins (in this case, scripts) in and out at runtime is also pretty trivial (although this may be true for Ruby as well, I'm not familiar enough with it to know).
One thing to think about is how much object-oriented stuff you want your scripts to be able to handle. Lua uses functions, tables, metatables, and prototypes to implement OO-like programming. Some people like it, some don't; personally I found it interesting to use, if a bit clunky at times. Not having used Ruby, I can't speak for it, but you may want to weigh your need for object/class support.
I think in your situation you should also consider how fast you want to get your project up and running. As you and others have noted, Ruby is hard to embed in C++, whereas Lua is not. Time is always precious and if you want to get something working ASAP, Lua is probably your best bet. | I would go with whatever was easiest to learn/has the most gamers using it. You want it to be as accessible to your customers as possible. |
5,327,340 | I am currently building a game server (not an engine), and I want it to be extendable, like a plugin system.
The solution I found is to use a scripting language. So far, so good.
I'm not sure if I should use Ruby or Lua. Lua is easier to embed, but Ruby has a larger library, and better syntax (in my opinion). The problem is, there is no easy way I found to use Ruby as scripting language with C++, whereas it's very easy with Lua.
Toughs about this? Suggestions for using Ruby as scripting language (I tried SWIG, but it isn't nearly as neat as using Lua)?
Thanks. | 2011/03/16 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5327340",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/548224/"
] | You may be interested in learning about [Squirrel](http://squirrel-lang.org/). I believe it was the scripting language used by [Left 4 Dead 2](http://modsonline.com/Tutorials-read-686.html). It is more advanced than lua (uses objects and classes) and is meant to easily be embedded in a C++ app, which sounds like exactly what you are looking for. | One thing Lua has going for it is its ability to shuttle data between C++ (or C) and itself very easily. Essentially you're just pushing/popping data onto a stack in order to communicate between the two. Having multiple Lua environments up and running at the same time is quite simple as well (should you need that functionality). Although Lua is a garbage collected language, it's easy to prevent it from doing so on data that needs to stick around in your C++ code. Creating an extensible plugin system should be easy with Lua once you lay the groundwork. Swapping plugins (in this case, scripts) in and out at runtime is also pretty trivial (although this may be true for Ruby as well, I'm not familiar enough with it to know).
One thing to think about is how much object-oriented stuff you want your scripts to be able to handle. Lua uses functions, tables, metatables, and prototypes to implement OO-like programming. Some people like it, some don't; personally I found it interesting to use, if a bit clunky at times. Not having used Ruby, I can't speak for it, but you may want to weigh your need for object/class support.
I think in your situation you should also consider how fast you want to get your project up and running. As you and others have noted, Ruby is hard to embed in C++, whereas Lua is not. Time is always precious and if you want to get something working ASAP, Lua is probably your best bet. |
5,327,340 | I am currently building a game server (not an engine), and I want it to be extendable, like a plugin system.
The solution I found is to use a scripting language. So far, so good.
I'm not sure if I should use Ruby or Lua. Lua is easier to embed, but Ruby has a larger library, and better syntax (in my opinion). The problem is, there is no easy way I found to use Ruby as scripting language with C++, whereas it's very easy with Lua.
Toughs about this? Suggestions for using Ruby as scripting language (I tried SWIG, but it isn't nearly as neat as using Lua)?
Thanks. | 2011/03/16 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5327340",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/548224/"
] | I've looked at embedding Ruby into C/C++ before, and it seemed extremely difficult. There are a lot of challenges you'll face:
* Calling into Ruby from C/C++ requires 2 layers of functions to be written (one layer to call, and one to catch exceptions)
* Calling back into C/C++ from Ruby requires the normal SWIG-type work
* Moving data back and forth requires keeping careful track of allocations, since Ruby will want to garbage collect anything it can
I'm sure that this *can* be done, but it seemed extremely difficult to me, only doable if you can jump into Ruby in a minimum of entry points. | I would go with whatever was easiest to learn/has the most gamers using it. You want it to be as accessible to your customers as possible. |
5,327,340 | I am currently building a game server (not an engine), and I want it to be extendable, like a plugin system.
The solution I found is to use a scripting language. So far, so good.
I'm not sure if I should use Ruby or Lua. Lua is easier to embed, but Ruby has a larger library, and better syntax (in my opinion). The problem is, there is no easy way I found to use Ruby as scripting language with C++, whereas it's very easy with Lua.
Toughs about this? Suggestions for using Ruby as scripting language (I tried SWIG, but it isn't nearly as neat as using Lua)?
Thanks. | 2011/03/16 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5327340",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/548224/"
] | I've used Lua extensively in the past.
Luabind is really easy to use, there is no need for an external generator like SWIG, the doc is great. Compile times remain decent.
Biggest problem I've seen : lua is mostly ... write-only. You don't really have classes, but only associative arrays with a bit of syntaxic sugar ( object['key'] can be written object.key ), so you easily end up adding a 'member' in an obscure function, completely forget about it, and have side effects later.
For this reason, and this reason only, I'd prefer Python. Boost::Python is the basis for Luabind so both have a similar API (Luabind used to be slightly easier to build but not anymore). In terms of functionality, they are quite equivalent.
Not directly related : None of these can be reliably used in a multithreaded environment (so this depends on the complexity of your server).
* N Python threads : the GIL ( Global Interpreter Lock ) is on your way. Each and every time you use a variable in a thread, it's locked, so it kinda ruins the point, except for long I/O operations and calls to C functions.
* lua has coroutines, but they aren't parallelisable.
* Ruby threads aren't really threads, but similar to Lua's coroutines
Note that you can still create one environement for each thread, but they won't be able to communicate (except with a C++ machinery). This is especially easy in Lua. | I would go with whatever was easiest to learn/has the most gamers using it. You want it to be as accessible to your customers as possible. |
5,327,340 | I am currently building a game server (not an engine), and I want it to be extendable, like a plugin system.
The solution I found is to use a scripting language. So far, so good.
I'm not sure if I should use Ruby or Lua. Lua is easier to embed, but Ruby has a larger library, and better syntax (in my opinion). The problem is, there is no easy way I found to use Ruby as scripting language with C++, whereas it's very easy with Lua.
Toughs about this? Suggestions for using Ruby as scripting language (I tried SWIG, but it isn't nearly as neat as using Lua)?
Thanks. | 2011/03/16 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5327340",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/548224/"
] | I've looked at embedding Ruby into C/C++ before, and it seemed extremely difficult. There are a lot of challenges you'll face:
* Calling into Ruby from C/C++ requires 2 layers of functions to be written (one layer to call, and one to catch exceptions)
* Calling back into C/C++ from Ruby requires the normal SWIG-type work
* Moving data back and forth requires keeping careful track of allocations, since Ruby will want to garbage collect anything it can
I'm sure that this *can* be done, but it seemed extremely difficult to me, only doable if you can jump into Ruby in a minimum of entry points. | One thing Lua has going for it is its ability to shuttle data between C++ (or C) and itself very easily. Essentially you're just pushing/popping data onto a stack in order to communicate between the two. Having multiple Lua environments up and running at the same time is quite simple as well (should you need that functionality). Although Lua is a garbage collected language, it's easy to prevent it from doing so on data that needs to stick around in your C++ code. Creating an extensible plugin system should be easy with Lua once you lay the groundwork. Swapping plugins (in this case, scripts) in and out at runtime is also pretty trivial (although this may be true for Ruby as well, I'm not familiar enough with it to know).
One thing to think about is how much object-oriented stuff you want your scripts to be able to handle. Lua uses functions, tables, metatables, and prototypes to implement OO-like programming. Some people like it, some don't; personally I found it interesting to use, if a bit clunky at times. Not having used Ruby, I can't speak for it, but you may want to weigh your need for object/class support.
I think in your situation you should also consider how fast you want to get your project up and running. As you and others have noted, Ruby is hard to embed in C++, whereas Lua is not. Time is always precious and if you want to get something working ASAP, Lua is probably your best bet. |
65,328 | I've built a water droplet photography rig, and the last piece of the puzzle is finding the right flash setup. I have a Canon 6D, and I already have a Canon 320EX flash. I need at least one more flash so that I can light the setup well, have multiple flash colors, etc. I'm thinking I'll get a 430EX II.
I have thoroughly scoured the internet for answers, but I can't figure out the best way to trigger the flashes. Due to the nature of water droplet photography, neither flash will be on the hot shoe of the camera, they will both be remotely located, although only a few feet away from the camera.
I know that the flashes can be triggered with an IR signal, or a radio signal, or using a sync cable. I know that some of these options allow the camera to tell the flash what its output power should be, and some of these options don't allow that. But it's hard to tell which one is which. I would prefer to have an option that allows for the automatic adjustment of flash power, because the 320EX doesn't have a manual adjustment on it, and I'll need to have the flashes operating around 1/64 power (or less) to keep the flash duration as short as possible, so that the water droplets aren't blurry. Does the 320EX support having its output power automatically adjusted when it's not sitting directly on the hot shoe?
If I use sync cables, will that transfer the information to control the output power of the flashes? Can I "split" a sync cable so that it can connect to both flashes?
If I use IR, what's the best transmitter (since the 6D doesn't have one built in)? Do both the 320EX and 430EX II support this mode of triggering? Will it transfer the information to control the output power of the flashes?
If I use radio, what are some good transmitter/receivers? Will they transfer the information to control the output power of the flashes? (I do some other work that would benefit from the long range of radio triggering, so this might be the best option.)
Any advice would be greatly appreciated, my head is spinning from trying to read through product specs and reviews to discover this information. Thanks! | 2015/07/11 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/65328",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/41168/"
] | If you need to remotely control the power of the 320EX, then you have two choices: Canon's near-infrared wireless system, which would require that you get a 550EX, 580EX, 580EXII, 600EX-RT or ST-E2 to put on the 6D's hotshoe; or you get TTL-capable radio triggers that allow for remote power control through the 6D's hotshoe (e.g., Yongnuo YN-622C triggers). Neither of those flashes you're looking at are compatible with Canon's RT radio triggering system.
The 320EX, however, isn't really ideally suited for off-camera use, because of the power control issue. If you have a flash with a Manual mode and power control from the flash's own LCD menus, then you don't need all this fancy stuff, and can get away with cheap manual triggering, and just setting the power level on the flashes.
You could also contemplate getting two Yongnuo YN-560III or 560IV flashes, and a [YN-560-TX transmitter](http://flashhavoc.com/yongnuo-yn560-tx-now-available/), and you'd have remote power control over both flashes. You wouldn't have high-speed sync or eTTL or any of the other fancy features that Canon's EX speedlites could get you, or Canon reliability, but it would cost a lot less. | In addition to what @inkista suggests, Canon's tiny and cheap **90EX** Speedlite can serve as a master flash. On the 6D, I get full fancy wireless (IR) ETTL control of Canon 430EX and Yongnuo YN-465 EX slave flashes. |
15,918 | I'm trying to track the income and expenses of an essence that is not listed as any pre-defined `GnuCash` currency (say, bubble gum stickers, number of calories or air temperature). Is it possible to add new entity type and do accounting of that essence? | 2012/07/07 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/15918",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/6737/"
] | Currencies aren't user editable, but then if you were tracking your investments in bubble gum this probably isn't what you want to do anyway.
What you can do is add what gnucash calls a Security using the tools->security editor dialog. You can choose one of the pre-defined types (AMEX/NASDAQ/FUND/etc) or just type your own.
Once you've created your own security, just add a new account and select the new type you've added from the drop-down and your new security should appear. When you transfer cash into or out of these accounts you'll need to set the rate which applies when converting between the two (as with foreign currency transfers).
This is primarly designed for managing investments in stocks and mutual funds, but it will work just as well for bubble gum, calories or whatever other crazy stuff you need double entry level consistency for. There is also an online quote feature, but last time I checked Yahoo didn't have price data for units of air temperature :). | You can't make currencies, but you can make new funds. I use this feature to track vacation time and point systems that aren't easily converted into dollar amounts. Need to figure out a way to build in default exchange rates, so I don't have to do the math. |
177,493 | I am trying to figure out **how large the population of supernatural beings can be in a stereotypical urban fantasy setting before their numbers stretch the suspension of disbelief**. I.e., your standard setting where supernatural beings live among humans under some sort of masquerade system.
Figuring out how big your supernatural society can be is obviously important for plot purposes. Make the supernatural population too large (say, 1 in 25), and it becomes ridiculous that the supernatural could be kept secret because everyone would know at least someone who is supernatural. Make it too small (say, 100 people worldwide) and you dramatically restrict the possibility for narrative conflict because you have at most one vampire/werewolf/whatever per large city.
The *World of Darkness* gives an oft-cited statistic that there is about 1 vampire for ever 100,000 humans. The best I could figure for a reasonable estimate would be a population ratio comparable to the prevalence rate for a rare disease: something rare enough that almost no one knows someone personally that fits the criterion, even though the disease itself is real.
I realize that in reality there is probably no way the supernatural could keep a reliable masquerade from humanity for any length of time. There have been [studies](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905) that suggest even the best-kept conspiracy (which would be analogous to, in this case: insta-fail if any evidence of supernaturals got out, complete unity by the supernaturals in wanting to stay hidden, and no supernatural-hunting organization of muggles that want to expose them, all of which is highly unlikely) could only last a few decades at best. Even in these situations the best-kept secrets would be at best like the mafia: everyone knows the mafia exists, but few people know who the individual members of the mafia are or their rank within the organization. **I am more looking for an estimate of the largest population possible that would not also break the reader's suspension of disbelief because there is no way a subpopulation of that size could be completely unknown to society at large**.
**Additional Parameters:**
* **The supernatural beings have both a distinctly inhuman form (or cover-blowing superpowers) and can also pass for human to most people**. Think your standard urban fantasy vampires, werewolves, wizards, faeries, djinn, etc. Or even better, the Wesen from *Grimm*. So it's not a case of "they can pass for human even when using supernatural abilities".
* **The supernatural beings in question do not feed on humans.** Therefore, their population is not constrained by the availability of prey, like it would for [something like vampires](http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys317/buffy/vampecology.htm).
* Similarly, **because they can reproduce with humans or can reproduce non-sexually** (i.e., vampire or werewolf bites) **inbreeding or difficulty in finding mates to continue the species is not a concern**
* There are **no "secret hidden cities" or "town where everyone is supernatural but they pretend to be normal to outsiders"** that the supernaturals can set up in the boonies, they are intermixed with the human population.
* **For the purposes of this question, it only matters that the *general public* be unaware of the existence of the supernatural**. [Muggle Best Friends](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MuggleBestFriend) or family members are allowed to know, the existence of the supernatural just can't be common knowledge. The government is also allowed to be aware of supernaturals and complicit in aiding the masquerade. Obviously if the government *did* know about supernaturals and was abetting in hiding their existence, it is only a matter of time before government corruption/incompetence/international realpolitik or WikiLeaks spills the beans to everyone, but still. If you want to go ahead and give separate estimates for population sizes if the government is abetting the masquerade (and hence can make evidence disappear) be my guest, but you don't have to.
* **No mind whammies, glamours, or [flashy thingies](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGZQqhaU4gA) to make people forget about the supernatural**. If muggles see evidence of the supernatural, the only way the supernaturals have to make the evidence disappear through begging, bribery, vandalism, or threats/murder.
* **There is no [magical "weirdness censor"](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ExtraStrengthMasquerade) that will make humans just plain refuse to believe in the supernatural to the point of active denial.** The ability of humans to disbelieve the supernatural is about the same as it is in real life. An isolated paranormal event will be written off. A single person spouting nonsense will be seen as crazy. Repeated sightings of a creature in the woods will draw in cryptid enthusiasts. But strong enough evidence that can't be dismissed by a dedicated skeptic *won't* be ignored and people *will* notice when things are going on, even if they can't peg it as supernatural. What constitutes failure in this scenario is the supernatural being treated as "real" and common knowledge by your average person, rather than just an urban legend.
* **The majority of the supernatural community wants to maintain the masquerade**. Individual exceptions that believe the masquerade is oppressive exist, but they're a small number and are mostly taken out by internal self-policing by the supernaturals (read: staked in a dark alleyway). The supernatural community is mostly unified on this issue. | 2020/05/30 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/177493",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/71841/"
] | The limit is less about how many people can keep a Masquerade that they want to keep, but about at what point is there enough people to create an organized resistance to the cover-up that will ultimately succeed.
### The Masquerade Itself
The key thing about this Masquerade is that its primary tenet is essentially security through obscurity. As the supernatural entities in the world can do just fine without humans, they can choose where they want to exist on the slider of isolation versus integration personally.
So the first main thing to decide is **WHY** there needs to be a Masquerade in the first place -- I didn't see a reason in the question. There needs to be a motive for the dwarfs, vampires, and fey to want to stay generally hidden from the world at large. It might be an outdated reason, but it needs to exist. Without a reason to hide, most people will not bother, and the veil will be lifted.
Next is how to deal with myth and legend. In our world, we already "know" that werewolves and vampires exist -- we have them in stories. We have tales of trickster fey, and angels and demons. Spirits of the world in various forms also pepper literature from ancient times. We already know, but I bet that most of us do not go looking for it and that is the key -- to keep people from wanting to look for it.
Also needing explaining is why your supernatural creatures wouldn't gravitate towards each other. Humans do it all the time -- we call them cities and towns. So is there any reason why after a few decades of codewords and conspiracies, there wouldn't be a Supernatural Quarter in a city or a town with a prominent werewolf population? Not that it is advertised as such of course -- that would be a disaster, but a neighbourhood with a higher population of X is certainly handy when a parent needs a sitter for a youngster without full control.
Basing it on today's world, Social Media and superpowered conflicts will be the biggest threats most likely since the former only takes enough slips for many to put it together starting a cascading failure of the whole thing, and the widespread presence of CCTV means that it will be difficult to hide an epic fight once the human guises come off. That and certain injuries from beings will be distinctive, as would the weapons needed to kill them. Bullets are not often made from or with silver or cold iron.
### Your World
What kind of story are you telling in your world? If you have factions at each other's throat in a secret war that kills many, then that is going to drive that threshold population down as opposed to a story of beings that just want to live their lives and happen to turn into a implacable furry hound when the reflective orb reaches maximum visibility. Governmental assistance might allow this number to be higher as they have more power to arrange things to the being's benefits without tipping off the public. The trick is to not have a Ministry of Supernatural Affairs, but still work with them to make sure they fit in the frameworks of the laws.
I will toss a base number of **0.01% to 0.1%** for this -- making a range of 300 to 3,000 for a city of 3,000,000 on average (the rough size of Toronto, Ontario). I would also expect some clustering of populations, with groups gravitating to the environment best suited to them unless everybody is absolutely territorial about their lands. The distribution will not be even, but at the same time, everyone won't be in one neighbourhood.
I don't have any facts, research, or articles to support this, because the correct answer is potentially that two people can keep a secret of one is dead.
Note this is just the supernatural population. There is probably that many mundanes that are aware of things, either through marriage or research, or shady deals with people that live way too long to be healthy. Also this will probably require modern governmental intervention if there are groups that live an exceptionally long time -- a 500 year old vampire is not likely to have a valid birth certificate or social insurance number from a country that exists today. If they did, who would believe it when they go buy something big?
That should also be enough people in the know to have enough that want to threaten the Masquerade but not necessarily enough to make a organized coalition that will inevitably take it down without a massive amount of help. | Answer: Close to 3% of population is the max, in order to hide anomalities caused by unique patterns of consumption of economic goods caused by their non-human nature.
Imagine society where all population is isolated from one another(probably with exception for the closest family members, like children and their parents. They would be living under the same roof until their child becomes mature enough), all interactions are online, over the Internet. From the youngest age you're indocrinated to believe only information from trusted government-apporved sources (sites, electroinic books, electronic films, etc), which are heavily moderated to delude normies into thinking that supernaturals don't exist and that their existence is impossible. The rest of the mediaspcace (i.e. sites, books, films, etc, not approved by the government) is filled with alleged trolls, insane people, liers, foreign propaganda bots, etc (probably the government will pay people to fill it with nonsense and trolling in order to make aura of untrustworthiness stronger). The reputation of this part of the media is extremely low. And to make it even lower there are secretely paid by government, heavily moderated, forums where "skeptics" "debunk" information from unapproved parts of media space. If an average normie will see, let's say, a blogpost that tries to prove that supernaturals exist, then at the best they will think that it's some kind of an intricate lie that can be debunked by "skeptics" anyway, so why bother reading it? If it will have videos or photos, then the normies will think that these videos and photos are fakes. If it will be just a text with a witness testimony of existence of supernaturals, then normies will think that the person is a troll or a mentally ill person. Also there will be government-paid "crackpots" that will preach that supernaturals are real with bogus logic, weak evidence (so "skeptics" would be able to "refute" them), and also belive in obviously insane things, like that the Earth is flat, in order to create assosiation of existence of supernaturals with with crazy ideas ("So, you believe that supernaturals are real? Then maybe you also believe that the Earth is flat?") |
177,493 | I am trying to figure out **how large the population of supernatural beings can be in a stereotypical urban fantasy setting before their numbers stretch the suspension of disbelief**. I.e., your standard setting where supernatural beings live among humans under some sort of masquerade system.
Figuring out how big your supernatural society can be is obviously important for plot purposes. Make the supernatural population too large (say, 1 in 25), and it becomes ridiculous that the supernatural could be kept secret because everyone would know at least someone who is supernatural. Make it too small (say, 100 people worldwide) and you dramatically restrict the possibility for narrative conflict because you have at most one vampire/werewolf/whatever per large city.
The *World of Darkness* gives an oft-cited statistic that there is about 1 vampire for ever 100,000 humans. The best I could figure for a reasonable estimate would be a population ratio comparable to the prevalence rate for a rare disease: something rare enough that almost no one knows someone personally that fits the criterion, even though the disease itself is real.
I realize that in reality there is probably no way the supernatural could keep a reliable masquerade from humanity for any length of time. There have been [studies](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905) that suggest even the best-kept conspiracy (which would be analogous to, in this case: insta-fail if any evidence of supernaturals got out, complete unity by the supernaturals in wanting to stay hidden, and no supernatural-hunting organization of muggles that want to expose them, all of which is highly unlikely) could only last a few decades at best. Even in these situations the best-kept secrets would be at best like the mafia: everyone knows the mafia exists, but few people know who the individual members of the mafia are or their rank within the organization. **I am more looking for an estimate of the largest population possible that would not also break the reader's suspension of disbelief because there is no way a subpopulation of that size could be completely unknown to society at large**.
**Additional Parameters:**
* **The supernatural beings have both a distinctly inhuman form (or cover-blowing superpowers) and can also pass for human to most people**. Think your standard urban fantasy vampires, werewolves, wizards, faeries, djinn, etc. Or even better, the Wesen from *Grimm*. So it's not a case of "they can pass for human even when using supernatural abilities".
* **The supernatural beings in question do not feed on humans.** Therefore, their population is not constrained by the availability of prey, like it would for [something like vampires](http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys317/buffy/vampecology.htm).
* Similarly, **because they can reproduce with humans or can reproduce non-sexually** (i.e., vampire or werewolf bites) **inbreeding or difficulty in finding mates to continue the species is not a concern**
* There are **no "secret hidden cities" or "town where everyone is supernatural but they pretend to be normal to outsiders"** that the supernaturals can set up in the boonies, they are intermixed with the human population.
* **For the purposes of this question, it only matters that the *general public* be unaware of the existence of the supernatural**. [Muggle Best Friends](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MuggleBestFriend) or family members are allowed to know, the existence of the supernatural just can't be common knowledge. The government is also allowed to be aware of supernaturals and complicit in aiding the masquerade. Obviously if the government *did* know about supernaturals and was abetting in hiding their existence, it is only a matter of time before government corruption/incompetence/international realpolitik or WikiLeaks spills the beans to everyone, but still. If you want to go ahead and give separate estimates for population sizes if the government is abetting the masquerade (and hence can make evidence disappear) be my guest, but you don't have to.
* **No mind whammies, glamours, or [flashy thingies](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGZQqhaU4gA) to make people forget about the supernatural**. If muggles see evidence of the supernatural, the only way the supernaturals have to make the evidence disappear through begging, bribery, vandalism, or threats/murder.
* **There is no [magical "weirdness censor"](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ExtraStrengthMasquerade) that will make humans just plain refuse to believe in the supernatural to the point of active denial.** The ability of humans to disbelieve the supernatural is about the same as it is in real life. An isolated paranormal event will be written off. A single person spouting nonsense will be seen as crazy. Repeated sightings of a creature in the woods will draw in cryptid enthusiasts. But strong enough evidence that can't be dismissed by a dedicated skeptic *won't* be ignored and people *will* notice when things are going on, even if they can't peg it as supernatural. What constitutes failure in this scenario is the supernatural being treated as "real" and common knowledge by your average person, rather than just an urban legend.
* **The majority of the supernatural community wants to maintain the masquerade**. Individual exceptions that believe the masquerade is oppressive exist, but they're a small number and are mostly taken out by internal self-policing by the supernaturals (read: staked in a dark alleyway). The supernatural community is mostly unified on this issue. | 2020/05/30 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/177493",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/71841/"
] | *"There are no 'secret hidden cities' or 'town where everyone is supernatural but they pretend to be normal to outsiders' that the supernaturals can set up in the boonies, they are intermixed with the human population."*
I think you might want to re-evaluate this restriction, since it has an extremely large impact on how your supernatural population develops and thus how large could be reasonable. It also affects the potential quality of life of your supernaturals in a very large way.
If your supernatural people reproduce in some controlled/intentional fashion and they all want to remain hidden, then it's natural that they will come together to form communities where everyone is "in the know". Both because it's *much* easier to keep things hidden collectively, and because if they're anything like baseline humanity in terms of social desires, then they'll naturally want to build a community and culture with other supernaturals.
This might not wind up as an entire "hidden city", but a smaller town in a less densely-populated area certainly seems plausible, or a particular neighborhood in a larger city. We certainly see this in the real world, where many cities have neighborhoods with large immigrant populations from the same part of the world -- think of how many cities around the world have a "Chinatown", as one example. Or as a closer parallel, many cities also have neighborhoods that are centers of their local LGBTQ populations.
If you allow for this sort of community-building, that not only lets much larger populations arise, but also allows for more relaxed use of their supernatural abilities within that community. If your three-year-old tries out their new wings by flying out the front door and doing loops in the front yard, it's not nearly as big a problem if your neighbor flies off after them instead of plastering videos all over their Instagram account.
Also, if the government is assisting in the masquerade, that would *encourage* the formation of supernatural communities or enclaves. Living in an all-supernatural community might even be mandatory, with varying levels of coercion involved depending on the government.
On the other hand, if your supernaturals arise spontaneously--at birth or via random chance later in life--that pushes the likelihood of discovery much higher, and thus the possible population that could remain hidden much lower. Especially in modern-day society, even a relatively small number of slip-ups can become well-publicized, and thus the possible usage of supernatural abilities is very curtailed. Every single supernatural that manifests becomes another possibility for word to get out. What if a world leader takes werewolf form for the first time in front of a giant crowd during a live, nationwide broadcast? What if the latest media darling's baby is born with blue skin and dragonfly wings? Could these be covered up? Sure, but only so well.
And if they are randomly-scattered like that, it becomes much harder for them to find and form any sort of community or shared culture, and thus it's more likely that some supernaturals might ignore or deliberately breach the masquerade before their fellows could intervene.
In the community scenario, I could imagine hundreds or even thousands of supernaturals within a single mid-size city--even if the overall prevalence within the general population is small, they'd be concentrated in specific areas. In the scattered-individual scenario, I'd be surprised if more than a few thousand could exist worldwide before someone managed to breach the masquerade in dramatic enough fashion, whether deliberately or mischance. There might not be more than a few hundred even in major countries.
Really, it all depends on the story you want to tell. If you want to tell a story where supernaturals live their lives in a normal-if-supernaturally-enhanced fashion, either separate from the general population or within it but still interacting with other supernaturals on a regular basis (like a certain series of Wizard School books), then let them form their own separate communities. If you want oppressed loners trying to eke out some connection to others of their kind while constantly on guard against discovery (A certain mutant-focused comic book franchise comes to mind), then keep them scattered. | This is actually a very interesting question! As I am writing a story which also includes this same type of super powered population, I think I might have some advice
Firstly, let's actually look back into history. These dreams of having powers and supernatural abilities are actually as old as humanity itself. With witches in the Medieval ages, to Gods, tales about miracles, and all of these supernatural legends told throughout generations. In real life of course, we know these aren't real. In a fictional world, people also think just like us: they think it's not real, that they're just legends. But what if in this fictional world, these events were actually real? What I mean by this is that it's impossible for an entire population to completely hide their nature. There obviously are going to be several people leaking the secret. Yet, if throughout history humans still don't think they exist, then that means that they were able to maintain the secret.
**The human psychology**
The human psychology is quite a complex thing, and it's pretty clear that people are afraid of the unknown. And if people do see supernaturals use their powers, no one would believe them; they would be called crazy, heretics, or attention-seekers. However, if government officials come across such powers, things might get tough for the supernaturals. However, I don't think the government would deliberately tell the public about supernaturals, as it would cause panic, and so this information might be classified. However, this still isn't good for supernaturals, they could be experimented on in labs for example, or taken away by the government for unknown reasons. Another problem would be if a supernatural uses their powers in public, with enough witnesses to make it believable. This is probably the worse case scenario, since both the people and the government would know.
**Average Population**
Take for example New York City, with around 8 million inhabitants. I think a good number of supernaturals in that city would be about 100 supernaturals. Now take that, and compare it to other big cities, who would also have about 100 supernaturals in them. Of course, some small villages might have one or two supernaturals in them, or maybe none at all, depending on the size of that village. Supernaturals are rare, but there are more than people think.
**Hiding from humans**
If realistically most supernaturals wanted to hide their powers effectively, it would be better for them to live in small villages, where there aren't enough witnesses to make a sighting go viral. I think that in order to hide their powers, supernaturals wouldn't really be able to have the most normal of lives. Maybe getting a simple job would be better than being a celebrity, since there are less risks of getting discovered. Children should not be sent to school until they can effectively hide their powers - or not even be sent to school at all, but be home schooled instead. For marriage, it would be a lot safer for supernaturals to stay together and not mix with the humans, even if they can reproduce. If it means hiding their powers at all costs, these are probably the best safety measures. |
177,493 | I am trying to figure out **how large the population of supernatural beings can be in a stereotypical urban fantasy setting before their numbers stretch the suspension of disbelief**. I.e., your standard setting where supernatural beings live among humans under some sort of masquerade system.
Figuring out how big your supernatural society can be is obviously important for plot purposes. Make the supernatural population too large (say, 1 in 25), and it becomes ridiculous that the supernatural could be kept secret because everyone would know at least someone who is supernatural. Make it too small (say, 100 people worldwide) and you dramatically restrict the possibility for narrative conflict because you have at most one vampire/werewolf/whatever per large city.
The *World of Darkness* gives an oft-cited statistic that there is about 1 vampire for ever 100,000 humans. The best I could figure for a reasonable estimate would be a population ratio comparable to the prevalence rate for a rare disease: something rare enough that almost no one knows someone personally that fits the criterion, even though the disease itself is real.
I realize that in reality there is probably no way the supernatural could keep a reliable masquerade from humanity for any length of time. There have been [studies](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905) that suggest even the best-kept conspiracy (which would be analogous to, in this case: insta-fail if any evidence of supernaturals got out, complete unity by the supernaturals in wanting to stay hidden, and no supernatural-hunting organization of muggles that want to expose them, all of which is highly unlikely) could only last a few decades at best. Even in these situations the best-kept secrets would be at best like the mafia: everyone knows the mafia exists, but few people know who the individual members of the mafia are or their rank within the organization. **I am more looking for an estimate of the largest population possible that would not also break the reader's suspension of disbelief because there is no way a subpopulation of that size could be completely unknown to society at large**.
**Additional Parameters:**
* **The supernatural beings have both a distinctly inhuman form (or cover-blowing superpowers) and can also pass for human to most people**. Think your standard urban fantasy vampires, werewolves, wizards, faeries, djinn, etc. Or even better, the Wesen from *Grimm*. So it's not a case of "they can pass for human even when using supernatural abilities".
* **The supernatural beings in question do not feed on humans.** Therefore, their population is not constrained by the availability of prey, like it would for [something like vampires](http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys317/buffy/vampecology.htm).
* Similarly, **because they can reproduce with humans or can reproduce non-sexually** (i.e., vampire or werewolf bites) **inbreeding or difficulty in finding mates to continue the species is not a concern**
* There are **no "secret hidden cities" or "town where everyone is supernatural but they pretend to be normal to outsiders"** that the supernaturals can set up in the boonies, they are intermixed with the human population.
* **For the purposes of this question, it only matters that the *general public* be unaware of the existence of the supernatural**. [Muggle Best Friends](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MuggleBestFriend) or family members are allowed to know, the existence of the supernatural just can't be common knowledge. The government is also allowed to be aware of supernaturals and complicit in aiding the masquerade. Obviously if the government *did* know about supernaturals and was abetting in hiding their existence, it is only a matter of time before government corruption/incompetence/international realpolitik or WikiLeaks spills the beans to everyone, but still. If you want to go ahead and give separate estimates for population sizes if the government is abetting the masquerade (and hence can make evidence disappear) be my guest, but you don't have to.
* **No mind whammies, glamours, or [flashy thingies](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGZQqhaU4gA) to make people forget about the supernatural**. If muggles see evidence of the supernatural, the only way the supernaturals have to make the evidence disappear through begging, bribery, vandalism, or threats/murder.
* **There is no [magical "weirdness censor"](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ExtraStrengthMasquerade) that will make humans just plain refuse to believe in the supernatural to the point of active denial.** The ability of humans to disbelieve the supernatural is about the same as it is in real life. An isolated paranormal event will be written off. A single person spouting nonsense will be seen as crazy. Repeated sightings of a creature in the woods will draw in cryptid enthusiasts. But strong enough evidence that can't be dismissed by a dedicated skeptic *won't* be ignored and people *will* notice when things are going on, even if they can't peg it as supernatural. What constitutes failure in this scenario is the supernatural being treated as "real" and common knowledge by your average person, rather than just an urban legend.
* **The majority of the supernatural community wants to maintain the masquerade**. Individual exceptions that believe the masquerade is oppressive exist, but they're a small number and are mostly taken out by internal self-policing by the supernaturals (read: staked in a dark alleyway). The supernatural community is mostly unified on this issue. | 2020/05/30 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/177493",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/71841/"
] | *"There are no 'secret hidden cities' or 'town where everyone is supernatural but they pretend to be normal to outsiders' that the supernaturals can set up in the boonies, they are intermixed with the human population."*
I think you might want to re-evaluate this restriction, since it has an extremely large impact on how your supernatural population develops and thus how large could be reasonable. It also affects the potential quality of life of your supernaturals in a very large way.
If your supernatural people reproduce in some controlled/intentional fashion and they all want to remain hidden, then it's natural that they will come together to form communities where everyone is "in the know". Both because it's *much* easier to keep things hidden collectively, and because if they're anything like baseline humanity in terms of social desires, then they'll naturally want to build a community and culture with other supernaturals.
This might not wind up as an entire "hidden city", but a smaller town in a less densely-populated area certainly seems plausible, or a particular neighborhood in a larger city. We certainly see this in the real world, where many cities have neighborhoods with large immigrant populations from the same part of the world -- think of how many cities around the world have a "Chinatown", as one example. Or as a closer parallel, many cities also have neighborhoods that are centers of their local LGBTQ populations.
If you allow for this sort of community-building, that not only lets much larger populations arise, but also allows for more relaxed use of their supernatural abilities within that community. If your three-year-old tries out their new wings by flying out the front door and doing loops in the front yard, it's not nearly as big a problem if your neighbor flies off after them instead of plastering videos all over their Instagram account.
Also, if the government is assisting in the masquerade, that would *encourage* the formation of supernatural communities or enclaves. Living in an all-supernatural community might even be mandatory, with varying levels of coercion involved depending on the government.
On the other hand, if your supernaturals arise spontaneously--at birth or via random chance later in life--that pushes the likelihood of discovery much higher, and thus the possible population that could remain hidden much lower. Especially in modern-day society, even a relatively small number of slip-ups can become well-publicized, and thus the possible usage of supernatural abilities is very curtailed. Every single supernatural that manifests becomes another possibility for word to get out. What if a world leader takes werewolf form for the first time in front of a giant crowd during a live, nationwide broadcast? What if the latest media darling's baby is born with blue skin and dragonfly wings? Could these be covered up? Sure, but only so well.
And if they are randomly-scattered like that, it becomes much harder for them to find and form any sort of community or shared culture, and thus it's more likely that some supernaturals might ignore or deliberately breach the masquerade before their fellows could intervene.
In the community scenario, I could imagine hundreds or even thousands of supernaturals within a single mid-size city--even if the overall prevalence within the general population is small, they'd be concentrated in specific areas. In the scattered-individual scenario, I'd be surprised if more than a few thousand could exist worldwide before someone managed to breach the masquerade in dramatic enough fashion, whether deliberately or mischance. There might not be more than a few hundred even in major countries.
Really, it all depends on the story you want to tell. If you want to tell a story where supernaturals live their lives in a normal-if-supernaturally-enhanced fashion, either separate from the general population or within it but still interacting with other supernaturals on a regular basis (like a certain series of Wizard School books), then let them form their own separate communities. If you want oppressed loners trying to eke out some connection to others of their kind while constantly on guard against discovery (A certain mutant-focused comic book franchise comes to mind), then keep them scattered. | The part about the goverment aiding or at least not interfearing could be solved by some kind of anchient aggrement. The supernatural don‘t interfere with „the system“ and „the system“ leaves them alone. This aggrement came about in the long ago, after both side clashed horrible and came to some kind of mutally assured destruction. This aggrement is only in peril in times of unorderly change, like the russian revolution. Then the new rulers need to be „convinced“. When there is an orderly change of power, like the german revolution of 1918, then old and new rulers will take care of this because it is in their own best interesst.
Hidden population
What means hidden exactly? More then the more private parts of the sexual deviant, a community that exists but usually only the in-group knows about. But the general public is aware, that these groups exist. To change that, you‘ll need some kind of trick.
My suggestion, the existance of the supernatural is a conspiracy story. There are people believing in this, and have been for centuries but if the society treads them as lunatics, the supernatural are safe. The biggest problem with this is, that we have good vision capturing systems (cameras) for something like 30 years. So you need a way to make videos and photos disbelievable, maschine learning could provide the usual „fake“ excuse. Just make computers in your world faster sooner, so that what is now hot science becomes established tech available to everyone with a gaming computer. Voila photos and videos mean nothing. |
177,493 | I am trying to figure out **how large the population of supernatural beings can be in a stereotypical urban fantasy setting before their numbers stretch the suspension of disbelief**. I.e., your standard setting where supernatural beings live among humans under some sort of masquerade system.
Figuring out how big your supernatural society can be is obviously important for plot purposes. Make the supernatural population too large (say, 1 in 25), and it becomes ridiculous that the supernatural could be kept secret because everyone would know at least someone who is supernatural. Make it too small (say, 100 people worldwide) and you dramatically restrict the possibility for narrative conflict because you have at most one vampire/werewolf/whatever per large city.
The *World of Darkness* gives an oft-cited statistic that there is about 1 vampire for ever 100,000 humans. The best I could figure for a reasonable estimate would be a population ratio comparable to the prevalence rate for a rare disease: something rare enough that almost no one knows someone personally that fits the criterion, even though the disease itself is real.
I realize that in reality there is probably no way the supernatural could keep a reliable masquerade from humanity for any length of time. There have been [studies](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905) that suggest even the best-kept conspiracy (which would be analogous to, in this case: insta-fail if any evidence of supernaturals got out, complete unity by the supernaturals in wanting to stay hidden, and no supernatural-hunting organization of muggles that want to expose them, all of which is highly unlikely) could only last a few decades at best. Even in these situations the best-kept secrets would be at best like the mafia: everyone knows the mafia exists, but few people know who the individual members of the mafia are or their rank within the organization. **I am more looking for an estimate of the largest population possible that would not also break the reader's suspension of disbelief because there is no way a subpopulation of that size could be completely unknown to society at large**.
**Additional Parameters:**
* **The supernatural beings have both a distinctly inhuman form (or cover-blowing superpowers) and can also pass for human to most people**. Think your standard urban fantasy vampires, werewolves, wizards, faeries, djinn, etc. Or even better, the Wesen from *Grimm*. So it's not a case of "they can pass for human even when using supernatural abilities".
* **The supernatural beings in question do not feed on humans.** Therefore, their population is not constrained by the availability of prey, like it would for [something like vampires](http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys317/buffy/vampecology.htm).
* Similarly, **because they can reproduce with humans or can reproduce non-sexually** (i.e., vampire or werewolf bites) **inbreeding or difficulty in finding mates to continue the species is not a concern**
* There are **no "secret hidden cities" or "town where everyone is supernatural but they pretend to be normal to outsiders"** that the supernaturals can set up in the boonies, they are intermixed with the human population.
* **For the purposes of this question, it only matters that the *general public* be unaware of the existence of the supernatural**. [Muggle Best Friends](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MuggleBestFriend) or family members are allowed to know, the existence of the supernatural just can't be common knowledge. The government is also allowed to be aware of supernaturals and complicit in aiding the masquerade. Obviously if the government *did* know about supernaturals and was abetting in hiding their existence, it is only a matter of time before government corruption/incompetence/international realpolitik or WikiLeaks spills the beans to everyone, but still. If you want to go ahead and give separate estimates for population sizes if the government is abetting the masquerade (and hence can make evidence disappear) be my guest, but you don't have to.
* **No mind whammies, glamours, or [flashy thingies](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGZQqhaU4gA) to make people forget about the supernatural**. If muggles see evidence of the supernatural, the only way the supernaturals have to make the evidence disappear through begging, bribery, vandalism, or threats/murder.
* **There is no [magical "weirdness censor"](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ExtraStrengthMasquerade) that will make humans just plain refuse to believe in the supernatural to the point of active denial.** The ability of humans to disbelieve the supernatural is about the same as it is in real life. An isolated paranormal event will be written off. A single person spouting nonsense will be seen as crazy. Repeated sightings of a creature in the woods will draw in cryptid enthusiasts. But strong enough evidence that can't be dismissed by a dedicated skeptic *won't* be ignored and people *will* notice when things are going on, even if they can't peg it as supernatural. What constitutes failure in this scenario is the supernatural being treated as "real" and common knowledge by your average person, rather than just an urban legend.
* **The majority of the supernatural community wants to maintain the masquerade**. Individual exceptions that believe the masquerade is oppressive exist, but they're a small number and are mostly taken out by internal self-policing by the supernaturals (read: staked in a dark alleyway). The supernatural community is mostly unified on this issue. | 2020/05/30 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/177493",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/71841/"
] | This is actually a very interesting question! As I am writing a story which also includes this same type of super powered population, I think I might have some advice
Firstly, let's actually look back into history. These dreams of having powers and supernatural abilities are actually as old as humanity itself. With witches in the Medieval ages, to Gods, tales about miracles, and all of these supernatural legends told throughout generations. In real life of course, we know these aren't real. In a fictional world, people also think just like us: they think it's not real, that they're just legends. But what if in this fictional world, these events were actually real? What I mean by this is that it's impossible for an entire population to completely hide their nature. There obviously are going to be several people leaking the secret. Yet, if throughout history humans still don't think they exist, then that means that they were able to maintain the secret.
**The human psychology**
The human psychology is quite a complex thing, and it's pretty clear that people are afraid of the unknown. And if people do see supernaturals use their powers, no one would believe them; they would be called crazy, heretics, or attention-seekers. However, if government officials come across such powers, things might get tough for the supernaturals. However, I don't think the government would deliberately tell the public about supernaturals, as it would cause panic, and so this information might be classified. However, this still isn't good for supernaturals, they could be experimented on in labs for example, or taken away by the government for unknown reasons. Another problem would be if a supernatural uses their powers in public, with enough witnesses to make it believable. This is probably the worse case scenario, since both the people and the government would know.
**Average Population**
Take for example New York City, with around 8 million inhabitants. I think a good number of supernaturals in that city would be about 100 supernaturals. Now take that, and compare it to other big cities, who would also have about 100 supernaturals in them. Of course, some small villages might have one or two supernaturals in them, or maybe none at all, depending on the size of that village. Supernaturals are rare, but there are more than people think.
**Hiding from humans**
If realistically most supernaturals wanted to hide their powers effectively, it would be better for them to live in small villages, where there aren't enough witnesses to make a sighting go viral. I think that in order to hide their powers, supernaturals wouldn't really be able to have the most normal of lives. Maybe getting a simple job would be better than being a celebrity, since there are less risks of getting discovered. Children should not be sent to school until they can effectively hide their powers - or not even be sent to school at all, but be home schooled instead. For marriage, it would be a lot safer for supernaturals to stay together and not mix with the humans, even if they can reproduce. If it means hiding their powers at all costs, these are probably the best safety measures. | The part about the goverment aiding or at least not interfearing could be solved by some kind of anchient aggrement. The supernatural don‘t interfere with „the system“ and „the system“ leaves them alone. This aggrement came about in the long ago, after both side clashed horrible and came to some kind of mutally assured destruction. This aggrement is only in peril in times of unorderly change, like the russian revolution. Then the new rulers need to be „convinced“. When there is an orderly change of power, like the german revolution of 1918, then old and new rulers will take care of this because it is in their own best interesst.
Hidden population
What means hidden exactly? More then the more private parts of the sexual deviant, a community that exists but usually only the in-group knows about. But the general public is aware, that these groups exist. To change that, you‘ll need some kind of trick.
My suggestion, the existance of the supernatural is a conspiracy story. There are people believing in this, and have been for centuries but if the society treads them as lunatics, the supernatural are safe. The biggest problem with this is, that we have good vision capturing systems (cameras) for something like 30 years. So you need a way to make videos and photos disbelievable, maschine learning could provide the usual „fake“ excuse. Just make computers in your world faster sooner, so that what is now hot science becomes established tech available to everyone with a gaming computer. Voila photos and videos mean nothing. |
177,493 | I am trying to figure out **how large the population of supernatural beings can be in a stereotypical urban fantasy setting before their numbers stretch the suspension of disbelief**. I.e., your standard setting where supernatural beings live among humans under some sort of masquerade system.
Figuring out how big your supernatural society can be is obviously important for plot purposes. Make the supernatural population too large (say, 1 in 25), and it becomes ridiculous that the supernatural could be kept secret because everyone would know at least someone who is supernatural. Make it too small (say, 100 people worldwide) and you dramatically restrict the possibility for narrative conflict because you have at most one vampire/werewolf/whatever per large city.
The *World of Darkness* gives an oft-cited statistic that there is about 1 vampire for ever 100,000 humans. The best I could figure for a reasonable estimate would be a population ratio comparable to the prevalence rate for a rare disease: something rare enough that almost no one knows someone personally that fits the criterion, even though the disease itself is real.
I realize that in reality there is probably no way the supernatural could keep a reliable masquerade from humanity for any length of time. There have been [studies](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905) that suggest even the best-kept conspiracy (which would be analogous to, in this case: insta-fail if any evidence of supernaturals got out, complete unity by the supernaturals in wanting to stay hidden, and no supernatural-hunting organization of muggles that want to expose them, all of which is highly unlikely) could only last a few decades at best. Even in these situations the best-kept secrets would be at best like the mafia: everyone knows the mafia exists, but few people know who the individual members of the mafia are or their rank within the organization. **I am more looking for an estimate of the largest population possible that would not also break the reader's suspension of disbelief because there is no way a subpopulation of that size could be completely unknown to society at large**.
**Additional Parameters:**
* **The supernatural beings have both a distinctly inhuman form (or cover-blowing superpowers) and can also pass for human to most people**. Think your standard urban fantasy vampires, werewolves, wizards, faeries, djinn, etc. Or even better, the Wesen from *Grimm*. So it's not a case of "they can pass for human even when using supernatural abilities".
* **The supernatural beings in question do not feed on humans.** Therefore, their population is not constrained by the availability of prey, like it would for [something like vampires](http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys317/buffy/vampecology.htm).
* Similarly, **because they can reproduce with humans or can reproduce non-sexually** (i.e., vampire or werewolf bites) **inbreeding or difficulty in finding mates to continue the species is not a concern**
* There are **no "secret hidden cities" or "town where everyone is supernatural but they pretend to be normal to outsiders"** that the supernaturals can set up in the boonies, they are intermixed with the human population.
* **For the purposes of this question, it only matters that the *general public* be unaware of the existence of the supernatural**. [Muggle Best Friends](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MuggleBestFriend) or family members are allowed to know, the existence of the supernatural just can't be common knowledge. The government is also allowed to be aware of supernaturals and complicit in aiding the masquerade. Obviously if the government *did* know about supernaturals and was abetting in hiding their existence, it is only a matter of time before government corruption/incompetence/international realpolitik or WikiLeaks spills the beans to everyone, but still. If you want to go ahead and give separate estimates for population sizes if the government is abetting the masquerade (and hence can make evidence disappear) be my guest, but you don't have to.
* **No mind whammies, glamours, or [flashy thingies](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGZQqhaU4gA) to make people forget about the supernatural**. If muggles see evidence of the supernatural, the only way the supernaturals have to make the evidence disappear through begging, bribery, vandalism, or threats/murder.
* **There is no [magical "weirdness censor"](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ExtraStrengthMasquerade) that will make humans just plain refuse to believe in the supernatural to the point of active denial.** The ability of humans to disbelieve the supernatural is about the same as it is in real life. An isolated paranormal event will be written off. A single person spouting nonsense will be seen as crazy. Repeated sightings of a creature in the woods will draw in cryptid enthusiasts. But strong enough evidence that can't be dismissed by a dedicated skeptic *won't* be ignored and people *will* notice when things are going on, even if they can't peg it as supernatural. What constitutes failure in this scenario is the supernatural being treated as "real" and common knowledge by your average person, rather than just an urban legend.
* **The majority of the supernatural community wants to maintain the masquerade**. Individual exceptions that believe the masquerade is oppressive exist, but they're a small number and are mostly taken out by internal self-policing by the supernaturals (read: staked in a dark alleyway). The supernatural community is mostly unified on this issue. | 2020/05/30 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/177493",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/71841/"
] | *"There are no 'secret hidden cities' or 'town where everyone is supernatural but they pretend to be normal to outsiders' that the supernaturals can set up in the boonies, they are intermixed with the human population."*
I think you might want to re-evaluate this restriction, since it has an extremely large impact on how your supernatural population develops and thus how large could be reasonable. It also affects the potential quality of life of your supernaturals in a very large way.
If your supernatural people reproduce in some controlled/intentional fashion and they all want to remain hidden, then it's natural that they will come together to form communities where everyone is "in the know". Both because it's *much* easier to keep things hidden collectively, and because if they're anything like baseline humanity in terms of social desires, then they'll naturally want to build a community and culture with other supernaturals.
This might not wind up as an entire "hidden city", but a smaller town in a less densely-populated area certainly seems plausible, or a particular neighborhood in a larger city. We certainly see this in the real world, where many cities have neighborhoods with large immigrant populations from the same part of the world -- think of how many cities around the world have a "Chinatown", as one example. Or as a closer parallel, many cities also have neighborhoods that are centers of their local LGBTQ populations.
If you allow for this sort of community-building, that not only lets much larger populations arise, but also allows for more relaxed use of their supernatural abilities within that community. If your three-year-old tries out their new wings by flying out the front door and doing loops in the front yard, it's not nearly as big a problem if your neighbor flies off after them instead of plastering videos all over their Instagram account.
Also, if the government is assisting in the masquerade, that would *encourage* the formation of supernatural communities or enclaves. Living in an all-supernatural community might even be mandatory, with varying levels of coercion involved depending on the government.
On the other hand, if your supernaturals arise spontaneously--at birth or via random chance later in life--that pushes the likelihood of discovery much higher, and thus the possible population that could remain hidden much lower. Especially in modern-day society, even a relatively small number of slip-ups can become well-publicized, and thus the possible usage of supernatural abilities is very curtailed. Every single supernatural that manifests becomes another possibility for word to get out. What if a world leader takes werewolf form for the first time in front of a giant crowd during a live, nationwide broadcast? What if the latest media darling's baby is born with blue skin and dragonfly wings? Could these be covered up? Sure, but only so well.
And if they are randomly-scattered like that, it becomes much harder for them to find and form any sort of community or shared culture, and thus it's more likely that some supernaturals might ignore or deliberately breach the masquerade before their fellows could intervene.
In the community scenario, I could imagine hundreds or even thousands of supernaturals within a single mid-size city--even if the overall prevalence within the general population is small, they'd be concentrated in specific areas. In the scattered-individual scenario, I'd be surprised if more than a few thousand could exist worldwide before someone managed to breach the masquerade in dramatic enough fashion, whether deliberately or mischance. There might not be more than a few hundred even in major countries.
Really, it all depends on the story you want to tell. If you want to tell a story where supernaturals live their lives in a normal-if-supernaturally-enhanced fashion, either separate from the general population or within it but still interacting with other supernaturals on a regular basis (like a certain series of Wizard School books), then let them form their own separate communities. If you want oppressed loners trying to eke out some connection to others of their kind while constantly on guard against discovery (A certain mutant-focused comic book franchise comes to mind), then keep them scattered. | The limit is less about how many people can keep a Masquerade that they want to keep, but about at what point is there enough people to create an organized resistance to the cover-up that will ultimately succeed.
### The Masquerade Itself
The key thing about this Masquerade is that its primary tenet is essentially security through obscurity. As the supernatural entities in the world can do just fine without humans, they can choose where they want to exist on the slider of isolation versus integration personally.
So the first main thing to decide is **WHY** there needs to be a Masquerade in the first place -- I didn't see a reason in the question. There needs to be a motive for the dwarfs, vampires, and fey to want to stay generally hidden from the world at large. It might be an outdated reason, but it needs to exist. Without a reason to hide, most people will not bother, and the veil will be lifted.
Next is how to deal with myth and legend. In our world, we already "know" that werewolves and vampires exist -- we have them in stories. We have tales of trickster fey, and angels and demons. Spirits of the world in various forms also pepper literature from ancient times. We already know, but I bet that most of us do not go looking for it and that is the key -- to keep people from wanting to look for it.
Also needing explaining is why your supernatural creatures wouldn't gravitate towards each other. Humans do it all the time -- we call them cities and towns. So is there any reason why after a few decades of codewords and conspiracies, there wouldn't be a Supernatural Quarter in a city or a town with a prominent werewolf population? Not that it is advertised as such of course -- that would be a disaster, but a neighbourhood with a higher population of X is certainly handy when a parent needs a sitter for a youngster without full control.
Basing it on today's world, Social Media and superpowered conflicts will be the biggest threats most likely since the former only takes enough slips for many to put it together starting a cascading failure of the whole thing, and the widespread presence of CCTV means that it will be difficult to hide an epic fight once the human guises come off. That and certain injuries from beings will be distinctive, as would the weapons needed to kill them. Bullets are not often made from or with silver or cold iron.
### Your World
What kind of story are you telling in your world? If you have factions at each other's throat in a secret war that kills many, then that is going to drive that threshold population down as opposed to a story of beings that just want to live their lives and happen to turn into a implacable furry hound when the reflective orb reaches maximum visibility. Governmental assistance might allow this number to be higher as they have more power to arrange things to the being's benefits without tipping off the public. The trick is to not have a Ministry of Supernatural Affairs, but still work with them to make sure they fit in the frameworks of the laws.
I will toss a base number of **0.01% to 0.1%** for this -- making a range of 300 to 3,000 for a city of 3,000,000 on average (the rough size of Toronto, Ontario). I would also expect some clustering of populations, with groups gravitating to the environment best suited to them unless everybody is absolutely territorial about their lands. The distribution will not be even, but at the same time, everyone won't be in one neighbourhood.
I don't have any facts, research, or articles to support this, because the correct answer is potentially that two people can keep a secret of one is dead.
Note this is just the supernatural population. There is probably that many mundanes that are aware of things, either through marriage or research, or shady deals with people that live way too long to be healthy. Also this will probably require modern governmental intervention if there are groups that live an exceptionally long time -- a 500 year old vampire is not likely to have a valid birth certificate or social insurance number from a country that exists today. If they did, who would believe it when they go buy something big?
That should also be enough people in the know to have enough that want to threaten the Masquerade but not necessarily enough to make a organized coalition that will inevitably take it down without a massive amount of help. |
177,493 | I am trying to figure out **how large the population of supernatural beings can be in a stereotypical urban fantasy setting before their numbers stretch the suspension of disbelief**. I.e., your standard setting where supernatural beings live among humans under some sort of masquerade system.
Figuring out how big your supernatural society can be is obviously important for plot purposes. Make the supernatural population too large (say, 1 in 25), and it becomes ridiculous that the supernatural could be kept secret because everyone would know at least someone who is supernatural. Make it too small (say, 100 people worldwide) and you dramatically restrict the possibility for narrative conflict because you have at most one vampire/werewolf/whatever per large city.
The *World of Darkness* gives an oft-cited statistic that there is about 1 vampire for ever 100,000 humans. The best I could figure for a reasonable estimate would be a population ratio comparable to the prevalence rate for a rare disease: something rare enough that almost no one knows someone personally that fits the criterion, even though the disease itself is real.
I realize that in reality there is probably no way the supernatural could keep a reliable masquerade from humanity for any length of time. There have been [studies](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905) that suggest even the best-kept conspiracy (which would be analogous to, in this case: insta-fail if any evidence of supernaturals got out, complete unity by the supernaturals in wanting to stay hidden, and no supernatural-hunting organization of muggles that want to expose them, all of which is highly unlikely) could only last a few decades at best. Even in these situations the best-kept secrets would be at best like the mafia: everyone knows the mafia exists, but few people know who the individual members of the mafia are or their rank within the organization. **I am more looking for an estimate of the largest population possible that would not also break the reader's suspension of disbelief because there is no way a subpopulation of that size could be completely unknown to society at large**.
**Additional Parameters:**
* **The supernatural beings have both a distinctly inhuman form (or cover-blowing superpowers) and can also pass for human to most people**. Think your standard urban fantasy vampires, werewolves, wizards, faeries, djinn, etc. Or even better, the Wesen from *Grimm*. So it's not a case of "they can pass for human even when using supernatural abilities".
* **The supernatural beings in question do not feed on humans.** Therefore, their population is not constrained by the availability of prey, like it would for [something like vampires](http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys317/buffy/vampecology.htm).
* Similarly, **because they can reproduce with humans or can reproduce non-sexually** (i.e., vampire or werewolf bites) **inbreeding or difficulty in finding mates to continue the species is not a concern**
* There are **no "secret hidden cities" or "town where everyone is supernatural but they pretend to be normal to outsiders"** that the supernaturals can set up in the boonies, they are intermixed with the human population.
* **For the purposes of this question, it only matters that the *general public* be unaware of the existence of the supernatural**. [Muggle Best Friends](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MuggleBestFriend) or family members are allowed to know, the existence of the supernatural just can't be common knowledge. The government is also allowed to be aware of supernaturals and complicit in aiding the masquerade. Obviously if the government *did* know about supernaturals and was abetting in hiding their existence, it is only a matter of time before government corruption/incompetence/international realpolitik or WikiLeaks spills the beans to everyone, but still. If you want to go ahead and give separate estimates for population sizes if the government is abetting the masquerade (and hence can make evidence disappear) be my guest, but you don't have to.
* **No mind whammies, glamours, or [flashy thingies](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGZQqhaU4gA) to make people forget about the supernatural**. If muggles see evidence of the supernatural, the only way the supernaturals have to make the evidence disappear through begging, bribery, vandalism, or threats/murder.
* **There is no [magical "weirdness censor"](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ExtraStrengthMasquerade) that will make humans just plain refuse to believe in the supernatural to the point of active denial.** The ability of humans to disbelieve the supernatural is about the same as it is in real life. An isolated paranormal event will be written off. A single person spouting nonsense will be seen as crazy. Repeated sightings of a creature in the woods will draw in cryptid enthusiasts. But strong enough evidence that can't be dismissed by a dedicated skeptic *won't* be ignored and people *will* notice when things are going on, even if they can't peg it as supernatural. What constitutes failure in this scenario is the supernatural being treated as "real" and common knowledge by your average person, rather than just an urban legend.
* **The majority of the supernatural community wants to maintain the masquerade**. Individual exceptions that believe the masquerade is oppressive exist, but they're a small number and are mostly taken out by internal self-policing by the supernaturals (read: staked in a dark alleyway). The supernatural community is mostly unified on this issue. | 2020/05/30 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/177493",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/71841/"
] | *"There are no 'secret hidden cities' or 'town where everyone is supernatural but they pretend to be normal to outsiders' that the supernaturals can set up in the boonies, they are intermixed with the human population."*
I think you might want to re-evaluate this restriction, since it has an extremely large impact on how your supernatural population develops and thus how large could be reasonable. It also affects the potential quality of life of your supernaturals in a very large way.
If your supernatural people reproduce in some controlled/intentional fashion and they all want to remain hidden, then it's natural that they will come together to form communities where everyone is "in the know". Both because it's *much* easier to keep things hidden collectively, and because if they're anything like baseline humanity in terms of social desires, then they'll naturally want to build a community and culture with other supernaturals.
This might not wind up as an entire "hidden city", but a smaller town in a less densely-populated area certainly seems plausible, or a particular neighborhood in a larger city. We certainly see this in the real world, where many cities have neighborhoods with large immigrant populations from the same part of the world -- think of how many cities around the world have a "Chinatown", as one example. Or as a closer parallel, many cities also have neighborhoods that are centers of their local LGBTQ populations.
If you allow for this sort of community-building, that not only lets much larger populations arise, but also allows for more relaxed use of their supernatural abilities within that community. If your three-year-old tries out their new wings by flying out the front door and doing loops in the front yard, it's not nearly as big a problem if your neighbor flies off after them instead of plastering videos all over their Instagram account.
Also, if the government is assisting in the masquerade, that would *encourage* the formation of supernatural communities or enclaves. Living in an all-supernatural community might even be mandatory, with varying levels of coercion involved depending on the government.
On the other hand, if your supernaturals arise spontaneously--at birth or via random chance later in life--that pushes the likelihood of discovery much higher, and thus the possible population that could remain hidden much lower. Especially in modern-day society, even a relatively small number of slip-ups can become well-publicized, and thus the possible usage of supernatural abilities is very curtailed. Every single supernatural that manifests becomes another possibility for word to get out. What if a world leader takes werewolf form for the first time in front of a giant crowd during a live, nationwide broadcast? What if the latest media darling's baby is born with blue skin and dragonfly wings? Could these be covered up? Sure, but only so well.
And if they are randomly-scattered like that, it becomes much harder for them to find and form any sort of community or shared culture, and thus it's more likely that some supernaturals might ignore or deliberately breach the masquerade before their fellows could intervene.
In the community scenario, I could imagine hundreds or even thousands of supernaturals within a single mid-size city--even if the overall prevalence within the general population is small, they'd be concentrated in specific areas. In the scattered-individual scenario, I'd be surprised if more than a few thousand could exist worldwide before someone managed to breach the masquerade in dramatic enough fashion, whether deliberately or mischance. There might not be more than a few hundred even in major countries.
Really, it all depends on the story you want to tell. If you want to tell a story where supernaturals live their lives in a normal-if-supernaturally-enhanced fashion, either separate from the general population or within it but still interacting with other supernaturals on a regular basis (like a certain series of Wizard School books), then let them form their own separate communities. If you want oppressed loners trying to eke out some connection to others of their kind while constantly on guard against discovery (A certain mutant-focused comic book franchise comes to mind), then keep them scattered. | Answer: Close to 3% of population is the max, in order to hide anomalities caused by unique patterns of consumption of economic goods caused by their non-human nature.
Imagine society where all population is isolated from one another(probably with exception for the closest family members, like children and their parents. They would be living under the same roof until their child becomes mature enough), all interactions are online, over the Internet. From the youngest age you're indocrinated to believe only information from trusted government-apporved sources (sites, electroinic books, electronic films, etc), which are heavily moderated to delude normies into thinking that supernaturals don't exist and that their existence is impossible. The rest of the mediaspcace (i.e. sites, books, films, etc, not approved by the government) is filled with alleged trolls, insane people, liers, foreign propaganda bots, etc (probably the government will pay people to fill it with nonsense and trolling in order to make aura of untrustworthiness stronger). The reputation of this part of the media is extremely low. And to make it even lower there are secretely paid by government, heavily moderated, forums where "skeptics" "debunk" information from unapproved parts of media space. If an average normie will see, let's say, a blogpost that tries to prove that supernaturals exist, then at the best they will think that it's some kind of an intricate lie that can be debunked by "skeptics" anyway, so why bother reading it? If it will have videos or photos, then the normies will think that these videos and photos are fakes. If it will be just a text with a witness testimony of existence of supernaturals, then normies will think that the person is a troll or a mentally ill person. Also there will be government-paid "crackpots" that will preach that supernaturals are real with bogus logic, weak evidence (so "skeptics" would be able to "refute" them), and also belive in obviously insane things, like that the Earth is flat, in order to create assosiation of existence of supernaturals with with crazy ideas ("So, you believe that supernaturals are real? Then maybe you also believe that the Earth is flat?") |
177,493 | I am trying to figure out **how large the population of supernatural beings can be in a stereotypical urban fantasy setting before their numbers stretch the suspension of disbelief**. I.e., your standard setting where supernatural beings live among humans under some sort of masquerade system.
Figuring out how big your supernatural society can be is obviously important for plot purposes. Make the supernatural population too large (say, 1 in 25), and it becomes ridiculous that the supernatural could be kept secret because everyone would know at least someone who is supernatural. Make it too small (say, 100 people worldwide) and you dramatically restrict the possibility for narrative conflict because you have at most one vampire/werewolf/whatever per large city.
The *World of Darkness* gives an oft-cited statistic that there is about 1 vampire for ever 100,000 humans. The best I could figure for a reasonable estimate would be a population ratio comparable to the prevalence rate for a rare disease: something rare enough that almost no one knows someone personally that fits the criterion, even though the disease itself is real.
I realize that in reality there is probably no way the supernatural could keep a reliable masquerade from humanity for any length of time. There have been [studies](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905) that suggest even the best-kept conspiracy (which would be analogous to, in this case: insta-fail if any evidence of supernaturals got out, complete unity by the supernaturals in wanting to stay hidden, and no supernatural-hunting organization of muggles that want to expose them, all of which is highly unlikely) could only last a few decades at best. Even in these situations the best-kept secrets would be at best like the mafia: everyone knows the mafia exists, but few people know who the individual members of the mafia are or their rank within the organization. **I am more looking for an estimate of the largest population possible that would not also break the reader's suspension of disbelief because there is no way a subpopulation of that size could be completely unknown to society at large**.
**Additional Parameters:**
* **The supernatural beings have both a distinctly inhuman form (or cover-blowing superpowers) and can also pass for human to most people**. Think your standard urban fantasy vampires, werewolves, wizards, faeries, djinn, etc. Or even better, the Wesen from *Grimm*. So it's not a case of "they can pass for human even when using supernatural abilities".
* **The supernatural beings in question do not feed on humans.** Therefore, their population is not constrained by the availability of prey, like it would for [something like vampires](http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys317/buffy/vampecology.htm).
* Similarly, **because they can reproduce with humans or can reproduce non-sexually** (i.e., vampire or werewolf bites) **inbreeding or difficulty in finding mates to continue the species is not a concern**
* There are **no "secret hidden cities" or "town where everyone is supernatural but they pretend to be normal to outsiders"** that the supernaturals can set up in the boonies, they are intermixed with the human population.
* **For the purposes of this question, it only matters that the *general public* be unaware of the existence of the supernatural**. [Muggle Best Friends](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MuggleBestFriend) or family members are allowed to know, the existence of the supernatural just can't be common knowledge. The government is also allowed to be aware of supernaturals and complicit in aiding the masquerade. Obviously if the government *did* know about supernaturals and was abetting in hiding their existence, it is only a matter of time before government corruption/incompetence/international realpolitik or WikiLeaks spills the beans to everyone, but still. If you want to go ahead and give separate estimates for population sizes if the government is abetting the masquerade (and hence can make evidence disappear) be my guest, but you don't have to.
* **No mind whammies, glamours, or [flashy thingies](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGZQqhaU4gA) to make people forget about the supernatural**. If muggles see evidence of the supernatural, the only way the supernaturals have to make the evidence disappear through begging, bribery, vandalism, or threats/murder.
* **There is no [magical "weirdness censor"](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ExtraStrengthMasquerade) that will make humans just plain refuse to believe in the supernatural to the point of active denial.** The ability of humans to disbelieve the supernatural is about the same as it is in real life. An isolated paranormal event will be written off. A single person spouting nonsense will be seen as crazy. Repeated sightings of a creature in the woods will draw in cryptid enthusiasts. But strong enough evidence that can't be dismissed by a dedicated skeptic *won't* be ignored and people *will* notice when things are going on, even if they can't peg it as supernatural. What constitutes failure in this scenario is the supernatural being treated as "real" and common knowledge by your average person, rather than just an urban legend.
* **The majority of the supernatural community wants to maintain the masquerade**. Individual exceptions that believe the masquerade is oppressive exist, but they're a small number and are mostly taken out by internal self-policing by the supernaturals (read: staked in a dark alleyway). The supernatural community is mostly unified on this issue. | 2020/05/30 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/177493",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/71841/"
] | >
> can also pass for human to most people
>
>
>
I don't get the problem. As long as they can pass for human for 9 hours a day in daylight then they can move among the population and have a normal job. "When in Rome" as they say.
"The Masquerade" is for vampires. The reason vampires need it is that:
1. They prey on humans
2. They can't pass for human in daylight
3. They need to be in contact to maintain their social status and make sure new vampires know who is in charge
Your supernaturals' ability to pass entirely for human (?at will) means there's no need for a masquerade, they just get a job and get on with life.
>
> because they can reproduce with humans or can reproduce non-sexually (i.e., vampire or werewolf bites) inbreeding or difficulty in finding mates to continue the species is not a concern
>
>
>
This means they don't even need to identify themselves to each other. Each can be an anonymous person alone.
### In summary:
Your fundamental setup has negated the reason to have a masquerade at all. Each can act alone in human society and is responsible for their own anonymity. There's no basic requirement for coordinated action. You have created no practical limit to their population, it could even be everyone, humans having died out centuries earlier, and nobody would know. Nothing to see, so nothing to hide.
### What they need is a weakness
They need a reason to have a society of their own. They need some set of circumstances where they are involuntarily exposed and need a group responsible for cleaning up the mess before it's uncovered. Some varieties will need to be able to reveal themselves to others to reproduce. Perhaps there should be competition for some resource between varieties so they have reason to act against each other in groups while all covering up the existance of all of them. | The part about the goverment aiding or at least not interfearing could be solved by some kind of anchient aggrement. The supernatural don‘t interfere with „the system“ and „the system“ leaves them alone. This aggrement came about in the long ago, after both side clashed horrible and came to some kind of mutally assured destruction. This aggrement is only in peril in times of unorderly change, like the russian revolution. Then the new rulers need to be „convinced“. When there is an orderly change of power, like the german revolution of 1918, then old and new rulers will take care of this because it is in their own best interesst.
Hidden population
What means hidden exactly? More then the more private parts of the sexual deviant, a community that exists but usually only the in-group knows about. But the general public is aware, that these groups exist. To change that, you‘ll need some kind of trick.
My suggestion, the existance of the supernatural is a conspiracy story. There are people believing in this, and have been for centuries but if the society treads them as lunatics, the supernatural are safe. The biggest problem with this is, that we have good vision capturing systems (cameras) for something like 30 years. So you need a way to make videos and photos disbelievable, maschine learning could provide the usual „fake“ excuse. Just make computers in your world faster sooner, so that what is now hot science becomes established tech available to everyone with a gaming computer. Voila photos and videos mean nothing. |
177,493 | I am trying to figure out **how large the population of supernatural beings can be in a stereotypical urban fantasy setting before their numbers stretch the suspension of disbelief**. I.e., your standard setting where supernatural beings live among humans under some sort of masquerade system.
Figuring out how big your supernatural society can be is obviously important for plot purposes. Make the supernatural population too large (say, 1 in 25), and it becomes ridiculous that the supernatural could be kept secret because everyone would know at least someone who is supernatural. Make it too small (say, 100 people worldwide) and you dramatically restrict the possibility for narrative conflict because you have at most one vampire/werewolf/whatever per large city.
The *World of Darkness* gives an oft-cited statistic that there is about 1 vampire for ever 100,000 humans. The best I could figure for a reasonable estimate would be a population ratio comparable to the prevalence rate for a rare disease: something rare enough that almost no one knows someone personally that fits the criterion, even though the disease itself is real.
I realize that in reality there is probably no way the supernatural could keep a reliable masquerade from humanity for any length of time. There have been [studies](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905) that suggest even the best-kept conspiracy (which would be analogous to, in this case: insta-fail if any evidence of supernaturals got out, complete unity by the supernaturals in wanting to stay hidden, and no supernatural-hunting organization of muggles that want to expose them, all of which is highly unlikely) could only last a few decades at best. Even in these situations the best-kept secrets would be at best like the mafia: everyone knows the mafia exists, but few people know who the individual members of the mafia are or their rank within the organization. **I am more looking for an estimate of the largest population possible that would not also break the reader's suspension of disbelief because there is no way a subpopulation of that size could be completely unknown to society at large**.
**Additional Parameters:**
* **The supernatural beings have both a distinctly inhuman form (or cover-blowing superpowers) and can also pass for human to most people**. Think your standard urban fantasy vampires, werewolves, wizards, faeries, djinn, etc. Or even better, the Wesen from *Grimm*. So it's not a case of "they can pass for human even when using supernatural abilities".
* **The supernatural beings in question do not feed on humans.** Therefore, their population is not constrained by the availability of prey, like it would for [something like vampires](http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys317/buffy/vampecology.htm).
* Similarly, **because they can reproduce with humans or can reproduce non-sexually** (i.e., vampire or werewolf bites) **inbreeding or difficulty in finding mates to continue the species is not a concern**
* There are **no "secret hidden cities" or "town where everyone is supernatural but they pretend to be normal to outsiders"** that the supernaturals can set up in the boonies, they are intermixed with the human population.
* **For the purposes of this question, it only matters that the *general public* be unaware of the existence of the supernatural**. [Muggle Best Friends](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MuggleBestFriend) or family members are allowed to know, the existence of the supernatural just can't be common knowledge. The government is also allowed to be aware of supernaturals and complicit in aiding the masquerade. Obviously if the government *did* know about supernaturals and was abetting in hiding their existence, it is only a matter of time before government corruption/incompetence/international realpolitik or WikiLeaks spills the beans to everyone, but still. If you want to go ahead and give separate estimates for population sizes if the government is abetting the masquerade (and hence can make evidence disappear) be my guest, but you don't have to.
* **No mind whammies, glamours, or [flashy thingies](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGZQqhaU4gA) to make people forget about the supernatural**. If muggles see evidence of the supernatural, the only way the supernaturals have to make the evidence disappear through begging, bribery, vandalism, or threats/murder.
* **There is no [magical "weirdness censor"](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ExtraStrengthMasquerade) that will make humans just plain refuse to believe in the supernatural to the point of active denial.** The ability of humans to disbelieve the supernatural is about the same as it is in real life. An isolated paranormal event will be written off. A single person spouting nonsense will be seen as crazy. Repeated sightings of a creature in the woods will draw in cryptid enthusiasts. But strong enough evidence that can't be dismissed by a dedicated skeptic *won't* be ignored and people *will* notice when things are going on, even if they can't peg it as supernatural. What constitutes failure in this scenario is the supernatural being treated as "real" and common knowledge by your average person, rather than just an urban legend.
* **The majority of the supernatural community wants to maintain the masquerade**. Individual exceptions that believe the masquerade is oppressive exist, but they're a small number and are mostly taken out by internal self-policing by the supernaturals (read: staked in a dark alleyway). The supernatural community is mostly unified on this issue. | 2020/05/30 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/177493",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/71841/"
] | This is actually a very interesting question! As I am writing a story which also includes this same type of super powered population, I think I might have some advice
Firstly, let's actually look back into history. These dreams of having powers and supernatural abilities are actually as old as humanity itself. With witches in the Medieval ages, to Gods, tales about miracles, and all of these supernatural legends told throughout generations. In real life of course, we know these aren't real. In a fictional world, people also think just like us: they think it's not real, that they're just legends. But what if in this fictional world, these events were actually real? What I mean by this is that it's impossible for an entire population to completely hide their nature. There obviously are going to be several people leaking the secret. Yet, if throughout history humans still don't think they exist, then that means that they were able to maintain the secret.
**The human psychology**
The human psychology is quite a complex thing, and it's pretty clear that people are afraid of the unknown. And if people do see supernaturals use their powers, no one would believe them; they would be called crazy, heretics, or attention-seekers. However, if government officials come across such powers, things might get tough for the supernaturals. However, I don't think the government would deliberately tell the public about supernaturals, as it would cause panic, and so this information might be classified. However, this still isn't good for supernaturals, they could be experimented on in labs for example, or taken away by the government for unknown reasons. Another problem would be if a supernatural uses their powers in public, with enough witnesses to make it believable. This is probably the worse case scenario, since both the people and the government would know.
**Average Population**
Take for example New York City, with around 8 million inhabitants. I think a good number of supernaturals in that city would be about 100 supernaturals. Now take that, and compare it to other big cities, who would also have about 100 supernaturals in them. Of course, some small villages might have one or two supernaturals in them, or maybe none at all, depending on the size of that village. Supernaturals are rare, but there are more than people think.
**Hiding from humans**
If realistically most supernaturals wanted to hide their powers effectively, it would be better for them to live in small villages, where there aren't enough witnesses to make a sighting go viral. I think that in order to hide their powers, supernaturals wouldn't really be able to have the most normal of lives. Maybe getting a simple job would be better than being a celebrity, since there are less risks of getting discovered. Children should not be sent to school until they can effectively hide their powers - or not even be sent to school at all, but be home schooled instead. For marriage, it would be a lot safer for supernaturals to stay together and not mix with the humans, even if they can reproduce. If it means hiding their powers at all costs, these are probably the best safety measures. | >
> can also pass for human to most people
>
>
>
I don't get the problem. As long as they can pass for human for 9 hours a day in daylight then they can move among the population and have a normal job. "When in Rome" as they say.
"The Masquerade" is for vampires. The reason vampires need it is that:
1. They prey on humans
2. They can't pass for human in daylight
3. They need to be in contact to maintain their social status and make sure new vampires know who is in charge
Your supernaturals' ability to pass entirely for human (?at will) means there's no need for a masquerade, they just get a job and get on with life.
>
> because they can reproduce with humans or can reproduce non-sexually (i.e., vampire or werewolf bites) inbreeding or difficulty in finding mates to continue the species is not a concern
>
>
>
This means they don't even need to identify themselves to each other. Each can be an anonymous person alone.
### In summary:
Your fundamental setup has negated the reason to have a masquerade at all. Each can act alone in human society and is responsible for their own anonymity. There's no basic requirement for coordinated action. You have created no practical limit to their population, it could even be everyone, humans having died out centuries earlier, and nobody would know. Nothing to see, so nothing to hide.
### What they need is a weakness
They need a reason to have a society of their own. They need some set of circumstances where they are involuntarily exposed and need a group responsible for cleaning up the mess before it's uncovered. Some varieties will need to be able to reveal themselves to others to reproduce. Perhaps there should be competition for some resource between varieties so they have reason to act against each other in groups while all covering up the existance of all of them. |
177,493 | I am trying to figure out **how large the population of supernatural beings can be in a stereotypical urban fantasy setting before their numbers stretch the suspension of disbelief**. I.e., your standard setting where supernatural beings live among humans under some sort of masquerade system.
Figuring out how big your supernatural society can be is obviously important for plot purposes. Make the supernatural population too large (say, 1 in 25), and it becomes ridiculous that the supernatural could be kept secret because everyone would know at least someone who is supernatural. Make it too small (say, 100 people worldwide) and you dramatically restrict the possibility for narrative conflict because you have at most one vampire/werewolf/whatever per large city.
The *World of Darkness* gives an oft-cited statistic that there is about 1 vampire for ever 100,000 humans. The best I could figure for a reasonable estimate would be a population ratio comparable to the prevalence rate for a rare disease: something rare enough that almost no one knows someone personally that fits the criterion, even though the disease itself is real.
I realize that in reality there is probably no way the supernatural could keep a reliable masquerade from humanity for any length of time. There have been [studies](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905) that suggest even the best-kept conspiracy (which would be analogous to, in this case: insta-fail if any evidence of supernaturals got out, complete unity by the supernaturals in wanting to stay hidden, and no supernatural-hunting organization of muggles that want to expose them, all of which is highly unlikely) could only last a few decades at best. Even in these situations the best-kept secrets would be at best like the mafia: everyone knows the mafia exists, but few people know who the individual members of the mafia are or their rank within the organization. **I am more looking for an estimate of the largest population possible that would not also break the reader's suspension of disbelief because there is no way a subpopulation of that size could be completely unknown to society at large**.
**Additional Parameters:**
* **The supernatural beings have both a distinctly inhuman form (or cover-blowing superpowers) and can also pass for human to most people**. Think your standard urban fantasy vampires, werewolves, wizards, faeries, djinn, etc. Or even better, the Wesen from *Grimm*. So it's not a case of "they can pass for human even when using supernatural abilities".
* **The supernatural beings in question do not feed on humans.** Therefore, their population is not constrained by the availability of prey, like it would for [something like vampires](http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys317/buffy/vampecology.htm).
* Similarly, **because they can reproduce with humans or can reproduce non-sexually** (i.e., vampire or werewolf bites) **inbreeding or difficulty in finding mates to continue the species is not a concern**
* There are **no "secret hidden cities" or "town where everyone is supernatural but they pretend to be normal to outsiders"** that the supernaturals can set up in the boonies, they are intermixed with the human population.
* **For the purposes of this question, it only matters that the *general public* be unaware of the existence of the supernatural**. [Muggle Best Friends](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MuggleBestFriend) or family members are allowed to know, the existence of the supernatural just can't be common knowledge. The government is also allowed to be aware of supernaturals and complicit in aiding the masquerade. Obviously if the government *did* know about supernaturals and was abetting in hiding their existence, it is only a matter of time before government corruption/incompetence/international realpolitik or WikiLeaks spills the beans to everyone, but still. If you want to go ahead and give separate estimates for population sizes if the government is abetting the masquerade (and hence can make evidence disappear) be my guest, but you don't have to.
* **No mind whammies, glamours, or [flashy thingies](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGZQqhaU4gA) to make people forget about the supernatural**. If muggles see evidence of the supernatural, the only way the supernaturals have to make the evidence disappear through begging, bribery, vandalism, or threats/murder.
* **There is no [magical "weirdness censor"](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ExtraStrengthMasquerade) that will make humans just plain refuse to believe in the supernatural to the point of active denial.** The ability of humans to disbelieve the supernatural is about the same as it is in real life. An isolated paranormal event will be written off. A single person spouting nonsense will be seen as crazy. Repeated sightings of a creature in the woods will draw in cryptid enthusiasts. But strong enough evidence that can't be dismissed by a dedicated skeptic *won't* be ignored and people *will* notice when things are going on, even if they can't peg it as supernatural. What constitutes failure in this scenario is the supernatural being treated as "real" and common knowledge by your average person, rather than just an urban legend.
* **The majority of the supernatural community wants to maintain the masquerade**. Individual exceptions that believe the masquerade is oppressive exist, but they're a small number and are mostly taken out by internal self-policing by the supernaturals (read: staked in a dark alleyway). The supernatural community is mostly unified on this issue. | 2020/05/30 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/177493",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/71841/"
] | >
> can also pass for human to most people
>
>
>
I don't get the problem. As long as they can pass for human for 9 hours a day in daylight then they can move among the population and have a normal job. "When in Rome" as they say.
"The Masquerade" is for vampires. The reason vampires need it is that:
1. They prey on humans
2. They can't pass for human in daylight
3. They need to be in contact to maintain their social status and make sure new vampires know who is in charge
Your supernaturals' ability to pass entirely for human (?at will) means there's no need for a masquerade, they just get a job and get on with life.
>
> because they can reproduce with humans or can reproduce non-sexually (i.e., vampire or werewolf bites) inbreeding or difficulty in finding mates to continue the species is not a concern
>
>
>
This means they don't even need to identify themselves to each other. Each can be an anonymous person alone.
### In summary:
Your fundamental setup has negated the reason to have a masquerade at all. Each can act alone in human society and is responsible for their own anonymity. There's no basic requirement for coordinated action. You have created no practical limit to their population, it could even be everyone, humans having died out centuries earlier, and nobody would know. Nothing to see, so nothing to hide.
### What they need is a weakness
They need a reason to have a society of their own. They need some set of circumstances where they are involuntarily exposed and need a group responsible for cleaning up the mess before it's uncovered. Some varieties will need to be able to reveal themselves to others to reproduce. Perhaps there should be competition for some resource between varieties so they have reason to act against each other in groups while all covering up the existance of all of them. | Answer: Close to 3% of population is the max, in order to hide anomalities caused by unique patterns of consumption of economic goods caused by their non-human nature.
Imagine society where all population is isolated from one another(probably with exception for the closest family members, like children and their parents. They would be living under the same roof until their child becomes mature enough), all interactions are online, over the Internet. From the youngest age you're indocrinated to believe only information from trusted government-apporved sources (sites, electroinic books, electronic films, etc), which are heavily moderated to delude normies into thinking that supernaturals don't exist and that their existence is impossible. The rest of the mediaspcace (i.e. sites, books, films, etc, not approved by the government) is filled with alleged trolls, insane people, liers, foreign propaganda bots, etc (probably the government will pay people to fill it with nonsense and trolling in order to make aura of untrustworthiness stronger). The reputation of this part of the media is extremely low. And to make it even lower there are secretely paid by government, heavily moderated, forums where "skeptics" "debunk" information from unapproved parts of media space. If an average normie will see, let's say, a blogpost that tries to prove that supernaturals exist, then at the best they will think that it's some kind of an intricate lie that can be debunked by "skeptics" anyway, so why bother reading it? If it will have videos or photos, then the normies will think that these videos and photos are fakes. If it will be just a text with a witness testimony of existence of supernaturals, then normies will think that the person is a troll or a mentally ill person. Also there will be government-paid "crackpots" that will preach that supernaturals are real with bogus logic, weak evidence (so "skeptics" would be able to "refute" them), and also belive in obviously insane things, like that the Earth is flat, in order to create assosiation of existence of supernaturals with with crazy ideas ("So, you believe that supernaturals are real? Then maybe you also believe that the Earth is flat?") |
177,493 | I am trying to figure out **how large the population of supernatural beings can be in a stereotypical urban fantasy setting before their numbers stretch the suspension of disbelief**. I.e., your standard setting where supernatural beings live among humans under some sort of masquerade system.
Figuring out how big your supernatural society can be is obviously important for plot purposes. Make the supernatural population too large (say, 1 in 25), and it becomes ridiculous that the supernatural could be kept secret because everyone would know at least someone who is supernatural. Make it too small (say, 100 people worldwide) and you dramatically restrict the possibility for narrative conflict because you have at most one vampire/werewolf/whatever per large city.
The *World of Darkness* gives an oft-cited statistic that there is about 1 vampire for ever 100,000 humans. The best I could figure for a reasonable estimate would be a population ratio comparable to the prevalence rate for a rare disease: something rare enough that almost no one knows someone personally that fits the criterion, even though the disease itself is real.
I realize that in reality there is probably no way the supernatural could keep a reliable masquerade from humanity for any length of time. There have been [studies](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905) that suggest even the best-kept conspiracy (which would be analogous to, in this case: insta-fail if any evidence of supernaturals got out, complete unity by the supernaturals in wanting to stay hidden, and no supernatural-hunting organization of muggles that want to expose them, all of which is highly unlikely) could only last a few decades at best. Even in these situations the best-kept secrets would be at best like the mafia: everyone knows the mafia exists, but few people know who the individual members of the mafia are or their rank within the organization. **I am more looking for an estimate of the largest population possible that would not also break the reader's suspension of disbelief because there is no way a subpopulation of that size could be completely unknown to society at large**.
**Additional Parameters:**
* **The supernatural beings have both a distinctly inhuman form (or cover-blowing superpowers) and can also pass for human to most people**. Think your standard urban fantasy vampires, werewolves, wizards, faeries, djinn, etc. Or even better, the Wesen from *Grimm*. So it's not a case of "they can pass for human even when using supernatural abilities".
* **The supernatural beings in question do not feed on humans.** Therefore, their population is not constrained by the availability of prey, like it would for [something like vampires](http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys317/buffy/vampecology.htm).
* Similarly, **because they can reproduce with humans or can reproduce non-sexually** (i.e., vampire or werewolf bites) **inbreeding or difficulty in finding mates to continue the species is not a concern**
* There are **no "secret hidden cities" or "town where everyone is supernatural but they pretend to be normal to outsiders"** that the supernaturals can set up in the boonies, they are intermixed with the human population.
* **For the purposes of this question, it only matters that the *general public* be unaware of the existence of the supernatural**. [Muggle Best Friends](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MuggleBestFriend) or family members are allowed to know, the existence of the supernatural just can't be common knowledge. The government is also allowed to be aware of supernaturals and complicit in aiding the masquerade. Obviously if the government *did* know about supernaturals and was abetting in hiding their existence, it is only a matter of time before government corruption/incompetence/international realpolitik or WikiLeaks spills the beans to everyone, but still. If you want to go ahead and give separate estimates for population sizes if the government is abetting the masquerade (and hence can make evidence disappear) be my guest, but you don't have to.
* **No mind whammies, glamours, or [flashy thingies](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGZQqhaU4gA) to make people forget about the supernatural**. If muggles see evidence of the supernatural, the only way the supernaturals have to make the evidence disappear through begging, bribery, vandalism, or threats/murder.
* **There is no [magical "weirdness censor"](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ExtraStrengthMasquerade) that will make humans just plain refuse to believe in the supernatural to the point of active denial.** The ability of humans to disbelieve the supernatural is about the same as it is in real life. An isolated paranormal event will be written off. A single person spouting nonsense will be seen as crazy. Repeated sightings of a creature in the woods will draw in cryptid enthusiasts. But strong enough evidence that can't be dismissed by a dedicated skeptic *won't* be ignored and people *will* notice when things are going on, even if they can't peg it as supernatural. What constitutes failure in this scenario is the supernatural being treated as "real" and common knowledge by your average person, rather than just an urban legend.
* **The majority of the supernatural community wants to maintain the masquerade**. Individual exceptions that believe the masquerade is oppressive exist, but they're a small number and are mostly taken out by internal self-policing by the supernaturals (read: staked in a dark alleyway). The supernatural community is mostly unified on this issue. | 2020/05/30 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/177493",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/71841/"
] | The limit is less about how many people can keep a Masquerade that they want to keep, but about at what point is there enough people to create an organized resistance to the cover-up that will ultimately succeed.
### The Masquerade Itself
The key thing about this Masquerade is that its primary tenet is essentially security through obscurity. As the supernatural entities in the world can do just fine without humans, they can choose where they want to exist on the slider of isolation versus integration personally.
So the first main thing to decide is **WHY** there needs to be a Masquerade in the first place -- I didn't see a reason in the question. There needs to be a motive for the dwarfs, vampires, and fey to want to stay generally hidden from the world at large. It might be an outdated reason, but it needs to exist. Without a reason to hide, most people will not bother, and the veil will be lifted.
Next is how to deal with myth and legend. In our world, we already "know" that werewolves and vampires exist -- we have them in stories. We have tales of trickster fey, and angels and demons. Spirits of the world in various forms also pepper literature from ancient times. We already know, but I bet that most of us do not go looking for it and that is the key -- to keep people from wanting to look for it.
Also needing explaining is why your supernatural creatures wouldn't gravitate towards each other. Humans do it all the time -- we call them cities and towns. So is there any reason why after a few decades of codewords and conspiracies, there wouldn't be a Supernatural Quarter in a city or a town with a prominent werewolf population? Not that it is advertised as such of course -- that would be a disaster, but a neighbourhood with a higher population of X is certainly handy when a parent needs a sitter for a youngster without full control.
Basing it on today's world, Social Media and superpowered conflicts will be the biggest threats most likely since the former only takes enough slips for many to put it together starting a cascading failure of the whole thing, and the widespread presence of CCTV means that it will be difficult to hide an epic fight once the human guises come off. That and certain injuries from beings will be distinctive, as would the weapons needed to kill them. Bullets are not often made from or with silver or cold iron.
### Your World
What kind of story are you telling in your world? If you have factions at each other's throat in a secret war that kills many, then that is going to drive that threshold population down as opposed to a story of beings that just want to live their lives and happen to turn into a implacable furry hound when the reflective orb reaches maximum visibility. Governmental assistance might allow this number to be higher as they have more power to arrange things to the being's benefits without tipping off the public. The trick is to not have a Ministry of Supernatural Affairs, but still work with them to make sure they fit in the frameworks of the laws.
I will toss a base number of **0.01% to 0.1%** for this -- making a range of 300 to 3,000 for a city of 3,000,000 on average (the rough size of Toronto, Ontario). I would also expect some clustering of populations, with groups gravitating to the environment best suited to them unless everybody is absolutely territorial about their lands. The distribution will not be even, but at the same time, everyone won't be in one neighbourhood.
I don't have any facts, research, or articles to support this, because the correct answer is potentially that two people can keep a secret of one is dead.
Note this is just the supernatural population. There is probably that many mundanes that are aware of things, either through marriage or research, or shady deals with people that live way too long to be healthy. Also this will probably require modern governmental intervention if there are groups that live an exceptionally long time -- a 500 year old vampire is not likely to have a valid birth certificate or social insurance number from a country that exists today. If they did, who would believe it when they go buy something big?
That should also be enough people in the know to have enough that want to threaten the Masquerade but not necessarily enough to make a organized coalition that will inevitably take it down without a massive amount of help. | The part about the goverment aiding or at least not interfearing could be solved by some kind of anchient aggrement. The supernatural don‘t interfere with „the system“ and „the system“ leaves them alone. This aggrement came about in the long ago, after both side clashed horrible and came to some kind of mutally assured destruction. This aggrement is only in peril in times of unorderly change, like the russian revolution. Then the new rulers need to be „convinced“. When there is an orderly change of power, like the german revolution of 1918, then old and new rulers will take care of this because it is in their own best interesst.
Hidden population
What means hidden exactly? More then the more private parts of the sexual deviant, a community that exists but usually only the in-group knows about. But the general public is aware, that these groups exist. To change that, you‘ll need some kind of trick.
My suggestion, the existance of the supernatural is a conspiracy story. There are people believing in this, and have been for centuries but if the society treads them as lunatics, the supernatural are safe. The biggest problem with this is, that we have good vision capturing systems (cameras) for something like 30 years. So you need a way to make videos and photos disbelievable, maschine learning could provide the usual „fake“ excuse. Just make computers in your world faster sooner, so that what is now hot science becomes established tech available to everyone with a gaming computer. Voila photos and videos mean nothing. |
150,878 | I'm looking for the functionality described in [this Wiki entry from 2009](https://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/Intersection_Tools).
The article describes a tool that cuts a path to where an intersection is met.
Is this or something similar a feature yet? If it is, where can I find it? | 2021/07/23 | [
"https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/150878",
"https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com",
"https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/users/166216/"
] | Looks like someone has written about a concept for a tool. It doesn't exist in Inkscape yet.
It looks a bit like the Shape Builder tool in Illustrator. You can already do something kind of similar in Inkscape using the existing boolean operations.
I'll use one of the examples in your link.
1. Draw the circles with a stroke and no fill, and make sure they touch. Use snapping and guides to make sure it's accurate, then select them all and combine using *Path > Combine*.
2. Draw a rectangle around the circles, and fill it pink (or any colour you want), then Lower Selection to Bottom
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/tE4uY.png)
3. Select both the rectangle and combined circles and do *Path > Division*. This will divide up all the pieces into individual closed paths (or shapes).
4. Select and delete the outer rectangle
5. Select two pieces on one side, and do *Path > Union*. Repeat for the two pieces on the other side
6. Select and change the fill of the individual pieces as required.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/IyPnK.gif) | The page that you've linked seems to be just someone's concept for such a tool and is not actually implemented in Inkscape. Something like that is [in development](https://gitlab.com/inkscape/inkscape/-/merge_requests/3357), however.
In the meantime, you'll have to use boolean operations that you can find under the 'Path' menu, or use the 'Boolean operation' path-effect. |
6,038 | This is not a great question but I use a lot of cliffhangers. And I have a habit of making cliffhangers in the end of every chapter that I write just to hook the reader. The question is, is it a good idea?
Won't it look monotonous after a while into the novel? | 2012/07/04 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/6038",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/1768/"
] | It depends.
Ending each chapter on a cliff hanger is a plot device used in some genres, like thrillers. Dan Brown uses it extensively in his books, as do some other writers. If well done, they can make the book more exciting, and gives it that 'can't put down' feel.
On the other hand, if done badly, it irritates the reader, as it seems the only purpose of each chapter is to put the hero in even more trouble. Also, if your characters are boring, the reader might just say, *go ahead and die already*. Certainly I've thrown away books where the hero was getting caught by gun toting henchmen every five minutes, just so each chapter could end in a cliffhanger. And this was in the first 3-4 chapters.
So, I'd say no, they should not be used in every chapter. My advice (as a reader, as I have no experience as a writer writing cliffhangers) is:
* Don't have too many in the first part of the book. You need some time to develop plot / character etc.
* Cliffhangers do better near the middle / end of the book. By this time the reader identifies with the characters, and understands what's at stake in the plot.
* Make sure the cliffhanger is a part of the plot, and not just added to make the reader keep reading.
If not sure, put your book away for some time and then read it as a reader. Do you feel the cliffhangers make the book enticing, or like a soap serial, their only purpose is to get you to the next week / chapter? | Proper tense cliffhangers should be kept for a few occasions, otherwise your readers will guess what is happening, because they know it needs to have a problem by the end of the chapter. Like Eastenders.
However leaving the ends of chapters in limbo - unresolved, with the characters walking off to certain death, while you take up another thread of the story will have a similar effect, of keeping the readers going and wanting to know what is going to happen to them.
At the same time, resolving everything raised in a chapter during that chapter is boring, as there is no sense of long-term development of the characters and situations. Sometimes, you just need to move the characters on in a chapter, and prepare for something later. |
6,038 | This is not a great question but I use a lot of cliffhangers. And I have a habit of making cliffhangers in the end of every chapter that I write just to hook the reader. The question is, is it a good idea?
Won't it look monotonous after a while into the novel? | 2012/07/04 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/6038",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/1768/"
] | I would say no. Not for a book.
Regardless of how you are defining cliffhanger, I don't think you need an *aaiiigh!!* moment at the end of every single chapter. A chapter should [end for a reason,](https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/1806/when-should-a-chapter-end/1811) but that reason doesn't have to be a shock, reversal, discovery, or threat to life/limb/happiness.
If you use the same trick or tool repeatedly, in the same place or the same way all the time, it gets old. Your reader becomes jaded. You wouldn't use the same sentence structure over and over, right? You mix it up. So why use the same narrative tool?
Soap operas and lengthy serials need cliffhangers because *the story never ends.* You need a reason for the audience to keep returning. A book is pretty much by definition a finite narrative. (Even reeeeeeally long ones like *A Song of Ice and Fire* and *Lord of the Rings.*) At some point the story will come to a conclusion, and you hope your reader will complete the journey with you, so you can afford to end an internal arc because the larger arc of the entire story is still going.
If you have a neverending story, then you have to use cliffhangers to drag the audience along, because there's no quest to finish. There's no The End coming — you have to give the audience something to come back for. | Proper tense cliffhangers should be kept for a few occasions, otherwise your readers will guess what is happening, because they know it needs to have a problem by the end of the chapter. Like Eastenders.
However leaving the ends of chapters in limbo - unresolved, with the characters walking off to certain death, while you take up another thread of the story will have a similar effect, of keeping the readers going and wanting to know what is going to happen to them.
At the same time, resolving everything raised in a chapter during that chapter is boring, as there is no sense of long-term development of the characters and situations. Sometimes, you just need to move the characters on in a chapter, and prepare for something later. |
6,038 | This is not a great question but I use a lot of cliffhangers. And I have a habit of making cliffhangers in the end of every chapter that I write just to hook the reader. The question is, is it a good idea?
Won't it look monotonous after a while into the novel? | 2012/07/04 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/6038",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/1768/"
] | Proper tense cliffhangers should be kept for a few occasions, otherwise your readers will guess what is happening, because they know it needs to have a problem by the end of the chapter. Like Eastenders.
However leaving the ends of chapters in limbo - unresolved, with the characters walking off to certain death, while you take up another thread of the story will have a similar effect, of keeping the readers going and wanting to know what is going to happen to them.
At the same time, resolving everything raised in a chapter during that chapter is boring, as there is no sense of long-term development of the characters and situations. Sometimes, you just need to move the characters on in a chapter, and prepare for something later. | *Monotonous cliffhangers* seems like an oxymoron.
In principle, I'd have no problem with consistent chapter-ending cliffhangers, provided that it didn't get overdone. After all, pretty much any literary device can be overused.
In this case, overdoing it would depend more on quality than quantity. The more you use a literary device, the better you'd be at using it, lest it become worn and trite. If these cliffhangers are forced, corny, cheesy, or contrived, then even every *third* chapter would be too much. But if they provide a natural, intriguing, riveting free-flowing transition into the next chapter, without being repetitive, why not?
So, would a cliffhanger at the end of every chapter constitute overuse? |
6,038 | This is not a great question but I use a lot of cliffhangers. And I have a habit of making cliffhangers in the end of every chapter that I write just to hook the reader. The question is, is it a good idea?
Won't it look monotonous after a while into the novel? | 2012/07/04 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/6038",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/1768/"
] | It depends.
Ending each chapter on a cliff hanger is a plot device used in some genres, like thrillers. Dan Brown uses it extensively in his books, as do some other writers. If well done, they can make the book more exciting, and gives it that 'can't put down' feel.
On the other hand, if done badly, it irritates the reader, as it seems the only purpose of each chapter is to put the hero in even more trouble. Also, if your characters are boring, the reader might just say, *go ahead and die already*. Certainly I've thrown away books where the hero was getting caught by gun toting henchmen every five minutes, just so each chapter could end in a cliffhanger. And this was in the first 3-4 chapters.
So, I'd say no, they should not be used in every chapter. My advice (as a reader, as I have no experience as a writer writing cliffhangers) is:
* Don't have too many in the first part of the book. You need some time to develop plot / character etc.
* Cliffhangers do better near the middle / end of the book. By this time the reader identifies with the characters, and understands what's at stake in the plot.
* Make sure the cliffhanger is a part of the plot, and not just added to make the reader keep reading.
If not sure, put your book away for some time and then read it as a reader. Do you feel the cliffhangers make the book enticing, or like a soap serial, their only purpose is to get you to the next week / chapter? | *Monotonous cliffhangers* seems like an oxymoron.
In principle, I'd have no problem with consistent chapter-ending cliffhangers, provided that it didn't get overdone. After all, pretty much any literary device can be overused.
In this case, overdoing it would depend more on quality than quantity. The more you use a literary device, the better you'd be at using it, lest it become worn and trite. If these cliffhangers are forced, corny, cheesy, or contrived, then even every *third* chapter would be too much. But if they provide a natural, intriguing, riveting free-flowing transition into the next chapter, without being repetitive, why not?
So, would a cliffhanger at the end of every chapter constitute overuse? |
6,038 | This is not a great question but I use a lot of cliffhangers. And I have a habit of making cliffhangers in the end of every chapter that I write just to hook the reader. The question is, is it a good idea?
Won't it look monotonous after a while into the novel? | 2012/07/04 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/6038",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/1768/"
] | I would say no. Not for a book.
Regardless of how you are defining cliffhanger, I don't think you need an *aaiiigh!!* moment at the end of every single chapter. A chapter should [end for a reason,](https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/1806/when-should-a-chapter-end/1811) but that reason doesn't have to be a shock, reversal, discovery, or threat to life/limb/happiness.
If you use the same trick or tool repeatedly, in the same place or the same way all the time, it gets old. Your reader becomes jaded. You wouldn't use the same sentence structure over and over, right? You mix it up. So why use the same narrative tool?
Soap operas and lengthy serials need cliffhangers because *the story never ends.* You need a reason for the audience to keep returning. A book is pretty much by definition a finite narrative. (Even reeeeeeally long ones like *A Song of Ice and Fire* and *Lord of the Rings.*) At some point the story will come to a conclusion, and you hope your reader will complete the journey with you, so you can afford to end an internal arc because the larger arc of the entire story is still going.
If you have a neverending story, then you have to use cliffhangers to drag the audience along, because there's no quest to finish. There's no The End coming — you have to give the audience something to come back for. | *Monotonous cliffhangers* seems like an oxymoron.
In principle, I'd have no problem with consistent chapter-ending cliffhangers, provided that it didn't get overdone. After all, pretty much any literary device can be overused.
In this case, overdoing it would depend more on quality than quantity. The more you use a literary device, the better you'd be at using it, lest it become worn and trite. If these cliffhangers are forced, corny, cheesy, or contrived, then even every *third* chapter would be too much. But if they provide a natural, intriguing, riveting free-flowing transition into the next chapter, without being repetitive, why not?
So, would a cliffhanger at the end of every chapter constitute overuse? |
9,214 | How do I get a count of the number of times a Twitter hashtag is used or mentioned in a 24-hour period?
An example use is the [Livestrong/BreakCancer world record attempt](http://livestrongblog.org/2010/11/11/break-cancer-today/). I'd like to tally the number of times the use of a hashtag is made in order to have some record on its proliferation. | 2010/11/12 | [
"https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/9214",
"https://webapps.stackexchange.com",
"https://webapps.stackexchange.com/users/6542/"
] | Check out [Trendistic](http://trendistic.com/) or [What the Hashtag?!](http://wthashtag.com/Main_Page) (you need to register for this one but it is free)
**EDIT 1**
Tredistic has the option to switch between 24hrs, 7 days, 30 days, 90 or 180 days. However, after looking at Trendistic again it appears to only display the percentage not the actual number of tweets. What the Hashtag splits tweets in to days over a 7 day period, displaying the number of tweets on the graph.
**EDIT 2**
I have been looking at Twitter API documentation and it seems to me that there wouldn't really be a 100% reliable way to get all of the mentions of a hashtag.
These are my observations after reading the API docs:
* History is only available for 7 days.
* When using the Search API you can specify dates as parameters but not times. I am presuming that the API would convert 09/01/2011 to 09/01/2011 00:00:00 but I can't be sure
* Not all tweets are available via the API. Presumably because some of them will be protected.
* You can only return a certain number of tweets with API calls. So if you have a particularly successful hashtag which spread across Twitter you wouldn't be able to retrieve the actual number of tweets anyway. | Friend of mine built this app called [trends24](http://trends24.appb.in/). This one gives you worldwide trends in the past 24 hours along with a hour-by-hour trends |
9,214 | How do I get a count of the number of times a Twitter hashtag is used or mentioned in a 24-hour period?
An example use is the [Livestrong/BreakCancer world record attempt](http://livestrongblog.org/2010/11/11/break-cancer-today/). I'd like to tally the number of times the use of a hashtag is made in order to have some record on its proliferation. | 2010/11/12 | [
"https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/9214",
"https://webapps.stackexchange.com",
"https://webapps.stackexchange.com/users/6542/"
] | Check out [Trendistic](http://trendistic.com/) or [What the Hashtag?!](http://wthashtag.com/Main_Page) (you need to register for this one but it is free)
**EDIT 1**
Tredistic has the option to switch between 24hrs, 7 days, 30 days, 90 or 180 days. However, after looking at Trendistic again it appears to only display the percentage not the actual number of tweets. What the Hashtag splits tweets in to days over a 7 day period, displaying the number of tweets on the graph.
**EDIT 2**
I have been looking at Twitter API documentation and it seems to me that there wouldn't really be a 100% reliable way to get all of the mentions of a hashtag.
These are my observations after reading the API docs:
* History is only available for 7 days.
* When using the Search API you can specify dates as parameters but not times. I am presuming that the API would convert 09/01/2011 to 09/01/2011 00:00:00 but I can't be sure
* Not all tweets are available via the API. Presumably because some of them will be protected.
* You can only return a certain number of tweets with API calls. So if you have a particularly successful hashtag which spread across Twitter you wouldn't be able to retrieve the actual number of tweets anyway. | You need to do this :
1. Use twitter's streaming API to get realtime tweets.
2. Extract the "text" out of the JSON you get from the API
3. Extract the hashtags from the text, ( if you are using ruby , you
can find gems for this)
4. Convert hashtags to uppercase, so you don't miss hashtags with mixed cases.
5. Filter these hashtags to find the hashtag you want to parse
6. Feed these hashtags to a rolling counter which has timewindow buckets which look like this : [bucket] => count. The buckets are cyclic , ie , you'll clear the count in the first bucket and use it as the next bucket if you are switching from the last bucket
You should have processes running with big time concurrency if you are planning to parse the streaming api's that fetch you all the tweets. You can use [Storm] for this.
I've put together an app that does something similar. I've open sourced it and you can find it here: <http://www.emilsoman.com/tweetness> . I looked at [Tweitgeist](http://tweitgeist.colinsurprenant.com/) and made this as my POC, it's basically a fork, removed a few things and added some of my own , like a Sinatra app for web UI. |
9,214 | How do I get a count of the number of times a Twitter hashtag is used or mentioned in a 24-hour period?
An example use is the [Livestrong/BreakCancer world record attempt](http://livestrongblog.org/2010/11/11/break-cancer-today/). I'd like to tally the number of times the use of a hashtag is made in order to have some record on its proliferation. | 2010/11/12 | [
"https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/9214",
"https://webapps.stackexchange.com",
"https://webapps.stackexchange.com/users/6542/"
] | Check out [HashtagBattle](http://hashtagbattle.com/) | Friend of mine built this app called [trends24](http://trends24.appb.in/). This one gives you worldwide trends in the past 24 hours along with a hour-by-hour trends |
9,214 | How do I get a count of the number of times a Twitter hashtag is used or mentioned in a 24-hour period?
An example use is the [Livestrong/BreakCancer world record attempt](http://livestrongblog.org/2010/11/11/break-cancer-today/). I'd like to tally the number of times the use of a hashtag is made in order to have some record on its proliferation. | 2010/11/12 | [
"https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/9214",
"https://webapps.stackexchange.com",
"https://webapps.stackexchange.com/users/6542/"
] | Check out [HashtagBattle](http://hashtagbattle.com/) | You need to do this :
1. Use twitter's streaming API to get realtime tweets.
2. Extract the "text" out of the JSON you get from the API
3. Extract the hashtags from the text, ( if you are using ruby , you
can find gems for this)
4. Convert hashtags to uppercase, so you don't miss hashtags with mixed cases.
5. Filter these hashtags to find the hashtag you want to parse
6. Feed these hashtags to a rolling counter which has timewindow buckets which look like this : [bucket] => count. The buckets are cyclic , ie , you'll clear the count in the first bucket and use it as the next bucket if you are switching from the last bucket
You should have processes running with big time concurrency if you are planning to parse the streaming api's that fetch you all the tweets. You can use [Storm] for this.
I've put together an app that does something similar. I've open sourced it and you can find it here: <http://www.emilsoman.com/tweetness> . I looked at [Tweitgeist](http://tweitgeist.colinsurprenant.com/) and made this as my POC, it's basically a fork, removed a few things and added some of my own , like a Sinatra app for web UI. |
9,214 | How do I get a count of the number of times a Twitter hashtag is used or mentioned in a 24-hour period?
An example use is the [Livestrong/BreakCancer world record attempt](http://livestrongblog.org/2010/11/11/break-cancer-today/). I'd like to tally the number of times the use of a hashtag is made in order to have some record on its proliferation. | 2010/11/12 | [
"https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/9214",
"https://webapps.stackexchange.com",
"https://webapps.stackexchange.com/users/6542/"
] | One alternative approach is to use Zapier to **[create a link between Twitter and another tool like StatsMix](https://zapier.com/z/wf/zapbook/twitter/statsmix/)**.
[](https://zapier.com/z/wf/zapbook/twitter/statsmix/)
The Zap can watch for generic **search strings (like a hashtag)** and **update a counter** inside StatsMix. You could even build **graphs over time**.
Of course you're not limited to just StatsMix. You could use any analytics tool that Zapier supports.
**EDIT:** Sadly, it looks like StatsMix is shutting down. Try out something similar with **[Twitter to Leftronic](https://zapier.com/z/CVX/zapbook/twitter/leftronic/)** | Friend of mine built this app called [trends24](http://trends24.appb.in/). This one gives you worldwide trends in the past 24 hours along with a hour-by-hour trends |
9,214 | How do I get a count of the number of times a Twitter hashtag is used or mentioned in a 24-hour period?
An example use is the [Livestrong/BreakCancer world record attempt](http://livestrongblog.org/2010/11/11/break-cancer-today/). I'd like to tally the number of times the use of a hashtag is made in order to have some record on its proliferation. | 2010/11/12 | [
"https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/9214",
"https://webapps.stackexchange.com",
"https://webapps.stackexchange.com/users/6542/"
] | One alternative approach is to use Zapier to **[create a link between Twitter and another tool like StatsMix](https://zapier.com/z/wf/zapbook/twitter/statsmix/)**.
[](https://zapier.com/z/wf/zapbook/twitter/statsmix/)
The Zap can watch for generic **search strings (like a hashtag)** and **update a counter** inside StatsMix. You could even build **graphs over time**.
Of course you're not limited to just StatsMix. You could use any analytics tool that Zapier supports.
**EDIT:** Sadly, it looks like StatsMix is shutting down. Try out something similar with **[Twitter to Leftronic](https://zapier.com/z/CVX/zapbook/twitter/leftronic/)** | You need to do this :
1. Use twitter's streaming API to get realtime tweets.
2. Extract the "text" out of the JSON you get from the API
3. Extract the hashtags from the text, ( if you are using ruby , you
can find gems for this)
4. Convert hashtags to uppercase, so you don't miss hashtags with mixed cases.
5. Filter these hashtags to find the hashtag you want to parse
6. Feed these hashtags to a rolling counter which has timewindow buckets which look like this : [bucket] => count. The buckets are cyclic , ie , you'll clear the count in the first bucket and use it as the next bucket if you are switching from the last bucket
You should have processes running with big time concurrency if you are planning to parse the streaming api's that fetch you all the tweets. You can use [Storm] for this.
I've put together an app that does something similar. I've open sourced it and you can find it here: <http://www.emilsoman.com/tweetness> . I looked at [Tweitgeist](http://tweitgeist.colinsurprenant.com/) and made this as my POC, it's basically a fork, removed a few things and added some of my own , like a Sinatra app for web UI. |
46,794 | Some translations word Genesis 34:2 to say that he raped her, but others don't. My Strong's definition for him laying with her seems inconclusive. Is there anything else that would shed light on whether this was a forcible rape or a seduction? Or is rape meant here in a statutory sense - a rape by seduction? | 2020/04/06 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/46794",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | "How do those who reject Q explain Matthew 5:38-48 and Luke 6:27-36?"
I am a proponent of the sensus plenior approach, and reject Q. This is how I explain these particular differences.
Jesus taught his disciples many things in many places. He often repeated the teaching using different words.
The disciples did not remember his teaching.
Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to remind them of what they had been taught.
The Greek church did not wish to be Jewish. From time to time, the teaching of the apostles given largely in Jewish communities, was written down and given to the Greek church to keep them abreast in the deeper teachings of the apostles as they learned to handle the 'mystery' with more proficiency, guided by the Spirit reminding them of Jesus's teaching.
These snapshots of the maturing doctrine were done in the order Mark, Matthew, Luke, John.
Differences are explained these ways.
1. Later writings sometimes summarized earlier teachings or did not include them because they had been covered well in earlier writings. They included them word-for-word when it was deemed that the repetition was required in their own presentation.
2. Later writings added material which was discovered in the sensus plenior of the OT as they continued to study the scriptures the way Jesus had taught them.
3. By including a different teaching of Jesus, clarifications were made on issues which were caused by misunderstandings. Later Gospels should been seen as clarifications of earlier gospels, and not pitted against one another.
Concerning these particular differences:
One teaching was on the mount, one was on the plain. Matthew and Luke are relating different sermons. Luke remembered that Jesus taught the same things in different ways on different occasions. The differences remembered are presumed to be significant enough to have included them, presuming that Jesus taught in a different way for a reason.
First we consider some 'colored verses' :
>
> Mt 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse
> you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which
> despitefully use you, and persecute you;
>
>
> Lu 6:27 ¶ But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
> Lu 6:28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
>
>
>
**which hear** was likely added because the teaching of love is impossible to accomplish in the flesh and had generated silly legalistic debates. "Does this mean I can't defend my family? What happens if I accept the teaching but backslide under persecution?" Some simply do not hear "Love your enemies".
**and persecute you** was likely dropped because it caused debate among those who only heard in the flesh: "Are those who despitefully use you, and those who persecute you two groups, or two qualifiers for me to pray for them. That is, must they both despitefully use me AND persecute me?"
I am not suggesting that the author changed Jesus's words, but faithfully reproduced them as they were brought to remembrance by the Spirit, which helped clarify issues that had arisen. Since Jesus taught both ways, comparing the sermons allows for the clarification.
>
> Mt 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever
> shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
> Mt 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy
> coat, let him have [thy] cloke also.
>
>
> Lu 6:29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the [one] cheek offer also
> the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not [to take thy]
> coat also.
>
>
>
**resist not evil** also caused silly debate. "The teaching was to not engage in battle over physical abuses" but it is easy to see in debates today that it is taken to mean 'moral evil' by those who cannot discern. We still see this debated today. But Matthew should be clarified by Luke, not pitted against one another.
**right cheek** The right side is your sheep side, your left side is your goat side, symbolic of the natural man. Matthew remembered that Jesus taught that if someone attacks you spiritually, as they did Jesus in denying his claims of divinity, that you should not resist when they want to kill you. This is a hard teaching for martyrs. You seal your testimony with your death. The teaching is not for everyone. Paul taught that your martyrdom counted for nothing if you didn't have Love.
**sue thee at law** was used by Jesus as an example, not as a constraint. Removing it by quoting his other sermon clarifies the teaching.
The additional material was from a memory aided by the Holy Spirit.
The real question for those who adopt sensus plenior hermeneutics is: where did Jesus get the new teaching. The premise is that Jesus got his teaching from the Old Testament sensus plenior, which is how Paul taught the things of Jesus to the Bereans from the OT. | Here we have two cases where Luke is longer than Matthew, and two where Matthew is longer (ignoring textual variants: in fact some traditions have them more similar, possibly an attempt at harmonization).
Lk 6:27-28, 35 > Mt 5:44
Lk 29 < Mt 39-41
Lk 35 < Mt 45
Lk 32-35 > Mt 46-47
If Luke used Matthew, then he expanded two sayings and shortened two sayings. This much is clear.
The most straightforward application of the Q hypothesis here is that Luke and Matthew both expanded Q's short sayings. This is permitted by the evidence, but not required. There could have been four short sayings in Q - everything that is shared precisely by both Luke and Matthew - and Luke and Matthew each expanded two of them and left the others alone. But there could also have been four longer phrases that Luke or Matthew shortened. Or there could have been some that they shortened and some that they expanded.
By the nature of the hypothesis, Q will always have the option of being the least common denominator between (non-Mark) Luke and Matthew, but the reality (assuming Q existed) could be more complex. We can't say whether or not *always expand, never delete* was an editorial principle for Matthew and Luke's use of Q, so it would be speculative to treat the conciseness of the minimal reconstructed Q as representative of what Q actually was. We don't know what liberties Luke took with Q, but the Q hypothesis does require Luke or Matthew or both to have changed the order of sayings in Q, as evidenced by this passage: Matthew 5:46 is brought slightly earlier in Luke. If they could do it to Q, Luke could have just as easily done it to Matthew.
As to the question of why Luke quotes Matthew 7:12 long before he should have reached it, the *exact same question* could be asked to proponents of Q: if the saying appeared somewhere in Q, why does either Luke or Matthew (we can't know which) change its order? The Q hypothesis does have one extra option here, which is that this saying is *not* taken from Q but known both to Matthew and Luke independently. But (1) if so, Luke could also have known the saying independent of Matthew even if he did rely on Matthew; and (2) since Q is a hypothetical document meant to explain coincidences in Matthew and Luke, its inability to explain a particular coincidence would be a blow to the hypothesis. |
46,794 | Some translations word Genesis 34:2 to say that he raped her, but others don't. My Strong's definition for him laying with her seems inconclusive. Is there anything else that would shed light on whether this was a forcible rape or a seduction? Or is rape meant here in a statutory sense - a rape by seduction? | 2020/04/06 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/46794",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | **Premises of this response:**
* There was no Q document (per the OP)
* Luke (writing to a gentile audience) used Matthew’s Gospel (written
to a Jewish audience) as a source. For a more thorough discussion of
the greater Jewish focus of Matthew, and why it indicates that
Matthew preceded Luke, see my thoughts [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFYui1Qd6xA).
--
**What Luke leaves out**
*You have heard it said*
This is a reference to the Mosaic Law. Matthew, writing to Jews, would be able to reference the Torah and his audience would know what he was talking about. For Luke, writing to a gentile audience, references to the Torah would be a distraction at best and a source of confusion at worst. Unsurprisingly then, Luke omits the “you have heard it said” passages found in Matthew.
*Pagans & Tax Collectors*
Matthew’s reference to pagans would be an effective message to the Jews, who prided themselves on being different from pagans. It’s a sharp remark: how good are you if you’re only doing what the pagans do?? It’s an effective and poignant observation of hypocrisy, if people are doing the same things they criticize their “out-group” for doing.
But to Luke, whose readers may well have been pagans (past or present), rather than driving the point home he might actually offend his readers. They didn’t grow up believing in the Lord and probably won’t take well to be referred to as an “out-group”. Even if some of the Jews looked down on the pagans, Luke doesn’t score any points by pointing it out.
On a related note, where Matthew speaks tax-collectors—a group despised by many Jews who saw publicans as traitors in the service of a foreign power—Luke changes the reference to sinners. An educated Greco-Roman audience would likely not feel the same way about tax-collectors as Matthew’s audience did.
In general, Luke portrays Rome in a remarkably positive light (just two examples of many would be Pilate *really* hard to let an innocent man go & Gallio being evenhanded in the Corinthian trial of Paul); he may in fact be doing so in order to try to keep Christianity & Rome on positive terms. As such, he’s not going to go out of his way to gratuitously criticize Rome’s tax-collectors. John Mauck goes into great detail on the context of Luke’s portrayal of Christianity & Rome [here](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0785245987).
*Go the second mile*
This classic teaching from the sermon on the mount (Matthew) is conspicuously absent from the sermon on the plain (Luke). I do not claim to know for certain why, but I can offer a hypothesis. Matthew’s audience would generally be people who were *being asked to go a mile*, whereas Luke’s audience may well include people who were in positions of authority to *compel others to go a mile*. It is widely held that Luke's target audience was *educated* Greco-Romans--the high Greek of his preface (Luke 1:1-4) supports this.
Luke thus leaves this passage out so as not to 1) justify the abuse of power or 2) create the impression that Christians should be targeted for public mistreatment because they’re too nice to say no.
Assuming Matthew wrote first and was used as a source by Luke, there is no need to explain why Matthew leaves out passages found in Luke.
--
**What Luke adds**
Approximately half of the Gospel of Luke is material not found in Matthew or Mark. Whether we call this “L” or “Luke’s notes from eyewitness interviews” or something else, clearly Luke has material and commentary beyond what’s in Matthew (in many contexts) that he wants to include.
Perhaps the most parsimonious solution to what Luke adds in the sermon on the plain is this: the sermon on the plain was a different time and place than the sermon on the mount, and Jesus said some things during the sermon on the plain that he didn’t say on the mount.
If Jesus gave multiple versions of the sermon (traveling preachers do this all the time), then Luke may have heard different versions of the sermon. If Luke had heard several versions of the sermon and really liked certain passages, why not include them even if Matthew had left them out?
I’m hesitant to try to dive too far into speculating what is in the mind of the author (I think this has been the shipwreck of many an exposition on the synoptic problem), but at the very least, whatever his source, Luke had some material that wasn’t in Matthew and it was quite appropriate in the context in which he presented it.
--
**The Golden Rule**
This is one of Jesus’ most iconic teachings. To those who see the sermon on the mount and the sermon on the plain as evidence of fabrication I would ask: find me an itinerant preacher in any time or place who never taught the same ideas more than once. Given that every word attributed to Jesus in the Gospels can be read aloud in under an hour, it is a virtual certainty that over the course of a multi-year ministry He would have said many things—including telling stories more than once & teaching principles not found in the Gospels.
I find it inconceivable that so profound a statement as the golden rule (which to my knowledge is never found *in its positive form* prior to Jesus) would only have been uttered once.
But even if Jesus taught the same parables & principles many times, we shouldn’t expect the Gospel authors to write it many times. A document of this magnitude would be a significant and expensive undertaking—so even if you have a really profound statement to make, you might make it only once.
As such, Matthew & Luke each took the golden rule, probably spoken by Jesus on a number of occasions, and put it in the context they thought would be most effective.
--
**Chronology isn’t the #1 guiding principle here**
Some have been surprised to discover that the Gospels are not designed to be strictly chronological documents. True the infancy narratives are at the beginning and the passion narratives at the end, but in between there appear to be other interests besides chronology.
This is less surprising when we consider that early on, the Gospels were much more likely used as memory aids (see HE 3.24.6) for preachers than as treatises to be read aloud from end to end as a sermon (have you ever tried this with a massive scroll that has no chapters, verses, or spaces between words?). The narrative context then serves a very valuable purpose--it's much easier to remember a story than a long dialogue. A Gospel written in bite-sized pieces (pericopes) would serve the preachers' needs quite well.
(For those who want to really geek out on the synoptic problem, I gave an in-depth presentation of the argument from order which can be found [here](https://youtu.be/L6iBtu9FQCw))
Matthew organizes much of his material by topic and builds his narrative around the major sermons. Luke, on the other hand, organizes a decent portion of his gospel by geography. E.g. Jesus spent time in city A, here are things in said and did there; He spent time in city B, here are things in said and did there, etc. These aren’t hard and fast rules but they are frequent patterns. I believe they explain a decent portion of the dislocations between material shared by Matthew & Luke.
--
**The parable of the stained-glass window**
(described in greater detail [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCFmJXcdc70) from 3:42 to 5:48 )
You see two photographs, both of the same stained-glass window. In one, the window is intact and it is a masterpiece. In the other, it is in shards and fragments in front of the frame—which is bent—as there’s a rock on the ground next to the window. The photographs don’t have timestamps on them, and you’d like to know which was taken first.
In theory it’s possible that either photograph was taken first—it’s possible to restore a broken window so well that nobody can tell it’s a restoration—but it is far more likely that the intact picture was taken first, and then somebody threw a rock through the window.
I see this phenomenon in Matthew & Luke. Matthew has put together magisterial sermons. Luke regularly breaks them up (this is not just the sermon on the mount) and scatters them throughout his Gospel based on his own plan of what content will be covered where. That Luke would break up Matthew’s sermons is easier to believe than that Matthew found all these pieces scattered throughout Luke and managed to assemble a masterpiece from scattered remnants.
This isn’t intended as an attack on Luke; he just has a very different set of organizing principles than does Matthew.
Bringing Q into the mix doesn’t help—the same problem remains. If Matthew used Q, did Matthew patchwork together a stained-glass window from fragments in Q? It’s no more likely than that he did so from Luke. But if Luke is willing to break up sermons he could do it whether his source is Matthew or Q.
Thus, the simplest solution is to get rid of the middleman and drop the Q assumption. If Luke’s use of Q and Luke’s use of Matthew require an (essentially) identical explanation, appealing to Q would only serve to multiply entities beyond necessity.
--
**Insight from Shem Tob Matthew**
The 14th century Shem Tob polemic against Christianity includes a copy of Matthew—in Hebrew—which does not appear to be a translation from Greek or Latin, but rather a descendent of ideas originally put down in Hebrew. ([Here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shem_Tob%27s_Hebrew_Gospel_of_Matthew) is a summary on what Shem Tob is, and [here](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Hebrew_Gospel_of_Matthew/4tdEBdVXg3AC?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover) is a detailed scholarly discussion of what it means.)
A fascinating observation has been made regarding the way the Sermon on the Mount is recorded in Shem Tob:
>
> When the sayings in Luke are placed alongside their parallels in the
> Hebrew text of Matthew 5-7, every time the Hebrew is interrupted by
> the words “Jesus said to his disciples,” without exception Luke jumps
> to a different place in his Gospel or has a void. See [here](https://www.jstor.org/stable/3267296?seq=1) p. 254
>
>
>
This data point, in conjunction with the discussion of the parable of the stained-glass window above, leads me to the conclusion that early on the sermon on the mount—though an unparalleled masterpiece in its entirety—was regularly thought of as a source from which individual lessons could be broken out and used in a variety of contexts (in the ministry you'll find a lot more opportunity for a 2 minute lesson than a 30 minute sermon).
This is exactly what Luke appears to do with the sermon, and if Matthew was already written in a form that made these bite-sized pericopes easy to separate from the whole, there is no need to appeal to Q at all in these passages.
--
**Conclusion**
1. Jesus almost certainly gave the same/similar sermons more than once; variations in different settings should not surprise us.
2. When Matthew says something that would be misunderstood by or offensive to Luke’s audience, Luke usually leaves it out.
3. When Luke has material (from another source and/or setting) that fits contextually very well with material he is obtaining from Matthew, Luke is happy to add it in. Since about half of Luke is not found in the other Gospels, Luke was clearly willing to add material he liked to whichever documents he used as sources.
4. Matthew organized material into effective, self-contained sermons, but they were made up of individual pericopes that were sometimes presented together and sometimes presented on their own. Luke sometimes did one and sometimes the other based upon the themes he was emphasizing in a given place in his Gospel.
5. Q is unnecessary to explain any of this behavior. | "How do those who reject Q explain Matthew 5:38-48 and Luke 6:27-36?"
I am a proponent of the sensus plenior approach, and reject Q. This is how I explain these particular differences.
Jesus taught his disciples many things in many places. He often repeated the teaching using different words.
The disciples did not remember his teaching.
Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to remind them of what they had been taught.
The Greek church did not wish to be Jewish. From time to time, the teaching of the apostles given largely in Jewish communities, was written down and given to the Greek church to keep them abreast in the deeper teachings of the apostles as they learned to handle the 'mystery' with more proficiency, guided by the Spirit reminding them of Jesus's teaching.
These snapshots of the maturing doctrine were done in the order Mark, Matthew, Luke, John.
Differences are explained these ways.
1. Later writings sometimes summarized earlier teachings or did not include them because they had been covered well in earlier writings. They included them word-for-word when it was deemed that the repetition was required in their own presentation.
2. Later writings added material which was discovered in the sensus plenior of the OT as they continued to study the scriptures the way Jesus had taught them.
3. By including a different teaching of Jesus, clarifications were made on issues which were caused by misunderstandings. Later Gospels should been seen as clarifications of earlier gospels, and not pitted against one another.
Concerning these particular differences:
One teaching was on the mount, one was on the plain. Matthew and Luke are relating different sermons. Luke remembered that Jesus taught the same things in different ways on different occasions. The differences remembered are presumed to be significant enough to have included them, presuming that Jesus taught in a different way for a reason.
First we consider some 'colored verses' :
>
> Mt 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse
> you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which
> despitefully use you, and persecute you;
>
>
> Lu 6:27 ¶ But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
> Lu 6:28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
>
>
>
**which hear** was likely added because the teaching of love is impossible to accomplish in the flesh and had generated silly legalistic debates. "Does this mean I can't defend my family? What happens if I accept the teaching but backslide under persecution?" Some simply do not hear "Love your enemies".
**and persecute you** was likely dropped because it caused debate among those who only heard in the flesh: "Are those who despitefully use you, and those who persecute you two groups, or two qualifiers for me to pray for them. That is, must they both despitefully use me AND persecute me?"
I am not suggesting that the author changed Jesus's words, but faithfully reproduced them as they were brought to remembrance by the Spirit, which helped clarify issues that had arisen. Since Jesus taught both ways, comparing the sermons allows for the clarification.
>
> Mt 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever
> shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
> Mt 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy
> coat, let him have [thy] cloke also.
>
>
> Lu 6:29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the [one] cheek offer also
> the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not [to take thy]
> coat also.
>
>
>
**resist not evil** also caused silly debate. "The teaching was to not engage in battle over physical abuses" but it is easy to see in debates today that it is taken to mean 'moral evil' by those who cannot discern. We still see this debated today. But Matthew should be clarified by Luke, not pitted against one another.
**right cheek** The right side is your sheep side, your left side is your goat side, symbolic of the natural man. Matthew remembered that Jesus taught that if someone attacks you spiritually, as they did Jesus in denying his claims of divinity, that you should not resist when they want to kill you. This is a hard teaching for martyrs. You seal your testimony with your death. The teaching is not for everyone. Paul taught that your martyrdom counted for nothing if you didn't have Love.
**sue thee at law** was used by Jesus as an example, not as a constraint. Removing it by quoting his other sermon clarifies the teaching.
The additional material was from a memory aided by the Holy Spirit.
The real question for those who adopt sensus plenior hermeneutics is: where did Jesus get the new teaching. The premise is that Jesus got his teaching from the Old Testament sensus plenior, which is how Paul taught the things of Jesus to the Bereans from the OT. |
46,794 | Some translations word Genesis 34:2 to say that he raped her, but others don't. My Strong's definition for him laying with her seems inconclusive. Is there anything else that would shed light on whether this was a forcible rape or a seduction? Or is rape meant here in a statutory sense - a rape by seduction? | 2020/04/06 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/46794",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | **Premises of this response:**
* There was no Q document (per the OP)
* Luke (writing to a gentile audience) used Matthew’s Gospel (written
to a Jewish audience) as a source. For a more thorough discussion of
the greater Jewish focus of Matthew, and why it indicates that
Matthew preceded Luke, see my thoughts [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFYui1Qd6xA).
--
**What Luke leaves out**
*You have heard it said*
This is a reference to the Mosaic Law. Matthew, writing to Jews, would be able to reference the Torah and his audience would know what he was talking about. For Luke, writing to a gentile audience, references to the Torah would be a distraction at best and a source of confusion at worst. Unsurprisingly then, Luke omits the “you have heard it said” passages found in Matthew.
*Pagans & Tax Collectors*
Matthew’s reference to pagans would be an effective message to the Jews, who prided themselves on being different from pagans. It’s a sharp remark: how good are you if you’re only doing what the pagans do?? It’s an effective and poignant observation of hypocrisy, if people are doing the same things they criticize their “out-group” for doing.
But to Luke, whose readers may well have been pagans (past or present), rather than driving the point home he might actually offend his readers. They didn’t grow up believing in the Lord and probably won’t take well to be referred to as an “out-group”. Even if some of the Jews looked down on the pagans, Luke doesn’t score any points by pointing it out.
On a related note, where Matthew speaks tax-collectors—a group despised by many Jews who saw publicans as traitors in the service of a foreign power—Luke changes the reference to sinners. An educated Greco-Roman audience would likely not feel the same way about tax-collectors as Matthew’s audience did.
In general, Luke portrays Rome in a remarkably positive light (just two examples of many would be Pilate *really* hard to let an innocent man go & Gallio being evenhanded in the Corinthian trial of Paul); he may in fact be doing so in order to try to keep Christianity & Rome on positive terms. As such, he’s not going to go out of his way to gratuitously criticize Rome’s tax-collectors. John Mauck goes into great detail on the context of Luke’s portrayal of Christianity & Rome [here](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0785245987).
*Go the second mile*
This classic teaching from the sermon on the mount (Matthew) is conspicuously absent from the sermon on the plain (Luke). I do not claim to know for certain why, but I can offer a hypothesis. Matthew’s audience would generally be people who were *being asked to go a mile*, whereas Luke’s audience may well include people who were in positions of authority to *compel others to go a mile*. It is widely held that Luke's target audience was *educated* Greco-Romans--the high Greek of his preface (Luke 1:1-4) supports this.
Luke thus leaves this passage out so as not to 1) justify the abuse of power or 2) create the impression that Christians should be targeted for public mistreatment because they’re too nice to say no.
Assuming Matthew wrote first and was used as a source by Luke, there is no need to explain why Matthew leaves out passages found in Luke.
--
**What Luke adds**
Approximately half of the Gospel of Luke is material not found in Matthew or Mark. Whether we call this “L” or “Luke’s notes from eyewitness interviews” or something else, clearly Luke has material and commentary beyond what’s in Matthew (in many contexts) that he wants to include.
Perhaps the most parsimonious solution to what Luke adds in the sermon on the plain is this: the sermon on the plain was a different time and place than the sermon on the mount, and Jesus said some things during the sermon on the plain that he didn’t say on the mount.
If Jesus gave multiple versions of the sermon (traveling preachers do this all the time), then Luke may have heard different versions of the sermon. If Luke had heard several versions of the sermon and really liked certain passages, why not include them even if Matthew had left them out?
I’m hesitant to try to dive too far into speculating what is in the mind of the author (I think this has been the shipwreck of many an exposition on the synoptic problem), but at the very least, whatever his source, Luke had some material that wasn’t in Matthew and it was quite appropriate in the context in which he presented it.
--
**The Golden Rule**
This is one of Jesus’ most iconic teachings. To those who see the sermon on the mount and the sermon on the plain as evidence of fabrication I would ask: find me an itinerant preacher in any time or place who never taught the same ideas more than once. Given that every word attributed to Jesus in the Gospels can be read aloud in under an hour, it is a virtual certainty that over the course of a multi-year ministry He would have said many things—including telling stories more than once & teaching principles not found in the Gospels.
I find it inconceivable that so profound a statement as the golden rule (which to my knowledge is never found *in its positive form* prior to Jesus) would only have been uttered once.
But even if Jesus taught the same parables & principles many times, we shouldn’t expect the Gospel authors to write it many times. A document of this magnitude would be a significant and expensive undertaking—so even if you have a really profound statement to make, you might make it only once.
As such, Matthew & Luke each took the golden rule, probably spoken by Jesus on a number of occasions, and put it in the context they thought would be most effective.
--
**Chronology isn’t the #1 guiding principle here**
Some have been surprised to discover that the Gospels are not designed to be strictly chronological documents. True the infancy narratives are at the beginning and the passion narratives at the end, but in between there appear to be other interests besides chronology.
This is less surprising when we consider that early on, the Gospels were much more likely used as memory aids (see HE 3.24.6) for preachers than as treatises to be read aloud from end to end as a sermon (have you ever tried this with a massive scroll that has no chapters, verses, or spaces between words?). The narrative context then serves a very valuable purpose--it's much easier to remember a story than a long dialogue. A Gospel written in bite-sized pieces (pericopes) would serve the preachers' needs quite well.
(For those who want to really geek out on the synoptic problem, I gave an in-depth presentation of the argument from order which can be found [here](https://youtu.be/L6iBtu9FQCw))
Matthew organizes much of his material by topic and builds his narrative around the major sermons. Luke, on the other hand, organizes a decent portion of his gospel by geography. E.g. Jesus spent time in city A, here are things in said and did there; He spent time in city B, here are things in said and did there, etc. These aren’t hard and fast rules but they are frequent patterns. I believe they explain a decent portion of the dislocations between material shared by Matthew & Luke.
--
**The parable of the stained-glass window**
(described in greater detail [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCFmJXcdc70) from 3:42 to 5:48 )
You see two photographs, both of the same stained-glass window. In one, the window is intact and it is a masterpiece. In the other, it is in shards and fragments in front of the frame—which is bent—as there’s a rock on the ground next to the window. The photographs don’t have timestamps on them, and you’d like to know which was taken first.
In theory it’s possible that either photograph was taken first—it’s possible to restore a broken window so well that nobody can tell it’s a restoration—but it is far more likely that the intact picture was taken first, and then somebody threw a rock through the window.
I see this phenomenon in Matthew & Luke. Matthew has put together magisterial sermons. Luke regularly breaks them up (this is not just the sermon on the mount) and scatters them throughout his Gospel based on his own plan of what content will be covered where. That Luke would break up Matthew’s sermons is easier to believe than that Matthew found all these pieces scattered throughout Luke and managed to assemble a masterpiece from scattered remnants.
This isn’t intended as an attack on Luke; he just has a very different set of organizing principles than does Matthew.
Bringing Q into the mix doesn’t help—the same problem remains. If Matthew used Q, did Matthew patchwork together a stained-glass window from fragments in Q? It’s no more likely than that he did so from Luke. But if Luke is willing to break up sermons he could do it whether his source is Matthew or Q.
Thus, the simplest solution is to get rid of the middleman and drop the Q assumption. If Luke’s use of Q and Luke’s use of Matthew require an (essentially) identical explanation, appealing to Q would only serve to multiply entities beyond necessity.
--
**Insight from Shem Tob Matthew**
The 14th century Shem Tob polemic against Christianity includes a copy of Matthew—in Hebrew—which does not appear to be a translation from Greek or Latin, but rather a descendent of ideas originally put down in Hebrew. ([Here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shem_Tob%27s_Hebrew_Gospel_of_Matthew) is a summary on what Shem Tob is, and [here](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Hebrew_Gospel_of_Matthew/4tdEBdVXg3AC?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover) is a detailed scholarly discussion of what it means.)
A fascinating observation has been made regarding the way the Sermon on the Mount is recorded in Shem Tob:
>
> When the sayings in Luke are placed alongside their parallels in the
> Hebrew text of Matthew 5-7, every time the Hebrew is interrupted by
> the words “Jesus said to his disciples,” without exception Luke jumps
> to a different place in his Gospel or has a void. See [here](https://www.jstor.org/stable/3267296?seq=1) p. 254
>
>
>
This data point, in conjunction with the discussion of the parable of the stained-glass window above, leads me to the conclusion that early on the sermon on the mount—though an unparalleled masterpiece in its entirety—was regularly thought of as a source from which individual lessons could be broken out and used in a variety of contexts (in the ministry you'll find a lot more opportunity for a 2 minute lesson than a 30 minute sermon).
This is exactly what Luke appears to do with the sermon, and if Matthew was already written in a form that made these bite-sized pericopes easy to separate from the whole, there is no need to appeal to Q at all in these passages.
--
**Conclusion**
1. Jesus almost certainly gave the same/similar sermons more than once; variations in different settings should not surprise us.
2. When Matthew says something that would be misunderstood by or offensive to Luke’s audience, Luke usually leaves it out.
3. When Luke has material (from another source and/or setting) that fits contextually very well with material he is obtaining from Matthew, Luke is happy to add it in. Since about half of Luke is not found in the other Gospels, Luke was clearly willing to add material he liked to whichever documents he used as sources.
4. Matthew organized material into effective, self-contained sermons, but they were made up of individual pericopes that were sometimes presented together and sometimes presented on their own. Luke sometimes did one and sometimes the other based upon the themes he was emphasizing in a given place in his Gospel.
5. Q is unnecessary to explain any of this behavior. | Here we have two cases where Luke is longer than Matthew, and two where Matthew is longer (ignoring textual variants: in fact some traditions have them more similar, possibly an attempt at harmonization).
Lk 6:27-28, 35 > Mt 5:44
Lk 29 < Mt 39-41
Lk 35 < Mt 45
Lk 32-35 > Mt 46-47
If Luke used Matthew, then he expanded two sayings and shortened two sayings. This much is clear.
The most straightforward application of the Q hypothesis here is that Luke and Matthew both expanded Q's short sayings. This is permitted by the evidence, but not required. There could have been four short sayings in Q - everything that is shared precisely by both Luke and Matthew - and Luke and Matthew each expanded two of them and left the others alone. But there could also have been four longer phrases that Luke or Matthew shortened. Or there could have been some that they shortened and some that they expanded.
By the nature of the hypothesis, Q will always have the option of being the least common denominator between (non-Mark) Luke and Matthew, but the reality (assuming Q existed) could be more complex. We can't say whether or not *always expand, never delete* was an editorial principle for Matthew and Luke's use of Q, so it would be speculative to treat the conciseness of the minimal reconstructed Q as representative of what Q actually was. We don't know what liberties Luke took with Q, but the Q hypothesis does require Luke or Matthew or both to have changed the order of sayings in Q, as evidenced by this passage: Matthew 5:46 is brought slightly earlier in Luke. If they could do it to Q, Luke could have just as easily done it to Matthew.
As to the question of why Luke quotes Matthew 7:12 long before he should have reached it, the *exact same question* could be asked to proponents of Q: if the saying appeared somewhere in Q, why does either Luke or Matthew (we can't know which) change its order? The Q hypothesis does have one extra option here, which is that this saying is *not* taken from Q but known both to Matthew and Luke independently. But (1) if so, Luke could also have known the saying independent of Matthew even if he did rely on Matthew; and (2) since Q is a hypothetical document meant to explain coincidences in Matthew and Luke, its inability to explain a particular coincidence would be a blow to the hypothesis. |
217,673 | I have created a system using arduino where it controls 5 different electric lines. For example:
Line 1, Line 2, Line 3, Line 4 and Line 5. What arduino does is, it turns on the Line 1 if it has power and if it doesn't have power it turns on the Line 2 and etc. Arduino turns on/off the 5V relay and it has at least 5 sec interval when switching from one line to another(in this case I have 5 x 5V relays). It is working perfect and I am very happy with the system, however I am concerned about relay fails to disconnect when commanded.
For example: If Line 2 was on and suddenly Line 1 also gets power and arduino will turn off Line 2 and after 5 secs it turns on Line 1. What if Line 2 relay didn't brake the curcuit? I think I will have a fire or something really bad.
My question is, can I some how make fuse so that never more than one lines will be connected?
See my schema:
The reason I am doing this is, in our office we have 5 different lines of electric and I want to control it automatically. Also I would like to see which line has power and being able to control it from the computer.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/8rvyc.png) | 2016/02/17 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/217673",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/56691/"
] | When the motor is spinning it generates a voltage proportional to its rotational speed (almost equal to the supply voltage when running free). Then when you apply a short the current is determined by that voltage and the motor's internal resistance. Torque is proportional to current, so initially you get a braking force equal to the stall torque. However as the motor slows down it produces less voltage, so the current and torque reduces (down to zero when it stops). If the 'short' is not a low resistance compared to the motor's internal resistance then it will have even less braking force.
Any inertia in the drive chain will make it run on past the point where you try to stop. A motor in a gearbox has a lot of inertia due to the high rotational speed of the armature and first gear stages. It will never stop instantly, just like it won't go from stationary to full speed instantly when powered up.
Motors such as the RF300 and RF370 typically have high internal resistance and low torque, relying on the gearbox to provide sufficient output torque. They also have heavy iron-cored armatures which increase inertia. Swapping out the motor for a more powerful coreless type with low internal resistance would improve the braking speed. Unfortunately good coreless motors tend to be expensive, and often require matching (expensive!) gearboxes.
You can stop faster by applying reverse voltage, but be careful because that can cause the transistor bridge to 'shoot-through' if you don't stop and wait for the inductive back-emf to die down before reversing. Also the peak current will be twice as high as normal.
Even with reverse voltage applied it will take some time to stop. To compensate for this you must start braking the motor *before* the robot gets to the position you want. How much before depends on the amount of inertia in the system, which may vary depending on what the robot is doing. | I can report that braking by shorting the motor DOES reduce stopping distance somewhat. Use a relay to engage power through the powered-closed terminals and short the motor through the powered open terminals - Thus you go from powered to shorted in just the time it takes the relay arm to switch positions - not long!
I had been hoping for a more immediate stop than I got. Different application but same requirement for a very abrupt stop. How is it achieved in some cordless drills? In these it is very effective and abrupt. |
217,673 | I have created a system using arduino where it controls 5 different electric lines. For example:
Line 1, Line 2, Line 3, Line 4 and Line 5. What arduino does is, it turns on the Line 1 if it has power and if it doesn't have power it turns on the Line 2 and etc. Arduino turns on/off the 5V relay and it has at least 5 sec interval when switching from one line to another(in this case I have 5 x 5V relays). It is working perfect and I am very happy with the system, however I am concerned about relay fails to disconnect when commanded.
For example: If Line 2 was on and suddenly Line 1 also gets power and arduino will turn off Line 2 and after 5 secs it turns on Line 1. What if Line 2 relay didn't brake the curcuit? I think I will have a fire or something really bad.
My question is, can I some how make fuse so that never more than one lines will be connected?
See my schema:
The reason I am doing this is, in our office we have 5 different lines of electric and I want to control it automatically. Also I would like to see which line has power and being able to control it from the computer.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/8rvyc.png) | 2016/02/17 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/217673",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/56691/"
] | When the motor is spinning it generates a voltage proportional to its rotational speed (almost equal to the supply voltage when running free). Then when you apply a short the current is determined by that voltage and the motor's internal resistance. Torque is proportional to current, so initially you get a braking force equal to the stall torque. However as the motor slows down it produces less voltage, so the current and torque reduces (down to zero when it stops). If the 'short' is not a low resistance compared to the motor's internal resistance then it will have even less braking force.
Any inertia in the drive chain will make it run on past the point where you try to stop. A motor in a gearbox has a lot of inertia due to the high rotational speed of the armature and first gear stages. It will never stop instantly, just like it won't go from stationary to full speed instantly when powered up.
Motors such as the RF300 and RF370 typically have high internal resistance and low torque, relying on the gearbox to provide sufficient output torque. They also have heavy iron-cored armatures which increase inertia. Swapping out the motor for a more powerful coreless type with low internal resistance would improve the braking speed. Unfortunately good coreless motors tend to be expensive, and often require matching (expensive!) gearboxes.
You can stop faster by applying reverse voltage, but be careful because that can cause the transistor bridge to 'shoot-through' if you don't stop and wait for the inductive back-emf to die down before reversing. Also the peak current will be twice as high as normal.
Even with reverse voltage applied it will take some time to stop. To compensate for this you must start braking the motor *before* the robot gets to the position you want. How much before depends on the amount of inertia in the system, which may vary depending on what the robot is doing. | Shorting motor terminals absolutely does slow down the motor, that's how EM brakes work. However, electric braking is inefficient at low speed, that's why all electric vehicles have conventional brakes in addition to electric. Adding a conventional brake could also be an option for you.
If your motors are running at slow speeds (hundreds RPM or less), consider using faster motors with a gearbox. This will increase the efficiency of EM braking by the factor your gearbox provides.
In the end, if you want to have pure position control, you should use stepping motors. If you're using regular motors, you don't directly control the position, only the speed, and your algorithm should take that into account. E.g. you could decide on a trajectory, calculate the required speed as a function of time, and then try to run your motor at that speed, adding correction from position error. |
217,673 | I have created a system using arduino where it controls 5 different electric lines. For example:
Line 1, Line 2, Line 3, Line 4 and Line 5. What arduino does is, it turns on the Line 1 if it has power and if it doesn't have power it turns on the Line 2 and etc. Arduino turns on/off the 5V relay and it has at least 5 sec interval when switching from one line to another(in this case I have 5 x 5V relays). It is working perfect and I am very happy with the system, however I am concerned about relay fails to disconnect when commanded.
For example: If Line 2 was on and suddenly Line 1 also gets power and arduino will turn off Line 2 and after 5 secs it turns on Line 1. What if Line 2 relay didn't brake the curcuit? I think I will have a fire or something really bad.
My question is, can I some how make fuse so that never more than one lines will be connected?
See my schema:
The reason I am doing this is, in our office we have 5 different lines of electric and I want to control it automatically. Also I would like to see which line has power and being able to control it from the computer.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/8rvyc.png) | 2016/02/17 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/217673",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/56691/"
] | I can report that braking by shorting the motor DOES reduce stopping distance somewhat. Use a relay to engage power through the powered-closed terminals and short the motor through the powered open terminals - Thus you go from powered to shorted in just the time it takes the relay arm to switch positions - not long!
I had been hoping for a more immediate stop than I got. Different application but same requirement for a very abrupt stop. How is it achieved in some cordless drills? In these it is very effective and abrupt. | Shorting motor terminals absolutely does slow down the motor, that's how EM brakes work. However, electric braking is inefficient at low speed, that's why all electric vehicles have conventional brakes in addition to electric. Adding a conventional brake could also be an option for you.
If your motors are running at slow speeds (hundreds RPM or less), consider using faster motors with a gearbox. This will increase the efficiency of EM braking by the factor your gearbox provides.
In the end, if you want to have pure position control, you should use stepping motors. If you're using regular motors, you don't directly control the position, only the speed, and your algorithm should take that into account. E.g. you could decide on a trajectory, calculate the required speed as a function of time, and then try to run your motor at that speed, adding correction from position error. |
66,443 | What if travel destination is Egypt? Can they see if a warrant has been issued from the USA? | 2016/04/09 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/66443",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | In general, if someone is traveling while a country wants to arrest him, the big concern is an [Interpol notice](http://www.interpol.int/INTERPOL-expertise/Notices). These are formal requests from one member country to all others with regard to individuals of interest.
In particular, the Red Notice is issued when a country is willing to extradite someone from anywhere else in the world. [This is very expensive, so countries don't always do it.](https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-611-interpol-red-notices) Interpol notices are checked at immigration controls and usually during police checks in a country as well.
If you have had a Red Notice issued, you should expect that you will be detained at the port of entry of [almost any country you visit](http://www.interpol.int/Member-countries/World), likely for several weeks, possibly for months, while the country which issued the notice works on extradition proceedings.
Some Interpol Red Notices are public, and there is [a searchable database](http://www.interpol.int/notice/search/wanted) available for these.
It's important to note that a Red Notice is *not* an "international arrest warrant". There is no such thing. It also does not compel member countries to detain or to do *anything* with respect to the noticed individual. However, many countries *will* detain and notify the country which requested the notice to begin extradition proceedings, depending on what treaties they have in place. In other cases, the noticed individual may merely be refused entry. And it's possible the Red Notice could be entirely ignored (but don't count on it).
If you've attracted this level of attention from the US, it's likely that your passport will also have been revoked, and a notice to that effect made available to the rest of the world. This also will make travel difficult.
---
If a country doesn't want to spend all that money on extradition, they can also issue a Green Notice, which advises member countries of an individual's criminal activity, but doesn't request extradition. Immigration officials will also see a flag as soon as they read your passport, and will become aware of your criminal history when they look into the flag. You may then be refused entry to a country based on your criminal history or based on deceiving the immigration officer about it (if you attempt to do that). Many countries do not allow someone with outstanding arrest warrants to enter.
---
There are also country-specific agreements which give certain countries direct access to criminal records of other countries.
For instance, the US and Canada share access to law enforcement information, and if you cross the US-Canada border, Canadian border officials can access your complete US criminal record. This includes anything a US police officer can see, not just Interpol notices. In this case there may not be any extradition; you'll be refused entry and returned immediately to the US, where you'll then be arrested. | If you have a warrant issued in the US, it is only valid in the US jurisdiction; unless the US issues an international arrest warrant for you, through Interpol.
If it does that though, rest assured your passport will also be flagged and most probably revoked and you would immediately be detained and proceeding will start for deportation.
So, if you simply have a US arrest warrant, this information is not available to Egyptian officials - since they only have access to their own databases and the Interpol database of notices and wanted people.
Even if they can "see" the warrant, they cannot detain you under it. They can deny you entry because of it - some countries do not allow people with any criminal history to cross their borders; but then you would be held for illegal entry or possibly fraud (for hiding your criminal history from immigration), and not for the offense on the warrant. |
24,935,351 | I have developed an application to sync mssql database. It was working properly until my server database schema changed. after that i am having **"Invalid Column Name"** SqlException error.
If i delete both client and server database than sync application works properly.
So please guide me to solve this issue.
Thank you. | 2014/07/24 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/24935351",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/3873151/"
] | Sync Framework doesn't handle schema changes automatically. if you used the GetDescriptionForTable to provision, it takes the column definition at that point in time. if you alter the schema, then the scope definition is out of sync with the actual table schema. | You have to deprovision your database and provision it again with the new schema. |
7,292 | Is it safe? Or should we make the food comes to room temperature and then heat it? | 2016/07/03 | [
"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/7292",
"https://health.stackexchange.com",
"https://health.stackexchange.com/users/5111/"
] | It is perfectly safe to cook food right from the refrigerator. In fact, that's the safest approach to avoid having your food spend excess time in the "Danger Zone":
>
> Leaving food out too long at room temperature can cause bacteria (such
> as Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella Enteritidis, Escherichia coli
> O157:H7, and Campylobacter) to grow to dangerous levels that can cause
> illness. Bacteria grow most rapidly in the range of temperatures
> between 40 °F [4 °C] and 140 °F[60 °C], doubling in number in as little as 20
> minutes. This range of temperatures is often called the "Danger Zone."
>
>
>
There is a hard limit on how long food can remain in the Danger Zone:
>
> Never leave food out of refrigeration over 2 hours. If the temperature
> is above 90 °F, food should not be left out more than 1 hour.
>
>
>
And be aware that time spent in the danger zone is cumulative. So, for example, suppose you go to the market and buy some meat and it takes you an hour to finish your shopping and get home, where you then put the meat in the refrigerator. Now when you take that meat out later to cook it, it can only spend a maximum of *one* hour at room temperature. (Or if the temperature is over 90 °F[32 °C], it has no time left and you need to cook it immediately.)
<http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/safe-food-handling/danger-zone-40-f-140-f/CT_Index> | I agree that it is dangerous, but a famous chef made the comment that he allows his steaks to come to room temperature because if the steak is cold and put into a hot pan the meat will seize up and become tough. I think the bacteria tend to grow on the surface of the meat more and that is the part that is in extreme temperature.
Chopped meats, because they are exposed to air when going through the grinder, are a greater danger to you and should be cooked more thoroughly than steak. |
7,292 | Is it safe? Or should we make the food comes to room temperature and then heat it? | 2016/07/03 | [
"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/7292",
"https://health.stackexchange.com",
"https://health.stackexchange.com/users/5111/"
] | It is perfectly safe to cook food right from the refrigerator. In fact, that's the safest approach to avoid having your food spend excess time in the "Danger Zone":
>
> Leaving food out too long at room temperature can cause bacteria (such
> as Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella Enteritidis, Escherichia coli
> O157:H7, and Campylobacter) to grow to dangerous levels that can cause
> illness. Bacteria grow most rapidly in the range of temperatures
> between 40 °F [4 °C] and 140 °F[60 °C], doubling in number in as little as 20
> minutes. This range of temperatures is often called the "Danger Zone."
>
>
>
There is a hard limit on how long food can remain in the Danger Zone:
>
> Never leave food out of refrigeration over 2 hours. If the temperature
> is above 90 °F, food should not be left out more than 1 hour.
>
>
>
And be aware that time spent in the danger zone is cumulative. So, for example, suppose you go to the market and buy some meat and it takes you an hour to finish your shopping and get home, where you then put the meat in the refrigerator. Now when you take that meat out later to cook it, it can only spend a maximum of *one* hour at room temperature. (Or if the temperature is over 90 °F[32 °C], it has no time left and you need to cook it immediately.)
<http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/safe-food-handling/danger-zone-40-f-140-f/CT_Index> | You should leave the food in the natural room temperature to give the iced water droops inside the food to melt so when the food heated, only minimal heat is needed to heat the whole food parts and equally in temperature. |
32,713,750 | I am refactoring a big PHP project (more than 500 PHP files) into namespace tree structure.
Is there a way to get Eclipse PDT automatically add *use ...* at the top of the file when an undefined class is encountered?
Otherwise: is there a way to get Eclipse PDT highlight undefined classes, so that i can do sort of *right click -> add namespace*, like in Microsoft Visual Studio?
Thank you | 2015/09/22 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/32713750",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2029958/"
] | Eclipse will not add use statement on save, only while ctrl+space.
You can install Pex-Core plugin. It have class usage validator and quick assist (ctrl + 1) "inject use statement". Available at <http://p2.pdt-extensions.org> | I offer <https://www.jetbrains.com/phpstorm/>
and read this document
<https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/PhpStorm/PHP+Namespaces+and+PSR+Support+in+PhpStorm#PHPNamespacesandPSRSupportinPhpStorm-DetectingNamespacesnotfollowingthePSR-0orPSR-4Configuration> |
9,705 | I have security camera recordings which are 1 - 8 hours in duration and I need to be able to view them in a short period of time to review long periods of time.
Windows Media Player supports 8 seconds per second but this really doesn't do the job for me. I'd have to sit and wait a very long time to get through 8 hours of footage.
Is there any software that can do this? | 2014/07/10 | [
"https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/9705",
"https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/users/6320/"
] | You can try `VLC` from [videolan.org](https://www.videolan.org). It is free, but you should donate if you use it (especially in a business environment). :)
It supports up to 32x playback speed - 32 seconds real footage in 1 second - so, 8 hours in 15 minutes.
But you should ask yourself - you really can catch up something in that speed?
And the more important thing is: your processor and HDD speed.
At 32x playback the processor should decode 32 times faster than at normal speed and *your HDD should allows that big data rates*, especially if the video is in HD.
Try it on your HW.
Edit
====
To clarify (re: comment) based on the real world (read my own) experiences.
At 1080p resolution, H264 encoded video is 2GB per hour (common movie sizes are 3GB per 1.5 hour of movie). On extremely well encoded videos you can get 1 GB/hour. So 8 hours video is approx. 8-16GB size, depending on the encoding quality.
HDD speed. On my crap notebook I'm getting approx. 13 Mbytes/s read speed. The HDD is old and, honestly it was not defragmented. That means that simple reading a *1.25 Gbyte* file took 1 minute and 20 seconds. Reading (not copying) a 12 GB file took 16 minutes!
So, on my crap notebook I simply can't read an 12GB file sequentially in 15 minutes.
And about playback. On my notebook I can't get faster playback speed than 6.8x. ;( On my desktop (also not the best HW) my limit is 22-25x. Never got 32x.
Maybe, your experience is better, but remember: *In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.* :)
With good (current level) HW there should be "no problem" - therefore I said: *try it on your HW*. ;) | You can use [smplayer](http://smplayer.sourceforge.net/), its a freeware, open-source project based on [mplayer](http://www.mplayerhq.hu/design7/news.html), a very robust and fast media player. It's available for Windows and Linux.
You can configure the seek time through its configuration panel to whatever amount fits your needs.
Also, it's a very easy to use, fast, lightweight and configurable tool to watch videos. |
9,705 | I have security camera recordings which are 1 - 8 hours in duration and I need to be able to view them in a short period of time to review long periods of time.
Windows Media Player supports 8 seconds per second but this really doesn't do the job for me. I'd have to sit and wait a very long time to get through 8 hours of footage.
Is there any software that can do this? | 2014/07/10 | [
"https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/9705",
"https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/users/6320/"
] | You can try `VLC` from [videolan.org](https://www.videolan.org). It is free, but you should donate if you use it (especially in a business environment). :)
It supports up to 32x playback speed - 32 seconds real footage in 1 second - so, 8 hours in 15 minutes.
But you should ask yourself - you really can catch up something in that speed?
And the more important thing is: your processor and HDD speed.
At 32x playback the processor should decode 32 times faster than at normal speed and *your HDD should allows that big data rates*, especially if the video is in HD.
Try it on your HW.
Edit
====
To clarify (re: comment) based on the real world (read my own) experiences.
At 1080p resolution, H264 encoded video is 2GB per hour (common movie sizes are 3GB per 1.5 hour of movie). On extremely well encoded videos you can get 1 GB/hour. So 8 hours video is approx. 8-16GB size, depending on the encoding quality.
HDD speed. On my crap notebook I'm getting approx. 13 Mbytes/s read speed. The HDD is old and, honestly it was not defragmented. That means that simple reading a *1.25 Gbyte* file took 1 minute and 20 seconds. Reading (not copying) a 12 GB file took 16 minutes!
So, on my crap notebook I simply can't read an 12GB file sequentially in 15 minutes.
And about playback. On my notebook I can't get faster playback speed than 6.8x. ;( On my desktop (also not the best HW) my limit is 22-25x. Never got 32x.
Maybe, your experience is better, but remember: *In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.* :)
With good (current level) HW there should be "no problem" - therefore I said: *try it on your HW*. ;) | Try [Virtualdub](http://www.virtualdub.org/) - it has 'next scene' button, maybe based on image analysis. But give it a test - how much change does it take to be 'next scene', does'nt it overlook your required changes.
Also take look at [iSpy](http://www.ispyconnect.com/) to either completely redo your system, or feed video to it in parallel, or feed old video to it for alarms. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.