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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
71,639 | Some of the best bread makers often work with a secret ingredient - e.g. a yeast starter that has been passed down for generations.
Jesus told his disciples to beware of the “(ζύμης) yeast of the Pharisees” - i.e. their teachings (Matt. 16:6, 11; Mark 8:15; Luke 12:1). The conventional interpretation is that the symbolism Jesus meant is that of yeast used in bread.
However, yeast starters are also used in [beer](https://www.whatwouldjesusbrew.beer/faq/is-beer-mentioned-in-the-bible/) and wine making. For example, Christian blessings of wine being crushed at harvest time have included bottles of wine (with residual yeast) from previous vintages being poured into the juice of newly pressed grapes going into fermentation vats. Indeed, without good yeast used in wine making the resulting beverage fermented from wild yeasts can sometimes be toxic - resulting in headaches and even causing health problems.
Are there any Bible commentaries that broaden the scope & analogy of Jesus' reference to yeast to include more than just yeast used in bread making? If not, how do we know the Jesus was just thinking about just bread yeast in his teaching about the Pharisees?
For example, with wild yeasts in wine making, there a chance that things can go really bad or really good in the fermentation process. With the Pharisees and other leaders (Sadducees) there were some good teachings, but also some pretty wild teachings that resulted in sour grape outcomes.
Likewise today, one might argue, that there is a tendency in even mainstream religious institutions & leaders to have teachings that are pretty wild. As a result, an argument can be made that this has yielded a sour (i.e. hyper critical) skeptical or unbalanced graceless legalistic approach to the Christian faith.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/uzQJD.jpg) | 2021/12/05 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/71639",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/44608/"
] | Generally speaking Jesus used a number of physical necessities for life to represent and parallel with "spiritual" necessities for life.The foremost among these were bread and water. Food and drink. Everyone knows physical animals need food and drink to survive and live in the physical world and Jesus used these basic human staples of bread and water as metaphors for the equivalent necessities for life in the spiritual.
EG:
>
> John 6:35 I am the bread of life,” Jesus told them. “No one who comes
> to Me will ever be hungry, and no one who believes in Me will ever be
> thirsty again.
>
>
>
There are countless other scriptural referrences for bread and water I can make here too many to list but essentially its about "spiritual sustanance". The base essentials required to survive.
Jesus also uses several references to "leven" and "yeast" which speaks explicitly about the "expanding" properties that are kind of unique to bread and similar food products. How it makes bread grow much larger and rise higher. He links leven expanding in bread with seeds growing into large trees in the parables given in Matthew 13:32.
EG:
>
> The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed that a man planted in his
> field. although it is the smallest of all seeds, yet it grows into the
> largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the
> air come and nest in its branches. He told them still another parable:
> “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven that a woman took and mixed into
> three measures of flour, until all of it was leavened.”
>
>
>
My understanding is in both cases that the "seeds" and "yeast" is basically used metaphorically for "teaching" or "principles". Gods teaching and principles may start out and seem very small. But if you "plant" them or "mix" them into yourself it will cause huge expansion because they are life giving. That small seed grows into a giant tree and the measure of dough will expand significantly into large serving of bread. Similar sentiments are expressed in his feeding of the 5000 and 4000 where he takes small quantities of bread and expands them into huge quantities to feed large crowds.
So based on the parables Jesus used and the context in which Jesus spoke I believe he used the "Yeast" or "leven" symbology specifically in relationship with his parable of the bread. The "Yeast" of the pharisees is there "teaching", "principles" and "actions" which did not align with Gods. Specifically he said the pharisees yeast was "Hypocracy". They did not practice what they preached and so there bread did not expand and grow the bread like the yeast of God.
>
> Then they understood that He was not telling them to beware of the
> leaven used in bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and
> Sadducees
>
>
> Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.
>
>
> Mat23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers
> of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be
> careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do,
> for they do not practice what they preach.
>
>
>
You have also mentioned wine and Jesus did also use the metaphor/parable of "wine" extensively but my understanding it was never linked to Yeast. His use of wine is more linked with the transformation process of sacrifice. The "Crushing" and fermentation to turn it into something more "potent". (Similar to the metaphor of "oil" production). It involves "Sacrifice" and often painful and difficult transformation of the original substances. Some of the meaning of this was more self evident at the time because the people were closer and more involved in the production process for these substances. They stomped the grapes to produce wine, the crushed the olives to produce olive oil and they ripped the bark off the trees to produce the resin used in Frankincense. I'm not aware of any parables where yeast is explicitly used in relationship to wine or beer so I do not see this as applicable. | OP answered in two parts. Firstly the historical practices of the day, secondly the direct exegesis. The correct translation provided be @PerryWebb is clearly the answer and key to this passage and must taken as a direct reference to the Feast of the Unleavened Bread.
On the translation we have which is 'yeast' and possibly not the best translation, then this might work as a translation within the broader understanding of yeast culture fermentation ...
**Historical practices of fermentation Israel versus Egypt** To answer @Jess, the confusion regarding the role of 'yeast' (not leavened bread) this would be relevant to Egypt at this point in history. For example, the Book of the Dead for Ka (tomb builder) and Merit (Ka's wife) makes it explicitly clear beer consumption was a dietary staple for the regular working man (women dunno) in Egypt because Ka repeatedly requested this for his afterlife and would have commissioned their Book because he outlived his wife. Ka would have received part of his wages in barley, thus they would have needed yeast to ferment it. I do understand Egyptology is probably out of bounds here, so I'll not expound the example further.
There are few references to beer drinking in the Old Testament, albeit Proverbs 31:4-7 is certainly one of them (implying beer was pretty common) and I'm not aware of any in the New Testament. There are frequent references to wine/vineyards in the Old and New Testament most notably the Last Supper, but key issue is that the fermentation process is very different to beer.
Beer needs a bread style yeast culture, otherwise (generally) its just barley water. Wine works because grape skins carry their own natural yeast (that dusty stuff on grapes is yeast). Thus all thats needed to make wine is to squash 'em and leave it, the yeast on the skin mixes with the sugars within the grapes. I accept a lot of modern wine making (not all) for exact branding and quality control is highly unlikely to rely on the variation from wild yeast.
The relevance is as follows: given the translation we have there would have been little ambiguity (probably none) with the use of a yeast culture as a method of fermentation for Israelites at this point in history. Thus, I take the point that the same yeast used for bread can be used for fermentation - and ancient Egyptians would have likely followed this practice to make beer, but not the Israelites because thats not how they made wine.
The translation 'Beware the leavened bread' (heavily paraphrased) has very different meaning however ...
---
**Biblical exegesis**
Just to further @Chengarda comment, the Feast of the Unleavened Bread must be central to the exegesis of the passages of Matt. 16:6, 11; Mark 8:15; Luke 12:1
The presence of bread associated with yeast in any house for anyone (Jew or Gentile) during the Festival resulted in being 'cut-off' from Israel (Exodus 12:15; 19 RSV [below]). Whether the penalty was observed in first century Israel under Roman occupation, who knows, but there must have been significant diligence.
Yeast-risen bread, whilst not prohibited under the Mosaic law, is very bad news indeed if its in the wrong place at the wrong time. Calling someone 'yeast-risen bread', i.e. their teaching, is extreme. If this stuffs in your house at Festival time you're 'cut-off' from Israel.
The precise prohibition on eating yeast-risen bread appears complex and my reading is 3 weeks based Exodus 12 (7 days + 14 days), but could be 14 days in total. The first 7 days of the Feast strictly prohibiting any leavened bread being within the house: I assume versus Exodus 12:19 (RSV) re-refers to the first seven days of this feast and this is where the maximum penalty appears to kick-in.
RSV
>
> 14 “This day shall be for you a memorial day, and you shall keep it as
> a feast to the Lord; throughout your generations you shall observe it
> as an ordinance for ever. 15 Seven days you shall eat unleavened
> bread; on the first day you shall put away leaven out of your houses,
> for if any one eats what is leavened, from the first day until the
> seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel.
>
>
>
>
> 17 And you shall observe the
> feast of unleavened bread, for on this very day I brought your hosts
> out of the land of Egypt: therefore you shall observe this day,
> throughout your generations, as an ordinance for ever. 18 In the first
> month, on the fourteenth day of the month at evening, you shall eat
> unleavened bread, and so until the twenty-first day of the month at
> evening. 19 For seven days no leaven shall be found in your houses;
> for if any one eats what is leavened, that person shall be cut off
> from the congregation of Israel, whether he is a sojourner or a native
> of the land. 20 You shall eat nothing leavened; in all your dwellings
> you shall eat unleavened bread.”
>
>
>
**Summary**
In my personal opinion, this is a poor translation from two perspectives:
1. The translation is antiquated, given the historic application of yeast culture fermentation is not generally understood (why should it be). Whilst the translators from William Tyndale onwards might have had a strong understanding of this, this cannot be assumed.
2. Furthermore the translation takes us away from the shear intensity of Jesus' words. This is gut-punch to the Pharisees. There is no way anyone should go near their teaching, which was central to their very their role.
I've done the tour BTW to pre-empt the welcome message. |
71,639 | Some of the best bread makers often work with a secret ingredient - e.g. a yeast starter that has been passed down for generations.
Jesus told his disciples to beware of the “(ζύμης) yeast of the Pharisees” - i.e. their teachings (Matt. 16:6, 11; Mark 8:15; Luke 12:1). The conventional interpretation is that the symbolism Jesus meant is that of yeast used in bread.
However, yeast starters are also used in [beer](https://www.whatwouldjesusbrew.beer/faq/is-beer-mentioned-in-the-bible/) and wine making. For example, Christian blessings of wine being crushed at harvest time have included bottles of wine (with residual yeast) from previous vintages being poured into the juice of newly pressed grapes going into fermentation vats. Indeed, without good yeast used in wine making the resulting beverage fermented from wild yeasts can sometimes be toxic - resulting in headaches and even causing health problems.
Are there any Bible commentaries that broaden the scope & analogy of Jesus' reference to yeast to include more than just yeast used in bread making? If not, how do we know the Jesus was just thinking about just bread yeast in his teaching about the Pharisees?
For example, with wild yeasts in wine making, there a chance that things can go really bad or really good in the fermentation process. With the Pharisees and other leaders (Sadducees) there were some good teachings, but also some pretty wild teachings that resulted in sour grape outcomes.
Likewise today, one might argue, that there is a tendency in even mainstream religious institutions & leaders to have teachings that are pretty wild. As a result, an argument can be made that this has yielded a sour (i.e. hyper critical) skeptical or unbalanced graceless legalistic approach to the Christian faith.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/uzQJD.jpg) | 2021/12/05 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/71639",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/44608/"
] | Look at the full context. It clearly states the leaven of bread.
>
> When the disciples reached the other side, they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6 Jesus said to them, “Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 7 And they began discussing it among themselves, saying, “We brought no bread.” 8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, “O you of little faith, why are you discussing among yourselves the fact that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet perceive? Do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? 10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? 11 How is it that you fail to understand that I did not speak about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of **the leaven of bread** [τῆς ζύμης ⸂τῶν ἄρτων], but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
> (Matt 16:5–12, ESV)
>
>
>
Yeast related to brewing is not mentioned in Windisch, H. (1964–). ζύμη, ζυμόω, ἄζυμος. G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley, & G. Friedrich (Eds.), *Theological dictionary of the New Testament* (electronic ed., Vol. 2, p. 902). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. This book discusses the etymology of Greek words as used in the New Testament. | The yeast Jesus refers to is any yeast stored in the home, because he's making an analogy to the passover in Exodus:
>
> Exodus 12:12 “On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every
> firstborn of both people and animals, and I will bring judgment on all
> the gods of Egypt. I am the Lord. 13The blood will be a sign for you
> on the houses where you are, and when I see the blood, I will pass
> over you. No destructive plague will touch you when I strike Egypt.
>
>
> 14“This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come
> you shall celebrate it as a festival to the Lord—a lasting ordinance.
> 15For seven days you are to eat bread made without yeast. On the first
> day remove the yeast from your houses, for whoever eats anything with
> yeast in it from the first day through the seventh must be cut off
> from Israel.
>
>
>
Essentially the absence of yeast in the homes of Israelites was an sign of acceptance of God's forgiveness. Each Israelite had a choice: continue doing as you normally do (make bread with yeast), or stop and change their behaviour to obey God.
The Pharisees were given the same choice with Jesus' teaching: continue following their own invented rules and regulations, or listen to Jesus, repent and accept forgiveness. |
71,639 | Some of the best bread makers often work with a secret ingredient - e.g. a yeast starter that has been passed down for generations.
Jesus told his disciples to beware of the “(ζύμης) yeast of the Pharisees” - i.e. their teachings (Matt. 16:6, 11; Mark 8:15; Luke 12:1). The conventional interpretation is that the symbolism Jesus meant is that of yeast used in bread.
However, yeast starters are also used in [beer](https://www.whatwouldjesusbrew.beer/faq/is-beer-mentioned-in-the-bible/) and wine making. For example, Christian blessings of wine being crushed at harvest time have included bottles of wine (with residual yeast) from previous vintages being poured into the juice of newly pressed grapes going into fermentation vats. Indeed, without good yeast used in wine making the resulting beverage fermented from wild yeasts can sometimes be toxic - resulting in headaches and even causing health problems.
Are there any Bible commentaries that broaden the scope & analogy of Jesus' reference to yeast to include more than just yeast used in bread making? If not, how do we know the Jesus was just thinking about just bread yeast in his teaching about the Pharisees?
For example, with wild yeasts in wine making, there a chance that things can go really bad or really good in the fermentation process. With the Pharisees and other leaders (Sadducees) there were some good teachings, but also some pretty wild teachings that resulted in sour grape outcomes.
Likewise today, one might argue, that there is a tendency in even mainstream religious institutions & leaders to have teachings that are pretty wild. As a result, an argument can be made that this has yielded a sour (i.e. hyper critical) skeptical or unbalanced graceless legalistic approach to the Christian faith.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/uzQJD.jpg) | 2021/12/05 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/71639",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/44608/"
] | Look at the full context. It clearly states the leaven of bread.
>
> When the disciples reached the other side, they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6 Jesus said to them, “Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 7 And they began discussing it among themselves, saying, “We brought no bread.” 8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, “O you of little faith, why are you discussing among yourselves the fact that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet perceive? Do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? 10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? 11 How is it that you fail to understand that I did not speak about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of **the leaven of bread** [τῆς ζύμης ⸂τῶν ἄρτων], but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
> (Matt 16:5–12, ESV)
>
>
>
Yeast related to brewing is not mentioned in Windisch, H. (1964–). ζύμη, ζυμόω, ἄζυμος. G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley, & G. Friedrich (Eds.), *Theological dictionary of the New Testament* (electronic ed., Vol. 2, p. 902). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. This book discusses the etymology of Greek words as used in the New Testament. | For the purpose of Jesus' illustration, it was utterly irrelevant what kind of yeast he had in mind, let alone any particular purpose that yeast was to be used for.
Yeast - any yeast - any amount - any process it was to be involved in - would serve Jesus' example perfectly. Everybody he spoke to knew all about yeast and its usage in those days, so that he chastised them for dwelling on literal yeast and thereby missing the whole spiritual point of the spiritual truth he was teaching them.
False spiritual teaching that spread like yeast was what they were to be alert to. Same then as today, irrespective of any ideas you have about literal yeast. There's no need to have a bee in your bonnet about this point, otherwise you might get stung by it. Let it go. |
71,639 | Some of the best bread makers often work with a secret ingredient - e.g. a yeast starter that has been passed down for generations.
Jesus told his disciples to beware of the “(ζύμης) yeast of the Pharisees” - i.e. their teachings (Matt. 16:6, 11; Mark 8:15; Luke 12:1). The conventional interpretation is that the symbolism Jesus meant is that of yeast used in bread.
However, yeast starters are also used in [beer](https://www.whatwouldjesusbrew.beer/faq/is-beer-mentioned-in-the-bible/) and wine making. For example, Christian blessings of wine being crushed at harvest time have included bottles of wine (with residual yeast) from previous vintages being poured into the juice of newly pressed grapes going into fermentation vats. Indeed, without good yeast used in wine making the resulting beverage fermented from wild yeasts can sometimes be toxic - resulting in headaches and even causing health problems.
Are there any Bible commentaries that broaden the scope & analogy of Jesus' reference to yeast to include more than just yeast used in bread making? If not, how do we know the Jesus was just thinking about just bread yeast in his teaching about the Pharisees?
For example, with wild yeasts in wine making, there a chance that things can go really bad or really good in the fermentation process. With the Pharisees and other leaders (Sadducees) there were some good teachings, but also some pretty wild teachings that resulted in sour grape outcomes.
Likewise today, one might argue, that there is a tendency in even mainstream religious institutions & leaders to have teachings that are pretty wild. As a result, an argument can be made that this has yielded a sour (i.e. hyper critical) skeptical or unbalanced graceless legalistic approach to the Christian faith.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/uzQJD.jpg) | 2021/12/05 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/71639",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/44608/"
] | Look at the full context. It clearly states the leaven of bread.
>
> When the disciples reached the other side, they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6 Jesus said to them, “Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 7 And they began discussing it among themselves, saying, “We brought no bread.” 8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, “O you of little faith, why are you discussing among yourselves the fact that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet perceive? Do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? 10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? 11 How is it that you fail to understand that I did not speak about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of **the leaven of bread** [τῆς ζύμης ⸂τῶν ἄρτων], but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
> (Matt 16:5–12, ESV)
>
>
>
Yeast related to brewing is not mentioned in Windisch, H. (1964–). ζύμη, ζυμόω, ἄζυμος. G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley, & G. Friedrich (Eds.), *Theological dictionary of the New Testament* (electronic ed., Vol. 2, p. 902). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. This book discusses the etymology of Greek words as used in the New Testament. | OP answered in two parts. Firstly the historical practices of the day, secondly the direct exegesis. The correct translation provided be @PerryWebb is clearly the answer and key to this passage and must taken as a direct reference to the Feast of the Unleavened Bread.
On the translation we have which is 'yeast' and possibly not the best translation, then this might work as a translation within the broader understanding of yeast culture fermentation ...
**Historical practices of fermentation Israel versus Egypt** To answer @Jess, the confusion regarding the role of 'yeast' (not leavened bread) this would be relevant to Egypt at this point in history. For example, the Book of the Dead for Ka (tomb builder) and Merit (Ka's wife) makes it explicitly clear beer consumption was a dietary staple for the regular working man (women dunno) in Egypt because Ka repeatedly requested this for his afterlife and would have commissioned their Book because he outlived his wife. Ka would have received part of his wages in barley, thus they would have needed yeast to ferment it. I do understand Egyptology is probably out of bounds here, so I'll not expound the example further.
There are few references to beer drinking in the Old Testament, albeit Proverbs 31:4-7 is certainly one of them (implying beer was pretty common) and I'm not aware of any in the New Testament. There are frequent references to wine/vineyards in the Old and New Testament most notably the Last Supper, but key issue is that the fermentation process is very different to beer.
Beer needs a bread style yeast culture, otherwise (generally) its just barley water. Wine works because grape skins carry their own natural yeast (that dusty stuff on grapes is yeast). Thus all thats needed to make wine is to squash 'em and leave it, the yeast on the skin mixes with the sugars within the grapes. I accept a lot of modern wine making (not all) for exact branding and quality control is highly unlikely to rely on the variation from wild yeast.
The relevance is as follows: given the translation we have there would have been little ambiguity (probably none) with the use of a yeast culture as a method of fermentation for Israelites at this point in history. Thus, I take the point that the same yeast used for bread can be used for fermentation - and ancient Egyptians would have likely followed this practice to make beer, but not the Israelites because thats not how they made wine.
The translation 'Beware the leavened bread' (heavily paraphrased) has very different meaning however ...
---
**Biblical exegesis**
Just to further @Chengarda comment, the Feast of the Unleavened Bread must be central to the exegesis of the passages of Matt. 16:6, 11; Mark 8:15; Luke 12:1
The presence of bread associated with yeast in any house for anyone (Jew or Gentile) during the Festival resulted in being 'cut-off' from Israel (Exodus 12:15; 19 RSV [below]). Whether the penalty was observed in first century Israel under Roman occupation, who knows, but there must have been significant diligence.
Yeast-risen bread, whilst not prohibited under the Mosaic law, is very bad news indeed if its in the wrong place at the wrong time. Calling someone 'yeast-risen bread', i.e. their teaching, is extreme. If this stuffs in your house at Festival time you're 'cut-off' from Israel.
The precise prohibition on eating yeast-risen bread appears complex and my reading is 3 weeks based Exodus 12 (7 days + 14 days), but could be 14 days in total. The first 7 days of the Feast strictly prohibiting any leavened bread being within the house: I assume versus Exodus 12:19 (RSV) re-refers to the first seven days of this feast and this is where the maximum penalty appears to kick-in.
RSV
>
> 14 “This day shall be for you a memorial day, and you shall keep it as
> a feast to the Lord; throughout your generations you shall observe it
> as an ordinance for ever. 15 Seven days you shall eat unleavened
> bread; on the first day you shall put away leaven out of your houses,
> for if any one eats what is leavened, from the first day until the
> seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel.
>
>
>
>
> 17 And you shall observe the
> feast of unleavened bread, for on this very day I brought your hosts
> out of the land of Egypt: therefore you shall observe this day,
> throughout your generations, as an ordinance for ever. 18 In the first
> month, on the fourteenth day of the month at evening, you shall eat
> unleavened bread, and so until the twenty-first day of the month at
> evening. 19 For seven days no leaven shall be found in your houses;
> for if any one eats what is leavened, that person shall be cut off
> from the congregation of Israel, whether he is a sojourner or a native
> of the land. 20 You shall eat nothing leavened; in all your dwellings
> you shall eat unleavened bread.”
>
>
>
**Summary**
In my personal opinion, this is a poor translation from two perspectives:
1. The translation is antiquated, given the historic application of yeast culture fermentation is not generally understood (why should it be). Whilst the translators from William Tyndale onwards might have had a strong understanding of this, this cannot be assumed.
2. Furthermore the translation takes us away from the shear intensity of Jesus' words. This is gut-punch to the Pharisees. There is no way anyone should go near their teaching, which was central to their very their role.
I've done the tour BTW to pre-empt the welcome message. |
71,639 | Some of the best bread makers often work with a secret ingredient - e.g. a yeast starter that has been passed down for generations.
Jesus told his disciples to beware of the “(ζύμης) yeast of the Pharisees” - i.e. their teachings (Matt. 16:6, 11; Mark 8:15; Luke 12:1). The conventional interpretation is that the symbolism Jesus meant is that of yeast used in bread.
However, yeast starters are also used in [beer](https://www.whatwouldjesusbrew.beer/faq/is-beer-mentioned-in-the-bible/) and wine making. For example, Christian blessings of wine being crushed at harvest time have included bottles of wine (with residual yeast) from previous vintages being poured into the juice of newly pressed grapes going into fermentation vats. Indeed, without good yeast used in wine making the resulting beverage fermented from wild yeasts can sometimes be toxic - resulting in headaches and even causing health problems.
Are there any Bible commentaries that broaden the scope & analogy of Jesus' reference to yeast to include more than just yeast used in bread making? If not, how do we know the Jesus was just thinking about just bread yeast in his teaching about the Pharisees?
For example, with wild yeasts in wine making, there a chance that things can go really bad or really good in the fermentation process. With the Pharisees and other leaders (Sadducees) there were some good teachings, but also some pretty wild teachings that resulted in sour grape outcomes.
Likewise today, one might argue, that there is a tendency in even mainstream religious institutions & leaders to have teachings that are pretty wild. As a result, an argument can be made that this has yielded a sour (i.e. hyper critical) skeptical or unbalanced graceless legalistic approach to the Christian faith.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/uzQJD.jpg) | 2021/12/05 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/71639",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/44608/"
] | For the purpose of Jesus' illustration, it was utterly irrelevant what kind of yeast he had in mind, let alone any particular purpose that yeast was to be used for.
Yeast - any yeast - any amount - any process it was to be involved in - would serve Jesus' example perfectly. Everybody he spoke to knew all about yeast and its usage in those days, so that he chastised them for dwelling on literal yeast and thereby missing the whole spiritual point of the spiritual truth he was teaching them.
False spiritual teaching that spread like yeast was what they were to be alert to. Same then as today, irrespective of any ideas you have about literal yeast. There's no need to have a bee in your bonnet about this point, otherwise you might get stung by it. Let it go. | The yeast Jesus refers to is any yeast stored in the home, because he's making an analogy to the passover in Exodus:
>
> Exodus 12:12 “On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every
> firstborn of both people and animals, and I will bring judgment on all
> the gods of Egypt. I am the Lord. 13The blood will be a sign for you
> on the houses where you are, and when I see the blood, I will pass
> over you. No destructive plague will touch you when I strike Egypt.
>
>
> 14“This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come
> you shall celebrate it as a festival to the Lord—a lasting ordinance.
> 15For seven days you are to eat bread made without yeast. On the first
> day remove the yeast from your houses, for whoever eats anything with
> yeast in it from the first day through the seventh must be cut off
> from Israel.
>
>
>
Essentially the absence of yeast in the homes of Israelites was an sign of acceptance of God's forgiveness. Each Israelite had a choice: continue doing as you normally do (make bread with yeast), or stop and change their behaviour to obey God.
The Pharisees were given the same choice with Jesus' teaching: continue following their own invented rules and regulations, or listen to Jesus, repent and accept forgiveness. |
71,639 | Some of the best bread makers often work with a secret ingredient - e.g. a yeast starter that has been passed down for generations.
Jesus told his disciples to beware of the “(ζύμης) yeast of the Pharisees” - i.e. their teachings (Matt. 16:6, 11; Mark 8:15; Luke 12:1). The conventional interpretation is that the symbolism Jesus meant is that of yeast used in bread.
However, yeast starters are also used in [beer](https://www.whatwouldjesusbrew.beer/faq/is-beer-mentioned-in-the-bible/) and wine making. For example, Christian blessings of wine being crushed at harvest time have included bottles of wine (with residual yeast) from previous vintages being poured into the juice of newly pressed grapes going into fermentation vats. Indeed, without good yeast used in wine making the resulting beverage fermented from wild yeasts can sometimes be toxic - resulting in headaches and even causing health problems.
Are there any Bible commentaries that broaden the scope & analogy of Jesus' reference to yeast to include more than just yeast used in bread making? If not, how do we know the Jesus was just thinking about just bread yeast in his teaching about the Pharisees?
For example, with wild yeasts in wine making, there a chance that things can go really bad or really good in the fermentation process. With the Pharisees and other leaders (Sadducees) there were some good teachings, but also some pretty wild teachings that resulted in sour grape outcomes.
Likewise today, one might argue, that there is a tendency in even mainstream religious institutions & leaders to have teachings that are pretty wild. As a result, an argument can be made that this has yielded a sour (i.e. hyper critical) skeptical or unbalanced graceless legalistic approach to the Christian faith.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/uzQJD.jpg) | 2021/12/05 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/71639",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/44608/"
] | For the purpose of Jesus' illustration, it was utterly irrelevant what kind of yeast he had in mind, let alone any particular purpose that yeast was to be used for.
Yeast - any yeast - any amount - any process it was to be involved in - would serve Jesus' example perfectly. Everybody he spoke to knew all about yeast and its usage in those days, so that he chastised them for dwelling on literal yeast and thereby missing the whole spiritual point of the spiritual truth he was teaching them.
False spiritual teaching that spread like yeast was what they were to be alert to. Same then as today, irrespective of any ideas you have about literal yeast. There's no need to have a bee in your bonnet about this point, otherwise you might get stung by it. Let it go. | OP answered in two parts. Firstly the historical practices of the day, secondly the direct exegesis. The correct translation provided be @PerryWebb is clearly the answer and key to this passage and must taken as a direct reference to the Feast of the Unleavened Bread.
On the translation we have which is 'yeast' and possibly not the best translation, then this might work as a translation within the broader understanding of yeast culture fermentation ...
**Historical practices of fermentation Israel versus Egypt** To answer @Jess, the confusion regarding the role of 'yeast' (not leavened bread) this would be relevant to Egypt at this point in history. For example, the Book of the Dead for Ka (tomb builder) and Merit (Ka's wife) makes it explicitly clear beer consumption was a dietary staple for the regular working man (women dunno) in Egypt because Ka repeatedly requested this for his afterlife and would have commissioned their Book because he outlived his wife. Ka would have received part of his wages in barley, thus they would have needed yeast to ferment it. I do understand Egyptology is probably out of bounds here, so I'll not expound the example further.
There are few references to beer drinking in the Old Testament, albeit Proverbs 31:4-7 is certainly one of them (implying beer was pretty common) and I'm not aware of any in the New Testament. There are frequent references to wine/vineyards in the Old and New Testament most notably the Last Supper, but key issue is that the fermentation process is very different to beer.
Beer needs a bread style yeast culture, otherwise (generally) its just barley water. Wine works because grape skins carry their own natural yeast (that dusty stuff on grapes is yeast). Thus all thats needed to make wine is to squash 'em and leave it, the yeast on the skin mixes with the sugars within the grapes. I accept a lot of modern wine making (not all) for exact branding and quality control is highly unlikely to rely on the variation from wild yeast.
The relevance is as follows: given the translation we have there would have been little ambiguity (probably none) with the use of a yeast culture as a method of fermentation for Israelites at this point in history. Thus, I take the point that the same yeast used for bread can be used for fermentation - and ancient Egyptians would have likely followed this practice to make beer, but not the Israelites because thats not how they made wine.
The translation 'Beware the leavened bread' (heavily paraphrased) has very different meaning however ...
---
**Biblical exegesis**
Just to further @Chengarda comment, the Feast of the Unleavened Bread must be central to the exegesis of the passages of Matt. 16:6, 11; Mark 8:15; Luke 12:1
The presence of bread associated with yeast in any house for anyone (Jew or Gentile) during the Festival resulted in being 'cut-off' from Israel (Exodus 12:15; 19 RSV [below]). Whether the penalty was observed in first century Israel under Roman occupation, who knows, but there must have been significant diligence.
Yeast-risen bread, whilst not prohibited under the Mosaic law, is very bad news indeed if its in the wrong place at the wrong time. Calling someone 'yeast-risen bread', i.e. their teaching, is extreme. If this stuffs in your house at Festival time you're 'cut-off' from Israel.
The precise prohibition on eating yeast-risen bread appears complex and my reading is 3 weeks based Exodus 12 (7 days + 14 days), but could be 14 days in total. The first 7 days of the Feast strictly prohibiting any leavened bread being within the house: I assume versus Exodus 12:19 (RSV) re-refers to the first seven days of this feast and this is where the maximum penalty appears to kick-in.
RSV
>
> 14 “This day shall be for you a memorial day, and you shall keep it as
> a feast to the Lord; throughout your generations you shall observe it
> as an ordinance for ever. 15 Seven days you shall eat unleavened
> bread; on the first day you shall put away leaven out of your houses,
> for if any one eats what is leavened, from the first day until the
> seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel.
>
>
>
>
> 17 And you shall observe the
> feast of unleavened bread, for on this very day I brought your hosts
> out of the land of Egypt: therefore you shall observe this day,
> throughout your generations, as an ordinance for ever. 18 In the first
> month, on the fourteenth day of the month at evening, you shall eat
> unleavened bread, and so until the twenty-first day of the month at
> evening. 19 For seven days no leaven shall be found in your houses;
> for if any one eats what is leavened, that person shall be cut off
> from the congregation of Israel, whether he is a sojourner or a native
> of the land. 20 You shall eat nothing leavened; in all your dwellings
> you shall eat unleavened bread.”
>
>
>
**Summary**
In my personal opinion, this is a poor translation from two perspectives:
1. The translation is antiquated, given the historic application of yeast culture fermentation is not generally understood (why should it be). Whilst the translators from William Tyndale onwards might have had a strong understanding of this, this cannot be assumed.
2. Furthermore the translation takes us away from the shear intensity of Jesus' words. This is gut-punch to the Pharisees. There is no way anyone should go near their teaching, which was central to their very their role.
I've done the tour BTW to pre-empt the welcome message. |
4,161 | At the end of Prometheus, why did the Engineer kill the humans? What is that thing that killed the Engineer? | 2012/09/15 | [
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/4161",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/users/2053/"
] | The Alien you are saying is actually an "Engineer" and they developed the so called "parasite plague" to end the planet earth (which they created in the first place).
If you remember the alien or parasite plague agent that killed "engineer" was forcefully taken out by Elizabeth (Eli) from her stomach in the med pod. She actually froze it using decontamination gas of the med pod but it survived and tried to come out of that room at the end and the "engineer" was accidentally present there at the same time. The alien killed the engineer and supposedly impregnated him and that's why you see a new alien born at the end of the movie.
Check [this](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1446714/board/nest/204361312) post which gives an insight into the whole plot. | So I have been doing a lot of thinking and I realized that Elizabeth wanted to kill the alien inside of her as soon as she found out about it. Maybe the engineers made us by mistake just as Elizabeth and Holloway did. Maybe they thought they would create something else! |
3,072 | In the meta question [Can we let adequate explanation be an alternative to “Backing it up”?](https://interpersonal.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3038/8077), Shogs answer explaining why we can't allow explanations as backups is now being outvoted by artofcodes answer, which states the opposite.
I am now a bit confused and quite unsure how to proceed. I have stopped with the reviewing since friday because I am unsure where we currently stand on the back-it-up issue.
I do not want to create just another discussion here about which solution is better. I am looking for facts about the decisions made, about policies currently in place.
I think the reason why I am so confused is that shog is a Community Manager and I believe that he has thought this through. I am unsure how much power and influence he has or should have on the voting in IPS Meta. I do not know how I should interpret the current voting status.
Further Uncertainty comes from the fact that in the beginning, shogs answer was highest voted for a long time. | 2018/06/11 | [
"https://interpersonal.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3072",
"https://interpersonal.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://interpersonal.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8077/"
] | Probably worth noting first that my answer was a *response* to Art's answer (I do say that right at the top), which was the top answer when I started writing it. IOW, my answer exists *because* Art's suggestion is the top answer. That it briefly out-ranked the answer it responded to is probably an anomaly.
Beyond that... It's [just, like, my opinion, man](http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/thats-just-like-your-opinion-man). I don't think a site where the rule for what's allowed boils down to "is it popular?" is a particularly great resource... But, YMMV. I can't ignore the fact that a good bit of what makes up acceptable social behavior *is* what is popularly accepted - in other words, that matching the feelings of most voters here might be as good an indicator of "truth" as anything else when it comes to interpersonal advice (as long as the asker's culture happens to match that of the voters here).
This entire discussion arose from [concern that folks are answering questions rooted in cultures they know nothing about](https://interpersonal.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2933/would-it-be-appropriate-to-ask-for-answers-from-people-with-specific-backgrounds/2939#2939). "Back it up" is *one* approach to solving that, but hardly the easiest. At the end of the day, which solution is chosen - or whether this is solved at all - is decided by the folks who use the site daily, not drive-by CMs. | Something worth remembering as we move forward; this is still a Stack Exchange site. If we want the site to graduate or even remain open we probably need to raise standards somewhere.
I suspect that a lot of what we've been seeing in the voting on meta surrounding the back-it-up policy is simply blow back. When comments are left on unsupported answers directing them to meta, some of those users actually show up on meta and vote. Given that their answer was just downvoted, and that most folks don't like being downvoted, they're probably going to be inclined to vote for the perspective that allows them to continue to write unsupported answers without being downvoted.
This obviously isn't ideal...
In the specific case of artofcode's answer; most users are going to be inclined to think that their answers are perfectly well explained and that their ideas are widely shared. So, someone coming to meta after being freshly downvoted and commented is very likely to say "yes, this! This is obviously the way things should be done."
If we want IPS to survive as a site, we need to raise the bar. Back-it-up isn't a high standard, it's really not hard to support an answer. And I suspect that if we continue down the path of having 10 or more low quality answers per question, SE may eventually decide that what we're doing here doesn't jive with the standards of the rest of the network... |
3,072 | In the meta question [Can we let adequate explanation be an alternative to “Backing it up”?](https://interpersonal.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3038/8077), Shogs answer explaining why we can't allow explanations as backups is now being outvoted by artofcodes answer, which states the opposite.
I am now a bit confused and quite unsure how to proceed. I have stopped with the reviewing since friday because I am unsure where we currently stand on the back-it-up issue.
I do not want to create just another discussion here about which solution is better. I am looking for facts about the decisions made, about policies currently in place.
I think the reason why I am so confused is that shog is a Community Manager and I believe that he has thought this through. I am unsure how much power and influence he has or should have on the voting in IPS Meta. I do not know how I should interpret the current voting status.
Further Uncertainty comes from the fact that in the beginning, shogs answer was highest voted for a long time. | 2018/06/11 | [
"https://interpersonal.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3072",
"https://interpersonal.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://interpersonal.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8077/"
] | How you decide to proceed in regards to a feature-request meta where the top voted answer contradicts the answer of a diamond mod is still the same as how you decide with any other feature-request meta.
It is a judgement call
----------------------
[As explained quite nicely by shog,](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/177550/how-is-consensus-determined-on-meta-sites/177565#177565) you need to determine the outcome of each post individually. The content of the answers and the discussion and response to those varying answers should all be considered when deciding what to do.
Votes are usually a good indication of what the communities attitude towards a specific answer is and an answer coming from a diamond mod is usually a good indication that they have an understanding of how the site works that they are basing their answer off. However, mods are not "all knowing" and as outlined with some of the other answers here there are other factors that can influence votes.
All you can do is read up and try to make as informed a decision as possible, at least until a clear consensus has been found. *(But even then it is still subject to analysis)* | Something worth remembering as we move forward; this is still a Stack Exchange site. If we want the site to graduate or even remain open we probably need to raise standards somewhere.
I suspect that a lot of what we've been seeing in the voting on meta surrounding the back-it-up policy is simply blow back. When comments are left on unsupported answers directing them to meta, some of those users actually show up on meta and vote. Given that their answer was just downvoted, and that most folks don't like being downvoted, they're probably going to be inclined to vote for the perspective that allows them to continue to write unsupported answers without being downvoted.
This obviously isn't ideal...
In the specific case of artofcode's answer; most users are going to be inclined to think that their answers are perfectly well explained and that their ideas are widely shared. So, someone coming to meta after being freshly downvoted and commented is very likely to say "yes, this! This is obviously the way things should be done."
If we want IPS to survive as a site, we need to raise the bar. Back-it-up isn't a high standard, it's really not hard to support an answer. And I suspect that if we continue down the path of having 10 or more low quality answers per question, SE may eventually decide that what we're doing here doesn't jive with the standards of the rest of the network... |
26,246 | Right now the UK seems to be in a stalemate in regards to the Irish border situation post-Brexit:
* If they don't leave the Single Market, Brexit would be effectively a farce as the UK would be forced to keep their borders open to immigration by EU citizens.
* If they leave the Single Market, they'll have to introduce customs controls at the Irish border, [which is problematic](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/24475/why-is-having-border-controls-in-ireland-so-problematic-for-irish-nationalists) for local residents.
* If they instead introduce customs controls between Northern Ireland and the UK, they'll be effectively alienating their citizens living on the Irish isles. And Northern Ireland would then be forced to allow EU citizens to settle there, being a part of the Single Market.
Given this issue, how could the UK possibly afford to leave the EU without risking Irish reunification? Did the government ever propose an alternative solution that would resolve the stalemate? | 2017/11/20 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/26246",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7434/"
] | I think it will be a combination of:
1. No UK borders for goods or people on the island.
2. Border for peoples at ports of entry in the UK. There will be a passport check for people entering the UK. Just as is the case now. People with a UK/Irish passport will be given automatic access to the UK (of course, bearing research warrants ect..).
The reason I envision this is because this outcome would be quiet beneficial from the UK point of view. It also requires no acceptance by the EU and maintains the Good Friday agreement.
Point 1. forces the UK to be essentially open to imports of goods from the EU.
This status-quo on trading of goods is, I think, still the default target of the UK gov't (Politically, Brexit is about control of regulation, migration flows and contributions to the EU budget. Restricting trading in goods is *not* part of the UK agenda). The UK will leave it be up to the EU to place a border for goods on the northern Ireland/Ireland border or between Ireland and the continent.
Of course, doing either is politically infeasible for the EU. Consequently, the UK will effectively be a back door to imports of goods into the EU. This would give the UK enormous leverage to negotiate trading deals with third parties.
For all the EU bombast in the press, this strategy exploits a glaring weakness in the EU's negotiation position going in: each country (including Ireland in this case) has veto power on any post Art50 agreement. The UK just needs to push the individual pain points. | The UK **does not have to resolve the conundrum**, because there *is no conundrum*.
Some years ago, the UK Government triggered the Treaty provision which allows an EU member to unilaterally withdraw from the Union. That exit will occur next March.
Nothing further need be done.
The EU is keen to agree new rules that will bind the UK after that date, but the UK Parliament is not keen to do so. This is called a **no-deal Brexit**.
Economic relations between the UK and the EU will then proceed on WTO terms, without the need to agree any further restrictions. The UK will be out, and no longer subject to EU control.
Ideally, the UK might then seek to negotiate a free trade deal on the Canadian model. This took Canada 16 years to negotiate, so it would seem likely to be a long-term goal only, with normal trade proceeding meanwhile on World Trade Organisation terms.
This now seems the most likely outcome. |
26,246 | Right now the UK seems to be in a stalemate in regards to the Irish border situation post-Brexit:
* If they don't leave the Single Market, Brexit would be effectively a farce as the UK would be forced to keep their borders open to immigration by EU citizens.
* If they leave the Single Market, they'll have to introduce customs controls at the Irish border, [which is problematic](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/24475/why-is-having-border-controls-in-ireland-so-problematic-for-irish-nationalists) for local residents.
* If they instead introduce customs controls between Northern Ireland and the UK, they'll be effectively alienating their citizens living on the Irish isles. And Northern Ireland would then be forced to allow EU citizens to settle there, being a part of the Single Market.
Given this issue, how could the UK possibly afford to leave the EU without risking Irish reunification? Did the government ever propose an alternative solution that would resolve the stalemate? | 2017/11/20 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/26246",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7434/"
] | In order to maintain the current soft border even after leaving the single market, the UK would need to:
* Accept the free flow of EU citizens over the border. That might be possible as it would still be difficult for those people to work in the UK, which seems to be the primary concern, but would allow. However, it would still allow people to bypass the UK immigration system via the Surinder Singh Route, for example.
* Accept EU regulations on goods and services. Without border checks there would be nothing to stop goods flowing in either direction. An alternative that has been proposed is to use some kind of high tech system to create a virtual border check, but similar arrangements in Norway/Sweden are nothing like what Ireland/UK has now.
* Set up a vast new import/export duty system in an unrealistically short timeframe.
* The closer you get to an open border similar to what we have today, the closer you get to effectively being in the single market. For example, in terms of accepting EU standards and rules to ensure a level playing field for both parties, and accepting EU court rulings on arbitration. For political reasons these things will be difficult to accept. | >
> **How could the UK resolve the Irish border conundrum without staying in the Single Market?**
>
>
>
The EU commisioned a report by Lars Karlsson, a former Director of Swedish Customs.
[Avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland for Customs control and the free movement of persons](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596828/IPOL_STU(2017)596828_EN.pdf)
>
> ### Abstract
>
>
> This study,
> commissioned by the European Parliament's Policy Department for
> Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the AFCO
> Committee, provides background on cross-border movement and trade between Northern Ireland and Ireland and identifies international standards and best practices and technologies that **can be used to avoid a `hard' border** as well as case studies that provide insights into creating a smooth border experience. The technical solution provided is based on innovative approaches with a focus on cooperation, best practices and technology that is independent of any political agreements on the UK's exit from the EU and offers a template for future UK-EU border relationships.
>
>
>
(my emphasis)
However, the [BBC reports](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43356568)
>
> The Irish government has said ideas in a report about "smart borders" would not be enough to prevent a hard border after Brexit. ...
>
>
> Some elements of his plan, including the use of cameras at unmanned crossing points, are contrary to the what the UK and Irish government have said should happen at the border.
>
>
>
So clearly there are differences in opinion concerning the feasibility of the Swedes' proposal. |
26,246 | Right now the UK seems to be in a stalemate in regards to the Irish border situation post-Brexit:
* If they don't leave the Single Market, Brexit would be effectively a farce as the UK would be forced to keep their borders open to immigration by EU citizens.
* If they leave the Single Market, they'll have to introduce customs controls at the Irish border, [which is problematic](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/24475/why-is-having-border-controls-in-ireland-so-problematic-for-irish-nationalists) for local residents.
* If they instead introduce customs controls between Northern Ireland and the UK, they'll be effectively alienating their citizens living on the Irish isles. And Northern Ireland would then be forced to allow EU citizens to settle there, being a part of the Single Market.
Given this issue, how could the UK possibly afford to leave the EU without risking Irish reunification? Did the government ever propose an alternative solution that would resolve the stalemate? | 2017/11/20 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/26246",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7434/"
] | I think it will be a combination of:
1. No UK borders for goods or people on the island.
2. Border for peoples at ports of entry in the UK. There will be a passport check for people entering the UK. Just as is the case now. People with a UK/Irish passport will be given automatic access to the UK (of course, bearing research warrants ect..).
The reason I envision this is because this outcome would be quiet beneficial from the UK point of view. It also requires no acceptance by the EU and maintains the Good Friday agreement.
Point 1. forces the UK to be essentially open to imports of goods from the EU.
This status-quo on trading of goods is, I think, still the default target of the UK gov't (Politically, Brexit is about control of regulation, migration flows and contributions to the EU budget. Restricting trading in goods is *not* part of the UK agenda). The UK will leave it be up to the EU to place a border for goods on the northern Ireland/Ireland border or between Ireland and the continent.
Of course, doing either is politically infeasible for the EU. Consequently, the UK will effectively be a back door to imports of goods into the EU. This would give the UK enormous leverage to negotiate trading deals with third parties.
For all the EU bombast in the press, this strategy exploits a glaring weakness in the EU's negotiation position going in: each country (including Ireland in this case) has veto power on any post Art50 agreement. The UK just needs to push the individual pain points. | >
> **How could the UK resolve the Irish border conundrum without staying in the Single Market?**
>
>
>
The EU commisioned a report by Lars Karlsson, a former Director of Swedish Customs.
[Avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland for Customs control and the free movement of persons](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596828/IPOL_STU(2017)596828_EN.pdf)
>
> ### Abstract
>
>
> This study,
> commissioned by the European Parliament's Policy Department for
> Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the AFCO
> Committee, provides background on cross-border movement and trade between Northern Ireland and Ireland and identifies international standards and best practices and technologies that **can be used to avoid a `hard' border** as well as case studies that provide insights into creating a smooth border experience. The technical solution provided is based on innovative approaches with a focus on cooperation, best practices and technology that is independent of any political agreements on the UK's exit from the EU and offers a template for future UK-EU border relationships.
>
>
>
(my emphasis)
However, the [BBC reports](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43356568)
>
> The Irish government has said ideas in a report about "smart borders" would not be enough to prevent a hard border after Brexit. ...
>
>
> Some elements of his plan, including the use of cameras at unmanned crossing points, are contrary to the what the UK and Irish government have said should happen at the border.
>
>
>
So clearly there are differences in opinion concerning the feasibility of the Swedes' proposal. |
26,246 | Right now the UK seems to be in a stalemate in regards to the Irish border situation post-Brexit:
* If they don't leave the Single Market, Brexit would be effectively a farce as the UK would be forced to keep their borders open to immigration by EU citizens.
* If they leave the Single Market, they'll have to introduce customs controls at the Irish border, [which is problematic](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/24475/why-is-having-border-controls-in-ireland-so-problematic-for-irish-nationalists) for local residents.
* If they instead introduce customs controls between Northern Ireland and the UK, they'll be effectively alienating their citizens living on the Irish isles. And Northern Ireland would then be forced to allow EU citizens to settle there, being a part of the Single Market.
Given this issue, how could the UK possibly afford to leave the EU without risking Irish reunification? Did the government ever propose an alternative solution that would resolve the stalemate? | 2017/11/20 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/26246",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7434/"
] | They can't
==========
*(Note, I'm writing this as a placeholder default answer, since this IS the answer to the question unless a better answer turns up. Perhaps it should be a community wiki?)*
There is simply no way that status quo can be upheld between the UK, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland if the UK leaves the Single Market.
Naturally, it is extremely likely that (unless the Brexit process is aborted) there will be some sort of customs union or similar agreement between UK and EU. It is also very likely that there will be some special domestic arrangements regarding Northern Ireland.
However, in the end *any* Brexit implies stricter borders between the united kingdom and its European Union neighbours. Those borders might be enforced between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland or between Northern Ireland and Britain. Inevitably NI will be separated from Ireland and/or Britain to some extent. | UK could offer Republic of Ireland to leave EU as well. By offering it large sums of money for example. In this case - Republic of Ireland would acquire the hard border with EU and it would not have the border with Northern Ireland. |
26,246 | Right now the UK seems to be in a stalemate in regards to the Irish border situation post-Brexit:
* If they don't leave the Single Market, Brexit would be effectively a farce as the UK would be forced to keep their borders open to immigration by EU citizens.
* If they leave the Single Market, they'll have to introduce customs controls at the Irish border, [which is problematic](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/24475/why-is-having-border-controls-in-ireland-so-problematic-for-irish-nationalists) for local residents.
* If they instead introduce customs controls between Northern Ireland and the UK, they'll be effectively alienating their citizens living on the Irish isles. And Northern Ireland would then be forced to allow EU citizens to settle there, being a part of the Single Market.
Given this issue, how could the UK possibly afford to leave the EU without risking Irish reunification? Did the government ever propose an alternative solution that would resolve the stalemate? | 2017/11/20 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/26246",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7434/"
] | Northern Ireland could leave the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). Then the hard border would be between the UK and Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland could keep a soft border with the Republic of Ireland.
Of course, Spain might prefer not to allow this, as it could be considered to set a bad precedent regarding Catalonia. Other countries might have similar concerns.
Unfortunately, it's not up to Northern Ireland or the UK. The European Union would need to agree so long as the Republic of Ireland remains in the EU. But if we're spitballing possibilities regardless of whether they are feasible to implement, then this is one. | The UK **does not have to resolve the conundrum**, because there *is no conundrum*.
Some years ago, the UK Government triggered the Treaty provision which allows an EU member to unilaterally withdraw from the Union. That exit will occur next March.
Nothing further need be done.
The EU is keen to agree new rules that will bind the UK after that date, but the UK Parliament is not keen to do so. This is called a **no-deal Brexit**.
Economic relations between the UK and the EU will then proceed on WTO terms, without the need to agree any further restrictions. The UK will be out, and no longer subject to EU control.
Ideally, the UK might then seek to negotiate a free trade deal on the Canadian model. This took Canada 16 years to negotiate, so it would seem likely to be a long-term goal only, with normal trade proceeding meanwhile on World Trade Organisation terms.
This now seems the most likely outcome. |
26,246 | Right now the UK seems to be in a stalemate in regards to the Irish border situation post-Brexit:
* If they don't leave the Single Market, Brexit would be effectively a farce as the UK would be forced to keep their borders open to immigration by EU citizens.
* If they leave the Single Market, they'll have to introduce customs controls at the Irish border, [which is problematic](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/24475/why-is-having-border-controls-in-ireland-so-problematic-for-irish-nationalists) for local residents.
* If they instead introduce customs controls between Northern Ireland and the UK, they'll be effectively alienating their citizens living on the Irish isles. And Northern Ireland would then be forced to allow EU citizens to settle there, being a part of the Single Market.
Given this issue, how could the UK possibly afford to leave the EU without risking Irish reunification? Did the government ever propose an alternative solution that would resolve the stalemate? | 2017/11/20 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/26246",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7434/"
] | They can't
==========
*(Note, I'm writing this as a placeholder default answer, since this IS the answer to the question unless a better answer turns up. Perhaps it should be a community wiki?)*
There is simply no way that status quo can be upheld between the UK, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland if the UK leaves the Single Market.
Naturally, it is extremely likely that (unless the Brexit process is aborted) there will be some sort of customs union or similar agreement between UK and EU. It is also very likely that there will be some special domestic arrangements regarding Northern Ireland.
However, in the end *any* Brexit implies stricter borders between the united kingdom and its European Union neighbours. Those borders might be enforced between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland or between Northern Ireland and Britain. Inevitably NI will be separated from Ireland and/or Britain to some extent. | Northern Ireland could leave the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). Then the hard border would be between the UK and Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland could keep a soft border with the Republic of Ireland.
Of course, Spain might prefer not to allow this, as it could be considered to set a bad precedent regarding Catalonia. Other countries might have similar concerns.
Unfortunately, it's not up to Northern Ireland or the UK. The European Union would need to agree so long as the Republic of Ireland remains in the EU. But if we're spitballing possibilities regardless of whether they are feasible to implement, then this is one. |
26,246 | Right now the UK seems to be in a stalemate in regards to the Irish border situation post-Brexit:
* If they don't leave the Single Market, Brexit would be effectively a farce as the UK would be forced to keep their borders open to immigration by EU citizens.
* If they leave the Single Market, they'll have to introduce customs controls at the Irish border, [which is problematic](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/24475/why-is-having-border-controls-in-ireland-so-problematic-for-irish-nationalists) for local residents.
* If they instead introduce customs controls between Northern Ireland and the UK, they'll be effectively alienating their citizens living on the Irish isles. And Northern Ireland would then be forced to allow EU citizens to settle there, being a part of the Single Market.
Given this issue, how could the UK possibly afford to leave the EU without risking Irish reunification? Did the government ever propose an alternative solution that would resolve the stalemate? | 2017/11/20 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/26246",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7434/"
] | They can't
==========
*(Note, I'm writing this as a placeholder default answer, since this IS the answer to the question unless a better answer turns up. Perhaps it should be a community wiki?)*
There is simply no way that status quo can be upheld between the UK, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland if the UK leaves the Single Market.
Naturally, it is extremely likely that (unless the Brexit process is aborted) there will be some sort of customs union or similar agreement between UK and EU. It is also very likely that there will be some special domestic arrangements regarding Northern Ireland.
However, in the end *any* Brexit implies stricter borders between the united kingdom and its European Union neighbours. Those borders might be enforced between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland or between Northern Ireland and Britain. Inevitably NI will be separated from Ireland and/or Britain to some extent. | The UK **does not have to resolve the conundrum**, because there *is no conundrum*.
Some years ago, the UK Government triggered the Treaty provision which allows an EU member to unilaterally withdraw from the Union. That exit will occur next March.
Nothing further need be done.
The EU is keen to agree new rules that will bind the UK after that date, but the UK Parliament is not keen to do so. This is called a **no-deal Brexit**.
Economic relations between the UK and the EU will then proceed on WTO terms, without the need to agree any further restrictions. The UK will be out, and no longer subject to EU control.
Ideally, the UK might then seek to negotiate a free trade deal on the Canadian model. This took Canada 16 years to negotiate, so it would seem likely to be a long-term goal only, with normal trade proceeding meanwhile on World Trade Organisation terms.
This now seems the most likely outcome. |
26,246 | Right now the UK seems to be in a stalemate in regards to the Irish border situation post-Brexit:
* If they don't leave the Single Market, Brexit would be effectively a farce as the UK would be forced to keep their borders open to immigration by EU citizens.
* If they leave the Single Market, they'll have to introduce customs controls at the Irish border, [which is problematic](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/24475/why-is-having-border-controls-in-ireland-so-problematic-for-irish-nationalists) for local residents.
* If they instead introduce customs controls between Northern Ireland and the UK, they'll be effectively alienating their citizens living on the Irish isles. And Northern Ireland would then be forced to allow EU citizens to settle there, being a part of the Single Market.
Given this issue, how could the UK possibly afford to leave the EU without risking Irish reunification? Did the government ever propose an alternative solution that would resolve the stalemate? | 2017/11/20 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/26246",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7434/"
] | The UK **does not have to resolve the conundrum**, because there *is no conundrum*.
Some years ago, the UK Government triggered the Treaty provision which allows an EU member to unilaterally withdraw from the Union. That exit will occur next March.
Nothing further need be done.
The EU is keen to agree new rules that will bind the UK after that date, but the UK Parliament is not keen to do so. This is called a **no-deal Brexit**.
Economic relations between the UK and the EU will then proceed on WTO terms, without the need to agree any further restrictions. The UK will be out, and no longer subject to EU control.
Ideally, the UK might then seek to negotiate a free trade deal on the Canadian model. This took Canada 16 years to negotiate, so it would seem likely to be a long-term goal only, with normal trade proceeding meanwhile on World Trade Organisation terms.
This now seems the most likely outcome. | >
> **How could the UK resolve the Irish border conundrum without staying in the Single Market?**
>
>
>
The EU commisioned a report by Lars Karlsson, a former Director of Swedish Customs.
[Avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland for Customs control and the free movement of persons](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596828/IPOL_STU(2017)596828_EN.pdf)
>
> ### Abstract
>
>
> This study,
> commissioned by the European Parliament's Policy Department for
> Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the AFCO
> Committee, provides background on cross-border movement and trade between Northern Ireland and Ireland and identifies international standards and best practices and technologies that **can be used to avoid a `hard' border** as well as case studies that provide insights into creating a smooth border experience. The technical solution provided is based on innovative approaches with a focus on cooperation, best practices and technology that is independent of any political agreements on the UK's exit from the EU and offers a template for future UK-EU border relationships.
>
>
>
(my emphasis)
However, the [BBC reports](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43356568)
>
> The Irish government has said ideas in a report about "smart borders" would not be enough to prevent a hard border after Brexit. ...
>
>
> Some elements of his plan, including the use of cameras at unmanned crossing points, are contrary to the what the UK and Irish government have said should happen at the border.
>
>
>
So clearly there are differences in opinion concerning the feasibility of the Swedes' proposal. |
26,246 | Right now the UK seems to be in a stalemate in regards to the Irish border situation post-Brexit:
* If they don't leave the Single Market, Brexit would be effectively a farce as the UK would be forced to keep their borders open to immigration by EU citizens.
* If they leave the Single Market, they'll have to introduce customs controls at the Irish border, [which is problematic](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/24475/why-is-having-border-controls-in-ireland-so-problematic-for-irish-nationalists) for local residents.
* If they instead introduce customs controls between Northern Ireland and the UK, they'll be effectively alienating their citizens living on the Irish isles. And Northern Ireland would then be forced to allow EU citizens to settle there, being a part of the Single Market.
Given this issue, how could the UK possibly afford to leave the EU without risking Irish reunification? Did the government ever propose an alternative solution that would resolve the stalemate? | 2017/11/20 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/26246",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7434/"
] | UK could offer Republic of Ireland to leave EU as well. By offering it large sums of money for example. In this case - Republic of Ireland would acquire the hard border with EU and it would not have the border with Northern Ireland. | >
> **How could the UK resolve the Irish border conundrum without staying in the Single Market?**
>
>
>
The EU commisioned a report by Lars Karlsson, a former Director of Swedish Customs.
[Avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland for Customs control and the free movement of persons](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596828/IPOL_STU(2017)596828_EN.pdf)
>
> ### Abstract
>
>
> This study,
> commissioned by the European Parliament's Policy Department for
> Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the AFCO
> Committee, provides background on cross-border movement and trade between Northern Ireland and Ireland and identifies international standards and best practices and technologies that **can be used to avoid a `hard' border** as well as case studies that provide insights into creating a smooth border experience. The technical solution provided is based on innovative approaches with a focus on cooperation, best practices and technology that is independent of any political agreements on the UK's exit from the EU and offers a template for future UK-EU border relationships.
>
>
>
(my emphasis)
However, the [BBC reports](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43356568)
>
> The Irish government has said ideas in a report about "smart borders" would not be enough to prevent a hard border after Brexit. ...
>
>
> Some elements of his plan, including the use of cameras at unmanned crossing points, are contrary to the what the UK and Irish government have said should happen at the border.
>
>
>
So clearly there are differences in opinion concerning the feasibility of the Swedes' proposal. |
26,246 | Right now the UK seems to be in a stalemate in regards to the Irish border situation post-Brexit:
* If they don't leave the Single Market, Brexit would be effectively a farce as the UK would be forced to keep their borders open to immigration by EU citizens.
* If they leave the Single Market, they'll have to introduce customs controls at the Irish border, [which is problematic](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/24475/why-is-having-border-controls-in-ireland-so-problematic-for-irish-nationalists) for local residents.
* If they instead introduce customs controls between Northern Ireland and the UK, they'll be effectively alienating their citizens living on the Irish isles. And Northern Ireland would then be forced to allow EU citizens to settle there, being a part of the Single Market.
Given this issue, how could the UK possibly afford to leave the EU without risking Irish reunification? Did the government ever propose an alternative solution that would resolve the stalemate? | 2017/11/20 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/26246",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7434/"
] | They can't
==========
*(Note, I'm writing this as a placeholder default answer, since this IS the answer to the question unless a better answer turns up. Perhaps it should be a community wiki?)*
There is simply no way that status quo can be upheld between the UK, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland if the UK leaves the Single Market.
Naturally, it is extremely likely that (unless the Brexit process is aborted) there will be some sort of customs union or similar agreement between UK and EU. It is also very likely that there will be some special domestic arrangements regarding Northern Ireland.
However, in the end *any* Brexit implies stricter borders between the united kingdom and its European Union neighbours. Those borders might be enforced between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland or between Northern Ireland and Britain. Inevitably NI will be separated from Ireland and/or Britain to some extent. | >
> **Did the government ever propose an alternative solution that would resolve the stalemate?**
>
>
>
**No**.
By "the government" you mean the current and prior conservative governments elected in 2015 and 2017 first led by David Cameron and then by Theresa May.
Prior to the referendum, Cameron's government was in favour of remaining in the EU - it wasn't useful for that government to identify solutions to problems that would be created by the actions advocated by their opponents.
After the referendum, the policy of Theresa May's government is to ["not reveal its hand ahead of time"](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-may/british-pm-may-says-will-not-reveal-hand-on-brexit-prematurely-idUSKCN11D1E8)
Regardless of how we feel about this situation, these are the facts.
---
Theresa May's government did publish a document on [future customs arrangements](https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/637748/Future_customs_arrangements_-_a_future_partnership_paper.pdf) but this did not (so far as I can see) include a solution. It says
>
> ### The land border with Ireland
>
>
> 43.
> The border between Northern Ireland and Ireland is the UK’s only land border. We must
> avoid a return to a hard border, and trade and everyday movements across the land
>
> border must be protected as part of the UK-EU deal.
>
>
> 44.
> The proposals set out above for new customs approaches are first steps to meet our
> objective of trade across that land border being as seamless and frictionless as possible,
> but further steps will be necessary. The Government welcomes the clear commitment
> made in the European Council’s negotiating guidelines and the European Commission’s
> directives to work with us on “flexible and imaginative” solutions to achieve this, and we
> will be setting out our guiding principles for a land border arrangement in a forthcoming
> publication.
>
>
> 45.
> The Government has made clear that the answer to avoiding a hard border between
>
> Northern Ireland and Ireland cannot be to impose a new customs border between Northern
> Ireland and Great Britain. We should avoid any approach that would create new barriers
> to doing business within the UK (including between Northern Ireland and Great Britain).
>
>
> |
31,872 | >
> Mary: Hi Burt. **How is it going with** the new car?
>
> Burt: Unfortunately, not too good.
>
> Mary: Why? What happened?
>
> Burt: My **brand new** car turned out to be a piece of junk.
>
>
>
Why isn't he just saying my car? why does he say my brand new car? what is the difference between saying **my car** , **my new car** and **my brand new car**? | 2014/08/20 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/31872",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/5036/"
] | *Brand-new* means entirely new, that has not previously been used. See [freedictionary](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/brand-new), [Webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brand-new), [Macmillan](http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/brand-new).
A *brand-new car* is a car that's just been bought from the shop and is not supposed to have had previous owners.
A *new car* means the owner hasn’t had it for a long time, but it doesn't mean the car hasn't had any previous owners, it could be [second-hand](http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/second-hand_5).
Saying "my car" doesn't give any indication on the age of the car. He could have had it for years.
Obviously the speaker isn't going very well, we can expect he is very cross because we don't expect a car we have just bought as new from the shop to be "a piece of junk", which means it's in bad condition, low quality. | >
> my car
>
>
>
can be any age car.
>
> my new car
>
>
>
means it is new by comparison to other cars he may have.
>
> my brand new car
>
>
>
means it is very new time-wise. My idea would be it is within a few months old.
Using *brand new* emphasizes the fact that new cars should not have defects, compared to older cars. |
436,953 | I had a village level shapefile. I selected villages using the "select by attribute" function to group them into electoral units (labelled as GP in attribute table)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ySKl7.jpg)
I wanted to use the values in the gp column to make gp level shapefiles. I therefore used the "Split By Attribute" function to transform unique values in the GP column into shapefiles.
However, I can still see the boundaries of the individual villages and the attribute column still has village level information.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/SV2oe.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ln4PG.jpg)
I used the dissolve function to remove the village level boundaries and I was able to get the average of other attributes as well, which is what I want.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/GwWTk.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/uNh0Z.jpg)
Can this process be done to create multiple dissolved polygons at once without using Python (which I am unfamiliar with)?
I have a total of 4000 gps and it would take a long time if I manually had to dissolve the boundaries one at a time. | 2022/07/27 | [
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/436953",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/users/205251/"
] | Yes, after you finish attributing your village level shapefile you could use the dissolve tool to dissolve the village level shapefile based on the values in that GP column. There would be no need to use the Split By Attribute tool first.
[Here is a link to the documentation for the Dissolve tool](https://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/latest/tools/data-management-toolbox/dissolve.htm). See the dissolve field parameter. | Highlight the polygons that you want to dissolve using the select feature tool. Right click to get the option of Dissolve. Select Dissolve. From there, all of the internal boundaries disappear. |
16,946,615 | I have to do some task of migration of three solaris servers, I have the ip addresses, username and password for each server. The script that I have to run, it does what it has to do with no problems, but is created to run if the script and the directory needed are in the same machine, so I have to change it adding the necesary connections instructions, but I am very limited for the next reasons:
* I am not allowed to change or install anything on these systems.
* I am allowed only to read privileges with the users I have.
* The output files should be generated in the machine where the script is running, that leave to the next point.
* The script it has to be run in a Solaris machine with a bash version 3, so I do not know what versions of ftp or ssh commands work in this version of Solaris.
I only need the part of code that does the connection and search of the needed directory, Any suggestions? | 2013/06/05 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/16946615",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2295976/"
] | Use [sshfs](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSHFS) to mount the needed directories of your three servers.
Afterwards you can run the script locally accessing the remote data as local files. | Perhaps you could use pdsh (parallel distributed shell) to run the script on the 3 Solaris servers. |
41,453 | I'd like to be able to introspect a C++ class for its name, contents (i.e. members and their types) etc. I'm talking native C++ here, not managed C++, which has reflection. I realise C++ supplies some limited information using RTTI. Which additional libraries (or other techniques) could supply this information? | 2008/09/03 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/41453",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/3233/"
] | The two reflection-like solutions I know of from my C++ days are:
1) Use RTTI, which will provide a bootstrap for you to build your reflection-like behaviour, if you are able to get all your classes to derive from an 'object' base class. That class could provide some methods like GetMethod, GetBaseClass etc. As for how those methods work you will need to manually add some macros to decorate your types, which behind the scenes create metadata in the type to provide answers to GetMethods etc.
2) Another option, if you have access to the compiler objects is to use the [DIA SDK](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/t6tay6cz(VS.80).aspx). If I remember correctly this lets you open pdbs, which should contain metadata for your C++ types. It might be enough to do what you need. [This page](http://www.vsj.co.uk/dotnet/display.asp?id=320) shows how you can get all base types of a class for example.
Both these solution are a bit ugly though! There is nothing like a bit of C++ to make you appreciate the luxuries of C#.
Good Luck. | It looks like C++ still does not have this feature.
And **[C++11](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C++11#Features_planned_but_removed_or_not_included)** postponed reflection too ((
Search some macros or make own. Qt also can help with reflection (if it can be used). |
41,453 | I'd like to be able to introspect a C++ class for its name, contents (i.e. members and their types) etc. I'm talking native C++ here, not managed C++, which has reflection. I realise C++ supplies some limited information using RTTI. Which additional libraries (or other techniques) could supply this information? | 2008/09/03 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/41453",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/3233/"
] | You can find another library here: <http://www.garret.ru/cppreflection/docs/reflect.html>
It supports 2 ways: getting type information from debug information and let programmer to provide this information.
I also interested in reflection for my project and found this library, i have not tried it yet, but tried other tools from this guy and i like how they work :-) | You can achieve cool static reflection features for structs with [BOOST\_HANA\_DEFINE\_STRUCT](http://boostorg.github.io/hana/group__group-Struct.html#gab9efb238a82207d91643994c5295cf8c) from the Boost::Hana library.
Hana is quite versatile, not only for the usecase you have in mind but for a lot of template metaprogramming. |
41,453 | I'd like to be able to introspect a C++ class for its name, contents (i.e. members and their types) etc. I'm talking native C++ here, not managed C++, which has reflection. I realise C++ supplies some limited information using RTTI. Which additional libraries (or other techniques) could supply this information? | 2008/09/03 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/41453",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/3233/"
] | EDIT: Updated broken link as of February, the 7th, 2017.
I think noone mentioned this:
At CERN they use a full reflection system for C++:
[CERN Reflex](https://root.cern.ch/how/how-use-reflex). It seems to work very well. | When I wanted reflection in C++ I read [this article](http://lcgapp.cern.ch/project/architecture/ReflectionPaper.pdf) and improved upon what I saw there. Sorry, no can has. I don't own the result...but you can certainly get what I had and go from there.
I am currently researching, when I feel like it, methods to use inherit\_linearly to make the definition of reflectable types much easier. I've gotten fairly far in it actually but I still have a ways to go. The changes in C++0x are very likely to be a lot of help in this area. |
41,453 | I'd like to be able to introspect a C++ class for its name, contents (i.e. members and their types) etc. I'm talking native C++ here, not managed C++, which has reflection. I realise C++ supplies some limited information using RTTI. Which additional libraries (or other techniques) could supply this information? | 2008/09/03 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/41453",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/3233/"
] | And I would love a pony, but ponies aren't free. :-p
<http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/C%2B%2B_Programming/RTTI> is what you're going to get. Reflection like you're thinking about -- fully descriptive metadata available at runtime -- just doesn't exist for C++ by default. | even though reflection is not supported out-of-the-box in c++, it is not too hard to implement.
I've encountered this great article:
<http://replicaisland.blogspot.co.il/2010/11/building-reflective-object-system-in-c.html>
the article explains in great detail how you can implement a pretty simple and rudimentary reflection system. granted its not the most wholesome solution, and there are rough edges left to be sorted out but for my needs it was sufficient.
the bottom line - reflection can pay off if done correctly, and it is completely feasible in c++. |
112,808 | I have some 1u and 2u cases where the ears mysteriously disappeared for them, so the cases are loose.
My googlefu seems to be weak, are there places that sell "generic" rack ears for 2u cases, or replacement ears for dell switches?
Outside of a machine shop does anyone have any suggestions on how to get replacement ears?
thanks! | 2010/02/14 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/112808",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/28986/"
] | If you are unable to find something suitable you could try asking Dell even if it's just so you can kill an hour or so trying to get through to the right person. Failing that check out some of the smaller "engineering" or metalworking companies in your area. They're trivial to make (cut, bend, drill) and shouldn't cost too much. | An alternative would be to use the rack rails that are basically little shelves for each side of the rack, just slide the servers onto them:
<http://www.server-rack-online.com/universal-server-rack-rails.html> |
10,656,264 | If I set a http header to a 404, will the page then stop processing? It seems that way on one server but on another it continues to process what's on the page. I would prefer to have it continue to process so that I can provide further error messaging on the page. Is it a setting on the server perhaps? | 2012/05/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/10656264",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1001034/"
] | When you raise a 404 error, the page doesn't stop processing. Except if you ask it explicitly.
Simple non-technical example: If the page stopped processing, there wouldn't be sites with a custom 404 page. :) | The page will still process, otherwise custom 404 pages woundn't be possible. Make sure you have error reporting turned on, as you may have a PHP error that's causing the script to stop running before the page is generated. |
10,656,264 | If I set a http header to a 404, will the page then stop processing? It seems that way on one server but on another it continues to process what's on the page. I would prefer to have it continue to process so that I can provide further error messaging on the page. Is it a setting on the server perhaps? | 2012/05/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/10656264",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1001034/"
] | When you raise a 404 error, the page doesn't stop processing. Except if you ask it explicitly.
Simple non-technical example: If the page stopped processing, there wouldn't be sites with a custom 404 page. :) | Normally you can set your 404 page in apache. This page should be processed. |
10,656,264 | If I set a http header to a 404, will the page then stop processing? It seems that way on one server but on another it continues to process what's on the page. I would prefer to have it continue to process so that I can provide further error messaging on the page. Is it a setting on the server perhaps? | 2012/05/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/10656264",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1001034/"
] | When you raise a 404 error, the page doesn't stop processing. Except if you ask it explicitly.
Simple non-technical example: If the page stopped processing, there wouldn't be sites with a custom 404 page. :) | Turns out it was an issue with CURL. Thanks for your help. |
10,656,264 | If I set a http header to a 404, will the page then stop processing? It seems that way on one server but on another it continues to process what's on the page. I would prefer to have it continue to process so that I can provide further error messaging on the page. Is it a setting on the server perhaps? | 2012/05/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/10656264",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1001034/"
] | The page will still process, otherwise custom 404 pages woundn't be possible. Make sure you have error reporting turned on, as you may have a PHP error that's causing the script to stop running before the page is generated. | Turns out it was an issue with CURL. Thanks for your help. |
10,656,264 | If I set a http header to a 404, will the page then stop processing? It seems that way on one server but on another it continues to process what's on the page. I would prefer to have it continue to process so that I can provide further error messaging on the page. Is it a setting on the server perhaps? | 2012/05/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/10656264",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1001034/"
] | Normally you can set your 404 page in apache. This page should be processed. | Turns out it was an issue with CURL. Thanks for your help. |
81,944 | All "free" solutions I find aren't free, usually you can only recover 500MB of data or something similar. I also find old threads about software that used to be completely free but aren't anymore.
Is there any truly free program that accomplishes data recovery available in 2021? | 2022/01/20 | [
"https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/81944",
"https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/users/7761/"
] | [TestDisk](https://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/TestDisk) and [PhotoRec](https://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/PhotoRec) are free and OpenSource. | It doesn't really compete with Robert's answer as their suggestions are open source but [Recuva](https://www.ccleaner.com/recuva) has always worked well for me and an additional feature is that it can do secure delete (writes a bunch of random data over the space). |
91,449 | The recent switch to "free" downvotes has a side-effect: As far as I can see, there is no longer a way to see questions one has recently downvoted.
This makes it impossible to find and revisit those questions one has downvoted to see whether they have improved, and if they have, remove the downvote, which is a pretty essential part of voting.
Can we have this feature "back" please?
A concrete suggestion by @Shadow Wizard that I second:
>
> I would suggest clicking your own "votes cast" link should bring you to page showing the full list of posts you downvoted instead of linking to meta.stackoverflow.com/users?tab=voters
>
>
>
Also, Adam Davis has [a full-fledged suggestion](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/91935/138112) that I would totally support:
>
> I'd suggest adding a tab that shows posts they've recently voted on (up or down) that have changed. This gives you what you need, without requiring you to click through each voted on post to see if it's changed. It will encourage users to revisit posts that they voted on, since it will be a first-class feature on their account page.
>
>
> | 2011/05/16 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/91449",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/138112/"
] | Consider arguing instead for a feature that will encourage users to re-evaluate downvoted posts that have changed since they downvoted them.
I'd suggest adding a tab that shows posts they've recently voted on (up or down) that have changed. This gives you what you need, without requiring you to click through each voted on post to see if it's changed. It will encourage users to revisit posts that they voted on, since it will be a first-class feature on their account page.
It will also give people who post to the site and receive downvotes some additional assurance that if they update their post, they may get additional attention from those that already voted. | >
> This is a big problem, because I can't revisit those questions to see whether they have improved, and if they have, remove the downvote, which is a pretty essential part of voting.
>
>
>
While everyone is entitled to their own rationales for voting, I would not call this "essential".
By the time I downvote something -- and I am referring to a downvote on a main site, not on a meta where downvote can mean "I strongly disagree with this" -- I have:
* read and processed the post *as written*
* thought about the content of the post; for bad posts, this takes longer as they are typically badly formatted, badly written, and badly researched
* evaluated it and decided to vote it down
That is a lot of my time wasted on a post because someone phoned it in and couldn't be bothered to do basic research, or form coherent sentences, before writing.
The last thing I am going to do is come back and spend *even more of my time* changing my vote. **Posts should be evaluated as written, not as some idealized best possible future version of themselves.**
(within the 5 minute editing window, of course, and I might be willing to cut someone slack if they fix a post within up to 30 minutes after posting.)
As a voting strategy, whatever floats your particular boat. But "pretty essential to the voting"? I don't think so. |
91,449 | The recent switch to "free" downvotes has a side-effect: As far as I can see, there is no longer a way to see questions one has recently downvoted.
This makes it impossible to find and revisit those questions one has downvoted to see whether they have improved, and if they have, remove the downvote, which is a pretty essential part of voting.
Can we have this feature "back" please?
A concrete suggestion by @Shadow Wizard that I second:
>
> I would suggest clicking your own "votes cast" link should bring you to page showing the full list of posts you downvoted instead of linking to meta.stackoverflow.com/users?tab=voters
>
>
>
Also, Adam Davis has [a full-fledged suggestion](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/91935/138112) that I would totally support:
>
> I'd suggest adding a tab that shows posts they've recently voted on (up or down) that have changed. This gives you what you need, without requiring you to click through each voted on post to see if it's changed. It will encourage users to revisit posts that they voted on, since it will be a first-class feature on their account page.
>
>
> | 2011/05/16 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/91449",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/138112/"
] | Sure, it is now there.
You now have a special votes tab in your user profile, that lets you scavenge through all your old downvotes, there is one slight caveat, we never show you deleted posts. If you downvote and then the post is deleted, you can not see it in the votes tab. | >
> This is a big problem, because I can't revisit those questions to see whether they have improved, and if they have, remove the downvote, which is a pretty essential part of voting.
>
>
>
While everyone is entitled to their own rationales for voting, I would not call this "essential".
By the time I downvote something -- and I am referring to a downvote on a main site, not on a meta where downvote can mean "I strongly disagree with this" -- I have:
* read and processed the post *as written*
* thought about the content of the post; for bad posts, this takes longer as they are typically badly formatted, badly written, and badly researched
* evaluated it and decided to vote it down
That is a lot of my time wasted on a post because someone phoned it in and couldn't be bothered to do basic research, or form coherent sentences, before writing.
The last thing I am going to do is come back and spend *even more of my time* changing my vote. **Posts should be evaluated as written, not as some idealized best possible future version of themselves.**
(within the 5 minute editing window, of course, and I might be willing to cut someone slack if they fix a post within up to 30 minutes after posting.)
As a voting strategy, whatever floats your particular boat. But "pretty essential to the voting"? I don't think so. |
682,380 | **solar day** = time between solar noons
**sidereal day** = period of Earth's spin
[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time#Comparison_to_solar_time) says "relative to the stars, the Sun appears to move around Earth once per year. Therefore, there is one fewer solar day per year than there are sidereal days."
Shouldn't it be relative to the Earth instead of the relative to the stars? I'm having trouble following this argument. Can someone please explain it in more detail? | 2021/12/14 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/682380",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/288361/"
] | From [this youtube video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWw4JY2dNXM) comes this frame:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AdafZ.jpg)
Relative to distant stars, Earth takes 23 hours and 56 minutes to spin once around its axis. During that time, it also orbited a little bit on its way around the Sun. Thus, to catch up, it has to spin a few extra minutes such that it's again noon at a given location. That's the 24 hours between noon and noon.
I find that Wikipedia sentence confusing too, but if you read the paragraph leading to it, I think it is rather clear how this works. | Take an example of a clock having minute and hour hand to understand why there is a day missing in a sidereal year to number of sidereal days in a sidereal year.
In a day of 12 hours, hour and minute hand align at zero hour and again align after 12 hours respective to same position in background. Now the time taken by minute hand is 1/12 days per rotation and by hour hand is 1 day per rotation, therefore the difference of time is,
1 - 1/12 = 11/12 days per rotation
This is relative time measure by an hour hand of a minute hand. So in duration of 12 hours, total time taken by a minute hand seeing from hour hand is,
11/12\*12 = 11 hours per rotation.
There is one hour missing from a complete rotation of an hour hand which is of 12 hours. So an hour hand counts a day of 11 rotations of minute hand which is 11 hours as 1 rotation of a minute hand to the fixed position of the background is 1 hour.
So when earth or ecliptic completes there 360 cycles, sun or earth complete 1 cycles. From point of view of year, there is one day or cycle less. Here rises one question that, is a day fundamental unit or a year. Answer is a year, which is divided into parts as day because we are observing from year's point of view. It also questions heliocentric view, from it only earth is moving for both day and year, so there should no two different perspective, but it are. |
682,380 | **solar day** = time between solar noons
**sidereal day** = period of Earth's spin
[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time#Comparison_to_solar_time) says "relative to the stars, the Sun appears to move around Earth once per year. Therefore, there is one fewer solar day per year than there are sidereal days."
Shouldn't it be relative to the Earth instead of the relative to the stars? I'm having trouble following this argument. Can someone please explain it in more detail? | 2021/12/14 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/682380",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/288361/"
] | ### On the specific wording in question
Relative to the Earth would normally mean the Earth is fixed in place. So days relative to the Earth doesn't exactly make sense.
Better, quoting the exact section linked:
>
> The stars are so far away that Earth's movement along its orbit makes nearly no difference to their apparent direction
>
>
>
If it helps, it's basically the same as saying "relative to the universe".
### Explanation
(similar explanation to the Wikipedia article)
In the frame of reference of a solar day, the Sun and Earth are always in a fixed place - say, the Sun directly above the Earth.
On the other hand, in the frame of reference of the stars (universe), the Earth orbits the Sun once per year. Equivalently, the Sun may seem to orbit the Earth once per year.
If this isn't intuitive, pretend there's someone walking around you in a circle, and you keep in eye contact for a whole revolution. They're moving around you, so you're definitely turning a full revolution - and they're always looking in the opposite direction (= at you) - so they *must* have also turned a full revolution - and since they're always facing you, you *must* have appeared to made one orbit around them from their perspective.
So no matter how many days are in a year, since the Sun appears to make a full revolution around the Earth, it essentially "catches up" with one spin of the Earth, which is why there is one fewer solar day than sidereal days in a year. | An easy way to picture it is imagining the case if the Earth was tidally locked. In a year, it would rotate once from a galactic perspective, but the Sun would remain fixed in the sky...0 solar days, but 1 sidereal day. |
682,380 | **solar day** = time between solar noons
**sidereal day** = period of Earth's spin
[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time#Comparison_to_solar_time) says "relative to the stars, the Sun appears to move around Earth once per year. Therefore, there is one fewer solar day per year than there are sidereal days."
Shouldn't it be relative to the Earth instead of the relative to the stars? I'm having trouble following this argument. Can someone please explain it in more detail? | 2021/12/14 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/682380",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/288361/"
] | >
> Shouldn't it be relative to the Earth instead of the relative to the stars?
>
>
>
We need some reference background to plot the "movement" of the Sun. If we could see the stars during the day, and we were to go to a fixed point on the equator and mark the location of the Sun each day at noon on a star chart, this point would move in a circle through the stars once per year. The Sun rotates around the Earth more slowly than the stars do, so the number of solar rotations is one fewer than the number of sidereal rotations.
Imagine walking counterclockwise around a circular track, facing North the whole time. Suppose there's a light in the middle of the track. If you start out in the Eastern part of the track, the light will start out on your left. Once you get to the Northern part of the track, the light will be at your back. When you get to the Western part, it will be on your right. At the Southern part, it will be in front of you. So the light will appear to rotate around you counterclockwise.
So if the Earth didn't rotate at all, the Sun would appear to rise and set once over the course of the year. This one circuit due to the revolution around the Sun cancels out one of the 366 circuits due to the rotation of the Earth, leaving only 365 solar cycles. | ### On the specific wording in question
Relative to the Earth would normally mean the Earth is fixed in place. So days relative to the Earth doesn't exactly make sense.
Better, quoting the exact section linked:
>
> The stars are so far away that Earth's movement along its orbit makes nearly no difference to their apparent direction
>
>
>
If it helps, it's basically the same as saying "relative to the universe".
### Explanation
(similar explanation to the Wikipedia article)
In the frame of reference of a solar day, the Sun and Earth are always in a fixed place - say, the Sun directly above the Earth.
On the other hand, in the frame of reference of the stars (universe), the Earth orbits the Sun once per year. Equivalently, the Sun may seem to orbit the Earth once per year.
If this isn't intuitive, pretend there's someone walking around you in a circle, and you keep in eye contact for a whole revolution. They're moving around you, so you're definitely turning a full revolution - and they're always looking in the opposite direction (= at you) - so they *must* have also turned a full revolution - and since they're always facing you, you *must* have appeared to made one orbit around them from their perspective.
So no matter how many days are in a year, since the Sun appears to make a full revolution around the Earth, it essentially "catches up" with one spin of the Earth, which is why there is one fewer solar day than sidereal days in a year. |
682,380 | **solar day** = time between solar noons
**sidereal day** = period of Earth's spin
[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time#Comparison_to_solar_time) says "relative to the stars, the Sun appears to move around Earth once per year. Therefore, there is one fewer solar day per year than there are sidereal days."
Shouldn't it be relative to the Earth instead of the relative to the stars? I'm having trouble following this argument. Can someone please explain it in more detail? | 2021/12/14 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/682380",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/288361/"
] | From [this youtube video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWw4JY2dNXM) comes this frame:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AdafZ.jpg)
Relative to distant stars, Earth takes 23 hours and 56 minutes to spin once around its axis. During that time, it also orbited a little bit on its way around the Sun. Thus, to catch up, it has to spin a few extra minutes such that it's again noon at a given location. That's the 24 hours between noon and noon.
I find that Wikipedia sentence confusing too, but if you read the paragraph leading to it, I think it is rather clear how this works. | An easy way to picture it is imagining the case if the Earth was tidally locked. In a year, it would rotate once from a galactic perspective, but the Sun would remain fixed in the sky...0 solar days, but 1 sidereal day. |
682,380 | **solar day** = time between solar noons
**sidereal day** = period of Earth's spin
[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time#Comparison_to_solar_time) says "relative to the stars, the Sun appears to move around Earth once per year. Therefore, there is one fewer solar day per year than there are sidereal days."
Shouldn't it be relative to the Earth instead of the relative to the stars? I'm having trouble following this argument. Can someone please explain it in more detail? | 2021/12/14 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/682380",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/288361/"
] | Work it out for the limiting case of a planet rotation-locked to its sun (as the moon is to the Earth). There is one sidereal day per orbit, but the solar day (or night, to see the stars!) lasts forever. Now imagine a planet rotating once on its axis for each orbit around its sun. Draw the situation at four quadrants. If you need to, then draw two rotations per orbit, drawing the situation at every sixty degrees of orbit. You'll soon understand (in a true-understanding way, that can't be arrived at with mere words).
If this sounds condescending, that's not my intent. It's what Feynman always recommended, that an intuitive understanding of a concrete model is important, even when (unlike this one) the concrete model is only an approximation. | Taking the perspective of a person who believes they are the center of the Universe, the stars circle the The sky once per day. The sun kind of does too. But since (gasp) Earth actually orbits the sun, each year the sun makes one fewer “transit” across our sky compared to all the other stars.
Is that correct? |
682,380 | **solar day** = time between solar noons
**sidereal day** = period of Earth's spin
[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time#Comparison_to_solar_time) says "relative to the stars, the Sun appears to move around Earth once per year. Therefore, there is one fewer solar day per year than there are sidereal days."
Shouldn't it be relative to the Earth instead of the relative to the stars? I'm having trouble following this argument. Can someone please explain it in more detail? | 2021/12/14 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/682380",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/288361/"
] | >
> Shouldn't it be relative to the Earth instead of the relative to the stars?
>
>
>
We need some reference background to plot the "movement" of the Sun. If we could see the stars during the day, and we were to go to a fixed point on the equator and mark the location of the Sun each day at noon on a star chart, this point would move in a circle through the stars once per year. The Sun rotates around the Earth more slowly than the stars do, so the number of solar rotations is one fewer than the number of sidereal rotations.
Imagine walking counterclockwise around a circular track, facing North the whole time. Suppose there's a light in the middle of the track. If you start out in the Eastern part of the track, the light will start out on your left. Once you get to the Northern part of the track, the light will be at your back. When you get to the Western part, it will be on your right. At the Southern part, it will be in front of you. So the light will appear to rotate around you counterclockwise.
So if the Earth didn't rotate at all, the Sun would appear to rise and set once over the course of the year. This one circuit due to the revolution around the Sun cancels out one of the 366 circuits due to the rotation of the Earth, leaving only 365 solar cycles. | Work it out for the limiting case of a planet rotation-locked to its sun (as the moon is to the Earth). There is one sidereal day per orbit, but the solar day (or night, to see the stars!) lasts forever. Now imagine a planet rotating once on its axis for each orbit around its sun. Draw the situation at four quadrants. If you need to, then draw two rotations per orbit, drawing the situation at every sixty degrees of orbit. You'll soon understand (in a true-understanding way, that can't be arrived at with mere words).
If this sounds condescending, that's not my intent. It's what Feynman always recommended, that an intuitive understanding of a concrete model is important, even when (unlike this one) the concrete model is only an approximation. |
682,380 | **solar day** = time between solar noons
**sidereal day** = period of Earth's spin
[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time#Comparison_to_solar_time) says "relative to the stars, the Sun appears to move around Earth once per year. Therefore, there is one fewer solar day per year than there are sidereal days."
Shouldn't it be relative to the Earth instead of the relative to the stars? I'm having trouble following this argument. Can someone please explain it in more detail? | 2021/12/14 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/682380",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/288361/"
] | >
> Shouldn't it be relative to the Earth instead of the relative to the stars?
>
>
>
We need some reference background to plot the "movement" of the Sun. If we could see the stars during the day, and we were to go to a fixed point on the equator and mark the location of the Sun each day at noon on a star chart, this point would move in a circle through the stars once per year. The Sun rotates around the Earth more slowly than the stars do, so the number of solar rotations is one fewer than the number of sidereal rotations.
Imagine walking counterclockwise around a circular track, facing North the whole time. Suppose there's a light in the middle of the track. If you start out in the Eastern part of the track, the light will start out on your left. Once you get to the Northern part of the track, the light will be at your back. When you get to the Western part, it will be on your right. At the Southern part, it will be in front of you. So the light will appear to rotate around you counterclockwise.
So if the Earth didn't rotate at all, the Sun would appear to rise and set once over the course of the year. This one circuit due to the revolution around the Sun cancels out one of the 366 circuits due to the rotation of the Earth, leaving only 365 solar cycles. | An easy way to picture it is imagining the case if the Earth was tidally locked. In a year, it would rotate once from a galactic perspective, but the Sun would remain fixed in the sky...0 solar days, but 1 sidereal day. |
682,380 | **solar day** = time between solar noons
**sidereal day** = period of Earth's spin
[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time#Comparison_to_solar_time) says "relative to the stars, the Sun appears to move around Earth once per year. Therefore, there is one fewer solar day per year than there are sidereal days."
Shouldn't it be relative to the Earth instead of the relative to the stars? I'm having trouble following this argument. Can someone please explain it in more detail? | 2021/12/14 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/682380",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/288361/"
] | Work it out for the limiting case of a planet rotation-locked to its sun (as the moon is to the Earth). There is one sidereal day per orbit, but the solar day (or night, to see the stars!) lasts forever. Now imagine a planet rotating once on its axis for each orbit around its sun. Draw the situation at four quadrants. If you need to, then draw two rotations per orbit, drawing the situation at every sixty degrees of orbit. You'll soon understand (in a true-understanding way, that can't be arrived at with mere words).
If this sounds condescending, that's not my intent. It's what Feynman always recommended, that an intuitive understanding of a concrete model is important, even when (unlike this one) the concrete model is only an approximation. | Take an example of a clock having minute and hour hand to understand why there is a day missing in a sidereal year to number of sidereal days in a sidereal year.
In a day of 12 hours, hour and minute hand align at zero hour and again align after 12 hours respective to same position in background. Now the time taken by minute hand is 1/12 days per rotation and by hour hand is 1 day per rotation, therefore the difference of time is,
1 - 1/12 = 11/12 days per rotation
This is relative time measure by an hour hand of a minute hand. So in duration of 12 hours, total time taken by a minute hand seeing from hour hand is,
11/12\*12 = 11 hours per rotation.
There is one hour missing from a complete rotation of an hour hand which is of 12 hours. So an hour hand counts a day of 11 rotations of minute hand which is 11 hours as 1 rotation of a minute hand to the fixed position of the background is 1 hour.
So when earth or ecliptic completes there 360 cycles, sun or earth complete 1 cycles. From point of view of year, there is one day or cycle less. Here rises one question that, is a day fundamental unit or a year. Answer is a year, which is divided into parts as day because we are observing from year's point of view. It also questions heliocentric view, from it only earth is moving for both day and year, so there should no two different perspective, but it are. |
682,380 | **solar day** = time between solar noons
**sidereal day** = period of Earth's spin
[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time#Comparison_to_solar_time) says "relative to the stars, the Sun appears to move around Earth once per year. Therefore, there is one fewer solar day per year than there are sidereal days."
Shouldn't it be relative to the Earth instead of the relative to the stars? I'm having trouble following this argument. Can someone please explain it in more detail? | 2021/12/14 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/682380",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/288361/"
] | Work it out for the limiting case of a planet rotation-locked to its sun (as the moon is to the Earth). There is one sidereal day per orbit, but the solar day (or night, to see the stars!) lasts forever. Now imagine a planet rotating once on its axis for each orbit around its sun. Draw the situation at four quadrants. If you need to, then draw two rotations per orbit, drawing the situation at every sixty degrees of orbit. You'll soon understand (in a true-understanding way, that can't be arrived at with mere words).
If this sounds condescending, that's not my intent. It's what Feynman always recommended, that an intuitive understanding of a concrete model is important, even when (unlike this one) the concrete model is only an approximation. | An easy way to picture it is imagining the case if the Earth was tidally locked. In a year, it would rotate once from a galactic perspective, but the Sun would remain fixed in the sky...0 solar days, but 1 sidereal day. |
682,380 | **solar day** = time between solar noons
**sidereal day** = period of Earth's spin
[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time#Comparison_to_solar_time) says "relative to the stars, the Sun appears to move around Earth once per year. Therefore, there is one fewer solar day per year than there are sidereal days."
Shouldn't it be relative to the Earth instead of the relative to the stars? I'm having trouble following this argument. Can someone please explain it in more detail? | 2021/12/14 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/682380",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/288361/"
] | >
> Shouldn't it be relative to the Earth instead of the relative to the stars?
>
>
>
We need some reference background to plot the "movement" of the Sun. If we could see the stars during the day, and we were to go to a fixed point on the equator and mark the location of the Sun each day at noon on a star chart, this point would move in a circle through the stars once per year. The Sun rotates around the Earth more slowly than the stars do, so the number of solar rotations is one fewer than the number of sidereal rotations.
Imagine walking counterclockwise around a circular track, facing North the whole time. Suppose there's a light in the middle of the track. If you start out in the Eastern part of the track, the light will start out on your left. Once you get to the Northern part of the track, the light will be at your back. When you get to the Western part, it will be on your right. At the Southern part, it will be in front of you. So the light will appear to rotate around you counterclockwise.
So if the Earth didn't rotate at all, the Sun would appear to rise and set once over the course of the year. This one circuit due to the revolution around the Sun cancels out one of the 366 circuits due to the rotation of the Earth, leaving only 365 solar cycles. | From [this youtube video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWw4JY2dNXM) comes this frame:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AdafZ.jpg)
Relative to distant stars, Earth takes 23 hours and 56 minutes to spin once around its axis. During that time, it also orbited a little bit on its way around the Sun. Thus, to catch up, it has to spin a few extra minutes such that it's again noon at a given location. That's the 24 hours between noon and noon.
I find that Wikipedia sentence confusing too, but if you read the paragraph leading to it, I think it is rather clear how this works. |
48,567 | Your puzzle is solving a nested analogy, where the goal is to find the word that fills in the final blank, based on the answer to the analogy in parentheses.
An example:
>
> sky:blue::(bird:worm::cow:\_\_\_\_):\_\_\_\_
>
>
>
In this case, the answer to the part in parentheses is "grass", which makes the whole thing:
>
> sky:blue::grass:\_\_\_\_
>
>
>
So, the final answer is green.
Now, for the puzzle you must solve (which is not as straightforward as the example):
>
> wing:horn::(toodle-oo:hour::oboe:\_\_\_\_):\_\_\_\_
>
>
> | 2017/01/29 | [
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/48567",
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com",
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/users/33883/"
] | **Partial answer**
It's conjectured that
>
> "toodle-oo" is a corruption of French "tout à l'heure".
>
>
>
Accordingly,
>
> since "oboe" = "haut bois", the inner analogy must yield "wood".
>
>
>
So now we have
>
> wing:horn :: wood:\_\_\_\_
>
>
>
but I'm feeling dim and failing to see what that yields. Perhaps
>
> it's another cross-language thing? E.g., I think a wing in German is a *Flügel* and there is a musical instrument called a flugelhorn; but wood in german is *Holz* and all that leads me to is that woodwind in German is Holzblas, which would yield an answer of "blow". But that's, well, not terribly convincing.
>
>
> | Using Gareth answer we have
>
> wing:horn :: wood:\_\_\_\_
>
>
>
The relationship can be
>
> wings have feathers made of keratin (horn)
>
>
>
Answer:
>
> Cellulose (wood is made of cellulose)
>
>
> |
48,567 | Your puzzle is solving a nested analogy, where the goal is to find the word that fills in the final blank, based on the answer to the analogy in parentheses.
An example:
>
> sky:blue::(bird:worm::cow:\_\_\_\_):\_\_\_\_
>
>
>
In this case, the answer to the part in parentheses is "grass", which makes the whole thing:
>
> sky:blue::grass:\_\_\_\_
>
>
>
So, the final answer is green.
Now, for the puzzle you must solve (which is not as straightforward as the example):
>
> wing:horn::(toodle-oo:hour::oboe:\_\_\_\_):\_\_\_\_
>
>
> | 2017/01/29 | [
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/48567",
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com",
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/users/33883/"
] | Also working from Gareth's partial answer of
>
> wing:horn :: wood:\_\_\_\_
>
>
>
I think he was on the right track of
>
> another cross-language connection using the strong key of wing:horn = flugelhorn. Building on wood = *Holz*, there's a German stringed instrument called a *[scheitholz](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheitholt)*; *Scheit* translates into "log" (or "piece," "chip," etc). However, it's a little strange that this name would reverse the clue's word order (i.e. to log:wood rather than wood:log). Digging deeper, there's also a *[holztrompete](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holztrompete)* that's admittedly pretty obscure, but has some nice coincidences: word order is maintained, and an English cognate makes up its second half, much like flugelhorn. More subjectively, the wiki page mentions oboes (seen in the original clue); even more subjectively, I play the trumpet.
>
>
>
As such, I'd guess the answer is
>
> wing:horn :: wood:trumpet
>
>
> | Using Gareth answer we have
>
> wing:horn :: wood:\_\_\_\_
>
>
>
The relationship can be
>
> wings have feathers made of keratin (horn)
>
>
>
Answer:
>
> Cellulose (wood is made of cellulose)
>
>
> |
16,783,139 | I´m evaluating in using YII framework for an application. This app has 2 requirements very important. First is Reporting. I have to make a lot of Reports and subreports. The Second is that reports have to be exported to word, pdf and xls.
I understand that PHP is not very friendly with reporting tools. I think the best could be Jasper Reports?. But that tool can help me with that 2 points?
Have you use reporting tools with advance reports in php? could you give me an advice?
Thanks. | 2013/05/28 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/16783139",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1964667/"
] | I am working on JasperReports for the last few months. Its extremely user friendly. The 2 points which you mentioned are very well covered in Jasper. You can do 'n' number of reports, subreports, adhocs, olaps,charts and many more. Exporting options are great. There are around 11 formats in which you can export the reports. I have not used yii or any other reporting tool. For reporting and advanced reporting options, Jasperreports works brilliant. You may want to check out this [link](http://www.jaspersoft.com/) for more information. | I am doing a Yii project at the moment. I have not used a great deal of reporting tools, and have not checked out Jasper yet.
But for excel the best reporting tool I have found has been PHPExcel. I extended the factory and built my own code around it to work with my data.
Also if you want to report into MS Word, it might be easier to write your data to RTF files.
I have found PDF's and Text/Word Documents tend to not be too flash for reporting. Excel seems to be the most useful so far. I use PHPExcel with both openoffice on linux and MS Excel and I write all my own reports.
Cheers
Daz |
16,783,139 | I´m evaluating in using YII framework for an application. This app has 2 requirements very important. First is Reporting. I have to make a lot of Reports and subreports. The Second is that reports have to be exported to word, pdf and xls.
I understand that PHP is not very friendly with reporting tools. I think the best could be Jasper Reports?. But that tool can help me with that 2 points?
Have you use reporting tools with advance reports in php? could you give me an advice?
Thanks. | 2013/05/28 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/16783139",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1964667/"
] | I am doing a Yii project at the moment. I have not used a great deal of reporting tools, and have not checked out Jasper yet.
But for excel the best reporting tool I have found has been PHPExcel. I extended the factory and built my own code around it to work with my data.
Also if you want to report into MS Word, it might be easier to write your data to RTF files.
I have found PDF's and Text/Word Documents tend to not be too flash for reporting. Excel seems to be the most useful so far. I use PHPExcel with both openoffice on linux and MS Excel and I write all my own reports.
Cheers
Daz | Jasper Reports is a great tool for reporting but it require Java and the integration with PHP require the Java bridge which may not be accessible specially in shared hosting, a good alternative is [PHPJasperXML](http://www.simit.com.my/?q=PHPJasperXML), which takes Jasper Reports and render them on PHP natively, also it exports to PDF and Excel. |
16,783,139 | I´m evaluating in using YII framework for an application. This app has 2 requirements very important. First is Reporting. I have to make a lot of Reports and subreports. The Second is that reports have to be exported to word, pdf and xls.
I understand that PHP is not very friendly with reporting tools. I think the best could be Jasper Reports?. But that tool can help me with that 2 points?
Have you use reporting tools with advance reports in php? could you give me an advice?
Thanks. | 2013/05/28 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/16783139",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1964667/"
] | I am doing a Yii project at the moment. I have not used a great deal of reporting tools, and have not checked out Jasper yet.
But for excel the best reporting tool I have found has been PHPExcel. I extended the factory and built my own code around it to work with my data.
Also if you want to report into MS Word, it might be easier to write your data to RTF files.
I have found PDF's and Text/Word Documents tend to not be too flash for reporting. Excel seems to be the most useful so far. I use PHPExcel with both openoffice on linux and MS Excel and I write all my own reports.
Cheers
Daz | I don't know if it could help but exists <https://github.com/cossou/JasperPHP> in the Laravel framework, somebody could adapt it for [Yii2](https://github.com/yiisoft/yii2) and use it with composer. |
16,783,139 | I´m evaluating in using YII framework for an application. This app has 2 requirements very important. First is Reporting. I have to make a lot of Reports and subreports. The Second is that reports have to be exported to word, pdf and xls.
I understand that PHP is not very friendly with reporting tools. I think the best could be Jasper Reports?. But that tool can help me with that 2 points?
Have you use reporting tools with advance reports in php? could you give me an advice?
Thanks. | 2013/05/28 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/16783139",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1964667/"
] | I am working on JasperReports for the last few months. Its extremely user friendly. The 2 points which you mentioned are very well covered in Jasper. You can do 'n' number of reports, subreports, adhocs, olaps,charts and many more. Exporting options are great. There are around 11 formats in which you can export the reports. I have not used yii or any other reporting tool. For reporting and advanced reporting options, Jasperreports works brilliant. You may want to check out this [link](http://www.jaspersoft.com/) for more information. | Jasper Reports is a great tool for reporting but it require Java and the integration with PHP require the Java bridge which may not be accessible specially in shared hosting, a good alternative is [PHPJasperXML](http://www.simit.com.my/?q=PHPJasperXML), which takes Jasper Reports and render them on PHP natively, also it exports to PDF and Excel. |
16,783,139 | I´m evaluating in using YII framework for an application. This app has 2 requirements very important. First is Reporting. I have to make a lot of Reports and subreports. The Second is that reports have to be exported to word, pdf and xls.
I understand that PHP is not very friendly with reporting tools. I think the best could be Jasper Reports?. But that tool can help me with that 2 points?
Have you use reporting tools with advance reports in php? could you give me an advice?
Thanks. | 2013/05/28 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/16783139",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1964667/"
] | I am working on JasperReports for the last few months. Its extremely user friendly. The 2 points which you mentioned are very well covered in Jasper. You can do 'n' number of reports, subreports, adhocs, olaps,charts and many more. Exporting options are great. There are around 11 formats in which you can export the reports. I have not used yii or any other reporting tool. For reporting and advanced reporting options, Jasperreports works brilliant. You may want to check out this [link](http://www.jaspersoft.com/) for more information. | I don't know if it could help but exists <https://github.com/cossou/JasperPHP> in the Laravel framework, somebody could adapt it for [Yii2](https://github.com/yiisoft/yii2) and use it with composer. |
352,516 | I am looking for a generalized term for "the belief that there is a single or narrow range of correct interpretations of events or a circumscribed set of permitted actions in a particular situation as prescribed by an unquestionable authority."
*Fundamentalism* fits to some degree, but has a religious connotation whereas people can hold the above belief without also believing in a deity or god. Also, people who identify as fundamentalist have a much different usage for the word.
Any suggestions for a term that captures the belief without referring specificity to the religious?
ETA: Very good suggestions. To clarify a bit more, what I am looking for is a word or short phrase that emphasizes a reliance on an unquestionable authority. Many words that have that connotation also seem to to be used to mean a steadfast belief. | 2016/10/09 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/352516",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/199893/"
] | I think the word you need is ***purist***, or ***purism***
***Purist*** is defined by Oxford Dictionaries as - *a person who insists on absolute adherence to traditional rules or structures, especially in language or style*.
***Purism*** is *scrupulous or exaggerated observance of or insistence on traditional rules or structures, especially in language or style*.
Please note that *Purist* and *Purism* also exist as proper nouns referring to an early form of 20th century art, emphasising purity of geometric form. | [Dogmatism](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/dogmatic). Dogmatic people adhere to strict interpretation of accepted knowledge and teachings. |
352,516 | I am looking for a generalized term for "the belief that there is a single or narrow range of correct interpretations of events or a circumscribed set of permitted actions in a particular situation as prescribed by an unquestionable authority."
*Fundamentalism* fits to some degree, but has a religious connotation whereas people can hold the above belief without also believing in a deity or god. Also, people who identify as fundamentalist have a much different usage for the word.
Any suggestions for a term that captures the belief without referring specificity to the religious?
ETA: Very good suggestions. To clarify a bit more, what I am looking for is a word or short phrase that emphasizes a reliance on an unquestionable authority. Many words that have that connotation also seem to to be used to mean a steadfast belief. | 2016/10/09 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/352516",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/199893/"
] | Those who want to return to the 'foundations' of their particular ideology or concept or system practice *fundamentalism*; those who return to the roots or radices (*radix* is Latin for 'root', cf. English *radish, eradicate*) practice **radicalism**. There often isn't much of a difference between the two.
As you say, *fundamentalism* is more often used to describe religious movements, but this is by no means exclusively so. Either word will do. | Excluding possibilities that don't fit one's presumptions sounds like ***narrow-mindedness***.
>
> *narrow-minded ADJ* not willing to accept opinions, beliefs, or behaviors that are unusual or different from your own; lacking in tolerance or breadth of vision
>
>
> *narrow-mindedly adverb; narrow-mindedness noun* [- MW](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/narrowmindedness)
>
>
> |
352,516 | I am looking for a generalized term for "the belief that there is a single or narrow range of correct interpretations of events or a circumscribed set of permitted actions in a particular situation as prescribed by an unquestionable authority."
*Fundamentalism* fits to some degree, but has a religious connotation whereas people can hold the above belief without also believing in a deity or god. Also, people who identify as fundamentalist have a much different usage for the word.
Any suggestions for a term that captures the belief without referring specificity to the religious?
ETA: Very good suggestions. To clarify a bit more, what I am looking for is a word or short phrase that emphasizes a reliance on an unquestionable authority. Many words that have that connotation also seem to to be used to mean a steadfast belief. | 2016/10/09 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/352516",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/199893/"
] | In comments, FumbleFingers answered:
>
> OED [**dogmatism**](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/56485?redirectedFrom=dogmatism#eid) *- the tendency to lay down principles as undeniably true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others.* There are plenty of written instances of [dogmatic economists](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22dogmatic+economists%22), for example, and I doubt many of them imply any connection to religion.
>
>
> | ***Intolerance*** too may work.
ODO:
>
> **[intolerance](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/intolerance)**
> *NOUN*
>
>
> **1** [mass noun] Unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one's own.
>
>
> ‘He beckoned us to be more understanding and tolerant, at a time when
> intolerance abounded.’
>
>
> |
352,516 | I am looking for a generalized term for "the belief that there is a single or narrow range of correct interpretations of events or a circumscribed set of permitted actions in a particular situation as prescribed by an unquestionable authority."
*Fundamentalism* fits to some degree, but has a religious connotation whereas people can hold the above belief without also believing in a deity or god. Also, people who identify as fundamentalist have a much different usage for the word.
Any suggestions for a term that captures the belief without referring specificity to the religious?
ETA: Very good suggestions. To clarify a bit more, what I am looking for is a word or short phrase that emphasizes a reliance on an unquestionable authority. Many words that have that connotation also seem to to be used to mean a steadfast belief. | 2016/10/09 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/352516",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/199893/"
] | I do not see any evidence that *fundamentalism* has a religious connotation, except that religions are more likely to bear fundamentalists than paradigms that are to some extent based on empirism or argument. For example [Merriam–Webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalism) defines *fundamentalism* as follows:
>
> 1. **a** *often capitalized* : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching
>
> **b** : the beliefs of this movement
>
> **c** : adherence to such beliefs
> 2. : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles <Islamic *fundamentalism*> <political *fundamentalism*>
>
>
>
The first definition is religious, but pertains to a specific religious movement and would also exclude, e.g., Islamic, Hindu, or Judaist fundamentalism.
This second definition already gives the example of *political fundamentalism,* which is not religious. Other non-religious usages that I found in a brief search include: *[market fundamentism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_fundamentalism), secular fundamentalism, materialist fundamentalism, Marxist fundamentalism, communist fundamentalism, left-wing fundamentalism, ecological fundamentalism, national fundamentalism,* and *[Chicago fundamentalism](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/9812811990).*
The main difference of *fundamentalism* to what you want¹ is that there is no restriction on the source of the principles of the fundamentalist movement, while in your case, there is some sort of authority. So, it’s a little bit broader (unless you a set of principles qualifies as an authority).
---
¹ “the belief that there is a single or narrow range of correct interpretations of events or a circumscribed set of permitted actions in a particular situation as prescribed by an unquestionable authority” | ***[Orthodoxy](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/orthodoxy)*** may refer to contexts that are not only religious but also political, social, economical etc.
>
> * a belief or a way of thinking that is accepted as true or correct.
>
>
>
M-W |
352,516 | I am looking for a generalized term for "the belief that there is a single or narrow range of correct interpretations of events or a circumscribed set of permitted actions in a particular situation as prescribed by an unquestionable authority."
*Fundamentalism* fits to some degree, but has a religious connotation whereas people can hold the above belief without also believing in a deity or god. Also, people who identify as fundamentalist have a much different usage for the word.
Any suggestions for a term that captures the belief without referring specificity to the religious?
ETA: Very good suggestions. To clarify a bit more, what I am looking for is a word or short phrase that emphasizes a reliance on an unquestionable authority. Many words that have that connotation also seem to to be used to mean a steadfast belief. | 2016/10/09 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/352516",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/199893/"
] | In comments, FumbleFingers answered:
>
> OED [**dogmatism**](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/56485?redirectedFrom=dogmatism#eid) *- the tendency to lay down principles as undeniably true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others.* There are plenty of written instances of [dogmatic economists](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22dogmatic+economists%22), for example, and I doubt many of them imply any connection to religion.
>
>
> | ***[Orthodoxy](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/orthodoxy)*** may refer to contexts that are not only religious but also political, social, economical etc.
>
> * a belief or a way of thinking that is accepted as true or correct.
>
>
>
M-W |
352,516 | I am looking for a generalized term for "the belief that there is a single or narrow range of correct interpretations of events or a circumscribed set of permitted actions in a particular situation as prescribed by an unquestionable authority."
*Fundamentalism* fits to some degree, but has a religious connotation whereas people can hold the above belief without also believing in a deity or god. Also, people who identify as fundamentalist have a much different usage for the word.
Any suggestions for a term that captures the belief without referring specificity to the religious?
ETA: Very good suggestions. To clarify a bit more, what I am looking for is a word or short phrase that emphasizes a reliance on an unquestionable authority. Many words that have that connotation also seem to to be used to mean a steadfast belief. | 2016/10/09 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/352516",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/199893/"
] | Those who want to return to the 'foundations' of their particular ideology or concept or system practice *fundamentalism*; those who return to the roots or radices (*radix* is Latin for 'root', cf. English *radish, eradicate*) practice **radicalism**. There often isn't much of a difference between the two.
As you say, *fundamentalism* is more often used to describe religious movements, but this is by no means exclusively so. Either word will do. | ***Intolerance*** too may work.
ODO:
>
> **[intolerance](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/intolerance)**
> *NOUN*
>
>
> **1** [mass noun] Unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one's own.
>
>
> ‘He beckoned us to be more understanding and tolerant, at a time when
> intolerance abounded.’
>
>
> |
352,516 | I am looking for a generalized term for "the belief that there is a single or narrow range of correct interpretations of events or a circumscribed set of permitted actions in a particular situation as prescribed by an unquestionable authority."
*Fundamentalism* fits to some degree, but has a religious connotation whereas people can hold the above belief without also believing in a deity or god. Also, people who identify as fundamentalist have a much different usage for the word.
Any suggestions for a term that captures the belief without referring specificity to the religious?
ETA: Very good suggestions. To clarify a bit more, what I am looking for is a word or short phrase that emphasizes a reliance on an unquestionable authority. Many words that have that connotation also seem to to be used to mean a steadfast belief. | 2016/10/09 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/352516",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/199893/"
] | Excluding possibilities that don't fit one's presumptions sounds like ***narrow-mindedness***.
>
> *narrow-minded ADJ* not willing to accept opinions, beliefs, or behaviors that are unusual or different from your own; lacking in tolerance or breadth of vision
>
>
> *narrow-mindedly adverb; narrow-mindedness noun* [- MW](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/narrowmindedness)
>
>
> | ***Intolerance*** too may work.
ODO:
>
> **[intolerance](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/intolerance)**
> *NOUN*
>
>
> **1** [mass noun] Unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one's own.
>
>
> ‘He beckoned us to be more understanding and tolerant, at a time when
> intolerance abounded.’
>
>
> |
352,516 | I am looking for a generalized term for "the belief that there is a single or narrow range of correct interpretations of events or a circumscribed set of permitted actions in a particular situation as prescribed by an unquestionable authority."
*Fundamentalism* fits to some degree, but has a religious connotation whereas people can hold the above belief without also believing in a deity or god. Also, people who identify as fundamentalist have a much different usage for the word.
Any suggestions for a term that captures the belief without referring specificity to the religious?
ETA: Very good suggestions. To clarify a bit more, what I am looking for is a word or short phrase that emphasizes a reliance on an unquestionable authority. Many words that have that connotation also seem to to be used to mean a steadfast belief. | 2016/10/09 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/352516",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/199893/"
] | I do not see any evidence that *fundamentalism* has a religious connotation, except that religions are more likely to bear fundamentalists than paradigms that are to some extent based on empirism or argument. For example [Merriam–Webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalism) defines *fundamentalism* as follows:
>
> 1. **a** *often capitalized* : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching
>
> **b** : the beliefs of this movement
>
> **c** : adherence to such beliefs
> 2. : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles <Islamic *fundamentalism*> <political *fundamentalism*>
>
>
>
The first definition is religious, but pertains to a specific religious movement and would also exclude, e.g., Islamic, Hindu, or Judaist fundamentalism.
This second definition already gives the example of *political fundamentalism,* which is not religious. Other non-religious usages that I found in a brief search include: *[market fundamentism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_fundamentalism), secular fundamentalism, materialist fundamentalism, Marxist fundamentalism, communist fundamentalism, left-wing fundamentalism, ecological fundamentalism, national fundamentalism,* and *[Chicago fundamentalism](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/9812811990).*
The main difference of *fundamentalism* to what you want¹ is that there is no restriction on the source of the principles of the fundamentalist movement, while in your case, there is some sort of authority. So, it’s a little bit broader (unless you a set of principles qualifies as an authority).
---
¹ “the belief that there is a single or narrow range of correct interpretations of events or a circumscribed set of permitted actions in a particular situation as prescribed by an unquestionable authority” | [Dogmatism](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/dogmatic). Dogmatic people adhere to strict interpretation of accepted knowledge and teachings. |
352,516 | I am looking for a generalized term for "the belief that there is a single or narrow range of correct interpretations of events or a circumscribed set of permitted actions in a particular situation as prescribed by an unquestionable authority."
*Fundamentalism* fits to some degree, but has a religious connotation whereas people can hold the above belief without also believing in a deity or god. Also, people who identify as fundamentalist have a much different usage for the word.
Any suggestions for a term that captures the belief without referring specificity to the religious?
ETA: Very good suggestions. To clarify a bit more, what I am looking for is a word or short phrase that emphasizes a reliance on an unquestionable authority. Many words that have that connotation also seem to to be used to mean a steadfast belief. | 2016/10/09 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/352516",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/199893/"
] | Those who want to return to the 'foundations' of their particular ideology or concept or system practice *fundamentalism*; those who return to the roots or radices (*radix* is Latin for 'root', cf. English *radish, eradicate*) practice **radicalism**. There often isn't much of a difference between the two.
As you say, *fundamentalism* is more often used to describe religious movements, but this is by no means exclusively so. Either word will do. | ***[Orthodoxy](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/orthodoxy)*** may refer to contexts that are not only religious but also political, social, economical etc.
>
> * a belief or a way of thinking that is accepted as true or correct.
>
>
>
M-W |
352,516 | I am looking for a generalized term for "the belief that there is a single or narrow range of correct interpretations of events or a circumscribed set of permitted actions in a particular situation as prescribed by an unquestionable authority."
*Fundamentalism* fits to some degree, but has a religious connotation whereas people can hold the above belief without also believing in a deity or god. Also, people who identify as fundamentalist have a much different usage for the word.
Any suggestions for a term that captures the belief without referring specificity to the religious?
ETA: Very good suggestions. To clarify a bit more, what I am looking for is a word or short phrase that emphasizes a reliance on an unquestionable authority. Many words that have that connotation also seem to to be used to mean a steadfast belief. | 2016/10/09 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/352516",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/199893/"
] | I would use **fanaticism** or **fanatic**, which is defined by [Merriam-Webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fanatic) as *"excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion"* and the [OED](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/68010?redirectedFrom=fanaticism#eid) as *"tendency to indulge in wild and extravagant notions, esp. in religious matters; excessive enthusiasm, frenzy"*. | [Dogmatism](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/dogmatic). Dogmatic people adhere to strict interpretation of accepted knowledge and teachings. |
604,052 | Is there an idiom or short phrase that describes the following idea: (eg code for Codegolf):
*Maybe it’s rough and worse than the others, but **I did it by myself** and it works*
Do-it-yourself feature is main for this case!
I need emphasize that it's not a port, copy, rewriting or similar. | 2023/02/28 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/604052",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/474526/"
] | In addition to answers linked in comment, I suggest
>
> **rough and ready**
>
> Unpolished, imperfect, or unkempt, but generally able or ready for use or action.
>
> Somewhat lacking in refinement, sophistication, manners, etc.
>
>
>
From [Farlex](https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Rough+and+Ready). | **Kludge** deserves to be the answer: "An ill-assorted collection of poorly-matching parts, forming a distressing whole". -[Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kludge#Etymology) |
604,052 | Is there an idiom or short phrase that describes the following idea: (eg code for Codegolf):
*Maybe it’s rough and worse than the others, but **I did it by myself** and it works*
Do-it-yourself feature is main for this case!
I need emphasize that it's not a port, copy, rewriting or similar. | 2023/02/28 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/604052",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/474526/"
] | In addition to answers linked in comment, I suggest
>
> **rough and ready**
>
> Unpolished, imperfect, or unkempt, but generally able or ready for use or action.
>
> Somewhat lacking in refinement, sophistication, manners, etc.
>
>
>
From [Farlex](https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Rough+and+Ready). | The edited question seeks phrasing for
>
> Maybe it’s rough and worse than the others, but **I did it by myself** and it works
>
>
>
I propose
* . . . my [brainchild](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/brainchild) works.
* . . . it is all my own work. |
604,052 | Is there an idiom or short phrase that describes the following idea: (eg code for Codegolf):
*Maybe it’s rough and worse than the others, but **I did it by myself** and it works*
Do-it-yourself feature is main for this case!
I need emphasize that it's not a port, copy, rewriting or similar. | 2023/02/28 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/604052",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/474526/"
] | You are describing what you have created as "my **lash-up**". Definitions vary but all describe something put together in a rough and ready manner to do the job but to lack elegance or reliability.
>
> [Merriam Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lash-up)
>
> *lash-up*:
>
> something hastily put together or improvised
>
>
>
>
> [Collins](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/lash-up)
>
> *lash-up*:
>
> a temporary connection of equipment for experimental or emergency use
>
>
>
The origin of the phrase lies in tying (lashing) things together sufficiently well for their combination just to be able to perform its task. Here is one explanation of the origin:
>
> [Phrases](https://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/60/messages/7.html?utm_content=cmp-true)
>
> *Its literal meaning is to secure something with ropes as a temporary repair or to stop an item from going adrift during bad weather. Figurative -- "a hurried expediency, a badly performed job or complete disorganization." From "Salty Dog Talk: The Nautical Origins of Everyday Expressions" by Bill Beavis and Richard G. McCloskey (Sheridan House, Dobbs Ferry, N.Y., 1995. First published in Great Britain, 1983). Page 46.*
>
>
> | **Kludge** deserves to be the answer: "An ill-assorted collection of poorly-matching parts, forming a distressing whole". -[Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kludge#Etymology) |
604,052 | Is there an idiom or short phrase that describes the following idea: (eg code for Codegolf):
*Maybe it’s rough and worse than the others, but **I did it by myself** and it works*
Do-it-yourself feature is main for this case!
I need emphasize that it's not a port, copy, rewriting or similar. | 2023/02/28 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/604052",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/474526/"
] | You are describing what you have created as "my **lash-up**". Definitions vary but all describe something put together in a rough and ready manner to do the job but to lack elegance or reliability.
>
> [Merriam Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lash-up)
>
> *lash-up*:
>
> something hastily put together or improvised
>
>
>
>
> [Collins](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/lash-up)
>
> *lash-up*:
>
> a temporary connection of equipment for experimental or emergency use
>
>
>
The origin of the phrase lies in tying (lashing) things together sufficiently well for their combination just to be able to perform its task. Here is one explanation of the origin:
>
> [Phrases](https://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/60/messages/7.html?utm_content=cmp-true)
>
> *Its literal meaning is to secure something with ropes as a temporary repair or to stop an item from going adrift during bad weather. Figurative -- "a hurried expediency, a badly performed job or complete disorganization." From "Salty Dog Talk: The Nautical Origins of Everyday Expressions" by Bill Beavis and Richard G. McCloskey (Sheridan House, Dobbs Ferry, N.Y., 1995. First published in Great Britain, 1983). Page 46.*
>
>
> | The edited question seeks phrasing for
>
> Maybe it’s rough and worse than the others, but **I did it by myself** and it works
>
>
>
I propose
* . . . my [brainchild](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/brainchild) works.
* . . . it is all my own work. |
9,036 | My wife and I have been married for over 10 years, and I have gradually come to realize that she often shows poor judgement based on personal feelings about a person rather than factual information. Here are some examples:
* A financial advisor hurt her feelings, so she often makes poor financial decisions such as not paying her credit cards every month and borrowing against her retirement.
* She had a cyberstalker that, rather than ignoring/reporting/blocking, she chose to engage and confront the person (making the situation more dangerous) because someone who gave her advice about the issue made her feel scared about what could happen.
* Repeatedly breaks phones/computers/appliances because she refuses to read the instructions and feels like anyone offering her help is "talking down to her."
* A mechanic criticized her for not taking care of her car properly, so she doubled down to the point of even running out of gas and getting stranded several times.
* Getting lost and robbed in a foreign country because she refused to follow the directions of a friend she got into an argument with.
The thing is that she is very well educated (2 Master's degrees) and successful (prestigious upper management position). She can even repeat sound advice to her friends and family, but when it comes time for her to follow the same advice, she seems to automatically associate the information with her feelings about the person who presented the advice and reacts in an emotional way, rather than based on the factual merit of said advice. If she has a negative view of the person giving the advice, she will ignore/do the opposite. If another person attempts to provide the same/similar advice, regardless of how it is presented, she will typically react based on her perceptions of the first person who presented the topic, rather than subsequent information.
I have tried to bring this topic up with her and point out that this behavior (which she recognizes as harmful after-the-fact) has led to her not only making life choices she ultimately regrets, but has also put herself or family members in physical danger. Unfortunately, this is ultimately counterproductive because then she is angry at me and typically this makes these behaviors worse.
How can I communicate the importance of being self-aware of this reaction and putting checks on it without making the situation worse? | 2018/01/11 | [
"https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/questions/9036",
"https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com",
"https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/users/11204/"
] | If it were a friend, I'd say one thing. Given that this is your wife, with whom you are committed over the long haul, options dwindle.
First of all, she needs to want to make the change. If she doesn't want to, anything you do will merely exacerbate the issue.
If it were a friend, I'd say "let them keep learning lessons the hard way; eventually they'll come to their senses. Or they'll be alone, having chased away all their friends." I think that the most indicative point is reading instructions - it's hard to have feelings about the people who write them. Unfortunately, it appears to me that ego is the largest problem here and not feelings about the deliverer of the message.
If she engages with you about instructions/advice, I'd ask "how do you feel about the person who told you that?" Then I'd start asking questions. "What do you plan on doing? What do you think will logically happen if you do that? What do you think will be the outcome if you don't do that? What effect will that have on this person?"
Unfortunately, I think your relationship is going to suffer here. Until she can make that separation of message from messenger, she's going to keep making bad decisions, which are going to affect you. It sounds like money overall isn't a problem (upper management positions generally pay well, although expenses are also matchingly high) so the impact will more be to convenience and pride. don't validate her actions - if she takes steps that lead to her car breaking down, don't allow her to toss blame on someone else. If she breaks a phone, don't let her blame it on crappy construction. she needs to realize that she took actions and these have consequences. Validating this particular view only makes things harder on you and increases the dysfunction over the long haul.
I'd avoid staying away from "so-and-so told you about this." She already knows that something unpleasant happened; this will only add fuel to the fire.
Edit in response to @AndreiRom: It's going to take some deft maneuvering on your part while she learns these hard lessons. If she won't accept responsibility for her choices, you're the closest one and therefore stand the greatest chance of being the party being blamed. Your challenge will be to not accept blame while not engaging in fights with her over this. If, on the other hand, she insists on blaming everyone around her for her actions, you're going to have to evaluate how to stay in this relationship, which most likely would involve counseling. Being the ongoing object of blame is not a pleasurable experience. | You're not going to change them if they don't want to change. If they're not receptive to criticism or advice don't give them criticism or advice. They're an adult and can make their own poor choices. They're still responsible for the consequences, and Unfortunately you're married to them and their self sabotaging behavior affects you.
Practice saying "We all make choices....". It's a great phrase that makes no judgement about the act but clearly dictates who is responsible for it.
When you do need to talk to them, talk to them about specific behaviors you are concerned about. Not this overarching issue of them ignoring advice. Don't blame them. Use I statements. Let them know that their actions are having affects on others and ask them to work with you to resolve the issue. |
9,036 | My wife and I have been married for over 10 years, and I have gradually come to realize that she often shows poor judgement based on personal feelings about a person rather than factual information. Here are some examples:
* A financial advisor hurt her feelings, so she often makes poor financial decisions such as not paying her credit cards every month and borrowing against her retirement.
* She had a cyberstalker that, rather than ignoring/reporting/blocking, she chose to engage and confront the person (making the situation more dangerous) because someone who gave her advice about the issue made her feel scared about what could happen.
* Repeatedly breaks phones/computers/appliances because she refuses to read the instructions and feels like anyone offering her help is "talking down to her."
* A mechanic criticized her for not taking care of her car properly, so she doubled down to the point of even running out of gas and getting stranded several times.
* Getting lost and robbed in a foreign country because she refused to follow the directions of a friend she got into an argument with.
The thing is that she is very well educated (2 Master's degrees) and successful (prestigious upper management position). She can even repeat sound advice to her friends and family, but when it comes time for her to follow the same advice, she seems to automatically associate the information with her feelings about the person who presented the advice and reacts in an emotional way, rather than based on the factual merit of said advice. If she has a negative view of the person giving the advice, she will ignore/do the opposite. If another person attempts to provide the same/similar advice, regardless of how it is presented, she will typically react based on her perceptions of the first person who presented the topic, rather than subsequent information.
I have tried to bring this topic up with her and point out that this behavior (which she recognizes as harmful after-the-fact) has led to her not only making life choices she ultimately regrets, but has also put herself or family members in physical danger. Unfortunately, this is ultimately counterproductive because then she is angry at me and typically this makes these behaviors worse.
How can I communicate the importance of being self-aware of this reaction and putting checks on it without making the situation worse? | 2018/01/11 | [
"https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/questions/9036",
"https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com",
"https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/users/11204/"
] | If it were a friend, I'd say one thing. Given that this is your wife, with whom you are committed over the long haul, options dwindle.
First of all, she needs to want to make the change. If she doesn't want to, anything you do will merely exacerbate the issue.
If it were a friend, I'd say "let them keep learning lessons the hard way; eventually they'll come to their senses. Or they'll be alone, having chased away all their friends." I think that the most indicative point is reading instructions - it's hard to have feelings about the people who write them. Unfortunately, it appears to me that ego is the largest problem here and not feelings about the deliverer of the message.
If she engages with you about instructions/advice, I'd ask "how do you feel about the person who told you that?" Then I'd start asking questions. "What do you plan on doing? What do you think will logically happen if you do that? What do you think will be the outcome if you don't do that? What effect will that have on this person?"
Unfortunately, I think your relationship is going to suffer here. Until she can make that separation of message from messenger, she's going to keep making bad decisions, which are going to affect you. It sounds like money overall isn't a problem (upper management positions generally pay well, although expenses are also matchingly high) so the impact will more be to convenience and pride. don't validate her actions - if she takes steps that lead to her car breaking down, don't allow her to toss blame on someone else. If she breaks a phone, don't let her blame it on crappy construction. she needs to realize that she took actions and these have consequences. Validating this particular view only makes things harder on you and increases the dysfunction over the long haul.
I'd avoid staying away from "so-and-so told you about this." She already knows that something unpleasant happened; this will only add fuel to the fire.
Edit in response to @AndreiRom: It's going to take some deft maneuvering on your part while she learns these hard lessons. If she won't accept responsibility for her choices, you're the closest one and therefore stand the greatest chance of being the party being blamed. Your challenge will be to not accept blame while not engaging in fights with her over this. If, on the other hand, she insists on blaming everyone around her for her actions, you're going to have to evaluate how to stay in this relationship, which most likely would involve counseling. Being the ongoing object of blame is not a pleasurable experience. | The aspect that sounds worrying to me isn't the part where she doesn't listen to advice from people she doesn't like. It's the part where she actively does the opposite - in order to spite them? - and hurts mostly herself (and not the advisor) in the process. If she wanted to get back at the advisors, she should do something that hurts *them*. But she doesnt...
That sounds like disguised self-harming behaviour and it sounds like she should mainly get help from a mental health professional to handle this. Of course, getting there doesn't sound easy.
You could start by leaving the advisor out of it and focussing just on the "How did it get to [thing that harmed you]?" and "How did you feel then?"
In the end it may well be that you can do nothing about it unless *she* realises that she needs to change her behaviour. Maybe you can only disengange or divorce :-/ |
9,036 | My wife and I have been married for over 10 years, and I have gradually come to realize that she often shows poor judgement based on personal feelings about a person rather than factual information. Here are some examples:
* A financial advisor hurt her feelings, so she often makes poor financial decisions such as not paying her credit cards every month and borrowing against her retirement.
* She had a cyberstalker that, rather than ignoring/reporting/blocking, she chose to engage and confront the person (making the situation more dangerous) because someone who gave her advice about the issue made her feel scared about what could happen.
* Repeatedly breaks phones/computers/appliances because she refuses to read the instructions and feels like anyone offering her help is "talking down to her."
* A mechanic criticized her for not taking care of her car properly, so she doubled down to the point of even running out of gas and getting stranded several times.
* Getting lost and robbed in a foreign country because she refused to follow the directions of a friend she got into an argument with.
The thing is that she is very well educated (2 Master's degrees) and successful (prestigious upper management position). She can even repeat sound advice to her friends and family, but when it comes time for her to follow the same advice, she seems to automatically associate the information with her feelings about the person who presented the advice and reacts in an emotional way, rather than based on the factual merit of said advice. If she has a negative view of the person giving the advice, she will ignore/do the opposite. If another person attempts to provide the same/similar advice, regardless of how it is presented, she will typically react based on her perceptions of the first person who presented the topic, rather than subsequent information.
I have tried to bring this topic up with her and point out that this behavior (which she recognizes as harmful after-the-fact) has led to her not only making life choices she ultimately regrets, but has also put herself or family members in physical danger. Unfortunately, this is ultimately counterproductive because then she is angry at me and typically this makes these behaviors worse.
How can I communicate the importance of being self-aware of this reaction and putting checks on it without making the situation worse? | 2018/01/11 | [
"https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/questions/9036",
"https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com",
"https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/users/11204/"
] | If it were a friend, I'd say one thing. Given that this is your wife, with whom you are committed over the long haul, options dwindle.
First of all, she needs to want to make the change. If she doesn't want to, anything you do will merely exacerbate the issue.
If it were a friend, I'd say "let them keep learning lessons the hard way; eventually they'll come to their senses. Or they'll be alone, having chased away all their friends." I think that the most indicative point is reading instructions - it's hard to have feelings about the people who write them. Unfortunately, it appears to me that ego is the largest problem here and not feelings about the deliverer of the message.
If she engages with you about instructions/advice, I'd ask "how do you feel about the person who told you that?" Then I'd start asking questions. "What do you plan on doing? What do you think will logically happen if you do that? What do you think will be the outcome if you don't do that? What effect will that have on this person?"
Unfortunately, I think your relationship is going to suffer here. Until she can make that separation of message from messenger, she's going to keep making bad decisions, which are going to affect you. It sounds like money overall isn't a problem (upper management positions generally pay well, although expenses are also matchingly high) so the impact will more be to convenience and pride. don't validate her actions - if she takes steps that lead to her car breaking down, don't allow her to toss blame on someone else. If she breaks a phone, don't let her blame it on crappy construction. she needs to realize that she took actions and these have consequences. Validating this particular view only makes things harder on you and increases the dysfunction over the long haul.
I'd avoid staying away from "so-and-so told you about this." She already knows that something unpleasant happened; this will only add fuel to the fire.
Edit in response to @AndreiRom: It's going to take some deft maneuvering on your part while she learns these hard lessons. If she won't accept responsibility for her choices, you're the closest one and therefore stand the greatest chance of being the party being blamed. Your challenge will be to not accept blame while not engaging in fights with her over this. If, on the other hand, she insists on blaming everyone around her for her actions, you're going to have to evaluate how to stay in this relationship, which most likely would involve counseling. Being the ongoing object of blame is not a pleasurable experience. | It sounds as if the root cause of this is deep-seated and could be very difficult to address. When you argue with her over any of these isolated incidents you are attacking a symptom, not the cause, which is why you are not getting anywhere.
It seems like she feels the need to perhaps prove to others that she can make her own decisions without assistance. Rebelling against any kind of authority, real or perceived, seems to be default behaviour.
My advice is firstly to be patient. Don't sit her down and attempt to psychoanalyse her, but talk to her over time and have a think about what may be the cause of this. Did she experience excessive control from parents or somebody in authority in the past? Did she struggle at any point in her life? Did she feel that she had to compete with others, perhaps siblings?
If you have an idea what might be going on with her, try to have a conversation that links her past experience to her present behaviour. But speak positively about her - don't suggest that she is obstinate or stubborn; maybe ask "do you think that is why you are so fiercely independent?"
You said she already accepts that her behaviour is harmful after the fact, so perhaps she will respond to your help if given in the right way. She is probably in denial to a degree. Be supportive at all times throughout this. If there IS something in her past that has made her this way, professional counselling would be the best way forward, but counsellors do not give advice, really they just ask questions that encourage a person to reach their own conclusions. You have already experienced that if you try to give her advice, she does the opposite, so the only way you will succeed is by following that approach. |
9,036 | My wife and I have been married for over 10 years, and I have gradually come to realize that she often shows poor judgement based on personal feelings about a person rather than factual information. Here are some examples:
* A financial advisor hurt her feelings, so she often makes poor financial decisions such as not paying her credit cards every month and borrowing against her retirement.
* She had a cyberstalker that, rather than ignoring/reporting/blocking, she chose to engage and confront the person (making the situation more dangerous) because someone who gave her advice about the issue made her feel scared about what could happen.
* Repeatedly breaks phones/computers/appliances because she refuses to read the instructions and feels like anyone offering her help is "talking down to her."
* A mechanic criticized her for not taking care of her car properly, so she doubled down to the point of even running out of gas and getting stranded several times.
* Getting lost and robbed in a foreign country because she refused to follow the directions of a friend she got into an argument with.
The thing is that she is very well educated (2 Master's degrees) and successful (prestigious upper management position). She can even repeat sound advice to her friends and family, but when it comes time for her to follow the same advice, she seems to automatically associate the information with her feelings about the person who presented the advice and reacts in an emotional way, rather than based on the factual merit of said advice. If she has a negative view of the person giving the advice, she will ignore/do the opposite. If another person attempts to provide the same/similar advice, regardless of how it is presented, she will typically react based on her perceptions of the first person who presented the topic, rather than subsequent information.
I have tried to bring this topic up with her and point out that this behavior (which she recognizes as harmful after-the-fact) has led to her not only making life choices she ultimately regrets, but has also put herself or family members in physical danger. Unfortunately, this is ultimately counterproductive because then she is angry at me and typically this makes these behaviors worse.
How can I communicate the importance of being self-aware of this reaction and putting checks on it without making the situation worse? | 2018/01/11 | [
"https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/questions/9036",
"https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com",
"https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/users/11204/"
] | If it were a friend, I'd say one thing. Given that this is your wife, with whom you are committed over the long haul, options dwindle.
First of all, she needs to want to make the change. If she doesn't want to, anything you do will merely exacerbate the issue.
If it were a friend, I'd say "let them keep learning lessons the hard way; eventually they'll come to their senses. Or they'll be alone, having chased away all their friends." I think that the most indicative point is reading instructions - it's hard to have feelings about the people who write them. Unfortunately, it appears to me that ego is the largest problem here and not feelings about the deliverer of the message.
If she engages with you about instructions/advice, I'd ask "how do you feel about the person who told you that?" Then I'd start asking questions. "What do you plan on doing? What do you think will logically happen if you do that? What do you think will be the outcome if you don't do that? What effect will that have on this person?"
Unfortunately, I think your relationship is going to suffer here. Until she can make that separation of message from messenger, she's going to keep making bad decisions, which are going to affect you. It sounds like money overall isn't a problem (upper management positions generally pay well, although expenses are also matchingly high) so the impact will more be to convenience and pride. don't validate her actions - if she takes steps that lead to her car breaking down, don't allow her to toss blame on someone else. If she breaks a phone, don't let her blame it on crappy construction. she needs to realize that she took actions and these have consequences. Validating this particular view only makes things harder on you and increases the dysfunction over the long haul.
I'd avoid staying away from "so-and-so told you about this." She already knows that something unpleasant happened; this will only add fuel to the fire.
Edit in response to @AndreiRom: It's going to take some deft maneuvering on your part while she learns these hard lessons. If she won't accept responsibility for her choices, you're the closest one and therefore stand the greatest chance of being the party being blamed. Your challenge will be to not accept blame while not engaging in fights with her over this. If, on the other hand, she insists on blaming everyone around her for her actions, you're going to have to evaluate how to stay in this relationship, which most likely would involve counseling. Being the ongoing object of blame is not a pleasurable experience. | Most people who react defensively in this way tend to know that what they're doing is wrong/harmful/prideful. Pride seems to play a big part in this and it's unfortunate that danger has become a byproduct of her behaviour. She's angry at you for bringing it up but I bet she doesn't realize that much of that anger is towards herself.
It might help if you're able to cushion the hurt pride with solutions/reparations to the problems. There's not much point bringing up the past without solutions. The biggest thing I hate hearing is "You should have..." and if I had a time machine, I would have done it. That's like throwing salt on an open wound. It may help in softening her up to openly deal with those types of situations and reactions. She may want to know and hear that you support her, and then you can gently bring up how you can both deal with those situations. |
9,036 | My wife and I have been married for over 10 years, and I have gradually come to realize that she often shows poor judgement based on personal feelings about a person rather than factual information. Here are some examples:
* A financial advisor hurt her feelings, so she often makes poor financial decisions such as not paying her credit cards every month and borrowing against her retirement.
* She had a cyberstalker that, rather than ignoring/reporting/blocking, she chose to engage and confront the person (making the situation more dangerous) because someone who gave her advice about the issue made her feel scared about what could happen.
* Repeatedly breaks phones/computers/appliances because she refuses to read the instructions and feels like anyone offering her help is "talking down to her."
* A mechanic criticized her for not taking care of her car properly, so she doubled down to the point of even running out of gas and getting stranded several times.
* Getting lost and robbed in a foreign country because she refused to follow the directions of a friend she got into an argument with.
The thing is that she is very well educated (2 Master's degrees) and successful (prestigious upper management position). She can even repeat sound advice to her friends and family, but when it comes time for her to follow the same advice, she seems to automatically associate the information with her feelings about the person who presented the advice and reacts in an emotional way, rather than based on the factual merit of said advice. If she has a negative view of the person giving the advice, she will ignore/do the opposite. If another person attempts to provide the same/similar advice, regardless of how it is presented, she will typically react based on her perceptions of the first person who presented the topic, rather than subsequent information.
I have tried to bring this topic up with her and point out that this behavior (which she recognizes as harmful after-the-fact) has led to her not only making life choices she ultimately regrets, but has also put herself or family members in physical danger. Unfortunately, this is ultimately counterproductive because then she is angry at me and typically this makes these behaviors worse.
How can I communicate the importance of being self-aware of this reaction and putting checks on it without making the situation worse? | 2018/01/11 | [
"https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/questions/9036",
"https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com",
"https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/users/11204/"
] | You're not going to change them if they don't want to change. If they're not receptive to criticism or advice don't give them criticism or advice. They're an adult and can make their own poor choices. They're still responsible for the consequences, and Unfortunately you're married to them and their self sabotaging behavior affects you.
Practice saying "We all make choices....". It's a great phrase that makes no judgement about the act but clearly dictates who is responsible for it.
When you do need to talk to them, talk to them about specific behaviors you are concerned about. Not this overarching issue of them ignoring advice. Don't blame them. Use I statements. Let them know that their actions are having affects on others and ask them to work with you to resolve the issue. | It sounds as if the root cause of this is deep-seated and could be very difficult to address. When you argue with her over any of these isolated incidents you are attacking a symptom, not the cause, which is why you are not getting anywhere.
It seems like she feels the need to perhaps prove to others that she can make her own decisions without assistance. Rebelling against any kind of authority, real or perceived, seems to be default behaviour.
My advice is firstly to be patient. Don't sit her down and attempt to psychoanalyse her, but talk to her over time and have a think about what may be the cause of this. Did she experience excessive control from parents or somebody in authority in the past? Did she struggle at any point in her life? Did she feel that she had to compete with others, perhaps siblings?
If you have an idea what might be going on with her, try to have a conversation that links her past experience to her present behaviour. But speak positively about her - don't suggest that she is obstinate or stubborn; maybe ask "do you think that is why you are so fiercely independent?"
You said she already accepts that her behaviour is harmful after the fact, so perhaps she will respond to your help if given in the right way. She is probably in denial to a degree. Be supportive at all times throughout this. If there IS something in her past that has made her this way, professional counselling would be the best way forward, but counsellors do not give advice, really they just ask questions that encourage a person to reach their own conclusions. You have already experienced that if you try to give her advice, she does the opposite, so the only way you will succeed is by following that approach. |
9,036 | My wife and I have been married for over 10 years, and I have gradually come to realize that she often shows poor judgement based on personal feelings about a person rather than factual information. Here are some examples:
* A financial advisor hurt her feelings, so she often makes poor financial decisions such as not paying her credit cards every month and borrowing against her retirement.
* She had a cyberstalker that, rather than ignoring/reporting/blocking, she chose to engage and confront the person (making the situation more dangerous) because someone who gave her advice about the issue made her feel scared about what could happen.
* Repeatedly breaks phones/computers/appliances because she refuses to read the instructions and feels like anyone offering her help is "talking down to her."
* A mechanic criticized her for not taking care of her car properly, so she doubled down to the point of even running out of gas and getting stranded several times.
* Getting lost and robbed in a foreign country because she refused to follow the directions of a friend she got into an argument with.
The thing is that she is very well educated (2 Master's degrees) and successful (prestigious upper management position). She can even repeat sound advice to her friends and family, but when it comes time for her to follow the same advice, she seems to automatically associate the information with her feelings about the person who presented the advice and reacts in an emotional way, rather than based on the factual merit of said advice. If she has a negative view of the person giving the advice, she will ignore/do the opposite. If another person attempts to provide the same/similar advice, regardless of how it is presented, she will typically react based on her perceptions of the first person who presented the topic, rather than subsequent information.
I have tried to bring this topic up with her and point out that this behavior (which she recognizes as harmful after-the-fact) has led to her not only making life choices she ultimately regrets, but has also put herself or family members in physical danger. Unfortunately, this is ultimately counterproductive because then she is angry at me and typically this makes these behaviors worse.
How can I communicate the importance of being self-aware of this reaction and putting checks on it without making the situation worse? | 2018/01/11 | [
"https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/questions/9036",
"https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com",
"https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/users/11204/"
] | You're not going to change them if they don't want to change. If they're not receptive to criticism or advice don't give them criticism or advice. They're an adult and can make their own poor choices. They're still responsible for the consequences, and Unfortunately you're married to them and their self sabotaging behavior affects you.
Practice saying "We all make choices....". It's a great phrase that makes no judgement about the act but clearly dictates who is responsible for it.
When you do need to talk to them, talk to them about specific behaviors you are concerned about. Not this overarching issue of them ignoring advice. Don't blame them. Use I statements. Let them know that their actions are having affects on others and ask them to work with you to resolve the issue. | Most people who react defensively in this way tend to know that what they're doing is wrong/harmful/prideful. Pride seems to play a big part in this and it's unfortunate that danger has become a byproduct of her behaviour. She's angry at you for bringing it up but I bet she doesn't realize that much of that anger is towards herself.
It might help if you're able to cushion the hurt pride with solutions/reparations to the problems. There's not much point bringing up the past without solutions. The biggest thing I hate hearing is "You should have..." and if I had a time machine, I would have done it. That's like throwing salt on an open wound. It may help in softening her up to openly deal with those types of situations and reactions. She may want to know and hear that you support her, and then you can gently bring up how you can both deal with those situations. |
9,036 | My wife and I have been married for over 10 years, and I have gradually come to realize that she often shows poor judgement based on personal feelings about a person rather than factual information. Here are some examples:
* A financial advisor hurt her feelings, so she often makes poor financial decisions such as not paying her credit cards every month and borrowing against her retirement.
* She had a cyberstalker that, rather than ignoring/reporting/blocking, she chose to engage and confront the person (making the situation more dangerous) because someone who gave her advice about the issue made her feel scared about what could happen.
* Repeatedly breaks phones/computers/appliances because she refuses to read the instructions and feels like anyone offering her help is "talking down to her."
* A mechanic criticized her for not taking care of her car properly, so she doubled down to the point of even running out of gas and getting stranded several times.
* Getting lost and robbed in a foreign country because she refused to follow the directions of a friend she got into an argument with.
The thing is that she is very well educated (2 Master's degrees) and successful (prestigious upper management position). She can even repeat sound advice to her friends and family, but when it comes time for her to follow the same advice, she seems to automatically associate the information with her feelings about the person who presented the advice and reacts in an emotional way, rather than based on the factual merit of said advice. If she has a negative view of the person giving the advice, she will ignore/do the opposite. If another person attempts to provide the same/similar advice, regardless of how it is presented, she will typically react based on her perceptions of the first person who presented the topic, rather than subsequent information.
I have tried to bring this topic up with her and point out that this behavior (which she recognizes as harmful after-the-fact) has led to her not only making life choices she ultimately regrets, but has also put herself or family members in physical danger. Unfortunately, this is ultimately counterproductive because then she is angry at me and typically this makes these behaviors worse.
How can I communicate the importance of being self-aware of this reaction and putting checks on it without making the situation worse? | 2018/01/11 | [
"https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/questions/9036",
"https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com",
"https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/users/11204/"
] | The aspect that sounds worrying to me isn't the part where she doesn't listen to advice from people she doesn't like. It's the part where she actively does the opposite - in order to spite them? - and hurts mostly herself (and not the advisor) in the process. If she wanted to get back at the advisors, she should do something that hurts *them*. But she doesnt...
That sounds like disguised self-harming behaviour and it sounds like she should mainly get help from a mental health professional to handle this. Of course, getting there doesn't sound easy.
You could start by leaving the advisor out of it and focussing just on the "How did it get to [thing that harmed you]?" and "How did you feel then?"
In the end it may well be that you can do nothing about it unless *she* realises that she needs to change her behaviour. Maybe you can only disengange or divorce :-/ | It sounds as if the root cause of this is deep-seated and could be very difficult to address. When you argue with her over any of these isolated incidents you are attacking a symptom, not the cause, which is why you are not getting anywhere.
It seems like she feels the need to perhaps prove to others that she can make her own decisions without assistance. Rebelling against any kind of authority, real or perceived, seems to be default behaviour.
My advice is firstly to be patient. Don't sit her down and attempt to psychoanalyse her, but talk to her over time and have a think about what may be the cause of this. Did she experience excessive control from parents or somebody in authority in the past? Did she struggle at any point in her life? Did she feel that she had to compete with others, perhaps siblings?
If you have an idea what might be going on with her, try to have a conversation that links her past experience to her present behaviour. But speak positively about her - don't suggest that she is obstinate or stubborn; maybe ask "do you think that is why you are so fiercely independent?"
You said she already accepts that her behaviour is harmful after the fact, so perhaps she will respond to your help if given in the right way. She is probably in denial to a degree. Be supportive at all times throughout this. If there IS something in her past that has made her this way, professional counselling would be the best way forward, but counsellors do not give advice, really they just ask questions that encourage a person to reach their own conclusions. You have already experienced that if you try to give her advice, she does the opposite, so the only way you will succeed is by following that approach. |
9,036 | My wife and I have been married for over 10 years, and I have gradually come to realize that she often shows poor judgement based on personal feelings about a person rather than factual information. Here are some examples:
* A financial advisor hurt her feelings, so she often makes poor financial decisions such as not paying her credit cards every month and borrowing against her retirement.
* She had a cyberstalker that, rather than ignoring/reporting/blocking, she chose to engage and confront the person (making the situation more dangerous) because someone who gave her advice about the issue made her feel scared about what could happen.
* Repeatedly breaks phones/computers/appliances because she refuses to read the instructions and feels like anyone offering her help is "talking down to her."
* A mechanic criticized her for not taking care of her car properly, so she doubled down to the point of even running out of gas and getting stranded several times.
* Getting lost and robbed in a foreign country because she refused to follow the directions of a friend she got into an argument with.
The thing is that she is very well educated (2 Master's degrees) and successful (prestigious upper management position). She can even repeat sound advice to her friends and family, but when it comes time for her to follow the same advice, she seems to automatically associate the information with her feelings about the person who presented the advice and reacts in an emotional way, rather than based on the factual merit of said advice. If she has a negative view of the person giving the advice, she will ignore/do the opposite. If another person attempts to provide the same/similar advice, regardless of how it is presented, she will typically react based on her perceptions of the first person who presented the topic, rather than subsequent information.
I have tried to bring this topic up with her and point out that this behavior (which she recognizes as harmful after-the-fact) has led to her not only making life choices she ultimately regrets, but has also put herself or family members in physical danger. Unfortunately, this is ultimately counterproductive because then she is angry at me and typically this makes these behaviors worse.
How can I communicate the importance of being self-aware of this reaction and putting checks on it without making the situation worse? | 2018/01/11 | [
"https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/questions/9036",
"https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com",
"https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/users/11204/"
] | The aspect that sounds worrying to me isn't the part where she doesn't listen to advice from people she doesn't like. It's the part where she actively does the opposite - in order to spite them? - and hurts mostly herself (and not the advisor) in the process. If she wanted to get back at the advisors, she should do something that hurts *them*. But she doesnt...
That sounds like disguised self-harming behaviour and it sounds like she should mainly get help from a mental health professional to handle this. Of course, getting there doesn't sound easy.
You could start by leaving the advisor out of it and focussing just on the "How did it get to [thing that harmed you]?" and "How did you feel then?"
In the end it may well be that you can do nothing about it unless *she* realises that she needs to change her behaviour. Maybe you can only disengange or divorce :-/ | Most people who react defensively in this way tend to know that what they're doing is wrong/harmful/prideful. Pride seems to play a big part in this and it's unfortunate that danger has become a byproduct of her behaviour. She's angry at you for bringing it up but I bet she doesn't realize that much of that anger is towards herself.
It might help if you're able to cushion the hurt pride with solutions/reparations to the problems. There's not much point bringing up the past without solutions. The biggest thing I hate hearing is "You should have..." and if I had a time machine, I would have done it. That's like throwing salt on an open wound. It may help in softening her up to openly deal with those types of situations and reactions. She may want to know and hear that you support her, and then you can gently bring up how you can both deal with those situations. |
9,036 | My wife and I have been married for over 10 years, and I have gradually come to realize that she often shows poor judgement based on personal feelings about a person rather than factual information. Here are some examples:
* A financial advisor hurt her feelings, so she often makes poor financial decisions such as not paying her credit cards every month and borrowing against her retirement.
* She had a cyberstalker that, rather than ignoring/reporting/blocking, she chose to engage and confront the person (making the situation more dangerous) because someone who gave her advice about the issue made her feel scared about what could happen.
* Repeatedly breaks phones/computers/appliances because she refuses to read the instructions and feels like anyone offering her help is "talking down to her."
* A mechanic criticized her for not taking care of her car properly, so she doubled down to the point of even running out of gas and getting stranded several times.
* Getting lost and robbed in a foreign country because she refused to follow the directions of a friend she got into an argument with.
The thing is that she is very well educated (2 Master's degrees) and successful (prestigious upper management position). She can even repeat sound advice to her friends and family, but when it comes time for her to follow the same advice, she seems to automatically associate the information with her feelings about the person who presented the advice and reacts in an emotional way, rather than based on the factual merit of said advice. If she has a negative view of the person giving the advice, she will ignore/do the opposite. If another person attempts to provide the same/similar advice, regardless of how it is presented, she will typically react based on her perceptions of the first person who presented the topic, rather than subsequent information.
I have tried to bring this topic up with her and point out that this behavior (which she recognizes as harmful after-the-fact) has led to her not only making life choices she ultimately regrets, but has also put herself or family members in physical danger. Unfortunately, this is ultimately counterproductive because then she is angry at me and typically this makes these behaviors worse.
How can I communicate the importance of being self-aware of this reaction and putting checks on it without making the situation worse? | 2018/01/11 | [
"https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/questions/9036",
"https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com",
"https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/users/11204/"
] | Most people who react defensively in this way tend to know that what they're doing is wrong/harmful/prideful. Pride seems to play a big part in this and it's unfortunate that danger has become a byproduct of her behaviour. She's angry at you for bringing it up but I bet she doesn't realize that much of that anger is towards herself.
It might help if you're able to cushion the hurt pride with solutions/reparations to the problems. There's not much point bringing up the past without solutions. The biggest thing I hate hearing is "You should have..." and if I had a time machine, I would have done it. That's like throwing salt on an open wound. It may help in softening her up to openly deal with those types of situations and reactions. She may want to know and hear that you support her, and then you can gently bring up how you can both deal with those situations. | It sounds as if the root cause of this is deep-seated and could be very difficult to address. When you argue with her over any of these isolated incidents you are attacking a symptom, not the cause, which is why you are not getting anywhere.
It seems like she feels the need to perhaps prove to others that she can make her own decisions without assistance. Rebelling against any kind of authority, real or perceived, seems to be default behaviour.
My advice is firstly to be patient. Don't sit her down and attempt to psychoanalyse her, but talk to her over time and have a think about what may be the cause of this. Did she experience excessive control from parents or somebody in authority in the past? Did she struggle at any point in her life? Did she feel that she had to compete with others, perhaps siblings?
If you have an idea what might be going on with her, try to have a conversation that links her past experience to her present behaviour. But speak positively about her - don't suggest that she is obstinate or stubborn; maybe ask "do you think that is why you are so fiercely independent?"
You said she already accepts that her behaviour is harmful after the fact, so perhaps she will respond to your help if given in the right way. She is probably in denial to a degree. Be supportive at all times throughout this. If there IS something in her past that has made her this way, professional counselling would be the best way forward, but counsellors do not give advice, really they just ask questions that encourage a person to reach their own conclusions. You have already experienced that if you try to give her advice, she does the opposite, so the only way you will succeed is by following that approach. |
15,643 | This is a line I came across in Amitav Ghosh's The Hungry Tide
>
> *And I feel I know nothing about you - beyond your name **that is**.*
>
>
>
I know the meaning of "that is", it is used to provide some extra information, but here that meaning is not likely to be true. And I never came across "that is" used in this way. | 2014/01/11 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/15643",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/3463/"
] | >
> I feel I know nothing about you
>
>
>
is the statement. Then the speaker decides to modify that statement with the additional information of:
>
> beyond your name, that is.
>
>
>
Here, the word *beyond* is used to mean *except for* or *aside from* and used as such, is expressing that, while the speaker *does* know the person's name, they feel like they know nothing *else*.
In this case, the modifying phrase is added to call out the exception to the general *knowing nothing* comment. It makes the statement more correct as both parties know that the speaker actually *does* know something about the other… their name. | You can think of its meaning like this...
>
> And I feel I know nothing about you. (But actually, I know one thing about you--your name.) And "that nothing about you" is beyond your name.
>
>
>
Here is how I parsed the sentence,
>
> And I feel [(I know nothing about you) -- (beyond your name) that is].
>
>
>
To understand it, I needed to rearrange it a little,
>
> And I feel [(I know nothing about you), and that (nothing about you) is (beyond your name)].
>
>
> |
13,543 | My last back up of wallet.dat was from the beginning of the year. My computer crashed recently and I don't have the most recent wallet.dat after receiving bitcoins. If I use my outdated wallet.dat, do I lose the new bitcoins I received? | 2013/10/02 | [
"https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/13543",
"https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com",
"https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/users/6934/"
] | If you made more than 100 transactions and individual receiving addresses combined, yes.
Best way to find out is to try. | Unfortunately you are right. If you run out of addresses (100 in the pool) Bitcoin-qt would have generated new addresses and those are not in that old backup, so you don't have the newly created private keys then you can't access the coins on them.
You better start using a deterministic wallet, like Electrum or Armory, if you don't have set up a good (automatic) backup process. |
2,748 | To keep it short I already have a BS and MS in a physical science from decent schools. I want to apply next year for a MS or PhD in ECE and thought I should get some formal programming on my transcript first. I have only one intro class on there now.
I'm not having much luck finding any online courses that don't look like scams or poorly set up at best. I was pretty excited to see that [Oregon state](http://eecs.oregonstate.edu/new-online-post-baccalaureate-computer-science-degree) is offering a post-bacc BS degree but the tuition is $600 a credit.
So I guess I'm looking for legitimate courses that aren't crazy expensive. Is there anything else out there like the Oregon state program? That's exactly what I'm looking for. | 2012/08/04 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2748",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1412/"
] | You may want to try Coursera. [Their courses](https://www.coursera.org/courses) are quite good and the instructors are some of the top computer scientists in their fields.
They give you a certificate signed by the instructor if you finish the course well. | You can use this [tool](http://www.distancelearning.com/degrees/computers-and-it/) and refine your search, and also checkout this [article](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/10/the-top-online-colleges-u_n_1194479.html) from Huffington Post.
~Hope this helps. |
235,836 | In *The Terminator* Kyle Reese states that humans won the war, and they are in control of time traveling machine. Skynet was able to send only one T-800 before humans captured the machine. Why did John Connor only semd his father, Kyle Reese to protect his mother, as they are controlling time traveling machine and clearly he can send more troops to protect her?
Why did he blow it after he sent Kyle to the past? | 2020/08/15 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/235836",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/118245/"
] | Galadriel, Elrond (and by extension Gil-Galad) and Círdan were all Elves of greater stature than Thranduil.
* Gil-Galad (and technically Elrond after him) was the High King of the Noldor.
* Elrond, although not taking the crown, was the rightful High King of the Noldor after Gil-Galad, one of the wisest Elves and Lord of Rivendell and brother of the King of Númenor.
* Galadriel was born in the light of the Trees and was the (half-)niece of Fëanor, one of the greatest Elves of all time, and of the House of Finarfin. Making the crossing of the Helcaraxë with the Noldorin Exiles.
* Círdan was born at Cuiviénen1, the waking place of the Elves, and is one of the oldest Elves alive and Master of the Havens. An incredibly important role, in which he sends Elves back to Valinor.
Thranduil, while a king, was a king of Silvan Elves, a group of Elves that gave up the journey to Valinor quite early. Although they were Nandor (and therfore Teleri) in origin. In terms of the grandeur of the Elves, Thranduil was a far less important Elf-lord(/Lady) in comparison to the other three.
---
1 Given the incredibly small amount of detail ever given about Círdan it may not be a surprise that it's never explicitly stated that Círdan was born at Cuiviénen. However, I think the evidence for it makes it pretty conclusive. Círdan is described as kin of Elwë, having the same silvery hair:
>
> Elwë himself had indeed long and beautiful hair of silver hue, but this does not seem to have been a common feature of the Sindar, though it was found among them occasionally, especially in the nearer or remoter kin of Elwë (as in the case of Círdan)
>
> The War of the Jewels, Part IV: Quendi and Eldar
>
>
>
>
> Círdan was a Telerin Elf, one of the highest of those who were not transported to Valinor but became known as the Sindar, the Grey-elves; he was akin to Olwë, one of the two kings of the Teleri, and lord of those who departed over the Great Sea. He was thus also akin to Elwë, Olwë's elder brother, acknowledged as high-king of all the Teleri in Beleriand, even after he withdrew to the guarded realm of Doriath.
>
> The People's of Middle-earth, Part Two: Late Writings, XIII: Late Writings
>
>
>
Círdan also became a leader of his people after the loss of Elwë:
>
> Nonetheless it is said that for love of his kin and allegiance Círdan was the leader of those who sought longest for Elwë when he was lost and did not come to the shores to depart from Middle-earth. Thus he forfeited the fulfilment of his greatest desire: to see the Blessed Realm and find again there Olwë and his own nearest kin. Alas, he did not reach the shores until nearly all the Teleri of Olwë's following had departed.
>
> ibid.
>
>
>
From the Annals of Aman in Morgoth's Ring, we get the following dates for various events. Primarily the departure of the Elves on the Great Journey from Cuiviénen at 1105 Y.T (Year of the Trees, each of which is 10 years of the Sun). 25 years later, in 1130 Y.T. Elwë, the King of the Teleri was lost and is when Círdan is described as becoming the leader of those that didn't follow Olwë and was thus the third highest leader of the Teleri. Given he was raised to that position 25 years after they left Cuiviénen (250 years of the sun), I find it highly unlikely he was born on the Great Journey and not in Cuiviénen, and wasn't amongst those that were born at Cuiviénen. | >
> So why wasn't Thranduil given a Ring?
>
>
>
He wasn't tight with Celebrimbor, who made the rings; and he didn't do anything to merit Celebrimbor giving him one.
And about him being king... ["King of the who?"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3LpQfMXmeg) |
235,836 | In *The Terminator* Kyle Reese states that humans won the war, and they are in control of time traveling machine. Skynet was able to send only one T-800 before humans captured the machine. Why did John Connor only semd his father, Kyle Reese to protect his mother, as they are controlling time traveling machine and clearly he can send more troops to protect her?
Why did he blow it after he sent Kyle to the past? | 2020/08/15 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/235836",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/118245/"
] | Galadriel, Elrond (and by extension Gil-Galad) and Círdan were all Elves of greater stature than Thranduil.
* Gil-Galad (and technically Elrond after him) was the High King of the Noldor.
* Elrond, although not taking the crown, was the rightful High King of the Noldor after Gil-Galad, one of the wisest Elves and Lord of Rivendell and brother of the King of Númenor.
* Galadriel was born in the light of the Trees and was the (half-)niece of Fëanor, one of the greatest Elves of all time, and of the House of Finarfin. Making the crossing of the Helcaraxë with the Noldorin Exiles.
* Círdan was born at Cuiviénen1, the waking place of the Elves, and is one of the oldest Elves alive and Master of the Havens. An incredibly important role, in which he sends Elves back to Valinor.
Thranduil, while a king, was a king of Silvan Elves, a group of Elves that gave up the journey to Valinor quite early. Although they were Nandor (and therfore Teleri) in origin. In terms of the grandeur of the Elves, Thranduil was a far less important Elf-lord(/Lady) in comparison to the other three.
---
1 Given the incredibly small amount of detail ever given about Círdan it may not be a surprise that it's never explicitly stated that Círdan was born at Cuiviénen. However, I think the evidence for it makes it pretty conclusive. Círdan is described as kin of Elwë, having the same silvery hair:
>
> Elwë himself had indeed long and beautiful hair of silver hue, but this does not seem to have been a common feature of the Sindar, though it was found among them occasionally, especially in the nearer or remoter kin of Elwë (as in the case of Círdan)
>
> The War of the Jewels, Part IV: Quendi and Eldar
>
>
>
>
> Círdan was a Telerin Elf, one of the highest of those who were not transported to Valinor but became known as the Sindar, the Grey-elves; he was akin to Olwë, one of the two kings of the Teleri, and lord of those who departed over the Great Sea. He was thus also akin to Elwë, Olwë's elder brother, acknowledged as high-king of all the Teleri in Beleriand, even after he withdrew to the guarded realm of Doriath.
>
> The People's of Middle-earth, Part Two: Late Writings, XIII: Late Writings
>
>
>
Círdan also became a leader of his people after the loss of Elwë:
>
> Nonetheless it is said that for love of his kin and allegiance Círdan was the leader of those who sought longest for Elwë when he was lost and did not come to the shores to depart from Middle-earth. Thus he forfeited the fulfilment of his greatest desire: to see the Blessed Realm and find again there Olwë and his own nearest kin. Alas, he did not reach the shores until nearly all the Teleri of Olwë's following had departed.
>
> ibid.
>
>
>
From the Annals of Aman in Morgoth's Ring, we get the following dates for various events. Primarily the departure of the Elves on the Great Journey from Cuiviénen at 1105 Y.T (Year of the Trees, each of which is 10 years of the Sun). 25 years later, in 1130 Y.T. Elwë, the King of the Teleri was lost and is when Círdan is described as becoming the leader of those that didn't follow Olwë and was thus the third highest leader of the Teleri. Given he was raised to that position 25 years after they left Cuiviénen (250 years of the sun), I find it highly unlikely he was born on the Great Journey and not in Cuiviénen, and wasn't amongst those that were born at Cuiviénen. | There aren't just "elves", there are many different kinds of elves. They are different elven people - or races if you will, since they tend to have different hair and eye colors depending on ancestry.
Some of these are considered of higher birth than others, depending on how far they came in their travels to Valinor. It's complicated, see <https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Teleri?file=Sundering_of_the_Elves.jpg>. The elven people Vanyar, Noldor and partially Teleri went to live in Valinor and those are referred to as Calaquendi the "light elves" or "high elves". It's kind of elitist/racist but generally you have "the finest" from left to right:
Vanyar > Noldor > Teleri (> Sindar > Nandor) > the rest.
Each of these have a High King or in some cases many Kings. They might in some cases also have one King in Valinor and one in Middle-Earth.
---
The Three rings were forged by Celebrimbor of Gwaith-i-Mírdain, a small Noldor elf nation who descend from the House of Fëanor. Celebrimbor was the last member of this House. It wouldn't make any sense for him to give the rings to elves who weren't Noldor nobility.
The verse "Three Rings for the Elven-kings" would supposedly have been written during the time when the Three rings were forged. And during that time, the title High King of Noldor belonged to Gil-Galad, so the most natural choise was to give the rings to him. And Celebrimbor did give two of the rings to him. The third was given to Galadriel, who is also high nobility among Noldor, the highest ranked member of the House of Finarfin in Middle Earth. Galadriel was Celebrimbor's father's cousin and Gil-Galad was his second cousin.
So the "elven kings" referred to in the poem were possibly Celebrimbor himself(?), Gil-Galad and Galadriel. These were the Noldor elves of highest standing but also the highest ranked members of the houses of Fëanor, Fingolfin and Finarfin respectively. And also Celebrimbor's closest relatives.
Gil-Galad in turn passed his rings to Elrond and Círdan who both served Gil-Galad during the second age. Elrond was also Gil-Galad's closest relative and heir. Círdan was not of Noldor but a Teleri/Sindar noble. Círdan's lineage is supposedly from the Teleri Kings, Thingol and Olwë (which would make him a distant relative to Galadriel on her mother's side). He also fought in a lot of the great wars during the first and second ages so he had earned some renown. Círdan later passed on his ring to Gandalf.
Thranduil is a Sindar noble of unclear descent and he is King over Nandor elves. He has no connection to Celebrimbor or Noldor at all. |
235,836 | In *The Terminator* Kyle Reese states that humans won the war, and they are in control of time traveling machine. Skynet was able to send only one T-800 before humans captured the machine. Why did John Connor only semd his father, Kyle Reese to protect his mother, as they are controlling time traveling machine and clearly he can send more troops to protect her?
Why did he blow it after he sent Kyle to the past? | 2020/08/15 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/235836",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/118245/"
] | Galadriel, Elrond (and by extension Gil-Galad) and Círdan were all Elves of greater stature than Thranduil.
* Gil-Galad (and technically Elrond after him) was the High King of the Noldor.
* Elrond, although not taking the crown, was the rightful High King of the Noldor after Gil-Galad, one of the wisest Elves and Lord of Rivendell and brother of the King of Númenor.
* Galadriel was born in the light of the Trees and was the (half-)niece of Fëanor, one of the greatest Elves of all time, and of the House of Finarfin. Making the crossing of the Helcaraxë with the Noldorin Exiles.
* Círdan was born at Cuiviénen1, the waking place of the Elves, and is one of the oldest Elves alive and Master of the Havens. An incredibly important role, in which he sends Elves back to Valinor.
Thranduil, while a king, was a king of Silvan Elves, a group of Elves that gave up the journey to Valinor quite early. Although they were Nandor (and therfore Teleri) in origin. In terms of the grandeur of the Elves, Thranduil was a far less important Elf-lord(/Lady) in comparison to the other three.
---
1 Given the incredibly small amount of detail ever given about Círdan it may not be a surprise that it's never explicitly stated that Círdan was born at Cuiviénen. However, I think the evidence for it makes it pretty conclusive. Círdan is described as kin of Elwë, having the same silvery hair:
>
> Elwë himself had indeed long and beautiful hair of silver hue, but this does not seem to have been a common feature of the Sindar, though it was found among them occasionally, especially in the nearer or remoter kin of Elwë (as in the case of Círdan)
>
> The War of the Jewels, Part IV: Quendi and Eldar
>
>
>
>
> Círdan was a Telerin Elf, one of the highest of those who were not transported to Valinor but became known as the Sindar, the Grey-elves; he was akin to Olwë, one of the two kings of the Teleri, and lord of those who departed over the Great Sea. He was thus also akin to Elwë, Olwë's elder brother, acknowledged as high-king of all the Teleri in Beleriand, even after he withdrew to the guarded realm of Doriath.
>
> The People's of Middle-earth, Part Two: Late Writings, XIII: Late Writings
>
>
>
Círdan also became a leader of his people after the loss of Elwë:
>
> Nonetheless it is said that for love of his kin and allegiance Círdan was the leader of those who sought longest for Elwë when he was lost and did not come to the shores to depart from Middle-earth. Thus he forfeited the fulfilment of his greatest desire: to see the Blessed Realm and find again there Olwë and his own nearest kin. Alas, he did not reach the shores until nearly all the Teleri of Olwë's following had departed.
>
> ibid.
>
>
>
From the Annals of Aman in Morgoth's Ring, we get the following dates for various events. Primarily the departure of the Elves on the Great Journey from Cuiviénen at 1105 Y.T (Year of the Trees, each of which is 10 years of the Sun). 25 years later, in 1130 Y.T. Elwë, the King of the Teleri was lost and is when Círdan is described as becoming the leader of those that didn't follow Olwë and was thus the third highest leader of the Teleri. Given he was raised to that position 25 years after they left Cuiviénen (250 years of the sun), I find it highly unlikely he was born on the Great Journey and not in Cuiviénen, and wasn't amongst those that were born at Cuiviénen. | Expanding on Edlothiad's detailed answer, it should also be noted that the bearers of the Elven rings were all, at a time or another, members of the White Council, while Thranduil was not.
>
> [...] and in that time was first made the Council of the Wise that is called the White Council, and therein were **Elrond** and **Galadriel** and **Círdan**, and other lords of the Eldar, and with them were **Mithrandir** and **Curunír**. And Curunír (that was Saruman the White) was chosen to be their chief, for he had most studied the devices of Sauron of old. Galadriel indeed had wished that Mithrandir should be the Lead of the Council, and Saruman begrudged them that, for his pride and desire of mastery was grown great; but Mithrandir refused the office, since he would have no ties and no allegiance, save to those who sent him, and he would abide in no place nor be subject to any summons. But Saruman now began to study the lore of the Rings of Power, their making and their history.
>
>
> *The Silmarillion*, "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age"
>
>
>
While the text reports that in this first meeting of the White Council there were indeed "other lords of the Eldar", it seems clear that the most important of them all were **[Elrond](https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Elrond)**, **[Galadriel](https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Galadriel)** and **[Círdan](https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/C%C3%ADrdan)**, who ruled the three most important realms of the elves in Middle-earth, respectively **[Imladris](https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Rivendell)** (Rivendell), **[Lothlórien](https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Lothl%C3%B3rien)** and **[Mithlond](https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Grey_Havens)** (the Grey Havens).
Compared to these three locations, the Woodland Realm ruled by Thranduil was far less important, and both he and his people were rather isolationist and far less involved in the great events of the Second and Third Age of Middle-earth, having a notable part only on the *Quest of Erebor* and the *Battle of the Five Armies* (both of them described in "The Hobbit").
It is possible, and in my opinion, very likely, that Thranduil was present during this meeting as one of the "other lords of the Eldar", but his stature is not high enough to be explicitly mentioned by name; Elrond, Galadriel and Círdan instead are explicitly named, and they are the first bearers of the Elven Rings.
Besides Elves, the other most important members of the White Council were **Gandalf** (Mithrandir) and **Saruman** (Curunír): the stature of Gandalf is further confirmed by Círdan giving him his Ring, when he arrived in Middle-earth, so it passed from one of the most important Elves to one of the most important Istari. All of them had a large and active part in the struggle against Sauron, while Thranduil was king of a regional power at best and far less prominent in the grand strategical layout.
It should also be noted that the Rings were not mere ornaments or symbols of regal status, they were effectively instruments to be used in the war against Sauron, even if not directly in battle they had a power that their bearer could actively use to pursue their goals. This is the reason why Círdan gave Narya to Gandalf (it could better serve the cause in the hands of the Wizard) and why the other two were in the hands of the rulers of the most important realms of the Elves, not just from a prestige point of view but for strategical reasons as well.
In this respect, the verse that literally reads "Elven-kings", should be meant as a more generic *Elven lords* (and it is curious that the "Dwarf-lords" who received the Seven rings were instead titled Kings of their own realms). |
235,836 | In *The Terminator* Kyle Reese states that humans won the war, and they are in control of time traveling machine. Skynet was able to send only one T-800 before humans captured the machine. Why did John Connor only semd his father, Kyle Reese to protect his mother, as they are controlling time traveling machine and clearly he can send more troops to protect her?
Why did he blow it after he sent Kyle to the past? | 2020/08/15 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/235836",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/118245/"
] | >
> So why wasn't Thranduil given a Ring?
>
>
>
He wasn't tight with Celebrimbor, who made the rings; and he didn't do anything to merit Celebrimbor giving him one.
And about him being king... ["King of the who?"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3LpQfMXmeg) | There aren't just "elves", there are many different kinds of elves. They are different elven people - or races if you will, since they tend to have different hair and eye colors depending on ancestry.
Some of these are considered of higher birth than others, depending on how far they came in their travels to Valinor. It's complicated, see <https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Teleri?file=Sundering_of_the_Elves.jpg>. The elven people Vanyar, Noldor and partially Teleri went to live in Valinor and those are referred to as Calaquendi the "light elves" or "high elves". It's kind of elitist/racist but generally you have "the finest" from left to right:
Vanyar > Noldor > Teleri (> Sindar > Nandor) > the rest.
Each of these have a High King or in some cases many Kings. They might in some cases also have one King in Valinor and one in Middle-Earth.
---
The Three rings were forged by Celebrimbor of Gwaith-i-Mírdain, a small Noldor elf nation who descend from the House of Fëanor. Celebrimbor was the last member of this House. It wouldn't make any sense for him to give the rings to elves who weren't Noldor nobility.
The verse "Three Rings for the Elven-kings" would supposedly have been written during the time when the Three rings were forged. And during that time, the title High King of Noldor belonged to Gil-Galad, so the most natural choise was to give the rings to him. And Celebrimbor did give two of the rings to him. The third was given to Galadriel, who is also high nobility among Noldor, the highest ranked member of the House of Finarfin in Middle Earth. Galadriel was Celebrimbor's father's cousin and Gil-Galad was his second cousin.
So the "elven kings" referred to in the poem were possibly Celebrimbor himself(?), Gil-Galad and Galadriel. These were the Noldor elves of highest standing but also the highest ranked members of the houses of Fëanor, Fingolfin and Finarfin respectively. And also Celebrimbor's closest relatives.
Gil-Galad in turn passed his rings to Elrond and Círdan who both served Gil-Galad during the second age. Elrond was also Gil-Galad's closest relative and heir. Círdan was not of Noldor but a Teleri/Sindar noble. Círdan's lineage is supposedly from the Teleri Kings, Thingol and Olwë (which would make him a distant relative to Galadriel on her mother's side). He also fought in a lot of the great wars during the first and second ages so he had earned some renown. Círdan later passed on his ring to Gandalf.
Thranduil is a Sindar noble of unclear descent and he is King over Nandor elves. He has no connection to Celebrimbor or Noldor at all. |
235,836 | In *The Terminator* Kyle Reese states that humans won the war, and they are in control of time traveling machine. Skynet was able to send only one T-800 before humans captured the machine. Why did John Connor only semd his father, Kyle Reese to protect his mother, as they are controlling time traveling machine and clearly he can send more troops to protect her?
Why did he blow it after he sent Kyle to the past? | 2020/08/15 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/235836",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/118245/"
] | >
> So why wasn't Thranduil given a Ring?
>
>
>
He wasn't tight with Celebrimbor, who made the rings; and he didn't do anything to merit Celebrimbor giving him one.
And about him being king... ["King of the who?"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3LpQfMXmeg) | Expanding on Edlothiad's detailed answer, it should also be noted that the bearers of the Elven rings were all, at a time or another, members of the White Council, while Thranduil was not.
>
> [...] and in that time was first made the Council of the Wise that is called the White Council, and therein were **Elrond** and **Galadriel** and **Círdan**, and other lords of the Eldar, and with them were **Mithrandir** and **Curunír**. And Curunír (that was Saruman the White) was chosen to be their chief, for he had most studied the devices of Sauron of old. Galadriel indeed had wished that Mithrandir should be the Lead of the Council, and Saruman begrudged them that, for his pride and desire of mastery was grown great; but Mithrandir refused the office, since he would have no ties and no allegiance, save to those who sent him, and he would abide in no place nor be subject to any summons. But Saruman now began to study the lore of the Rings of Power, their making and their history.
>
>
> *The Silmarillion*, "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age"
>
>
>
While the text reports that in this first meeting of the White Council there were indeed "other lords of the Eldar", it seems clear that the most important of them all were **[Elrond](https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Elrond)**, **[Galadriel](https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Galadriel)** and **[Círdan](https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/C%C3%ADrdan)**, who ruled the three most important realms of the elves in Middle-earth, respectively **[Imladris](https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Rivendell)** (Rivendell), **[Lothlórien](https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Lothl%C3%B3rien)** and **[Mithlond](https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Grey_Havens)** (the Grey Havens).
Compared to these three locations, the Woodland Realm ruled by Thranduil was far less important, and both he and his people were rather isolationist and far less involved in the great events of the Second and Third Age of Middle-earth, having a notable part only on the *Quest of Erebor* and the *Battle of the Five Armies* (both of them described in "The Hobbit").
It is possible, and in my opinion, very likely, that Thranduil was present during this meeting as one of the "other lords of the Eldar", but his stature is not high enough to be explicitly mentioned by name; Elrond, Galadriel and Círdan instead are explicitly named, and they are the first bearers of the Elven Rings.
Besides Elves, the other most important members of the White Council were **Gandalf** (Mithrandir) and **Saruman** (Curunír): the stature of Gandalf is further confirmed by Círdan giving him his Ring, when he arrived in Middle-earth, so it passed from one of the most important Elves to one of the most important Istari. All of them had a large and active part in the struggle against Sauron, while Thranduil was king of a regional power at best and far less prominent in the grand strategical layout.
It should also be noted that the Rings were not mere ornaments or symbols of regal status, they were effectively instruments to be used in the war against Sauron, even if not directly in battle they had a power that their bearer could actively use to pursue their goals. This is the reason why Círdan gave Narya to Gandalf (it could better serve the cause in the hands of the Wizard) and why the other two were in the hands of the rulers of the most important realms of the Elves, not just from a prestige point of view but for strategical reasons as well.
In this respect, the verse that literally reads "Elven-kings", should be meant as a more generic *Elven lords* (and it is curious that the "Dwarf-lords" who received the Seven rings were instead titled Kings of their own realms). |
91,003 | I am using MongoDB using C#.
I am currently using only a single server.
Since I have to create Table events for MongoDB collections I have created a single replica set(primary). And using oplog.rs table.
I have created only one Database : **MyDatabase**
I also have a capped collection in this Database, and some 5 or 6 tables with very less data.
The Issue here MongoDB size become so huge. There is not much data present , the data wont be more than 500MB but my MongoDb took 20GB data of my Harddisk.
When I checked inside data\db folder
there is 6 copies of my database **MyDatabase** has been created automatically. Each of which consuming 2GB
MyDatabase.0
MyDatabase.1
MyDatabase.2
MyDatabase.3
MyDatabase.4
MyDatabase.5
and
local.0
local.1
local.2
local.3
local.4
local.5
In the Overview it shows understorage
the oplog allocated 8.5GB
and the capped collection 4.7 GB
The confusion here is No data more than 500MB is present in the Database but still mongoDB took 20GB.
Am I doing something wrong here with the settings. Please help me in this
Thanks | 2015/02/03 | [
"https://dba.stackexchange.com/questions/91003",
"https://dba.stackexchange.com",
"https://dba.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | You have basically allocated space by defining two capped collections, the oplog and the second capped collection in MyDatabase.
Unless you specify the [oplogSize](http://docs.mongodb.org/manual/reference/configuration-options/#replication.oplogSizeMB), the oplog will be allocated at 5% of free space on the volume containing the MongoDB data (so I am guessing you had ~170GB free).
The second capped collection size would have been defined by you, and then the `_id` index would be created and grown in addition to the initial allocation as you added data. The files also contain the data from the other collections, as you mentioned.
The key thing to remember here, is that capped collections pre-allocate the entire amount specified **in advance** and never grow or shrink. Besides the indexes that will be added on user defined capped collections (the oplog has no indexes), the capped collection will remain the same size regardless of how much data you put into it, whether that is 500MB or 500TB - think of it as a fixed-size circular buffer.
If you want to see this in action, try creating another capped collection of, say, 500MB in a different database called foo, you will end up with foo.0 through foo.4 (possibly foo.5 depending on the version) and have 960MB (or 1984MB, again depending on version) of files on disk. That represents the minimum needed to contain a capped collection of that size. | Important thing to consider before a shrink: MongoDB grows it's data files by doubling so the dfs may be 64MB,128MB,256 [...] up to 2GB. (then it spawns multiple files)
You can use a server side Javascript to do shrinking and run that JS via Mongo's shell from time to time via a job.
The function that does the shrink is db.repairDatabase().
Use the db. .storageSize() and db. .totalSize() functions to get size of actual and allocated. |
38,267,208 | I am a Web developer, I use Codeigniter from 3 years, and I used it in many production projects, also Codeigniter was my start point with developing projects based on framework.
Later, I noticed that other php frameworks provides many useful features that make developer life easier such as:
* **Database migration** which making altering database schema easier and more efficient
* **Code generation (scaffolding):** which generate model, view, and controller for the entity
* **Form validation:** form validation rules is determined in generation and framework do the rest
* **REST API:** Support REST Controller natively in framework without third party plugin
All these reasons make me thinking to switch to other framework.
After searching, I found Laravel5 have features that I need, also It has a big community of developers.
My friend use Yii2 and he recommend me to switch to Yii2, also I found statistics both Laravel and Yii has good reputation in these statistics.
How Laravel5 and Yii2 Differ from other and which added value for each framework | 2016/07/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/38267208",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/3276879/"
] | Introduction
============
I've been a senior full stack developer for +3 years and mainly i use Yii for php development But i was told that laravel is better so i decided to build an [eCommerce Script](https://github.com/jawsaqlabs/laraCommerce) with laravel to get to know laravel more and to see the difference between Yii and laravel.
So finally what the difference between laravel and Yii?
-------------------------------------------------------
**in a few words** mainly Nothing , But Yii has a better way to deal with forms.
### details
1. **easiness to learn**: if you're an experienced developer it will take about an hour to learn each one of the frameworks. and both of the frameworks has an helpful documentation.
2. **dealing with rest api**:both of them make producing REST APIs easy and both has its own way. but i use Laravel when developing rest api cause laravel more helpful when developing using [microservices architecture](http://microservices.io/index.html).
3. **developers community** it might seem that laravel has a larger community of developers but during my career with Yii i've found no bottleneck of having a question without an answer.
4. **jobs Chances** You'll get a better chance to find a job if you're an experienced laravel developer rather than Yii.
finally:
--------
it's up to you what to choose cause both of frameworks is powerful and helpful | Nobody will be able to answer this for you. It's a matter of personal taste I think. I think Laravel has a larger community behind it but that's probably up for discussion. What I usually do is to create a small todo app in different frameworks to see where I see fit for myself.
What I personally like about Laravel is that Laravel has also developed Lumen and Spark which are very useful in itself. On the other side, Spark is a paid effort and this seems to generate a lot of discussion on the future of Laravel. |
38,267,208 | I am a Web developer, I use Codeigniter from 3 years, and I used it in many production projects, also Codeigniter was my start point with developing projects based on framework.
Later, I noticed that other php frameworks provides many useful features that make developer life easier such as:
* **Database migration** which making altering database schema easier and more efficient
* **Code generation (scaffolding):** which generate model, view, and controller for the entity
* **Form validation:** form validation rules is determined in generation and framework do the rest
* **REST API:** Support REST Controller natively in framework without third party plugin
All these reasons make me thinking to switch to other framework.
After searching, I found Laravel5 have features that I need, also It has a big community of developers.
My friend use Yii2 and he recommend me to switch to Yii2, also I found statistics both Laravel and Yii has good reputation in these statistics.
How Laravel5 and Yii2 Differ from other and which added value for each framework | 2016/07/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/38267208",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/3276879/"
] | I can only give you the experience we here at [Sourcetoad](http://sourcetoad.com) have had:
1) Production ready: Yii2 follows [semver](http://semver.org/) (like the rest of the PHP community/eco-system), when the framework is patched the changes are predictable and well advertised ahead of time.
2) Learning curve: Laravel wins out here; many more tutorials, cookbooks, web resources, and personnel.
3) Security: From our experience Yii/2 goes above and beyond. Not just configurable, not optional, nearly every standard security practice is active by default.
4) As you pointed out scaffolding: Yii/2 wins out here. From Gii onward scaffolding generation is a breeze.
5) Community: While we here have not needed to overly engage the community around each framework they are both part of the OSS community; however our initial impression is the Laravel might/maybe nudge ahead here. No conclusive examples to go on.
In the end the answer is: [right tool, right job](http://media.propertycasualty360.com/propertycasualty360/article/2013/07/27/19.jpg). | Nobody will be able to answer this for you. It's a matter of personal taste I think. I think Laravel has a larger community behind it but that's probably up for discussion. What I usually do is to create a small todo app in different frameworks to see where I see fit for myself.
What I personally like about Laravel is that Laravel has also developed Lumen and Spark which are very useful in itself. On the other side, Spark is a paid effort and this seems to generate a lot of discussion on the future of Laravel. |
38,267,208 | I am a Web developer, I use Codeigniter from 3 years, and I used it in many production projects, also Codeigniter was my start point with developing projects based on framework.
Later, I noticed that other php frameworks provides many useful features that make developer life easier such as:
* **Database migration** which making altering database schema easier and more efficient
* **Code generation (scaffolding):** which generate model, view, and controller for the entity
* **Form validation:** form validation rules is determined in generation and framework do the rest
* **REST API:** Support REST Controller natively in framework without third party plugin
All these reasons make me thinking to switch to other framework.
After searching, I found Laravel5 have features that I need, also It has a big community of developers.
My friend use Yii2 and he recommend me to switch to Yii2, also I found statistics both Laravel and Yii has good reputation in these statistics.
How Laravel5 and Yii2 Differ from other and which added value for each framework | 2016/07/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/38267208",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/3276879/"
] | Yes!, Laravel5 or Yii2 has built-in features that Codeigniter lacks.
For me I've been using laravel for about 5 months, it has some strong features like ORM (Eloquent), DB Migration, Form validation, REST API, HTTP Middlewares, and scaffolding (using a third-party).
I've never used Yii before, so I can't tell differences between the two, but also it sounds that it has some good features, But it is said that developers go through four stages:
1. No framework
2. Use a framework.
3. Write own framework.
4. No framework.
An interesting article to read about this [link](https://philsturgeon.uk/php/2014/01/13/the-framework-is-dead-long-live-the-framework/).
>
> These days all you need to do is grab a bunch of components that work together (relying on each other, or working despite each other), bootstrap them altogether, set up some routing, hook up a config system, lay your controllers out, handle session configuration and connect to your database.
>
>
>
> You can do that completely with random pick-and-mixed Composer components. But when you've done writing that application layer…
> guess what you've done?
>
>
>
> You've just written a framework.
>
>
>
> Sturgeon, L. (n.d.). The "Framework" is Dead, Long live the Framework. Retrieved July 11, 2016, from https://philsturgeon.uk/php/2014/01/13/the-framework-is-dead-long-live-the-framework/
>
>
Finally, there's no perfect answer for your question, everyone is using his favorite option, some prefer using a framework, some prefer to go custom. You just stick to what you feel comfortable with, and always try to find better ones. | Nobody will be able to answer this for you. It's a matter of personal taste I think. I think Laravel has a larger community behind it but that's probably up for discussion. What I usually do is to create a small todo app in different frameworks to see where I see fit for myself.
What I personally like about Laravel is that Laravel has also developed Lumen and Spark which are very useful in itself. On the other side, Spark is a paid effort and this seems to generate a lot of discussion on the future of Laravel. |
38,267,208 | I am a Web developer, I use Codeigniter from 3 years, and I used it in many production projects, also Codeigniter was my start point with developing projects based on framework.
Later, I noticed that other php frameworks provides many useful features that make developer life easier such as:
* **Database migration** which making altering database schema easier and more efficient
* **Code generation (scaffolding):** which generate model, view, and controller for the entity
* **Form validation:** form validation rules is determined in generation and framework do the rest
* **REST API:** Support REST Controller natively in framework without third party plugin
All these reasons make me thinking to switch to other framework.
After searching, I found Laravel5 have features that I need, also It has a big community of developers.
My friend use Yii2 and he recommend me to switch to Yii2, also I found statistics both Laravel and Yii has good reputation in these statistics.
How Laravel5 and Yii2 Differ from other and which added value for each framework | 2016/07/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/38267208",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/3276879/"
] | I can only give you the experience we here at [Sourcetoad](http://sourcetoad.com) have had:
1) Production ready: Yii2 follows [semver](http://semver.org/) (like the rest of the PHP community/eco-system), when the framework is patched the changes are predictable and well advertised ahead of time.
2) Learning curve: Laravel wins out here; many more tutorials, cookbooks, web resources, and personnel.
3) Security: From our experience Yii/2 goes above and beyond. Not just configurable, not optional, nearly every standard security practice is active by default.
4) As you pointed out scaffolding: Yii/2 wins out here. From Gii onward scaffolding generation is a breeze.
5) Community: While we here have not needed to overly engage the community around each framework they are both part of the OSS community; however our initial impression is the Laravel might/maybe nudge ahead here. No conclusive examples to go on.
In the end the answer is: [right tool, right job](http://media.propertycasualty360.com/propertycasualty360/article/2013/07/27/19.jpg). | Introduction
============
I've been a senior full stack developer for +3 years and mainly i use Yii for php development But i was told that laravel is better so i decided to build an [eCommerce Script](https://github.com/jawsaqlabs/laraCommerce) with laravel to get to know laravel more and to see the difference between Yii and laravel.
So finally what the difference between laravel and Yii?
-------------------------------------------------------
**in a few words** mainly Nothing , But Yii has a better way to deal with forms.
### details
1. **easiness to learn**: if you're an experienced developer it will take about an hour to learn each one of the frameworks. and both of the frameworks has an helpful documentation.
2. **dealing with rest api**:both of them make producing REST APIs easy and both has its own way. but i use Laravel when developing rest api cause laravel more helpful when developing using [microservices architecture](http://microservices.io/index.html).
3. **developers community** it might seem that laravel has a larger community of developers but during my career with Yii i've found no bottleneck of having a question without an answer.
4. **jobs Chances** You'll get a better chance to find a job if you're an experienced laravel developer rather than Yii.
finally:
--------
it's up to you what to choose cause both of frameworks is powerful and helpful |
38,267,208 | I am a Web developer, I use Codeigniter from 3 years, and I used it in many production projects, also Codeigniter was my start point with developing projects based on framework.
Later, I noticed that other php frameworks provides many useful features that make developer life easier such as:
* **Database migration** which making altering database schema easier and more efficient
* **Code generation (scaffolding):** which generate model, view, and controller for the entity
* **Form validation:** form validation rules is determined in generation and framework do the rest
* **REST API:** Support REST Controller natively in framework without third party plugin
All these reasons make me thinking to switch to other framework.
After searching, I found Laravel5 have features that I need, also It has a big community of developers.
My friend use Yii2 and he recommend me to switch to Yii2, also I found statistics both Laravel and Yii has good reputation in these statistics.
How Laravel5 and Yii2 Differ from other and which added value for each framework | 2016/07/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/38267208",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/3276879/"
] | I can only give you the experience we here at [Sourcetoad](http://sourcetoad.com) have had:
1) Production ready: Yii2 follows [semver](http://semver.org/) (like the rest of the PHP community/eco-system), when the framework is patched the changes are predictable and well advertised ahead of time.
2) Learning curve: Laravel wins out here; many more tutorials, cookbooks, web resources, and personnel.
3) Security: From our experience Yii/2 goes above and beyond. Not just configurable, not optional, nearly every standard security practice is active by default.
4) As you pointed out scaffolding: Yii/2 wins out here. From Gii onward scaffolding generation is a breeze.
5) Community: While we here have not needed to overly engage the community around each framework they are both part of the OSS community; however our initial impression is the Laravel might/maybe nudge ahead here. No conclusive examples to go on.
In the end the answer is: [right tool, right job](http://media.propertycasualty360.com/propertycasualty360/article/2013/07/27/19.jpg). | Yes!, Laravel5 or Yii2 has built-in features that Codeigniter lacks.
For me I've been using laravel for about 5 months, it has some strong features like ORM (Eloquent), DB Migration, Form validation, REST API, HTTP Middlewares, and scaffolding (using a third-party).
I've never used Yii before, so I can't tell differences between the two, but also it sounds that it has some good features, But it is said that developers go through four stages:
1. No framework
2. Use a framework.
3. Write own framework.
4. No framework.
An interesting article to read about this [link](https://philsturgeon.uk/php/2014/01/13/the-framework-is-dead-long-live-the-framework/).
>
> These days all you need to do is grab a bunch of components that work together (relying on each other, or working despite each other), bootstrap them altogether, set up some routing, hook up a config system, lay your controllers out, handle session configuration and connect to your database.
>
>
>
> You can do that completely with random pick-and-mixed Composer components. But when you've done writing that application layer…
> guess what you've done?
>
>
>
> You've just written a framework.
>
>
>
> Sturgeon, L. (n.d.). The "Framework" is Dead, Long live the Framework. Retrieved July 11, 2016, from https://philsturgeon.uk/php/2014/01/13/the-framework-is-dead-long-live-the-framework/
>
>
Finally, there's no perfect answer for your question, everyone is using his favorite option, some prefer using a framework, some prefer to go custom. You just stick to what you feel comfortable with, and always try to find better ones. |
26,642 | I do not succeed in importing waypoints from Ozi files (extension .wpt). I tried both converting through GPS-Babel to XML (.gpx) and importing in QGIS with the GPS-tool. Both times set to WGS 84, as is the setting in Ozi.
What should I do? | 2012/06/01 | [
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/26642",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/users/7936/"
] | If you were using ArcGIS, you use the spatial adjustment toolbar. However, QGIS offers a similar functionality through plugins.
Go to the plugin manager and install **'Affine Transformations'**
Also install **'Vector Bender'**
Homepage: <https://github.com/trenneman/qgsAffine>;
<https://plugins.qgis.org/plugins/VectorBender/>
Since you already have the control points, you should be able to transform your data back to the original "projection". Load your control points into the plugin and perform the transformation. I haven't tried this yet so you may have to play with the control points. The affine transformations plugin uses constants to perform the transformation. Since you already have control points, you'll want to use the vector bender to perform a 'rubber sheet'.
Vector bender is not in the plugin repository, so you'll need to install it manually by adding it to C:\Users.qgis2\python\plugins\VectorBender.
---
**Second option** (may only work for rasters, haven't tested with vectors) - In the georeferencer, you can save your control points to a file. You can also load control points from a file.
Here is what you need to do:
Save the cpg file. Change the extension to .csv. Open the file in excel. Swap the values in the to/from columns. Save. Change the extension back to .points.
Once you have the control points set up, you can transform back and forth using the control points and your preferred transformation method. | I had to do this myself once for a raster layer and it took me a while to see that I didn't need the inverse. To make images match in the original strange projection, write a script to create a grid in that projection, corresponding to the pixels in your graphics editor. Transform *forwards* for each point in the grid to pick up the value of the layer you have in WGS 84. (similar to [spatialthoughts comment](https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/26637/how-to-reverse-georeference-with-qgis#comment35845_26637)) |
1,724,060 | I have Win10, when I turn on my laptop, C drive has 120GB, after browsing some videos on facebook and youtube, it gets to 125GB. After I restart my computer it gets to 120GB, why is that?
Here is how it was before watching only videos on youtube and facebook:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/FkfRI.jpg)
Look how it became after without adding anything such as copying and the like:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/56w5e.jpg)
and just now, without doing anything:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Snuiq.jpg) | 2022/05/31 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/1724060",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/1697341/"
] | Your hard-disk isn't magically changing size. That is impossible.
What you are observing is fluctuations in the amount of free space on the C: drive.
That is perfectly normal.
Even if you are not actively using the machine Windows (and other software installed) will be doing behind the screens housekeeping. This happens continuously and will cause the amount of free disk-space to vary.
The page-file gets resized on a regular basis. Temp-files and log-files grow and get cleaned up again. Windows Updates and other application updates get downloaded in the background (and thrown away again after installation). All that is visible as fluctuations in free disk-space.
The variation can be anywhere from a few megabytes (hardly noticeable) to several gigabytes (quite noticeable). It really depends on what software exactly is installed on the computer and your usage pattern of that software.
And on a nearly full disk the variation is more noticeable, because there is so little free space to start with.
So nothing to worry about.
PS. You might consider moving some of your stuff from C: to D:. Current Windows versions really like to have at least 15 to 20 GB free on C:. Disk-space is getting a bit thight on your C: drive. | You are (most likely) misinterpreting the numbers. The total size (“of 118 GB”) stays the same in every screenshot, as expected. What changes is the amount of free space *of these 118 GB*. So you have the following:
| Image | Free Space | Used Space (calculated) | Total Space |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 12.6 GB | 118 - 12.6 = 105.4 GB | 118 GB |
| 2 | 11.8 GB | 118 - 11.8 = 106.2 GB | 118 GB |
| 3 | 11.2 GB | 118 - 11.2 = 106.8 GB | 118 GB |
Not sure how you’re coming up with 120 GB, but whatever!
Because there are lots of temporary and cached data on C:, the amount of used space can change at any time. Furthermore, Windows (or other software) could be installing updates in the background. There’s just a lot going on, even when your PC is seemingly idle. |
14,960 | A while ago, I asked [In what war would one modern military vehicle make a difference?](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/12219/in-what-war-would-one-modern-military-vehicle-make-a-difference) I have now come up with a sort-of sequel.
A modern, Challenger II battle tank has been sent back in time to a past war. It was decided in my last question that this tank would indeed have some significant impact on the war. What was not shown is how long the tank would be effective for.
That's what I'm asking now. In this question, I'm looking for comparison of how long my Challenger could last in various historic wars, assuming:
* No restocking on fuel *or* parts from the present; the time machine has been destroyed
* Unlimited *knowledge* of the tank can be taken back by its crew and shared with anyone else who might need it
* In-period manufacturing techniques and technology
* The tank is rendered ineffective when it can no longer move or shoot.
For example, it might last longer in WWII because the factories would be more capable of producing armor for it and it might be able to run off fuel from the time. I doubt it would last so long in a war before vehicles were invented. | 2015/04/22 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/14960",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/2685/"
] | With the support of a nation, the tank could be maintained as a devastating combat vehicle from roughly the mid 19th century onward. Far more important than it's ability to kill things, the Challenger 2 could turn battles and whole campaigns as ***the ultimate command vehicle***.
**Fuel**
As others have pointed out, fuel is not a problem. Diesel engines will run on almost any liquid hydrocarbon, though it might be hell on the filters, hoses, and gaskets. These could be replaced with natural equivalents (rubber, cotton, wool) but they would have to be serviced more frequently.
**Main Gun**
The main gun will be fun for a battle or two until you fire all 49 rounds of the standard load. It's possible shells could be manufactured for it, [modern brass cartridges](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartridge_%28firearms%29#Modern_metallic_cartridges) with [smokeless powder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokeless_powder) begin appearing in the 1860s, but the materials and tooling to create them were known far earlier. Even black powder would work, but it would require extensive cleaning else it would foul the barrel. The lower pressure of contemporary manufacture shells would be a boon as it would serve to preserve the rifling.
It's possible to replace the main gun entirely with a breech loading cannon of equivalent weight starting with the [Armstrong gun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrong_Gun) in 1855. The existing [L30 gun weighs 1800 kg](http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3632.html) which could handle any number of mid 19th century heavy [naval](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_naval_guns_by_caliber) or [field guns](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_field_guns). The ability to move a heavy gun around the battlefield with impunity would be devastating.
**Machine Guns**
The machine guns are arguably of greater utility on a pre-WWII battlefield to mow down infantry. They use [7.62x51mm NATO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62%C3%9751mm_NATO) introduced in the 1950s. With examples to work from it would not be difficult to manufacture more. Depending on the era, the ballistics and charge might not be quite right. The biggest problem would be ensuring the ammunition is consistent enough to cycle to mechanism.
The commander's [L37A2 is a variant of the FN MAG](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_MAG#British_subvariants), a [gas operated](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas-operated_reloading) machine gun. This is fortunate as the gas system can be adjusted for the differing power of the locally manufactured ammunition.
The [L94A1 chain gun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L94A1_chain_gun), also using 7.62x51mm NATO, is even better for local ammunition if it can be kept powered. The external drive means it does not rely on the ammunition to cycle the gun. Any underpowered rounds will not result in a stoppage, the gun will fire as long as there is power and ammunition. As long as the batteries hold out, and the tank's alternator works, the chain gun will fire whatever ammunition fits in the gun.
Like the main gun, the machine guns could be replaced. The commander's roof mounted gun could be replaced with a [Gatling gun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatling_gun). The coaxial gun, with only a small hole to fire through would have to wait for a single barrel [Maxim gun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_gun).
**Drive train**
Here's the real maintenance problem, the drive train: the engine, suspension, and transmission. Tanks are limited by their drive trains. Since everyone wants to shove more weight onto a tank, more armor, more equipment, bigger gun... tank drive trains are notoriously overworked. They have to transmit power to move 60 tons at 60km/h. Worse, they have to *accelerate* all that mass. This puts tremendous strain on the drive train.
Modern tank drive trains are cutting edge technology. They require careful and lavish maintenance. And they are irreplaceable. Even if you know how to fashion the parts, it's unlikely the metallurgy is available to handle the stresses and heat of a modern tank drive train, as well as the milling technology to meet the required tolerances. Locally fashioned parts might work, but at reduced performance and increased maintenance. Once something really vital breaks you have an immobile pillbox. A Challenger 2 maintenance schedule would shed more light on this, but I can't find one.
Careful driving of the tank, keeping acceleration and torque low, avoiding high speeds, and moving it around on flatbeds (rail cars being the only thing able to carry 60 tons) as much as possible, would extend life.
**Optics**
Here's where it gets really interesting.
The Challenger's rangerfinder, optics, and night vision would allow it to scout the enemy from thousands of meters away, through smoke, and at night. Even if the electronics failed, the backup optical sights are still of extremely high quality. Once those failed, replacing it with a good telescope would be valuable.
**Radio**
It cannot be overstated how bulky and awful military radios were up until even the 1980s. The Challenger 2 uses the [Bowman system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman_%28communications_system%29). Having a powerful, reliable, *multi-frequency* radio in a mobile armored box would be devastating. Even once the original radio failed it would have the space and power to carry a bulky [Marconi radio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_radio#Marconi). So long as there is copper wire, such a basic radio could be manufactured.
***The Ultimate Command Vehicle***
This is the most overlooked military advantage. Battles are won and lost on intel and communication. In an era where communications are still done with bugles and flags and runners, a mid-19th century commander who can be everywhere and know everything would rule the battlefield. Whomever has the Challenger 2 has the mobility, armor, and optics to scout the enemy with impunity, and communicate that information.
Imagine an army who has equipped their major units with basic, if bulky, radios. Their commander is in the Challenger 2 racing back and forth across the battlefield with impunity, getting first-hand information, disseminating it to their troops, and issuing orders in real time. They can scout any position, even though smoke, haze, fog, rain, and night. They can rapidly react to any change in the situation ordering their troops to react appropriately, concentrating where needed.
Even with no weapons, so long as the drive-train works the Challenger 2 can win mid-19th century battles. | In a modern tank, you have all these neat things like radar, and thermal vision, which would be really helpful for the first portion of battle. Any bows and arrows would be effectively harmless. The tank would pick off people in the opposing army before they actually arrive, and when that happens, one tank crewman would have to get up and use the machine gun(s) on top of the tank where he would become a target for any arrows or people who climb on top. Eventually the tank would run out of all ammunition (as well as the gunner on top being killed) They may open the hatch and kill those inside, disabling the tank. Not to say that this tank wouldn't put up a good fight though, it would have probably caused a couple-hundred casualties before being overrun. |
14,960 | A while ago, I asked [In what war would one modern military vehicle make a difference?](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/12219/in-what-war-would-one-modern-military-vehicle-make-a-difference) I have now come up with a sort-of sequel.
A modern, Challenger II battle tank has been sent back in time to a past war. It was decided in my last question that this tank would indeed have some significant impact on the war. What was not shown is how long the tank would be effective for.
That's what I'm asking now. In this question, I'm looking for comparison of how long my Challenger could last in various historic wars, assuming:
* No restocking on fuel *or* parts from the present; the time machine has been destroyed
* Unlimited *knowledge* of the tank can be taken back by its crew and shared with anyone else who might need it
* In-period manufacturing techniques and technology
* The tank is rendered ineffective when it can no longer move or shoot.
For example, it might last longer in WWII because the factories would be more capable of producing armor for it and it might be able to run off fuel from the time. I doubt it would last so long in a war before vehicles were invented. | 2015/04/22 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/14960",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/2685/"
] | ### Fuel
For the most part, fuel is a non-issue. Diesels are generally quite forgiving when it comes to fuel quality, so you can run the tank equally well off of refined diesel or lamp oil. The further back in time you go, the more expensive it is to fuel it, but you can probably go back several thousand years before you lose the ability entirely.
### Ammunition
As others have mentioned, the main gun uses highly sophisticated ammunition. If you go back more than a few decades, you lose the ability to make more at any price. However, it also has a chain gun and machine gun, both of which use fairly conventional cartridge-based ammunition. You could mass-produce this clear back to the mid/late-1800s, although with an increased rate of jams from WWI on earlier due to sloppier manufacturing tolerances. If you're willing to pay premium prices, you could get hand-made cartridges clear back to 1820 or so, with the invention of the [percussion cap](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percussion_cap).
### Spare parts
This is the tricky part. The Challenger 2 is made using modern high-strength alloys and manufacturing tolerances.
The electronics are probably irreplaceable before the 1980s; the armor before the 1960s; but neither is likely to be damaged except in a combat situation that destroys the tank.
The most likely failure point is the engine, drivetrain, or tracks. If the failure is in a tolerance-critical part, trial-and-error fitting could make a replacement back to the early 1800s with the invention of high-hardness tool steels; before that, no amount of effort will give a good enough fit. If the failure is in a strength-critical part, you could probably make a replacement back to 1900 or so; before that, the lack of high-strength steels means that a replacement part that is strong enough won't fit in the available space, and vice-versa.
### Overall
Your fuel supply is good for about 250 km before needing to find a local supply, your ammunition will last you one to two battles, and you'll probably suffer an immobilizing drivetrain breakdown around the 10,000 km mark. If you're fighting in a recent enough war, you may be able to solve these problems. | In a modern tank, you have all these neat things like radar, and thermal vision, which would be really helpful for the first portion of battle. Any bows and arrows would be effectively harmless. The tank would pick off people in the opposing army before they actually arrive, and when that happens, one tank crewman would have to get up and use the machine gun(s) on top of the tank where he would become a target for any arrows or people who climb on top. Eventually the tank would run out of all ammunition (as well as the gunner on top being killed) They may open the hatch and kill those inside, disabling the tank. Not to say that this tank wouldn't put up a good fight though, it would have probably caused a couple-hundred casualties before being overrun. |
14,960 | A while ago, I asked [In what war would one modern military vehicle make a difference?](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/12219/in-what-war-would-one-modern-military-vehicle-make-a-difference) I have now come up with a sort-of sequel.
A modern, Challenger II battle tank has been sent back in time to a past war. It was decided in my last question that this tank would indeed have some significant impact on the war. What was not shown is how long the tank would be effective for.
That's what I'm asking now. In this question, I'm looking for comparison of how long my Challenger could last in various historic wars, assuming:
* No restocking on fuel *or* parts from the present; the time machine has been destroyed
* Unlimited *knowledge* of the tank can be taken back by its crew and shared with anyone else who might need it
* In-period manufacturing techniques and technology
* The tank is rendered ineffective when it can no longer move or shoot.
For example, it might last longer in WWII because the factories would be more capable of producing armor for it and it might be able to run off fuel from the time. I doubt it would last so long in a war before vehicles were invented. | 2015/04/22 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/14960",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/2685/"
] | Probably the biggest factor in determining the transported tank's viability is going to be fuel availability. The [Challenger 2](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_2) uses a diesel engine, so the tank will only be useable for about 160 miles (250 km) -- off-road operational range -- prior to the invention of [diesel fuel](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_fuel#Origins) in the 1890s.
So we'll take a look at wars between 1900 and 1945, since you mention in comments that you want to know WWII and earlier. The Challenger carries 52 rounds with its main cannon. Since this is state-of-the-art ammunition, it can't be constructed with WWII technology, let alone WWI. While the Challenger's armor is classified, it's safe to say that even a [Tiger II](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_II) would have significant trouble, if not find it impossible, to actively penetrate the tank's armor. Eliminating the tank would have to be done by a specially-equipped team of infantry, specially-designed artillery, or aircraft.
Because tanks didn't see much use prior to WWII, there was no ultimate strategy for combatting tanks from the air. The typical plan was to drop standard bombs on the thinner armor on the roof. There's a pretty good summation of anti-tank tactics and weapons [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_warfare#Second_World_War). Since this is all still WWII technology, it's going to be mostly ineffective against a properly prepared Challenger 2.
In conclusion, a Challenger 2 transported back to the first half of the 1900s will probably defeat itself before it is defeated by the opponent, mostly by running out of fuel or ammunition. If by fuel, you'll get up to 6 hours of lifetime. If by ammunition, up to 52 shots; after which point you'll have to find an inferior alternative or resort to the mounted machine guns. | Choosing your war wisely is a useful approach. Even without refueling or rearming, any modern tank plopped down in the middle of England in the eleventh century, before the wide availability of gunpowder, 50 rounds from a cannon and a few hundred rounds from a chain gun would win the whole war.
When the US dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese at the end of WWII, they surrendered not because they were beaten in battle, but because the US demonstrated (with repetition) that they had the technology to wipe them off the face of the planet. As horrible as that situation was, it worked.
Park a tank outside a castle, fire three to five cannon rounds into it, mow down a phalanx of foot soldiers with a chain gun, then drive off in the direction of the next castle, and word is going to get around. Do that two or three more times, and they'll deliver the crown jewels in a box. |
14,960 | A while ago, I asked [In what war would one modern military vehicle make a difference?](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/12219/in-what-war-would-one-modern-military-vehicle-make-a-difference) I have now come up with a sort-of sequel.
A modern, Challenger II battle tank has been sent back in time to a past war. It was decided in my last question that this tank would indeed have some significant impact on the war. What was not shown is how long the tank would be effective for.
That's what I'm asking now. In this question, I'm looking for comparison of how long my Challenger could last in various historic wars, assuming:
* No restocking on fuel *or* parts from the present; the time machine has been destroyed
* Unlimited *knowledge* of the tank can be taken back by its crew and shared with anyone else who might need it
* In-period manufacturing techniques and technology
* The tank is rendered ineffective when it can no longer move or shoot.
For example, it might last longer in WWII because the factories would be more capable of producing armor for it and it might be able to run off fuel from the time. I doubt it would last so long in a war before vehicles were invented. | 2015/04/22 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/14960",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/2685/"
] | ### Fuel
For the most part, fuel is a non-issue. Diesels are generally quite forgiving when it comes to fuel quality, so you can run the tank equally well off of refined diesel or lamp oil. The further back in time you go, the more expensive it is to fuel it, but you can probably go back several thousand years before you lose the ability entirely.
### Ammunition
As others have mentioned, the main gun uses highly sophisticated ammunition. If you go back more than a few decades, you lose the ability to make more at any price. However, it also has a chain gun and machine gun, both of which use fairly conventional cartridge-based ammunition. You could mass-produce this clear back to the mid/late-1800s, although with an increased rate of jams from WWI on earlier due to sloppier manufacturing tolerances. If you're willing to pay premium prices, you could get hand-made cartridges clear back to 1820 or so, with the invention of the [percussion cap](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percussion_cap).
### Spare parts
This is the tricky part. The Challenger 2 is made using modern high-strength alloys and manufacturing tolerances.
The electronics are probably irreplaceable before the 1980s; the armor before the 1960s; but neither is likely to be damaged except in a combat situation that destroys the tank.
The most likely failure point is the engine, drivetrain, or tracks. If the failure is in a tolerance-critical part, trial-and-error fitting could make a replacement back to the early 1800s with the invention of high-hardness tool steels; before that, no amount of effort will give a good enough fit. If the failure is in a strength-critical part, you could probably make a replacement back to 1900 or so; before that, the lack of high-strength steels means that a replacement part that is strong enough won't fit in the available space, and vice-versa.
### Overall
Your fuel supply is good for about 250 km before needing to find a local supply, your ammunition will last you one to two battles, and you'll probably suffer an immobilizing drivetrain breakdown around the 10,000 km mark. If you're fighting in a recent enough war, you may be able to solve these problems. | Multi fuel diesel engines can burn a fairly wide range of fuels, so if "unlimited knowledge" also means the ability to tune the engine, it may be possible to go farther into the past by burning vegetable or whale oil. With unlimited knowledge the crew might also be able to reproduce the reactions needed to create biodiesel as well.
Of course this creates a cascade effect, biodiesel, for example, tends to clean engines of deposits and the resulting mess gums up the filters. Recreating the specialized materials for engine oil and fuel filters could become challenging the farther you go into the past.
The real sticking point isn't so much the knowledge, but what sort of industrial base you will have access to. Going farther back than the 1980's you will actually have difficulty finding tooling that can repair or replace items on the tank, and going past the 1960's you are essentially looking for the tools to make the tools. As noted, much of the other equipment like the computers and ammunition will be essentially impossible to reproduce.
A bit of a historical BTW, the Germans had prepared a tank busting airplane in the form of the AEG G.IVk (k for kanone) for the expected battles of 1919, and British "Contact Patrol" fighters were equally capable of dealing with hard ground targets (although the Germans did not actually have much in the way of tanks). These, of course are capable of dealing with period tanks, but a well placed burst of 20mm cannon fire across the upper surface of a modern tank *could* damage the optics and make the sights ineffective. |
14,960 | A while ago, I asked [In what war would one modern military vehicle make a difference?](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/12219/in-what-war-would-one-modern-military-vehicle-make-a-difference) I have now come up with a sort-of sequel.
A modern, Challenger II battle tank has been sent back in time to a past war. It was decided in my last question that this tank would indeed have some significant impact on the war. What was not shown is how long the tank would be effective for.
That's what I'm asking now. In this question, I'm looking for comparison of how long my Challenger could last in various historic wars, assuming:
* No restocking on fuel *or* parts from the present; the time machine has been destroyed
* Unlimited *knowledge* of the tank can be taken back by its crew and shared with anyone else who might need it
* In-period manufacturing techniques and technology
* The tank is rendered ineffective when it can no longer move or shoot.
For example, it might last longer in WWII because the factories would be more capable of producing armor for it and it might be able to run off fuel from the time. I doubt it would last so long in a war before vehicles were invented. | 2015/04/22 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/14960",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/2685/"
] | In one scenario, **potentially not long at all**.
In contrast to the other answers, a Challenger II battle tank in World War II (or I) would catch the attention of the opposition very quickly. It's location and vector could be very well known. Quickly a trap could be constructed whereby the tank falls into a deep *[trou de loup](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trou_de_loup)* and is rendered useless until the crew must expose themselves to firepower to try to dig themselves out. | Multi fuel diesel engines can burn a fairly wide range of fuels, so if "unlimited knowledge" also means the ability to tune the engine, it may be possible to go farther into the past by burning vegetable or whale oil. With unlimited knowledge the crew might also be able to reproduce the reactions needed to create biodiesel as well.
Of course this creates a cascade effect, biodiesel, for example, tends to clean engines of deposits and the resulting mess gums up the filters. Recreating the specialized materials for engine oil and fuel filters could become challenging the farther you go into the past.
The real sticking point isn't so much the knowledge, but what sort of industrial base you will have access to. Going farther back than the 1980's you will actually have difficulty finding tooling that can repair or replace items on the tank, and going past the 1960's you are essentially looking for the tools to make the tools. As noted, much of the other equipment like the computers and ammunition will be essentially impossible to reproduce.
A bit of a historical BTW, the Germans had prepared a tank busting airplane in the form of the AEG G.IVk (k for kanone) for the expected battles of 1919, and British "Contact Patrol" fighters were equally capable of dealing with hard ground targets (although the Germans did not actually have much in the way of tanks). These, of course are capable of dealing with period tanks, but a well placed burst of 20mm cannon fire across the upper surface of a modern tank *could* damage the optics and make the sights ineffective. |
14,960 | A while ago, I asked [In what war would one modern military vehicle make a difference?](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/12219/in-what-war-would-one-modern-military-vehicle-make-a-difference) I have now come up with a sort-of sequel.
A modern, Challenger II battle tank has been sent back in time to a past war. It was decided in my last question that this tank would indeed have some significant impact on the war. What was not shown is how long the tank would be effective for.
That's what I'm asking now. In this question, I'm looking for comparison of how long my Challenger could last in various historic wars, assuming:
* No restocking on fuel *or* parts from the present; the time machine has been destroyed
* Unlimited *knowledge* of the tank can be taken back by its crew and shared with anyone else who might need it
* In-period manufacturing techniques and technology
* The tank is rendered ineffective when it can no longer move or shoot.
For example, it might last longer in WWII because the factories would be more capable of producing armor for it and it might be able to run off fuel from the time. I doubt it would last so long in a war before vehicles were invented. | 2015/04/22 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/14960",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/2685/"
] | Probably the biggest factor in determining the transported tank's viability is going to be fuel availability. The [Challenger 2](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_2) uses a diesel engine, so the tank will only be useable for about 160 miles (250 km) -- off-road operational range -- prior to the invention of [diesel fuel](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_fuel#Origins) in the 1890s.
So we'll take a look at wars between 1900 and 1945, since you mention in comments that you want to know WWII and earlier. The Challenger carries 52 rounds with its main cannon. Since this is state-of-the-art ammunition, it can't be constructed with WWII technology, let alone WWI. While the Challenger's armor is classified, it's safe to say that even a [Tiger II](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_II) would have significant trouble, if not find it impossible, to actively penetrate the tank's armor. Eliminating the tank would have to be done by a specially-equipped team of infantry, specially-designed artillery, or aircraft.
Because tanks didn't see much use prior to WWII, there was no ultimate strategy for combatting tanks from the air. The typical plan was to drop standard bombs on the thinner armor on the roof. There's a pretty good summation of anti-tank tactics and weapons [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_warfare#Second_World_War). Since this is all still WWII technology, it's going to be mostly ineffective against a properly prepared Challenger 2.
In conclusion, a Challenger 2 transported back to the first half of the 1900s will probably defeat itself before it is defeated by the opponent, mostly by running out of fuel or ammunition. If by fuel, you'll get up to 6 hours of lifetime. If by ammunition, up to 52 shots; after which point you'll have to find an inferior alternative or resort to the mounted machine guns. | Depending on availability of spare parts?
A tanks as good as it's parts, no parts, no service.
A modern tank is really not all that different than a past tank, subtle differences in armor, the biggest change is sensor technology to find targets.
So your hypothetical, if a Abrams M1 went back to the Battle of the Bulge, against Tiger's it'd rip it to shreds. An M829 Armor piericing discarding sabot can penetrate 540 mm (21 inches) of steel rolled armor. A tiger tank, had 100mm of armor. A HEAT M830 round will go thru a Tiger or Panzer tank. |
14,960 | A while ago, I asked [In what war would one modern military vehicle make a difference?](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/12219/in-what-war-would-one-modern-military-vehicle-make-a-difference) I have now come up with a sort-of sequel.
A modern, Challenger II battle tank has been sent back in time to a past war. It was decided in my last question that this tank would indeed have some significant impact on the war. What was not shown is how long the tank would be effective for.
That's what I'm asking now. In this question, I'm looking for comparison of how long my Challenger could last in various historic wars, assuming:
* No restocking on fuel *or* parts from the present; the time machine has been destroyed
* Unlimited *knowledge* of the tank can be taken back by its crew and shared with anyone else who might need it
* In-period manufacturing techniques and technology
* The tank is rendered ineffective when it can no longer move or shoot.
For example, it might last longer in WWII because the factories would be more capable of producing armor for it and it might be able to run off fuel from the time. I doubt it would last so long in a war before vehicles were invented. | 2015/04/22 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/14960",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/2685/"
] | In one scenario, **potentially not long at all**.
In contrast to the other answers, a Challenger II battle tank in World War II (or I) would catch the attention of the opposition very quickly. It's location and vector could be very well known. Quickly a trap could be constructed whereby the tank falls into a deep *[trou de loup](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trou_de_loup)* and is rendered useless until the crew must expose themselves to firepower to try to dig themselves out. | In a modern tank, you have all these neat things like radar, and thermal vision, which would be really helpful for the first portion of battle. Any bows and arrows would be effectively harmless. The tank would pick off people in the opposing army before they actually arrive, and when that happens, one tank crewman would have to get up and use the machine gun(s) on top of the tank where he would become a target for any arrows or people who climb on top. Eventually the tank would run out of all ammunition (as well as the gunner on top being killed) They may open the hatch and kill those inside, disabling the tank. Not to say that this tank wouldn't put up a good fight though, it would have probably caused a couple-hundred casualties before being overrun. |
14,960 | A while ago, I asked [In what war would one modern military vehicle make a difference?](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/12219/in-what-war-would-one-modern-military-vehicle-make-a-difference) I have now come up with a sort-of sequel.
A modern, Challenger II battle tank has been sent back in time to a past war. It was decided in my last question that this tank would indeed have some significant impact on the war. What was not shown is how long the tank would be effective for.
That's what I'm asking now. In this question, I'm looking for comparison of how long my Challenger could last in various historic wars, assuming:
* No restocking on fuel *or* parts from the present; the time machine has been destroyed
* Unlimited *knowledge* of the tank can be taken back by its crew and shared with anyone else who might need it
* In-period manufacturing techniques and technology
* The tank is rendered ineffective when it can no longer move or shoot.
For example, it might last longer in WWII because the factories would be more capable of producing armor for it and it might be able to run off fuel from the time. I doubt it would last so long in a war before vehicles were invented. | 2015/04/22 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/14960",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/2685/"
] | Probably the biggest factor in determining the transported tank's viability is going to be fuel availability. The [Challenger 2](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_2) uses a diesel engine, so the tank will only be useable for about 160 miles (250 km) -- off-road operational range -- prior to the invention of [diesel fuel](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_fuel#Origins) in the 1890s.
So we'll take a look at wars between 1900 and 1945, since you mention in comments that you want to know WWII and earlier. The Challenger carries 52 rounds with its main cannon. Since this is state-of-the-art ammunition, it can't be constructed with WWII technology, let alone WWI. While the Challenger's armor is classified, it's safe to say that even a [Tiger II](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_II) would have significant trouble, if not find it impossible, to actively penetrate the tank's armor. Eliminating the tank would have to be done by a specially-equipped team of infantry, specially-designed artillery, or aircraft.
Because tanks didn't see much use prior to WWII, there was no ultimate strategy for combatting tanks from the air. The typical plan was to drop standard bombs on the thinner armor on the roof. There's a pretty good summation of anti-tank tactics and weapons [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_warfare#Second_World_War). Since this is all still WWII technology, it's going to be mostly ineffective against a properly prepared Challenger 2.
In conclusion, a Challenger 2 transported back to the first half of the 1900s will probably defeat itself before it is defeated by the opponent, mostly by running out of fuel or ammunition. If by fuel, you'll get up to 6 hours of lifetime. If by ammunition, up to 52 shots; after which point you'll have to find an inferior alternative or resort to the mounted machine guns. | All tanks have manual back up systems. Electronics is not critical. Furthermore, an Abrams will run on anything that burns. As long as the technology is available for a wood or coal engine then the drive train is crappy but replaceable. Cannons are also replaceable.
The real hold back is that there would be no reason. A horse drawn Cannon takes far less energy to move than a tank, which has essentially the same capability against soft targets. Tanks are a luxury and there was no incentive to build them despite being quite readily possible. |
14,960 | A while ago, I asked [In what war would one modern military vehicle make a difference?](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/12219/in-what-war-would-one-modern-military-vehicle-make-a-difference) I have now come up with a sort-of sequel.
A modern, Challenger II battle tank has been sent back in time to a past war. It was decided in my last question that this tank would indeed have some significant impact on the war. What was not shown is how long the tank would be effective for.
That's what I'm asking now. In this question, I'm looking for comparison of how long my Challenger could last in various historic wars, assuming:
* No restocking on fuel *or* parts from the present; the time machine has been destroyed
* Unlimited *knowledge* of the tank can be taken back by its crew and shared with anyone else who might need it
* In-period manufacturing techniques and technology
* The tank is rendered ineffective when it can no longer move or shoot.
For example, it might last longer in WWII because the factories would be more capable of producing armor for it and it might be able to run off fuel from the time. I doubt it would last so long in a war before vehicles were invented. | 2015/04/22 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/14960",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/2685/"
] | With the support of a nation, the tank could be maintained as a devastating combat vehicle from roughly the mid 19th century onward. Far more important than it's ability to kill things, the Challenger 2 could turn battles and whole campaigns as ***the ultimate command vehicle***.
**Fuel**
As others have pointed out, fuel is not a problem. Diesel engines will run on almost any liquid hydrocarbon, though it might be hell on the filters, hoses, and gaskets. These could be replaced with natural equivalents (rubber, cotton, wool) but they would have to be serviced more frequently.
**Main Gun**
The main gun will be fun for a battle or two until you fire all 49 rounds of the standard load. It's possible shells could be manufactured for it, [modern brass cartridges](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartridge_%28firearms%29#Modern_metallic_cartridges) with [smokeless powder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokeless_powder) begin appearing in the 1860s, but the materials and tooling to create them were known far earlier. Even black powder would work, but it would require extensive cleaning else it would foul the barrel. The lower pressure of contemporary manufacture shells would be a boon as it would serve to preserve the rifling.
It's possible to replace the main gun entirely with a breech loading cannon of equivalent weight starting with the [Armstrong gun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrong_Gun) in 1855. The existing [L30 gun weighs 1800 kg](http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3632.html) which could handle any number of mid 19th century heavy [naval](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_naval_guns_by_caliber) or [field guns](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_field_guns). The ability to move a heavy gun around the battlefield with impunity would be devastating.
**Machine Guns**
The machine guns are arguably of greater utility on a pre-WWII battlefield to mow down infantry. They use [7.62x51mm NATO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62%C3%9751mm_NATO) introduced in the 1950s. With examples to work from it would not be difficult to manufacture more. Depending on the era, the ballistics and charge might not be quite right. The biggest problem would be ensuring the ammunition is consistent enough to cycle to mechanism.
The commander's [L37A2 is a variant of the FN MAG](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_MAG#British_subvariants), a [gas operated](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas-operated_reloading) machine gun. This is fortunate as the gas system can be adjusted for the differing power of the locally manufactured ammunition.
The [L94A1 chain gun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L94A1_chain_gun), also using 7.62x51mm NATO, is even better for local ammunition if it can be kept powered. The external drive means it does not rely on the ammunition to cycle the gun. Any underpowered rounds will not result in a stoppage, the gun will fire as long as there is power and ammunition. As long as the batteries hold out, and the tank's alternator works, the chain gun will fire whatever ammunition fits in the gun.
Like the main gun, the machine guns could be replaced. The commander's roof mounted gun could be replaced with a [Gatling gun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatling_gun). The coaxial gun, with only a small hole to fire through would have to wait for a single barrel [Maxim gun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_gun).
**Drive train**
Here's the real maintenance problem, the drive train: the engine, suspension, and transmission. Tanks are limited by their drive trains. Since everyone wants to shove more weight onto a tank, more armor, more equipment, bigger gun... tank drive trains are notoriously overworked. They have to transmit power to move 60 tons at 60km/h. Worse, they have to *accelerate* all that mass. This puts tremendous strain on the drive train.
Modern tank drive trains are cutting edge technology. They require careful and lavish maintenance. And they are irreplaceable. Even if you know how to fashion the parts, it's unlikely the metallurgy is available to handle the stresses and heat of a modern tank drive train, as well as the milling technology to meet the required tolerances. Locally fashioned parts might work, but at reduced performance and increased maintenance. Once something really vital breaks you have an immobile pillbox. A Challenger 2 maintenance schedule would shed more light on this, but I can't find one.
Careful driving of the tank, keeping acceleration and torque low, avoiding high speeds, and moving it around on flatbeds (rail cars being the only thing able to carry 60 tons) as much as possible, would extend life.
**Optics**
Here's where it gets really interesting.
The Challenger's rangerfinder, optics, and night vision would allow it to scout the enemy from thousands of meters away, through smoke, and at night. Even if the electronics failed, the backup optical sights are still of extremely high quality. Once those failed, replacing it with a good telescope would be valuable.
**Radio**
It cannot be overstated how bulky and awful military radios were up until even the 1980s. The Challenger 2 uses the [Bowman system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman_%28communications_system%29). Having a powerful, reliable, *multi-frequency* radio in a mobile armored box would be devastating. Even once the original radio failed it would have the space and power to carry a bulky [Marconi radio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_radio#Marconi). So long as there is copper wire, such a basic radio could be manufactured.
***The Ultimate Command Vehicle***
This is the most overlooked military advantage. Battles are won and lost on intel and communication. In an era where communications are still done with bugles and flags and runners, a mid-19th century commander who can be everywhere and know everything would rule the battlefield. Whomever has the Challenger 2 has the mobility, armor, and optics to scout the enemy with impunity, and communicate that information.
Imagine an army who has equipped their major units with basic, if bulky, radios. Their commander is in the Challenger 2 racing back and forth across the battlefield with impunity, getting first-hand information, disseminating it to their troops, and issuing orders in real time. They can scout any position, even though smoke, haze, fog, rain, and night. They can rapidly react to any change in the situation ordering their troops to react appropriately, concentrating where needed.
Even with no weapons, so long as the drive-train works the Challenger 2 can win mid-19th century battles. | Other have pointed out what the weaknesses of this one tank are. But the big game changer here, especially when talking about the two world wars, is not the tank, but the "unlimited knowledge" about the tank.
Although it can be assumed to be impossible to re-create the challenger2 or a leopard2, or even an abrams, all that knowledge should still help the contemporary industry to build much better tanks.
So, while the individual tank will be rendered useless sooner or later, the side the crew chooses still has an enormous advantage. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.