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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
221,651 | I plan to add some lighting in positions on the ceiling that doesn't have nearby wire available.
The there is no free space between the ceiling/roof in which to run a wire (there's the wood, then solid foam block insulation, then weather barrier, then the shingles). So, I would need to run wire (12/2 or 12/3) to that location somehow. I'm aware of Wiremold, but that wouldn't look very good with the style and material of the ceiling itself.
Is it possible, instead, to run the wire through a 0.5" channel routed out of a 1x1" piece of wood and affix that wood to the ceiling? I read through California electrical code (I'm in San Bernardino County, California), but didn't see anything specific around this (unless I missed it, or interpreted it incorrectly).
Thanks in advance. | 2021/04/07 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/221651",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/128788/"
] | No, you can't do it unless there's a "nail plate" to protect it from physical damage (nails).
You could mill it out to 15/16" and lay in EMT metal conduit. It has the thinnest wall of any conduit and will provide the needed physical protection. Use that either simply as a damage shield in the vulnerable area, or if able, as a full-on wiring method for the entire route. | Yes it's possible but it wouldn't be code compliant if it's 120v. Wires must be 1-1/2 inches from the surface so that you won't hit them by mistake with a screw or nail. If you had some sort of metal conduit you could do it. Low voltage wiring is fine. |
221,651 | I plan to add some lighting in positions on the ceiling that doesn't have nearby wire available.
The there is no free space between the ceiling/roof in which to run a wire (there's the wood, then solid foam block insulation, then weather barrier, then the shingles). So, I would need to run wire (12/2 or 12/3) to that location somehow. I'm aware of Wiremold, but that wouldn't look very good with the style and material of the ceiling itself.
Is it possible, instead, to run the wire through a 0.5" channel routed out of a 1x1" piece of wood and affix that wood to the ceiling? I read through California electrical code (I'm in San Bernardino County, California), but didn't see anything specific around this (unless I missed it, or interpreted it incorrectly).
Thanks in advance. | 2021/04/07 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/221651",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/128788/"
] | Yes it's possible but it wouldn't be code compliant if it's 120v. Wires must be 1-1/2 inches from the surface so that you won't hit them by mistake with a screw or nail. If you had some sort of metal conduit you could do it. Low voltage wiring is fine. | It might require a larger trim than you were thinking but have you considered just increasing the space in trim to accommodate the wire mold? This should be doable with pretty typical crown molding. If you need to run across the ceiling you could add a coffered ceiling which can look really nice. |
221,651 | I plan to add some lighting in positions on the ceiling that doesn't have nearby wire available.
The there is no free space between the ceiling/roof in which to run a wire (there's the wood, then solid foam block insulation, then weather barrier, then the shingles). So, I would need to run wire (12/2 or 12/3) to that location somehow. I'm aware of Wiremold, but that wouldn't look very good with the style and material of the ceiling itself.
Is it possible, instead, to run the wire through a 0.5" channel routed out of a 1x1" piece of wood and affix that wood to the ceiling? I read through California electrical code (I'm in San Bernardino County, California), but didn't see anything specific around this (unless I missed it, or interpreted it incorrectly).
Thanks in advance. | 2021/04/07 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/221651",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/128788/"
] | No, you can't do it unless there's a "nail plate" to protect it from physical damage (nails).
You could mill it out to 15/16" and lay in EMT metal conduit. It has the thinnest wall of any conduit and will provide the needed physical protection. Use that either simply as a damage shield in the vulnerable area, or if able, as a full-on wiring method for the entire route. | Can't say 100% certain with respect to code, but I did something very similar, with agreement of my electrician. He fished NM cable from bathroom lighting up to attic and through a hole to peak of ceiling between kitchen and dining room, around 8 feet along ceiling, then into ceiling to get to middle of dining room for new chandelier. I covered the 8' section with a piece of molding from Home Depot and it looks like it was always there. |
221,651 | I plan to add some lighting in positions on the ceiling that doesn't have nearby wire available.
The there is no free space between the ceiling/roof in which to run a wire (there's the wood, then solid foam block insulation, then weather barrier, then the shingles). So, I would need to run wire (12/2 or 12/3) to that location somehow. I'm aware of Wiremold, but that wouldn't look very good with the style and material of the ceiling itself.
Is it possible, instead, to run the wire through a 0.5" channel routed out of a 1x1" piece of wood and affix that wood to the ceiling? I read through California electrical code (I'm in San Bernardino County, California), but didn't see anything specific around this (unless I missed it, or interpreted it incorrectly).
Thanks in advance. | 2021/04/07 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/221651",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/128788/"
] | If your foam block is multiple layers deep sometimes it's possible to run a fish tape between layers. Take off the leader if present, use a blowtorch to heat the fishtape and fold about 3"(75mm) tightly back on itself (no loop), tape tightly together starting 1" down from the tip, stretching the tape slightly and use only 1 layer if possible. Use a file or sandpaper to smooth the tip if necessary. 1/4" or 3/8" fish tape is better for longer runs. If the fish tape is curly, straighten it first with a fish tape straightener. Take care and use both hands to feed the tape in, one hand pushing from about 18"(450mm) away and the other hand close to where the fish tape enters to redirect the force. For long hops, especially if you have to fish through partial obstructions, a toner is useful to locate the fish tape in the ceiling. If you get it close but a small amount (<3f(1m)) to the side of the destination, usually you can cut a hole at the destination and hook it over with a second fish tape.
If you can get a fish tape through, usually an armored cable can be drawn in. You can untape the head to use as a pull loop (don't try to unbend the tip, just cross the wires through the loop and fold back 4-6" and tape tightly from 2" onto the armor up to 2" past the folded back fish tape and back, 2 layers to reduce friction. The armor should be stripped enough that the folded back wire does not pass over armor). Note before starting that armored cable pulls nicer in one direction. The armor coil should end on the outside on the end you are feeding in. The person feeding the cable should feed as described above, and the person pulling should do the reverse, with the far hand providing pulling force and the close hand redirecting the force to pull flat between the sheets rather than down into the soft material below.
You may need an electrician to do this for you though depending on where you live.
Also consider that wiremold can be refinished many ways to be more aesthetically pleasing. Real wood edge laminate would probably give you the look you want. For short hops and hanging fixtures you can also consider hanging fixture wire strung through nice chain. | Can't say 100% certain with respect to code, but I did something very similar, with agreement of my electrician. He fished NM cable from bathroom lighting up to attic and through a hole to peak of ceiling between kitchen and dining room, around 8 feet along ceiling, then into ceiling to get to middle of dining room for new chandelier. I covered the 8' section with a piece of molding from Home Depot and it looks like it was always there. |
221,651 | I plan to add some lighting in positions on the ceiling that doesn't have nearby wire available.
The there is no free space between the ceiling/roof in which to run a wire (there's the wood, then solid foam block insulation, then weather barrier, then the shingles). So, I would need to run wire (12/2 or 12/3) to that location somehow. I'm aware of Wiremold, but that wouldn't look very good with the style and material of the ceiling itself.
Is it possible, instead, to run the wire through a 0.5" channel routed out of a 1x1" piece of wood and affix that wood to the ceiling? I read through California electrical code (I'm in San Bernardino County, California), but didn't see anything specific around this (unless I missed it, or interpreted it incorrectly).
Thanks in advance. | 2021/04/07 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/221651",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/128788/"
] | Can't say 100% certain with respect to code, but I did something very similar, with agreement of my electrician. He fished NM cable from bathroom lighting up to attic and through a hole to peak of ceiling between kitchen and dining room, around 8 feet along ceiling, then into ceiling to get to middle of dining room for new chandelier. I covered the 8' section with a piece of molding from Home Depot and it looks like it was always there. | It might require a larger trim than you were thinking but have you considered just increasing the space in trim to accommodate the wire mold? This should be doable with pretty typical crown molding. If you need to run across the ceiling you could add a coffered ceiling which can look really nice. |
221,651 | I plan to add some lighting in positions on the ceiling that doesn't have nearby wire available.
The there is no free space between the ceiling/roof in which to run a wire (there's the wood, then solid foam block insulation, then weather barrier, then the shingles). So, I would need to run wire (12/2 or 12/3) to that location somehow. I'm aware of Wiremold, but that wouldn't look very good with the style and material of the ceiling itself.
Is it possible, instead, to run the wire through a 0.5" channel routed out of a 1x1" piece of wood and affix that wood to the ceiling? I read through California electrical code (I'm in San Bernardino County, California), but didn't see anything specific around this (unless I missed it, or interpreted it incorrectly).
Thanks in advance. | 2021/04/07 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/221651",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/128788/"
] | No, you can't do it unless there's a "nail plate" to protect it from physical damage (nails).
You could mill it out to 15/16" and lay in EMT metal conduit. It has the thinnest wall of any conduit and will provide the needed physical protection. Use that either simply as a damage shield in the vulnerable area, or if able, as a full-on wiring method for the entire route. | If your foam block is multiple layers deep sometimes it's possible to run a fish tape between layers. Take off the leader if present, use a blowtorch to heat the fishtape and fold about 3"(75mm) tightly back on itself (no loop), tape tightly together starting 1" down from the tip, stretching the tape slightly and use only 1 layer if possible. Use a file or sandpaper to smooth the tip if necessary. 1/4" or 3/8" fish tape is better for longer runs. If the fish tape is curly, straighten it first with a fish tape straightener. Take care and use both hands to feed the tape in, one hand pushing from about 18"(450mm) away and the other hand close to where the fish tape enters to redirect the force. For long hops, especially if you have to fish through partial obstructions, a toner is useful to locate the fish tape in the ceiling. If you get it close but a small amount (<3f(1m)) to the side of the destination, usually you can cut a hole at the destination and hook it over with a second fish tape.
If you can get a fish tape through, usually an armored cable can be drawn in. You can untape the head to use as a pull loop (don't try to unbend the tip, just cross the wires through the loop and fold back 4-6" and tape tightly from 2" onto the armor up to 2" past the folded back fish tape and back, 2 layers to reduce friction. The armor should be stripped enough that the folded back wire does not pass over armor). Note before starting that armored cable pulls nicer in one direction. The armor coil should end on the outside on the end you are feeding in. The person feeding the cable should feed as described above, and the person pulling should do the reverse, with the far hand providing pulling force and the close hand redirecting the force to pull flat between the sheets rather than down into the soft material below.
You may need an electrician to do this for you though depending on where you live.
Also consider that wiremold can be refinished many ways to be more aesthetically pleasing. Real wood edge laminate would probably give you the look you want. For short hops and hanging fixtures you can also consider hanging fixture wire strung through nice chain. |
221,651 | I plan to add some lighting in positions on the ceiling that doesn't have nearby wire available.
The there is no free space between the ceiling/roof in which to run a wire (there's the wood, then solid foam block insulation, then weather barrier, then the shingles). So, I would need to run wire (12/2 or 12/3) to that location somehow. I'm aware of Wiremold, but that wouldn't look very good with the style and material of the ceiling itself.
Is it possible, instead, to run the wire through a 0.5" channel routed out of a 1x1" piece of wood and affix that wood to the ceiling? I read through California electrical code (I'm in San Bernardino County, California), but didn't see anything specific around this (unless I missed it, or interpreted it incorrectly).
Thanks in advance. | 2021/04/07 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/221651",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/128788/"
] | No, you can't do it unless there's a "nail plate" to protect it from physical damage (nails).
You could mill it out to 15/16" and lay in EMT metal conduit. It has the thinnest wall of any conduit and will provide the needed physical protection. Use that either simply as a damage shield in the vulnerable area, or if able, as a full-on wiring method for the entire route. | It might require a larger trim than you were thinking but have you considered just increasing the space in trim to accommodate the wire mold? This should be doable with pretty typical crown molding. If you need to run across the ceiling you could add a coffered ceiling which can look really nice. |
221,651 | I plan to add some lighting in positions on the ceiling that doesn't have nearby wire available.
The there is no free space between the ceiling/roof in which to run a wire (there's the wood, then solid foam block insulation, then weather barrier, then the shingles). So, I would need to run wire (12/2 or 12/3) to that location somehow. I'm aware of Wiremold, but that wouldn't look very good with the style and material of the ceiling itself.
Is it possible, instead, to run the wire through a 0.5" channel routed out of a 1x1" piece of wood and affix that wood to the ceiling? I read through California electrical code (I'm in San Bernardino County, California), but didn't see anything specific around this (unless I missed it, or interpreted it incorrectly).
Thanks in advance. | 2021/04/07 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/221651",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/128788/"
] | If your foam block is multiple layers deep sometimes it's possible to run a fish tape between layers. Take off the leader if present, use a blowtorch to heat the fishtape and fold about 3"(75mm) tightly back on itself (no loop), tape tightly together starting 1" down from the tip, stretching the tape slightly and use only 1 layer if possible. Use a file or sandpaper to smooth the tip if necessary. 1/4" or 3/8" fish tape is better for longer runs. If the fish tape is curly, straighten it first with a fish tape straightener. Take care and use both hands to feed the tape in, one hand pushing from about 18"(450mm) away and the other hand close to where the fish tape enters to redirect the force. For long hops, especially if you have to fish through partial obstructions, a toner is useful to locate the fish tape in the ceiling. If you get it close but a small amount (<3f(1m)) to the side of the destination, usually you can cut a hole at the destination and hook it over with a second fish tape.
If you can get a fish tape through, usually an armored cable can be drawn in. You can untape the head to use as a pull loop (don't try to unbend the tip, just cross the wires through the loop and fold back 4-6" and tape tightly from 2" onto the armor up to 2" past the folded back fish tape and back, 2 layers to reduce friction. The armor should be stripped enough that the folded back wire does not pass over armor). Note before starting that armored cable pulls nicer in one direction. The armor coil should end on the outside on the end you are feeding in. The person feeding the cable should feed as described above, and the person pulling should do the reverse, with the far hand providing pulling force and the close hand redirecting the force to pull flat between the sheets rather than down into the soft material below.
You may need an electrician to do this for you though depending on where you live.
Also consider that wiremold can be refinished many ways to be more aesthetically pleasing. Real wood edge laminate would probably give you the look you want. For short hops and hanging fixtures you can also consider hanging fixture wire strung through nice chain. | It might require a larger trim than you were thinking but have you considered just increasing the space in trim to accommodate the wire mold? This should be doable with pretty typical crown molding. If you need to run across the ceiling you could add a coffered ceiling which can look really nice. |
362,116 | I have a question about adding data to attribute tables. I uploaded an Excel file into ArcMap (File -> Add data -> Add XY data). I chose the table from Excel that had the orientation data's latitude, longitude, strike and dip. From there, I made the data permanent by exporting the data into a shapefile. This shapefile was then added as a new layer to my map. From there, using the attribute table in the shapefile, I was able to plot data as points on my map using the latitude and longitude. Then, I changed the symbol from a dot to one representing strike and dip, added rotation to the symbols using the strike, and lastly, labeled the symbols using the dip. This process worked well and I had no problems.
Now, my problem is whenever I edit the attribute table and want to add more data to that table, the new data does not show up on my map and I don't understand why.
Do I need to add that data to the existing Excel document and then go through the same process? | 2020/05/18 | [
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/362116",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/users/163128/"
] | I suspect that when you symbolized your data, you turned off the "All Other Values" category. If that is true, then new data that is added to the shapefile will not appear unless your new data is attributed with an existing symbol category.
Turning on the "All Other Values" category will cause all un-attributed data to appear with the symbology for that category. Once attributed, the data will appear with the proper symbology. | If you don't want to work on Excel file, you have to edit the point shapefile. Start editing, use the 'Create Features window', click on the point feautre listed, then select 'Point' in the 'Contruction tools' and finally right click on the map area, select 'Absolute X, Y' and add manually your coordinates |
44,092 | In karaniya metta sutta,
>
> He who is skilled in (working out his own) well being, and who wishes to attain that state of Calm (Nibbana) should act thus: he should be dexterous, **upright**, **exceedingly upright**, obedient, gentle, and humble.
>
>
>
What does it mean to be upright? | 2021/02/22 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/44092",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/20209/"
] | >
> What does it mean to be upright?
>
>
>
It means to go to great lenghts to follow Buddhist ethics as taught by the Buddha - at least keeping the 5 precepts if being a layperson. | >
> araṇīyam'atthakusalena
> Yaŋ taŋ santaŋ padaŋ abhisamecca:
> ***Sakko** ujū* ca *sūjū* ca,
> Suvaco cassa mudu anatimānī.
>
>
>
Practicing "respectfully, carefully, duly, thoroughly", very, very... more in [Karaṇīya Metta-Sutta](https://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/lib/authors/nanadassana/metta_en.html#cult)
(Upright is something only reached by stream enter, while metta to practice is open for worldlings as well.) |
232,073 | In *War of the Twins* book 3 chapter 11, Raistlin gets the device/pendant from Gnimsh just before he kills him.
In chapter 13 Tasslehoff already has the magical device again:
>
> “But, now”—the kender glanced around—“the first thing to do is find Caramon and tell him I’ve got the magical device and we can go home.
>
>
>
I couldn’t find in the book how he gets it back. Did he steal from Raistlin during his their conversation in the cell? It seems strange that Raistlin didn’t disassemble/destroy the device again knowing that the device was the cause of the explosion of the Portal in Zhaman. | 2020/05/29 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/232073",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/35696/"
] | You are right that it doesn’t explicitly say he took it back. But at the beginning of chapter 13, Rasitlin is in a state of shock over what Tasslehoff has told him. He is sitting right next to him with his hand on his shoulder. So that was probably the moment Tasslehoff got the device back. It was opportune because Raistlin wasn’t aware of his surroundings for a few moments. | Yes.. it is possible that Tasslehoff made “lift” to get the devices off of Rastlin, but Rastlin talks about the device afterwards as if he never had it. It’s a mistake. |
87,617 | Of late, one of my application vendor has been making numerous mistakes or errors in the deployment scripts, ie the deployment scripts fail and the system team (server and database) need to deploy additional times to fix their mistakes. The application and system team are two different vendors. We are in the process of renewing our maintenance contract with the application vendor. I would like to put a clause in the maintenance contract to remind the application team to do their due diligence in ensuring that the deployment script is running properly and to minimise any repeated error. Any sample which i can look at? | 2009/11/24 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/87617",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/-1/"
] | 2008 has firewall active by default, with inbound filtering. As a quick test, disable the firewall on the Core:
>
> netsh advfirewall set currentprofile state off
>
>
>
It should now be working. Then you can activate again the firewall and allow the blocked traffic (RPC i guess).
2 ways:
* Locally on the core, through command line
* With the firewall MMC from the other server
First way:
>
> netsh advfirewall firewall set rule group="Rules to enable" new enable=yes
>
>
>
Second way:
On the core, allow remote management:
>
> netsh advfirewall set currentprofile settings remotemanagement enable
>
>
>
Then, on the non core server, you must launch mmc, add the **Windows Firewall with Advanced Security** console, so you are prompt to specify a remote computer | You should check the Remote Server Management Service also.
I've bunch of 2008 Servers that I manage throught my office laptop with this MMC Service, but to use it you've to activate it on the server first. |
16,202 | I'd like to create a calendar for each item in an existing list. Aside from doing this manually, is there any batched way of doing this?
Update: I have a list of boardrooms with detailed information about the location, equipment available, contact info, etc., and I would like to attach a schedule (the calendars I'd like to create) to each of the boardrooms for booking purposes. I would then like to create a web part that allows working with each boardroom calendar. | 2011/07/14 | [
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/questions/16202",
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com",
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/users/4013/"
] | Based on your updated requirements, multiple calendars aren't really necessary. You can use 1 calendar with additional metadata (like lookup columns to other lists) to pull off what you need. When users fill out a calendar item, they fill out the metadata. You can use this metadata to create additional views to slice the data to show bookings for a particular boardroom to show it's availability or what ever you'd need. | First of all - you can definitely do this using PowerShell. Question: Are you going to want future calendar lists to be automatically provisioned upon creation of an SP List Item? If so, there's a two step approach here - first, you'll need PowerShell code to create lists based on the current items.
Second thing you'll need is some sort of automated means of creating new calendar lists when new list items are created. Depending on your version of SharePoint, you could perhaps customize your list with InfoPath - adding some logic to use a web service call to lists.asmx to provision a new list when a list item is added. |
7,050,285 | Can I pass an integer parameter (an NSString for example) in action:@selector(ActionMethod:)
The action is related to a UIButton
Thanks ! | 2011/08/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7050285",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/526689/"
] | No, the action methods are called passing in the UIButton (or other UIControl) as the only parameter. However, you can subclass UIButton and add instance variables, then save you string in the button. When the action method is called you can access the string. | Use a map to save the mapping between tag and NSString. When you want some data from the UIButton, get the tag and then search the mapping table to get the related NSString. |
6,074,487 | I am currently running a large rails application on a virtual server. My setup uses Unicorn to serve the Rails App with nginx as the proxy server in front.
Occasionally I get notifications that My CPU usage has pegged for a long amount of time. Then I login and use htop to find the badly behaving process to kill it. Those misbehaving processes always seem to be unicorn workers.
What I am wanting to know is, if there is a way to setup monit, or god to monitor these 'child processes' of unicorn and kill them if they hang at high cpu usage for a long period of time. I know how to monitor the unicorn master process because it writes it's process id to a PID file. But it is never the master process, only the child processes the misbehave. | 2011/05/20 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6074487",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/441883/"
] | You might want to try the process outlined here:
[Where Unicorns go to die: Watching unicorn workers with monit](http://www.stopdropandrew.com/2010/06/01/where-unicorns-go-to-die-watching-unicorn-workers-with-monit.html)
I haven't done it yet, but I'm going to give it a shot shortly.
**Edit:** It works really well. I'm using the methods there in production now. | I use God to monitor my Unicorns (That just sounds too cool). I've been using the same configuration as GitHub use outlined [here](https://github.com/blog/519-unicorn-god). In the second Gist you'll see a custom script written to monitor unicorn workers. It's a little hacky, but it works well. I believe something like this is to be merged into God at some point. But I haven't heard anything about that in a while. |
109,931 | How to implement multi-threading in visual basic 6.0. It would be great if someone can give an example. | 2008/09/21 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/109931",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/9087/"
] | VB6 is not a really good environment for multi-threaded applications. There is no out-of-the-box support, you need to delve into standard **WinAPI** functions. Take a look at this article, which provides quite a comprehensive sample:
<http://www.freevbcode.com/ShowCode.Asp?ID=1287> | On several projects I have implemented asynchronous processing in VB6 using multiple processes. Basically having a worker thread within an active exe project that is separate from the main process. The worker exe can then be passed whatever data it needs and started, raising back an event to say it's finished or there is data for the main process.
It's a more resource hungry (an extra process rather than a thread) but VB6 is running in a single threaded apartment and doesn't have any built in support for starting new threads.
If you really need to have multiple threads within one process I'd suggest looking at using .net or VC6 rather than VB6. |
109,931 | How to implement multi-threading in visual basic 6.0. It would be great if someone can give an example. | 2008/09/21 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/109931",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/9087/"
] | VB6 is not a really good environment for multi-threaded applications. There is no out-of-the-box support, you need to delve into standard **WinAPI** functions. Take a look at this article, which provides quite a comprehensive sample:
<http://www.freevbcode.com/ShowCode.Asp?ID=1287> | If the problem that you are trying to solve is a long calculation and you want to keep the UI responsive, then one possibility is to frequently call the `DoEvents` function within your long calculation. This way, your program can process any Windows messages, and thus the UI will respond to user commands. You can also set up a Cancel button to signal your process that it needs to end.
If you do this, then you will need to be careful to disable any controls that could cause a problem, such as running the long process a second time after it has started. |
109,931 | How to implement multi-threading in visual basic 6.0. It would be great if someone can give an example. | 2008/09/21 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/109931",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/9087/"
] | VB6 is not a really good environment for multi-threaded applications. There is no out-of-the-box support, you need to delve into standard **WinAPI** functions. Take a look at this article, which provides quite a comprehensive sample:
<http://www.freevbcode.com/ShowCode.Asp?ID=1287> | You can use the Interop Forms Toolkit 2.0 for multithreading in VB6. The Toolkit
allows you to take advantage of .NET features without being forced onto an upgrade pat. Thus you can also use .NET User Controls as ActiveX controls in VB6. |
109,931 | How to implement multi-threading in visual basic 6.0. It would be great if someone can give an example. | 2008/09/21 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/109931",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/9087/"
] | VB6 is not a really good environment for multi-threaded applications. There is no out-of-the-box support, you need to delve into standard **WinAPI** functions. Take a look at this article, which provides quite a comprehensive sample:
<http://www.freevbcode.com/ShowCode.Asp?ID=1287> | Create "Active X" controls to manage your code. Each control has its own thread. You can stack multiple controls doing the same thing, or have individual controls doing unique things.
EG, You make one to download a file from the net. Add ten controls and you have ten individual threaded downloads running, independent of the thread which the actual program is running. Essentially, they are all just interactive, windows, controlled by an instanced mini-dll program.
Can't get any easier than that. You can throttle them, turn them on and off, as well as create more, or remove them, as needed. (Indexing just like any other of the "Objects", on a form. Which are all just active-x controls, which are simply managed by the vb-runtime dlls.) |
109,931 | How to implement multi-threading in visual basic 6.0. It would be great if someone can give an example. | 2008/09/21 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/109931",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/9087/"
] | On several projects I have implemented asynchronous processing in VB6 using multiple processes. Basically having a worker thread within an active exe project that is separate from the main process. The worker exe can then be passed whatever data it needs and started, raising back an event to say it's finished or there is data for the main process.
It's a more resource hungry (an extra process rather than a thread) but VB6 is running in a single threaded apartment and doesn't have any built in support for starting new threads.
If you really need to have multiple threads within one process I'd suggest looking at using .net or VC6 rather than VB6. | If the problem that you are trying to solve is a long calculation and you want to keep the UI responsive, then one possibility is to frequently call the `DoEvents` function within your long calculation. This way, your program can process any Windows messages, and thus the UI will respond to user commands. You can also set up a Cancel button to signal your process that it needs to end.
If you do this, then you will need to be careful to disable any controls that could cause a problem, such as running the long process a second time after it has started. |
109,931 | How to implement multi-threading in visual basic 6.0. It would be great if someone can give an example. | 2008/09/21 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/109931",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/9087/"
] | On several projects I have implemented asynchronous processing in VB6 using multiple processes. Basically having a worker thread within an active exe project that is separate from the main process. The worker exe can then be passed whatever data it needs and started, raising back an event to say it's finished or there is data for the main process.
It's a more resource hungry (an extra process rather than a thread) but VB6 is running in a single threaded apartment and doesn't have any built in support for starting new threads.
If you really need to have multiple threads within one process I'd suggest looking at using .net or VC6 rather than VB6. | You can use the Interop Forms Toolkit 2.0 for multithreading in VB6. The Toolkit
allows you to take advantage of .NET features without being forced onto an upgrade pat. Thus you can also use .NET User Controls as ActiveX controls in VB6. |
109,931 | How to implement multi-threading in visual basic 6.0. It would be great if someone can give an example. | 2008/09/21 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/109931",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/9087/"
] | On several projects I have implemented asynchronous processing in VB6 using multiple processes. Basically having a worker thread within an active exe project that is separate from the main process. The worker exe can then be passed whatever data it needs and started, raising back an event to say it's finished or there is data for the main process.
It's a more resource hungry (an extra process rather than a thread) but VB6 is running in a single threaded apartment and doesn't have any built in support for starting new threads.
If you really need to have multiple threads within one process I'd suggest looking at using .net or VC6 rather than VB6. | Create "Active X" controls to manage your code. Each control has its own thread. You can stack multiple controls doing the same thing, or have individual controls doing unique things.
EG, You make one to download a file from the net. Add ten controls and you have ten individual threaded downloads running, independent of the thread which the actual program is running. Essentially, they are all just interactive, windows, controlled by an instanced mini-dll program.
Can't get any easier than that. You can throttle them, turn them on and off, as well as create more, or remove them, as needed. (Indexing just like any other of the "Objects", on a form. Which are all just active-x controls, which are simply managed by the vb-runtime dlls.) |
109,931 | How to implement multi-threading in visual basic 6.0. It would be great if someone can give an example. | 2008/09/21 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/109931",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/9087/"
] | If the problem that you are trying to solve is a long calculation and you want to keep the UI responsive, then one possibility is to frequently call the `DoEvents` function within your long calculation. This way, your program can process any Windows messages, and thus the UI will respond to user commands. You can also set up a Cancel button to signal your process that it needs to end.
If you do this, then you will need to be careful to disable any controls that could cause a problem, such as running the long process a second time after it has started. | You can use the Interop Forms Toolkit 2.0 for multithreading in VB6. The Toolkit
allows you to take advantage of .NET features without being forced onto an upgrade pat. Thus you can also use .NET User Controls as ActiveX controls in VB6. |
109,931 | How to implement multi-threading in visual basic 6.0. It would be great if someone can give an example. | 2008/09/21 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/109931",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/9087/"
] | If the problem that you are trying to solve is a long calculation and you want to keep the UI responsive, then one possibility is to frequently call the `DoEvents` function within your long calculation. This way, your program can process any Windows messages, and thus the UI will respond to user commands. You can also set up a Cancel button to signal your process that it needs to end.
If you do this, then you will need to be careful to disable any controls that could cause a problem, such as running the long process a second time after it has started. | Create "Active X" controls to manage your code. Each control has its own thread. You can stack multiple controls doing the same thing, or have individual controls doing unique things.
EG, You make one to download a file from the net. Add ten controls and you have ten individual threaded downloads running, independent of the thread which the actual program is running. Essentially, they are all just interactive, windows, controlled by an instanced mini-dll program.
Can't get any easier than that. You can throttle them, turn them on and off, as well as create more, or remove them, as needed. (Indexing just like any other of the "Objects", on a form. Which are all just active-x controls, which are simply managed by the vb-runtime dlls.) |
109,931 | How to implement multi-threading in visual basic 6.0. It would be great if someone can give an example. | 2008/09/21 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/109931",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/9087/"
] | Create "Active X" controls to manage your code. Each control has its own thread. You can stack multiple controls doing the same thing, or have individual controls doing unique things.
EG, You make one to download a file from the net. Add ten controls and you have ten individual threaded downloads running, independent of the thread which the actual program is running. Essentially, they are all just interactive, windows, controlled by an instanced mini-dll program.
Can't get any easier than that. You can throttle them, turn them on and off, as well as create more, or remove them, as needed. (Indexing just like any other of the "Objects", on a form. Which are all just active-x controls, which are simply managed by the vb-runtime dlls.) | You can use the Interop Forms Toolkit 2.0 for multithreading in VB6. The Toolkit
allows you to take advantage of .NET features without being forced onto an upgrade pat. Thus you can also use .NET User Controls as ActiveX controls in VB6. |
11,984,583 | I was wondering why executables (written in c++) have to be recompiled from sources on every linux machine, even if the machines are software and hardware the same?
I had a search engine, written in c++, and I have to recompile it every time I want to move it on a new linux machine to make it work.
Any ideas? | 2012/08/16 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/11984583",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/832998/"
] | If you are asking why an executable compiled on Linux-X won't run on Linux-Y, then the reason is probably that dynamic libraries (.so) are missing or could not be found.
EDIT: oh sorry, looks like I didn't read your question well enough. Removed the sarcasm. | The recompilation is ensuring you get optimal performance on your machine, because each time the configuration script is running to find dependencies and settings. This also ensures the openness of software as its source is always available and is modifiable by an appropriate agents - that is us. |
11,984,583 | I was wondering why executables (written in c++) have to be recompiled from sources on every linux machine, even if the machines are software and hardware the same?
I had a search engine, written in c++, and I have to recompile it every time I want to move it on a new linux machine to make it work.
Any ideas? | 2012/08/16 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/11984583",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/832998/"
] | It normally shouldn't be necessary to recompile. Many applications are distributed as executables and they work fine.
What errors do you get when you just copy the executable and run it on a different machine?
Maybe the problem is with the way you're copying the executable, it might be corrupting it. | The recompilation is ensuring you get optimal performance on your machine, because each time the configuration script is running to find dependencies and settings. This also ensures the openness of software as its source is always available and is modifiable by an appropriate agents - that is us. |
11,984,583 | I was wondering why executables (written in c++) have to be recompiled from sources on every linux machine, even if the machines are software and hardware the same?
I had a search engine, written in c++, and I have to recompile it every time I want to move it on a new linux machine to make it work.
Any ideas? | 2012/08/16 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/11984583",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/832998/"
] | The recompilation is ensuring you get optimal performance on your machine, because each time the configuration script is running to find dependencies and settings. This also ensures the openness of software as its source is always available and is modifiable by an appropriate agents - that is us. | This is not necessarily the case. Consider how Ubuntu packages are installed for example - <https://askubuntu.com/questions/162477/how-are-packages-actually-installed-via-apt-get-install>
Apparently these are not compiled from source on the destination machine, but installed as pre-built binaries. Having said that, it is generally a good idea to build binaries from source on the machine that they will run on as you will avoid potential problems such having incompatible shared libraries (such as libc) which can occur when building something on Linux X and running on Linux Y. |
11,984,583 | I was wondering why executables (written in c++) have to be recompiled from sources on every linux machine, even if the machines are software and hardware the same?
I had a search engine, written in c++, and I have to recompile it every time I want to move it on a new linux machine to make it work.
Any ideas? | 2012/08/16 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/11984583",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/832998/"
] | If you are asking why an executable compiled on Linux-X won't run on Linux-Y, then the reason is probably that dynamic libraries (.so) are missing or could not be found.
EDIT: oh sorry, looks like I didn't read your question well enough. Removed the sarcasm. | It normally shouldn't be necessary to recompile. Many applications are distributed as executables and they work fine.
What errors do you get when you just copy the executable and run it on a different machine?
Maybe the problem is with the way you're copying the executable, it might be corrupting it. |
11,984,583 | I was wondering why executables (written in c++) have to be recompiled from sources on every linux machine, even if the machines are software and hardware the same?
I had a search engine, written in c++, and I have to recompile it every time I want to move it on a new linux machine to make it work.
Any ideas? | 2012/08/16 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/11984583",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/832998/"
] | If you are asking why an executable compiled on Linux-X won't run on Linux-Y, then the reason is probably that dynamic libraries (.so) are missing or could not be found.
EDIT: oh sorry, looks like I didn't read your question well enough. Removed the sarcasm. | This is not necessarily the case. Consider how Ubuntu packages are installed for example - <https://askubuntu.com/questions/162477/how-are-packages-actually-installed-via-apt-get-install>
Apparently these are not compiled from source on the destination machine, but installed as pre-built binaries. Having said that, it is generally a good idea to build binaries from source on the machine that they will run on as you will avoid potential problems such having incompatible shared libraries (such as libc) which can occur when building something on Linux X and running on Linux Y. |
11,984,583 | I was wondering why executables (written in c++) have to be recompiled from sources on every linux machine, even if the machines are software and hardware the same?
I had a search engine, written in c++, and I have to recompile it every time I want to move it on a new linux machine to make it work.
Any ideas? | 2012/08/16 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/11984583",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/832998/"
] | It normally shouldn't be necessary to recompile. Many applications are distributed as executables and they work fine.
What errors do you get when you just copy the executable and run it on a different machine?
Maybe the problem is with the way you're copying the executable, it might be corrupting it. | This is not necessarily the case. Consider how Ubuntu packages are installed for example - <https://askubuntu.com/questions/162477/how-are-packages-actually-installed-via-apt-get-install>
Apparently these are not compiled from source on the destination machine, but installed as pre-built binaries. Having said that, it is generally a good idea to build binaries from source on the machine that they will run on as you will avoid potential problems such having incompatible shared libraries (such as libc) which can occur when building something on Linux X and running on Linux Y. |
74,724 | I've been trying to wrap my head around the idea of stocks with future earnings/value "priced in". How does this work exactly, with a fund. Does some manager look at the possible earnings a fund might gain (over some period) and add that to the current valuation of the fund?
If that is so, what time period does a manager use?
What research does a manager use to get the number?
How can one tell if the "priced in" numbers are valid? | 2017/01/13 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/74724",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/51767/"
] | Anyone who wants to can use any method they want. Ultimately, the price of the stock will settle on the valuation that people tend to agree on. If you think the priced in numbers are too low, buy the stock as that would mean that its price will go up as the future earnings materialize. If you think it's too high, short the stock, as its price will go down as future earnings fail to materialize.
The current price represents the price at which just as much pressure pushes the price up as down. That means people agree it's reasonably approximating the expected future value.
Imagine if I needed money now and sold at auction whatever salary I make in 2019. How much will I make in 2019? I might be disabled. I might be a high earner. Who knows? But if I auction off those earnings, whatever price it sells for represents everyone's best estimate of that value. But each participant in the auction can estimate that value however they want.
If you want to know what something is worth, you see what you can sell it for. | "Priced in" just means that the speaker thinks the current price has already taken that factor into account. For example, the difference in price right before and right after a dividend is released often differ exactly by that dividend -- the fact that the dividend would function as a "rebate" on the purchase price was priced into the earlier quote, and its absence for another year was priced into the later quote.
The term can be applied to any expected or likely event, if you really think the price reflects that opportunity of risk. It just means that this factor, in the speaker's opinion, doesn't create an opportunity one can take advantage of.
(Tupos foxed. Darned auto-incorrect...) |
5,748 | I've got a whole yard of [Amur Privet](http://www.missouribotanicalgarden.org/PlantFinder/PlantFinderDetails.aspx?kempercode=c319) that hasn't been taken care of for quite some time. (I've newly moved in). Over about a year I've cut down and cared for my privets. There are a few low areas and very thin areas. How do I propagate them? I've tried trimming off pieces, putting them in rooting compound and trying to get them going that way with no luck whatsoever.
Any help at all would be great. | 2013/02/05 | [
"https://gardening.stackexchange.com/questions/5748",
"https://gardening.stackexchange.com",
"https://gardening.stackexchange.com/users/1905/"
] | That's a pretty prolific plant. You should have no trouble propagating it from cuttings, *but*… **you have to select the right growth stage to cut from.**
You should only root from the newer (but not ***too*** new) growth. The best time is late spring to early summer when the newer growth is just starting to become woody. Cut sections of about 6-12" and strip off about 1/2 to 3/4 of the leaves from the bottom of your cutting. Dampen the cut ends a few inches up and dip them in your rooting compound. Make a hole with a pencil in your propagation medium, gently lower your cuttings into the hole, and lightly firm the soil around it. Keep it out of the direct sun. Water the soil thoroughly (no fertilizer) and keep it moist. You can cover it with a plastic bag or a seed-starting enclosure to help keep the moisture level consistent, but if you keep it watered, that should be fine. Never let it dry out.
New growth should appear in about 6-8 weeks, more or less. I would suggest keeping the new plants in their pots until the roots have had plenty of time to develop. Plan on transplanting the new plants to your garden later in the summer. | Try DIVISION.
Like Spirea and Hosta, Privets grow new stems from the ground. When a new stem establishes, you can dig around it, separate/sever the roots of the new stem from the main plant, and replant the new growth. It's not a fast way to get a lot of new Privets, but it's almost guaranteed.
For normal propagation, like the other answer said, it might just be where you're taking the cuttings. Most woody plants (ime with Spirea and Wisteria) respond better to propagation if the cutting is taken from new-woody growth. |
128,729 | I don't understand this sentence:
>
> In Turkmen society, the song of men and women fulfilled important but quite different functions.
>
>
>
I don't understand what "fulfilled important" means. Can anyone explain? | 2017/05/07 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/128729",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/54268/"
] | Because *but also provides* requires a verb in the preceding clause which it is countering. **but** joins two clauses both of which must be able to stand on their own. If the first lacks a verb, it is not a clause. With option D, there is no such verb. The verb there is in the *which*-clause not in the main clause. A verb in a relative clause does not act as a verb in the main clause.
Consider:
>
> Bill, *who lives in London*, but also has lived in Paris.ungrammatical
>
>
> Bill *lives* in London but has also lived in Paris.
>
>
>
Here, with *not only*:
>
> Bill, *who lives not only in London*, but also has a house in Paris.ungrammatical.
>
>
> Bill *lives* not only in London but also has a house in Paris.
>
>
>
The subject here, **I**, lacks a verb:
>
> I, who eat fish, but also like meat. ungrammatical
>
>
>
Grammatical:
I eat fish but also like meat.
Or you can eliminate **but**:
>
> I, who eat fish, also like meat.
>
>
> | >
> * \*Vitamin C, which not only provides us with the ability to resist disease, but also helps us build our body tissues. (Ungrammatical)
>
>
>
This example is ungrammatical because it is a noun phrase with no following verb. Everything after the word *which* is part of a relative clause which gives us extra information about vitamin C. We could put the relative clause in brackets:
* Vitamin c (which not only provides us with the ability to resist disease, but also helps us build our body tissues) ...
The sentence above has a long Subject, but no Predicate (no verb phrase).
For this to become a grammatical sentence we need a verb phrase after the Subject:
* Vitamin C (which not only provides us the ability to resist disease, but also helps us build our body tissues) **is very expensive**.
The example above has a Subject, *Vitamin C (which not only provides us the ability to resist disease, but also helps us build our body tissues)*, and a verb phrase *is very expensive*. For this reason it's fully grammatical.
(All of the examples from the Original question would be much more natural with the word *with*. The usual pattern is: *provide someone **with** something*) |
177,351 | Is there a predominant pattern of usage of the terms *girls* and *guys* based on age of the described individuals? Are the patterns the same in the US and UK?
At about what age is it considered inappropriate to refer to young women as *girls*? Is there a point at which such terms are definitely offensive.
With young men is the issue the same, or can males of all age can fall under the category of *guys*?
Finally, is *guys* okay to be used in reference to women when not contrasting them with males, or is it considered inappropriate? | 2014/06/11 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/177351",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/77541/"
] | The most common complements for the terms you mention are
>
> * male/female
> * boys/girls
> * guys/gals
>
>
>
Usage is far from parallel. While arguably *boys* and *girls* should be reserved for underage (whatever that means) people of the respective genders, adults, especially younger adults (probably under 35) often refer to their own gender by the term of children of that sex.
However, refering to an adult using childish terms may be considered demeaning. It is generally more acceptable for men to refer to themselves and their agemates as *boys* and vice versa. When the child referents are used by the opposite sex, it is often seem as sarcastic or even insulting. Many adults will assiduously avoid referring to the oposite sex as a *boy* or a *girl*.
This is even more of an issue when dealing with groups that may have been forced into lower social status based on race or socioeconomic status. Do **not** refer to an African-American male as *boy*. This is highly insulting. To a lesser degree, an adult male referring to any other adult male, except for close friends as *boy* would be considered demeaning. The same rules generally apply to women (although possibly to a slightly lesser degree).
In some circles, even older women may refer to each other as *girls* (perhaps with a slight degree of irony), but such reference by a man may well invoce umbrage.
Finally, the use of the terms *boys* or *girls* for individuals over 70 may occur, but in an ironic fashion. Whether that is welcome depends on both the speaker and the audience.
*Guy* and *gal* are informal terms, much more polular in a period that ended in the early to mid 2oth century. They are still used colloquially, but often with a but of irony.
Many people use the term *guys* to collectively refer to a familiar group, regardless of gender. This term seems to be used somewhat more by men than women when refering to women or a mixed group of men and women. In general, most women do not seem to object to the term when used in this collective way.
The singular *guy* is generally applied only to men. To suggest a particular woman was a *good guy* would seem a bit off, regadless of who used it.
All ofthe above refers to US usage. | It depends entirely on what you are writing and who you are writing for.
There are no hard and fast conventions here in Australia, which is more or less the same as the UK when it comes to English usage.
To demonstrate the importance of the writing type and the audience, let's consider you were writing an article in a newsletter for an aged-care home, and were part of the community. If the article was an informal account of an organised bus tour where the female residents went out to lunch and then saw a movie, you could refer to the women as girls with impunity, as that's probably how they refer to each other.
On the other hand, it'd be weird to do so if you were an outsider writing about the female residents preparing a community dinner.
I think the best rule of thumb is to consider which terms a representative sample of your readers would use in that context. And then use those terms.
Don't forget, there are also 'young women' and 'young men' 'older women' and 'older men' 'gentlemen' and 'ladies'. And probably a bunch more.
I think 'guys' as a mixed gender collective term should be avoided unless it's used to address a mixed gender group of people in an informal manner, for example at the start of an email or speech.
'Hi guys' |
169,315 | I need for a user to logon to a Postgres DB through either MS Excel or Power BI, without entering any credentials, using solely their Active Directory login. I'm mainly a BI Developer and not usually part of the infrastructure side of things, but I've been tasked with finding out if this is at least feasible.
Am I right in thinking that this would be a pretty normal task within Microsoft infrastructure?
1. User signs on with AD to domain/their machine
2. AD grants access to something like SQL server (I take through some native MS protocol, not ODBC)
3. Excel(MS Query)/PowerBI from the users desktop rides that connection to allow the tool(s) seamless access to data as defined by their AD access rights.
The aim is to remove any additional credential entry by the user into either of the tools, because there'd be a high user turnover and user access to data sets must be stringently managed.
I imagine there would be back and forth between the AD admins and the DBA to facilitate user creation and access control at both ends, and I know postgres itself is AD/LDAP compliant, so some kind of access is possible. I'm just not sure if point 3, the seamless connection is possible. | 2017/04/06 | [
"https://dba.stackexchange.com/questions/169315",
"https://dba.stackexchange.com",
"https://dba.stackexchange.com/users/121324/"
] | Active Directory has 3 kinds of authentication: NTLM (NT LAN Manager), Kerberos (GSSAPI), and LDAP. Active Directory is essentially a fancy LDAP server with extra authentication mechansims
LDAP is centralized authentication, but not single sign-on. Your password is the same as when you login to your computer, but you need to login to the database again
NTLM is single sign-on, but only works on Windows. PostgreSQL supports it via SSPI
Kerberos is also single sign-on, but works with Windows and UNIX/Linux/Mac too. You login to your computer, get a Kerberos ticket, and Postgres uses this ticket to authenticate you. Postgres needs to be setup as Service Principal in Active Directory
I would say that Kerberos or SSPI is what you want.
Start with <https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/auth-methods.html> | Yes i belive it is possible to achieve what you are asking. [Postgres supports](https://odbc.postgresql.org) AD authentication.
Edit. You would need to check that the odbc driver you are using supports windows authentication also.
Excel and PowerBI can both handle windows authetication. But whether you can get the combination of all of the above together is another story. |
84,924 | Employer's website states:
>
> If you are interested in a career opportunity with \_\_: mail, fax or
> email your resume with salary requirement to: \_\_
>
>
>
Do I literally just send the 1 page resume with salary requirement (if I decide to include it)? Or do I need to write them a letter or something too?
Do I need to explain myself / thank them? | 2017/02/13 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/84924",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/49889/"
] | >
> Do I literally just send the 1 page resume with salary requirement (if
> I decide to include it)? Or do I need to write them a letter or
> something too?
>
>
>
Send your resume. And send a cover letter stating your salary requirement.
As always, the cover letter should mention the job you are applying for, why you would be a good fit, and should convey your excitement about the possibility of working for the company.
As @Lilienthal correctly points out, when there isn't a specific job posting, your cover letter would instead talk about the kind of profile you have and how your skills and experience would be valuable for the company
Basically, the employer's website is indicating that they want to be sure you include both your resume and salary requirement. They aren't saying that's all you are allowed to send.
And if you decide not to include your salary requirement, they will almost certainly reject your application. | If that is what they requested, that is all you need.
An appropriate cover letter won't do any harm, but may or may not help depending on how their process works. |
66,625,151 | Google Colaboratory- Blank page Issue
I get a blank page when opening a specific google colab notebook, when I created a new one or tried to open an old notebook they opened with no problem. This notebook was working well but suddenly when I tried to open it the next day it shows a blank page!
I tried several browsers, but all of them worked fine with any google colab notebook except this, it always shows a blank page...
Could someone tell me what could I do?
Image number 1 shows the console
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/tOP5x.png)
Note: when trying to open this notebook, google drive also doesn't respond anymore. and shows me image number 2
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/8uSk3.png) | 2021/03/14 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/66625151",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/8330729/"
] | Once try below steps
-->Try to open in incognito tab. If not solved.
-->Clear all cookies of chrome & Try to open file again. | After clearing all cookies, allow cookies for colab url. Another is go to inspect, select gear, uncheck enable JavaScript source maps and also uncheck enable CSS source maps. |
311,213 | I am trying to determine the best directory structure of my application
i have:
UI
Data
Interfaces
but i dont know where to put delegates..
should there be a seperate Delegates folder or should i store the delegates in the same classes where they are being used . . | 2008/11/22 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/311213",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/4653/"
] | If you have an common use for your delegates, you should store them on a common place, but if you only use it in your class then put it in the same class. | Delegates are essentially reference type method containers. In my opinion you should store the delegates in the same classes where they are being used. There is no need to create a separate delegate folder. |
311,213 | I am trying to determine the best directory structure of my application
i have:
UI
Data
Interfaces
but i dont know where to put delegates..
should there be a seperate Delegates folder or should i store the delegates in the same classes where they are being used . . | 2008/11/22 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/311213",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/4653/"
] | If you have an common use for your delegates, you should store them on a common place, but if you only use it in your class then put it in the same class. | You don't have a Classes, Structs, and Enums folder. Why have a Delegates folder?
Also, if you're using C# 3.0, you generally should be using Generic Delegates - System.Action and System.Func - instead of named delegates. |
311,213 | I am trying to determine the best directory structure of my application
i have:
UI
Data
Interfaces
but i dont know where to put delegates..
should there be a seperate Delegates folder or should i store the delegates in the same classes where they are being used . . | 2008/11/22 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/311213",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/4653/"
] | If you have an common use for your delegates, you should store them on a common place, but if you only use it in your class then put it in the same class. | I think that's a bad idea. You should sort your code the same way Microsoft does, by functionality.
As for delegates, you don't need them any more. Now that we have the generic Func and Action delegates, there is no reason to create your own. |
311,213 | I am trying to determine the best directory structure of my application
i have:
UI
Data
Interfaces
but i dont know where to put delegates..
should there be a seperate Delegates folder or should i store the delegates in the same classes where they are being used . . | 2008/11/22 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/311213",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/4653/"
] | You don't have a Classes, Structs, and Enums folder. Why have a Delegates folder?
Also, if you're using C# 3.0, you generally should be using Generic Delegates - System.Action and System.Func - instead of named delegates. | Delegates are essentially reference type method containers. In my opinion you should store the delegates in the same classes where they are being used. There is no need to create a separate delegate folder. |
311,213 | I am trying to determine the best directory structure of my application
i have:
UI
Data
Interfaces
but i dont know where to put delegates..
should there be a seperate Delegates folder or should i store the delegates in the same classes where they are being used . . | 2008/11/22 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/311213",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/4653/"
] | I think that's a bad idea. You should sort your code the same way Microsoft does, by functionality.
As for delegates, you don't need them any more. Now that we have the generic Func and Action delegates, there is no reason to create your own. | Delegates are essentially reference type method containers. In my opinion you should store the delegates in the same classes where they are being used. There is no need to create a separate delegate folder. |
311,213 | I am trying to determine the best directory structure of my application
i have:
UI
Data
Interfaces
but i dont know where to put delegates..
should there be a seperate Delegates folder or should i store the delegates in the same classes where they are being used . . | 2008/11/22 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/311213",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/4653/"
] | You don't have a Classes, Structs, and Enums folder. Why have a Delegates folder?
Also, if you're using C# 3.0, you generally should be using Generic Delegates - System.Action and System.Func - instead of named delegates. | I think that's a bad idea. You should sort your code the same way Microsoft does, by functionality.
As for delegates, you don't need them any more. Now that we have the generic Func and Action delegates, there is no reason to create your own. |
6,812 | I have a Microsoft keyboard with a series of non-standard buttons such as "Mail", "Search" , "Web/Home" etc.
It would be nice to be able to bind these keys so they execute arbitrary programs.
Does anybody know how to do this in Debian Etch? | 2008/08/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6812",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/854/"
] | I can't say for certain because I'm not using Debian but if you're using Gnome the easiest way is to run gnome-keybinding-properties (System > Preferences > Keyboard Shortcuts)
Instead of typing a shortcut such as `Ctrl`+`M`, hit the button on your keyboard.
If you would prefer to do this via command line or with a different desktop environment, this may help: [Unusual keys and keyboards](http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Keyboard-and-Console-HOWTO-14.html) | I used Gizmo Daemon for my PowerMate under Debian - it supports fancy keyboard keys as well (although I haven't tried it for those keys). Hacking on gizmod to get it to do what I wanted was pretty easy.
[Gizmo Daemon](http://gizmod.sourceforge.net/) |
6,812 | I have a Microsoft keyboard with a series of non-standard buttons such as "Mail", "Search" , "Web/Home" etc.
It would be nice to be able to bind these keys so they execute arbitrary programs.
Does anybody know how to do this in Debian Etch? | 2008/08/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6812",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/854/"
] | I can't say for certain because I'm not using Debian but if you're using Gnome the easiest way is to run gnome-keybinding-properties (System > Preferences > Keyboard Shortcuts)
Instead of typing a shortcut such as `Ctrl`+`M`, hit the button on your keyboard.
If you would prefer to do this via command line or with a different desktop environment, this may help: [Unusual keys and keyboards](http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Keyboard-and-Console-HOWTO-14.html) | There's a few different ways to do so, the easiest generally being [keytouch](http://keytouch.sourceforge.net/), which is probably available in the Debian repositories. The user manual is [here](http://keytouch.sourceforge.net/user_manual/user_manual.html). There is a chance that your keyboard won't work with it though. |
6,812 | I have a Microsoft keyboard with a series of non-standard buttons such as "Mail", "Search" , "Web/Home" etc.
It would be nice to be able to bind these keys so they execute arbitrary programs.
Does anybody know how to do this in Debian Etch? | 2008/08/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6812",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/854/"
] | I can't say for certain because I'm not using Debian but if you're using Gnome the easiest way is to run gnome-keybinding-properties (System > Preferences > Keyboard Shortcuts)
Instead of typing a shortcut such as `Ctrl`+`M`, hit the button on your keyboard.
If you would prefer to do this via command line or with a different desktop environment, this may help: [Unusual keys and keyboards](http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Keyboard-and-Console-HOWTO-14.html) | Running Debian, I had the same issue. What I did is run xev and see what keycode those keys return. Microsoft likes to break standards a little, so some of the multimedia keys just won't work. But the ones that do will return a keycode. Then write a script with xmodmap to map those keys properly.
The [Gentoo Wiki](http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Use_Multimedia_Keys "HOWTO Use Multimedia Keys") has excellent documentation on how to do these things.
I put my xmodmap script in ~/.kde/Autostart/ because I use kde, but you could just as easily put it in your home folder and have your .bashrc or .profile source it.
Once you've mapped the keycodes, you can assign those keys to specific actions in your desktop environment. |
6,812 | I have a Microsoft keyboard with a series of non-standard buttons such as "Mail", "Search" , "Web/Home" etc.
It would be nice to be able to bind these keys so they execute arbitrary programs.
Does anybody know how to do this in Debian Etch? | 2008/08/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6812",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/854/"
] | I can't say for certain because I'm not using Debian but if you're using Gnome the easiest way is to run gnome-keybinding-properties (System > Preferences > Keyboard Shortcuts)
Instead of typing a shortcut such as `Ctrl`+`M`, hit the button on your keyboard.
If you would prefer to do this via command line or with a different desktop environment, this may help: [Unusual keys and keyboards](http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Keyboard-and-Console-HOWTO-14.html) | If you want to do it manualy you can edit ~/.xmodmap
and use xmodmap ~/.xmodmap to apply the modifications |
6,812 | I have a Microsoft keyboard with a series of non-standard buttons such as "Mail", "Search" , "Web/Home" etc.
It would be nice to be able to bind these keys so they execute arbitrary programs.
Does anybody know how to do this in Debian Etch? | 2008/08/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6812",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/854/"
] | Running Debian, I had the same issue. What I did is run xev and see what keycode those keys return. Microsoft likes to break standards a little, so some of the multimedia keys just won't work. But the ones that do will return a keycode. Then write a script with xmodmap to map those keys properly.
The [Gentoo Wiki](http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Use_Multimedia_Keys "HOWTO Use Multimedia Keys") has excellent documentation on how to do these things.
I put my xmodmap script in ~/.kde/Autostart/ because I use kde, but you could just as easily put it in your home folder and have your .bashrc or .profile source it.
Once you've mapped the keycodes, you can assign those keys to specific actions in your desktop environment. | I used Gizmo Daemon for my PowerMate under Debian - it supports fancy keyboard keys as well (although I haven't tried it for those keys). Hacking on gizmod to get it to do what I wanted was pretty easy.
[Gizmo Daemon](http://gizmod.sourceforge.net/) |
6,812 | I have a Microsoft keyboard with a series of non-standard buttons such as "Mail", "Search" , "Web/Home" etc.
It would be nice to be able to bind these keys so they execute arbitrary programs.
Does anybody know how to do this in Debian Etch? | 2008/08/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6812",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/854/"
] | Running Debian, I had the same issue. What I did is run xev and see what keycode those keys return. Microsoft likes to break standards a little, so some of the multimedia keys just won't work. But the ones that do will return a keycode. Then write a script with xmodmap to map those keys properly.
The [Gentoo Wiki](http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Use_Multimedia_Keys "HOWTO Use Multimedia Keys") has excellent documentation on how to do these things.
I put my xmodmap script in ~/.kde/Autostart/ because I use kde, but you could just as easily put it in your home folder and have your .bashrc or .profile source it.
Once you've mapped the keycodes, you can assign those keys to specific actions in your desktop environment. | There's a few different ways to do so, the easiest generally being [keytouch](http://keytouch.sourceforge.net/), which is probably available in the Debian repositories. The user manual is [here](http://keytouch.sourceforge.net/user_manual/user_manual.html). There is a chance that your keyboard won't work with it though. |
6,812 | I have a Microsoft keyboard with a series of non-standard buttons such as "Mail", "Search" , "Web/Home" etc.
It would be nice to be able to bind these keys so they execute arbitrary programs.
Does anybody know how to do this in Debian Etch? | 2008/08/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6812",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/854/"
] | Running Debian, I had the same issue. What I did is run xev and see what keycode those keys return. Microsoft likes to break standards a little, so some of the multimedia keys just won't work. But the ones that do will return a keycode. Then write a script with xmodmap to map those keys properly.
The [Gentoo Wiki](http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Use_Multimedia_Keys "HOWTO Use Multimedia Keys") has excellent documentation on how to do these things.
I put my xmodmap script in ~/.kde/Autostart/ because I use kde, but you could just as easily put it in your home folder and have your .bashrc or .profile source it.
Once you've mapped the keycodes, you can assign those keys to specific actions in your desktop environment. | If you want to do it manualy you can edit ~/.xmodmap
and use xmodmap ~/.xmodmap to apply the modifications |
182,378 | Is it valid to treat a matter wave as a light wave with wavelength equal to the de Broglie wavelength of the matter wave? Either way please can you explain why? | 2015/05/06 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/182378",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/70392/"
] | I think this is very commonly confused topic about this wave-particle thing. Let me clarify. Like the post above indicates, from Maxwell's Equations, we find evidence, in a vacuum, for the electric and magnetic fields to travel together at the speed of light, perpendicular to each other. This is simply the solution of the well known equations which govern the electric and magnetic fields. We call this an electromagnetic "light" wave, referring to light. Now, at the same time, we find evidence we don't really know where particles are, such as electrons. They actually have a probability of being in space. The evolution of this probability is governed by Schrödinger's equation. I refrain from using "matter wave" and instead use probability. Thus the evolution of the probability of a particle and a light wave are totally different things, talking about different objects, governed by different equations and unnecessarily confused in our terminology.
P.S. When we speak of wave-particle duality, be careful to use in the right context. When we speak of this term, we mean the nature of light to behave as a particle and an electromagnetic wave, nothing more:
1. light -> evidence suggests light exists as both a particle (photon) and an electromagnetic wave. We are not talking about a probability here.
2. particles -> particles have a probability of being in space. Forget using this term "wave-particle duality" when speaking about particles. They fundamentally have a probability of existing in space and you can never know where both their position and velocity are at any moment.
Hope you have a good one! | Actually both are analogous. When you quantize a single mode which is simply an oscillation associated with a single photon, you adopt the Lorentz model where you imagine your single photon as a mass on a spring, then you translate your quantum mechanical Hamiltonian that includes both position and momentum to phase space where the electric and magnetic fields will be your new canonical variables equipped with the same uncertainty relation that governs the relation between position and momentum. You can also interpret the canonical variables associated with your single photon as an AM and FM signals with the same uncertainty relation described before, since you can always switch back and forth between them using fourier transform. |
84,516 | I have a bit of a unique electrical situation that I am dealing with. My house was wired with several three way lighting boxes that included a switch for a fan which is not used. I am working on transitioning to zwave controlled dimmers for LEDs and these switches require a neutral conductor to function properly. Since the end of line switch does not have a neutral present, I need to get a neutral to it somehow.
My thought is that I can disable the unused fan circuit and instead use the wiring that was going to that switch to carry a neutral to the box. I believe that this only requires removing and capping the common line (three way switch common line, not common ground) on both ends of the switch as this would isolate the switches from both line and load. I should then be able to use either traveler (preferably the no longer black coded white one) as a neutral by adding it to the neutral nut.
Are there any problems with this setup that anyone can see? Alternately, are there any alternatives that anyone knows of such as wiring a battery powered remote switch in place of cannibalizing the unused circuit that would make this unnecessary?
More technical details in response to comments:
It is actually two parallel 3 way switches that are for both a fan and a light. They are all on the same breaker using a shared common neutral and shared common ground at the main light switches.
The 4 conductor to the ceiling fixture from the main switches is a 4 conductor with black for light load and red for fan load (capped at fixture since there is no fan).
There are two switches in the main box, both wired to interrupt between line and load in a 3 way configuration with both lines to the remote switches being 4 conductor lines with white coded to black and red as the two travelers and black as the common line/common load.
It is basically two of [these](http://www.doityourself.com/forum/attachments/electrical-ac-dc/23674d1388335191-3-way-circuit-dimmer-issue-3-way-swtich-light-between2.jpg), one interrupting black load (light) one interrupting red load (fan/unused), but with fused grounds and neutrals across both loops.
What I am planning for the fan circuit is this:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/6mMaR.jpg)
I'm not sure if I also need to remove the common ground or do anything with the isolated traveler that isn't attached to anything anymore. I'm not sure at what point (if ever) it is considered just a 14 gauge wire in my wall rather than part of the electrical system. It is also worth noting that on my diagram, the load is not actually attached to line at the fixture, but rather is capped with the neutral line only actually used at the fixture for the light circuit. | 2016/02/16 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/84516",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/27253/"
] | Since you posted the model numbers of the switches, now I can be specific.
Remote switch:
* Unwrap the tape from the white.
* Connect black terminal to black wire, white terminal to white wire, and the red wire to the yellow/red terminal of the remote switch.
Main dimmer:
* Unwrap the tape from the white.
* Connect all whites together, including the white wire on the dimmer.
* Connect the red wire on the dimmer to the black wire going to the light.
* Connect all remaining black wires together including the black wire on the dimmer. (Do not connect the black wire going to the light).
* Connect the yellow/red wire on the dimmer to the red "traveler" going to the remote switch.
* Cut and cap both ends of the red wire going to the light. | OK, now I understand. Let me rephrase your question:
>
> What do I do with the red wires?
>
>
>
Cap them off.
>
> Can I un-tape the white wire and use it as a neutral?
>
>
>
Yes. This is preferred over anything else (such as using the traveler/red as a neutral) since it puts your wiring in a standard configuration. |
3,389 | We've been feeding our 15-month-old deli ham for dinner pretty regularly. Recently, a family member was alarmed that we were feeding him any kind of deli meat because it is "bad for them". We typically get Prima Della Black Forrest Ham or Oven Roasted Chicken.
As usual, the collective wisdom of Google muddies the water, so I'm wondering if deli meats are a big no-no?
If so, can somebody point us to a realistic meal plan? | 2011/11/15 | [
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com/questions/3389",
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com",
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com/users/1073/"
] | Your family member may be confusing the advice to avoid all deli meat for pregnant mothers.
Deli meats and other precooked meats put pregnant women at a [high risk for listeriosis](http://www.babycenter.com/406_is-it-safe-to-eat-deli-meats-when-im-pregnant_1246923.bc) and are advised to avoid them unless cooked to steaming hot.
Once a child is transitioned to solid foods, the only main concerns are common allergens (seafood, tree nuts, etc.), and, of course, healthy food habits. There's nothing wrong with deli meats beyond the normal high-sodium/high-fat factors that impact any adult's consumption. | Many of my friends have fed their kids deli meats for a while, and our local deli is known to not use any preservatives or special means of preparation any more than slicing it in front of you, weighing it, and handing you a bag full of meat.
Asking my friends, whom collectively had two girls and a boy; they say it's been fine for them. No allergic or allergic seeming reactions, odd diseases, nothing that Google says should even be taken as "research citation" frankly; so there's little for me to quote but experience.
You can always check out meal plans though if you are interested:
>
> <http://www.mealplansite.com/age-toddler.aspx>
>
>
>
Frankly you should always use your own information, experience, friends, and judgement when making decisions about what your child eats. None of my friends have dealt with meal planning before, just feeding the child what they think is applicable; between rice cereal, oats, some solid foods at one year, and going from there. |
3,389 | We've been feeding our 15-month-old deli ham for dinner pretty regularly. Recently, a family member was alarmed that we were feeding him any kind of deli meat because it is "bad for them". We typically get Prima Della Black Forrest Ham or Oven Roasted Chicken.
As usual, the collective wisdom of Google muddies the water, so I'm wondering if deli meats are a big no-no?
If so, can somebody point us to a realistic meal plan? | 2011/11/15 | [
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com/questions/3389",
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com",
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com/users/1073/"
] | Deli meats can be high in nitrates. Too much nitrates is bad for babies. But this is a balance and moderation issue, its not like handing a baby a candy bar for lunch. | Many of my friends have fed their kids deli meats for a while, and our local deli is known to not use any preservatives or special means of preparation any more than slicing it in front of you, weighing it, and handing you a bag full of meat.
Asking my friends, whom collectively had two girls and a boy; they say it's been fine for them. No allergic or allergic seeming reactions, odd diseases, nothing that Google says should even be taken as "research citation" frankly; so there's little for me to quote but experience.
You can always check out meal plans though if you are interested:
>
> <http://www.mealplansite.com/age-toddler.aspx>
>
>
>
Frankly you should always use your own information, experience, friends, and judgement when making decisions about what your child eats. None of my friends have dealt with meal planning before, just feeding the child what they think is applicable; between rice cereal, oats, some solid foods at one year, and going from there. |
3,389 | We've been feeding our 15-month-old deli ham for dinner pretty regularly. Recently, a family member was alarmed that we were feeding him any kind of deli meat because it is "bad for them". We typically get Prima Della Black Forrest Ham or Oven Roasted Chicken.
As usual, the collective wisdom of Google muddies the water, so I'm wondering if deli meats are a big no-no?
If so, can somebody point us to a realistic meal plan? | 2011/11/15 | [
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com/questions/3389",
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com",
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com/users/1073/"
] | Your family member may be confusing the advice to avoid all deli meat for pregnant mothers.
Deli meats and other precooked meats put pregnant women at a [high risk for listeriosis](http://www.babycenter.com/406_is-it-safe-to-eat-deli-meats-when-im-pregnant_1246923.bc) and are advised to avoid them unless cooked to steaming hot.
Once a child is transitioned to solid foods, the only main concerns are common allergens (seafood, tree nuts, etc.), and, of course, healthy food habits. There's nothing wrong with deli meats beyond the normal high-sodium/high-fat factors that impact any adult's consumption. | Deli meats can be high in nitrates. Too much nitrates is bad for babies. But this is a balance and moderation issue, its not like handing a baby a candy bar for lunch. |
164,066 | I am a software developer for the last 5 years. I like this work and since I started this career I have been in 3 companies. Each change resulted a good raise of the salary and more interesting projects.
The last months I am feeling that I am getting more and more pushed to the ropes. The tasks that I have to do seem to get more difficult for me but my co-workers seem to struggle as much as they always struggled.
The last two weeks I actually didn't manage to finish what I was supposed to finish (although I was affected and driven backwards by the work that other developers had to do).
I was expecting to get told off for my performance but nothing happened. The meeting went smoothly and I am just expected to make a pull request for my code (I am starting another project and that was decided before the time period I am speaking about).
I don't know if they were expecting me to crash and burn and I didn't and that's why people were happy. I dont know if they are just polite.
I know that openness is a thing where I work and they would tell me something and also developers are hard to find where I live so they would not risk making me want to go for two bad weeks.
So I want to ask, assuming the management identified my bad performance (I am sure they did), why would they not tell me anything about it?
P.S. I have already spoken to a colleague today to have some guidance and work with him to improve myself, but I am sure he didn't have the time to tell to anyone yet. | 2020/09/18 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/164066",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/80596/"
] | Hey – go have a private chat with your *manager.* That's part of what s/he's there for. Don't let these feelings stay bottled-up inside of you. Go get some *perspective.* | >
> So i want to ask, assuming the management identified my bad
> performance (i am sure they did) why would they not tell me anything
> about it?
>
>
>
Perhaps they are being patient and seeing if you are able to do better going forward. But everyone here is just guessing.
Only management knows if they saw a problem and if so, what they expect you to do now. If you really want to know, you'll simply have to talk about it with them. If you have regular one-on-one meetings, that would be the right time.
If you are afraid to ask, just let it go and try to do better. |
164,066 | I am a software developer for the last 5 years. I like this work and since I started this career I have been in 3 companies. Each change resulted a good raise of the salary and more interesting projects.
The last months I am feeling that I am getting more and more pushed to the ropes. The tasks that I have to do seem to get more difficult for me but my co-workers seem to struggle as much as they always struggled.
The last two weeks I actually didn't manage to finish what I was supposed to finish (although I was affected and driven backwards by the work that other developers had to do).
I was expecting to get told off for my performance but nothing happened. The meeting went smoothly and I am just expected to make a pull request for my code (I am starting another project and that was decided before the time period I am speaking about).
I don't know if they were expecting me to crash and burn and I didn't and that's why people were happy. I dont know if they are just polite.
I know that openness is a thing where I work and they would tell me something and also developers are hard to find where I live so they would not risk making me want to go for two bad weeks.
So I want to ask, assuming the management identified my bad performance (I am sure they did), why would they not tell me anything about it?
P.S. I have already spoken to a colleague today to have some guidance and work with him to improve myself, but I am sure he didn't have the time to tell to anyone yet. | 2020/09/18 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/164066",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/80596/"
] | >
> The last two weeks I actually didn't manage to finish what I was supposed to finish (although I was affected and driven backwards by the work that other developers had to do).
>
>
>
First, the assigned task are by definition estimates. Sometimes they are pessimistic (or you just happen to be lucky) and you finish ahead of schedule. Others they were too optimistic and they take more than expected. **This is normal**. Occasionally you will not finish in the scheduled time, within reason, this doesn't mean that the performance is "really poor". More often than not, it simply means that the job required more work than what it seemed to.
Second, even if the estimates were perfect, you already mention that you were "affected and driven backwards by the work that other developers had to do". That's more than enough for breaking expectations. If you had to rewrite half your task in order to adapt for the changed api by JDoe, the changed task might take up to 50% more. Similarly, if you had to finish work that was going to be by other developers, or even there were more important duties that required your attention. As the circumstances have changed, missing the initial estimate is not unheard of.
Relax and don't be so hard against you. If everything else thinks the results are acceptable in context, it's not worth worrying about it so much. | >
> So i want to ask, assuming the management identified my bad
> performance (i am sure they did) why would they not tell me anything
> about it?
>
>
>
Perhaps they are being patient and seeing if you are able to do better going forward. But everyone here is just guessing.
Only management knows if they saw a problem and if so, what they expect you to do now. If you really want to know, you'll simply have to talk about it with them. If you have regular one-on-one meetings, that would be the right time.
If you are afraid to ask, just let it go and try to do better. |
164,066 | I am a software developer for the last 5 years. I like this work and since I started this career I have been in 3 companies. Each change resulted a good raise of the salary and more interesting projects.
The last months I am feeling that I am getting more and more pushed to the ropes. The tasks that I have to do seem to get more difficult for me but my co-workers seem to struggle as much as they always struggled.
The last two weeks I actually didn't manage to finish what I was supposed to finish (although I was affected and driven backwards by the work that other developers had to do).
I was expecting to get told off for my performance but nothing happened. The meeting went smoothly and I am just expected to make a pull request for my code (I am starting another project and that was decided before the time period I am speaking about).
I don't know if they were expecting me to crash and burn and I didn't and that's why people were happy. I dont know if they are just polite.
I know that openness is a thing where I work and they would tell me something and also developers are hard to find where I live so they would not risk making me want to go for two bad weeks.
So I want to ask, assuming the management identified my bad performance (I am sure they did), why would they not tell me anything about it?
P.S. I have already spoken to a colleague today to have some guidance and work with him to improve myself, but I am sure he didn't have the time to tell to anyone yet. | 2020/09/18 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/164066",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/80596/"
] | >
> The last two weeks I actually didn't manage to finish what I was supposed to finish (although I was affected and driven backwards by the work that other developers had to do).
>
>
>
First, the assigned task are by definition estimates. Sometimes they are pessimistic (or you just happen to be lucky) and you finish ahead of schedule. Others they were too optimistic and they take more than expected. **This is normal**. Occasionally you will not finish in the scheduled time, within reason, this doesn't mean that the performance is "really poor". More often than not, it simply means that the job required more work than what it seemed to.
Second, even if the estimates were perfect, you already mention that you were "affected and driven backwards by the work that other developers had to do". That's more than enough for breaking expectations. If you had to rewrite half your task in order to adapt for the changed api by JDoe, the changed task might take up to 50% more. Similarly, if you had to finish work that was going to be by other developers, or even there were more important duties that required your attention. As the circumstances have changed, missing the initial estimate is not unheard of.
Relax and don't be so hard against you. If everything else thinks the results are acceptable in context, it's not worth worrying about it so much. | >
> I am a software developer for the last 5 years.
>
>
>
>
> The last two weeks I actually didn't manage to finish what I was supposed to finish...
>
>
>
That hardly constitutes a pattern of bad performance and not something where I would expect management to feel the need to intervene. Even the best of us miss the mark now and then. Your boss knows this. If you've otherwise been a good employee, they very likely didn't even notice. I can almost guarantee your boss has much bigger things to worry about than an employee who had a bad 2 weeks. Two weeks in years-long career is nothing.
So if you've identified the problem, go ahead and fix it. Make sure these last 2 weeks don't become a prolonged pattern and get your performance back to where it needs to be. Then quit being hard on yourself and carry on as usual. You're doing fine. |
164,066 | I am a software developer for the last 5 years. I like this work and since I started this career I have been in 3 companies. Each change resulted a good raise of the salary and more interesting projects.
The last months I am feeling that I am getting more and more pushed to the ropes. The tasks that I have to do seem to get more difficult for me but my co-workers seem to struggle as much as they always struggled.
The last two weeks I actually didn't manage to finish what I was supposed to finish (although I was affected and driven backwards by the work that other developers had to do).
I was expecting to get told off for my performance but nothing happened. The meeting went smoothly and I am just expected to make a pull request for my code (I am starting another project and that was decided before the time period I am speaking about).
I don't know if they were expecting me to crash and burn and I didn't and that's why people were happy. I dont know if they are just polite.
I know that openness is a thing where I work and they would tell me something and also developers are hard to find where I live so they would not risk making me want to go for two bad weeks.
So I want to ask, assuming the management identified my bad performance (I am sure they did), why would they not tell me anything about it?
P.S. I have already spoken to a colleague today to have some guidance and work with him to improve myself, but I am sure he didn't have the time to tell to anyone yet. | 2020/09/18 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/164066",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/80596/"
] | >
> The last two weeks I actually didn't manage to finish what I was supposed to finish **(although I was affected and driven backwards by the work that other developers had to do)**
>
>
>
Two things immediately jump out to me here:
1. Failing to finish a 2-week sprint is not all that unusual, in my experience. It's not ideal, but it happens from time to time.
2. You didn't fail to perform. You were **blocked** by someone else's work.
When this sort of thing happens, in general, the expectation is that you go to your boss (or PM, Scrum master, or whoever is tracking your work) and tell them that you're blocked, what's blocking you, and (if they ask) any other relevant information. Then, you say one of two things:
* "Hey boss, since my work on X is blocked, I'm going to start working on Y instead."
* "Hey boss, my work on X is blocked, and I don't have any other tasks assigned. What would you like me to work on instead?"
After that meeting, you'll either start working on Y, or your boss will assign you something else to work on. Either way, you're no longer blocked, and you're off the hook for X (at least until it gets unblocked).
A couple of additional notes:
* It's somewhat culture-dependent, but in general, you want to avoid making it sound like you're blaming the other developer for your blockage. Focus on the facts, try to stay dispassionate, and (where possible) refer to tickets or bugs rather than people or teams.
* If your bug tracker can keep track of which bugs are blocking other bugs, use this functionality religiously. It makes the PM's job a lot easier when they're trying to figure out why no one has made any progress on X, Y, and Z in the past month.
* If you are struggling to make progress on something, for any reason, it's almost always a good idea to let your boss know as early as possible. They may be able to get you more resources or other help, and even if they can't, they will appreciate the advance notice.
+ Of course, there's a balance. It wouldn't make sense to inform your boss every time you get stuck on some minor issue for five minutes. Use common sense. | >
> So i want to ask, assuming the management identified my bad
> performance (i am sure they did) why would they not tell me anything
> about it?
>
>
>
Perhaps they are being patient and seeing if you are able to do better going forward. But everyone here is just guessing.
Only management knows if they saw a problem and if so, what they expect you to do now. If you really want to know, you'll simply have to talk about it with them. If you have regular one-on-one meetings, that would be the right time.
If you are afraid to ask, just let it go and try to do better. |
164,066 | I am a software developer for the last 5 years. I like this work and since I started this career I have been in 3 companies. Each change resulted a good raise of the salary and more interesting projects.
The last months I am feeling that I am getting more and more pushed to the ropes. The tasks that I have to do seem to get more difficult for me but my co-workers seem to struggle as much as they always struggled.
The last two weeks I actually didn't manage to finish what I was supposed to finish (although I was affected and driven backwards by the work that other developers had to do).
I was expecting to get told off for my performance but nothing happened. The meeting went smoothly and I am just expected to make a pull request for my code (I am starting another project and that was decided before the time period I am speaking about).
I don't know if they were expecting me to crash and burn and I didn't and that's why people were happy. I dont know if they are just polite.
I know that openness is a thing where I work and they would tell me something and also developers are hard to find where I live so they would not risk making me want to go for two bad weeks.
So I want to ask, assuming the management identified my bad performance (I am sure they did), why would they not tell me anything about it?
P.S. I have already spoken to a colleague today to have some guidance and work with him to improve myself, but I am sure he didn't have the time to tell to anyone yet. | 2020/09/18 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/164066",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/80596/"
] | >
> The last two weeks I actually didn't manage to finish what I was supposed to finish **(although I was affected and driven backwards by the work that other developers had to do)**
>
>
>
Two things immediately jump out to me here:
1. Failing to finish a 2-week sprint is not all that unusual, in my experience. It's not ideal, but it happens from time to time.
2. You didn't fail to perform. You were **blocked** by someone else's work.
When this sort of thing happens, in general, the expectation is that you go to your boss (or PM, Scrum master, or whoever is tracking your work) and tell them that you're blocked, what's blocking you, and (if they ask) any other relevant information. Then, you say one of two things:
* "Hey boss, since my work on X is blocked, I'm going to start working on Y instead."
* "Hey boss, my work on X is blocked, and I don't have any other tasks assigned. What would you like me to work on instead?"
After that meeting, you'll either start working on Y, or your boss will assign you something else to work on. Either way, you're no longer blocked, and you're off the hook for X (at least until it gets unblocked).
A couple of additional notes:
* It's somewhat culture-dependent, but in general, you want to avoid making it sound like you're blaming the other developer for your blockage. Focus on the facts, try to stay dispassionate, and (where possible) refer to tickets or bugs rather than people or teams.
* If your bug tracker can keep track of which bugs are blocking other bugs, use this functionality religiously. It makes the PM's job a lot easier when they're trying to figure out why no one has made any progress on X, Y, and Z in the past month.
* If you are struggling to make progress on something, for any reason, it's almost always a good idea to let your boss know as early as possible. They may be able to get you more resources or other help, and even if they can't, they will appreciate the advance notice.
+ Of course, there's a balance. It wouldn't make sense to inform your boss every time you get stuck on some minor issue for five minutes. Use common sense. | >
> I am a software developer for the last 5 years.
>
>
>
>
> The last two weeks I actually didn't manage to finish what I was supposed to finish...
>
>
>
That hardly constitutes a pattern of bad performance and not something where I would expect management to feel the need to intervene. Even the best of us miss the mark now and then. Your boss knows this. If you've otherwise been a good employee, they very likely didn't even notice. I can almost guarantee your boss has much bigger things to worry about than an employee who had a bad 2 weeks. Two weeks in years-long career is nothing.
So if you've identified the problem, go ahead and fix it. Make sure these last 2 weeks don't become a prolonged pattern and get your performance back to where it needs to be. Then quit being hard on yourself and carry on as usual. You're doing fine. |
164,066 | I am a software developer for the last 5 years. I like this work and since I started this career I have been in 3 companies. Each change resulted a good raise of the salary and more interesting projects.
The last months I am feeling that I am getting more and more pushed to the ropes. The tasks that I have to do seem to get more difficult for me but my co-workers seem to struggle as much as they always struggled.
The last two weeks I actually didn't manage to finish what I was supposed to finish (although I was affected and driven backwards by the work that other developers had to do).
I was expecting to get told off for my performance but nothing happened. The meeting went smoothly and I am just expected to make a pull request for my code (I am starting another project and that was decided before the time period I am speaking about).
I don't know if they were expecting me to crash and burn and I didn't and that's why people were happy. I dont know if they are just polite.
I know that openness is a thing where I work and they would tell me something and also developers are hard to find where I live so they would not risk making me want to go for two bad weeks.
So I want to ask, assuming the management identified my bad performance (I am sure they did), why would they not tell me anything about it?
P.S. I have already spoken to a colleague today to have some guidance and work with him to improve myself, but I am sure he didn't have the time to tell to anyone yet. | 2020/09/18 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/164066",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/80596/"
] | Hey – go have a private chat with your *manager.* That's part of what s/he's there for. Don't let these feelings stay bottled-up inside of you. Go get some *perspective.* | >
> The last two weeks I actually didn't manage to finish what I was supposed to finish (although I was affected and driven backwards by the work that other developers had to do).
>
>
>
First, the assigned task are by definition estimates. Sometimes they are pessimistic (or you just happen to be lucky) and you finish ahead of schedule. Others they were too optimistic and they take more than expected. **This is normal**. Occasionally you will not finish in the scheduled time, within reason, this doesn't mean that the performance is "really poor". More often than not, it simply means that the job required more work than what it seemed to.
Second, even if the estimates were perfect, you already mention that you were "affected and driven backwards by the work that other developers had to do". That's more than enough for breaking expectations. If you had to rewrite half your task in order to adapt for the changed api by JDoe, the changed task might take up to 50% more. Similarly, if you had to finish work that was going to be by other developers, or even there were more important duties that required your attention. As the circumstances have changed, missing the initial estimate is not unheard of.
Relax and don't be so hard against you. If everything else thinks the results are acceptable in context, it's not worth worrying about it so much. |
164,066 | I am a software developer for the last 5 years. I like this work and since I started this career I have been in 3 companies. Each change resulted a good raise of the salary and more interesting projects.
The last months I am feeling that I am getting more and more pushed to the ropes. The tasks that I have to do seem to get more difficult for me but my co-workers seem to struggle as much as they always struggled.
The last two weeks I actually didn't manage to finish what I was supposed to finish (although I was affected and driven backwards by the work that other developers had to do).
I was expecting to get told off for my performance but nothing happened. The meeting went smoothly and I am just expected to make a pull request for my code (I am starting another project and that was decided before the time period I am speaking about).
I don't know if they were expecting me to crash and burn and I didn't and that's why people were happy. I dont know if they are just polite.
I know that openness is a thing where I work and they would tell me something and also developers are hard to find where I live so they would not risk making me want to go for two bad weeks.
So I want to ask, assuming the management identified my bad performance (I am sure they did), why would they not tell me anything about it?
P.S. I have already spoken to a colleague today to have some guidance and work with him to improve myself, but I am sure he didn't have the time to tell to anyone yet. | 2020/09/18 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/164066",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/80596/"
] | There are a lot of reasons they might not have said anything. As a leader, here are some reasons I might not:
1. They might have known it was going to be a miss so they weren't surprised. Surprise misses are when my attention gets snagged.
2. If this is a super rare occasion, they might view this as a one off. No one can hit every deadline every time. If it becomes a pattern, it will be time to speak up. They may be allowing you to course correct.
3. It might not be classified as "bad" performance. While to you it may seem poor, it's possible your standards for performance are higher for yourself than theirs.
4. Times are tough right now. Everyone is going through a lot of things both personally and professionally. When someone misses, it doesn't help to pile on unnecessarily.
5. They may be afraid you might leave if your past performance is as good as you hint. It doesn't help to make a big deal of every performance miss. It only adds stress to people.
6. It's just possible they have no idea that you missed because other people around you have missed so much it has become kind of "normal". (really hope this isn't the case)
7. They just might not care.
There will be plenty of other possible reasons. These are the reasons I would apply for myself if I wasn't going to mention a miss. Numbers 1-4 are the primaries for why I don't speak up for when it happens. 5-7 will never be on my personal radar, though I have known leaders for whom it has been true. | >
> The last two weeks I actually didn't manage to finish what I was supposed to finish (although I was affected and driven backwards by the work that other developers had to do).
>
>
>
First, the assigned task are by definition estimates. Sometimes they are pessimistic (or you just happen to be lucky) and you finish ahead of schedule. Others they were too optimistic and they take more than expected. **This is normal**. Occasionally you will not finish in the scheduled time, within reason, this doesn't mean that the performance is "really poor". More often than not, it simply means that the job required more work than what it seemed to.
Second, even if the estimates were perfect, you already mention that you were "affected and driven backwards by the work that other developers had to do". That's more than enough for breaking expectations. If you had to rewrite half your task in order to adapt for the changed api by JDoe, the changed task might take up to 50% more. Similarly, if you had to finish work that was going to be by other developers, or even there were more important duties that required your attention. As the circumstances have changed, missing the initial estimate is not unheard of.
Relax and don't be so hard against you. If everything else thinks the results are acceptable in context, it's not worth worrying about it so much. |
164,066 | I am a software developer for the last 5 years. I like this work and since I started this career I have been in 3 companies. Each change resulted a good raise of the salary and more interesting projects.
The last months I am feeling that I am getting more and more pushed to the ropes. The tasks that I have to do seem to get more difficult for me but my co-workers seem to struggle as much as they always struggled.
The last two weeks I actually didn't manage to finish what I was supposed to finish (although I was affected and driven backwards by the work that other developers had to do).
I was expecting to get told off for my performance but nothing happened. The meeting went smoothly and I am just expected to make a pull request for my code (I am starting another project and that was decided before the time period I am speaking about).
I don't know if they were expecting me to crash and burn and I didn't and that's why people were happy. I dont know if they are just polite.
I know that openness is a thing where I work and they would tell me something and also developers are hard to find where I live so they would not risk making me want to go for two bad weeks.
So I want to ask, assuming the management identified my bad performance (I am sure they did), why would they not tell me anything about it?
P.S. I have already spoken to a colleague today to have some guidance and work with him to improve myself, but I am sure he didn't have the time to tell to anyone yet. | 2020/09/18 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/164066",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/80596/"
] | Hey – go have a private chat with your *manager.* That's part of what s/he's there for. Don't let these feelings stay bottled-up inside of you. Go get some *perspective.* | >
> I am a software developer for the last 5 years.
>
>
>
>
> The last two weeks I actually didn't manage to finish what I was supposed to finish...
>
>
>
That hardly constitutes a pattern of bad performance and not something where I would expect management to feel the need to intervene. Even the best of us miss the mark now and then. Your boss knows this. If you've otherwise been a good employee, they very likely didn't even notice. I can almost guarantee your boss has much bigger things to worry about than an employee who had a bad 2 weeks. Two weeks in years-long career is nothing.
So if you've identified the problem, go ahead and fix it. Make sure these last 2 weeks don't become a prolonged pattern and get your performance back to where it needs to be. Then quit being hard on yourself and carry on as usual. You're doing fine. |
164,066 | I am a software developer for the last 5 years. I like this work and since I started this career I have been in 3 companies. Each change resulted a good raise of the salary and more interesting projects.
The last months I am feeling that I am getting more and more pushed to the ropes. The tasks that I have to do seem to get more difficult for me but my co-workers seem to struggle as much as they always struggled.
The last two weeks I actually didn't manage to finish what I was supposed to finish (although I was affected and driven backwards by the work that other developers had to do).
I was expecting to get told off for my performance but nothing happened. The meeting went smoothly and I am just expected to make a pull request for my code (I am starting another project and that was decided before the time period I am speaking about).
I don't know if they were expecting me to crash and burn and I didn't and that's why people were happy. I dont know if they are just polite.
I know that openness is a thing where I work and they would tell me something and also developers are hard to find where I live so they would not risk making me want to go for two bad weeks.
So I want to ask, assuming the management identified my bad performance (I am sure they did), why would they not tell me anything about it?
P.S. I have already spoken to a colleague today to have some guidance and work with him to improve myself, but I am sure he didn't have the time to tell to anyone yet. | 2020/09/18 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/164066",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/80596/"
] | There are a lot of reasons they might not have said anything. As a leader, here are some reasons I might not:
1. They might have known it was going to be a miss so they weren't surprised. Surprise misses are when my attention gets snagged.
2. If this is a super rare occasion, they might view this as a one off. No one can hit every deadline every time. If it becomes a pattern, it will be time to speak up. They may be allowing you to course correct.
3. It might not be classified as "bad" performance. While to you it may seem poor, it's possible your standards for performance are higher for yourself than theirs.
4. Times are tough right now. Everyone is going through a lot of things both personally and professionally. When someone misses, it doesn't help to pile on unnecessarily.
5. They may be afraid you might leave if your past performance is as good as you hint. It doesn't help to make a big deal of every performance miss. It only adds stress to people.
6. It's just possible they have no idea that you missed because other people around you have missed so much it has become kind of "normal". (really hope this isn't the case)
7. They just might not care.
There will be plenty of other possible reasons. These are the reasons I would apply for myself if I wasn't going to mention a miss. Numbers 1-4 are the primaries for why I don't speak up for when it happens. 5-7 will never be on my personal radar, though I have known leaders for whom it has been true. | >
> I am a software developer for the last 5 years.
>
>
>
>
> The last two weeks I actually didn't manage to finish what I was supposed to finish...
>
>
>
That hardly constitutes a pattern of bad performance and not something where I would expect management to feel the need to intervene. Even the best of us miss the mark now and then. Your boss knows this. If you've otherwise been a good employee, they very likely didn't even notice. I can almost guarantee your boss has much bigger things to worry about than an employee who had a bad 2 weeks. Two weeks in years-long career is nothing.
So if you've identified the problem, go ahead and fix it. Make sure these last 2 weeks don't become a prolonged pattern and get your performance back to where it needs to be. Then quit being hard on yourself and carry on as usual. You're doing fine. |
164,066 | I am a software developer for the last 5 years. I like this work and since I started this career I have been in 3 companies. Each change resulted a good raise of the salary and more interesting projects.
The last months I am feeling that I am getting more and more pushed to the ropes. The tasks that I have to do seem to get more difficult for me but my co-workers seem to struggle as much as they always struggled.
The last two weeks I actually didn't manage to finish what I was supposed to finish (although I was affected and driven backwards by the work that other developers had to do).
I was expecting to get told off for my performance but nothing happened. The meeting went smoothly and I am just expected to make a pull request for my code (I am starting another project and that was decided before the time period I am speaking about).
I don't know if they were expecting me to crash and burn and I didn't and that's why people were happy. I dont know if they are just polite.
I know that openness is a thing where I work and they would tell me something and also developers are hard to find where I live so they would not risk making me want to go for two bad weeks.
So I want to ask, assuming the management identified my bad performance (I am sure they did), why would they not tell me anything about it?
P.S. I have already spoken to a colleague today to have some guidance and work with him to improve myself, but I am sure he didn't have the time to tell to anyone yet. | 2020/09/18 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/164066",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/80596/"
] | There are a lot of reasons they might not have said anything. As a leader, here are some reasons I might not:
1. They might have known it was going to be a miss so they weren't surprised. Surprise misses are when my attention gets snagged.
2. If this is a super rare occasion, they might view this as a one off. No one can hit every deadline every time. If it becomes a pattern, it will be time to speak up. They may be allowing you to course correct.
3. It might not be classified as "bad" performance. While to you it may seem poor, it's possible your standards for performance are higher for yourself than theirs.
4. Times are tough right now. Everyone is going through a lot of things both personally and professionally. When someone misses, it doesn't help to pile on unnecessarily.
5. They may be afraid you might leave if your past performance is as good as you hint. It doesn't help to make a big deal of every performance miss. It only adds stress to people.
6. It's just possible they have no idea that you missed because other people around you have missed so much it has become kind of "normal". (really hope this isn't the case)
7. They just might not care.
There will be plenty of other possible reasons. These are the reasons I would apply for myself if I wasn't going to mention a miss. Numbers 1-4 are the primaries for why I don't speak up for when it happens. 5-7 will never be on my personal radar, though I have known leaders for whom it has been true. | >
> The last two weeks I actually didn't manage to finish what I was supposed to finish **(although I was affected and driven backwards by the work that other developers had to do)**
>
>
>
Two things immediately jump out to me here:
1. Failing to finish a 2-week sprint is not all that unusual, in my experience. It's not ideal, but it happens from time to time.
2. You didn't fail to perform. You were **blocked** by someone else's work.
When this sort of thing happens, in general, the expectation is that you go to your boss (or PM, Scrum master, or whoever is tracking your work) and tell them that you're blocked, what's blocking you, and (if they ask) any other relevant information. Then, you say one of two things:
* "Hey boss, since my work on X is blocked, I'm going to start working on Y instead."
* "Hey boss, my work on X is blocked, and I don't have any other tasks assigned. What would you like me to work on instead?"
After that meeting, you'll either start working on Y, or your boss will assign you something else to work on. Either way, you're no longer blocked, and you're off the hook for X (at least until it gets unblocked).
A couple of additional notes:
* It's somewhat culture-dependent, but in general, you want to avoid making it sound like you're blaming the other developer for your blockage. Focus on the facts, try to stay dispassionate, and (where possible) refer to tickets or bugs rather than people or teams.
* If your bug tracker can keep track of which bugs are blocking other bugs, use this functionality religiously. It makes the PM's job a lot easier when they're trying to figure out why no one has made any progress on X, Y, and Z in the past month.
* If you are struggling to make progress on something, for any reason, it's almost always a good idea to let your boss know as early as possible. They may be able to get you more resources or other help, and even if they can't, they will appreciate the advance notice.
+ Of course, there's a balance. It wouldn't make sense to inform your boss every time you get stuck on some minor issue for five minutes. Use common sense. |
97,214 | **You are a intelligent adult quadruped; suddenly, you find yourself in a humanoid body due to magic! How long does it take you to learn how to move in your new body?**
Imagine a race of sapient quadruped mammals who have a society much like our own. They are able to function very well with their four-legged gait, but have almost no ability or concept of moving on two legs. Through magic or science, one of them suddenly transforms into a bipedal mammal.
What would be the process of the individual in adapting to a vastly different form such as this? How little or much might they struggle in learning to walk and properly balancing? Almost certainly, it would be easier for an adult to learn how to walk compared to a baby learning from scratch for the first time, as a matured adult will have better body control and intellect.
**Is this something that might take a few minutes, a few hours, days, weeks, months, or more?** What factors might help the process go faster?
[](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/a7/6c/b7/a76cb7974e46134acd41748f04f6d4b4--mlp-twilight-sparkle-my-little-pony-friendship.jpg) | 2017/11/08 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/97214",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/31863/"
] | It will take some time and quite a struggle, as their entire brain has to be "rewired" to learn the new mechanism.
You can compare it with how a human has to adapt when learning to move on a wheelchair or using crutches. On day 0 it will be a mess, after one or two weeks the movements will be as swift as in the original conditions, and with some more practice the subject can even play sports where coordination is even more important.
Of course the more frequent the practice, the quicker the adaptation. | I would hazard to assume that, regardless of the -grade, downgrading from 4 to 2 legs would just be a matter of 're-learning' how to balance as a new bipedal creature. As they would still have a fairly good grasp on how to use their legs, being on only 2 wouldn't be too much of a hassle; if we're dealing with a younger youth, the process of re-balancing might take 2-3 days to fully adjust, whereas adults could have a couple of (long) hours of reacclimation, and will be wobbly hobbling along in at least a day. HOWEVER, if they have a tail, and are well-versed in it's dexterousness, the process would be expedited to an extent. |
91 | I'm using the All in One SEO plugin for my site. The extra fields and options it supplies seem like they could be handled via a theme, possibly negating the use for a plugin.
Should SEO considerations be handled by a theme, rather than delegating the work to a separate plugin? It could reduce maintenance issues, takes up less space, and be more integrated. | 2010/08/11 | [
"https://wordpress.stackexchange.com/questions/91",
"https://wordpress.stackexchange.com",
"https://wordpress.stackexchange.com/users/99/"
] | Custom types can be leverage for anything that can be repeatable. So as you said a gallery or portfolio would work very nicely. I've already used them on a few different projects:
* Recipes
* Employee Roster
* Callouts for the homepage
* rotating sliders.
Other ideas are:
* products for a commerce site—The custom taxonomies would make for some powerful option for each product.
* For custom sidebar content. Y
* An Ad manager.
The possibilities are really endless. Anything that can be seen as a collection is really what this is for. | How about a forum? Have a look at <http://justintadlock.com/archives/2010/07/16/a-wordpress-forum-plugin-using-custom-post-types> and a couple of other posts on taxonomies on that site. Justin wrote the Hybrid theme. He is also a core contributor. |
91 | I'm using the All in One SEO plugin for my site. The extra fields and options it supplies seem like they could be handled via a theme, possibly negating the use for a plugin.
Should SEO considerations be handled by a theme, rather than delegating the work to a separate plugin? It could reduce maintenance issues, takes up less space, and be more integrated. | 2010/08/11 | [
"https://wordpress.stackexchange.com/questions/91",
"https://wordpress.stackexchange.com",
"https://wordpress.stackexchange.com/users/99/"
] | Custom types can be leverage for anything that can be repeatable. So as you said a gallery or portfolio would work very nicely. I've already used them on a few different projects:
* Recipes
* Employee Roster
* Callouts for the homepage
* rotating sliders.
Other ideas are:
* products for a commerce site—The custom taxonomies would make for some powerful option for each product.
* For custom sidebar content. Y
* An Ad manager.
The possibilities are really endless. Anything that can be seen as a collection is really what this is for. | I'm considering using it for a client who runs a tree nursery. This would allow me to logically separate blog-style news updates, pages, and trees (with per-tree galleries) with custom styles for each post type. It'll also be nice to have type-specific taxonomies for categorizing the trees. |
92,102 | I am attempting to set up my Pi-0-w to wake up a computer on a local network. However, Wake-on-LAN is not an option. Does anyone have ideas for an alternative? Perhaps a way to wake through a USB connection? | 2018/12/20 | [
"https://raspberrypi.stackexchange.com/questions/92102",
"https://raspberrypi.stackexchange.com",
"https://raspberrypi.stackexchange.com/users/95002/"
] | If you are overheating due to high computational load, your only choices are to compute less or dissipate heat better.
We don't have specific information to suggest how to compute less. Given what you've said, the only thing that comes to mind is to try to use a second Pi and distribute the computational load somehow. That will have marginally higher cost for the second Pi and require more engineering to handle the load distribution.
To physically dissipate the heat, you seem to know the options: Bigger heat sink, better circulation of air, or active cooling. Active cooling, of course, is potentially expensive. On the other hand, depending on the type medicines you're dispensing, you may already have refrigeration on the machine that you could use here, i.e. if you have a refrigerator unit to preserve medicines anyway, maybe put the Pi inside the refrigerator. | The Pi3B is the most prone to overheating. If you are using a heatsink and fan there is little else to suggest without more detail of the product.
The Pi3B+ or 3A+ runs much cooler - but Ubuntu needs updated firmware. |
71,907 | I take care of unwanted and abused pets, and occasionally I have to bathe them in a bathtub. Sometimes they go poop and it breaks up in the water so it cannot be scooped out. When this happens, I have to spray it down the tub drain with a hose.
Over time, the drain clogs, and I have to use Liquid Plumber to clear it out.
Could a shower / bathtub be connected with a direct drop like a toilet instead of a p-trap or would sewer gas come back up since there would be no water in a p-trap to stop it? | 2015/08/16 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/71907",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/41530/"
] | You need the trap, for precisely the reason you guessed. Toilets have the trap built into the toilet itself.
What you could do is get a strainer made to fit under the plug - often used in kitchen sinks. They are easy to find at most home stores or even dollar stores.
That will stop any big stuff from going down the drain, and give you a chance to pull it out. | You will need a P-Trap.
If you look at the inside of a toilet, it won't have a P-Trap inside, but it is built in such a way that gas cannot vent into the air.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/mV95d.jpg)
It sounds to me like your issue is because of a small shower drain-line connected to your shower. To fix this, you should use a larger size pipe for your P-trap that won't get clogged.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/GsWks.png)
Please pardon my drawing skills. Good luck with your pet home! |
12,192,683 | >
> **Possible Duplicate:**
>
> [What is the purpose of vshost.exe file?](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/774187/what-is-the-purpose-of-vshost-exe-file)
>
>
>
When a .NET application is built, a second exe with name **applicationname.vhost.exe** is created along with the actual application. Or its there along with the actual application when I opened the bin folder.
The **applicationname.vhost.exe** seems to do nothing when I tried to open it.
What is its purpose? | 2012/08/30 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/12192683",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/881914/"
] | >
> The hosting process is a feature in Visual Studio that improves
> debugging performance, enables partial trust debugging, and enables
> design time expression evaluation. The hosting process files contain
> vshost in the file name and are placed in the output folder of your
> project.
>
>
>
[Hosting Process (vshost.exe)](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms185331(v=vs.80).aspx) | This is the "hosting process". It is created whenever you build a project in the Visual Studio IDE. Its purpose is to provide support for improved F5 performance, partial trust debugging, and design time expression evaluation.
VSHOST should never be run directly, and shouldn't be deployed with your application.
[Answered also here!](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/774187/what-is-the-purpose-of-vshost-exe-file) |
181,861 | I'm looking to describe two groups of people who eat pasta sauces. One type likes things like Rao's or Mario Batali. I'm describing them as "gourmet". A second group prefers Ragu and Prego. I was thinking *utilitarian*, but that's not quite right, and I don't want to use a term like *unsophisticated* or *simple* because the first is pejorative and the second isn't to do with taste in particular like *gourmet* is. Any ideas? | 2014/07/02 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/181861",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/51449/"
] | **Simple** is a tricky adjective to apply to people. In several phrases, it can be pejorative and for that reason some people will take it to be an insult regardless of the rest of the context. In particular is **simple minded**, which means lacking intelligence or good judgment.
In this particular case however, I would suggest the following phrase variations:
* of simple taste
* of simpler tastes
* s/he is a wo/man of simple taste
In particular, saying something like:
>
> On the one hand, we have gourmets who insist on the best of everything. On the other, are those of simpler tastes who are satisfied with the brands for the rest of us.
>
>
>
... makes it fairly clear that you are drawing a comparison in behavior without passing judgment on the quality of the people involved. **Simple tastes** may have been pejorative in the past, but in modern usage it is usually said as a point of pride. I think this transformation is in part due to the quote variously attributed to Oscar Wilde and Winston Churchill:
>
> I am a man of simple tastes: I am always satisfied with the best.
>
>
>
Other phrases you could slip into similar comparisons, but which I think are more easily taken to offense:
* **economical eater** (or buyer) - clear that the motivation for the 'simpler' tastes is not the taste itself. This could be taken as pejorative in a different direction if thought to imply that the subject is impoverished.
* **undiscerning** - antonym of discerning, which is a high-brow, non-pejorative way of saying picky.
* **perfunctory** - draws the comparison that your 2nd group simply doesn't put the same effort into their food.
* **blissfully ignorant** (of the gourmet) - makes it clear that your 2nd group is no less satisfied with their choices, regardless of what judgment the reader or the gourmets may pass on them.
But the bottom line is, people can and do take offense at anything. If you want to avoid any appearance of putting anyone down, you should do as Oldcat suggests and stick to classifying inanimate objects.
---
The trouble, I think, stems from a secondary meaning of gourmet. The primary definition of a gourmet is a noun, describing a person with good taste in food. This is still the subjective *good*, in that a gourmet can maintain their own preferences in food. In other words, a gourmet is someone who has the *ability* to make fine distinctions in the taste of food and drink.
The secondary meaning of gourmet is the *adjective* form, which implies a standard of quality that has to be met. However, this implies that certain foods, kitchens, eaters etc. are either gourmet or not based on how well they meet this standard. This meaning has made catapulted to prominence due to the pervasiveness of marketing. The implication it carries has created an **objective** standard. This has caused the whole conundrum of your question. In this sense of the word, being called *not-gourmet* is an insult; it's saying someone has bad taste in food, prefers inexpensive or bland meals, or can't taste the difference between a box wine and Dom Pérignon.
---
Therefore, I would propose taking your initial description in a different direction, you could classify your 1st group as food **enthusiasts**. This term has none of the objective/subjective baggage and simply means that they are interested in and motivated to learn about food.
It can still be a tricky term to find an antonym for, however. The best antonym for enthusiasm is apathy, which has a fair degree of negative connotation. Food apathist (strange there isn't a real coinage for this) or apathetic eater don't ring particularly positive for me. Other terms you could use are:
* Indifferent
* Disinterested
* Egalitarian - purports the belief that food is food, regardless of how it tastes; as long as it keeps you alive, it's good. See [soylent](http://www.soylent.me/) for an extreme example of this.
* Agnostic - similar to egalitarian, it has the [following definition](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic)
>
> **2.** a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
>
>
>
Which would make a **food agnostic** someone who does not believe in the absolute quality of one food over another. Also see: [Hunger is the best spice](https://www.google.com/?q=hunger%20is%20the%20best%20spice#q=hunger%20is%20the%20best%20spice).
---
On a related (sarcastic) note, I would contend that any true Gourmet would not be satisfied with any pre-made pasta sauce. Further, I contend that anyone who has ever made a fresh ragù from scratch would agree with me.
Dropping the sarcasm, I personally love to cook and eat a meal that requires hours of preparation and monitoring (I have it on good authority that a real ragù has to be simmered at least 3 hours to cross the threshold from a pomodoro sauce), but I rarely have the time to do everything I want. Most of the time, I'm cooking for speed, and if that means having Kraft dinner, I don't lose any sleep over it; in fact, I'm just as happy on those occasions. | Consider *[unfussy](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unfussy)*, an adjective that means “Not fussy”. Also *[accepting](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/accepting#Adjective)*, “Characterized by acceptance”. |
181,861 | I'm looking to describe two groups of people who eat pasta sauces. One type likes things like Rao's or Mario Batali. I'm describing them as "gourmet". A second group prefers Ragu and Prego. I was thinking *utilitarian*, but that's not quite right, and I don't want to use a term like *unsophisticated* or *simple* because the first is pejorative and the second isn't to do with taste in particular like *gourmet* is. Any ideas? | 2014/07/02 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/181861",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/51449/"
] | **Simple** is a tricky adjective to apply to people. In several phrases, it can be pejorative and for that reason some people will take it to be an insult regardless of the rest of the context. In particular is **simple minded**, which means lacking intelligence or good judgment.
In this particular case however, I would suggest the following phrase variations:
* of simple taste
* of simpler tastes
* s/he is a wo/man of simple taste
In particular, saying something like:
>
> On the one hand, we have gourmets who insist on the best of everything. On the other, are those of simpler tastes who are satisfied with the brands for the rest of us.
>
>
>
... makes it fairly clear that you are drawing a comparison in behavior without passing judgment on the quality of the people involved. **Simple tastes** may have been pejorative in the past, but in modern usage it is usually said as a point of pride. I think this transformation is in part due to the quote variously attributed to Oscar Wilde and Winston Churchill:
>
> I am a man of simple tastes: I am always satisfied with the best.
>
>
>
Other phrases you could slip into similar comparisons, but which I think are more easily taken to offense:
* **economical eater** (or buyer) - clear that the motivation for the 'simpler' tastes is not the taste itself. This could be taken as pejorative in a different direction if thought to imply that the subject is impoverished.
* **undiscerning** - antonym of discerning, which is a high-brow, non-pejorative way of saying picky.
* **perfunctory** - draws the comparison that your 2nd group simply doesn't put the same effort into their food.
* **blissfully ignorant** (of the gourmet) - makes it clear that your 2nd group is no less satisfied with their choices, regardless of what judgment the reader or the gourmets may pass on them.
But the bottom line is, people can and do take offense at anything. If you want to avoid any appearance of putting anyone down, you should do as Oldcat suggests and stick to classifying inanimate objects.
---
The trouble, I think, stems from a secondary meaning of gourmet. The primary definition of a gourmet is a noun, describing a person with good taste in food. This is still the subjective *good*, in that a gourmet can maintain their own preferences in food. In other words, a gourmet is someone who has the *ability* to make fine distinctions in the taste of food and drink.
The secondary meaning of gourmet is the *adjective* form, which implies a standard of quality that has to be met. However, this implies that certain foods, kitchens, eaters etc. are either gourmet or not based on how well they meet this standard. This meaning has made catapulted to prominence due to the pervasiveness of marketing. The implication it carries has created an **objective** standard. This has caused the whole conundrum of your question. In this sense of the word, being called *not-gourmet* is an insult; it's saying someone has bad taste in food, prefers inexpensive or bland meals, or can't taste the difference between a box wine and Dom Pérignon.
---
Therefore, I would propose taking your initial description in a different direction, you could classify your 1st group as food **enthusiasts**. This term has none of the objective/subjective baggage and simply means that they are interested in and motivated to learn about food.
It can still be a tricky term to find an antonym for, however. The best antonym for enthusiasm is apathy, which has a fair degree of negative connotation. Food apathist (strange there isn't a real coinage for this) or apathetic eater don't ring particularly positive for me. Other terms you could use are:
* Indifferent
* Disinterested
* Egalitarian - purports the belief that food is food, regardless of how it tastes; as long as it keeps you alive, it's good. See [soylent](http://www.soylent.me/) for an extreme example of this.
* Agnostic - similar to egalitarian, it has the [following definition](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic)
>
> **2.** a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
>
>
>
Which would make a **food agnostic** someone who does not believe in the absolute quality of one food over another. Also see: [Hunger is the best spice](https://www.google.com/?q=hunger%20is%20the%20best%20spice#q=hunger%20is%20the%20best%20spice).
---
On a related (sarcastic) note, I would contend that any true Gourmet would not be satisfied with any pre-made pasta sauce. Further, I contend that anyone who has ever made a fresh ragù from scratch would agree with me.
Dropping the sarcasm, I personally love to cook and eat a meal that requires hours of preparation and monitoring (I have it on good authority that a real ragù has to be simmered at least 3 hours to cross the threshold from a pomodoro sauce), but I rarely have the time to do everything I want. Most of the time, I'm cooking for speed, and if that means having Kraft dinner, I don't lose any sleep over it; in fact, I'm just as happy on those occasions. | You might say they prefer **[homestyle](https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3ahomestyle)** cooking. |
181,861 | I'm looking to describe two groups of people who eat pasta sauces. One type likes things like Rao's or Mario Batali. I'm describing them as "gourmet". A second group prefers Ragu and Prego. I was thinking *utilitarian*, but that's not quite right, and I don't want to use a term like *unsophisticated* or *simple* because the first is pejorative and the second isn't to do with taste in particular like *gourmet* is. Any ideas? | 2014/07/02 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/181861",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/51449/"
] | **Simple** is a tricky adjective to apply to people. In several phrases, it can be pejorative and for that reason some people will take it to be an insult regardless of the rest of the context. In particular is **simple minded**, which means lacking intelligence or good judgment.
In this particular case however, I would suggest the following phrase variations:
* of simple taste
* of simpler tastes
* s/he is a wo/man of simple taste
In particular, saying something like:
>
> On the one hand, we have gourmets who insist on the best of everything. On the other, are those of simpler tastes who are satisfied with the brands for the rest of us.
>
>
>
... makes it fairly clear that you are drawing a comparison in behavior without passing judgment on the quality of the people involved. **Simple tastes** may have been pejorative in the past, but in modern usage it is usually said as a point of pride. I think this transformation is in part due to the quote variously attributed to Oscar Wilde and Winston Churchill:
>
> I am a man of simple tastes: I am always satisfied with the best.
>
>
>
Other phrases you could slip into similar comparisons, but which I think are more easily taken to offense:
* **economical eater** (or buyer) - clear that the motivation for the 'simpler' tastes is not the taste itself. This could be taken as pejorative in a different direction if thought to imply that the subject is impoverished.
* **undiscerning** - antonym of discerning, which is a high-brow, non-pejorative way of saying picky.
* **perfunctory** - draws the comparison that your 2nd group simply doesn't put the same effort into their food.
* **blissfully ignorant** (of the gourmet) - makes it clear that your 2nd group is no less satisfied with their choices, regardless of what judgment the reader or the gourmets may pass on them.
But the bottom line is, people can and do take offense at anything. If you want to avoid any appearance of putting anyone down, you should do as Oldcat suggests and stick to classifying inanimate objects.
---
The trouble, I think, stems from a secondary meaning of gourmet. The primary definition of a gourmet is a noun, describing a person with good taste in food. This is still the subjective *good*, in that a gourmet can maintain their own preferences in food. In other words, a gourmet is someone who has the *ability* to make fine distinctions in the taste of food and drink.
The secondary meaning of gourmet is the *adjective* form, which implies a standard of quality that has to be met. However, this implies that certain foods, kitchens, eaters etc. are either gourmet or not based on how well they meet this standard. This meaning has made catapulted to prominence due to the pervasiveness of marketing. The implication it carries has created an **objective** standard. This has caused the whole conundrum of your question. In this sense of the word, being called *not-gourmet* is an insult; it's saying someone has bad taste in food, prefers inexpensive or bland meals, or can't taste the difference between a box wine and Dom Pérignon.
---
Therefore, I would propose taking your initial description in a different direction, you could classify your 1st group as food **enthusiasts**. This term has none of the objective/subjective baggage and simply means that they are interested in and motivated to learn about food.
It can still be a tricky term to find an antonym for, however. The best antonym for enthusiasm is apathy, which has a fair degree of negative connotation. Food apathist (strange there isn't a real coinage for this) or apathetic eater don't ring particularly positive for me. Other terms you could use are:
* Indifferent
* Disinterested
* Egalitarian - purports the belief that food is food, regardless of how it tastes; as long as it keeps you alive, it's good. See [soylent](http://www.soylent.me/) for an extreme example of this.
* Agnostic - similar to egalitarian, it has the [following definition](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic)
>
> **2.** a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
>
>
>
Which would make a **food agnostic** someone who does not believe in the absolute quality of one food over another. Also see: [Hunger is the best spice](https://www.google.com/?q=hunger%20is%20the%20best%20spice#q=hunger%20is%20the%20best%20spice).
---
On a related (sarcastic) note, I would contend that any true Gourmet would not be satisfied with any pre-made pasta sauce. Further, I contend that anyone who has ever made a fresh ragù from scratch would agree with me.
Dropping the sarcasm, I personally love to cook and eat a meal that requires hours of preparation and monitoring (I have it on good authority that a real ragù has to be simmered at least 3 hours to cross the threshold from a pomodoro sauce), but I rarely have the time to do everything I want. Most of the time, I'm cooking for speed, and if that means having Kraft dinner, I don't lose any sleep over it; in fact, I'm just as happy on those occasions. | I would describe the opposite of gourmet to be *[provincial](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/provincial)*:
>
> 2 Of or concerning the regions outside the capital city of a country,
> especially when regarded as ***unsophisticated*** or narrow-minded:
>
>
> *ODO **Emphasis** added*
>
>
> |
181,861 | I'm looking to describe two groups of people who eat pasta sauces. One type likes things like Rao's or Mario Batali. I'm describing them as "gourmet". A second group prefers Ragu and Prego. I was thinking *utilitarian*, but that's not quite right, and I don't want to use a term like *unsophisticated* or *simple* because the first is pejorative and the second isn't to do with taste in particular like *gourmet* is. Any ideas? | 2014/07/02 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/181861",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/51449/"
] | **Simple** is a tricky adjective to apply to people. In several phrases, it can be pejorative and for that reason some people will take it to be an insult regardless of the rest of the context. In particular is **simple minded**, which means lacking intelligence or good judgment.
In this particular case however, I would suggest the following phrase variations:
* of simple taste
* of simpler tastes
* s/he is a wo/man of simple taste
In particular, saying something like:
>
> On the one hand, we have gourmets who insist on the best of everything. On the other, are those of simpler tastes who are satisfied with the brands for the rest of us.
>
>
>
... makes it fairly clear that you are drawing a comparison in behavior without passing judgment on the quality of the people involved. **Simple tastes** may have been pejorative in the past, but in modern usage it is usually said as a point of pride. I think this transformation is in part due to the quote variously attributed to Oscar Wilde and Winston Churchill:
>
> I am a man of simple tastes: I am always satisfied with the best.
>
>
>
Other phrases you could slip into similar comparisons, but which I think are more easily taken to offense:
* **economical eater** (or buyer) - clear that the motivation for the 'simpler' tastes is not the taste itself. This could be taken as pejorative in a different direction if thought to imply that the subject is impoverished.
* **undiscerning** - antonym of discerning, which is a high-brow, non-pejorative way of saying picky.
* **perfunctory** - draws the comparison that your 2nd group simply doesn't put the same effort into their food.
* **blissfully ignorant** (of the gourmet) - makes it clear that your 2nd group is no less satisfied with their choices, regardless of what judgment the reader or the gourmets may pass on them.
But the bottom line is, people can and do take offense at anything. If you want to avoid any appearance of putting anyone down, you should do as Oldcat suggests and stick to classifying inanimate objects.
---
The trouble, I think, stems from a secondary meaning of gourmet. The primary definition of a gourmet is a noun, describing a person with good taste in food. This is still the subjective *good*, in that a gourmet can maintain their own preferences in food. In other words, a gourmet is someone who has the *ability* to make fine distinctions in the taste of food and drink.
The secondary meaning of gourmet is the *adjective* form, which implies a standard of quality that has to be met. However, this implies that certain foods, kitchens, eaters etc. are either gourmet or not based on how well they meet this standard. This meaning has made catapulted to prominence due to the pervasiveness of marketing. The implication it carries has created an **objective** standard. This has caused the whole conundrum of your question. In this sense of the word, being called *not-gourmet* is an insult; it's saying someone has bad taste in food, prefers inexpensive or bland meals, or can't taste the difference between a box wine and Dom Pérignon.
---
Therefore, I would propose taking your initial description in a different direction, you could classify your 1st group as food **enthusiasts**. This term has none of the objective/subjective baggage and simply means that they are interested in and motivated to learn about food.
It can still be a tricky term to find an antonym for, however. The best antonym for enthusiasm is apathy, which has a fair degree of negative connotation. Food apathist (strange there isn't a real coinage for this) or apathetic eater don't ring particularly positive for me. Other terms you could use are:
* Indifferent
* Disinterested
* Egalitarian - purports the belief that food is food, regardless of how it tastes; as long as it keeps you alive, it's good. See [soylent](http://www.soylent.me/) for an extreme example of this.
* Agnostic - similar to egalitarian, it has the [following definition](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic)
>
> **2.** a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
>
>
>
Which would make a **food agnostic** someone who does not believe in the absolute quality of one food over another. Also see: [Hunger is the best spice](https://www.google.com/?q=hunger%20is%20the%20best%20spice#q=hunger%20is%20the%20best%20spice).
---
On a related (sarcastic) note, I would contend that any true Gourmet would not be satisfied with any pre-made pasta sauce. Further, I contend that anyone who has ever made a fresh ragù from scratch would agree with me.
Dropping the sarcasm, I personally love to cook and eat a meal that requires hours of preparation and monitoring (I have it on good authority that a real ragù has to be simmered at least 3 hours to cross the threshold from a pomodoro sauce), but I rarely have the time to do everything I want. Most of the time, I'm cooking for speed, and if that means having Kraft dinner, I don't lose any sleep over it; in fact, I'm just as happy on those occasions. | Someone of simple tastes could be termed "unpretentious." It is hard to positively describe someone of ordinary tastes without sounding pejorative. However, "rustic" foods often have a charm of their own, not despite but because of their simplicities. |
181,861 | I'm looking to describe two groups of people who eat pasta sauces. One type likes things like Rao's or Mario Batali. I'm describing them as "gourmet". A second group prefers Ragu and Prego. I was thinking *utilitarian*, but that's not quite right, and I don't want to use a term like *unsophisticated* or *simple* because the first is pejorative and the second isn't to do with taste in particular like *gourmet* is. Any ideas? | 2014/07/02 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/181861",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/51449/"
] | You might say they prefer **[homestyle](https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3ahomestyle)** cooking. | Consider *[unfussy](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unfussy)*, an adjective that means “Not fussy”. Also *[accepting](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/accepting#Adjective)*, “Characterized by acceptance”. |
181,861 | I'm looking to describe two groups of people who eat pasta sauces. One type likes things like Rao's or Mario Batali. I'm describing them as "gourmet". A second group prefers Ragu and Prego. I was thinking *utilitarian*, but that's not quite right, and I don't want to use a term like *unsophisticated* or *simple* because the first is pejorative and the second isn't to do with taste in particular like *gourmet* is. Any ideas? | 2014/07/02 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/181861",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/51449/"
] | Consider *[unfussy](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unfussy)*, an adjective that means “Not fussy”. Also *[accepting](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/accepting#Adjective)*, “Characterized by acceptance”. | I would describe the opposite of gourmet to be *[provincial](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/provincial)*:
>
> 2 Of or concerning the regions outside the capital city of a country,
> especially when regarded as ***unsophisticated*** or narrow-minded:
>
>
> *ODO **Emphasis** added*
>
>
> |
181,861 | I'm looking to describe two groups of people who eat pasta sauces. One type likes things like Rao's or Mario Batali. I'm describing them as "gourmet". A second group prefers Ragu and Prego. I was thinking *utilitarian*, but that's not quite right, and I don't want to use a term like *unsophisticated* or *simple* because the first is pejorative and the second isn't to do with taste in particular like *gourmet* is. Any ideas? | 2014/07/02 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/181861",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/51449/"
] | Someone of simple tastes could be termed "unpretentious." It is hard to positively describe someone of ordinary tastes without sounding pejorative. However, "rustic" foods often have a charm of their own, not despite but because of their simplicities. | Consider *[unfussy](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unfussy)*, an adjective that means “Not fussy”. Also *[accepting](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/accepting#Adjective)*, “Characterized by acceptance”. |
181,861 | I'm looking to describe two groups of people who eat pasta sauces. One type likes things like Rao's or Mario Batali. I'm describing them as "gourmet". A second group prefers Ragu and Prego. I was thinking *utilitarian*, but that's not quite right, and I don't want to use a term like *unsophisticated* or *simple* because the first is pejorative and the second isn't to do with taste in particular like *gourmet* is. Any ideas? | 2014/07/02 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/181861",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/51449/"
] | You might say they prefer **[homestyle](https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3ahomestyle)** cooking. | I would describe the opposite of gourmet to be *[provincial](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/provincial)*:
>
> 2 Of or concerning the regions outside the capital city of a country,
> especially when regarded as ***unsophisticated*** or narrow-minded:
>
>
> *ODO **Emphasis** added*
>
>
> |
181,861 | I'm looking to describe two groups of people who eat pasta sauces. One type likes things like Rao's or Mario Batali. I'm describing them as "gourmet". A second group prefers Ragu and Prego. I was thinking *utilitarian*, but that's not quite right, and I don't want to use a term like *unsophisticated* or *simple* because the first is pejorative and the second isn't to do with taste in particular like *gourmet* is. Any ideas? | 2014/07/02 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/181861",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/51449/"
] | Someone of simple tastes could be termed "unpretentious." It is hard to positively describe someone of ordinary tastes without sounding pejorative. However, "rustic" foods often have a charm of their own, not despite but because of their simplicities. | I would describe the opposite of gourmet to be *[provincial](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/provincial)*:
>
> 2 Of or concerning the regions outside the capital city of a country,
> especially when regarded as ***unsophisticated*** or narrow-minded:
>
>
> *ODO **Emphasis** added*
>
>
> |
59,997 | My first thought is simply 'time frame', but then Anthropology isn't exactly bound to the past...
A second look makes me wonder if "experimental philosophy" is not simply some area of overlap between Psychology, Sociology and of course Anthropology. An aside question that came up in this regard is: Can the same research material, e.g. *questionnaires*, be used by different disciplines?
Now I don't want to come across as critical of the existence of "experimental philosophy", after all it may turn out future generations will much benefit from the Democratic Depository of Philosophical Intuitions.
**But it seem there is a demarcation problem here I'm unable to find any sources to resolve?**
See also this apology:
<https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2006/03/experimental_ph.html> | 2019/02/01 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/59997",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/33787/"
] | >
> In this regard, if no one has experienced "God", it means "God" doesn't and cannot exist
>
>
>
Not so long ago, no one has experienced diving the Mariana Trench; then someone did do so. Did the Trench not exist before?
Imagine there were no humans (nothing intelligent on earth). Would that mean that the planet could not exists?
100 years ago nobody could even have *imagined* our technology (which is true if you read their SciFi books - those are sounding really old-fashioned today; even their most progressive minds could not imagine our everyday stuff). Would that mean that it doesn't (well, not back then) and *cannot* exist?
If we kill all humans, does the universe go "poof" because nobody can witness it anymore?
>
> are aware of our potential of experiencing it through our five sense organs, namely - eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin
>
>
>
I assure you there are people out there who are indeed "aware of our potential of experiencing God through our five senses" - people even wrote a book about it. Literally.
This does not make God exist though, either.
>
> How can this fact be wrong?
>
>
>
Well. You have to prove facts. You cannot just not be able to imagine a way in which it could be false, and then posit that it must therefore be true. | "Isn't the knowledge of the non-existence of “God” objective?"
If taking the definition of "Objective" meaning: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Then one could safely say yes, this is true. Faith is a personal feeling after all.
---
However; I have provided this definition, which differs from the one you provide in the body of your question. Since this is a philosophy site you should be aware of how important it is to align your ontology, that being the entities you suppose to exist and their definitions. If you choose to define things differently from what would commonly be defined (such as your definition as to what objective means) you can introduce inconsistencies.
For instance you go on to link objective with concrete senses. Which has spawned argument and further you have left room in the interpretation of 'existence' which from the following comment that you left:
>
> Suppose you know "something" doesn't exist. It means it doesn't exist
> for you at present (It doesn't exist now). Suppose in the future, it
> exists. Then you would say at that time that "it exists now". I was
> referring to the present tense in the history rather than the past
> tense in the present. Sort of trying to live in the present - of
> history. Because, at that time you would say, "Radio waves don't
> exist". But today, we can say "Radio waves exist
>
>
>
From here we see that existence is is taking on the meaning of relative truth or individual reality. Individual reality isn't very mixable with the idea of objectivity especially as you define it being outside the mind...
I want to point that I don't think many people would disagree with my initial answer (as I defined ) but as you have redefined *objective* the answer becomes pretty intractable.
Finally it should be noted that the answer I provided is yes by definition and therefore it is a loaded question and provides no insight into reality (at least that I can see). |
59,997 | My first thought is simply 'time frame', but then Anthropology isn't exactly bound to the past...
A second look makes me wonder if "experimental philosophy" is not simply some area of overlap between Psychology, Sociology and of course Anthropology. An aside question that came up in this regard is: Can the same research material, e.g. *questionnaires*, be used by different disciplines?
Now I don't want to come across as critical of the existence of "experimental philosophy", after all it may turn out future generations will much benefit from the Democratic Depository of Philosophical Intuitions.
**But it seem there is a demarcation problem here I'm unable to find any sources to resolve?**
See also this apology:
<https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2006/03/experimental_ph.html> | 2019/02/01 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/59997",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/33787/"
] | >
> Is it true that "X" exists in reality only when we are aware of having experienced it, or are aware of our potential of experiencing it through our five sense organs, namely - eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin?
>
>
>
I do not accept that proposition, or at least I do not accept that the definition of "reality" it implies is equivalent to common-use definitions such as [the Oxford dictionary's](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reality):
>
> The state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an
> idealistic or notional idea of them.
>
>
>
The "reality" defined by your proposition is individual and personal, defined separately for each person by their awareness and experience. The common interpretation and usage of the word, on the other hand, as represented by the Oxford definition, posits a *single* actual state of things at any given time, independent of people, and of their thoughts and ideas.
Or perhaps you meant the "we" in your proposition to be interpreted collectively, so that your "reality" encompasses everything that is part of any person's awareness or experience. Even ignoring some potential problems with that, it's still inconsistent with my notion of "reality", which supposes that a great many things exist and are real that no human ever has, will, or even can experience. I assert, in fact, that your definition is completely incompatible with Oxford's, and mine, in that the latter describes a reality that is independent of human thought and experience, but yours is completely dependent on human thought and experience.
>
> In this regard, if no one has experienced "God", it means "God" doesn't and cannot exist; because, if "God" could have existed in reality, it would have already existed outside of our thoughts.
>
>
>
Yes, that -- at least the "doesn't" part -- follows directly from your definition of "reality", but
* So what? If you want to debate whether God is real, then you first have to come to a reasonable agreement about the terms involved. Your "reality" is not the one to which I normally take the central idea of atheism to apply.
* Moreover, to reach the conclusion, you are assuming that "no one has experienced 'God'". At best, that's an unsupported assumption. At worst, it's an assumption of the conclusion. You have no way to establish the truth of that claim, which is in fact directly contradicted by numerous purportedly true stories in religious literature and elsewhere of people physically perceiving or experiencing God. Some of those describe manifestly objective events, such as miraculous healings and unnatural effects on geographical features. Perhaps none of those stories are true, but they establish that your assertion about people not having experienced God is not even a generally accepted position.
>
> Thus, "God" is merely an idea.
>
>
>
This has not been established by your argument.
---
Overall, with respect to the title question,
>
> Isn't the knowledge of the non-existence of “God” objective?
>
>
>
, no, absolutely not. If we suppose, *arguendo*, that God does not exist, then how do you suppose anyone could perceive that nonexistence, and so establish it as objective truth per the definition you present? Failing to perceive something is quite a different thing from perceiving its absence, especially if you do not know what you should expect to perceive if that thing were present.
If God does exist in some objective form or fashion then we can suppose that someone, somewhere may perceive that, or may have done in the past, or may do in the future. Thus it is at least conceivable that the existence of God could be objectively established. The opposite, on the other hand, cannot ever be objectively established. | I have more senses than sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell. In a dark room, I can tell you whether my right elbow is straight or not, to give one example, without seeing it or touching it. Nor is it necessary that every observer be able to observe something. I've known some blind people, for example. If I put a pencil partly in a glass of water, everybody who sees it from the side sees that it's bent, and can feel that it's not.
So, you're gravely oversimplifying. We use senses to construct something of a consensus reality, and accept that there are things we can't detect. Nor are you qualified to say that no one has experienced X; that is an assumption based on the concept that X doesn't exist, and is circular reasoning.
So, it's possible that some people have a sense that somehow perceives God. It doesn't have to be everyone, and the perceptions don't have to be all identical.
Now, it's true that we can't make an artificial God detector, but it's conceivable that we can produce one in the future that works on the same principle as people's sense of God. |
59,997 | My first thought is simply 'time frame', but then Anthropology isn't exactly bound to the past...
A second look makes me wonder if "experimental philosophy" is not simply some area of overlap between Psychology, Sociology and of course Anthropology. An aside question that came up in this regard is: Can the same research material, e.g. *questionnaires*, be used by different disciplines?
Now I don't want to come across as critical of the existence of "experimental philosophy", after all it may turn out future generations will much benefit from the Democratic Depository of Philosophical Intuitions.
**But it seem there is a demarcation problem here I'm unable to find any sources to resolve?**
See also this apology:
<https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2006/03/experimental_ph.html> | 2019/02/01 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/59997",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/33787/"
] | Whether or not God exists is an objective question with an objective answer, however the argument beginning
>
> Is it true that "X" exists in reality only when we are aware of having experienced it, or are aware of our potential of experiencing it
>
>
>
is starting with a baseless assumption. It's kind of like assuming the strongest form of the anthropic principle. The weak anthropic principal is provable from base logic; however not so the strong. But this is rather like the strongest form "The solution set of the laws of physics is mathematically constrained so that all solutions have us within them."
Or another way, you exclude all things from ever existing that cannot be observed. The mathematics of the laws of physics does not do so. On what evidence do you make this assumption?
Or again, the top quark was always a solution to the laws of physics, but no known process makes it, and it was not observed until humans went out of their way to cause it to be made. You would exclude it being made in astronomical events because we cannot possibly observe the difference between it being created or not being created.
Or again, in the hyperinflation scenario, you would exclude from existence all distant galaxies as soon as they exited our light cone without cause or reason.
But faith is more logical than some would guess. For if you took the weight of the evidence for God existing, and the weight of evidence against as computed by the counterfactuals, you would find that believing either side requires a great deal of faith. On one side you have a thing that will not be easily detected and on the other side a ridiculously long set of die rolls to pass. Even if you did assume the strongest anthropic principle it is no wedge to decide between two solutions. | >
> is it true that "X" exists in reality only when we are **aware** of having
> experienced it,
>
>
>
Your definition does not state that you must be aware of having experienced it. Its plausible that there are many things you have experienced that you are unaware of. Some of those things could be objective.
Airplanes objectively have an effect on ants. It's not clear whether ants comprehend this effect for what it is.
>
> In this regard, **if** no one has experienced "God", it means "God"
> doesn't and cannot exist;
>
>
>
Let's assume this statement is true. Since you can't know who has or has not experienced God, you can't determine whether God does or does not exist from it.
That said, I reject that this statement shows that God is not objective, according to your definition. "Perceptible by all" does not imply that something has been perceived by all or even by any. Only that it is capable of being perceived. Its unclear whether or not God can be perceived.
>
> because, if "God" could have existed in reality, it would have already
> existed outside of our thoughts.
>
>
>
This statement sounds like a tautology. Things that exist do exist outside of our own thoughts.
>
> Thus, "God" is merely an idea.
>
>
>
Your arguments haven't shown that this statement is true.
>
> Hence, this has to be the objective truth as everyone knows that they
> experience reality in the same way (i.e. through 5 sense organs).
>
>
>
Lets assume everyone experiences reality the same way. There's still no way to rule out whether experiencing God is possible or not.
That said, I reject the idea that everyone experiences reality the same way. It's possible that they do, but there's no way to actually know.
>
> How can this fact be wrong?
>
>
>
If we accept your definition of objective, then you must prove that God cannot be perceived. Otherwise, in the absence of other information, its unclear whether God is Objective or not. |
59,997 | My first thought is simply 'time frame', but then Anthropology isn't exactly bound to the past...
A second look makes me wonder if "experimental philosophy" is not simply some area of overlap between Psychology, Sociology and of course Anthropology. An aside question that came up in this regard is: Can the same research material, e.g. *questionnaires*, be used by different disciplines?
Now I don't want to come across as critical of the existence of "experimental philosophy", after all it may turn out future generations will much benefit from the Democratic Depository of Philosophical Intuitions.
**But it seem there is a demarcation problem here I'm unable to find any sources to resolve?**
See also this apology:
<https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2006/03/experimental_ph.html> | 2019/02/01 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/59997",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/33787/"
] | >
> Is it true that "X" exists in reality only when we are aware of having experienced it, or are aware of our potential of experiencing it through our five sense organs, namely - eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin?
>
>
>
I do not accept that proposition, or at least I do not accept that the definition of "reality" it implies is equivalent to common-use definitions such as [the Oxford dictionary's](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reality):
>
> The state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an
> idealistic or notional idea of them.
>
>
>
The "reality" defined by your proposition is individual and personal, defined separately for each person by their awareness and experience. The common interpretation and usage of the word, on the other hand, as represented by the Oxford definition, posits a *single* actual state of things at any given time, independent of people, and of their thoughts and ideas.
Or perhaps you meant the "we" in your proposition to be interpreted collectively, so that your "reality" encompasses everything that is part of any person's awareness or experience. Even ignoring some potential problems with that, it's still inconsistent with my notion of "reality", which supposes that a great many things exist and are real that no human ever has, will, or even can experience. I assert, in fact, that your definition is completely incompatible with Oxford's, and mine, in that the latter describes a reality that is independent of human thought and experience, but yours is completely dependent on human thought and experience.
>
> In this regard, if no one has experienced "God", it means "God" doesn't and cannot exist; because, if "God" could have existed in reality, it would have already existed outside of our thoughts.
>
>
>
Yes, that -- at least the "doesn't" part -- follows directly from your definition of "reality", but
* So what? If you want to debate whether God is real, then you first have to come to a reasonable agreement about the terms involved. Your "reality" is not the one to which I normally take the central idea of atheism to apply.
* Moreover, to reach the conclusion, you are assuming that "no one has experienced 'God'". At best, that's an unsupported assumption. At worst, it's an assumption of the conclusion. You have no way to establish the truth of that claim, which is in fact directly contradicted by numerous purportedly true stories in religious literature and elsewhere of people physically perceiving or experiencing God. Some of those describe manifestly objective events, such as miraculous healings and unnatural effects on geographical features. Perhaps none of those stories are true, but they establish that your assertion about people not having experienced God is not even a generally accepted position.
>
> Thus, "God" is merely an idea.
>
>
>
This has not been established by your argument.
---
Overall, with respect to the title question,
>
> Isn't the knowledge of the non-existence of “God” objective?
>
>
>
, no, absolutely not. If we suppose, *arguendo*, that God does not exist, then how do you suppose anyone could perceive that nonexistence, and so establish it as objective truth per the definition you present? Failing to perceive something is quite a different thing from perceiving its absence, especially if you do not know what you should expect to perceive if that thing were present.
If God does exist in some objective form or fashion then we can suppose that someone, somewhere may perceive that, or may have done in the past, or may do in the future. Thus it is at least conceivable that the existence of God could be objectively established. The opposite, on the other hand, cannot ever be objectively established. | >
> is it true that "X" exists in reality only when we are **aware** of having
> experienced it,
>
>
>
Your definition does not state that you must be aware of having experienced it. Its plausible that there are many things you have experienced that you are unaware of. Some of those things could be objective.
Airplanes objectively have an effect on ants. It's not clear whether ants comprehend this effect for what it is.
>
> In this regard, **if** no one has experienced "God", it means "God"
> doesn't and cannot exist;
>
>
>
Let's assume this statement is true. Since you can't know who has or has not experienced God, you can't determine whether God does or does not exist from it.
That said, I reject that this statement shows that God is not objective, according to your definition. "Perceptible by all" does not imply that something has been perceived by all or even by any. Only that it is capable of being perceived. Its unclear whether or not God can be perceived.
>
> because, if "God" could have existed in reality, it would have already
> existed outside of our thoughts.
>
>
>
This statement sounds like a tautology. Things that exist do exist outside of our own thoughts.
>
> Thus, "God" is merely an idea.
>
>
>
Your arguments haven't shown that this statement is true.
>
> Hence, this has to be the objective truth as everyone knows that they
> experience reality in the same way (i.e. through 5 sense organs).
>
>
>
Lets assume everyone experiences reality the same way. There's still no way to rule out whether experiencing God is possible or not.
That said, I reject the idea that everyone experiences reality the same way. It's possible that they do, but there's no way to actually know.
>
> How can this fact be wrong?
>
>
>
If we accept your definition of objective, then you must prove that God cannot be perceived. Otherwise, in the absence of other information, its unclear whether God is Objective or not. |
59,997 | My first thought is simply 'time frame', but then Anthropology isn't exactly bound to the past...
A second look makes me wonder if "experimental philosophy" is not simply some area of overlap between Psychology, Sociology and of course Anthropology. An aside question that came up in this regard is: Can the same research material, e.g. *questionnaires*, be used by different disciplines?
Now I don't want to come across as critical of the existence of "experimental philosophy", after all it may turn out future generations will much benefit from the Democratic Depository of Philosophical Intuitions.
**But it seem there is a demarcation problem here I'm unable to find any sources to resolve?**
See also this apology:
<https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2006/03/experimental_ph.html> | 2019/02/01 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/59997",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/33787/"
] | Atheist conceptions of the idea of God often rest on a [straw man fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) that portrays a theistic view of God as [Russell's teapot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot) or as the [Flying Spaghetti Monster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster). Both of these conceptions view God as an object which is easy to argue against.
These analogies of God as an object floating about in a gravitational field are weak, hence logical fallacies. They ignore theistic views of God as, at minimum, being omnipresent. A teapot or a monster is not omnipresent. Instead of viewing God as a teapot, a stronger analogy, more closely representing a theistic view, would be to see God as the gravitational field in which the teapot is moving, not as the teapot.
In other words, one can answer the question whether we can see God "through our five sense organs, namely - eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin?" as "sure we can", if we view God as manifested through such fields. Admittedly there is more to a theistic view of God than these fields, but they come closer than the teapot does and one can make objective measurements of their effects.
So the question of the objective nature of God can be transformed into a question for the philosophy of science: *Do fields actually exist?* If fields exist, there is no reason not to grant to theism the definite possibility that God viewed as a super field may be real.
When Marc Lange addressed the question of electromagnetic fields in the philosophy of science, he noted that although most scientists take such fields for granted since without them one has to accept action at a distance, not all of them do. On page 42, Lange quoted a textbook on electromagnetic theory:
>
> The assertion [of the field's reality], taken by itself apart from the quantitative force-law is scientifically otiose....It is merely the physically irrelevant statement of a metaphysical conviction....This is certainly not a legitimate physical theory at all; it is the confusion of metaphysical belief with metrical physics....
>
>
>
Whether one accepts this view of electromagnetic fields the author at least understood the potential metaphysical and theistic problem that accepting such concepts presented.
To summarize, consider the question:
>
> Is it true that "X" exists in reality only when we are aware of having experienced it, or are aware of our potential of experiencing it through our five sense organs, namely - eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin? In this regard, if no one has experienced "God", it means "God" doesn't and cannot exist; because, if "God" could have existed in reality, it would have already existed outside of our thoughts. Thus, "God" is merely an idea. Hence, this has to be the objective truth as everyone knows that they experience reality in the same way (i.e. through 5 sense organs).
>
>
> How can this fact be wrong?
>
>
>
This can be refuted by noting that we experience field effects such as gravitation and light (electromagnetic field). Conceptions of God whether Platonic Forms, Plotinus' One, Judeo-Christo-Islamic or Hindu theisms could rest on this field concept although they have their own philosophical and theological origins.
---
"Flying Spaghetti Monster" Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster>
Lange, M. (2002). An Introduction to the philosophy of physics: Locality, fields, energy, and mass. Blackwell Publishing.
"Russell's teapot" Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot>
"Straw man" Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man> | >
> Is it true that "X" exists in reality only when we are aware of having experienced it, or are aware of our potential of experiencing it through our five sense organs, namely - eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin?
>
>
>
I do not accept that proposition, or at least I do not accept that the definition of "reality" it implies is equivalent to common-use definitions such as [the Oxford dictionary's](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reality):
>
> The state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an
> idealistic or notional idea of them.
>
>
>
The "reality" defined by your proposition is individual and personal, defined separately for each person by their awareness and experience. The common interpretation and usage of the word, on the other hand, as represented by the Oxford definition, posits a *single* actual state of things at any given time, independent of people, and of their thoughts and ideas.
Or perhaps you meant the "we" in your proposition to be interpreted collectively, so that your "reality" encompasses everything that is part of any person's awareness or experience. Even ignoring some potential problems with that, it's still inconsistent with my notion of "reality", which supposes that a great many things exist and are real that no human ever has, will, or even can experience. I assert, in fact, that your definition is completely incompatible with Oxford's, and mine, in that the latter describes a reality that is independent of human thought and experience, but yours is completely dependent on human thought and experience.
>
> In this regard, if no one has experienced "God", it means "God" doesn't and cannot exist; because, if "God" could have existed in reality, it would have already existed outside of our thoughts.
>
>
>
Yes, that -- at least the "doesn't" part -- follows directly from your definition of "reality", but
* So what? If you want to debate whether God is real, then you first have to come to a reasonable agreement about the terms involved. Your "reality" is not the one to which I normally take the central idea of atheism to apply.
* Moreover, to reach the conclusion, you are assuming that "no one has experienced 'God'". At best, that's an unsupported assumption. At worst, it's an assumption of the conclusion. You have no way to establish the truth of that claim, which is in fact directly contradicted by numerous purportedly true stories in religious literature and elsewhere of people physically perceiving or experiencing God. Some of those describe manifestly objective events, such as miraculous healings and unnatural effects on geographical features. Perhaps none of those stories are true, but they establish that your assertion about people not having experienced God is not even a generally accepted position.
>
> Thus, "God" is merely an idea.
>
>
>
This has not been established by your argument.
---
Overall, with respect to the title question,
>
> Isn't the knowledge of the non-existence of “God” objective?
>
>
>
, no, absolutely not. If we suppose, *arguendo*, that God does not exist, then how do you suppose anyone could perceive that nonexistence, and so establish it as objective truth per the definition you present? Failing to perceive something is quite a different thing from perceiving its absence, especially if you do not know what you should expect to perceive if that thing were present.
If God does exist in some objective form or fashion then we can suppose that someone, somewhere may perceive that, or may have done in the past, or may do in the future. Thus it is at least conceivable that the existence of God could be objectively established. The opposite, on the other hand, cannot ever be objectively established. |
59,997 | My first thought is simply 'time frame', but then Anthropology isn't exactly bound to the past...
A second look makes me wonder if "experimental philosophy" is not simply some area of overlap between Psychology, Sociology and of course Anthropology. An aside question that came up in this regard is: Can the same research material, e.g. *questionnaires*, be used by different disciplines?
Now I don't want to come across as critical of the existence of "experimental philosophy", after all it may turn out future generations will much benefit from the Democratic Depository of Philosophical Intuitions.
**But it seem there is a demarcation problem here I'm unable to find any sources to resolve?**
See also this apology:
<https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2006/03/experimental_ph.html> | 2019/02/01 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/59997",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/33787/"
] | A lack of evidence for something is not evidence for a lack of something. By the very nature of the concept, it is not possible to "prove" (or really empirically determine, since true proof struggles to exist outside mathematics) the non-existence of a God, because God is inherently a transcendent being who exists above the rest of reality, and as such God's existence can always be reconciled with any given feature of reality by saying that He put it there. If He cannot be observed it's because He doesn't want to be observed. The argument for atheism is not that the lack of evidence for God proves that God doesn't exist, but rather that since it is not proven that God does exist there's not much point in bogging yourself down with the unfounded belief that He does.
To take the epistemology out of a religious context, think about how you could be a brain in a vat being fed artificial experiences by an advanced computer, instead of the full-bodied human operating in the real world that you think you are. The lack of evidence for being a brain in a vat does not constitute evidence that you are in fact not a brain in a vat. So you're just sort of stuck in a position of not knowing what to believe, and really there's no right answer. You can assume that you are a brain in a vat, or you can assume that you aren't. It's a lot more convenient to assume that you aren't, but you could just as well be wrong as you could be right, and for all you know I could even be the mad scientist who put your brain in a vat, telling you this to maintain the façade.
(hope this didn't seem too biased towards my own secularism) | I have more senses than sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell. In a dark room, I can tell you whether my right elbow is straight or not, to give one example, without seeing it or touching it. Nor is it necessary that every observer be able to observe something. I've known some blind people, for example. If I put a pencil partly in a glass of water, everybody who sees it from the side sees that it's bent, and can feel that it's not.
So, you're gravely oversimplifying. We use senses to construct something of a consensus reality, and accept that there are things we can't detect. Nor are you qualified to say that no one has experienced X; that is an assumption based on the concept that X doesn't exist, and is circular reasoning.
So, it's possible that some people have a sense that somehow perceives God. It doesn't have to be everyone, and the perceptions don't have to be all identical.
Now, it's true that we can't make an artificial God detector, but it's conceivable that we can produce one in the future that works on the same principle as people's sense of God. |
59,997 | My first thought is simply 'time frame', but then Anthropology isn't exactly bound to the past...
A second look makes me wonder if "experimental philosophy" is not simply some area of overlap between Psychology, Sociology and of course Anthropology. An aside question that came up in this regard is: Can the same research material, e.g. *questionnaires*, be used by different disciplines?
Now I don't want to come across as critical of the existence of "experimental philosophy", after all it may turn out future generations will much benefit from the Democratic Depository of Philosophical Intuitions.
**But it seem there is a demarcation problem here I'm unable to find any sources to resolve?**
See also this apology:
<https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2006/03/experimental_ph.html> | 2019/02/01 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/59997",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/33787/"
] | Whether or not God exists is an objective question with an objective answer, however the argument beginning
>
> Is it true that "X" exists in reality only when we are aware of having experienced it, or are aware of our potential of experiencing it
>
>
>
is starting with a baseless assumption. It's kind of like assuming the strongest form of the anthropic principle. The weak anthropic principal is provable from base logic; however not so the strong. But this is rather like the strongest form "The solution set of the laws of physics is mathematically constrained so that all solutions have us within them."
Or another way, you exclude all things from ever existing that cannot be observed. The mathematics of the laws of physics does not do so. On what evidence do you make this assumption?
Or again, the top quark was always a solution to the laws of physics, but no known process makes it, and it was not observed until humans went out of their way to cause it to be made. You would exclude it being made in astronomical events because we cannot possibly observe the difference between it being created or not being created.
Or again, in the hyperinflation scenario, you would exclude from existence all distant galaxies as soon as they exited our light cone without cause or reason.
But faith is more logical than some would guess. For if you took the weight of the evidence for God existing, and the weight of evidence against as computed by the counterfactuals, you would find that believing either side requires a great deal of faith. On one side you have a thing that will not be easily detected and on the other side a ridiculously long set of die rolls to pass. Even if you did assume the strongest anthropic principle it is no wedge to decide between two solutions. | I have more senses than sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell. In a dark room, I can tell you whether my right elbow is straight or not, to give one example, without seeing it or touching it. Nor is it necessary that every observer be able to observe something. I've known some blind people, for example. If I put a pencil partly in a glass of water, everybody who sees it from the side sees that it's bent, and can feel that it's not.
So, you're gravely oversimplifying. We use senses to construct something of a consensus reality, and accept that there are things we can't detect. Nor are you qualified to say that no one has experienced X; that is an assumption based on the concept that X doesn't exist, and is circular reasoning.
So, it's possible that some people have a sense that somehow perceives God. It doesn't have to be everyone, and the perceptions don't have to be all identical.
Now, it's true that we can't make an artificial God detector, but it's conceivable that we can produce one in the future that works on the same principle as people's sense of God. |
59,997 | My first thought is simply 'time frame', but then Anthropology isn't exactly bound to the past...
A second look makes me wonder if "experimental philosophy" is not simply some area of overlap between Psychology, Sociology and of course Anthropology. An aside question that came up in this regard is: Can the same research material, e.g. *questionnaires*, be used by different disciplines?
Now I don't want to come across as critical of the existence of "experimental philosophy", after all it may turn out future generations will much benefit from the Democratic Depository of Philosophical Intuitions.
**But it seem there is a demarcation problem here I'm unable to find any sources to resolve?**
See also this apology:
<https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2006/03/experimental_ph.html> | 2019/02/01 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/59997",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/33787/"
] | >
> In this regard, if no one has experienced "God", it means "God" doesn't and cannot exist
>
>
>
Not so long ago, no one has experienced diving the Mariana Trench; then someone did do so. Did the Trench not exist before?
Imagine there were no humans (nothing intelligent on earth). Would that mean that the planet could not exists?
100 years ago nobody could even have *imagined* our technology (which is true if you read their SciFi books - those are sounding really old-fashioned today; even their most progressive minds could not imagine our everyday stuff). Would that mean that it doesn't (well, not back then) and *cannot* exist?
If we kill all humans, does the universe go "poof" because nobody can witness it anymore?
>
> are aware of our potential of experiencing it through our five sense organs, namely - eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin
>
>
>
I assure you there are people out there who are indeed "aware of our potential of experiencing God through our five senses" - people even wrote a book about it. Literally.
This does not make God exist though, either.
>
> How can this fact be wrong?
>
>
>
Well. You have to prove facts. You cannot just not be able to imagine a way in which it could be false, and then posit that it must therefore be true. | >
> is it true that "X" exists in reality only when we are **aware** of having
> experienced it,
>
>
>
Your definition does not state that you must be aware of having experienced it. Its plausible that there are many things you have experienced that you are unaware of. Some of those things could be objective.
Airplanes objectively have an effect on ants. It's not clear whether ants comprehend this effect for what it is.
>
> In this regard, **if** no one has experienced "God", it means "God"
> doesn't and cannot exist;
>
>
>
Let's assume this statement is true. Since you can't know who has or has not experienced God, you can't determine whether God does or does not exist from it.
That said, I reject that this statement shows that God is not objective, according to your definition. "Perceptible by all" does not imply that something has been perceived by all or even by any. Only that it is capable of being perceived. Its unclear whether or not God can be perceived.
>
> because, if "God" could have existed in reality, it would have already
> existed outside of our thoughts.
>
>
>
This statement sounds like a tautology. Things that exist do exist outside of our own thoughts.
>
> Thus, "God" is merely an idea.
>
>
>
Your arguments haven't shown that this statement is true.
>
> Hence, this has to be the objective truth as everyone knows that they
> experience reality in the same way (i.e. through 5 sense organs).
>
>
>
Lets assume everyone experiences reality the same way. There's still no way to rule out whether experiencing God is possible or not.
That said, I reject the idea that everyone experiences reality the same way. It's possible that they do, but there's no way to actually know.
>
> How can this fact be wrong?
>
>
>
If we accept your definition of objective, then you must prove that God cannot be perceived. Otherwise, in the absence of other information, its unclear whether God is Objective or not. |
59,997 | My first thought is simply 'time frame', but then Anthropology isn't exactly bound to the past...
A second look makes me wonder if "experimental philosophy" is not simply some area of overlap between Psychology, Sociology and of course Anthropology. An aside question that came up in this regard is: Can the same research material, e.g. *questionnaires*, be used by different disciplines?
Now I don't want to come across as critical of the existence of "experimental philosophy", after all it may turn out future generations will much benefit from the Democratic Depository of Philosophical Intuitions.
**But it seem there is a demarcation problem here I'm unable to find any sources to resolve?**
See also this apology:
<https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2006/03/experimental_ph.html> | 2019/02/01 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/59997",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/33787/"
] | A lack of evidence for something is not evidence for a lack of something. By the very nature of the concept, it is not possible to "prove" (or really empirically determine, since true proof struggles to exist outside mathematics) the non-existence of a God, because God is inherently a transcendent being who exists above the rest of reality, and as such God's existence can always be reconciled with any given feature of reality by saying that He put it there. If He cannot be observed it's because He doesn't want to be observed. The argument for atheism is not that the lack of evidence for God proves that God doesn't exist, but rather that since it is not proven that God does exist there's not much point in bogging yourself down with the unfounded belief that He does.
To take the epistemology out of a religious context, think about how you could be a brain in a vat being fed artificial experiences by an advanced computer, instead of the full-bodied human operating in the real world that you think you are. The lack of evidence for being a brain in a vat does not constitute evidence that you are in fact not a brain in a vat. So you're just sort of stuck in a position of not knowing what to believe, and really there's no right answer. You can assume that you are a brain in a vat, or you can assume that you aren't. It's a lot more convenient to assume that you aren't, but you could just as well be wrong as you could be right, and for all you know I could even be the mad scientist who put your brain in a vat, telling you this to maintain the façade.
(hope this didn't seem too biased towards my own secularism) | It may be useful to apply your definition of *objective* to a couple of related objects: Anubis, the jackal-headed god of Egyptian mythology, and an actual jackal.
I, personally, have not experienced either one, so that path to objectivity is out. So we're left with being "aware of our potential of experiencing it through our five sense organs".
If we were in the same room as each of these, we can conceive of the information that our senses would report about them, and much of the information would be quite similar: Anubis is larger, stands on his hind legs, has darker fur, and the consequences of trying to taste him would presumably be much worse.
The difference here is not if or how my senses would react to them, but whether it's possible to be in the same room with them in the first place, i.e. Do they exist in reality? The answer to that question is objective. Either they do exist or they don't, and if they do, we can sense them. But knowing that doesn't tell us which answer is the correct one.
(n.b. I'm not sure I like the stated definition of "objective"; as others have pointed out, it doesn't include things like electromagnetic fields that can't really be *sensed*, but definitely exist. But for the purposes of this answer, I'm accepting the definition as given.) |
59,997 | My first thought is simply 'time frame', but then Anthropology isn't exactly bound to the past...
A second look makes me wonder if "experimental philosophy" is not simply some area of overlap between Psychology, Sociology and of course Anthropology. An aside question that came up in this regard is: Can the same research material, e.g. *questionnaires*, be used by different disciplines?
Now I don't want to come across as critical of the existence of "experimental philosophy", after all it may turn out future generations will much benefit from the Democratic Depository of Philosophical Intuitions.
**But it seem there is a demarcation problem here I'm unable to find any sources to resolve?**
See also this apology:
<https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2006/03/experimental_ph.html> | 2019/02/01 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/59997",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/33787/"
] | Whether or not God exists is an objective question with an objective answer, however the argument beginning
>
> Is it true that "X" exists in reality only when we are aware of having experienced it, or are aware of our potential of experiencing it
>
>
>
is starting with a baseless assumption. It's kind of like assuming the strongest form of the anthropic principle. The weak anthropic principal is provable from base logic; however not so the strong. But this is rather like the strongest form "The solution set of the laws of physics is mathematically constrained so that all solutions have us within them."
Or another way, you exclude all things from ever existing that cannot be observed. The mathematics of the laws of physics does not do so. On what evidence do you make this assumption?
Or again, the top quark was always a solution to the laws of physics, but no known process makes it, and it was not observed until humans went out of their way to cause it to be made. You would exclude it being made in astronomical events because we cannot possibly observe the difference between it being created or not being created.
Or again, in the hyperinflation scenario, you would exclude from existence all distant galaxies as soon as they exited our light cone without cause or reason.
But faith is more logical than some would guess. For if you took the weight of the evidence for God existing, and the weight of evidence against as computed by the counterfactuals, you would find that believing either side requires a great deal of faith. On one side you have a thing that will not be easily detected and on the other side a ridiculously long set of die rolls to pass. Even if you did assume the strongest anthropic principle it is no wedge to decide between two solutions. | I'd like to ask a couple clarifying questions but unfortunately do not have the reputation to add a comment.
>
> of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible
> experience independent of thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality
> independent of the mind
>
>
>
With this definition of "objective", as pertains to God, who are "all observers"?
Is knowledge of God's existence an "object", "phenomenon" or "condition"?
If a cell in your body does not "experience" your existence through "sensory" input, does it make your existence less objective?
Does knowledge for non-existence require unanimous agreement? ("all observers") |
220,871 | The following Atom feed has invalid characters, and is making my reader app crash because the XML library cannot parse it:
>
> <https://stackoverflow.com/feeds/tag/windows-8.1%20OR%20windows-store-apps%20OR%20windows-8%20OR%20windows-phone-8%20OR%20windows-runtime>
>
>
>
Feeds change too fast, so by the time you see this report the feed may not be invalid anymore, so I am copying the feed here:
>
> <https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=63207E51377958A9!12583&authkey=!ALmX1rIbGv-bais&ithint=file%2c.xml>
>
>
>
This is not the first time I've seen an invalid feed.
The problem is that there are multiple 0x1E bytes, the first one is in line 121 character 48, or byte 7104.
That is the `<summary>` of this question:
>
> [System.InvalidCast exception Windows Runtime](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/21742963/system-invalidcast-exception-windows-runtime)
>
>
>
So any Atom feed containing that question is invalid. | 2014/02/13 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/220871",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/132415/"
] | You're right, U+001E is not a [valid character in XML 1.0](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valid_characters_in_XML), which the SO Atom feed claims to be. The same goes for all other [C0 control characters](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C0_and_C1_control_codes) too, except for TAB (U+0009), LF (U+000A) and CR (U+000D).
Those characters *are* valid in XML 1.1, [as long as they're encoded as entity literals](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1170270/how-do-i-escape-unicode-character-0x1f-in-xml) (e.g. ``). However, given that they have no obvious *use* in an Atom feed, it would probably be better to just filter them out. | Thanks for bringing this up. I have resolved it by retroactively sanitizing the Question/Answer data that is used in the feeds, and installing mechanisms to prevent future invalid characters from being input. This will be live in the next release (> rev 2014.6.27.2348) |
206,411 | I was reading this [sparkfun article](https://learn.sparkfun.com/tutorials/transistors/applications-i-switches) to learn more about how transistors work, but I am confused by one of their diagrams. Here it is:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/mu6wm.png)
If there is no current flowing, why is there a 1.3V drop across the LED? I looked at the VI characteristic graph for LEDs and it should be 0v when I=0, which is the case here. I think I am missing something, can someone point out exactly what?
Thanks! | 2015/12/16 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/206411",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/92664/"
] | They are probably trying to show you the voltage the LED would drop when some current is going thru it. I agree that is inconsistent with how they are showing the voltages across other components. In reality, the LED will have very close to 0 V across it when the transistor is off. The only current will be the transistor leakage, which quite small.
There is a case where what they show could actually be true. LEDs also work as photocells in reverse, although rather poorly. With no load on it and in reasonable light, the LED will develop a voltage close to its normal forward operating voltage. However, the impedance of that will be so high that even a ordinary voltmeter can load it. Whoever made that diagram may have probed around the circuit with a voltmeter, and at that illumination and that voltmeter, that's what was reported across the LED. Whatever part of the supply voltage that doesn't appear across the LED would then be across the transistors, since no current is flowing.
Another possibility is that when they probed across the transistor with a voltmeter, the meter caused enough current to flow for the LED to develop 1.3 V across it, so the meter read 3.7 V. They then subtracted 5 V from 3.7 V to say the LED had 1.3 V across it. If the LED was measured directly, it would have less voltage across it. | You are right.
When the current is zero, the voltage will be zero.
However, when simulating 0mA is not necessarily absolutely zero.
What I speculate their simulation tool to make that image does is also calculate a small leakage current through the transistor. To be honest I find it fairly shoddy they do not explain about that (I'm assuming, since I am too lazy to read all of it), because it is confusing, as you have experienced first hand.
A transistor may still conduct a tiny bit if you do not force a current into the base, due to small bits of unperfectness. When you express that leakage as mA it will say "0mA". But a simulation tool may estimate up to several dozens of μA (which rounds down to 0mA in the view) as leakage, depending on the type of model it uses to simulate.
This means the LED will see a small current, which will put it, apparently, at the 1.3V point of its estimated curve.
Of course, this is speculation, not knowing how they made the picture, but I think it's likely enough the simulator "estimated" all of those leakage numbers at the points you see. You should be aware that a simulation is just a simulation and never absolute truth. I think in the real world you would not see such a significant voltage across the LED, although with old fashion transistors, the first generations basically, it's possible.
If in the real world you see that happening, this may help a little bit:
[simulate this circuit](/plugins/schematics?image=http%3a%2f%2fi.stack.imgur.com%2fguDD8.png) – Schematic created using [CircuitLab](https://www.circuitlab.com/)
Here, if you open the switch R2 will help pull the transistor closed. With modern transistors (like newly made 2N3904's and such) controlling only a simple LED or Relay these resistors are usually not at all that important, but when you want to be sure there is as little off-leakage as possible, they do still help. |
206,411 | I was reading this [sparkfun article](https://learn.sparkfun.com/tutorials/transistors/applications-i-switches) to learn more about how transistors work, but I am confused by one of their diagrams. Here it is:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/mu6wm.png)
If there is no current flowing, why is there a 1.3V drop across the LED? I looked at the VI characteristic graph for LEDs and it should be 0v when I=0, which is the case here. I think I am missing something, can someone point out exactly what?
Thanks! | 2015/12/16 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/206411",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/92664/"
] | They are probably trying to show you the voltage the LED would drop when some current is going thru it. I agree that is inconsistent with how they are showing the voltages across other components. In reality, the LED will have very close to 0 V across it when the transistor is off. The only current will be the transistor leakage, which quite small.
There is a case where what they show could actually be true. LEDs also work as photocells in reverse, although rather poorly. With no load on it and in reasonable light, the LED will develop a voltage close to its normal forward operating voltage. However, the impedance of that will be so high that even a ordinary voltmeter can load it. Whoever made that diagram may have probed around the circuit with a voltmeter, and at that illumination and that voltmeter, that's what was reported across the LED. Whatever part of the supply voltage that doesn't appear across the LED would then be across the transistors, since no current is flowing.
Another possibility is that when they probed across the transistor with a voltmeter, the meter caused enough current to flow for the LED to develop 1.3 V across it, so the meter read 3.7 V. They then subtracted 5 V from 3.7 V to say the LED had 1.3 V across it. If the LED was measured directly, it would have less voltage across it. | That article is seriously flawed. For instance, in the picture above your LED picture it shows this: -
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/wDGdA.png)
At first glance is seems OK then you notice the control voltages and they say that 5V turns the motor off. What utter rubbish - the motor will still be on - it needs above 11 volts to turn it off and this is a pretty serious error in my book.
They do redeem themselves with an explanation about this but the article is pretty unprofessional and could lead to someone building that circuit and never being able to turn the motor off.
Then they show what they say is a two input AND gate: -
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/b624P.png)
However, what they fail to recognize is that with the top transistor base turned-off, the emitter of the lower transistor will be at a logic level of 1 when its base is high. Bad stuff really.
Then they show this H bridge (yuk): -
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/sZjtP.gif)
There is no excuse for not showing base resistors given as they made a big deal about it early on in the article.
My advice is don't believe that article. |
94,934 | We are currently in the process of upgrading our office server. Our current setup is a Snap Server 410 but we are looking to take a massive step forward in terms of speed.
We are a design studio and all our computers are Macs (about 20 of them) which brings me to my question, what advantages would we get switching to an OS X server, SNAP offer a high grade server 'Snap Server 650' <http://www.overlandstorage.com/US/products/ss650.html> which is a far cheaper option but would it compare to the OS X server?
Thanks
Tom | 2009/12/16 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/94934",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/13256/"
] | Take a read of this article if you want to find out a bit more why the Snap Server is so cheap.
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/18/adaptec_story/>
I certainly wouldn't advise you to buy one, it's very much a case of you get what you pay for. We were not happy with the Snap Servers we bought.
Ultimately if all you want is a NAS then I'd advise buying a NetApp. A FAS2020 model would probably be adequate for your needs. If all your clients are OS X then using NFS on the NetApp will get you a solid shared NAS with unbeatable file protection (You do value your data, right? ;-) and the ability to grow with you. Think of NetApp as the Apple of storage, they have very similar philosophies.
If you want to go the OSS route then I'd recommend Nexenta, it's got great file protection via ZFS and is very Linux like due to it's hybrid OS construction. Think of it as an OSS NetApp.
It's a pity that Apple decided to take ZFS out of Snow Leopard but I can understand how the uncertainty of the outcome of the Sun/NetApp patent dispute would play into that. Read [http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=663&tag=col1;post-663](http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=663&tag=col1;post-663 "Mac ZFS is dead: RIP") for more info.
If people only knew how worthless most file systems are at protecting your precious data there would be a revolt!
If you want to do more than just share files then I think a OS X Server would be ideal for your stated environment, something as small as the new Mac Mini server might even be adequate if you retained the NAS for file sharing. You could host a web server, wiki, email server, iCal server etc. on the Mini. At only $1000 it's a cheap buy in, even if you need to expand to a bigger faster box in 6 months you can always keep it around for DR purposes. | I love macs, I love OSX Server - but it has few real benefits over W2K8 on a decent manufacturer's (HP/Dell/IBM) mid-line x86 server in terms of speed, reliability or ease of setup/use for a small setup like yours.
Basically OSX Server benefits from only running on known hardware, so it doesn't need drivers or tweaks to make it run fast and reliable straight out of the box. Also most configuration jobs can be done through the GUI without having to wrestle with complex command lines. It's also licence-free, one server can handle hundreds of users for a set cost.
But as I started, W2K8 on a HP DL380 G6 or similar IBM/Dell will be almost, in not just as easy, to setup, manage etc. Of course you'll end up buying client licences but then OSX Server isn't the cheapest to start with.
It all depends on who's going to support this box, what their skills are like, if they have other jobs to do and the budget available. They're all pretty much functionally the same.
edit - by the way I only just looked at that machine you linked to, their site is full of inappropriate/out-of-date superlatives - that machine is neither particularly quick nor special when compared to lots of manufacturer's kit - it looks like an old'ish machine that they've just not updated or updated their site to reflect - thought you should know why it's so cheap. |
16,344,478 | I have a file somewhere on the hard drive and I would like to make sure it is only accessed by a particular program and not
* backed up by Time Machine
* copied by the Versions feature of OS X 10.7
* in any other way copied by the system - unless the user explicitly does so i.e. by copying it to an other directory.
Is it possible to do this programmatically in Objective-C or C? | 2013/05/02 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/16344478",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/482601/"
] | This is quite old now but I thought I'd provide an update for anyone else who encounters the problem.
Unfortunately, Sitecore support weren't able to help beyond pointing out that setting the addAspxExtension attribute to 'true' in the link provider seemed to solve the problem. This may have been acceptable except that extensionless URLs were important to the customer.
In the end I had to amend my link provider so that addAspxExtension is set to 'true' in the web config, and then I set it to false inside the GetItemUrl method for specified sites only.
So now whenever the context site is 'Shell' or 'Admin' etc, the extensions are added by default, but switched off in my main website.
Of course, this is a work around. I still don't know how to actually *fix* the problem | So the first thing that I am going to tell you is that I suspect that there is something wrong with your site declaration for Sitecore Modules. In your web.config, there's a site declaration for "modules\_shell" and "modules\_website". Those are where the code files that run the modules are usually located... a shell folder to run the parts that run in the Sitecore shell and a web folder to run the part that is accessed by the externally facing site. Please check your site declarations (and the form.config file) to make sure that you're not in live mode or something like that. I would definitely say that this is where you should start looking.
The next thing is to say that your comments about Sitecore not serving a url in the /sitecore/shell directory is really not surprising. Sitecore processes all requests unless you specifically tell it to ignore requests (like setting it in the IgnoreUrlPrefixes in web.config), it's going to try processing it. Like going to /sitecore/shell/applications gives me a layout error because it doesn't have anything set to handle that request. Now your error suggests that there is something wrong with Site declarations.. however, even if they were all right, it still wouldn't work. |
130,744 | I've put one point into the Mastermind's Dominator skill, which says it can be used to intimidate non-special enemies. However, I'm not sure exactly how to make this work. Last time I tried it on a bank guard (before any alarms had been raised) by coming up to him with my gun out and smacking the intimidate key. He ended up handcuffing me, which was the opposite of what I intended. I understand that I can only dominate a single enemy at a time, but none were dominated when I tried.
How can I dominate my enemies? When it should work, does it *always* work, or is there merely a %chance of success? | 2013/09/13 | [
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/130744",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/3062/"
] | It's a % chance but you can have multiple attempts at dominating an enemy. The following factors seem to come into play when trying to dominate somebody:
* The level and type of enemy
* The number of enemies around at the time (large groups seem to just ignore you, while a guard by themselves will back down easier)
* The guard/police officers alert state (they're more likely to surrender if you jump out from around a corner at them and start screaming at them than if they're already actively engaged with you, but it's still possible to injure one and then shout him down)
* How far away you are from the guard/police officer
* The skills you have, the tier 3 bonus increases shout range and the tier 6 bonus increases intimidation amount
If you get too close to a guard, he will simply handcuff you and if you're too far away though (and don't have the top tier mastermind perk which increases intimidation and the additional skills that increase range) then you will simply be out of range.
Once you have your target's attention, intimidating them requires three shouts.
video courtesy of RonanForman
* The first shout will make him put his hands up and drop his weapon
* The second will make him kneel
* The third will make him handcuff himself
Once your target is handcuffed, he is a hostage and is included in the hostage counter, can be traded for your team mates lives, and can only be freed by a law enforcer. A handcuffed law enforcer can then be turned using the "Joker" ability in the Mastermind skill tree to fight on your side. | Here's a detailed description of Domination mechanics, from [The Long Guide by Frankelstner](http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=267214370#309802 "PD2 - The Long Guide - Domination"). The information was analyzed from the extracted game files.
Some terms used:
* *"Cool*" refers to the state of person or camera during stealth when he/it has no exclamation mark.
* Once the person or camera has an exclamation mark or alarm goes off, there is no going back: The subject can never become cool again. I refer to this state as "*uncool*". Dead or broken subjects are not included.
* "*Gangsters*" usually includes Russian mobsters and bikers. They all have the same stats and AI anyway.
---
The game calculates the chance for enemies to resist, which is then raised to the power of 1.25 if Dominator is aced and 3 with the Mastermind tier 6 bonus (having both skills thus gives you an exponent of 3.75). There are 4 reasons for enemies to consider surrendering, acting as multipliers to the resist chance (which is initialized to 1), so if one reason yields a multiplier of 0, the resist chance becomes 0 and the enemy is guaranteed to surrender:
**Health**. The resist multiplier depends on the fraction of health that the enemy has left. It decreases linearly between the two points specified:
* Easy enemies (security guards): 0.8 resist multiplier at 100% health, 0 resist multiplier at 30% health and below.
* Normal enemies (cops and unarmored FBI): 1 resist multiplier at 100% health, 0.5 resist multiplier at 50% health and below.
* Hard enemies (everyone else): 1 resist multiplier at 100% health, 0.65 resist multiplier at 50% health and below.
Enemies at 100% health do not consider this reason at all. Therefore, the 0.8 resist multiplier of easy enemies is misleading. You still need to hurt them a bit or they simply ignore this reason.
**Weapon-down** (if reloading, experiencing moderate or heavy hurt, or in ntl state, which I believe to be the cool state during stealth and thus never applies as you cannot dominate cool enemies in the first place; either way, these three are mutually exclusive states, so the multiplier can only be applied once):
* Easy enemies: 0.2 resist multiplier
* Normal enemies: 0.5 resist multiplier
* Hard enemies: 0.8 resist multiplier
If the weapon is empty, apply the same multiplier once more (and this usually coincides with reloading, so apply the multiplier twice in that case).
**Isolated** (spawned as part of a group, but nobody else of that group is in a 8.5 m sphere; this does not apply to lone guards as they are not part of a group in the first place):
* Easy enemies: 0.9 resist multiplier
* Normal enemies: 0.92 resist multiplier
* Hard enemies: Does not apply here. Hard enemies don't regard this is a reason, but merely as a factor later on. Consider it as a 1 resist multiplier.
**Pants-down** (shout at the enemy less than 1.5 seconds after he became uncool):
* Easy enemies: 0 resist multiplier
* Normal enemies: 0 resist multiplier
* Hard enemies: 0.2 resist multiplier
**After evaluating these reasons, there's a threshold that the resist chance must go below. Otherwise the calculations stop and the enemy simply resists.**
* Easy enemies: Less than 0.9 resist chance required.
* Normal enemies: Less than 0.8 resist chance required.
* Hard enemies: Less than 0.75 resist chance required.
Once we get past this threshold, there is already a good chance the enemy will surrender. The game now applies additional factors which further decrease the resist chance.
**The enemy is flanked** (distance to player greater than 2.5 meters; angle between enemy head orientation and the line between the enemy and criminal must exceed 120°; i.e. you must stand behind the enemy):
* Easy enemies: 0.93 resist multiplier
* Normal enemies: 0.95 resist multiplier
* Hard enemies: 0.96 resist multiplier
**The player is close** (applies if the distance between enemy and player is 10 meters or less). Similar to the health reason, the resist multiplier is a linear function:
* Easy enemies: 0.98 resist multiplier at 10 m, 0.85 resist multiplier at 3 m and below.
* Normal and hard enemies: 1 resist multiplier at 10 m, 0.9 resist multiplier at 3 m and below.
**Enemy weapons are cold** (this does not refer to any enemy in particular, but is a state of the game. It appears to refer to the stealth phase before alarm goes off. Once there is alarm, whether there is an assault or not, this factor never applies anymore):
* Easy enemies: 0.85 resist multiplier
* Normal enemies: 0.89 resist multiplier
* Hard enemies: 0.95 resist multiplier
**The enemy is unaware of the player** (during stealth only; this applies if the enemy has spotted you less than one second ago; you can turn enemies unaware again after they have seen you by moving 7 meters from the last place they saw you):
* Easy enemies: 0.92 resist multiplier
* Normal enemies: 0.9 resist multiplier
* Hard enemies: 0.9 resist multiplier
Finally, hard enemies have a 0.9 resist multiplier for being isolated as a factor (not as a reason).
If an enemy has withstood a domination attempt, he gets a few more variables, called surrender window. You have 5-9 seconds (the specific time is randomly determined) during which he is even more susceptible to being dominated. After the first failed domination attempt, there is an additional resist multiplier of (1 - 0.05). For the second failed domination attempt after that, subtract not 0.05, but 0.05^0.93. Technically, on the Nth failed domination attempt, the multiplier becomes (1 - 0.05^(0.93^(N-1)) ). Either way, just keep shouting repeatedly to increase your odds. After the surrender window expires, there is an expiration window of 5-10 seconds, during which the enemy never surrenders. What's more, any further attempt made during this expiration window shifts it further in time. If someone entered the expiration window, you can keep shouting at him for minutes and he will never surrender. To avoid being locked in the expiration window, do not shout at the enemy for 10 seconds.
If you start suppressing an enemy by shooting close to him or damaging him, there is a violence timeout. The resist chance instantly becomes 100% and then linearly goes down to its original value after 2 seconds. Damaging an enemy thus both increases your chance by decreasing the health and having a chance that he enters weapon-down state, yet simultaneously decreases it (for a moment at least). Full suppression is not required: A single shot that builds up suppression by any amount causes this timeout.
Once these calculations are done, take the resist chance and use the Mastermind tier 6 bonus and Dominator aced skill as the exponent to obtain the final resist chance.
### Example:
A player wants to dominate a hard enemy at 50% health. The player is just 3 meters away from the enemy. The health reason alone pushes the resist chance to 65%, so it passes the threshold. The resist chance including the distance factor becomes (0.65\*0.9) = 59%. If the player has the tier 6 bonus and Dominator aced, the resist chance becomes (0.65\*0.9)^3.75 = 13%.
### Remarks:
The weapons and armor you carry have no influence on domination.
You cannot dominate special enemies or gangsters.
Enemies diving into cover due to being fired at are not in the weapon-down state. Suppressing them without hitting them has no positive effect. It only works against you due to the violence timeout.
You must have the Dominator skill or the enemy always resists. You can shout at them, but will never succeed. You still create surrender and expiration windows for the enemy, possibly getting stuck in the expiration window making it impossible for anyone else in the team to dominate that enemy. Then again, if someone else in the team is trying to dominate an enemy (and not locked in the expiration window), you can slightly increase the odds of your teammate by shouting at the same enemy.
If the maximum number of enemies is dominated, no surrender and expiration windows are created.
If an enemy surrenders during a hurt animation, he will finish the animation before raising his hands or handcuffing himself. During stealth, Bain will mention your hostage while the hurt animation still plays.
Almost every enemy is a hard enemy. There are no guards once alarm goes off. Cops and unarmored FBI agents only appear in very limited number, usually when there is no assault.
On the first failed domination attempt, the game determines the duration of the surrender and expiration windows. Let's say that they are 7 and 8 seconds respectively. Now, assuming that the first domination attempt was made at 0:00 (i.e. 0 seconds into the game), you have 7 seconds to dominate the enemy before the expiration window starts (with the cooldown being 1.5 seconds, this means 4 attempts). If you don't do anything, the expiration window will disappear at 0:15. If you shout at the enemy at 0:12 however. the expiration window will be shifted, lasting until 0:20. If you keep shouting at the enemy, he will never surrender, regardless of the reasons and factors. He may have 1% health left, be out of ammo, isolated and flanked by four Masterminds who keep shouting at him: He will not surrender during the expiration window.
During stealth, enemies handcuff themselves if domination succeeds. Otherwise, enemies merely raise their hands, making it necessary to shout at them two more times to handcuff them. If you take too long to handcuff them, they will grab their weapons again (this time is rather long though, it is at least 6 seconds for any enemy and can be up to 30 seconds for the weakest ones). The enemy will also go back to his normal state right away if he is not within the intimidation range of at least a single player (no Dominator required) turned no more than 102° away from him with a clear line of sight. Any player regardless of skills can successfully perform the two shouts to handcuff an enemy.
The reasons make up the biggest obstacle to successfully dominating someone. The chance to surrender only plays a somewhat minor role once you get past the threshold. Even if you just barely get past the threshold of a hard enemy, he has a 25% chance to surrender, which increases with subsequent domination attempts during the surrender window. With both skills this 25% chance becomes 66%, which makes it hard to fail domination if only you get past the threshold.
During stealth, the pants-down modifier does all the work. Shout at an enemy right after he has spotted you (or become uncool in any other way) and you will succeed. Do not shout before he has become uncool or you will merely mark him, and the 1.5 seconds cooldown will make you miss the time window unless you keep spamming the interaction key. Note that Murkywater soldiers are hard enemies and thus retain a 20% chance to resist. As you are in stealth, you get an additional 0.95 weapons cold modifier. If you shout less than one second after being spotted (which you want to do for the pants-down modifier anyway), you gain the additional unaware factor of 0.9. The resist chance thus becomes 17.1%, which turns into a mere 0.13% chance against a fully specced Mastermind.
You can ignore isolation as a reason. It does not apply to hard enemies and is never enough on its own to get past the threshold. Weapon-down gets easy and normal enemies past the threshold without requiring any other reason, so the only time isolation could help is when used in combination with the health reason. Even then however, it does not help against easy enemies at all, as they instantly gain a 0.8 multiplier upon taking any damage whatsoever, which already makes them pass the threshold (making the isolation reason redundant). The only time isolation does indeed help is against normal enemies with their health between 80% and 87%, where it may get you past the threshold. This health region cannot be reached against cops (51 hitpoints on Deathwish, else 30) and non-Deathwish FBI (50 hitpoints), as there is no weapon dealing just 10 damage (an extremely lucky grenade being the exception). Therefore, the one and only case where isolation helps with the threshold is against Deathwish FBI agents (85 hitpoints), hurt once with a weapon dealing between 12 and 17 damage. That's it.
If the pants-down modifier is not an option, there are only 2 reasons for an enemy to consider surrendering:
* He is damaged (and potentially hurt).
* He is reloading (due to being out of ammo).
Conversely, **an enemy will never surrender if he is at full health and not reloading**. Basically, this is the gist of the entire section.
It is rather odd that there are even easy and normal categories, as they still require you to either hurt the enemies or have weapon-down to get past the threshold if you missed the pants-down time window. Waiting for someone to completely empty his gun does not seem viable when trying to stealth, and if you can hurt them, you might as well kill them (given their low hitpoints). If you miss the pants-down time window, an enemy will never surrender unless he has other reasons (which always involve gunfire or melee and are inherently risky during stealth), so you might as well just kill him.
There are three somewhat easily controllable multipliers. Low health has the greatest impact and is the easiest way to pass the threshold. Getting closer than 3 m from the enemy gives you another 0.9 multiplier, which helps your odds if you don't have the tier bonus. Finally, waiting for an enemy to reload before shouting further increases your chance, but is usually not necessary.
If you really do want to dominate an enemy at 100% health outside of stealth, it is mandatory that you wait until he has emptied his gun and is reloading. Attempting to dominate at any other point in time will never succeed. Keep the surrender and expiration windows in mind: You must first wait until you see him reloading and only then start shouting to avoid being locked in the expiration window.
Domination attempts when the enemy has low health rarely fail and do not even require any other reasons or factors to succeed. Ignoring all other reasons and factors, a hard enemy at 50% health or less has a resist chance of 0.65, which becomes a mere 0.65^3.75 = 20% resist chance against a fully specced Mastermind. Still, make sure that you do not get locked in the expiration window. Hurting the enemy first and then shouting maximizes the number of times you can shout at him (and actually get past the threshold) before reaching the expiration window and thus increases your odds. If you have the tier 6 bonus and are hard pressed for time, you can be a bit more daring and already start shouting before hurting him, knowing that the first shout will fail, but grant a small bonus for the next attempts. This way you have less attempts before you reach the expiration window, but the odds will be in your favor anyway and you will be slightly quicker. |
6,433 | A lot of questions include photographs of writing on paper (equations, diagrams, etc.) that were hastily taken in poor and/or uneven lighting. Is there a straightforward way to improve them? | 2017/12/30 | [
"https://electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6433",
"https://electronics.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/11683/"
] | I think you are going in the wrong direction here.
Since we have tools for both diagrams & equations, why not remove those pictures alltogether and replace them with the right tools?
To take it a step further, i believe we should enforce that as a rule, i do not want to decipher an equation or a diagram on a crappy picture when the site provides good tools to write very clear ones.
Besides, it is not *that* hard to take a decent-quality picture of a diagram. | There are many tools to enhance image to make it more readable. The best tool is the one you learn to use well and if you have a lot, one with fast GUI interface for interactive optimization or batch processing if the optimization is identical.
In terms of theory, we might call it a transform, where by applying Shannon's Law to optimize spectral signal/noise ratio (SNR) we can reduce the error rate in viewing the contents. The transforms can include cropping, histogram normalization or simply applying fixed gamma, contrast and brightness values then applying sharpening values with colour contrast enhancement.
There are many software tools that are quick and easy to use, but it depends what you know how to use. I have used Picassa, Gimp, Photoshop, PSP, but for the longest time I have used Irfanview (free). These are all windows tools but you may prefer iOS or android image edit tools which all can work if you know how to manually edit gamma, contrast and brightness.
Example of IrfanView ( which has most of the features of ImageMagick and supports all the adobe .8bf plugins, if you have them.)
Often crop and autocorrect are good enough, but edit and manual adjust can improve if you understand how.
Say, you wanted to read the characters on the Chinese Checkers.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/u01o2.jpg)
It would take to long to show you how to automate or repeat saved settings, but this just to give you another snapshot impression of how image transformation can be done to improve readability.
From left original to right Bot.left corner going clockwise.
1) auto adjust 2) manual correct (gamma, contrast) 3) greyscale only 4) greyscale with gamma adjustment, contrast, brightness
Histogram graph of levels is inserted in some results to show the peak number of pixels at various levels from dark to light. |
410,640 | I have been trying to figure out how the following circuit works and what it might be good for without any luck so far.
What might the transfer function be?
Is there a way that analysis can be applied generally to many such loops inside each other ?
(for analysis purpose exact op amp type does not matter, and may be considered ideal)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/6zAdU.jpg)
Upon recommendation, i tried the delta-star transformation, and came up with conclusion that n loops can be simplified to the circuit below:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/VgPIm.jpg)
This looks like inverting op amp but there is one resistor left from the last transformation connected to inverting input. Is this correct, or am I missing something ? | 2018/12/05 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/410640",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/164110/"
] | The [IR2110](https://www.infineon.com/dgdl/ir2110.pdf?fileId=5546d462533600a4015355c80333167e) is designed to supply +/-2A to drive the gate of your output devices.
You have an asymmetric drive caused by the 47 Ohm and diode across it.
You have not specified what 2VM1 is, but assuming it's no more than a 15V supply your maximum gate drive current is about 0.3A during turn on. During turn off you may be exceeding the gate drive capability of the IR2110 since you then have 47 Ohm with whatever the effective Vf slope resistance of the diode is (along with a 0.8-0.9V offset).
I'd suggest you could remove D2, 3, 5, 6 and replace the 47 Ohm with 10 Ohm resistors. This will make the turn on/off delays **the same** which is important. With a 15V VCC that will give you 1.5A charge/discharge current. | You have problem with charging the bootstrap capacitor cause its charging thru 2l at very high frequency he will never charge for needed value. |
10,239 | The first time that I brewed with whole flower / leaf hops, my more-experienced homebrewing friend said that I should have more wort than usual at the start of the boil, because the dried leaves will reconstitute and absorb liquid. I followed her directions, and I was pleased with the ultimate result. Naturally, I forgot her exact directions.
These are the [hops](http://www.oakbarrel.com/beermaking/hops_flower_chinook.shtml) that I'm using.
Is having extra wort a proper adjustment for these types of hops, and if so, how much extra wort should I have? | 2013/07/04 | [
"https://homebrew.stackexchange.com/questions/10239",
"https://homebrew.stackexchange.com",
"https://homebrew.stackexchange.com/users/3466/"
] | An experiment to determine wort absorption by whole leaf hope is described [here](http://www.homebrewtalk.com/f12/leaf-hop-absorption-measured-241469/). The conclusion was that an ounce of hops absorbs 0.15 quarts of wort. | Whole leaves will absorb quite a bit of your wort during boil, but it really depends on what you are brewing. Lower hopped beers (e.g. German and Belgian beers) = lower absorption, higher = higher absorption. If you are brewing a double IPA (or Imperial IPA), you may want to account for absorption by increasing your final expected quantity.
I've often taken the mindset that for every 5 gallons of homebrew I wish to finish with, I'll add 1 gallon, making a 5 gallon batch, 6 gallons in total. 10 gallon batches become 12 gallon batches. The amount of hops and trub you end up with after primary and secondary may vary, but if you top off your fermentation bucket/carboy with 5 gallons, you will inevitably end up with less than 5 to go into kegs/bottles because of trub and yeast.
While it's my personal rule of thumb, if I plan on using whole leaf hops, or a lot of hops... Or screw it, anything in general that's excessive in hops or ABV, and want 5 gallons total output from my brew, I'll brew 6 gallons. Frankly, if I wind up with too much, and have to bottle off a few extra beers, or fill my keg to the point of overflowing, what a shame! |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.