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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
52,116 | In ST:TNG, *Ethics* (Season 5, episode 16), Worf sustains a serious back injury and undergoes experimental back-treatment by implantation of a replacement spinal cord. We see that this works, but do we ever hear of Worf experiencing back problems after this procedure? | 2014/03/19 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/52116",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/22917/"
] | Worf never complains of back problems again throughout the course of both *TNG* and *DS9*, nor does he have back troubles during the films. In fact, in the *DS9* episode [*Strange Bedfellows*](http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Strange_Bedfellows_%28episode%29), Worf and Ezri Dax are hung upside-down in a cell. Ezri states: "I hate to admit it, but this is doing wonders for my back." Worf, who, as you said, has a history that includes a shocking spinal injury, seems to be experiencing far less discomfort than she is. | Within TNG and DS9, Worf never complains of any further back trouble. This is hardly surprising since the very essence of the ending of TNG: [Ethics](http://www.st-minutiae.com/academy/literature329/216.txt) was that Worf only accepted Russell's experimental treatment (over suicide) because it offered him the chance to **completely** repair the damage caused by his accident;
>
> RUSSELL : That's what this is really about, isn't it? Lieutenant Worf.
> **I'm offering him the chance to recover fully** -- a chance you can't
> give him.
>
>
>
later
>
> BEVERLY : I'm delighted that **Worf is going to recover**. You gambled. He
> won. Most of your patients aren't so lucky.
>
>
> |
21,073,326 | * How commonly supported is the Stencil Buffer right now by hardware in OpenGL?
* Is it better/worse supported than shaders?
* If the hardware doesn't support it, will it be emulated in software?
I haven't been able to find any hard data on the subject unfortunately... I want to assume that since stenciling is an old technology, it'd have ubiquitous support. However, being an old technology, it could just as easily be getting phased out of newer GPU hardware in favour of fragment shaders.
In my scenario, I'd be using an 8-bit stencil buffer in combination with a 24-bit depth buffer, used with VBOs (if that affects anything). If I use the stencil buffer, it won't be possible for those without stencil support to be able to play the game I'm making, thus the worry. If they can at least emulate the stenciling effect in software, while it wouldn't be ideal, it would be enough to put my fears to rest. | 2014/01/12 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/21073326",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/620863/"
] | Stencil buffers are still in the OpenGL 4.4 spec. They're described in section 9.1 and stencil tests are section 17.3.5.
You're guaranteed stencil buffers. Whether they're done on the GPU or in software is an implementation detail. Any machine that can run the version of OpenGL you're targeting should be able to handle stencil testing on the CPU without breaking a sweat. | >
> How commonly supported is the Stencil Buffer right now by hardware in OpenGL?
>
>
>
Stencil buffers have been commonly supported by GPU since ancient times.
>
> Is it better/worse supported than shaders?
>
>
>
"Is it colder than outside at night?" Yeah, that question makes about as much sense. Stencil buffers server a completely different purpose than shaders.
>
> If the hardware doesn't support it, will it be emulated in software?
>
>
>
Yes, but not in a desireable way: The whole render pipeline will drop back to pure software rendering. The stencil test is implemented by hardwired functionality and can not be emulated by a "drop-in" software that only implements the stencil test while the rest was implemented differently. It simply doesn't work that way.
Luckily every GPU you'll encounter in the wild does support stencil tests. So this is of no concern whatsoever. |
3,120,503 | I have a server which hosts a mercurial repository with hgwebdir. Is it possible to make mercurial to run a script when someone pushes to this repository?
Currently I use a script that checks the repository state every few minutes, but this is obviously an ugly solution. | 2010/06/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3120503",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/370756/"
] | You have to add a hook to your Mercurial server:
* Edit .hg/hgrc (or mercurial.ini on Windows)
* Add or edit the [hooks] section
* Associate a shell command to the hook you are interested in (in your case, the changegroup hook)
Look at [Handling repository events with hooks](http://hgbook.red-bean.com/read/handling-repository-events-with-hooks.html#sec:hook:ref) in the Mercurial red-bean book for more details. | You might want to take a look at mercurial hooks,
<http://hgbook.red-bean.com/read/handling-repository-events-with-hooks.html> |
60,004,857 | In C, a function that returns a value is equivalent to defining a temporary variable of the same type as the return value and then initializing it with the same expression following the return.
A local variable is a variable in function body.
I want to know what is the difference between temporary variable and local variable in C? | 2020/01/31 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/60004857",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/12090818/"
] | A local variable is local to its area i.e. it is only visible in that limited **scope**.
A temporary variable is a variable that exists only for a short period of **time**, it has nothing to do with scope.
So that's the basic difference between a local variable and a temporary variable.
In your case, you find them both similar because there is no restriction that a temporary variable cannot be a local variable. The variable which was local to your function body was returned and stored in a temporary variable so that it could be used for some purpose and then go rest. | There is not really a difference, a local variable means that it is local to that function or a block within a function, it will cease to exist as soon as the function or the block goes out of scope, so it is by definition a temporary variable. |
60,004,857 | In C, a function that returns a value is equivalent to defining a temporary variable of the same type as the return value and then initializing it with the same expression following the return.
A local variable is a variable in function body.
I want to know what is the difference between temporary variable and local variable in C? | 2020/01/31 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/60004857",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/12090818/"
] | A local variable is local to its area i.e. it is only visible in that limited **scope**.
A temporary variable is a variable that exists only for a short period of **time**, it has nothing to do with scope.
So that's the basic difference between a local variable and a temporary variable.
In your case, you find them both similar because there is no restriction that a temporary variable cannot be a local variable. The variable which was local to your function body was returned and stored in a temporary variable so that it could be used for some purpose and then go rest. | The difference is the lifetime. The lifetime of a local variable starts at the beginning of the bloc in which it is declared and ends at the end of that block. The lifetime of a temporary variable ends as soon as it has been used. |
4,888,251 | Is the technology there for the camera of a smartphone to detect a light flashing and to detect it as morse code, at a maximum of 100m? | 2011/02/03 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4888251",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | There's already at least one app in the iPhone App store that does this for some unknown distance. And the camera can detect luminance at a much greater distance, given enough contrast of the exposure between on and off light levels, a slow enough dot rate to not alias against the frame rate (remember about Nyquist sampling), and maybe a tripod to keep the light centered on some small set of pixels. So the answer is probably yes. | I think it's possible in ideal conditions. Clear air and no other "light noise", like in a dark night in the mountain or so. The problem is that users would try to use it in the city, discos etc... where it would obviously fail. |
4,888,251 | Is the technology there for the camera of a smartphone to detect a light flashing and to detect it as morse code, at a maximum of 100m? | 2011/02/03 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4888251",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | There's already at least one app in the iPhone App store that does this for some unknown distance. And the camera can detect luminance at a much greater distance, given enough contrast of the exposure between on and off light levels, a slow enough dot rate to not alias against the frame rate (remember about Nyquist sampling), and maybe a tripod to keep the light centered on some small set of pixels. So the answer is probably yes. | If you can record a video of the light and easily visually decode it upon watching, then there's a fair chance you may be able to do so programmatically with enough work.
The first challenge would be finding the light in the background, especially if its small and/or there's any movement of the camera or source. You might actually be able to leverage some kinds of video compression technology to help filter out the movement.
The second question is if the phone has enough horsepower and your algorithm enough efficiency to decode it in real time. For a slow enough signaling rate, the answer would be yes.
Finally there might be things you could do to make it easier. For example, if you could get the source to flash at exactly half the camera frame rate when it is on instead of being steady on, it might be easier to identify since it would be in every other frame. You can't synchronize that exactly (unless both devices make good use of GPS time), but might get close enough to be of help. |
4,888,251 | Is the technology there for the camera of a smartphone to detect a light flashing and to detect it as morse code, at a maximum of 100m? | 2011/02/03 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4888251",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | There's already at least one app in the iPhone App store that does this for some unknown distance. And the camera can detect luminance at a much greater distance, given enough contrast of the exposure between on and off light levels, a slow enough dot rate to not alias against the frame rate (remember about Nyquist sampling), and maybe a tripod to keep the light centered on some small set of pixels. So the answer is probably yes. | Yes, the technology is definitely there. I written an Android application for my "Advanced Internet Technology" class, which does exactly what you describe.
The application has still problems with bright noise (when other light sources leave or enter the camera view while recording). The approach that I'm using just uses the overall brightness changes to extract the Morse signal.
There are some more or less complicated algorithms in place to correct the auto exposure problem (the image darkens shortly after the light is "turned on") and to detect the thresholds for the Morse signal strength and speed.
Overall performance of the application is good. I tested it during the night in the mountains and as long as the sending signal is strong enough, there is no problem. In the library (with different light-sources around), it was less accurate. I had to be careful not to have additional light-sources at the "edge" of the camera screen. The application required the length of a "short" Morse signal to be 300ms at least.
The better approach would be to "search" the screen for the actual light-source. For my project it turned out to be too much work, but you should get good detection in noisy environment with this. |
60,387 | So here is a hardware sequential multiplier depicted. Number A is 51 bits width, number B is 48 bits width. I have to choose the most efficient size of buses and registers (optimize according to memory usage).
My actual question is: what do these sizes depend on? How should I proceed in this task? I am not looking for exact solution, but at least a hint, because I have no idea where to begin my search for information. | 2013/03/09 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/60387",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/17312/"
] | It looks as though the design is supposed to perform a 48x51-bit multiply in 48 steps, with each step either adding the "A" register to the product register or not. It also appears to shift the "A" register, which isn't necessary. If you want to load the B register, start the machine, and then have a result ready to be read, your product register needs to be large enough to hold the entire product (the sum of the two multiplcands' lengths); the adder will have to be that same width if you shift "A" as you're going along. If instead of shifting the "A" register, you have the product either compute (Product >> 1) or (Product >> 1)+(A << 47) as bits shift out from the "B" register, then the adder only needs to add two 51-bit numbers for a 52-bit result.
Note also that for a small increase in complexity, you can double the speed of your multiplier by having the ALU choose among five operations on each step: (Product >> 2), (Product >> 2)+(A << 46), (Product >> 2)+(A << 47), (Product >> 2)-(A << 46), or (Product >> 2)-(A << 47). Look up "Booth's Algorithm" for more information. | well I think these are general purpose inbuilt multipliers in FPGA (DSP blocks) or other heterogeneous devices. In that case the size of registers are general purpose. It depends on your application, you can choose required number of bits. You can have 32bit multiplier out of this inbuilt multiplier. Thus depending upon your requirement u can fix the data bus. |
13,615 | Am unable to properly configure ProCDN to point to my website's root.
I have a completely static website: <http://thaifood-recipes.com> no PHP, MySQL, etc. Just static HTML, images, CSS, etc.
I have followed the Getting Started with ProCDN guide at MT, but instead of offloading some content from a subdomain, like cdn.thaifood-recipes.com, I am wanting the whole site to just be served, as its all static, cacheable content.
MT Support dragging the heels getting back to me with a direct answer.
Any ideas or alternative CDNs to do the same thing if ProCDN won't allow?
Cheers,
Leon Stafford
leonstafford.com | 2011/03/15 | [
"https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/13615",
"https://webmasters.stackexchange.com",
"https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | You can't serve an entire site from ProCDN, even if it's static HTML. Your web server at the origin needs to serve the pages themselves. ProCDN is for media such as images, CSS etc. | [Cloudflare](http://www.cloudflare.com/) offers a free service and you could also try [Google's Free CDN...](http://code.google.com/speed/pss/) |
1,715,570 | Is there an equivalent for the ViewData/ TempData object in ASP.NET MVC for ASP.NET?
What I wanna do is to keep a Session item only alive for one request.
Thanks in advance!
Edit:
The problem is that I have one view for updating and creating. When the view is in update mode then the session item is filled or it has to be already filled(!) and in the create mode the session item is null. So when I am in creating mode and send the page back to serve the mode changed into edit mode and a button on the view is enabled because the session item was filled. The mode depends on the session item. And the Session item can be filled by another view or when I create a contact successfully. The Session item value is the contactId. | 2009/11/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1715570",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/175399/"
] | ViewState is the closest you can have. it is a page-scope persistence storage but it will survive many subsequent requests to the same page.
You can adapt it to your needs. Initialize some RequestID value in page constructor and keep it in the Session tightly coupled to the Session variable you need. When reading from session, you can simply check if the identifier points to the current request or to the one of some previous generation. It's more or less how the TempData is implemented.
You can also take a look at RequestData collection. It is though kept for the duration of one request only and is not stretched to the next request. | You can use [request](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.web.httprequest.aspx) object. You might also find [this](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/6c3yckfw(VS.80).aspx) page helpful. |
1,715,570 | Is there an equivalent for the ViewData/ TempData object in ASP.NET MVC for ASP.NET?
What I wanna do is to keep a Session item only alive for one request.
Thanks in advance!
Edit:
The problem is that I have one view for updating and creating. When the view is in update mode then the session item is filled or it has to be already filled(!) and in the create mode the session item is null. So when I am in creating mode and send the page back to serve the mode changed into edit mode and a button on the view is enabled because the session item was filled. The mode depends on the session item. And the Session item can be filled by another view or when I create a contact successfully. The Session item value is the contactId. | 2009/11/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1715570",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/175399/"
] | ViewState is the closest you can have. it is a page-scope persistence storage but it will survive many subsequent requests to the same page.
You can adapt it to your needs. Initialize some RequestID value in page constructor and keep it in the Session tightly coupled to the Session variable you need. When reading from session, you can simply check if the identifier points to the current request or to the one of some previous generation. It's more or less how the TempData is implemented.
You can also take a look at RequestData collection. It is though kept for the duration of one request only and is not stretched to the next request. | For just one request? Not even a postback? Then you could just use a protected field or property. |
1,715,570 | Is there an equivalent for the ViewData/ TempData object in ASP.NET MVC for ASP.NET?
What I wanna do is to keep a Session item only alive for one request.
Thanks in advance!
Edit:
The problem is that I have one view for updating and creating. When the view is in update mode then the session item is filled or it has to be already filled(!) and in the create mode the session item is null. So when I am in creating mode and send the page back to serve the mode changed into edit mode and a button on the view is enabled because the session item was filled. The mode depends on the session item. And the Session item can be filled by another view or when I create a contact successfully. The Session item value is the contactId. | 2009/11/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1715570",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/175399/"
] | For just one request? Not even a postback? Then you could just use a protected field or property. | You can use [request](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.web.httprequest.aspx) object. You might also find [this](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/6c3yckfw(VS.80).aspx) page helpful. |
379,425 | I am a beginner in electronics. For a project I have to use five 4017 counter and I understood how they works: one of ten outputs is high at the same time.
But at some time, I need to set HIGH the 10 outputs of the five counters simultaneously. In your opinion, what is the best way to achieve that ?
I thought about using OR gates with one input set to HIGH after the counters but I can't find IC with more than 4 gates (CD4072B for example) so there will be a lot of OR gates on the circuit. Also, I thought about using diodes, is this a good idea or is there IC which can achieve what I want ? | 2018/06/12 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/379425",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/191133/"
] | There is an IC that can lend itself to this problem. Use a CPLD part or an FPGA to implement the logic of the five Johnson counters (4017's). Then change the logic to either add in a layer of OR functions at each counter output or change the fundamental design of each of the Johnson counters such that there is an "force all outputs high" mode.
If you look at the equivalent circuit of typical 4017 such as this one from an old Intersil / Renesas data sheet:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/arqi8.png)
You will be able to get a good idea of the logic function to implement in the CPLD/FPGA. You will also notice that the "force all outputs high" (AOH) mode can be implemented simply as:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Gmz7C.png) | A CD4017 won't directly drive much current. Nor will gates in the high voltage 4000 series.
You could use two diodes per output (20 diodes or 10 duals such as the SMT BAV99 or BAT54) to make an or gate per output.
Or you could use 2-1/2 quad gates as you suggest.
Either way, pretty simple. There might be some obscure IC that would drive 8 or 10 outputs and reduce the part count from 2.5 to 1 or 2 but it would likely be surface mount only and limited to much less supply voltage than the 4000 series.
An FPGA or CPLD would be an option but there is a learning curve and some things to buy.
If your circuit is 5V you could use one or two old-school parallel EEPROM(s). For example two AT28C64B 8K x 8. Feed the 10 inputs + control input into the address lines of each chip and take the 8 outputs from one and two from the other. You would need to create the hex (etc.) file to describe the desired outputs. Also this is a really dumb way to get the desired functionality and might inspire you to learn Verilog or VHDL and program an FPGA. |
379,425 | I am a beginner in electronics. For a project I have to use five 4017 counter and I understood how they works: one of ten outputs is high at the same time.
But at some time, I need to set HIGH the 10 outputs of the five counters simultaneously. In your opinion, what is the best way to achieve that ?
I thought about using OR gates with one input set to HIGH after the counters but I can't find IC with more than 4 gates (CD4072B for example) so there will be a lot of OR gates on the circuit. Also, I thought about using diodes, is this a good idea or is there IC which can achieve what I want ? | 2018/06/12 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/379425",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/191133/"
] | There are plenty of obvious ways, but they all use a fair few components.
This dirty trick relies on the internal diodes U1a,U1b that are on every cmos input and output pin. When VSS is connected to +5V, then internal diodes U1b power the leds connected to the outputs.
SW2 could be a couple of transistors, or a couple of gates in parallel e.g. 74hc04
[simulate this circuit](/plugins/schematics?image=http%3a%2f%2fi.stack.imgur.com%2f2l8rr.png) – Schematic created using [CircuitLab](https://www.circuitlab.com/) | A CD4017 won't directly drive much current. Nor will gates in the high voltage 4000 series.
You could use two diodes per output (20 diodes or 10 duals such as the SMT BAV99 or BAT54) to make an or gate per output.
Or you could use 2-1/2 quad gates as you suggest.
Either way, pretty simple. There might be some obscure IC that would drive 8 or 10 outputs and reduce the part count from 2.5 to 1 or 2 but it would likely be surface mount only and limited to much less supply voltage than the 4000 series.
An FPGA or CPLD would be an option but there is a learning curve and some things to buy.
If your circuit is 5V you could use one or two old-school parallel EEPROM(s). For example two AT28C64B 8K x 8. Feed the 10 inputs + control input into the address lines of each chip and take the 8 outputs from one and two from the other. You would need to create the hex (etc.) file to describe the desired outputs. Also this is a really dumb way to get the desired functionality and might inspire you to learn Verilog or VHDL and program an FPGA. |
579,410 | From what I know, perf boards have individual copper holes but stripboards have rows of connected copper. Are there any difference besides their appearance? ie such as the limitations of voltage or current they can handle? | 2021/07/29 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/579410",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/288720/"
] | Two aspects come to my mind for selecting between perf and strip board for prototyping.
Connectivity
------------
The strip board comes with a pre-fabricated connectivity between all the points on one strip. As this will surely not match your intended circuitry, you have to cut some strips, as well as add some wire connections.
The (copper-plated) perf board comes with all points isolated, so you have to do all connections by adding wire.
Only you can decide which starting point you prefer.
Robustness
----------
On typical perf boards, the copper pads tend to come loose with excess heat. This isn't such an issue with strip boards, as there's more adhesive area available under the copper strip. So, with a perf board, no need to be more careful while soldering.
There are as well perf boards without copper pads with the disadvantage that you can't keep your components in place by soldering. They may be useful if you prefer wire-wrap connections.
Voltage and Current
-------------------
As long as you keep within the typical low-power electronics applications (voltages below 24V, currents below 1A), both board types will be okay.
Anyway, stay away from higher voltages unless you know what you're doing. | Let me add some consideration at the good answer already give to this question. This consideration are based on my personal experience.
**frequency**
keep in mind that capacitance between traces can give problems so they are not suitable for radio frequency constructions.
**debug**
with strip boards is common to have short circuits due to little droplets of tin mixed with flux that sits between traces.
When you cut traces keep the chips away to not have shorts.
Clean the board after soldering.
**number and density of components**
use plenty of space between component, they are designed for prototype in fact it's easy to change, cut, piggyback solder on those boards.
Even if you are making your final versione of the board use plenty of space between them. |
106,665 | I've installed the Views Bootstrap module primarily so that I can easily create the same carousels that the Bootstrap/non Drupal parts of our site use. I would prefer to use Views Bootstrap or else I will have to use a different carousel module and try to style it so it looks the same.
I have for images in my result set. All I am getting right now is a page with one number for each image like this:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Below this I get the images, left aligned, one per row.
In the view settings I am using Bootstrap Carousel for Format and Bootstrap Carousel for Show. I get this same result whether I am using this view as a block or as a page. I don't know if it matters but I am using the Omega 3 theme.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks | 2014/03/14 | [
"https://drupal.stackexchange.com/questions/106665",
"https://drupal.stackexchange.com",
"https://drupal.stackexchange.com/users/62987/"
] | To use [Views Bootstrap](https://drupal.org/project/views_bootstrap) module you need to have theme that based on [Twitter Bootstrap](http://getbootstrap.com/). If your theme is not based on it, you may take a look to similar modules, such as [Nivo slider](https://drupal.org/project/nivo_slider) | That's how it appears in the view but, if you place your view in a panel or in a region you'll see the bootstrap carousel working like a charm :) |
106,665 | I've installed the Views Bootstrap module primarily so that I can easily create the same carousels that the Bootstrap/non Drupal parts of our site use. I would prefer to use Views Bootstrap or else I will have to use a different carousel module and try to style it so it looks the same.
I have for images in my result set. All I am getting right now is a page with one number for each image like this:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Below this I get the images, left aligned, one per row.
In the view settings I am using Bootstrap Carousel for Format and Bootstrap Carousel for Show. I get this same result whether I am using this view as a block or as a page. I don't know if it matters but I am using the Omega 3 theme.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks | 2014/03/14 | [
"https://drupal.stackexchange.com/questions/106665",
"https://drupal.stackexchange.com",
"https://drupal.stackexchange.com/users/62987/"
] | To use [Views Bootstrap](https://drupal.org/project/views_bootstrap) module you need to have theme that based on [Twitter Bootstrap](http://getbootstrap.com/). If your theme is not based on it, you may take a look to similar modules, such as [Nivo slider](https://drupal.org/project/nivo_slider) | I had a similar issue where my Slideshow images were listed in an order, instead of functioning as a slideshow. Initially I though it was the problem of Jquery.
But it was not basically I read through the documentation found that for my version of Drupal and Bootstrap which is Drupal 8 and Bootstrap 3 I am suppose to install 8.x-3.x version of Views\_Bootstrap
Walla! All of sudden my slide show started to work again. |
106,665 | I've installed the Views Bootstrap module primarily so that I can easily create the same carousels that the Bootstrap/non Drupal parts of our site use. I would prefer to use Views Bootstrap or else I will have to use a different carousel module and try to style it so it looks the same.
I have for images in my result set. All I am getting right now is a page with one number for each image like this:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Below this I get the images, left aligned, one per row.
In the view settings I am using Bootstrap Carousel for Format and Bootstrap Carousel for Show. I get this same result whether I am using this view as a block or as a page. I don't know if it matters but I am using the Omega 3 theme.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks | 2014/03/14 | [
"https://drupal.stackexchange.com/questions/106665",
"https://drupal.stackexchange.com",
"https://drupal.stackexchange.com/users/62987/"
] | That's how it appears in the view but, if you place your view in a panel or in a region you'll see the bootstrap carousel working like a charm :) | I had a similar issue where my Slideshow images were listed in an order, instead of functioning as a slideshow. Initially I though it was the problem of Jquery.
But it was not basically I read through the documentation found that for my version of Drupal and Bootstrap which is Drupal 8 and Bootstrap 3 I am suppose to install 8.x-3.x version of Views\_Bootstrap
Walla! All of sudden my slide show started to work again. |
41,796 | I'm looking for a quality WinForms component that supports syntax highlighting, code folding and the like. The key criteria are:
1. Stability
2. Value (price)
3. Ability to easily customize syntax to highlight
4. Light weight | 2008/09/03 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/41796",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/4398/"
] | [ICSharpCode.TextEditor](http://www.icsharpcode.net/OpenSource/SD/) is free and pretty stable.
As for commercial solution Actipro's [SyntaxEditor](http://www.actiprosoftware.com/Products/DotNet/SyntaxEditor/Default.aspx) might be a best choice | Try out [ScintillaNET](http://www.codeplex.com/ScintillaNET) it's a .NET WinForms wrapper around the excellent [Scintilla](http://scintilla.org/) control. Scintilla itself is a free source code editor component that is very customisable and has all the features you asked for. See [here](http://scintilla.sourceforge.net/SciTEImage.html) for a screenshot. |
447,229 | The question is too long for me to use it as the title.
Anyhow, what's the word for when someone on the road accelerates and goes in front of you because you're driving too slowly? I need an AmE term.
In French, it would be *dépasser quelqu'un*. | 2018/05/22 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/447229",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/265456/"
] | If they do it in an obnoxious or dangerous manner, you say "they cut me off".
>
> 2. To abruptly move in front of another driver,
>
>
>
[SOURCE](https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Cut+Me+Off) | In English, it is quite similar. It would be *to pass someone*. |
158,936 | >
> **Possible Duplicate:**
>
> [Resources for improving your comprehension of recursion?](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/57243/resources-for-improving-your-comprehension-of-recursion)
>
>
>
I am a programmer with 2 years experience, and sometimes think I could solve a specific problem with recursion, but in most cases I fail miserably.
I am asking your advice about resources for learning, refreshing and deepening one's knowledge about recursion, preferably:
* helping to identify when you could use recursion.
* practical examples (applied to contemporary programming languages).
* a reference handbook.
* source code. | 2012/07/31 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/158936",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/24729/"
] | Spotting when to use recursion is actually quite easy - the key concept is noticing that *part of the problem is a smaller version of the whole problem*. Examples:
* Functions on lists can be written using recursion if you see that you can achieve the result by doing something with the first element of the list and then calling the function recursively on the rest of the list. Here the "smaller version of the whole problem" is the rest of the list excluding the first element.
* Functions operating on binary trees can often use recursion by recursively calling the function on the left half of the tree and on the right half of the tree and combining the results in some way. Here the "smaller version of the whole problem" are the left and right sub-trees.
* Mathematical functions defined recursively (e.g. a function to generate the fibonacci numbers F(n) = F(n-1) + F(n-2) ) often have a simple recursive implementation that mirrors the mathematical definition. Here the "smaller version of the whole problem" are the two previous numbers in the fibonacci sequence.
If you really want to learn about recursion, then picking up a functional language is a good idea - recursion is a natural programming style in functional languages and you'll be steered away from falling back on "imperative" solutions. I'd suggest a Lisp-1 (e.g. Scheme or Clojure) in particular: some of the recursive functions defined on lists are things of beauty. | I'm not aware of any recursion-specific books, but it's covered thoroughly in almost any intro to algorithms book.
As far as when you can use recursion, you *could* use it on practically any algorithm. In some functional programming languages, you *must* use recursion for things other languages use loops for. If you want to practice recursion, learning a functional language is a good step, and you will find tons of recursion examples in their tutorials.
When it's beneficial to use recursion is another question. Two situations come to mind. The first is when you find yourself using a stack for a data structure. In that situation using recursion automatically gives you a stack, so you don't have to worry about those details. The other situation is when you have a large number of nested loops, or an unknown level of nesting. Recursion makes nesting loops very easy.
The trick to understanding recursion is to not try to hold the entire stack in your head. Focus on just one small part at a time. Think about your current state and trust that the deeper levels are working as advertised. |
68,136,494 | In CLion (2021.1), it seems all comments are syntax-highlighted the same way, even if they're Doxygen documentation comments. I couldn't find a Doxygen plugin which might help with that. How can I make CLion highlight Doxygen differently? | 2021/06/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/68136494",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1593077/"
] | Since CLion 2021.2 (EAP) the highlighting of Doxygen comments has changed and different from the previous versions. It is consistent with JB Idea now. Please, read [here](https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/CPP-25507) about it.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/xIaPs.png) | Actually, CLion *does* highlight Doxygen differently, but in some of the Themes (e.g. IntelliJ Light), the color chosen for regular and Doxygen comments is the same.
To change that:
1. On the menus, select File | Settings.
2. In the settings dialog, navigate to: Editor | Color Scheme | Language Defaults.
3. In the settings pane's tree box, navigate to: Comments | Doc Comments | Text.
4. Change the color to something else (I go with 5C8CC0 which reminds me of Doxygen in Eclipse). |
12,765,153 | Hi guys i have added a picker view to pick areas from it.This picker view contains more than 200 areas so it is difficult to scroll and select from picker view.
Is there any way to add a search bar and connect it with picker view?
I tried doing this by using search bar delegate method by overriding it but i am not able to achieve the goal.
So please help me so that i can do it or if any another way possible then also tell me. | 2012/10/07 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/12765153",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1684219/"
] | Picker view is for small number of selection. Use table view instead for such big number of options.
Just to back up my statement, the [Apple Human Interface Guideline](http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/MobileHIG/UIElementGuidelines/UIElementGuidelines.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40006556-CH13-SW23) says
>
> Consider using a table view, instead of a picker, if you need to display a very large number of values. This is because the greater height of a table view makes scrolling faster."
>
>
> | I agree with barley that the PickerView is an awful vehicle for large selections; if at all possible to use something else, that would be appropriate and best, but having said that:
The YHCPickerView looks promising from:
<http://code4app.net/ios/PickerView-with-Search-Bar/509fb2e86803faf25c000000>
From a cursory view of that class, it appears that it has several different and distinct UI elements, the text field for collecting search criteria, the button for enacting the search, and the basic picker view. The search criteria simply and directly filters the picker data/model when the button pressed event occurs. That way you are simply editing the actual data from the picker.
If you handle each of these separately it should make it simpler to create what you want, since you only have to handle the basic functions and delegates of each individual UI element and linking together their effects rather than trying to hijack an existing delegate.
-Cheers |
8,713,010 | thank you for reading my question :)
My goal is to modify this message before a commit is fired to the SVN-Server:
I already have a start and pre-commit hook (C#), both of them are called when i try to commit something. I also have a working SharpSvn library. But unfortunately i'm not getting forward, I have no idea how to fill this message.
So is it possible and if yes, how? I'm glad about every little hint :) | 2012/01/03 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/8713010",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/999342/"
] | Commit hooks don't talk to the client except on a failure. Then, they send whatever was sent to *Standard Error* to the user. Hook scripts cannot change any aspect of the commit. (This isn't entirely true: A post-commit hook could modify the commit message, the author, and the commit time, but that's normally a really bad idea.)
What you can do is ensure your commit message is in the correct format, and then fail the commit if it isn't. It would be up to to user to resubmit their commit with the correct format.
I would not recommend using the built in TortoiseSVN client hooks. These are done on a machine-by-machine basis, so a user could opt out of them, and they don't work if the user uses a different client (such as the VisualStudio AnkhSVN plugin).
You didn't mention what you're trying to do or why.
You're more than welcome to use [my hook](http://dl.dropbox.com/u/433257/newest_svn_hooks.zip) written in Perl. The *kitchen sink* hook does several tasks, and one of them makes sure that the commit message is in the correct format. For example, you can require that it contains a defect tracking ID, or be at least ...say... 10 characters long.
However, if the user's commit message doesn't match the criteria, the hook will fail the commit, and the user will have to try again. The trick is to put a good error message, so the user knows what they did wrong. Believe me, after one or two tries, the users get the hang of what a good commit message needs to be.
However, you might want to try a slightly different route: Use a continuous integration system such as [Jenkins](http://jenkins-ci.org).
What I've noticed is that as soon as I get a project up and running on Jenkins, the commit messages automatically improve. Each Subversion commit is turned into a build. But, Jenkins also shows you all the changes between the previous and current build and the commit message.
This mainly has to do with visibility. Before Jenkins, the commit messages are fairly hidden. You only see them if you did an `svn log` and few people ever do that on a regular basis. However, in Jenkins, you see it right there on each build and commit. You can see the history, who changed it, and what they changed via a few clicks on a webpage.
That might be the best way to handle what you want. | Okay, I found an answer :)
It was wrong from me to try it via a hook-script. The better solution is building a custom issue tracker plugin:
<http://tortoisesvn.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/contrib/issue-tracker-plugins/issue-tracker-plugins.txt>
With this I can read my issues from DB, let the developer select the ones he need and put them into the log-message window. |
217,772 | 
[simulate this circuit](/plugins/schematics?image=http%3a%2f%2fi.stack.imgur.com%2fh8J3w.png) – Schematic created using [CircuitLab](https://www.circuitlab.com/)
Is it safe to consider the resonance frequency of a second order RLC circuit to be alway equal to 1/sqrt(LC) or the transfer function has to be calculated?
When there are three active components such for example for the case of bridged-T RLC network as is shown in the figure, is the resonance frequency still 1/sqrt(LC)? If capacitances are different, would that mean that there are two resonance frequency? | 2016/02/17 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/217772",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/84456/"
] | The resonant frequency you are describing is for an LC circuit in parallel or in series, but you have an RLC network here. Consider the resonant frequency of Colpitts oscillator for example, and notice the derivation isn't so straightforward as simply applying sqrt(LC).
Use Kirchhoff's voltage and current laws to determine the relationships between the different components.
VR2 = VC1 + VC2
Vin = VR1 + VR2
Vin = VC2 + VL1
Likewise the sum of the currents at the node where C1, C2, and L1 meet is zero.
For a transfer function you need to define where the output is, where is the output? | Resonance draws the maximum or minimum of energy, and there is not more energy you can draw from the voltage source than by shortcircuiting it. L1/C2 will be a shortcircuit in this diagram when in resonance so any other elements have no influence when L1/C2 are in resonance. But this is not a realistic case since the resonant circuit connected to the voltage source only contains idealized elements with zero resistance, being completely undampened.
The usual case will involve real elements with finite resistance. In that case adding additional elements *will* affect resonance frequencies, and the resonance will not be catastrophic like it is here. |
217,772 | 
[simulate this circuit](/plugins/schematics?image=http%3a%2f%2fi.stack.imgur.com%2fh8J3w.png) – Schematic created using [CircuitLab](https://www.circuitlab.com/)
Is it safe to consider the resonance frequency of a second order RLC circuit to be alway equal to 1/sqrt(LC) or the transfer function has to be calculated?
When there are three active components such for example for the case of bridged-T RLC network as is shown in the figure, is the resonance frequency still 1/sqrt(LC)? If capacitances are different, would that mean that there are two resonance frequency? | 2016/02/17 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/217772",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/84456/"
] | 
[simulate this circuit](/plugins/schematics?image=http%3a%2f%2fi.stack.imgur.com%2fJzoBN.png) – Schematic created using [CircuitLab](https://www.circuitlab.com/)
This is a **complete revision** of my answer. It is possible to give the exact resonant frequency without any calculation. This becomes obvious after **redrawing** the circuit.
Let me explain: The source V1 drives a current through the series combination C2-L1 and at the same time (in parallel) through R2-R3. The capacitor C1 is positioned between both nodes where the two elements of both branches are connected. This is nothing else than a classical **bridge circuit** with a capacitor in the "detector branch". In case of a balanced bridge there will be no current through C1.
In this context, it is important to realize that this bridge is balanced if L1 is in resonance with C2 (equal voltage drop across these elements) because we have two equal resistors (R2, R3) in the other branch of the bridge.
With other words: In case of resonance, the capacitor C1 does not contribute at all to the current-voltage distribution within the circuit. Hence, the angular resonant frequency simply is **wo=SQRT(L1\*C2)**.
This result was confirmed with simulation. It can be shown that the angular frequency wo where resonance occurs (input resistance minimum, current maximum, zero phase between voltage and current, voltage peak between R2 and R3) does not depend on C1 as long as the bridge is symmetrical with R2=R3. It is clear, that the actual values R2=R3 do not influence the resonance point. | Resonance draws the maximum or minimum of energy, and there is not more energy you can draw from the voltage source than by shortcircuiting it. L1/C2 will be a shortcircuit in this diagram when in resonance so any other elements have no influence when L1/C2 are in resonance. But this is not a realistic case since the resonant circuit connected to the voltage source only contains idealized elements with zero resistance, being completely undampened.
The usual case will involve real elements with finite resistance. In that case adding additional elements *will* affect resonance frequencies, and the resonance will not be catastrophic like it is here. |
5,118 | Is Phoebus an alternate name for Apollo or is a description of Apollo?
In other words, I want to know if Phoebus is a name or simply a common noun that means "light" or "brightness". There was also a Greek Titaness named Phoebe who was also related to "light" in some way or another, and her name is similar to Phoebus. That would suggests that Phoebus or Phoebe are not really proper names, but words that refer to "light". | 2018/09/20 | [
"https://mythology.stackexchange.com/questions/5118",
"https://mythology.stackexchange.com",
"https://mythology.stackexchange.com/users/742/"
] | It is used in both these ways.
Among the Ancient Greeks and Romans, just as in almost any other culture or language in the world, especially in the neighbourhood of the Mediterranean Basin, if a descriptive title or nickname gets enough usage, not surprisingly, it coagulates into something that, for all intents and purposes, is "a proper name."
William Smith's 1888 Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology says that Phoebus "occurs both as an epithet and a name of Apollo, in his capacity of god of the sun", citing passages from the Greek poet Homer and the Roman authors Virgil, Horace and Macrobius for examples.
It is labelled as *a proper noun* on [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Phoebus) as well as in *An Intermediate Greek–English Lexicon* (by Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart Jones & Roderick McKenzie). In Homer, the deity commonly appears as Φοῖβος Ἀπόλλων, "Phoebus Apollo," but also simply as Φοῖβος, "Phoebus".
Due to the later conflation of Apollo with the Titan god Helios, "Sun," who is the original and more unambiguously direct personification of the sun, Helios is also sometimes referred to as Phoebus.
The Titaness Phoebe was Apollo's grandmother (being the mother of his mother Leto). According to Line 8 of the play *Eumenides*, by Aeschylus, Apollo inherited the name Phoebus from this grandmother of his.
In Phoebe's case her name is undoubtedly a proper noun. She doesn't go by any other name; it is certainly more than a mere common descriptor noun, even though, ultimately, this Titaness may simply be a personification of radiance. (Indeed her only role in the mythology is as an ancestral figure to a few other deities more important than herself.) | I was taught that there is a relationship between [φοῖβος](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dfoi%3Dbos) (brightness) and [φόβος](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dfo%2Fbos) (fear). The idea is that Apollo's radiance is not gentle, but glaring like the sun.
Apollo is not typically portrayed a "warm, fuzzy" character, but as uncompromising, like truth, for which he is a patron. His brightness is fearsome, deadly, and unerring, like his arrows.
Even the inspiration he gives his priestesses, the Mantises, is a form of [μανία](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dmani%2Fa1) (mania/madness).
So it's a name and a description, but a description that has linguistic (morphological) similarity to the word for fear. |
84,788 | I found Ralph Waldo Emerson's famous words, “*there is properly no history, only biography*,” in his “Essay I” being quoted in the article titled “Keeping the dream alive: A biography,” appearing in June 21, 2012 Time magazine. The article deals with the collapse of American Dream, and “there is properly no history ...” comes in the following sentence:
>
>
> >
> > “There is the crisis of our time. The American Dream may be slipping
> > away. We have overcome such challenges before. To recover the Dream
> > requires knowing where it came from, how it lasted so long and why it
> > matters so much.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Emerson once remarked that *there is properly no history, only
> biography*. This is the biography of an idea, one that made America great. Whether that idea has much of a future is the question facing Americans now.”
>
>
>
The author, Jon Meacham seems to relate the word, “the biography of an idea” to American Dream, but I don’t get a clear idea about the phrase, “there is properly no history, only biography” meant by Emerson.
What does it mean in specific connection with “American Dream”?
By the way, what is the function of “*properly*” used as an adverb here? Does it mean “in proper (exact) sense, there is no (abstract string of) history, but for (individual) biography (of heroes or historic characters)? | 2012/10/05 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/84788",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/3119/"
] | Emerson was echoing the [Great Man Theory](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/great+man+theory) of history espoused by his contemporary, Scottish historian Thomas Carlyle, who said:
>
> “The history of the world is but the biography of great men.”
>
>
>
The [American Dream](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Dream) is the national ethos of the United States. To quote Wikipedia:
>
> The idea of the American Dream is rooted in the United States
> Declaration of Independence which proclaims that "all men are created
> equal" and that they are "endowed by their Creator with certain
> inalienable Rights" including "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
> Happiness."
>
>
>
Meacham is arguing that the American Dream isn't simply an abstract ideal, but is a grand idea that has had a life of its own; and its biography *is* the history of the United States. | I would interpret this as saying that, as you suggest, "*properly*" is used to mean *in the strict sense of the word.* He is alluding to the fact that true history is a complete and unbiased account of the actual events that took place during some period in the past, but it is impossible for anyone to accomplish this because anyone attempting it will knowingly or unknowingly, by omission, inclusion, or interpretation, introduce their own biases and thus their account will be more a biographical account than an historical one. |
33,198,835 | I embedded evernote SDK into my application but it was not working. Therefore, I decided to delete it from my code and removed all related frameworks and everything but after building my application, it is my code still tries to refer evernote SDK folder. I checked my "Copy Bundle Resources" and "Link Binaries with Libraries". Everything seems Okay. I want to remove this error without adding evernote SDK folder.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/g0svy.png)
Help me please? | 2015/10/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/33198835",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1161518/"
] | 1. Trying cleaning the build folder. Drop Down the product menu and hold down ALT and Clean will change to clean the build folder.
2. Check **Build Settings** Linking section.
3. Check **Build Phases** Link Binary with Binaries section and Copy Bundle Resources section. | It looks like as part of build, you have a step to copy that particular SDK and it's no longer there. You need to edit your build steps. |
33,198,835 | I embedded evernote SDK into my application but it was not working. Therefore, I decided to delete it from my code and removed all related frameworks and everything but after building my application, it is my code still tries to refer evernote SDK folder. I checked my "Copy Bundle Resources" and "Link Binaries with Libraries". Everything seems Okay. I want to remove this error without adding evernote SDK folder.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/g0svy.png)
Help me please? | 2015/10/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/33198835",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1161518/"
] | Try doing following:
1. Product -> Clean and build folder
2. Go to finder -> library -> Developer -> Xcode -> Derived data delete
that folder
Also, see if evernote SDK was ever linked to your test target. If so, you would need to delete if from there as well. | 1. Trying cleaning the build folder. Drop Down the product menu and hold down ALT and Clean will change to clean the build folder.
2. Check **Build Settings** Linking section.
3. Check **Build Phases** Link Binary with Binaries section and Copy Bundle Resources section. |
33,198,835 | I embedded evernote SDK into my application but it was not working. Therefore, I decided to delete it from my code and removed all related frameworks and everything but after building my application, it is my code still tries to refer evernote SDK folder. I checked my "Copy Bundle Resources" and "Link Binaries with Libraries". Everything seems Okay. I want to remove this error without adding evernote SDK folder.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/g0svy.png)
Help me please? | 2015/10/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/33198835",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1161518/"
] | Try doing following:
1. Product -> Clean and build folder
2. Go to finder -> library -> Developer -> Xcode -> Derived data delete
that folder
Also, see if evernote SDK was ever linked to your test target. If so, you would need to delete if from there as well. | It looks like as part of build, you have a step to copy that particular SDK and it's no longer there. You need to edit your build steps. |
33,198,835 | I embedded evernote SDK into my application but it was not working. Therefore, I decided to delete it from my code and removed all related frameworks and everything but after building my application, it is my code still tries to refer evernote SDK folder. I checked my "Copy Bundle Resources" and "Link Binaries with Libraries". Everything seems Okay. I want to remove this error without adding evernote SDK folder.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/g0svy.png)
Help me please? | 2015/10/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/33198835",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1161518/"
] | GoTo Build Phase > Search missing framework name > you will see same framework name also available on ***Copy Bundle Resources*** remove this framework from here > Done
I had the same issue after this process working fine for me. | It looks like as part of build, you have a step to copy that particular SDK and it's no longer there. You need to edit your build steps. |
33,198,835 | I embedded evernote SDK into my application but it was not working. Therefore, I decided to delete it from my code and removed all related frameworks and everything but after building my application, it is my code still tries to refer evernote SDK folder. I checked my "Copy Bundle Resources" and "Link Binaries with Libraries". Everything seems Okay. I want to remove this error without adding evernote SDK folder.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/g0svy.png)
Help me please? | 2015/10/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/33198835",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1161518/"
] | Try doing following:
1. Product -> Clean and build folder
2. Go to finder -> library -> Developer -> Xcode -> Derived data delete
that folder
Also, see if evernote SDK was ever linked to your test target. If so, you would need to delete if from there as well. | GoTo Build Phase > Search missing framework name > you will see same framework name also available on ***Copy Bundle Resources*** remove this framework from here > Done
I had the same issue after this process working fine for me. |
527 | Why was this [answer](https://literature.stackexchange.com/a/1822/) made into a wiki? Should a moderator remove its community wiki status? | 2017/02/24 | [
"https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/527",
"https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/users/37/"
] | Community wiki policy <https://literature.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/community-wiki>
>
> When should I make my answers Community Wiki?
>
>
> 1. When you want to enhance the "wiki" aspect of your post, so that it
> can be a continually evolving source of good information through
> repeated editing.
> 2. When you feel your post would benefit from less concern about voting
> affecting the reputation of those participating in it.
>
>
>
This answer appears to fall under both category 1, and 2, a user is linking another users answer, hence being a combined effort, and the user is also not trying to benefit from the situation which seems to fall under category 2.
Also mods should not be simply be un-converting wiki's
>
> Moderators can also choose to convert posts into community wiki mode if they feel it is appropriate for the question or answer, generally after a discussion with the community and affected individuals. **Once a post is made community wiki, that mode can only be removed by a moderator under exceptional circumstances.**
>
>
>
This case is hardly "exceptional circumstances". | I don't think it's appropriate to use community wikis unless the idea is for the answer to be easily editable. As Cahir Mawr Dyffryn æp Ceallach points out, community wikis are not a "I don't want reputation" feature.
Members of this site post answers that cite a single webpage as a source all the time. As far as I can tell, community wikis have not been used in any of these instances. There shouldn't be anything different about citing a Stack Exchange webpage as opposed to a regular webpage.
I removed the community wiki status from [the answer in question](https://literature.stackexchange.com/a/1822/111), [as per the consensus in this question](https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/q/483/111).
Remember: different Stack Exchange sites have different standards for answers. If someone asks a question on this Stack Exchange site, that means that they want our answers, not answers from another site. By all means, [cite and quote other Stack Exchange sites like you would cite and quote any other source](https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/q/483/111). But don't just cross-post content just for the sake of cross posting it.
If you feel uncomfortable posting an answer because it just cites one source, then maybe don't post the answer at all. If the question is easily googleable and shows no research effort, you can always downvote it. |
527 | Why was this [answer](https://literature.stackexchange.com/a/1822/) made into a wiki? Should a moderator remove its community wiki status? | 2017/02/24 | [
"https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/527",
"https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/users/37/"
] | If it were not for the Community Wiki option I would simply not have bothered posting. The question had been asked and answered *5 years ago* with a very good answer elsewhere that *was not mine*. I have no desire to pretend like I wrote TimK's answer, good or bad, nor do I have any desire to justify it's contents.
I posted my answer on the good-faith assumption that the poster honestly wanted to know the answer and just didn't know there was already one written. I was not attempting to write a "great answer", because IMO there already was one. I was attempting to point the OP at it with enough information that he could decide if it warranted following the link. | I don't think it's appropriate to use community wikis unless the idea is for the answer to be easily editable. As Cahir Mawr Dyffryn æp Ceallach points out, community wikis are not a "I don't want reputation" feature.
Members of this site post answers that cite a single webpage as a source all the time. As far as I can tell, community wikis have not been used in any of these instances. There shouldn't be anything different about citing a Stack Exchange webpage as opposed to a regular webpage.
I removed the community wiki status from [the answer in question](https://literature.stackexchange.com/a/1822/111), [as per the consensus in this question](https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/q/483/111).
Remember: different Stack Exchange sites have different standards for answers. If someone asks a question on this Stack Exchange site, that means that they want our answers, not answers from another site. By all means, [cite and quote other Stack Exchange sites like you would cite and quote any other source](https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/q/483/111). But don't just cross-post content just for the sake of cross posting it.
If you feel uncomfortable posting an answer because it just cites one source, then maybe don't post the answer at all. If the question is easily googleable and shows no research effort, you can always downvote it. |
527 | Why was this [answer](https://literature.stackexchange.com/a/1822/) made into a wiki? Should a moderator remove its community wiki status? | 2017/02/24 | [
"https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/527",
"https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/users/37/"
] | [Apparently](https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/a/531/151) the answer under scrutiny was made CW because it drew on an answer from another Stack site, and the answerer wanted to share it without being associated with it for good or for ill.
But [community wiki isn't a tool for reputation denial](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/228940/244929) (or for dodging the repercussions of questionable-quality answers) and practically speaking I see no difference between quoting a different Stack and quoting a blog or a book. We'd never expect someone to eschew rep for quoting a blog or a book. The answerer went to the trouble of tracking down the information and sharing it; why shouldn't rep gains should reflect that?
The moderation team is under no obligation to revert the CW in this case, nor are they obligated to leave it be, but I'd lean toward reverting it myself, for reasons which follow.
"Community wiki is like a cheese knife: it is a specialized tool to be used sparingly."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We've [talked about](https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/q/483/151) posting answers from other sites, and it's pretty clear [this isn't cheese](https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/a/530/151).
>
> The intent of community wiki in answers is to help share the burden of solving a question. An incomplete "seed" answer is a stepping stone to a complete solution with help from others[...] Community wiki is for that rare gem of a post that needs true community collaboration.
>
> - ["The Future of Community Wiki"](https://stackoverflow.blog/2011/08/the-future-of-community-wiki/)
>
>
>
Community wiki used to be massively overused. Changes to the editing system rendered its original purpose largely moot, and there's now a lot of confusion about CW's role in the Stack mechanics. These days there are [three basic reasons](https://stackoverflow.blog/2014/04/putting-the-community-back-in-wiki/) to use CW:
* Compiling a canonical reference
* Consolidating the knowledge of the community
* Encouraging the ongoing, active maintenance of a changing answer.
>
> Community wiki is for a special scenario, something built not by the expertise of one individual, then improved or iterated on by a few others, but rather something created by the concerted efforts of the community as a whole.
>
> - ["Putting the Community back in Wiki"](https://stackoverflow.blog/2014/04/putting-the-community-back-in-wiki/)
>
>
>
I don't see this particular answer needing CW to make it ["easier to edit and maintain by a wider group of users,"](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/11741/244929) so I don't see any reason for it to be a community wiki. Community wiki is a tool with a specific set of uses, and CW rollbacks are [left to mod discretion](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/144632/244929). One of the responsibilities of our moderators is to help the community use the right tools for the job at hand.
>
> The ideal moderator does as little as possible. But those little actions may be powerful and highly concentrated.
>
> - ["A Theory of Moderation,"](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/05/a-theory-of-moderation/) which is [often not read all the way through](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/276323/244929).
>
>
>
As for the answer itself--it's not very good by lit.se standards, because it was written for a different site with different priorities. And the question itself is under a tag whose implementation [is still being debated](https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/q/511/151), so quality there is... in flux, I suppose we could say. I think this is a good example of why we should treat quotes from other Stacks the same as we would any other source: citing a source is great, but it can't stand on its own. We need to bring in our own expertise and tailor the answer to meet the expectations of our own Stack. | I don't think it's appropriate to use community wikis unless the idea is for the answer to be easily editable. As Cahir Mawr Dyffryn æp Ceallach points out, community wikis are not a "I don't want reputation" feature.
Members of this site post answers that cite a single webpage as a source all the time. As far as I can tell, community wikis have not been used in any of these instances. There shouldn't be anything different about citing a Stack Exchange webpage as opposed to a regular webpage.
I removed the community wiki status from [the answer in question](https://literature.stackexchange.com/a/1822/111), [as per the consensus in this question](https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/q/483/111).
Remember: different Stack Exchange sites have different standards for answers. If someone asks a question on this Stack Exchange site, that means that they want our answers, not answers from another site. By all means, [cite and quote other Stack Exchange sites like you would cite and quote any other source](https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/q/483/111). But don't just cross-post content just for the sake of cross posting it.
If you feel uncomfortable posting an answer because it just cites one source, then maybe don't post the answer at all. If the question is easily googleable and shows no research effort, you can always downvote it. |
527 | Why was this [answer](https://literature.stackexchange.com/a/1822/) made into a wiki? Should a moderator remove its community wiki status? | 2017/02/24 | [
"https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/527",
"https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/users/37/"
] | >
> Should a moderator remove its community wiki status?
>
>
>
No. I would consider this a violation of the author's prerogative. They have the choice to make their answer CW, which affects *only* their answer; overriding that under normal circumstances would be akin to [forcing them to accept an edit](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/04/in-defense-of-editing/) - putting their name and image on words they explicitly rejected.
A bit of background: Community Wiki has a long and troubled history on these sites, *primarily* because of its use in the now long-distant past on questions as a means of allowing otherwise-unsuitable discussions, polls and the like. For a very long time, the system actually *forced* CW onto posts that attracted either a large number of answers or a large number of edits... But [we put that behavior to rest nearly 3 years ago now](https://stackoverflow.blog/2014/04/putting-the-community-back-in-wiki/), leaving the use of CW at the discretion of answer authors in the common case, and moderators for extremely *uncommon* cases:
>
> An author can still apply the status manually when posting or when editing their own answer, and moderators retain the ability to apply it when they deem it truly necessary (for instance, a question attracting very large numbers of partial answers can be a sign of a topic that wants to be a wiki). For the most part, we’ve turned it back into something that *you can choose to use in cases where it lets you work together to create something wonderful:* [...]
>
>
>
Much longer background: chimerical moral rights
-----------------------------------------------
These sites are a delicate balance between multiple systems and philosophies. The original documentation explained them with this diagram:
Naturally, this results in a fair bit of conflict between how folks *expect* things to work and how they *actually* work - on all sides of the equation. A member used to a traditional online forum might expect to post questions or replies and never update them; a blogger might expect to update their own posts but never see another editor messing with them; a wikian might expect to readily edit *anything*.
**Achieving a harmonious balance of expectations here is critical to the long-term viability of a community.**
When the goal of a site is to serve as a repository of information for future readers, a sense of community ownership is needed - we cannot forever hold an individual author responsible for updating or even disseminating information. At the same time, individual ownership provides a great deal of motivation: both the reputation score and the simple ability to point to a profile filled with useful, informative posts are extremely satisfying to many who participate here. So we cannot entirely overlook one in favor of another without either alienating other members of the site or hurting its usefulness.
And in the place where this system sits - in between extremes - there lives an often-overlooked set of concerns, something often referred to in legal areas as "[moral rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights)". As is often the case with concepts that've been codified in law, finding a clear, succinct explanation for these can be difficult; I like this one, which I found on the website of the Australian law firm Epiphany Law in the article, "[What Are Moral Rights?](http://epiphany.law/articles/copyright/what-are-moral-rights)"
>
> In contrast, the moral rights recognise the connection between a creator and his or her work. They are concerned with whether the creator has been properly linked with the work and whether the work has been treated with dignity (or at least not in a derogatory way).
>
>
>
Consider for a moment what these sites do with the material that we all write on them: they combine it with the work of others, allow others to modify it, and allow others to take and build upon it. Your beautiful question may be sullied at any time by an answer you find offensive, or advertised on another site dedicated to a topic you find reprehensible; your carefully-crafted answer may be shown next to a sloppy and incorrect one, quoted by someone who misinterprets it. They're still "your" posts, but you've ceded control over how they are used, and this opens you up to situations in which you may find yourself very unhappy with the uses they are put to.
This is a dilemma that we've struggled with for the entire 9+ year history of the network, and the often-subtle underpinning of a great many odd features and unusual rules. To name a few:
* **By default, authors can delete their posts for any reason**... But if the post has proven itself useful in some way, or been build on by the work of others, deletion may be prevented or reversed.
* **By default, authors have the final say in what appears in their posts**... But if a given edit is deemed necessary to preserve or greatly increase its usefulness, they may be overruled.
* **Authors can delete their account at any time**... But we may retain any posts associated with it that have been deemed useful to others.
* **Authors can request that their name be removed from a post at any time.** This is actually [codified in Section 4(a) of the license](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode) to which all participants must agree to post under, though exactly how we implement it can vary.
But among all the features in this system, Community Wiki is by far the strangest and least well-understood.
### Hunt the CWumpus
The actual *function* hasn't changed in years - a post marked as CW differs from a normal post in that they...
* ...do not contribute to the reputation score of its original author or any subsequent authors.
* ...do not contribute toward certain badges, including tag badges.
* ...can be edited without peer review by any member of the site who has earned the [edit community wiki](https://literature.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit-community-wiki) privilege.
* ...are attributed on the question page only to the original author by name, and only as long as that author has contributed a majority of the text in the post. If a subsequent editor achieves a large majority of authorship, their name will be displayed; if no large majority can be attributed to a single author, no name is displayed by default; rather, a link to the revision history containing each author's contribution is displayed.
* ...never display an author's profile image or other profile statistics on the question page.
The *goal* of this feature is clearly to bump a given post a little bit further away from the "forum" side of [that euler diagram](https://i.stack.imgur.com/vAUXd.png) and a little bit closer to the "wiki" side. But what that actually *means* goes much further than just making it a bit easier for others to edit: there's a very clear de-emphasis of author-ownership, both in how the post is displayed *and* in how the system treats it. This is made explicit when an author elects to make a post CW:
A few things to note there:
1. You're giving up *explicit* ownership. Behind the scenes, your account still "owns" the post (it appears in your profile, you get more weight when approving or rejecting *suggested* edits, you get notified of comments, you can still delete it). But you don't get ultimate credit for it, either in terms of how it is displayed on the page, or in terms of how the system rewards you for it.
2. You can't "take it back". Once you've handed over ownership to the community, it's theirs - the status sticks to the post no matter how many subsequent edits you make... Or how few subsequent edits anyone else makes.
Community Wiki got a bum rap for years, mostly because it was *forced* onto posts by the system or other users. We had good intentions there, but... [It was a bad idea and we no longer do that](https://stackoverflow.blog/2014/04/putting-the-community-back-in-wiki/). What *remains* is actually pretty cool, *if* you look at it from the perspective of what it enables: **authors can symbolically give up ownership of a post at any time.**
Note that this clearly isn't a *legal* action; that pop-up dialog is less than a page long. You retain the copyright to anything you write here. But it does align itself with some of those moral rights we discussed earlier: you get to say - in a public way, totally under your control - that you no longer want sole credit for a given post.
For all of the controversy that has plagued CW over the years, that particular usage has remained remarkably consistent: as far back as I can remember, folks have reached for CW when they didn't feel like taking credit for an answer. Now, sometimes this has seemed a little bit dirty, even manipulative: marking a post CW to avoid getting dinged by downvotes, or to keep your reputation at an even 10K for example. But it's also been used to acknowledge the contributions of others to a FAQ or omnibus answer - even if no one else ever edits, by de-emphasizing the author more focus is put on the words - and attributions - in the post itself.
And on the topic of...
### Abuse
One of the most often-cited criticisms of authors using Community Wiki on answers is that they might do so to shield themselves from the penalty imposed by downvotes. This is almost never valid; in nearly any situation where it would matter, the author is allowed to *delete* the post at any time, which also immediately refunds any reputation lost to downvotes. In fact, CW makes downvotes on answers *free to the voter as well*, which can mean a bad answer is more readily downvoted. Moderators and [trusted users](https://literature.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/trusted-user) are not hindered from deleting CW answers, so nothing in the status hinders moderation and may in fact encourage it.
The more subtle concern I think is...
### Peer pressure breaking windows
A long, long time ago, when Stack Overflow was young and the rocks were still all red and soft, a few of us got it into our heads that it'd be a great idea to pressure other people into making their posts CW in cases where they were clearly *undeserving* of reputation.
...we didn't have very good luck with this and eventually gave up. But, the fact remains, we *did* try. And maybe others would try again, somewhere else where the proverbial rocks are still soft and runny. So, the specter looms whenever CW is brought up.
I sympathize with this. But, ultimately it is harassment that is the problem here, not CW. If, for example, it becomes commonplace for authors to use CW on posts that are mostly quotes, then what harm is there in that if they do so by choice? Either the answers are problematic in the same way that they would be *without* CW, or they are not problematic; only if the authors are harassed when they *do not* use CW is there a problem, just as there is a problem when authors are harassed *for any other reason.*
Summary
-------
If an author chooses to use Community Wiki, that's their business - [the system has informed them of the consequences](https://i.stack.imgur.com/0eglD.png) and they've made their decision. If you encounter one of those rare situations that *demands* a wiki answer, especially one where *only* a wiki answer is appropriate for a given question... Then raise a discussion and get the moderators involved. If you observe harassment, flag it. If you see a bad answer, downvote it; a good one, upvote it. And if you don't see a problem... Don't make one. Each day has sufficient problems as it is. | I don't think it's appropriate to use community wikis unless the idea is for the answer to be easily editable. As Cahir Mawr Dyffryn æp Ceallach points out, community wikis are not a "I don't want reputation" feature.
Members of this site post answers that cite a single webpage as a source all the time. As far as I can tell, community wikis have not been used in any of these instances. There shouldn't be anything different about citing a Stack Exchange webpage as opposed to a regular webpage.
I removed the community wiki status from [the answer in question](https://literature.stackexchange.com/a/1822/111), [as per the consensus in this question](https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/q/483/111).
Remember: different Stack Exchange sites have different standards for answers. If someone asks a question on this Stack Exchange site, that means that they want our answers, not answers from another site. By all means, [cite and quote other Stack Exchange sites like you would cite and quote any other source](https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/q/483/111). But don't just cross-post content just for the sake of cross posting it.
If you feel uncomfortable posting an answer because it just cites one source, then maybe don't post the answer at all. If the question is easily googleable and shows no research effort, you can always downvote it. |
527 | Why was this [answer](https://literature.stackexchange.com/a/1822/) made into a wiki? Should a moderator remove its community wiki status? | 2017/02/24 | [
"https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/527",
"https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/users/37/"
] | Community wiki policy <https://literature.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/community-wiki>
>
> When should I make my answers Community Wiki?
>
>
> 1. When you want to enhance the "wiki" aspect of your post, so that it
> can be a continually evolving source of good information through
> repeated editing.
> 2. When you feel your post would benefit from less concern about voting
> affecting the reputation of those participating in it.
>
>
>
This answer appears to fall under both category 1, and 2, a user is linking another users answer, hence being a combined effort, and the user is also not trying to benefit from the situation which seems to fall under category 2.
Also mods should not be simply be un-converting wiki's
>
> Moderators can also choose to convert posts into community wiki mode if they feel it is appropriate for the question or answer, generally after a discussion with the community and affected individuals. **Once a post is made community wiki, that mode can only be removed by a moderator under exceptional circumstances.**
>
>
>
This case is hardly "exceptional circumstances". | [Apparently](https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/a/531/151) the answer under scrutiny was made CW because it drew on an answer from another Stack site, and the answerer wanted to share it without being associated with it for good or for ill.
But [community wiki isn't a tool for reputation denial](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/228940/244929) (or for dodging the repercussions of questionable-quality answers) and practically speaking I see no difference between quoting a different Stack and quoting a blog or a book. We'd never expect someone to eschew rep for quoting a blog or a book. The answerer went to the trouble of tracking down the information and sharing it; why shouldn't rep gains should reflect that?
The moderation team is under no obligation to revert the CW in this case, nor are they obligated to leave it be, but I'd lean toward reverting it myself, for reasons which follow.
"Community wiki is like a cheese knife: it is a specialized tool to be used sparingly."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We've [talked about](https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/q/483/151) posting answers from other sites, and it's pretty clear [this isn't cheese](https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/a/530/151).
>
> The intent of community wiki in answers is to help share the burden of solving a question. An incomplete "seed" answer is a stepping stone to a complete solution with help from others[...] Community wiki is for that rare gem of a post that needs true community collaboration.
>
> - ["The Future of Community Wiki"](https://stackoverflow.blog/2011/08/the-future-of-community-wiki/)
>
>
>
Community wiki used to be massively overused. Changes to the editing system rendered its original purpose largely moot, and there's now a lot of confusion about CW's role in the Stack mechanics. These days there are [three basic reasons](https://stackoverflow.blog/2014/04/putting-the-community-back-in-wiki/) to use CW:
* Compiling a canonical reference
* Consolidating the knowledge of the community
* Encouraging the ongoing, active maintenance of a changing answer.
>
> Community wiki is for a special scenario, something built not by the expertise of one individual, then improved or iterated on by a few others, but rather something created by the concerted efforts of the community as a whole.
>
> - ["Putting the Community back in Wiki"](https://stackoverflow.blog/2014/04/putting-the-community-back-in-wiki/)
>
>
>
I don't see this particular answer needing CW to make it ["easier to edit and maintain by a wider group of users,"](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/11741/244929) so I don't see any reason for it to be a community wiki. Community wiki is a tool with a specific set of uses, and CW rollbacks are [left to mod discretion](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/144632/244929). One of the responsibilities of our moderators is to help the community use the right tools for the job at hand.
>
> The ideal moderator does as little as possible. But those little actions may be powerful and highly concentrated.
>
> - ["A Theory of Moderation,"](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/05/a-theory-of-moderation/) which is [often not read all the way through](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/276323/244929).
>
>
>
As for the answer itself--it's not very good by lit.se standards, because it was written for a different site with different priorities. And the question itself is under a tag whose implementation [is still being debated](https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/q/511/151), so quality there is... in flux, I suppose we could say. I think this is a good example of why we should treat quotes from other Stacks the same as we would any other source: citing a source is great, but it can't stand on its own. We need to bring in our own expertise and tailor the answer to meet the expectations of our own Stack. |
527 | Why was this [answer](https://literature.stackexchange.com/a/1822/) made into a wiki? Should a moderator remove its community wiki status? | 2017/02/24 | [
"https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/527",
"https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/users/37/"
] | >
> Should a moderator remove its community wiki status?
>
>
>
No. I would consider this a violation of the author's prerogative. They have the choice to make their answer CW, which affects *only* their answer; overriding that under normal circumstances would be akin to [forcing them to accept an edit](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/04/in-defense-of-editing/) - putting their name and image on words they explicitly rejected.
A bit of background: Community Wiki has a long and troubled history on these sites, *primarily* because of its use in the now long-distant past on questions as a means of allowing otherwise-unsuitable discussions, polls and the like. For a very long time, the system actually *forced* CW onto posts that attracted either a large number of answers or a large number of edits... But [we put that behavior to rest nearly 3 years ago now](https://stackoverflow.blog/2014/04/putting-the-community-back-in-wiki/), leaving the use of CW at the discretion of answer authors in the common case, and moderators for extremely *uncommon* cases:
>
> An author can still apply the status manually when posting or when editing their own answer, and moderators retain the ability to apply it when they deem it truly necessary (for instance, a question attracting very large numbers of partial answers can be a sign of a topic that wants to be a wiki). For the most part, we’ve turned it back into something that *you can choose to use in cases where it lets you work together to create something wonderful:* [...]
>
>
>
Much longer background: chimerical moral rights
-----------------------------------------------
These sites are a delicate balance between multiple systems and philosophies. The original documentation explained them with this diagram:
Naturally, this results in a fair bit of conflict between how folks *expect* things to work and how they *actually* work - on all sides of the equation. A member used to a traditional online forum might expect to post questions or replies and never update them; a blogger might expect to update their own posts but never see another editor messing with them; a wikian might expect to readily edit *anything*.
**Achieving a harmonious balance of expectations here is critical to the long-term viability of a community.**
When the goal of a site is to serve as a repository of information for future readers, a sense of community ownership is needed - we cannot forever hold an individual author responsible for updating or even disseminating information. At the same time, individual ownership provides a great deal of motivation: both the reputation score and the simple ability to point to a profile filled with useful, informative posts are extremely satisfying to many who participate here. So we cannot entirely overlook one in favor of another without either alienating other members of the site or hurting its usefulness.
And in the place where this system sits - in between extremes - there lives an often-overlooked set of concerns, something often referred to in legal areas as "[moral rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights)". As is often the case with concepts that've been codified in law, finding a clear, succinct explanation for these can be difficult; I like this one, which I found on the website of the Australian law firm Epiphany Law in the article, "[What Are Moral Rights?](http://epiphany.law/articles/copyright/what-are-moral-rights)"
>
> In contrast, the moral rights recognise the connection between a creator and his or her work. They are concerned with whether the creator has been properly linked with the work and whether the work has been treated with dignity (or at least not in a derogatory way).
>
>
>
Consider for a moment what these sites do with the material that we all write on them: they combine it with the work of others, allow others to modify it, and allow others to take and build upon it. Your beautiful question may be sullied at any time by an answer you find offensive, or advertised on another site dedicated to a topic you find reprehensible; your carefully-crafted answer may be shown next to a sloppy and incorrect one, quoted by someone who misinterprets it. They're still "your" posts, but you've ceded control over how they are used, and this opens you up to situations in which you may find yourself very unhappy with the uses they are put to.
This is a dilemma that we've struggled with for the entire 9+ year history of the network, and the often-subtle underpinning of a great many odd features and unusual rules. To name a few:
* **By default, authors can delete their posts for any reason**... But if the post has proven itself useful in some way, or been build on by the work of others, deletion may be prevented or reversed.
* **By default, authors have the final say in what appears in their posts**... But if a given edit is deemed necessary to preserve or greatly increase its usefulness, they may be overruled.
* **Authors can delete their account at any time**... But we may retain any posts associated with it that have been deemed useful to others.
* **Authors can request that their name be removed from a post at any time.** This is actually [codified in Section 4(a) of the license](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode) to which all participants must agree to post under, though exactly how we implement it can vary.
But among all the features in this system, Community Wiki is by far the strangest and least well-understood.
### Hunt the CWumpus
The actual *function* hasn't changed in years - a post marked as CW differs from a normal post in that they...
* ...do not contribute to the reputation score of its original author or any subsequent authors.
* ...do not contribute toward certain badges, including tag badges.
* ...can be edited without peer review by any member of the site who has earned the [edit community wiki](https://literature.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit-community-wiki) privilege.
* ...are attributed on the question page only to the original author by name, and only as long as that author has contributed a majority of the text in the post. If a subsequent editor achieves a large majority of authorship, their name will be displayed; if no large majority can be attributed to a single author, no name is displayed by default; rather, a link to the revision history containing each author's contribution is displayed.
* ...never display an author's profile image or other profile statistics on the question page.
The *goal* of this feature is clearly to bump a given post a little bit further away from the "forum" side of [that euler diagram](https://i.stack.imgur.com/vAUXd.png) and a little bit closer to the "wiki" side. But what that actually *means* goes much further than just making it a bit easier for others to edit: there's a very clear de-emphasis of author-ownership, both in how the post is displayed *and* in how the system treats it. This is made explicit when an author elects to make a post CW:
A few things to note there:
1. You're giving up *explicit* ownership. Behind the scenes, your account still "owns" the post (it appears in your profile, you get more weight when approving or rejecting *suggested* edits, you get notified of comments, you can still delete it). But you don't get ultimate credit for it, either in terms of how it is displayed on the page, or in terms of how the system rewards you for it.
2. You can't "take it back". Once you've handed over ownership to the community, it's theirs - the status sticks to the post no matter how many subsequent edits you make... Or how few subsequent edits anyone else makes.
Community Wiki got a bum rap for years, mostly because it was *forced* onto posts by the system or other users. We had good intentions there, but... [It was a bad idea and we no longer do that](https://stackoverflow.blog/2014/04/putting-the-community-back-in-wiki/). What *remains* is actually pretty cool, *if* you look at it from the perspective of what it enables: **authors can symbolically give up ownership of a post at any time.**
Note that this clearly isn't a *legal* action; that pop-up dialog is less than a page long. You retain the copyright to anything you write here. But it does align itself with some of those moral rights we discussed earlier: you get to say - in a public way, totally under your control - that you no longer want sole credit for a given post.
For all of the controversy that has plagued CW over the years, that particular usage has remained remarkably consistent: as far back as I can remember, folks have reached for CW when they didn't feel like taking credit for an answer. Now, sometimes this has seemed a little bit dirty, even manipulative: marking a post CW to avoid getting dinged by downvotes, or to keep your reputation at an even 10K for example. But it's also been used to acknowledge the contributions of others to a FAQ or omnibus answer - even if no one else ever edits, by de-emphasizing the author more focus is put on the words - and attributions - in the post itself.
And on the topic of...
### Abuse
One of the most often-cited criticisms of authors using Community Wiki on answers is that they might do so to shield themselves from the penalty imposed by downvotes. This is almost never valid; in nearly any situation where it would matter, the author is allowed to *delete* the post at any time, which also immediately refunds any reputation lost to downvotes. In fact, CW makes downvotes on answers *free to the voter as well*, which can mean a bad answer is more readily downvoted. Moderators and [trusted users](https://literature.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/trusted-user) are not hindered from deleting CW answers, so nothing in the status hinders moderation and may in fact encourage it.
The more subtle concern I think is...
### Peer pressure breaking windows
A long, long time ago, when Stack Overflow was young and the rocks were still all red and soft, a few of us got it into our heads that it'd be a great idea to pressure other people into making their posts CW in cases where they were clearly *undeserving* of reputation.
...we didn't have very good luck with this and eventually gave up. But, the fact remains, we *did* try. And maybe others would try again, somewhere else where the proverbial rocks are still soft and runny. So, the specter looms whenever CW is brought up.
I sympathize with this. But, ultimately it is harassment that is the problem here, not CW. If, for example, it becomes commonplace for authors to use CW on posts that are mostly quotes, then what harm is there in that if they do so by choice? Either the answers are problematic in the same way that they would be *without* CW, or they are not problematic; only if the authors are harassed when they *do not* use CW is there a problem, just as there is a problem when authors are harassed *for any other reason.*
Summary
-------
If an author chooses to use Community Wiki, that's their business - [the system has informed them of the consequences](https://i.stack.imgur.com/0eglD.png) and they've made their decision. If you encounter one of those rare situations that *demands* a wiki answer, especially one where *only* a wiki answer is appropriate for a given question... Then raise a discussion and get the moderators involved. If you observe harassment, flag it. If you see a bad answer, downvote it; a good one, upvote it. And if you don't see a problem... Don't make one. Each day has sufficient problems as it is. | Community wiki policy <https://literature.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/community-wiki>
>
> When should I make my answers Community Wiki?
>
>
> 1. When you want to enhance the "wiki" aspect of your post, so that it
> can be a continually evolving source of good information through
> repeated editing.
> 2. When you feel your post would benefit from less concern about voting
> affecting the reputation of those participating in it.
>
>
>
This answer appears to fall under both category 1, and 2, a user is linking another users answer, hence being a combined effort, and the user is also not trying to benefit from the situation which seems to fall under category 2.
Also mods should not be simply be un-converting wiki's
>
> Moderators can also choose to convert posts into community wiki mode if they feel it is appropriate for the question or answer, generally after a discussion with the community and affected individuals. **Once a post is made community wiki, that mode can only be removed by a moderator under exceptional circumstances.**
>
>
>
This case is hardly "exceptional circumstances". |
527 | Why was this [answer](https://literature.stackexchange.com/a/1822/) made into a wiki? Should a moderator remove its community wiki status? | 2017/02/24 | [
"https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/527",
"https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/users/37/"
] | If it were not for the Community Wiki option I would simply not have bothered posting. The question had been asked and answered *5 years ago* with a very good answer elsewhere that *was not mine*. I have no desire to pretend like I wrote TimK's answer, good or bad, nor do I have any desire to justify it's contents.
I posted my answer on the good-faith assumption that the poster honestly wanted to know the answer and just didn't know there was already one written. I was not attempting to write a "great answer", because IMO there already was one. I was attempting to point the OP at it with enough information that he could decide if it warranted following the link. | [Apparently](https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/a/531/151) the answer under scrutiny was made CW because it drew on an answer from another Stack site, and the answerer wanted to share it without being associated with it for good or for ill.
But [community wiki isn't a tool for reputation denial](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/228940/244929) (or for dodging the repercussions of questionable-quality answers) and practically speaking I see no difference between quoting a different Stack and quoting a blog or a book. We'd never expect someone to eschew rep for quoting a blog or a book. The answerer went to the trouble of tracking down the information and sharing it; why shouldn't rep gains should reflect that?
The moderation team is under no obligation to revert the CW in this case, nor are they obligated to leave it be, but I'd lean toward reverting it myself, for reasons which follow.
"Community wiki is like a cheese knife: it is a specialized tool to be used sparingly."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We've [talked about](https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/q/483/151) posting answers from other sites, and it's pretty clear [this isn't cheese](https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/a/530/151).
>
> The intent of community wiki in answers is to help share the burden of solving a question. An incomplete "seed" answer is a stepping stone to a complete solution with help from others[...] Community wiki is for that rare gem of a post that needs true community collaboration.
>
> - ["The Future of Community Wiki"](https://stackoverflow.blog/2011/08/the-future-of-community-wiki/)
>
>
>
Community wiki used to be massively overused. Changes to the editing system rendered its original purpose largely moot, and there's now a lot of confusion about CW's role in the Stack mechanics. These days there are [three basic reasons](https://stackoverflow.blog/2014/04/putting-the-community-back-in-wiki/) to use CW:
* Compiling a canonical reference
* Consolidating the knowledge of the community
* Encouraging the ongoing, active maintenance of a changing answer.
>
> Community wiki is for a special scenario, something built not by the expertise of one individual, then improved or iterated on by a few others, but rather something created by the concerted efforts of the community as a whole.
>
> - ["Putting the Community back in Wiki"](https://stackoverflow.blog/2014/04/putting-the-community-back-in-wiki/)
>
>
>
I don't see this particular answer needing CW to make it ["easier to edit and maintain by a wider group of users,"](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/11741/244929) so I don't see any reason for it to be a community wiki. Community wiki is a tool with a specific set of uses, and CW rollbacks are [left to mod discretion](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/144632/244929). One of the responsibilities of our moderators is to help the community use the right tools for the job at hand.
>
> The ideal moderator does as little as possible. But those little actions may be powerful and highly concentrated.
>
> - ["A Theory of Moderation,"](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/05/a-theory-of-moderation/) which is [often not read all the way through](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/276323/244929).
>
>
>
As for the answer itself--it's not very good by lit.se standards, because it was written for a different site with different priorities. And the question itself is under a tag whose implementation [is still being debated](https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/q/511/151), so quality there is... in flux, I suppose we could say. I think this is a good example of why we should treat quotes from other Stacks the same as we would any other source: citing a source is great, but it can't stand on its own. We need to bring in our own expertise and tailor the answer to meet the expectations of our own Stack. |
527 | Why was this [answer](https://literature.stackexchange.com/a/1822/) made into a wiki? Should a moderator remove its community wiki status? | 2017/02/24 | [
"https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/527",
"https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/users/37/"
] | >
> Should a moderator remove its community wiki status?
>
>
>
No. I would consider this a violation of the author's prerogative. They have the choice to make their answer CW, which affects *only* their answer; overriding that under normal circumstances would be akin to [forcing them to accept an edit](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/04/in-defense-of-editing/) - putting their name and image on words they explicitly rejected.
A bit of background: Community Wiki has a long and troubled history on these sites, *primarily* because of its use in the now long-distant past on questions as a means of allowing otherwise-unsuitable discussions, polls and the like. For a very long time, the system actually *forced* CW onto posts that attracted either a large number of answers or a large number of edits... But [we put that behavior to rest nearly 3 years ago now](https://stackoverflow.blog/2014/04/putting-the-community-back-in-wiki/), leaving the use of CW at the discretion of answer authors in the common case, and moderators for extremely *uncommon* cases:
>
> An author can still apply the status manually when posting or when editing their own answer, and moderators retain the ability to apply it when they deem it truly necessary (for instance, a question attracting very large numbers of partial answers can be a sign of a topic that wants to be a wiki). For the most part, we’ve turned it back into something that *you can choose to use in cases where it lets you work together to create something wonderful:* [...]
>
>
>
Much longer background: chimerical moral rights
-----------------------------------------------
These sites are a delicate balance between multiple systems and philosophies. The original documentation explained them with this diagram:
Naturally, this results in a fair bit of conflict between how folks *expect* things to work and how they *actually* work - on all sides of the equation. A member used to a traditional online forum might expect to post questions or replies and never update them; a blogger might expect to update their own posts but never see another editor messing with them; a wikian might expect to readily edit *anything*.
**Achieving a harmonious balance of expectations here is critical to the long-term viability of a community.**
When the goal of a site is to serve as a repository of information for future readers, a sense of community ownership is needed - we cannot forever hold an individual author responsible for updating or even disseminating information. At the same time, individual ownership provides a great deal of motivation: both the reputation score and the simple ability to point to a profile filled with useful, informative posts are extremely satisfying to many who participate here. So we cannot entirely overlook one in favor of another without either alienating other members of the site or hurting its usefulness.
And in the place where this system sits - in between extremes - there lives an often-overlooked set of concerns, something often referred to in legal areas as "[moral rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights)". As is often the case with concepts that've been codified in law, finding a clear, succinct explanation for these can be difficult; I like this one, which I found on the website of the Australian law firm Epiphany Law in the article, "[What Are Moral Rights?](http://epiphany.law/articles/copyright/what-are-moral-rights)"
>
> In contrast, the moral rights recognise the connection between a creator and his or her work. They are concerned with whether the creator has been properly linked with the work and whether the work has been treated with dignity (or at least not in a derogatory way).
>
>
>
Consider for a moment what these sites do with the material that we all write on them: they combine it with the work of others, allow others to modify it, and allow others to take and build upon it. Your beautiful question may be sullied at any time by an answer you find offensive, or advertised on another site dedicated to a topic you find reprehensible; your carefully-crafted answer may be shown next to a sloppy and incorrect one, quoted by someone who misinterprets it. They're still "your" posts, but you've ceded control over how they are used, and this opens you up to situations in which you may find yourself very unhappy with the uses they are put to.
This is a dilemma that we've struggled with for the entire 9+ year history of the network, and the often-subtle underpinning of a great many odd features and unusual rules. To name a few:
* **By default, authors can delete their posts for any reason**... But if the post has proven itself useful in some way, or been build on by the work of others, deletion may be prevented or reversed.
* **By default, authors have the final say in what appears in their posts**... But if a given edit is deemed necessary to preserve or greatly increase its usefulness, they may be overruled.
* **Authors can delete their account at any time**... But we may retain any posts associated with it that have been deemed useful to others.
* **Authors can request that their name be removed from a post at any time.** This is actually [codified in Section 4(a) of the license](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode) to which all participants must agree to post under, though exactly how we implement it can vary.
But among all the features in this system, Community Wiki is by far the strangest and least well-understood.
### Hunt the CWumpus
The actual *function* hasn't changed in years - a post marked as CW differs from a normal post in that they...
* ...do not contribute to the reputation score of its original author or any subsequent authors.
* ...do not contribute toward certain badges, including tag badges.
* ...can be edited without peer review by any member of the site who has earned the [edit community wiki](https://literature.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit-community-wiki) privilege.
* ...are attributed on the question page only to the original author by name, and only as long as that author has contributed a majority of the text in the post. If a subsequent editor achieves a large majority of authorship, their name will be displayed; if no large majority can be attributed to a single author, no name is displayed by default; rather, a link to the revision history containing each author's contribution is displayed.
* ...never display an author's profile image or other profile statistics on the question page.
The *goal* of this feature is clearly to bump a given post a little bit further away from the "forum" side of [that euler diagram](https://i.stack.imgur.com/vAUXd.png) and a little bit closer to the "wiki" side. But what that actually *means* goes much further than just making it a bit easier for others to edit: there's a very clear de-emphasis of author-ownership, both in how the post is displayed *and* in how the system treats it. This is made explicit when an author elects to make a post CW:
A few things to note there:
1. You're giving up *explicit* ownership. Behind the scenes, your account still "owns" the post (it appears in your profile, you get more weight when approving or rejecting *suggested* edits, you get notified of comments, you can still delete it). But you don't get ultimate credit for it, either in terms of how it is displayed on the page, or in terms of how the system rewards you for it.
2. You can't "take it back". Once you've handed over ownership to the community, it's theirs - the status sticks to the post no matter how many subsequent edits you make... Or how few subsequent edits anyone else makes.
Community Wiki got a bum rap for years, mostly because it was *forced* onto posts by the system or other users. We had good intentions there, but... [It was a bad idea and we no longer do that](https://stackoverflow.blog/2014/04/putting-the-community-back-in-wiki/). What *remains* is actually pretty cool, *if* you look at it from the perspective of what it enables: **authors can symbolically give up ownership of a post at any time.**
Note that this clearly isn't a *legal* action; that pop-up dialog is less than a page long. You retain the copyright to anything you write here. But it does align itself with some of those moral rights we discussed earlier: you get to say - in a public way, totally under your control - that you no longer want sole credit for a given post.
For all of the controversy that has plagued CW over the years, that particular usage has remained remarkably consistent: as far back as I can remember, folks have reached for CW when they didn't feel like taking credit for an answer. Now, sometimes this has seemed a little bit dirty, even manipulative: marking a post CW to avoid getting dinged by downvotes, or to keep your reputation at an even 10K for example. But it's also been used to acknowledge the contributions of others to a FAQ or omnibus answer - even if no one else ever edits, by de-emphasizing the author more focus is put on the words - and attributions - in the post itself.
And on the topic of...
### Abuse
One of the most often-cited criticisms of authors using Community Wiki on answers is that they might do so to shield themselves from the penalty imposed by downvotes. This is almost never valid; in nearly any situation where it would matter, the author is allowed to *delete* the post at any time, which also immediately refunds any reputation lost to downvotes. In fact, CW makes downvotes on answers *free to the voter as well*, which can mean a bad answer is more readily downvoted. Moderators and [trusted users](https://literature.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/trusted-user) are not hindered from deleting CW answers, so nothing in the status hinders moderation and may in fact encourage it.
The more subtle concern I think is...
### Peer pressure breaking windows
A long, long time ago, when Stack Overflow was young and the rocks were still all red and soft, a few of us got it into our heads that it'd be a great idea to pressure other people into making their posts CW in cases where they were clearly *undeserving* of reputation.
...we didn't have very good luck with this and eventually gave up. But, the fact remains, we *did* try. And maybe others would try again, somewhere else where the proverbial rocks are still soft and runny. So, the specter looms whenever CW is brought up.
I sympathize with this. But, ultimately it is harassment that is the problem here, not CW. If, for example, it becomes commonplace for authors to use CW on posts that are mostly quotes, then what harm is there in that if they do so by choice? Either the answers are problematic in the same way that they would be *without* CW, or they are not problematic; only if the authors are harassed when they *do not* use CW is there a problem, just as there is a problem when authors are harassed *for any other reason.*
Summary
-------
If an author chooses to use Community Wiki, that's their business - [the system has informed them of the consequences](https://i.stack.imgur.com/0eglD.png) and they've made their decision. If you encounter one of those rare situations that *demands* a wiki answer, especially one where *only* a wiki answer is appropriate for a given question... Then raise a discussion and get the moderators involved. If you observe harassment, flag it. If you see a bad answer, downvote it; a good one, upvote it. And if you don't see a problem... Don't make one. Each day has sufficient problems as it is. | If it were not for the Community Wiki option I would simply not have bothered posting. The question had been asked and answered *5 years ago* with a very good answer elsewhere that *was not mine*. I have no desire to pretend like I wrote TimK's answer, good or bad, nor do I have any desire to justify it's contents.
I posted my answer on the good-faith assumption that the poster honestly wanted to know the answer and just didn't know there was already one written. I was not attempting to write a "great answer", because IMO there already was one. I was attempting to point the OP at it with enough information that he could decide if it warranted following the link. |
527 | Why was this [answer](https://literature.stackexchange.com/a/1822/) made into a wiki? Should a moderator remove its community wiki status? | 2017/02/24 | [
"https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/527",
"https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/users/37/"
] | >
> Should a moderator remove its community wiki status?
>
>
>
No. I would consider this a violation of the author's prerogative. They have the choice to make their answer CW, which affects *only* their answer; overriding that under normal circumstances would be akin to [forcing them to accept an edit](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/04/in-defense-of-editing/) - putting their name and image on words they explicitly rejected.
A bit of background: Community Wiki has a long and troubled history on these sites, *primarily* because of its use in the now long-distant past on questions as a means of allowing otherwise-unsuitable discussions, polls and the like. For a very long time, the system actually *forced* CW onto posts that attracted either a large number of answers or a large number of edits... But [we put that behavior to rest nearly 3 years ago now](https://stackoverflow.blog/2014/04/putting-the-community-back-in-wiki/), leaving the use of CW at the discretion of answer authors in the common case, and moderators for extremely *uncommon* cases:
>
> An author can still apply the status manually when posting or when editing their own answer, and moderators retain the ability to apply it when they deem it truly necessary (for instance, a question attracting very large numbers of partial answers can be a sign of a topic that wants to be a wiki). For the most part, we’ve turned it back into something that *you can choose to use in cases where it lets you work together to create something wonderful:* [...]
>
>
>
Much longer background: chimerical moral rights
-----------------------------------------------
These sites are a delicate balance between multiple systems and philosophies. The original documentation explained them with this diagram:
Naturally, this results in a fair bit of conflict between how folks *expect* things to work and how they *actually* work - on all sides of the equation. A member used to a traditional online forum might expect to post questions or replies and never update them; a blogger might expect to update their own posts but never see another editor messing with them; a wikian might expect to readily edit *anything*.
**Achieving a harmonious balance of expectations here is critical to the long-term viability of a community.**
When the goal of a site is to serve as a repository of information for future readers, a sense of community ownership is needed - we cannot forever hold an individual author responsible for updating or even disseminating information. At the same time, individual ownership provides a great deal of motivation: both the reputation score and the simple ability to point to a profile filled with useful, informative posts are extremely satisfying to many who participate here. So we cannot entirely overlook one in favor of another without either alienating other members of the site or hurting its usefulness.
And in the place where this system sits - in between extremes - there lives an often-overlooked set of concerns, something often referred to in legal areas as "[moral rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights)". As is often the case with concepts that've been codified in law, finding a clear, succinct explanation for these can be difficult; I like this one, which I found on the website of the Australian law firm Epiphany Law in the article, "[What Are Moral Rights?](http://epiphany.law/articles/copyright/what-are-moral-rights)"
>
> In contrast, the moral rights recognise the connection between a creator and his or her work. They are concerned with whether the creator has been properly linked with the work and whether the work has been treated with dignity (or at least not in a derogatory way).
>
>
>
Consider for a moment what these sites do with the material that we all write on them: they combine it with the work of others, allow others to modify it, and allow others to take and build upon it. Your beautiful question may be sullied at any time by an answer you find offensive, or advertised on another site dedicated to a topic you find reprehensible; your carefully-crafted answer may be shown next to a sloppy and incorrect one, quoted by someone who misinterprets it. They're still "your" posts, but you've ceded control over how they are used, and this opens you up to situations in which you may find yourself very unhappy with the uses they are put to.
This is a dilemma that we've struggled with for the entire 9+ year history of the network, and the often-subtle underpinning of a great many odd features and unusual rules. To name a few:
* **By default, authors can delete their posts for any reason**... But if the post has proven itself useful in some way, or been build on by the work of others, deletion may be prevented or reversed.
* **By default, authors have the final say in what appears in their posts**... But if a given edit is deemed necessary to preserve or greatly increase its usefulness, they may be overruled.
* **Authors can delete their account at any time**... But we may retain any posts associated with it that have been deemed useful to others.
* **Authors can request that their name be removed from a post at any time.** This is actually [codified in Section 4(a) of the license](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode) to which all participants must agree to post under, though exactly how we implement it can vary.
But among all the features in this system, Community Wiki is by far the strangest and least well-understood.
### Hunt the CWumpus
The actual *function* hasn't changed in years - a post marked as CW differs from a normal post in that they...
* ...do not contribute to the reputation score of its original author or any subsequent authors.
* ...do not contribute toward certain badges, including tag badges.
* ...can be edited without peer review by any member of the site who has earned the [edit community wiki](https://literature.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit-community-wiki) privilege.
* ...are attributed on the question page only to the original author by name, and only as long as that author has contributed a majority of the text in the post. If a subsequent editor achieves a large majority of authorship, their name will be displayed; if no large majority can be attributed to a single author, no name is displayed by default; rather, a link to the revision history containing each author's contribution is displayed.
* ...never display an author's profile image or other profile statistics on the question page.
The *goal* of this feature is clearly to bump a given post a little bit further away from the "forum" side of [that euler diagram](https://i.stack.imgur.com/vAUXd.png) and a little bit closer to the "wiki" side. But what that actually *means* goes much further than just making it a bit easier for others to edit: there's a very clear de-emphasis of author-ownership, both in how the post is displayed *and* in how the system treats it. This is made explicit when an author elects to make a post CW:
A few things to note there:
1. You're giving up *explicit* ownership. Behind the scenes, your account still "owns" the post (it appears in your profile, you get more weight when approving or rejecting *suggested* edits, you get notified of comments, you can still delete it). But you don't get ultimate credit for it, either in terms of how it is displayed on the page, or in terms of how the system rewards you for it.
2. You can't "take it back". Once you've handed over ownership to the community, it's theirs - the status sticks to the post no matter how many subsequent edits you make... Or how few subsequent edits anyone else makes.
Community Wiki got a bum rap for years, mostly because it was *forced* onto posts by the system or other users. We had good intentions there, but... [It was a bad idea and we no longer do that](https://stackoverflow.blog/2014/04/putting-the-community-back-in-wiki/). What *remains* is actually pretty cool, *if* you look at it from the perspective of what it enables: **authors can symbolically give up ownership of a post at any time.**
Note that this clearly isn't a *legal* action; that pop-up dialog is less than a page long. You retain the copyright to anything you write here. But it does align itself with some of those moral rights we discussed earlier: you get to say - in a public way, totally under your control - that you no longer want sole credit for a given post.
For all of the controversy that has plagued CW over the years, that particular usage has remained remarkably consistent: as far back as I can remember, folks have reached for CW when they didn't feel like taking credit for an answer. Now, sometimes this has seemed a little bit dirty, even manipulative: marking a post CW to avoid getting dinged by downvotes, or to keep your reputation at an even 10K for example. But it's also been used to acknowledge the contributions of others to a FAQ or omnibus answer - even if no one else ever edits, by de-emphasizing the author more focus is put on the words - and attributions - in the post itself.
And on the topic of...
### Abuse
One of the most often-cited criticisms of authors using Community Wiki on answers is that they might do so to shield themselves from the penalty imposed by downvotes. This is almost never valid; in nearly any situation where it would matter, the author is allowed to *delete* the post at any time, which also immediately refunds any reputation lost to downvotes. In fact, CW makes downvotes on answers *free to the voter as well*, which can mean a bad answer is more readily downvoted. Moderators and [trusted users](https://literature.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/trusted-user) are not hindered from deleting CW answers, so nothing in the status hinders moderation and may in fact encourage it.
The more subtle concern I think is...
### Peer pressure breaking windows
A long, long time ago, when Stack Overflow was young and the rocks were still all red and soft, a few of us got it into our heads that it'd be a great idea to pressure other people into making their posts CW in cases where they were clearly *undeserving* of reputation.
...we didn't have very good luck with this and eventually gave up. But, the fact remains, we *did* try. And maybe others would try again, somewhere else where the proverbial rocks are still soft and runny. So, the specter looms whenever CW is brought up.
I sympathize with this. But, ultimately it is harassment that is the problem here, not CW. If, for example, it becomes commonplace for authors to use CW on posts that are mostly quotes, then what harm is there in that if they do so by choice? Either the answers are problematic in the same way that they would be *without* CW, or they are not problematic; only if the authors are harassed when they *do not* use CW is there a problem, just as there is a problem when authors are harassed *for any other reason.*
Summary
-------
If an author chooses to use Community Wiki, that's their business - [the system has informed them of the consequences](https://i.stack.imgur.com/0eglD.png) and they've made their decision. If you encounter one of those rare situations that *demands* a wiki answer, especially one where *only* a wiki answer is appropriate for a given question... Then raise a discussion and get the moderators involved. If you observe harassment, flag it. If you see a bad answer, downvote it; a good one, upvote it. And if you don't see a problem... Don't make one. Each day has sufficient problems as it is. | [Apparently](https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/a/531/151) the answer under scrutiny was made CW because it drew on an answer from another Stack site, and the answerer wanted to share it without being associated with it for good or for ill.
But [community wiki isn't a tool for reputation denial](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/228940/244929) (or for dodging the repercussions of questionable-quality answers) and practically speaking I see no difference between quoting a different Stack and quoting a blog or a book. We'd never expect someone to eschew rep for quoting a blog or a book. The answerer went to the trouble of tracking down the information and sharing it; why shouldn't rep gains should reflect that?
The moderation team is under no obligation to revert the CW in this case, nor are they obligated to leave it be, but I'd lean toward reverting it myself, for reasons which follow.
"Community wiki is like a cheese knife: it is a specialized tool to be used sparingly."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We've [talked about](https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/q/483/151) posting answers from other sites, and it's pretty clear [this isn't cheese](https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/a/530/151).
>
> The intent of community wiki in answers is to help share the burden of solving a question. An incomplete "seed" answer is a stepping stone to a complete solution with help from others[...] Community wiki is for that rare gem of a post that needs true community collaboration.
>
> - ["The Future of Community Wiki"](https://stackoverflow.blog/2011/08/the-future-of-community-wiki/)
>
>
>
Community wiki used to be massively overused. Changes to the editing system rendered its original purpose largely moot, and there's now a lot of confusion about CW's role in the Stack mechanics. These days there are [three basic reasons](https://stackoverflow.blog/2014/04/putting-the-community-back-in-wiki/) to use CW:
* Compiling a canonical reference
* Consolidating the knowledge of the community
* Encouraging the ongoing, active maintenance of a changing answer.
>
> Community wiki is for a special scenario, something built not by the expertise of one individual, then improved or iterated on by a few others, but rather something created by the concerted efforts of the community as a whole.
>
> - ["Putting the Community back in Wiki"](https://stackoverflow.blog/2014/04/putting-the-community-back-in-wiki/)
>
>
>
I don't see this particular answer needing CW to make it ["easier to edit and maintain by a wider group of users,"](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/11741/244929) so I don't see any reason for it to be a community wiki. Community wiki is a tool with a specific set of uses, and CW rollbacks are [left to mod discretion](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/144632/244929). One of the responsibilities of our moderators is to help the community use the right tools for the job at hand.
>
> The ideal moderator does as little as possible. But those little actions may be powerful and highly concentrated.
>
> - ["A Theory of Moderation,"](https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/05/a-theory-of-moderation/) which is [often not read all the way through](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/276323/244929).
>
>
>
As for the answer itself--it's not very good by lit.se standards, because it was written for a different site with different priorities. And the question itself is under a tag whose implementation [is still being debated](https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/q/511/151), so quality there is... in flux, I suppose we could say. I think this is a good example of why we should treat quotes from other Stacks the same as we would any other source: citing a source is great, but it can't stand on its own. We need to bring in our own expertise and tailor the answer to meet the expectations of our own Stack. |
15,193 | I have a pair of headphones with a long cord (2.5m / 8.2 ft) that I use at my desk. It's nice having a long cord -- I can move around at my desk and reach things -- but when I put them down they tend to get tangled around things, especially the arms of my chair. Any advice?
This is unlike the [question about earbuds](https://lifehacks.stackexchange.com/q/195/4259) because I don't want to tie them short. (I was asked to edit to show how this was different from this question; you can see my answer just before this parenthetical.) | 2017/02/07 | [
"https://lifehacks.stackexchange.com/questions/15193",
"https://lifehacks.stackexchange.com",
"https://lifehacks.stackexchange.com/users/4259/"
] | I would suggest using a **binder clip and a specific roll up style**:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/elxo2.jpg)
Every office has these in abundance. You can easily roll up the ear bud cord using a figure 8 motion using two fingers (index and middle). Once the 8 feet of cord has been collected, use the binder clip to keep it all together. The clip can then be attached to your cubical wall with a push pin to keep it off your desk (if you have a cubical). | There are commercial made rolling devices that allow you to pull out the length of lead you need, which will pull back in when you do not use it.
While you might be able to make one yourself, I do not think it is possible for me to explain it.
You could make a subsitute by connecting your lead to an elastic band which stretches to the longest length you need it but which retracts to as short as you can get it to be.
I would crochet around both elastic and lead, with the elastic stretched to its limit. Sewing or regular connections with tape or clips might work.
But I fear that this method will leave you lacking. |
4,552,823 | Please help me to get all the paragraphs from an article in an array. The paragraph contains no html. I just need to separate the paragraph through line breaks. Note an article may have multi line breaks. | 2010/12/29 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4552823",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/547188/"
] | Hardware informs the operating systems of some event with interruptions. They can be raised when an error occurs or when some peripheral has new data available (user pressed a key, a packet arrived on the network, a timer expired, ...). Those interruptions need to be handled quickly by the system (so that it appears responsive).
They are handled by the kernel. Generally, when one such interruption arrives, the currently running code is stopped, and a function of the kernel is called. The interruptions must be acted upon quickly to have a responsive system, so they must not block the kernel waiting for some resource, or do something like that. The classic solution is to have a dumb interruption function that just note the number of the interruption and return, and then in the main loop of the kernel, to check if any interruption occurred and to call the real handler.
As those interruption can be masked (except for non maskable interruption - NMI), the kernel can spawn some threads in kernel mode, and only have them unmasks the interruption and handle them. As those thread are independent of the main kernel thread, they can block, provided there are enough threads to handle the interruptions that may arrive while the thread is blocked. | There's some more technical information in FreeBSD's [ithread(9)](http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=ithread&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=FreeBSD+8.1-RELEASE&format=html). |
84,733 | We have two types of passports in our country: internal and for traveling abroad. How can I specify that I have passport for traveling abroad? That's not to be called foreign passport and I'm not sure about international passport. What would you suggest? | 2012/10/04 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/84733",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/23910/"
] | I believe the accepted term is "international passport".
In most countries, no passport is needed for travel within the country, and so the only kind of passport is an international passport, and so it is called simply a "passport". | From [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_passport):
>
> The Ukrainian passport is a document issued to the nationals of Ukraine as the main proof of Ukrainian citizenship. There are two types of passport issued by the Ukrainian government that
> are commonly known as internal passport and international passport. An internal passport is used as a primary identification document of
> Ukrainian citizens within Ukraine. An international
> passport is used for international travel.
>
>
>
Most countries only have international passports, which are simply called passports, so unless you need to specifically disambiguate the terms for your reader, you can just use the word *passport*. |
2 | Considering that the site is about *Language Learning*, studies is inferred.
Should we use the tag at all? | 2016/04/05 | [
"https://languagelearning.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2",
"https://languagelearning.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://languagelearning.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8/"
] | [studies](https://languagelearning.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/studies "show questions tagged 'studies'") has no purpose delete it
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reasons:
* It is inferred from our question title
* It is like [homework](https://languagelearning.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/homework "show questions tagged 'homework'") on Math.SE and will probably inevitably be deleted.
* [studies](https://languagelearning.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/studies "show questions tagged 'studies'") refers to almost the entire scope of the site | I don't like the word "studies." It is basically implied by the site, that we are "studying" languages.
A better usage might be something like "field," or "discipline." That would imply some "subset" of language learning. |
2 | Considering that the site is about *Language Learning*, studies is inferred.
Should we use the tag at all? | 2016/04/05 | [
"https://languagelearning.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2",
"https://languagelearning.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://languagelearning.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8/"
] | [studies](https://languagelearning.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/studies "show questions tagged 'studies'"), to me, means "studies, published in a peer reviewed journal". Not "I'm doing my language studies before bed."
Perhaps a less ambiguous tag can be used for this. I like @Gille's suggestion of [reference-request](https://languagelearning.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/reference-request "show questions tagged 'reference-request'"). It doesn't have the ambiguity shortcomings of [research](https://languagelearning.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/research "show questions tagged 'research'") (is the question asking about results of past research, or how to conduct research, etc)? | No, I don't think it's necessary. As you said, I think studying is implied given the context of the site. |
2 | Considering that the site is about *Language Learning*, studies is inferred.
Should we use the tag at all? | 2016/04/05 | [
"https://languagelearning.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2",
"https://languagelearning.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://languagelearning.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8/"
] | [studies](https://languagelearning.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/studies "show questions tagged 'studies'"), to me, means "studies, published in a peer reviewed journal". Not "I'm doing my language studies before bed."
Perhaps a less ambiguous tag can be used for this. I like @Gille's suggestion of [reference-request](https://languagelearning.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/reference-request "show questions tagged 'reference-request'"). It doesn't have the ambiguity shortcomings of [research](https://languagelearning.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/research "show questions tagged 'research'") (is the question asking about results of past research, or how to conduct research, etc)? | I say we use the [scientific-research](https://languagelearning.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/scientific-research "show questions tagged 'scientific-research'") that I've created. It's clear and unambiguous unlike [studies](https://languagelearning.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/studies "show questions tagged 'studies'") which could be misinterpreted in a number of ways.
And I say this as the second highest asker of the tag [studies](https://languagelearning.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/studies "show questions tagged 'studies'"). |
2 | Considering that the site is about *Language Learning*, studies is inferred.
Should we use the tag at all? | 2016/04/05 | [
"https://languagelearning.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2",
"https://languagelearning.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://languagelearning.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8/"
] | [studies](https://languagelearning.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/studies "show questions tagged 'studies'"), to me, means "studies, published in a peer reviewed journal". Not "I'm doing my language studies before bed."
Perhaps a less ambiguous tag can be used for this. I like @Gille's suggestion of [reference-request](https://languagelearning.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/reference-request "show questions tagged 'reference-request'"). It doesn't have the ambiguity shortcomings of [research](https://languagelearning.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/research "show questions tagged 'research'") (is the question asking about results of past research, or how to conduct research, etc)? | [studies](https://languagelearning.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/studies "show questions tagged 'studies'") has no purpose delete it
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reasons:
* It is inferred from our question title
* It is like [homework](https://languagelearning.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/homework "show questions tagged 'homework'") on Math.SE and will probably inevitably be deleted.
* [studies](https://languagelearning.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/studies "show questions tagged 'studies'") refers to almost the entire scope of the site |
2 | Considering that the site is about *Language Learning*, studies is inferred.
Should we use the tag at all? | 2016/04/05 | [
"https://languagelearning.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2",
"https://languagelearning.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://languagelearning.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8/"
] | [studies](https://languagelearning.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/studies "show questions tagged 'studies'") has no purpose delete it
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reasons:
* It is inferred from our question title
* It is like [homework](https://languagelearning.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/homework "show questions tagged 'homework'") on Math.SE and will probably inevitably be deleted.
* [studies](https://languagelearning.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/studies "show questions tagged 'studies'") refers to almost the entire scope of the site | No, I don't think it's necessary. As you said, I think studying is implied given the context of the site. |
2 | Considering that the site is about *Language Learning*, studies is inferred.
Should we use the tag at all? | 2016/04/05 | [
"https://languagelearning.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2",
"https://languagelearning.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://languagelearning.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8/"
] | No, I don't think it's necessary. As you said, I think studying is implied given the context of the site. | I don't like the word "studies." It is basically implied by the site, that we are "studying" languages.
A better usage might be something like "field," or "discipline." That would imply some "subset" of language learning. |
2 | Considering that the site is about *Language Learning*, studies is inferred.
Should we use the tag at all? | 2016/04/05 | [
"https://languagelearning.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2",
"https://languagelearning.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://languagelearning.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8/"
] | [studies](https://languagelearning.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/studies "show questions tagged 'studies'") has no purpose delete it
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reasons:
* It is inferred from our question title
* It is like [homework](https://languagelearning.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/homework "show questions tagged 'homework'") on Math.SE and will probably inevitably be deleted.
* [studies](https://languagelearning.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/studies "show questions tagged 'studies'") refers to almost the entire scope of the site | I say we use the [scientific-research](https://languagelearning.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/scientific-research "show questions tagged 'scientific-research'") that I've created. It's clear and unambiguous unlike [studies](https://languagelearning.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/studies "show questions tagged 'studies'") which could be misinterpreted in a number of ways.
And I say this as the second highest asker of the tag [studies](https://languagelearning.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/studies "show questions tagged 'studies'"). |
157,531 | Last 11 months have been a roller coaster. Towards the end of my PhD last year, I applied to few places, did not get any offers. My PhD advisor offered me a interim postdoc to support myself while I searched for other positions.
To begin my postdoc, I had to get my work permit. So, I decided not to go to my home country and stay 2 months till I get my work permit and then take a month break before joining my PhD supervisor as a postdoc.
Then covid happened. My work permit processing got delayed. My source of income got indefinitely postponed. I lost all motivation to work and search for jobs.
Finally, I got my permit in June. And since June I am working on the postdoc position diligently. Since January,I had wasted 5 months doing nothing. But since June, I have worked on different projects. Submitted two papers. Have plans for more.
Now, I won't be able to move out of my current country of residence due to covid restrictions. And my PhD advisor offered me an extension on the initial contract till the end of next year.
I am worrying about how it would look to future employers. I already have a 10 months gap between my master's and starting my PhD.
I am very worried. Though I know I can publish 6-7 journal papers till the mid of next year, I am worried about my CV.
My mind says to concentrate on the current job. Keep applying but to accept the possibility that I won't get anything. One year is enough to make a huge change in CV. I should work hard on this postdoc position and consider myself lucky to have this job in the current situation.
What do you think? Thank you for reading the entire thing. | 2020/10/13 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/157531",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/130430/"
] | Don't worry about gaps that are easy to explain, especially by something that will have affected everyone to some extend, such as Covid in 2020/2021 (and hopefully not any longer...).
Keep working on your postdoc, and keep applying to positions that are in your interest.
Besides that, it is totally normal to have a few months between two positions every now and then. I'd love to have such a gap by the way, to take a long holiday without having to explain anything. | Interim postdocs are perfectly normal (in my field). Especially considering the a Covid situation this is not going to be a red flag.
Publishing lots of papers will turn you into a strong candidate.
On a side note: focus on actionable things and clear questions. Your post doesn't really include anything but asking the internet how you should feel. That does not strike me as productive. |
55,553 | Consider the following two assumptions:
1. *Validity Assumption*: Assume an argument is valid. It follows all the formal logical rules of inference. The inference contains no formal logical fallacy.
2. *Soundness Assumption*: Assume the premises of the argument are sound, verified by a competent subject-matter expert.
Given the soundness assumption, the validity assumption would imply that the conclusion is logically true.
Is it possible for this argument to still be an example of an *informal* fallacy?
What makes me think this is possible is that establishing the soundness assumption, which I *assumed* to be true, cannot be done with absolute certainty. The subject-matter expert verifying the premises as true may have made an error of judgment. The validity assumption is more reliable as an assumption than the assumption of soundness since it can be checked with a computer without involving human judgment.
This would make the list of informal logical fallacies valuable. They would be ways to test sound and valid arguments by identifying places where the argument could go wrong.
What I am looking for are examples of such situations that would answer the question in the title as "yes" or an argument that such examples are not possible.
To repeat the question: *Can an argument be formally valid with sound premises and still be informally fallacious?* | 2018/09/16 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/55553",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/29944/"
] | I say yes.
Consider two people who don't know the color of bananas, and are trying to figure it out through an argument. One of them provides the following argument:
Bananas are yellow
Therefore, bananas are yellow
It's clearly valid, and any subject-matter expert would agree with the premise. But, the second person will (rightly!) object that this argument commits the fallacy of circular reasoning/begging the question | This question is only meaningful if one ask about the status of the so-called informal fallacy, as a philosophic concept. The current academic usage differs from the medieval usage. All definitions are circular in the sense that something is said about something, for example, Kant says in the extreme case the subject and the predicate are the same: "a book is a book." If I say a book is a "readable thing," one can still object that the readable thing could as easily be the subject that supports the claim or predicate; this readable thing is a book. The objection is wholly arbitrary in the current academic usage. And in fact it has a formal character, though it is called informal since it is not a matter of an *inference* as are the "formal" fallacies.
The answer above "Bram28" is wrong by the medieval standard. It's not circular (in the negative sense of being a fault) if the premise is accepted by the intelligence of the one involved in the disputation or the dialogic investigation. Circular in this context is another name for not sharing the assumption of the other about the premise. If I am color blind I may not believe you when you say the banana is yellow. I don't share your premise. Than I say, this is a circular argument, and what I mean is you have not given me anything to move or persuade me to believe your view that the banana is yellow. I need something more. What you say is intelligible, but it does not truly move me to where you are, objectively in my knowing. You don't demonstrate to me, but you instead propound in a dogmatic way. I can learn what you say by rote, but am not led objectively to know in the way you do.
So these questions have to do with a different way of grasping the objective or independent character of the soul as arbiter and its internal subject matter. One might convince a blind man, genuinely and logically, rather than through appeal to interest or trust, of the color of the banana. But since I can not look, as a color blind person, at the yellow color, the mere correctness of the assertion is not enough for me: it is not a circle. It is a broken circle because one part of it is not accepted. The circle, in fact, is either vicious or virtuous on a different ground than the *petitio principii*, it is the ground of whether it helps me in a larger context (as with the example about the case with Justice Roberts and the "Legislature" I gave in the question about logic). |
55,553 | Consider the following two assumptions:
1. *Validity Assumption*: Assume an argument is valid. It follows all the formal logical rules of inference. The inference contains no formal logical fallacy.
2. *Soundness Assumption*: Assume the premises of the argument are sound, verified by a competent subject-matter expert.
Given the soundness assumption, the validity assumption would imply that the conclusion is logically true.
Is it possible for this argument to still be an example of an *informal* fallacy?
What makes me think this is possible is that establishing the soundness assumption, which I *assumed* to be true, cannot be done with absolute certainty. The subject-matter expert verifying the premises as true may have made an error of judgment. The validity assumption is more reliable as an assumption than the assumption of soundness since it can be checked with a computer without involving human judgment.
This would make the list of informal logical fallacies valuable. They would be ways to test sound and valid arguments by identifying places where the argument could go wrong.
What I am looking for are examples of such situations that would answer the question in the title as "yes" or an argument that such examples are not possible.
To repeat the question: *Can an argument be formally valid with sound premises and still be informally fallacious?* | 2018/09/16 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/55553",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/29944/"
] | I say yes.
Consider two people who don't know the color of bananas, and are trying to figure it out through an argument. One of them provides the following argument:
Bananas are yellow
Therefore, bananas are yellow
It's clearly valid, and any subject-matter expert would agree with the premise. But, the second person will (rightly!) object that this argument commits the fallacy of circular reasoning/begging the question | Premise one: The "Bald Eagle" is a bird named for the appearance its head. **(Correct)**
Premise two: White Headed Vultures and Ocellated Turkeys are both birds who are bald (without feathers on their head). **(Correct)**
Logically Inferred Conclusion: Bald Eagles are also a bird that is bald (without feathers on its head). **(Incorrect)**
So, based on the true premise that there are Birds that *are* bald, and that the Bald Eagle is named for the appearance of its head, you can draw the incorrect conclusion that the Bald Eagle is a bird that is bald - rather than that it was named for the old and largely defunct meaning of "bald" as "white headed"
The informal logical fallacy here is a combination of an [Etymological fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy) (on use of the name "Bald Eagle", and the change in the meaning of the word "bald"), a [Referential fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_reference_theory) (likewise) and a [False Attributation fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_attribution) (while the premise that there are exist birds that are bald *is* true, it hold no relevance to the true situation) |
55,553 | Consider the following two assumptions:
1. *Validity Assumption*: Assume an argument is valid. It follows all the formal logical rules of inference. The inference contains no formal logical fallacy.
2. *Soundness Assumption*: Assume the premises of the argument are sound, verified by a competent subject-matter expert.
Given the soundness assumption, the validity assumption would imply that the conclusion is logically true.
Is it possible for this argument to still be an example of an *informal* fallacy?
What makes me think this is possible is that establishing the soundness assumption, which I *assumed* to be true, cannot be done with absolute certainty. The subject-matter expert verifying the premises as true may have made an error of judgment. The validity assumption is more reliable as an assumption than the assumption of soundness since it can be checked with a computer without involving human judgment.
This would make the list of informal logical fallacies valuable. They would be ways to test sound and valid arguments by identifying places where the argument could go wrong.
What I am looking for are examples of such situations that would answer the question in the title as "yes" or an argument that such examples are not possible.
To repeat the question: *Can an argument be formally valid with sound premises and still be informally fallacious?* | 2018/09/16 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/55553",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/29944/"
] | I say yes.
Consider two people who don't know the color of bananas, and are trying to figure it out through an argument. One of them provides the following argument:
Bananas are yellow
Therefore, bananas are yellow
It's clearly valid, and any subject-matter expert would agree with the premise. But, the second person will (rightly!) object that this argument commits the fallacy of circular reasoning/begging the question | **Logic and epistemology**
I think you are running together logic and epistemology. If the premises are sound (true) and the conclusion is validly deduced from the premises then the conclusion is true : the argument, call it A, is valid, non-fallacious.
This is where logic's interest begins and ends. When you introduce considerations of only assuming the soundness of the premises and not being absolutely certain of their truth, this is a matter of epistemology. We often have good cause to doubt whether premises are sound but this is a matter, a problem or question of what you know about the premises. As regards premises, logic depends on whether the premises are sound, not on whether you know whether they are sound.
But there is more to say, more favourable to your suggestion.
**Wider context**
I see no reason why an argument, A, which is sound and valid should not feature as part of a longer argument, B, which does involve an informal fallacy. The argument, A, remains logically faultless but it might be embedded in another argument, B, which as a whole commits an informal fallacy such as *Straw Man* or *Ad Consequentiam* or any of the other informal fallacies. |
55,553 | Consider the following two assumptions:
1. *Validity Assumption*: Assume an argument is valid. It follows all the formal logical rules of inference. The inference contains no formal logical fallacy.
2. *Soundness Assumption*: Assume the premises of the argument are sound, verified by a competent subject-matter expert.
Given the soundness assumption, the validity assumption would imply that the conclusion is logically true.
Is it possible for this argument to still be an example of an *informal* fallacy?
What makes me think this is possible is that establishing the soundness assumption, which I *assumed* to be true, cannot be done with absolute certainty. The subject-matter expert verifying the premises as true may have made an error of judgment. The validity assumption is more reliable as an assumption than the assumption of soundness since it can be checked with a computer without involving human judgment.
This would make the list of informal logical fallacies valuable. They would be ways to test sound and valid arguments by identifying places where the argument could go wrong.
What I am looking for are examples of such situations that would answer the question in the title as "yes" or an argument that such examples are not possible.
To repeat the question: *Can an argument be formally valid with sound premises and still be informally fallacious?* | 2018/09/16 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/55553",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/29944/"
] | I say yes.
Consider two people who don't know the color of bananas, and are trying to figure it out through an argument. One of them provides the following argument:
Bananas are yellow
Therefore, bananas are yellow
It's clearly valid, and any subject-matter expert would agree with the premise. But, the second person will (rightly!) object that this argument commits the fallacy of circular reasoning/begging the question | In *forall x: Calgary Remix* the authors claim there are two ways that an argument can go wrong:
>
> The general point is as follows. For any argument, there are two ways
> that it might go wrong:
>
>
> * One or more of the premises might be false.
> * The conclusion might not follow from the premises.
>
>
> To determine
> whether or not the premises of an argument are true is often a very
> important matter. However, that is normally a task best left to
> experts in the field: as it might be, historians, scientists, or
> whomever. In our role as logicians, we are more concerned with
> arguments in general. So we are (usually) more concerned with the
> second way in which arguments can go wrong.
>
>
>
The question I raised brings up a third way an argument can go wrong even more so than I originally realized with [Bram28's answer](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/55555/29944) referencing the fallacy of circular reasoning.
Wikipedia defines the [fallacy of circular reasoning as follows](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning):
>
> Circular reasoning...is a logical fallacy in
> which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.
> The components of a circular argument are often logically valid
> because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
> Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic
> defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of
> proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument
> fails to persuade.
>
>
>
The third way arguments can go wrong is that they fail to "persuade", or perhaps better put, they should fail to persuade those hearing them.
With a circular argument the premise becomes the conclusion. That is a valid inference. If the premise is obviously true, the argument is sound. But, nonetheless, the argument is an example of the informal fallacy of circular reasoning and remains so in spite of the validity and soundness of the argument.
Should anyone accept such an argument? No. It should fail to persuade. More is required from an argument than soundness and validity.
---
Reference
P. D. Magnus, Tim Button with additions by J. Robert Loftis remixed and revised by Aaron Thomas-Bolduc, Richard Zach, forallx Calgary Remix: An Introduction to Formal Logic, Winter 2018. <http://forallx.openlogicproject.org/>
Wikipedia, "Circular reasoning" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning> |
55,553 | Consider the following two assumptions:
1. *Validity Assumption*: Assume an argument is valid. It follows all the formal logical rules of inference. The inference contains no formal logical fallacy.
2. *Soundness Assumption*: Assume the premises of the argument are sound, verified by a competent subject-matter expert.
Given the soundness assumption, the validity assumption would imply that the conclusion is logically true.
Is it possible for this argument to still be an example of an *informal* fallacy?
What makes me think this is possible is that establishing the soundness assumption, which I *assumed* to be true, cannot be done with absolute certainty. The subject-matter expert verifying the premises as true may have made an error of judgment. The validity assumption is more reliable as an assumption than the assumption of soundness since it can be checked with a computer without involving human judgment.
This would make the list of informal logical fallacies valuable. They would be ways to test sound and valid arguments by identifying places where the argument could go wrong.
What I am looking for are examples of such situations that would answer the question in the title as "yes" or an argument that such examples are not possible.
To repeat the question: *Can an argument be formally valid with sound premises and still be informally fallacious?* | 2018/09/16 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/55553",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/29944/"
] | This question is only meaningful if one ask about the status of the so-called informal fallacy, as a philosophic concept. The current academic usage differs from the medieval usage. All definitions are circular in the sense that something is said about something, for example, Kant says in the extreme case the subject and the predicate are the same: "a book is a book." If I say a book is a "readable thing," one can still object that the readable thing could as easily be the subject that supports the claim or predicate; this readable thing is a book. The objection is wholly arbitrary in the current academic usage. And in fact it has a formal character, though it is called informal since it is not a matter of an *inference* as are the "formal" fallacies.
The answer above "Bram28" is wrong by the medieval standard. It's not circular (in the negative sense of being a fault) if the premise is accepted by the intelligence of the one involved in the disputation or the dialogic investigation. Circular in this context is another name for not sharing the assumption of the other about the premise. If I am color blind I may not believe you when you say the banana is yellow. I don't share your premise. Than I say, this is a circular argument, and what I mean is you have not given me anything to move or persuade me to believe your view that the banana is yellow. I need something more. What you say is intelligible, but it does not truly move me to where you are, objectively in my knowing. You don't demonstrate to me, but you instead propound in a dogmatic way. I can learn what you say by rote, but am not led objectively to know in the way you do.
So these questions have to do with a different way of grasping the objective or independent character of the soul as arbiter and its internal subject matter. One might convince a blind man, genuinely and logically, rather than through appeal to interest or trust, of the color of the banana. But since I can not look, as a color blind person, at the yellow color, the mere correctness of the assertion is not enough for me: it is not a circle. It is a broken circle because one part of it is not accepted. The circle, in fact, is either vicious or virtuous on a different ground than the *petitio principii*, it is the ground of whether it helps me in a larger context (as with the example about the case with Justice Roberts and the "Legislature" I gave in the question about logic). | Premise one: The "Bald Eagle" is a bird named for the appearance its head. **(Correct)**
Premise two: White Headed Vultures and Ocellated Turkeys are both birds who are bald (without feathers on their head). **(Correct)**
Logically Inferred Conclusion: Bald Eagles are also a bird that is bald (without feathers on its head). **(Incorrect)**
So, based on the true premise that there are Birds that *are* bald, and that the Bald Eagle is named for the appearance of its head, you can draw the incorrect conclusion that the Bald Eagle is a bird that is bald - rather than that it was named for the old and largely defunct meaning of "bald" as "white headed"
The informal logical fallacy here is a combination of an [Etymological fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy) (on use of the name "Bald Eagle", and the change in the meaning of the word "bald"), a [Referential fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_reference_theory) (likewise) and a [False Attributation fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_attribution) (while the premise that there are exist birds that are bald *is* true, it hold no relevance to the true situation) |
55,553 | Consider the following two assumptions:
1. *Validity Assumption*: Assume an argument is valid. It follows all the formal logical rules of inference. The inference contains no formal logical fallacy.
2. *Soundness Assumption*: Assume the premises of the argument are sound, verified by a competent subject-matter expert.
Given the soundness assumption, the validity assumption would imply that the conclusion is logically true.
Is it possible for this argument to still be an example of an *informal* fallacy?
What makes me think this is possible is that establishing the soundness assumption, which I *assumed* to be true, cannot be done with absolute certainty. The subject-matter expert verifying the premises as true may have made an error of judgment. The validity assumption is more reliable as an assumption than the assumption of soundness since it can be checked with a computer without involving human judgment.
This would make the list of informal logical fallacies valuable. They would be ways to test sound and valid arguments by identifying places where the argument could go wrong.
What I am looking for are examples of such situations that would answer the question in the title as "yes" or an argument that such examples are not possible.
To repeat the question: *Can an argument be formally valid with sound premises and still be informally fallacious?* | 2018/09/16 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/55553",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/29944/"
] | **Logic and epistemology**
I think you are running together logic and epistemology. If the premises are sound (true) and the conclusion is validly deduced from the premises then the conclusion is true : the argument, call it A, is valid, non-fallacious.
This is where logic's interest begins and ends. When you introduce considerations of only assuming the soundness of the premises and not being absolutely certain of their truth, this is a matter of epistemology. We often have good cause to doubt whether premises are sound but this is a matter, a problem or question of what you know about the premises. As regards premises, logic depends on whether the premises are sound, not on whether you know whether they are sound.
But there is more to say, more favourable to your suggestion.
**Wider context**
I see no reason why an argument, A, which is sound and valid should not feature as part of a longer argument, B, which does involve an informal fallacy. The argument, A, remains logically faultless but it might be embedded in another argument, B, which as a whole commits an informal fallacy such as *Straw Man* or *Ad Consequentiam* or any of the other informal fallacies. | This question is only meaningful if one ask about the status of the so-called informal fallacy, as a philosophic concept. The current academic usage differs from the medieval usage. All definitions are circular in the sense that something is said about something, for example, Kant says in the extreme case the subject and the predicate are the same: "a book is a book." If I say a book is a "readable thing," one can still object that the readable thing could as easily be the subject that supports the claim or predicate; this readable thing is a book. The objection is wholly arbitrary in the current academic usage. And in fact it has a formal character, though it is called informal since it is not a matter of an *inference* as are the "formal" fallacies.
The answer above "Bram28" is wrong by the medieval standard. It's not circular (in the negative sense of being a fault) if the premise is accepted by the intelligence of the one involved in the disputation or the dialogic investigation. Circular in this context is another name for not sharing the assumption of the other about the premise. If I am color blind I may not believe you when you say the banana is yellow. I don't share your premise. Than I say, this is a circular argument, and what I mean is you have not given me anything to move or persuade me to believe your view that the banana is yellow. I need something more. What you say is intelligible, but it does not truly move me to where you are, objectively in my knowing. You don't demonstrate to me, but you instead propound in a dogmatic way. I can learn what you say by rote, but am not led objectively to know in the way you do.
So these questions have to do with a different way of grasping the objective or independent character of the soul as arbiter and its internal subject matter. One might convince a blind man, genuinely and logically, rather than through appeal to interest or trust, of the color of the banana. But since I can not look, as a color blind person, at the yellow color, the mere correctness of the assertion is not enough for me: it is not a circle. It is a broken circle because one part of it is not accepted. The circle, in fact, is either vicious or virtuous on a different ground than the *petitio principii*, it is the ground of whether it helps me in a larger context (as with the example about the case with Justice Roberts and the "Legislature" I gave in the question about logic). |
55,553 | Consider the following two assumptions:
1. *Validity Assumption*: Assume an argument is valid. It follows all the formal logical rules of inference. The inference contains no formal logical fallacy.
2. *Soundness Assumption*: Assume the premises of the argument are sound, verified by a competent subject-matter expert.
Given the soundness assumption, the validity assumption would imply that the conclusion is logically true.
Is it possible for this argument to still be an example of an *informal* fallacy?
What makes me think this is possible is that establishing the soundness assumption, which I *assumed* to be true, cannot be done with absolute certainty. The subject-matter expert verifying the premises as true may have made an error of judgment. The validity assumption is more reliable as an assumption than the assumption of soundness since it can be checked with a computer without involving human judgment.
This would make the list of informal logical fallacies valuable. They would be ways to test sound and valid arguments by identifying places where the argument could go wrong.
What I am looking for are examples of such situations that would answer the question in the title as "yes" or an argument that such examples are not possible.
To repeat the question: *Can an argument be formally valid with sound premises and still be informally fallacious?* | 2018/09/16 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/55553",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/29944/"
] | This question is only meaningful if one ask about the status of the so-called informal fallacy, as a philosophic concept. The current academic usage differs from the medieval usage. All definitions are circular in the sense that something is said about something, for example, Kant says in the extreme case the subject and the predicate are the same: "a book is a book." If I say a book is a "readable thing," one can still object that the readable thing could as easily be the subject that supports the claim or predicate; this readable thing is a book. The objection is wholly arbitrary in the current academic usage. And in fact it has a formal character, though it is called informal since it is not a matter of an *inference* as are the "formal" fallacies.
The answer above "Bram28" is wrong by the medieval standard. It's not circular (in the negative sense of being a fault) if the premise is accepted by the intelligence of the one involved in the disputation or the dialogic investigation. Circular in this context is another name for not sharing the assumption of the other about the premise. If I am color blind I may not believe you when you say the banana is yellow. I don't share your premise. Than I say, this is a circular argument, and what I mean is you have not given me anything to move or persuade me to believe your view that the banana is yellow. I need something more. What you say is intelligible, but it does not truly move me to where you are, objectively in my knowing. You don't demonstrate to me, but you instead propound in a dogmatic way. I can learn what you say by rote, but am not led objectively to know in the way you do.
So these questions have to do with a different way of grasping the objective or independent character of the soul as arbiter and its internal subject matter. One might convince a blind man, genuinely and logically, rather than through appeal to interest or trust, of the color of the banana. But since I can not look, as a color blind person, at the yellow color, the mere correctness of the assertion is not enough for me: it is not a circle. It is a broken circle because one part of it is not accepted. The circle, in fact, is either vicious or virtuous on a different ground than the *petitio principii*, it is the ground of whether it helps me in a larger context (as with the example about the case with Justice Roberts and the "Legislature" I gave in the question about logic). | In *forall x: Calgary Remix* the authors claim there are two ways that an argument can go wrong:
>
> The general point is as follows. For any argument, there are two ways
> that it might go wrong:
>
>
> * One or more of the premises might be false.
> * The conclusion might not follow from the premises.
>
>
> To determine
> whether or not the premises of an argument are true is often a very
> important matter. However, that is normally a task best left to
> experts in the field: as it might be, historians, scientists, or
> whomever. In our role as logicians, we are more concerned with
> arguments in general. So we are (usually) more concerned with the
> second way in which arguments can go wrong.
>
>
>
The question I raised brings up a third way an argument can go wrong even more so than I originally realized with [Bram28's answer](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/55555/29944) referencing the fallacy of circular reasoning.
Wikipedia defines the [fallacy of circular reasoning as follows](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning):
>
> Circular reasoning...is a logical fallacy in
> which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.
> The components of a circular argument are often logically valid
> because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
> Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic
> defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of
> proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument
> fails to persuade.
>
>
>
The third way arguments can go wrong is that they fail to "persuade", or perhaps better put, they should fail to persuade those hearing them.
With a circular argument the premise becomes the conclusion. That is a valid inference. If the premise is obviously true, the argument is sound. But, nonetheless, the argument is an example of the informal fallacy of circular reasoning and remains so in spite of the validity and soundness of the argument.
Should anyone accept such an argument? No. It should fail to persuade. More is required from an argument than soundness and validity.
---
Reference
P. D. Magnus, Tim Button with additions by J. Robert Loftis remixed and revised by Aaron Thomas-Bolduc, Richard Zach, forallx Calgary Remix: An Introduction to Formal Logic, Winter 2018. <http://forallx.openlogicproject.org/>
Wikipedia, "Circular reasoning" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning> |
55,553 | Consider the following two assumptions:
1. *Validity Assumption*: Assume an argument is valid. It follows all the formal logical rules of inference. The inference contains no formal logical fallacy.
2. *Soundness Assumption*: Assume the premises of the argument are sound, verified by a competent subject-matter expert.
Given the soundness assumption, the validity assumption would imply that the conclusion is logically true.
Is it possible for this argument to still be an example of an *informal* fallacy?
What makes me think this is possible is that establishing the soundness assumption, which I *assumed* to be true, cannot be done with absolute certainty. The subject-matter expert verifying the premises as true may have made an error of judgment. The validity assumption is more reliable as an assumption than the assumption of soundness since it can be checked with a computer without involving human judgment.
This would make the list of informal logical fallacies valuable. They would be ways to test sound and valid arguments by identifying places where the argument could go wrong.
What I am looking for are examples of such situations that would answer the question in the title as "yes" or an argument that such examples are not possible.
To repeat the question: *Can an argument be formally valid with sound premises and still be informally fallacious?* | 2018/09/16 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/55553",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/29944/"
] | **Logic and epistemology**
I think you are running together logic and epistemology. If the premises are sound (true) and the conclusion is validly deduced from the premises then the conclusion is true : the argument, call it A, is valid, non-fallacious.
This is where logic's interest begins and ends. When you introduce considerations of only assuming the soundness of the premises and not being absolutely certain of their truth, this is a matter of epistemology. We often have good cause to doubt whether premises are sound but this is a matter, a problem or question of what you know about the premises. As regards premises, logic depends on whether the premises are sound, not on whether you know whether they are sound.
But there is more to say, more favourable to your suggestion.
**Wider context**
I see no reason why an argument, A, which is sound and valid should not feature as part of a longer argument, B, which does involve an informal fallacy. The argument, A, remains logically faultless but it might be embedded in another argument, B, which as a whole commits an informal fallacy such as *Straw Man* or *Ad Consequentiam* or any of the other informal fallacies. | Premise one: The "Bald Eagle" is a bird named for the appearance its head. **(Correct)**
Premise two: White Headed Vultures and Ocellated Turkeys are both birds who are bald (without feathers on their head). **(Correct)**
Logically Inferred Conclusion: Bald Eagles are also a bird that is bald (without feathers on its head). **(Incorrect)**
So, based on the true premise that there are Birds that *are* bald, and that the Bald Eagle is named for the appearance of its head, you can draw the incorrect conclusion that the Bald Eagle is a bird that is bald - rather than that it was named for the old and largely defunct meaning of "bald" as "white headed"
The informal logical fallacy here is a combination of an [Etymological fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy) (on use of the name "Bald Eagle", and the change in the meaning of the word "bald"), a [Referential fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_reference_theory) (likewise) and a [False Attributation fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_attribution) (while the premise that there are exist birds that are bald *is* true, it hold no relevance to the true situation) |
55,553 | Consider the following two assumptions:
1. *Validity Assumption*: Assume an argument is valid. It follows all the formal logical rules of inference. The inference contains no formal logical fallacy.
2. *Soundness Assumption*: Assume the premises of the argument are sound, verified by a competent subject-matter expert.
Given the soundness assumption, the validity assumption would imply that the conclusion is logically true.
Is it possible for this argument to still be an example of an *informal* fallacy?
What makes me think this is possible is that establishing the soundness assumption, which I *assumed* to be true, cannot be done with absolute certainty. The subject-matter expert verifying the premises as true may have made an error of judgment. The validity assumption is more reliable as an assumption than the assumption of soundness since it can be checked with a computer without involving human judgment.
This would make the list of informal logical fallacies valuable. They would be ways to test sound and valid arguments by identifying places where the argument could go wrong.
What I am looking for are examples of such situations that would answer the question in the title as "yes" or an argument that such examples are not possible.
To repeat the question: *Can an argument be formally valid with sound premises and still be informally fallacious?* | 2018/09/16 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/55553",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/29944/"
] | **Logic and epistemology**
I think you are running together logic and epistemology. If the premises are sound (true) and the conclusion is validly deduced from the premises then the conclusion is true : the argument, call it A, is valid, non-fallacious.
This is where logic's interest begins and ends. When you introduce considerations of only assuming the soundness of the premises and not being absolutely certain of their truth, this is a matter of epistemology. We often have good cause to doubt whether premises are sound but this is a matter, a problem or question of what you know about the premises. As regards premises, logic depends on whether the premises are sound, not on whether you know whether they are sound.
But there is more to say, more favourable to your suggestion.
**Wider context**
I see no reason why an argument, A, which is sound and valid should not feature as part of a longer argument, B, which does involve an informal fallacy. The argument, A, remains logically faultless but it might be embedded in another argument, B, which as a whole commits an informal fallacy such as *Straw Man* or *Ad Consequentiam* or any of the other informal fallacies. | In *forall x: Calgary Remix* the authors claim there are two ways that an argument can go wrong:
>
> The general point is as follows. For any argument, there are two ways
> that it might go wrong:
>
>
> * One or more of the premises might be false.
> * The conclusion might not follow from the premises.
>
>
> To determine
> whether or not the premises of an argument are true is often a very
> important matter. However, that is normally a task best left to
> experts in the field: as it might be, historians, scientists, or
> whomever. In our role as logicians, we are more concerned with
> arguments in general. So we are (usually) more concerned with the
> second way in which arguments can go wrong.
>
>
>
The question I raised brings up a third way an argument can go wrong even more so than I originally realized with [Bram28's answer](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/55555/29944) referencing the fallacy of circular reasoning.
Wikipedia defines the [fallacy of circular reasoning as follows](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning):
>
> Circular reasoning...is a logical fallacy in
> which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.
> The components of a circular argument are often logically valid
> because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
> Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic
> defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of
> proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument
> fails to persuade.
>
>
>
The third way arguments can go wrong is that they fail to "persuade", or perhaps better put, they should fail to persuade those hearing them.
With a circular argument the premise becomes the conclusion. That is a valid inference. If the premise is obviously true, the argument is sound. But, nonetheless, the argument is an example of the informal fallacy of circular reasoning and remains so in spite of the validity and soundness of the argument.
Should anyone accept such an argument? No. It should fail to persuade. More is required from an argument than soundness and validity.
---
Reference
P. D. Magnus, Tim Button with additions by J. Robert Loftis remixed and revised by Aaron Thomas-Bolduc, Richard Zach, forallx Calgary Remix: An Introduction to Formal Logic, Winter 2018. <http://forallx.openlogicproject.org/>
Wikipedia, "Circular reasoning" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning> |
431,988 | Setting up ASP.net MVC with Linq2SQL or Entity Framework's context to have scaffolding work out of the box is extremely easy. What tweaks would you make to make it work with ADO.net Data Services? | 2009/01/10 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/431988",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/37494/"
] | On <http://www.codeplex.com/aspnet> there's a project for using ASP.NET Dynamic Data with ASP.NET MVC. | I have customized the MVC Scaffolding templates to scaffold against a WCF Data Services Context (ADO.NET Data Services, oData, which they would stop changing the name!). You can find the templates here:
<http://odatascaffolding.codeplex.com/> |
3,123 | The application [iFunBox](http://www.i-funbox.com/) allows the apple product users to view all their files and folders **(even the root folders and etc.)** of iPhone/iPad/iPod in desktop(either in windows or mac) machine. Here you can see the sample screenshot.
Even [Windows Phone Device Manager](http://touchxperience.com/windows-phone-device-manager/) is allowing to view windows phone 7 files and folders.
**Similarly, Is there any software available for Windows Phone 8/8.1 which allows to view all files in desktop?** | 2014/02/04 | [
"https://windowsphone.stackexchange.com/questions/3123",
"https://windowsphone.stackexchange.com",
"https://windowsphone.stackexchange.com/users/3789/"
] | It's not currently possible to browse the complete file system of a Windows Phone 8.
When connected via USB, only the Pictures, Video and Music are exposed via Windows Explorer | Yes It is possible but you need to unlock your phone. Download and install Interop tools and then open the app and tick down the **Full FileSystem Access**. Then restart your phone and connect to PC. You will have the full access now.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/QgtUE.png) |
3,123 | The application [iFunBox](http://www.i-funbox.com/) allows the apple product users to view all their files and folders **(even the root folders and etc.)** of iPhone/iPad/iPod in desktop(either in windows or mac) machine. Here you can see the sample screenshot.
Even [Windows Phone Device Manager](http://touchxperience.com/windows-phone-device-manager/) is allowing to view windows phone 7 files and folders.
**Similarly, Is there any software available for Windows Phone 8/8.1 which allows to view all files in desktop?** | 2014/02/04 | [
"https://windowsphone.stackexchange.com/questions/3123",
"https://windowsphone.stackexchange.com",
"https://windowsphone.stackexchange.com/users/3789/"
] | [Sharefolder](https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/store/p/sharefolder-explorer/9wzdncrdmmtk) is the name of the utility.
But it is available in limited territory. | Have you tried the "Windows Phone app for desktop"?
<http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=265472>
Once installed, it allows you to browse the files on your device. - Just remember to type in your unlock pin on the phone before you try this. |
3,123 | The application [iFunBox](http://www.i-funbox.com/) allows the apple product users to view all their files and folders **(even the root folders and etc.)** of iPhone/iPad/iPod in desktop(either in windows or mac) machine. Here you can see the sample screenshot.
Even [Windows Phone Device Manager](http://touchxperience.com/windows-phone-device-manager/) is allowing to view windows phone 7 files and folders.
**Similarly, Is there any software available for Windows Phone 8/8.1 which allows to view all files in desktop?** | 2014/02/04 | [
"https://windowsphone.stackexchange.com/questions/3123",
"https://windowsphone.stackexchange.com",
"https://windowsphone.stackexchange.com/users/3789/"
] | [Sharefolder](https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/store/p/sharefolder-explorer/9wzdncrdmmtk) is the name of the utility.
But it is available in limited territory. | As far as I know there is no app on Windows that can open System files of Windows phone 8.1. However if you can connect your phone to a PC running **Linux** you can get access to **some(not all)** of the system files. |
3,123 | The application [iFunBox](http://www.i-funbox.com/) allows the apple product users to view all their files and folders **(even the root folders and etc.)** of iPhone/iPad/iPod in desktop(either in windows or mac) machine. Here you can see the sample screenshot.
Even [Windows Phone Device Manager](http://touchxperience.com/windows-phone-device-manager/) is allowing to view windows phone 7 files and folders.
**Similarly, Is there any software available for Windows Phone 8/8.1 which allows to view all files in desktop?** | 2014/02/04 | [
"https://windowsphone.stackexchange.com/questions/3123",
"https://windowsphone.stackexchange.com",
"https://windowsphone.stackexchange.com/users/3789/"
] | It's not currently possible to browse the complete file system of a Windows Phone 8.
When connected via USB, only the Pictures, Video and Music are exposed via Windows Explorer | Have you tried the "Windows Phone app for desktop"?
<http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=265472>
Once installed, it allows you to browse the files on your device. - Just remember to type in your unlock pin on the phone before you try this. |
3,123 | The application [iFunBox](http://www.i-funbox.com/) allows the apple product users to view all their files and folders **(even the root folders and etc.)** of iPhone/iPad/iPod in desktop(either in windows or mac) machine. Here you can see the sample screenshot.
Even [Windows Phone Device Manager](http://touchxperience.com/windows-phone-device-manager/) is allowing to view windows phone 7 files and folders.
**Similarly, Is there any software available for Windows Phone 8/8.1 which allows to view all files in desktop?** | 2014/02/04 | [
"https://windowsphone.stackexchange.com/questions/3123",
"https://windowsphone.stackexchange.com",
"https://windowsphone.stackexchange.com/users/3789/"
] | Yes It is possible but you need to unlock your phone. Download and install Interop tools and then open the app and tick down the **Full FileSystem Access**. Then restart your phone and connect to PC. You will have the full access now.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/QgtUE.png) | Have you tried the "Windows Phone app for desktop"?
<http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=265472>
Once installed, it allows you to browse the files on your device. - Just remember to type in your unlock pin on the phone before you try this. |
3,123 | The application [iFunBox](http://www.i-funbox.com/) allows the apple product users to view all their files and folders **(even the root folders and etc.)** of iPhone/iPad/iPod in desktop(either in windows or mac) machine. Here you can see the sample screenshot.
Even [Windows Phone Device Manager](http://touchxperience.com/windows-phone-device-manager/) is allowing to view windows phone 7 files and folders.
**Similarly, Is there any software available for Windows Phone 8/8.1 which allows to view all files in desktop?** | 2014/02/04 | [
"https://windowsphone.stackexchange.com/questions/3123",
"https://windowsphone.stackexchange.com",
"https://windowsphone.stackexchange.com/users/3789/"
] | It's not currently possible to browse the complete file system of a Windows Phone 8.
When connected via USB, only the Pictures, Video and Music are exposed via Windows Explorer | [Sharefolder](https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/store/p/sharefolder-explorer/9wzdncrdmmtk) is the name of the utility.
But it is available in limited territory. |
3,123 | The application [iFunBox](http://www.i-funbox.com/) allows the apple product users to view all their files and folders **(even the root folders and etc.)** of iPhone/iPad/iPod in desktop(either in windows or mac) machine. Here you can see the sample screenshot.
Even [Windows Phone Device Manager](http://touchxperience.com/windows-phone-device-manager/) is allowing to view windows phone 7 files and folders.
**Similarly, Is there any software available for Windows Phone 8/8.1 which allows to view all files in desktop?** | 2014/02/04 | [
"https://windowsphone.stackexchange.com/questions/3123",
"https://windowsphone.stackexchange.com",
"https://windowsphone.stackexchange.com/users/3789/"
] | It's not currently possible to browse the complete file system of a Windows Phone 8.
When connected via USB, only the Pictures, Video and Music are exposed via Windows Explorer | As far as I know there is no app on Windows that can open System files of Windows phone 8.1. However if you can connect your phone to a PC running **Linux** you can get access to **some(not all)** of the system files. |
3,123 | The application [iFunBox](http://www.i-funbox.com/) allows the apple product users to view all their files and folders **(even the root folders and etc.)** of iPhone/iPad/iPod in desktop(either in windows or mac) machine. Here you can see the sample screenshot.
Even [Windows Phone Device Manager](http://touchxperience.com/windows-phone-device-manager/) is allowing to view windows phone 7 files and folders.
**Similarly, Is there any software available for Windows Phone 8/8.1 which allows to view all files in desktop?** | 2014/02/04 | [
"https://windowsphone.stackexchange.com/questions/3123",
"https://windowsphone.stackexchange.com",
"https://windowsphone.stackexchange.com/users/3789/"
] | [Sharefolder](https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/store/p/sharefolder-explorer/9wzdncrdmmtk) is the name of the utility.
But it is available in limited territory. | Two utilises that help you gain system level access (including the registry) are [Root Tool (pulled from Windows Store last year, but available in link)](http://forum.xda-developers.com/windows-phone-8/general/root-tool-beta-testing-t3006051) and [WP internals](http://www.wpinternals.net/), but they are somewhat limited in functionality and model support. |
3,123 | The application [iFunBox](http://www.i-funbox.com/) allows the apple product users to view all their files and folders **(even the root folders and etc.)** of iPhone/iPad/iPod in desktop(either in windows or mac) machine. Here you can see the sample screenshot.
Even [Windows Phone Device Manager](http://touchxperience.com/windows-phone-device-manager/) is allowing to view windows phone 7 files and folders.
**Similarly, Is there any software available for Windows Phone 8/8.1 which allows to view all files in desktop?** | 2014/02/04 | [
"https://windowsphone.stackexchange.com/questions/3123",
"https://windowsphone.stackexchange.com",
"https://windowsphone.stackexchange.com/users/3789/"
] | It's not currently possible to browse the complete file system of a Windows Phone 8.
When connected via USB, only the Pictures, Video and Music are exposed via Windows Explorer | Two utilises that help you gain system level access (including the registry) are [Root Tool (pulled from Windows Store last year, but available in link)](http://forum.xda-developers.com/windows-phone-8/general/root-tool-beta-testing-t3006051) and [WP internals](http://www.wpinternals.net/), but they are somewhat limited in functionality and model support. |
3,123 | The application [iFunBox](http://www.i-funbox.com/) allows the apple product users to view all their files and folders **(even the root folders and etc.)** of iPhone/iPad/iPod in desktop(either in windows or mac) machine. Here you can see the sample screenshot.
Even [Windows Phone Device Manager](http://touchxperience.com/windows-phone-device-manager/) is allowing to view windows phone 7 files and folders.
**Similarly, Is there any software available for Windows Phone 8/8.1 which allows to view all files in desktop?** | 2014/02/04 | [
"https://windowsphone.stackexchange.com/questions/3123",
"https://windowsphone.stackexchange.com",
"https://windowsphone.stackexchange.com/users/3789/"
] | Yes It is possible but you need to unlock your phone. Download and install Interop tools and then open the app and tick down the **Full FileSystem Access**. Then restart your phone and connect to PC. You will have the full access now.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/QgtUE.png) | As far as I know there is no app on Windows that can open System files of Windows phone 8.1. However if you can connect your phone to a PC running **Linux** you can get access to **some(not all)** of the system files. |
151,596 | I'm trying to clear some confusion I have when writing in different verb tenses. I found [Purdow OWL's tutorial](https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/601/04/), but the explanation is not clear to me.
Here's the example from the website:
Example 2: Simple present narration with perfect and progressive elements
In this scene...
>
> By the time Tom notices the doorbell, it has already rung three times.
> As usual, he has been listening to loud music on his stereo. He turns
> the stereo down and stands up to answer the door. An old man is
> standing on the steps. The man begins to speak slowly, asking for
> directions.
>
>
>
Purdue OWL explanation: In this example as in the first one, the progressive verbs *has been listening* and *is standing* indicate action underway as some other action takes place. The present perfect progressive verb *has been listening* suggests action that began in the time frame prior to the main narrative time frame and **that is still underway as another action begins**. The remaining tense relationships parallel those in the first example.
I've bolded the part that's confusing to me. The present perfect progressive action began prior to the main narrative time frame (this part I understand, it's referring to the the present tense *notices*) but I don't know what is that "**another action**" that begins while Tom *has been listening*. What is that "**another action**" that begins while Tom *has been listening* to loud music in his stereo? Thank you! | 2014/02/12 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/151596",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/54683/"
] | There are several examples of other actions that begin while Tom "has been listening":
Tom:
* Notices the doorbell
* doorbell has been rung
* turns the stereo down
Really I think "notices" is the "other action" referred to, since it is another action which took place during the "main narrative time frame", and is not itself the "main narrative time frame". | The Present Perfect (Pf) has three uses. One use I call "action up to now". An action begins at some point in the Past Time and continues up to now or even longer.
Mostly you use Pf progressive for this situation:
--- I have been living in Munich for 50 year (now).
--- The Earth has been spinning around the sun for millions of years (think: up to now and will continue to do so)
--- Tom has been listening to loud musik. (from some time in the past up to now)
You use the Pf prog. especially when you have one ongoing action (as listening to music) and a new event interrupts this action.
--- Tom has been listening to loud musik, but suddenly the telephone rings/or suddenly there is a loud knocking at the door. |
144 | By this I mean:
1. Subjective and discussion questions are, perhaps not encouraged, but tolerated, and indeed draw the most views, answers and votes.
2. Users recognizes that these type of questions are the shortest path to accumulating rep, and we get a glut of them.
3. Moderator/dev crackdown on these questions, strict definition of what type of questions are and are not answered (e.g. <https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/128548/what-stack-overflow-is-not>). Subjective and discussion questions are closed immediately. It is made clear that this is not a dumping ground for subjective questions from other SE sites.
4. Conflict about what to with the questions left over from phase 1. Should they be deleted? Should they remain on the site with a scarlet letter indicating that they are no longer appropriate? What about the rep earned by those questions?
I ask because my tolerance for subjective and discussion questions is a bit higher than what I think is the prevailing sentiment in the SE community. If I ask or answer subjective or discussion type questions now, am I going to be encouraged to feel dirty about it later? Will my posts be later cited as an example of the kind of thing the site doesn't want anymore? Am I setting myself up to be part of a conflict where I will cast as someone happy to leave crap on the internet and who doesn't care about quality?
The good news is that, as the deletionist sentiment is now more established, we will probably move through these phases faster than we did before, so our commitment will be somewhat limited before the locks come on. | 2012/04/19 | [
"https://workplace.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/144",
"https://workplace.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.meta.stackexchange.com/users/375/"
] | The only ways to avoid this problem would be to:
1. Stop the quality problem early so there's no phase 2
2. Never care about quality so there's no phase 4
Option 2 is a great way to end up with a useless site, so I strongly recommend **discussing and enforcing quality standards immediately.** We need to be **closing and downvoting bad posts** and **actively encouraging improvement**.
This site is at particular risk because several other SE sites have a large body of users hoping to ask off-topic subjective questions here. Now those questions are on-topic, but our standards need to remain high. | I have said it else where and I will say it here. I think we need to take an aggressive close early stance for bad questions. It is better to close the question early (before it gets answers) and require the question be brought in scope to reopen. Then once brought in scope we need to reopen quickly as well. If we have a vigilant moderator crew we should be able to keep the subjective on the Good side of the line. If we close and never revisit questions that have been edited this will not work. We need to build a culture of closed means for now, rather than forever.
Where questions are not edited in a timely fashion(No activity in 72 hours would be my suggestion) I think we need to prune(delete) them. Allowing them to hang around collecting up votes or reopen votes when they have not been edited is not good for the site. Any questions worth saving will probably be edited within 24 hours. If one falls through the cracks but is worth saving we should post a meta question to get it fixed. At 72 hours we should feel comfortable removing questions that have not been edited, and there is not activity trying to save it. Of course if there are still efforts to save the question we should not be pruning. I would also be considerate of a question closed on friday that had not been edited on monday morning. It would probably be best to allow for an extra day for questions closed on Friday. |
144 | By this I mean:
1. Subjective and discussion questions are, perhaps not encouraged, but tolerated, and indeed draw the most views, answers and votes.
2. Users recognizes that these type of questions are the shortest path to accumulating rep, and we get a glut of them.
3. Moderator/dev crackdown on these questions, strict definition of what type of questions are and are not answered (e.g. <https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/128548/what-stack-overflow-is-not>). Subjective and discussion questions are closed immediately. It is made clear that this is not a dumping ground for subjective questions from other SE sites.
4. Conflict about what to with the questions left over from phase 1. Should they be deleted? Should they remain on the site with a scarlet letter indicating that they are no longer appropriate? What about the rep earned by those questions?
I ask because my tolerance for subjective and discussion questions is a bit higher than what I think is the prevailing sentiment in the SE community. If I ask or answer subjective or discussion type questions now, am I going to be encouraged to feel dirty about it later? Will my posts be later cited as an example of the kind of thing the site doesn't want anymore? Am I setting myself up to be part of a conflict where I will cast as someone happy to leave crap on the internet and who doesn't care about quality?
The good news is that, as the deletionist sentiment is now more established, we will probably move through these phases faster than we did before, so our commitment will be somewhat limited before the locks come on. | 2012/04/19 | [
"https://workplace.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/144",
"https://workplace.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.meta.stackexchange.com/users/375/"
] | The only ways to avoid this problem would be to:
1. Stop the quality problem early so there's no phase 2
2. Never care about quality so there's no phase 4
Option 2 is a great way to end up with a useless site, so I strongly recommend **discussing and enforcing quality standards immediately.** We need to be **closing and downvoting bad posts** and **actively encouraging improvement**.
This site is at particular risk because several other SE sites have a large body of users hoping to ask off-topic subjective questions here. Now those questions are on-topic, but our standards need to remain high. | Having experienced several beta sites I can say that unless we take definitive action this *will* happen.
Each community is determined that it will be the one that manages subjective questions and discussions because they are "different" to the other communities on the network - despite sharing a large number of the same users.
I think the only thing that can vary is the duration of this phase. Keeping a close eye on the site and leading by example in editing, down-voting and voting to close these questions as appropriate is vital. |
144 | By this I mean:
1. Subjective and discussion questions are, perhaps not encouraged, but tolerated, and indeed draw the most views, answers and votes.
2. Users recognizes that these type of questions are the shortest path to accumulating rep, and we get a glut of them.
3. Moderator/dev crackdown on these questions, strict definition of what type of questions are and are not answered (e.g. <https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/128548/what-stack-overflow-is-not>). Subjective and discussion questions are closed immediately. It is made clear that this is not a dumping ground for subjective questions from other SE sites.
4. Conflict about what to with the questions left over from phase 1. Should they be deleted? Should they remain on the site with a scarlet letter indicating that they are no longer appropriate? What about the rep earned by those questions?
I ask because my tolerance for subjective and discussion questions is a bit higher than what I think is the prevailing sentiment in the SE community. If I ask or answer subjective or discussion type questions now, am I going to be encouraged to feel dirty about it later? Will my posts be later cited as an example of the kind of thing the site doesn't want anymore? Am I setting myself up to be part of a conflict where I will cast as someone happy to leave crap on the internet and who doesn't care about quality?
The good news is that, as the deletionist sentiment is now more established, we will probably move through these phases faster than we did before, so our commitment will be somewhat limited before the locks come on. | 2012/04/19 | [
"https://workplace.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/144",
"https://workplace.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.meta.stackexchange.com/users/375/"
] | The only ways to avoid this problem would be to:
1. Stop the quality problem early so there's no phase 2
2. Never care about quality so there's no phase 4
Option 2 is a great way to end up with a useless site, so I strongly recommend **discussing and enforcing quality standards immediately.** We need to be **closing and downvoting bad posts** and **actively encouraging improvement**.
This site is at particular risk because several other SE sites have a large body of users hoping to ask off-topic subjective questions here. Now those questions are on-topic, but our standards need to remain high. | I think the most important thing to prevent that is to teach the community early on about what is acceptable and what is not. Don't try to do all the moderation yourself.
Most people I know want to do stuff "the right way", and are happy to do so provided someone takes the time to show them how things should be done.
I think to avoid the cycle you mention, you have to make it very clear to users early on what quality of questions are acceptable, what workplace topics are allowed, and (just as important) what workplace topics are *not* allowed.
Perhaps a meta question titled something like **New User? Click here**, which would outline (or contain links to) the exact definition of the site (faq), how to identify good/bad questions, and how to moderate the site yourself.
Teach users how to identify good and bad questions, and how to moderate themselves, and they'll be happy to help maintain a high-quality site. Try to do it all yourself, or with only a small group of people, and you'll either just encounter the same cycle you mentioned, or drive people away from the site who simply don't understand
Oh, and as for subjective questions which bring in views/votes but are really bad for the site, take the time to edit them and make them on-topic. Don't just tolerate them or close them. It's time-consuming, but the end result is something that brings users to the site, *and* that is on-topic for the site and won't get closed later on. Who said you can't have your cake and eat it too :) |
144 | By this I mean:
1. Subjective and discussion questions are, perhaps not encouraged, but tolerated, and indeed draw the most views, answers and votes.
2. Users recognizes that these type of questions are the shortest path to accumulating rep, and we get a glut of them.
3. Moderator/dev crackdown on these questions, strict definition of what type of questions are and are not answered (e.g. <https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/128548/what-stack-overflow-is-not>). Subjective and discussion questions are closed immediately. It is made clear that this is not a dumping ground for subjective questions from other SE sites.
4. Conflict about what to with the questions left over from phase 1. Should they be deleted? Should they remain on the site with a scarlet letter indicating that they are no longer appropriate? What about the rep earned by those questions?
I ask because my tolerance for subjective and discussion questions is a bit higher than what I think is the prevailing sentiment in the SE community. If I ask or answer subjective or discussion type questions now, am I going to be encouraged to feel dirty about it later? Will my posts be later cited as an example of the kind of thing the site doesn't want anymore? Am I setting myself up to be part of a conflict where I will cast as someone happy to leave crap on the internet and who doesn't care about quality?
The good news is that, as the deletionist sentiment is now more established, we will probably move through these phases faster than we did before, so our commitment will be somewhat limited before the locks come on. | 2012/04/19 | [
"https://workplace.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/144",
"https://workplace.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.meta.stackexchange.com/users/375/"
] | The only ways to avoid this problem would be to:
1. Stop the quality problem early so there's no phase 2
2. Never care about quality so there's no phase 4
Option 2 is a great way to end up with a useless site, so I strongly recommend **discussing and enforcing quality standards immediately.** We need to be **closing and downvoting bad posts** and **actively encouraging improvement**.
This site is at particular risk because several other SE sites have a large body of users hoping to ask off-topic subjective questions here. Now those questions are on-topic, but our standards need to remain high. | Partly more as a regular user rather than as a moderator i am more inclined to think in the lines towards @Rachel.
While, i won't really want to point this site vs. that site - i fundamentally believe that there is fundamental confusion Subjectivity vs. Quality?
try to read [HBR blog](http://blogs.hbr.org/) and they are good; but almost every now and then i find myself disagree with some author and i feel may be thats fine in some US company culture but might be very bad in the context i am in.
There are many subjects which are inherently *judgement* driven and they will be subjective. But subjective answers don't have to be Bad quality answers.
I have nothing against mods who do a fine job against bad questions but once it turns into a primary school headmaster approach you just keep fighting for definition.
We must encourage good content. And definitely *remove reps* (similar to community wiki situation) when we see so much non-sense OR *de-activate* the question (question will not feature much on top active list when too many comments goes beyond quality answers. Reps becomes primary motivation for people to keep pumping posts and comments actually keep questions active inviting more people to it.
As far as long term quality goal is concerned it cann't be generated out of pruning alone. Overall, we won't be able to stop people by being watch dog as much as we will achieve by extending the education in a positive way! |
144 | By this I mean:
1. Subjective and discussion questions are, perhaps not encouraged, but tolerated, and indeed draw the most views, answers and votes.
2. Users recognizes that these type of questions are the shortest path to accumulating rep, and we get a glut of them.
3. Moderator/dev crackdown on these questions, strict definition of what type of questions are and are not answered (e.g. <https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/128548/what-stack-overflow-is-not>). Subjective and discussion questions are closed immediately. It is made clear that this is not a dumping ground for subjective questions from other SE sites.
4. Conflict about what to with the questions left over from phase 1. Should they be deleted? Should they remain on the site with a scarlet letter indicating that they are no longer appropriate? What about the rep earned by those questions?
I ask because my tolerance for subjective and discussion questions is a bit higher than what I think is the prevailing sentiment in the SE community. If I ask or answer subjective or discussion type questions now, am I going to be encouraged to feel dirty about it later? Will my posts be later cited as an example of the kind of thing the site doesn't want anymore? Am I setting myself up to be part of a conflict where I will cast as someone happy to leave crap on the internet and who doesn't care about quality?
The good news is that, as the deletionist sentiment is now more established, we will probably move through these phases faster than we did before, so our commitment will be somewhat limited before the locks come on. | 2012/04/19 | [
"https://workplace.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/144",
"https://workplace.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.meta.stackexchange.com/users/375/"
] | I have said it else where and I will say it here. I think we need to take an aggressive close early stance for bad questions. It is better to close the question early (before it gets answers) and require the question be brought in scope to reopen. Then once brought in scope we need to reopen quickly as well. If we have a vigilant moderator crew we should be able to keep the subjective on the Good side of the line. If we close and never revisit questions that have been edited this will not work. We need to build a culture of closed means for now, rather than forever.
Where questions are not edited in a timely fashion(No activity in 72 hours would be my suggestion) I think we need to prune(delete) them. Allowing them to hang around collecting up votes or reopen votes when they have not been edited is not good for the site. Any questions worth saving will probably be edited within 24 hours. If one falls through the cracks but is worth saving we should post a meta question to get it fixed. At 72 hours we should feel comfortable removing questions that have not been edited, and there is not activity trying to save it. Of course if there are still efforts to save the question we should not be pruning. I would also be considerate of a question closed on friday that had not been edited on monday morning. It would probably be best to allow for an extra day for questions closed on Friday. | Having experienced several beta sites I can say that unless we take definitive action this *will* happen.
Each community is determined that it will be the one that manages subjective questions and discussions because they are "different" to the other communities on the network - despite sharing a large number of the same users.
I think the only thing that can vary is the duration of this phase. Keeping a close eye on the site and leading by example in editing, down-voting and voting to close these questions as appropriate is vital. |
144 | By this I mean:
1. Subjective and discussion questions are, perhaps not encouraged, but tolerated, and indeed draw the most views, answers and votes.
2. Users recognizes that these type of questions are the shortest path to accumulating rep, and we get a glut of them.
3. Moderator/dev crackdown on these questions, strict definition of what type of questions are and are not answered (e.g. <https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/128548/what-stack-overflow-is-not>). Subjective and discussion questions are closed immediately. It is made clear that this is not a dumping ground for subjective questions from other SE sites.
4. Conflict about what to with the questions left over from phase 1. Should they be deleted? Should they remain on the site with a scarlet letter indicating that they are no longer appropriate? What about the rep earned by those questions?
I ask because my tolerance for subjective and discussion questions is a bit higher than what I think is the prevailing sentiment in the SE community. If I ask or answer subjective or discussion type questions now, am I going to be encouraged to feel dirty about it later? Will my posts be later cited as an example of the kind of thing the site doesn't want anymore? Am I setting myself up to be part of a conflict where I will cast as someone happy to leave crap on the internet and who doesn't care about quality?
The good news is that, as the deletionist sentiment is now more established, we will probably move through these phases faster than we did before, so our commitment will be somewhat limited before the locks come on. | 2012/04/19 | [
"https://workplace.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/144",
"https://workplace.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.meta.stackexchange.com/users/375/"
] | I think the most important thing to prevent that is to teach the community early on about what is acceptable and what is not. Don't try to do all the moderation yourself.
Most people I know want to do stuff "the right way", and are happy to do so provided someone takes the time to show them how things should be done.
I think to avoid the cycle you mention, you have to make it very clear to users early on what quality of questions are acceptable, what workplace topics are allowed, and (just as important) what workplace topics are *not* allowed.
Perhaps a meta question titled something like **New User? Click here**, which would outline (or contain links to) the exact definition of the site (faq), how to identify good/bad questions, and how to moderate the site yourself.
Teach users how to identify good and bad questions, and how to moderate themselves, and they'll be happy to help maintain a high-quality site. Try to do it all yourself, or with only a small group of people, and you'll either just encounter the same cycle you mentioned, or drive people away from the site who simply don't understand
Oh, and as for subjective questions which bring in views/votes but are really bad for the site, take the time to edit them and make them on-topic. Don't just tolerate them or close them. It's time-consuming, but the end result is something that brings users to the site, *and* that is on-topic for the site and won't get closed later on. Who said you can't have your cake and eat it too :) | Having experienced several beta sites I can say that unless we take definitive action this *will* happen.
Each community is determined that it will be the one that manages subjective questions and discussions because they are "different" to the other communities on the network - despite sharing a large number of the same users.
I think the only thing that can vary is the duration of this phase. Keeping a close eye on the site and leading by example in editing, down-voting and voting to close these questions as appropriate is vital. |
144 | By this I mean:
1. Subjective and discussion questions are, perhaps not encouraged, but tolerated, and indeed draw the most views, answers and votes.
2. Users recognizes that these type of questions are the shortest path to accumulating rep, and we get a glut of them.
3. Moderator/dev crackdown on these questions, strict definition of what type of questions are and are not answered (e.g. <https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/128548/what-stack-overflow-is-not>). Subjective and discussion questions are closed immediately. It is made clear that this is not a dumping ground for subjective questions from other SE sites.
4. Conflict about what to with the questions left over from phase 1. Should they be deleted? Should they remain on the site with a scarlet letter indicating that they are no longer appropriate? What about the rep earned by those questions?
I ask because my tolerance for subjective and discussion questions is a bit higher than what I think is the prevailing sentiment in the SE community. If I ask or answer subjective or discussion type questions now, am I going to be encouraged to feel dirty about it later? Will my posts be later cited as an example of the kind of thing the site doesn't want anymore? Am I setting myself up to be part of a conflict where I will cast as someone happy to leave crap on the internet and who doesn't care about quality?
The good news is that, as the deletionist sentiment is now more established, we will probably move through these phases faster than we did before, so our commitment will be somewhat limited before the locks come on. | 2012/04/19 | [
"https://workplace.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/144",
"https://workplace.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.meta.stackexchange.com/users/375/"
] | Partly more as a regular user rather than as a moderator i am more inclined to think in the lines towards @Rachel.
While, i won't really want to point this site vs. that site - i fundamentally believe that there is fundamental confusion Subjectivity vs. Quality?
try to read [HBR blog](http://blogs.hbr.org/) and they are good; but almost every now and then i find myself disagree with some author and i feel may be thats fine in some US company culture but might be very bad in the context i am in.
There are many subjects which are inherently *judgement* driven and they will be subjective. But subjective answers don't have to be Bad quality answers.
I have nothing against mods who do a fine job against bad questions but once it turns into a primary school headmaster approach you just keep fighting for definition.
We must encourage good content. And definitely *remove reps* (similar to community wiki situation) when we see so much non-sense OR *de-activate* the question (question will not feature much on top active list when too many comments goes beyond quality answers. Reps becomes primary motivation for people to keep pumping posts and comments actually keep questions active inviting more people to it.
As far as long term quality goal is concerned it cann't be generated out of pruning alone. Overall, we won't be able to stop people by being watch dog as much as we will achieve by extending the education in a positive way! | Having experienced several beta sites I can say that unless we take definitive action this *will* happen.
Each community is determined that it will be the one that manages subjective questions and discussions because they are "different" to the other communities on the network - despite sharing a large number of the same users.
I think the only thing that can vary is the duration of this phase. Keeping a close eye on the site and leading by example in editing, down-voting and voting to close these questions as appropriate is vital. |
567,868 | I am looking for a simple solution to stabilize the voltage on a 12VDC model train inside the loco, to overcome areas of bad contact on the track. For energy density I wanted to use electrolytic capacitors. But the solution should work in both driving directions...
I thought about just using a diode to charge one capactior by direction. But how can I get the energy back for the direction currently driving? | 2021/06/01 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/567868",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/177170/"
] | The basic problem with traditional model train setup is that the voltage across the tracks is used both to power the train as well as to tell it how fast to go and in which direction.
If you changed the way of controlling the train to something like [DCC (Digital Command Control)](https://www.nmra.org/beginners-guide-command-control-and-dcc) or radio control you could set the voltage across the tracks at a constant 12V in which case a capacitor might help you get you through rough spots on the track. | A simple DC power supply for a HO 12V DC model train would consist of a 12V transformer, rectifier and filter capacitor. Its voltage would be close to 17V DC on no-load and could drop to 12V DC or lower depending on the load. Additional capacitors across its output would be of no use unless the existing ones have gone bad or are of inadequate capacity.
The solution would be to use a variable regulated DC power supply of adequate current rating in order that the set voltage is held irrespective of the load. Direction reversal could be achieved using a DPDT switch or relay.
In any case capacitors are not the solution for unclean wipers/tracks. |
567,868 | I am looking for a simple solution to stabilize the voltage on a 12VDC model train inside the loco, to overcome areas of bad contact on the track. For energy density I wanted to use electrolytic capacitors. But the solution should work in both driving directions...
I thought about just using a diode to charge one capactior by direction. But how can I get the energy back for the direction currently driving? | 2021/06/01 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/567868",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/177170/"
] | You can make a non-polar capacitor from two polar capacitors, like this (unfortunately it appears the schematic editor on this site doesn't have proper polar capacitor symbols)
[simulate this circuit](/plugins/schematics?image=http%3a%2f%2fi.stack.imgur.com%2fjGULR.png) – Schematic created using [CircuitLab](https://www.circuitlab.com/)
In transient operation, the first time the external voltage swings to a new higher voltage, one or the other diode conducts and charges the common node. The current drawn will be commensurate with the capacitor values shown.
The diodes prevent either capacitor from being too reverse biassed. As the input voltage swings either negative or positive, the rectification effect of the diodes pumps the common capacitor node to a higher positive voltage, biassing both capacitors properly. Schottky diodes will limit any transient reverse bias to a smaller voltage than silicon diodes. Most aluminium electrolytics will tolerate a transient reverse bias of less than a volt.
In normal operation, the effective capacitance is just the normal capacitor in series formula, so for the two 1000 uF caps here, it's effectively 500 uF. Both diodes will be reverse biassed, there will be no 'diode drops' in series with the 'non-polar capacitor'.
This sort of self-biassed arrangement will be fine for motor smoothing, but don't use it for audio as it is. For audio use, it would be advisable to bias the centre node with a large resistor to a voltage well above the expected applied swing, so the diodes would never conduct.
You will have a tradeoff with capacitor size, as you trade response time for degree of smoothing. | A simple DC power supply for a HO 12V DC model train would consist of a 12V transformer, rectifier and filter capacitor. Its voltage would be close to 17V DC on no-load and could drop to 12V DC or lower depending on the load. Additional capacitors across its output would be of no use unless the existing ones have gone bad or are of inadequate capacity.
The solution would be to use a variable regulated DC power supply of adequate current rating in order that the set voltage is held irrespective of the load. Direction reversal could be achieved using a DPDT switch or relay.
In any case capacitors are not the solution for unclean wipers/tracks. |
567,868 | I am looking for a simple solution to stabilize the voltage on a 12VDC model train inside the loco, to overcome areas of bad contact on the track. For energy density I wanted to use electrolytic capacitors. But the solution should work in both driving directions...
I thought about just using a diode to charge one capactior by direction. But how can I get the energy back for the direction currently driving? | 2021/06/01 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/567868",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/177170/"
] | You can make a non-polar capacitor from two polar capacitors, like this (unfortunately it appears the schematic editor on this site doesn't have proper polar capacitor symbols)
[simulate this circuit](/plugins/schematics?image=http%3a%2f%2fi.stack.imgur.com%2fjGULR.png) – Schematic created using [CircuitLab](https://www.circuitlab.com/)
In transient operation, the first time the external voltage swings to a new higher voltage, one or the other diode conducts and charges the common node. The current drawn will be commensurate with the capacitor values shown.
The diodes prevent either capacitor from being too reverse biassed. As the input voltage swings either negative or positive, the rectification effect of the diodes pumps the common capacitor node to a higher positive voltage, biassing both capacitors properly. Schottky diodes will limit any transient reverse bias to a smaller voltage than silicon diodes. Most aluminium electrolytics will tolerate a transient reverse bias of less than a volt.
In normal operation, the effective capacitance is just the normal capacitor in series formula, so for the two 1000 uF caps here, it's effectively 500 uF. Both diodes will be reverse biassed, there will be no 'diode drops' in series with the 'non-polar capacitor'.
This sort of self-biassed arrangement will be fine for motor smoothing, but don't use it for audio as it is. For audio use, it would be advisable to bias the centre node with a large resistor to a voltage well above the expected applied swing, so the diodes would never conduct.
You will have a tradeoff with capacitor size, as you trade response time for degree of smoothing. | The basic problem with traditional model train setup is that the voltage across the tracks is used both to power the train as well as to tell it how fast to go and in which direction.
If you changed the way of controlling the train to something like [DCC (Digital Command Control)](https://www.nmra.org/beginners-guide-command-control-and-dcc) or radio control you could set the voltage across the tracks at a constant 12V in which case a capacitor might help you get you through rough spots on the track. |
567,868 | I am looking for a simple solution to stabilize the voltage on a 12VDC model train inside the loco, to overcome areas of bad contact on the track. For energy density I wanted to use electrolytic capacitors. But the solution should work in both driving directions...
I thought about just using a diode to charge one capactior by direction. But how can I get the energy back for the direction currently driving? | 2021/06/01 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/567868",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/177170/"
] | The basic problem with traditional model train setup is that the voltage across the tracks is used both to power the train as well as to tell it how fast to go and in which direction.
If you changed the way of controlling the train to something like [DCC (Digital Command Control)](https://www.nmra.org/beginners-guide-command-control-and-dcc) or radio control you could set the voltage across the tracks at a constant 12V in which case a capacitor might help you get you through rough spots on the track. | As discussed in a previous comment: [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/dJQi3.png) |
567,868 | I am looking for a simple solution to stabilize the voltage on a 12VDC model train inside the loco, to overcome areas of bad contact on the track. For energy density I wanted to use electrolytic capacitors. But the solution should work in both driving directions...
I thought about just using a diode to charge one capactior by direction. But how can I get the energy back for the direction currently driving? | 2021/06/01 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/567868",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/177170/"
] | You can make a non-polar capacitor from two polar capacitors, like this (unfortunately it appears the schematic editor on this site doesn't have proper polar capacitor symbols)
[simulate this circuit](/plugins/schematics?image=http%3a%2f%2fi.stack.imgur.com%2fjGULR.png) – Schematic created using [CircuitLab](https://www.circuitlab.com/)
In transient operation, the first time the external voltage swings to a new higher voltage, one or the other diode conducts and charges the common node. The current drawn will be commensurate with the capacitor values shown.
The diodes prevent either capacitor from being too reverse biassed. As the input voltage swings either negative or positive, the rectification effect of the diodes pumps the common capacitor node to a higher positive voltage, biassing both capacitors properly. Schottky diodes will limit any transient reverse bias to a smaller voltage than silicon diodes. Most aluminium electrolytics will tolerate a transient reverse bias of less than a volt.
In normal operation, the effective capacitance is just the normal capacitor in series formula, so for the two 1000 uF caps here, it's effectively 500 uF. Both diodes will be reverse biassed, there will be no 'diode drops' in series with the 'non-polar capacitor'.
This sort of self-biassed arrangement will be fine for motor smoothing, but don't use it for audio as it is. For audio use, it would be advisable to bias the centre node with a large resistor to a voltage well above the expected applied swing, so the diodes would never conduct.
You will have a tradeoff with capacitor size, as you trade response time for degree of smoothing. | As discussed in a previous comment: [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/dJQi3.png) |
67,543 | Can you give the reason for using a one tailed test in the analysis of variance test?
Why do we use a one-tail test - the F-test - in ANOVA? | 2013/08/16 | [
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/67543",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/users/29171/"
] | It must be understood that the objective of ANOVA is to check whether there is inequality of means...which implies that we are concerned with large variations between samples (& thus means as variations are computed from the means) as compared with variations within samples (again computed from individual sample mean). When the variations between samples is small (resulting in F value being on the left side) it does not matter as this difference is insignificant. The variations between samples matters if it is significantly higher than the within variations & in such case the F value would be greater than 1, & therefore in the right tail.
The only question remains is why put the entire level of significance in the right tail & the answer is again similar. THe rejection happens only when the F ratio is on the right side & never when the F ratio is on the left side. The level of significance is the measure of error due to statistical limitations. As the rejection happens only on the right the entire level of significance (error risk of misconclusion) is kept in the right.
` | The expected value for the Mean Square (MS) within treatments is the population variance, whereas the expected value for the MS between treatments is the population variance PLUS the treatment variance. Thus, the ratio of F = MSbetween / MSwithin is always greater than 1, and never less than 1.
Since the precision of a 1-tailed test is better than a 2-tailed test, we prefer to use the 1-tailed test. |
31,553 | I'm starting into Pathfinder Society and for once have an idea for a character that is mostly backstory instead of class-driven. More than likely cliche, but I would like to roleplay the idea of a young son leaving his home to search for honor and glory. This character would be the second or third son to a minor Lord. His father, an honorable man, raised him to hold honor above all others. Think of Brienne from Game of Thrones in male form.
Class wise, I believe fighter would be best (two handed fighter specifically) but I honestly have no idea of the depth of Pathfinder classes. I did find a third party Knight class, but I am unsure if PFS allows third party and I'm not so crazy about the class abilities anyways.
So, oh wise sages of the Stack Exchange, I beseech thee:
* Can a character become Knighted? Would this grant any boons (such as a charisma boost)?
* Are there any PFS classes that embody the ideals of honor over everything? Paladin leans a bit too far towards the side of good for me. This character would focus on lawful much more than good v evil.
* Along those lines, could I start fighter and aim for any prestige classes that fit the bill? | 2014/01/15 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/31553",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/9445/"
] | **Cavalier is literally the "I am a Knight" class**
Check it out in the [PFSRD](http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/cavalier) - it fills all the various Knight tropes, and isn't...*insulting*, the way some melee classes can be. Be warned that you may suffer from utility problems when it comes to out-of-combat encounters.
**Knighthood confers no non-RP bonuses**
Being knighted is an entirely roleplaying-based event and will not boost any of your character's ability scores or otherwise affect their sheet, especially not in *Pathfinder Society*.
**Paladin Can Work, But...**
I wouldn't suggest it. PFS can be unforgiving about alignment requirements, and it emphasizes Good over Law, which you've stated that you don't want to do. | It may not suit all of your needs, and would certainly set the flavour for the character, but...one option would be a Chelaxian [Hellknight](http://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Hellknight). They do look...well, hellish. They are part of a nation led by Lawful Evil devil-worshippers. But, if you work at it, there is no reason why you couldn't play a Lawful Neutral Hellknight. There are even Prestige Classes specifically for them, like the [Hellknight](http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/e-h/hellknight) and [Hellknight Signifer](http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/e-h/hellknight-signifer) (for spellcasters), and neither requires you to be evil, just Lawful. |
31,553 | I'm starting into Pathfinder Society and for once have an idea for a character that is mostly backstory instead of class-driven. More than likely cliche, but I would like to roleplay the idea of a young son leaving his home to search for honor and glory. This character would be the second or third son to a minor Lord. His father, an honorable man, raised him to hold honor above all others. Think of Brienne from Game of Thrones in male form.
Class wise, I believe fighter would be best (two handed fighter specifically) but I honestly have no idea of the depth of Pathfinder classes. I did find a third party Knight class, but I am unsure if PFS allows third party and I'm not so crazy about the class abilities anyways.
So, oh wise sages of the Stack Exchange, I beseech thee:
* Can a character become Knighted? Would this grant any boons (such as a charisma boost)?
* Are there any PFS classes that embody the ideals of honor over everything? Paladin leans a bit too far towards the side of good for me. This character would focus on lawful much more than good v evil.
* Along those lines, could I start fighter and aim for any prestige classes that fit the bill? | 2014/01/15 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/31553",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/9445/"
] | **Cavalier is literally the "I am a Knight" class**
Check it out in the [PFSRD](http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/cavalier) - it fills all the various Knight tropes, and isn't...*insulting*, the way some melee classes can be. Be warned that you may suffer from utility problems when it comes to out-of-combat encounters.
**Knighthood confers no non-RP bonuses**
Being knighted is an entirely roleplaying-based event and will not boost any of your character's ability scores or otherwise affect their sheet, especially not in *Pathfinder Society*.
**Paladin Can Work, But...**
I wouldn't suggest it. PFS can be unforgiving about alignment requirements, and it emphasizes Good over Law, which you've stated that you don't want to do. | For the sake of completeness, there is an RP way to be knighted and receive some mechanical boons for the knighted char.
Hiding it under spoiler, since planning char development for taking that route will require a meta-knowledge on a specific adventure, which you shouldn't probably use since it may ruin all the fun.
>
> As of season 8, it's introductory [Quest: Honor's Echo](http://paizo.com/products/btpy9mb9?Pathfinder-Society-Quest-Honors-Echo) allows you to be made a knight of Taldor or be granted a visbarony (by supporting or not supporting a main quest giver in the end respectively). Both options grant some minor situational Diplomacy and Intimidate bonuses, some free valuables (30-ish gp) Knighthood's got an additional skill-improvement boon for one of the future missions your character will go on.
>
> To get the benefit of these boons you'd need to play all six sub-modules (roughly a hour each) in succession. Can do this in multiple sessions, but without going to adventures other than Honor's Echo in between. So you will probably need to find a table that does that or eventually shop around for "who's running quests 1 and 3". Those two are considered somewhat overpowered and some GMs may decide to omit them.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Or, you know, you can decide to GM that whole adventure and receive it's benefits for that. |
31,553 | I'm starting into Pathfinder Society and for once have an idea for a character that is mostly backstory instead of class-driven. More than likely cliche, but I would like to roleplay the idea of a young son leaving his home to search for honor and glory. This character would be the second or third son to a minor Lord. His father, an honorable man, raised him to hold honor above all others. Think of Brienne from Game of Thrones in male form.
Class wise, I believe fighter would be best (two handed fighter specifically) but I honestly have no idea of the depth of Pathfinder classes. I did find a third party Knight class, but I am unsure if PFS allows third party and I'm not so crazy about the class abilities anyways.
So, oh wise sages of the Stack Exchange, I beseech thee:
* Can a character become Knighted? Would this grant any boons (such as a charisma boost)?
* Are there any PFS classes that embody the ideals of honor over everything? Paladin leans a bit too far towards the side of good for me. This character would focus on lawful much more than good v evil.
* Along those lines, could I start fighter and aim for any prestige classes that fit the bill? | 2014/01/15 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/31553",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/9445/"
] | For the sake of completeness, there is an RP way to be knighted and receive some mechanical boons for the knighted char.
Hiding it under spoiler, since planning char development for taking that route will require a meta-knowledge on a specific adventure, which you shouldn't probably use since it may ruin all the fun.
>
> As of season 8, it's introductory [Quest: Honor's Echo](http://paizo.com/products/btpy9mb9?Pathfinder-Society-Quest-Honors-Echo) allows you to be made a knight of Taldor or be granted a visbarony (by supporting or not supporting a main quest giver in the end respectively). Both options grant some minor situational Diplomacy and Intimidate bonuses, some free valuables (30-ish gp) Knighthood's got an additional skill-improvement boon for one of the future missions your character will go on.
>
> To get the benefit of these boons you'd need to play all six sub-modules (roughly a hour each) in succession. Can do this in multiple sessions, but without going to adventures other than Honor's Echo in between. So you will probably need to find a table that does that or eventually shop around for "who's running quests 1 and 3". Those two are considered somewhat overpowered and some GMs may decide to omit them.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Or, you know, you can decide to GM that whole adventure and receive it's benefits for that. | It may not suit all of your needs, and would certainly set the flavour for the character, but...one option would be a Chelaxian [Hellknight](http://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Hellknight). They do look...well, hellish. They are part of a nation led by Lawful Evil devil-worshippers. But, if you work at it, there is no reason why you couldn't play a Lawful Neutral Hellknight. There are even Prestige Classes specifically for them, like the [Hellknight](http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/e-h/hellknight) and [Hellknight Signifer](http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/e-h/hellknight-signifer) (for spellcasters), and neither requires you to be evil, just Lawful. |
47,868 | Is the recent Java update of OSX (Java for OS X Lion 2012-002) to `1.6.0_31` also a bug fix for the Flashback malware?
The update is described [here](http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5228?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US) as:
>
> Multiple vulnerabilities exist in Java 1.6.0\_29, the most serious of
> which may allow an untrusted Java applet to execute arbitrary code
> outside the Java sandbox. Visiting a web page containing a maliciously
> crafted untrusted Java applet may lead to arbitrary code execution
> with the privileges of the current user. These issues are addressed by
> updating to Java version 1.6.0\_31. Further information is available
> via the Java website at
> <http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/releasenotes-136954.html>
>
>
> | 2012/04/06 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/47868",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/8024/"
] | The recent Java update from Apple fixed the current malware vulnerability. If you want even more peace of mind for future malware protection you can disable Java on your mac. You can always easily re-enable it if your program requires Java. Here are the steps to disable it on your system:
* In Safari, go to Preferences > Security > Web Content and uncheck Enable Java.
* Then go to /Applications/Utilities/Java Preferences and uncheck all the checkboxes under the General tab.
 | Here is a detection and removal Method from [Ars Technica](http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2012/04/how-to-check-forand-get-rid-ofa-mac-flashback-infection.ars) that works well. |
720 | Frequently with newer students when we begin teaching them locks, we encounter the phenomena that when they don't get the lock to go on they will try to apply more force to make it work. This can be problematic, and is one of the reasons we talk about people between 9th and 4th kup being more likely to cause injury: They throw that extra force on, and if the other pieces line up correctly–even accidentally–they can cause serious injury. Not to mention the excess force is just bad in general.
We try explaining this, but in some students it seems almost instinctual (and/or they just don't see how little force is required, or how the force can get in the way of the technique). We can explain this and we can show this (and ask them to slow down), and they do learn it eventually, but it would be really nice–both for their training and my wrists–if we could somehow more directly demonstrate this.
They always get the experience of having it done to them by a higher belt–and in my current class generally by a 1 dan or better–but they haven't yet gotten to the point of being able to recognize how much (or little) force actually being used and this isn't the same as having the experience of seeing it work when you do it yourself.
Are there any exercises, drills, or other forms of practical experience that people have experience with that can be used to tactilely teach this understanding? | 2012/03/25 | [
"https://martialarts.stackexchange.com/questions/720",
"https://martialarts.stackexchange.com",
"https://martialarts.stackexchange.com/users/11/"
] | I'm a big guy. I had a hard time with this. What really helped me was when the instructor (by happenstance) saw me doing this. Do the technique wrong, start pushing to get it right, keep pushing harder.
How he helped me was:
1. I was taught the phrase, "If you are "trying" to do it, you are doing it wrong."
2. He watched me, and as soon as my instinct said "push harder" he would say "stop". He'd address the technique problem (wrist isn't rotated enough, etc), then have me continue. A few times he had me practice on him until I learned the control of the move. But by the time I was testing for my green belt, I had learned that nothing requires brute strength.
3. A trick I learned while playing music is the single-note approach. You play 1 note, then take as long as you need to find/play the next. Works very well for martial arts as well. You do a technique very slow, and stop between each muscle movement for a second or two. For example, I learned a technique called 1-finger-magic. The attacker grabs your gi, and you put your hand on his. You then rotate his hand/wrist until his wrist is perpendicular to the floor. Then you take your other hand and bend his elbow, then you push 1 finger down on the elbow. Run the technique a few times (before/after class is great for this purpose) like this, then start to put it together. Do step 1, 2, 3, 4; then 1-2, 3, 4; then 1-3, 4; finally all together. If your partner knows about your weak spot he can say "nope" if you do a step wrong, and that speeds up the learning.
For me, it took doing it slow before I learned that I was over/under rotating the wrist and had to learn the right amount of torque to apply. I also learned from this slow method how little pressure is needed to do these moves, EVEN when the attacker is resisting. | The best way is for them to feel those locks done to them with that minimal amount of pressure.
Otherwise, I remember reading this idea for push hands which may be useful:
>
> We do push hands with force - because the simplest way to get to the real push hands drill is to be too exhausted to do it wrong.
>
>
>
So, if the students are too tired to put the force into it, they may do it right.. Because they can't do it wrong. |
720 | Frequently with newer students when we begin teaching them locks, we encounter the phenomena that when they don't get the lock to go on they will try to apply more force to make it work. This can be problematic, and is one of the reasons we talk about people between 9th and 4th kup being more likely to cause injury: They throw that extra force on, and if the other pieces line up correctly–even accidentally–they can cause serious injury. Not to mention the excess force is just bad in general.
We try explaining this, but in some students it seems almost instinctual (and/or they just don't see how little force is required, or how the force can get in the way of the technique). We can explain this and we can show this (and ask them to slow down), and they do learn it eventually, but it would be really nice–both for their training and my wrists–if we could somehow more directly demonstrate this.
They always get the experience of having it done to them by a higher belt–and in my current class generally by a 1 dan or better–but they haven't yet gotten to the point of being able to recognize how much (or little) force actually being used and this isn't the same as having the experience of seeing it work when you do it yourself.
Are there any exercises, drills, or other forms of practical experience that people have experience with that can be used to tactilely teach this understanding? | 2012/03/25 | [
"https://martialarts.stackexchange.com/questions/720",
"https://martialarts.stackexchange.com",
"https://martialarts.stackexchange.com/users/11/"
] | I'm a big guy. I had a hard time with this. What really helped me was when the instructor (by happenstance) saw me doing this. Do the technique wrong, start pushing to get it right, keep pushing harder.
How he helped me was:
1. I was taught the phrase, "If you are "trying" to do it, you are doing it wrong."
2. He watched me, and as soon as my instinct said "push harder" he would say "stop". He'd address the technique problem (wrist isn't rotated enough, etc), then have me continue. A few times he had me practice on him until I learned the control of the move. But by the time I was testing for my green belt, I had learned that nothing requires brute strength.
3. A trick I learned while playing music is the single-note approach. You play 1 note, then take as long as you need to find/play the next. Works very well for martial arts as well. You do a technique very slow, and stop between each muscle movement for a second or two. For example, I learned a technique called 1-finger-magic. The attacker grabs your gi, and you put your hand on his. You then rotate his hand/wrist until his wrist is perpendicular to the floor. Then you take your other hand and bend his elbow, then you push 1 finger down on the elbow. Run the technique a few times (before/after class is great for this purpose) like this, then start to put it together. Do step 1, 2, 3, 4; then 1-2, 3, 4; then 1-3, 4; finally all together. If your partner knows about your weak spot he can say "nope" if you do a step wrong, and that speeds up the learning.
For me, it took doing it slow before I learned that I was over/under rotating the wrist and had to learn the right amount of torque to apply. I also learned from this slow method how little pressure is needed to do these moves, EVEN when the attacker is resisting. | From the time that we're born, we're trying to counter forces pulling us down by resisting. Why on earth would you expect new students to do any different just because you explain it to them? It's innate.
@Trevoke has a great point: When a student has no ability to fight back any longer, they can learn to blend with the energy. When I first started learning the *jutaijutsu* of *Shinden Fudo-ryu*, my instructor started out the day by turning the first hour into a full-out gymnastics event. We first did a heavy warm-up-turned-work-out, then did rolls for the rest of the hour. By the end, most of us could barely stand, every part of our bodies hurt. Everyone matched up (and, being class *uke*, I was matched up with my instructor who was all ready to go having not just done an hours worth of non-stop exercise). When he would step up to throw me, I couldn't do anything. I had to take *ukemi*, which, by that point, was painful. So how did I stop taking *ukemi* and stay standing? I moved with it and flowed into the counter: I let him give up his balance to maintain my own.
That night, all I could dream about was doing it right. I was exhausted beyond belief, and was having dreams of being thrown and falling awake, my chest pounding as I woke in a pool of sweat. Eventually, I started to drift off thinking about doing it right, and my dreams began to reflect it, and I slept the rest of the night. Visualization is as useful as training; it can build the required neural pathways to provide your muscles with the correct signals in proper intensity and speed.
Drilling is also important; by repeating actions, we build our ability to respond appropriately. Remember, practice does not make perfect; only perfect practice makes perfect.
Exhaust the students. Make a seminar of it – a saturday multi-hour class starting with at least an hour of intense exercise. Make everyone complain and feel like they can barely move. When they can't resist, then start training them to act the way you need.
***NB:*** This, like many other suggested training methods, may be a wee-bit subversive. It's all about how you use it and your reasons for using it – if you are using it to make them more pliable to take more money from them, it's ***wrong***; if you're using it to make them more capable in a shorter time frame out of concern for their safety, then it's simply a necessary evil. Only you can decide. |
169,661 | In Empire: Total War, sometimes garrisonable buildings can supposedly fit thousands of soldiers inside - you can see this by hovering your mouse over them and looking at their information - but you can usually only tell one unit to actually enter the building. Other units might initially march to the building, but once the first unit's inside, other units will just stop right outside the door.
There are also cases when this is not so. I remember, on at least one or two occasions, moving two separate units into the same building at the same time.
Why is it then that, much of the time, only one unit will enter a building, regardless of how many men can supposedly fit into it? Is there some sort of special way you have to click on the thing to get subsequent units to go in or something? Is this just an outright bug? Thanks. | 2014/05/29 | [
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/169661",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/53570/"
] | Some buildings will allow multiple units inside, others will not - even though in both cases the maximum capacity greatly exceeded the number of men in both units. It also takes an extremely long amount of time for those men to enter or leave the garrison, and I've had units stop halfway (despite easily having enough room) and half the men are standing outside getting slaughtered. Chalk it up to the usual bugginess of Total War games I suppose. Occasionally you'll be presented with an 'X' when trying to garrison a second unit, other times the unit just won't go inside.
Personally, I would advise against using buildings as garrisons anyway - besides the bugs, it greatly reduces the unit's firepower (fewer soldiers firing), makes them almost completely immobile for a huge stretch of time, and makes them susceptible to artillery. Plus if they rout during melee, they will get slaughtered as they try to run past the enemy unit entering the building.
I found a few links discussing the issue on various forums:
<http://shoguntotalwar.yuku.com/topic/46060/Multiple-Units-in-Buildings-BUG#.U4amMfkwB7k>
<http://etw.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/forums/display.cgi?action=ct&f=10,8430,100,all> | These buildings can be garrisoned with multiple units while it is enemy (or neutral?). This larger capacity is,perhaps,for unit fights inside that building.
P.S: I don't remember exactly if multiple units conquer a building if they remain inside or let a single unit inside. |
91,324 | If I take a photo in raw, edit it a little in Lightroom, then upload it to flickr, when I click on the photo in flickr to open it then click on it again to enlarge it, there seems to be quite a lot of detail. When I take the same file to a high street photo printers I am always disappointed. Can I get a print that has the same amount of detail, and if so where? | 2017/07/28 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/91324",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/67070/"
] | Viewing size determines visible detail. The visible detail will depend on the viewing size. If you print an image 6x4 inches size, it is always 4 inches tall. Substitute 10x8 inches if you wish, but a print cannot show more detail than its size.
If you view it enlarged to full screen size on your monitor, depending on the monitor, it might be 10 or 11 inches tall. That can show much more detail. And if you zoom in on it larger, to show only half of previous content, the overall total (unseen) size might be 20 or 22 inches then. Much more fine detail becomes visible at that size. Enlargement certainly does help viewing.
We think of digital resolution as pixels per inch. However, there is definitely a limit, and in common viewing situations/distances, our eye cannot resolve more than maybe 300 pixels per inch. If we condense 1000 pixels into an inch (in a small print), our eye cannot benefit from it, we cannot see that detail then. | If you print a photo at "passport photo" size, of course you won't see all the detail that the image holds; it's too small. Solution... print larger. Now, of course I don't presume you are printing at passport photo size, but the logic is the same.
(Of course there are limits - you can't just choose any arbitrary print size, because your image is composed of only so many pixels to begin with.) |
10,261 | I'm not Muslim, and I know almost nothing about Islam, but in a few days, I'll have to give a talk on my scientific activities in a tunisian school. I am a biologist and I specialize in understanding the first steps of life on earth.
I'm a little bit nervous since I imagine that some of the knowledge and facts I'll be speaking about could be incompatible with the Quran.
My question is what should I answer if a kid or a little girl begins to ask me about these incompatibilities. Is an answer of the type "Quran was written before these discoveries and thus had to be approximtive on this part of the story" acceptable ?
By the way, if someone could provide a brief sketch on how this point is described in the Quran, I'd be happy to learn about it.
Thanks ! | 2013/12/06 | [
"https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/10261",
"https://islam.stackexchange.com",
"https://islam.stackexchange.com/users/3739/"
] | >
> acceptable ?
>
>
>
No.
*From an Islamic perspective, why not?*
>
> written before these discoveries
>
>
>
The words of whom (Allah) which is written in the Quran, the phenomenon of *discovering* is incompatible with ([15:86](http://quran.com/15/86) and [40:2](http://quran.com/40/2)). And that is because He is the Creator, [the Lord and Cherisher of the Worlds (37:182)](http://quran.com/37/182).
>
> had to be approximtive on this part of the story
>
>
>
The words of Quran are in a generalized form rather then approximative.
>
> Quran was written
>
>
>
This is a whole other topic on Lohe Mahfooz ([85:22](http://quran.com/85/22))
Other than that the question is more on how to give a talk about a topic which the audience could get sensitive/offended/confused about, rather then Islam itself.
And as System Down [mentioned](https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/10261/position-of-islam-on-birth-of-life#comment19976_10261) the question [Is evolution compatible with Islam?](https://islam.stackexchange.com/q/54/3487) would give you the much needed help in your preparation. | Allow me to clarify a little. First of all this is a tricky question as no one was there "in the beginning"(or was there someone ?)
>
> It is He who created the heavens and earth in six days and then established Himself above >the Throne. He knows what penetrates into the earth and what emerges from it and what >descends from the heaven and what ascends therein; and He is with you wherever you are. And >Allah , of what you do, is Seeing. (57:4)
>
>
>
So in Quran it is sayed that all things were created in 6 days by the God. And that Adam ,the first man, was created by Allah, and put in Heaven, then was sent to the earth. The Quran explains aspects of the embryonic development,the diversity of the forms of existence and the "fundamental rules" of life. So Nothing is left to the chance and randomness even in the smallest details.
If you're dealing with schoolers you can first try to make them friendly get rid of their initial background by pushing them to recall/think about some mathematical theories or physical experiences that involve ,for instance,molecular biology **in a fun way**...
Invite them to share your point of view while you're showing respect to their beliefs, using questions as:
"*i know that you believe ... but what if ...*" or "*let's pretend that...*" or even the simple "*who knows what happens if we bring such or such thing together...*"
(one last thing to say is that tunisians are open minded and joyful...) |
241,595 | This question arose in the context of another discussion here:
<https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/241247/semi-classical-calculation-gives-wrong-answer-for-emission>
I wanted to analyze the time-varying charge density of a heated tungsten filament, and Pisanty said I couldn't do it because the filament wasn't in a pure state, it was in a mixed state (a thermal state actually) so the chaarge density would be stationary. (Feel free to correct me if I am misrepresenting Pisanty's argument).
That discussion was shut down by the moderators, but it was somewhat continued here:
[Is there a charge density in quantum mechanics?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/241341/is-there-a-charge-density-in-quantum-mechanics)
where Pisanty elaborates on his reasons why you can't analyze the filament as a pure state.
I think he must be wrong. Isn't the whole universe in a pure state? Isn't a mixed state just something we use when we don't have (or don't want) all the detailed information? Pisanty defines the tungsten filament as a mixed state...specifically, a thermal state...and then concludes that the charge density must be stationary in time. I think he's wrong...I think he just threw away the information about the time-varying charge density when he chose to analyze the filament as a thermal state.
Isn't the filament actually in a pure state, with an enormously complicated time varying charge distribution? And if so, what is to stop us (in principle) from using Maxwell's Equations to analyze the resulting emission of radiation? Other than the fact that it might give us the wrong answer.
EDIT: It doesn't look like anyone wants to answer this: a few comments have ridiculed the notion that something as chaotic as a glowing filament could be in a "pure" state. Look, I don't like the terminology either, but I adopted it because it has a precise technical meaning as used by Pisanty in the previous discussions. A "pure" state (correct me if I'm wrong) is simply one for which the wave function is completely specified; that is, it is not a statistical mixture of various pure states. So a beam of silver atoms coming out of an aperture is, for practical purposes, in a "mixed" state of spins...half up and half down. This is different from a single atom being 1/2|up> + 1/2|down>, which is actually pure sideways.
So my question really is: isn't every system in the universe, including my tungsten filament, actually in a "pure" state...except for the fact that we simply aren't in a position to know the precise details of that state? So in cases where it doesn't make a difference, we treat it as a statistical mixture. Even the beam of silver atoms coming out of an aperture...yes, for our purposes it's a statistical mixture, but in fact isn't that beam itself in a pure state?
If no one wants to answer this I'm going to have to answer it myself. | 2016/03/05 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/241595",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/3253/"
] | I'm reluctant to get involved in this question, but the root issue is interesting enough that I will ignore my better judgement...
I'm going to reformulate your question slightly: suppose we have a universe that only contains your heated tungsten filament, lots of empty space, and the electromagnetic field initially in its vacuum state. The filament is initialized in some pure, excited state. The initial state is, therefore, not thermal. It is also not an energy eigenstate of the system, due to coupling with the electromagnetic field if for no other reason, and therefore will evolve in time. What happens?
Okay, I confess that having never done this experiment I can't tell you for sure, but I have an educated guess: the filament will reach a state that is, for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from a thermal equilibrium state. At the same time, it will keep emitting blackbody radiation out into space, with the state remaining thermal but decreasing in temperature in a quasistatic way.
Now, the seeming paradox is that a thermal state, as has been repeated here *ad nauseum*, is a stationary state. But we know that the filament can't be in a stationary state: it was initialized in a non-stationary state, and it is emitting radiation. So what's going on here?
The answer is the following: thermalization in an isolated quantum system must be taken to mean that, for any initial conditions, the system evolves so that any *local* observable takes on thermal (and thus stationary) values. However, the overall state is still continually time-evolving. The evolution of the state all goes into generating complicated entanglement between distant parts of the system.
The result then is that you have a state that is not stationary, but appears to be a quasistationary thermal state for any observable that does not involve highly non-local joint measurements, which in practice are always inaccessible for a macroscopic system anyway. In this way the paradox is resolved.
Going back to the example at hand, the charge density, like any other simple observable, will look approximately thermal after a short time. Like any other local observable of any other equilibrium system, classical or quantum, the charge density will have a quasistatic probability distribution, but this probabilistic nature means that there is no conflict with the Maxwellian statement that a stationary charge configuration does not radiate.
This idea of thermalization in a closed quantum system is closely associated with the so-called Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis, and a better understanding of how this process occurs and the necessary conditions for such thermalization is a very active research topic at the moment. I discussed it a little more in a similar context [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/213733/seemingly-a-paradox-on-the-eigenstate-thermalization-hypothesis-eth). | The answer is no, not everything is the universe is in a pure state, at least not when considered individually. The reason is that apart from very rare cases that are extremely isolated, systems are constantly interacting with their environments. That means that there are extremely complex (practically unrecoverable) correlations between elements of the system and the environment; hence a pure state for the system alone, without the environment, cannot be defined.
Specifically think of a system in canonical ensemble; the existence of a temperature for such a system implies a great number of interactions with a heat bath, which has a great number of degrees of freedom. Their constant and complex interactions means that their wave functions are inextricably intertwined; one cannot write any single one of them in a pure state. |
55,136 | I have a zoomable, draggable map (leaflet) showing pin points of addresses across a city. For each of those addresses, I have a photo of the building at that address. The photos are big, high-rez shots -- not google street view.
Is there any conventional wisdom (or data) on how to display the images associated with the pin points. I can think of a few options:
* You click a pin point and a big dialog opens, showing the photo. The advantage to this is that the photo looks great. The disadvantage is that you have to click to see the photo: extra step.
* You hover over the pin point and a small photo window opens around your mouse, almost like a tool tip. I don't usually like these because the photos are too small to tell you much.
* I split the screen showing the map on the left and the photos on the right. Whatever point on the map is closest to the users mouse gets its photo shown on the righthand side. The disadvantage here is that you lose some of the detail in the photo, as opposed to the popup.
* A pane in the corner of the map showing the photo.
Are there are other ways? Is there a conventional wisdom on how to do this?
Mobile-friendly is good and -- but not the primary consideration in the design. I can modify some of the coding for small phones.
*A little context*: I work for a news organization. The city says it has demolished or fixed blighted properties. The photos show if the properties are really fixed -- or just counted as not blighted. | 2014/04/03 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/55136",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/35249/"
] | My suggestion...[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/V0wrK.png)
If it needs explaining, it's not good enough :) | Is a progress bar the best way to represent this data? How far past 100% can the values go? Is it infite or fixed.
If the potential post-100% value is not infinite then I would suggest extending the progress bar tick-marks or indicator outside of the original bar and change the color to indicate that it has surpassed the allowed time.
Here is a quick mock-up:
 |
55,136 | I have a zoomable, draggable map (leaflet) showing pin points of addresses across a city. For each of those addresses, I have a photo of the building at that address. The photos are big, high-rez shots -- not google street view.
Is there any conventional wisdom (or data) on how to display the images associated with the pin points. I can think of a few options:
* You click a pin point and a big dialog opens, showing the photo. The advantage to this is that the photo looks great. The disadvantage is that you have to click to see the photo: extra step.
* You hover over the pin point and a small photo window opens around your mouse, almost like a tool tip. I don't usually like these because the photos are too small to tell you much.
* I split the screen showing the map on the left and the photos on the right. Whatever point on the map is closest to the users mouse gets its photo shown on the righthand side. The disadvantage here is that you lose some of the detail in the photo, as opposed to the popup.
* A pane in the corner of the map showing the photo.
Are there are other ways? Is there a conventional wisdom on how to do this?
Mobile-friendly is good and -- but not the primary consideration in the design. I can modify some of the coding for small phones.
*A little context*: I work for a news organization. The city says it has demolished or fixed blighted properties. The photos show if the properties are really fixed -- or just counted as not blighted. | 2014/04/03 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/55136",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/35249/"
] | The same situation is when you display values off the scale. In most cases the most important thing is to show the user that the values are exceeded. Usually exceeded values aren't represented proportionally to the columns lenght. You could see how the problem is handle by personal finance apps, which have budgets functions - in these apps we need to communiacte user that the budget is exceeded.
 | One suggestion would be to have 2 designs: in-range (0-100) (eg. green) and out-of-range (100-200) (eg. red)
When the item is in-range, display one style meter.
Once the item reaches 100% replace the in-range meter with the out-of-range one.
Ensure your out-of-range meter is significantly different from your in-range meter and you will be able to communicate this information in an efficient use of space. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.