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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
349,060 | Suppose that there exists a dataset consisting 1.5m scientific papers. I have done a lot of processing on the table to mitigate the noises in it, handling null values, etc. My extensive work resulted in a much cleaner dataset (of 650k papers). What word can I use:
We ... a dataset consisting 650k papers.
Possible candidates:
* made
* compiled
* built | 2016/09/18 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/349060",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/21999/"
] | Another possibility is **[curate](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/curate)**. "We curated a dataset consisting of 650k papers."
>
> Select, organize, and present (online content, merchandise,
> information, etc.), typically using professional or expert knowledge.
>
>
>
An example from "[Genomics Needs A Killer App](https://techcrunch.com/2015/03/27/genomics-needs-a-killer-app/)":
>
> Traditionally, much of this information has been distributed through
> academic publications. Many companies **curate** papers to extract
> valuable information for clinical genomic and R&D applications:
> Ingenuity, Biobase, Thomson Reuters, and others.
>
>
> | *"You condensed the data set."*
***Condense*** — [Cambridge](http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/condense)
>
> *verb* To reduce something, such as a speech or piece of writing, in length
>
> *"I condensed ten pages of comments into/to two."*
>
>
> |
349,060 | Suppose that there exists a dataset consisting 1.5m scientific papers. I have done a lot of processing on the table to mitigate the noises in it, handling null values, etc. My extensive work resulted in a much cleaner dataset (of 650k papers). What word can I use:
We ... a dataset consisting 650k papers.
Possible candidates:
* made
* compiled
* built | 2016/09/18 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/349060",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/21999/"
] | Another possibility is **[curate](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/curate)**. "We curated a dataset consisting of 650k papers."
>
> Select, organize, and present (online content, merchandise,
> information, etc.), typically using professional or expert knowledge.
>
>
>
An example from "[Genomics Needs A Killer App](https://techcrunch.com/2015/03/27/genomics-needs-a-killer-app/)":
>
> Traditionally, much of this information has been distributed through
> academic publications. Many companies **curate** papers to extract
> valuable information for clinical genomic and R&D applications:
> Ingenuity, Biobase, Thomson Reuters, and others.
>
>
> | If you are speaking of choosing 650K papers from 1.5M papers, then you have [culled](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cull) the papers:
**cull**, transitive verb
>
> to select from a group : choose *culled the best passages from the poet's work*
>
>
> to reduce or control the size of (as a herd) by removal (as by hunting) of especially weaker animals; also : to hunt or kill (animals) as a means of population control
>
>
>
I'm a little unclear as to whether you are controlling the papers (which themselves comprise your data) or the data contained within the papers. I might use *cull* for controlling papers, or *cleanse* the data within the papers. For example:
>
> We culled the papers that were not peer reviewed or that had a p-value of greater than .01.
>
>
> We cleansed the data of the papers that did not take patient's age or socioeconomic status into account.
>
>
> |
349,060 | Suppose that there exists a dataset consisting 1.5m scientific papers. I have done a lot of processing on the table to mitigate the noises in it, handling null values, etc. My extensive work resulted in a much cleaner dataset (of 650k papers). What word can I use:
We ... a dataset consisting 650k papers.
Possible candidates:
* made
* compiled
* built | 2016/09/18 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/349060",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/21999/"
] | *"You condensed the data set."*
***Condense*** — [Cambridge](http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/condense)
>
> *verb* To reduce something, such as a speech or piece of writing, in length
>
> *"I condensed ten pages of comments into/to two."*
>
>
> | >
> We *assembled* a dataset consisting 650k papers.
>
>
> |
349,060 | Suppose that there exists a dataset consisting 1.5m scientific papers. I have done a lot of processing on the table to mitigate the noises in it, handling null values, etc. My extensive work resulted in a much cleaner dataset (of 650k papers). What word can I use:
We ... a dataset consisting 650k papers.
Possible candidates:
* made
* compiled
* built | 2016/09/18 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/349060",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/21999/"
] | There are domain-specific technical terms (verbs) to denote the actions mentioned by the OP like [**cleansing**, **scrubbing**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_cleansing), **[wrangling](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/technology/for-big-data-scientists-hurdle-to-insights-is-janitor-work.html?_r=1)** and **munging** (this one is already mentioned in another answer) but I am not sure if they fit in the example sentence as it is. Perhaps it can be adapted like:
>
> We ***cleansed/scrubbed/wrangled/munged*** the dataset of 1.5m scientific papers into a smaller one of 650k papers.
>
>
>
Also, ***distilled*** connotes reduction (1.5m to 650k) *and* improvement (processing on the table to mitigate the noises in it, handling null values, etc):
>
> We ***distilled*** a dataset consisting of 650k papers.
>
>
>
M-W:
>
> **[distill](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distill)**
> *verb*
>
>
> : **to take** the most important **parts** of something and put them in a
> different and usually **improved** form
>
>
> He has perfectly distilled the meaning of the holiday into a poem.
>
>
>
A widely accepted and understood term would be ***prepared*** (as in data preparation).
>
> We ***prepared*** a dataset consisting of 650k papers.
>
>
>
M-W:
>
> **[prepare](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prepare)**
> *verb*
>
>
> : to make (someone or something) ready for some activity, purpose,
> use, etc.
>
>
> : to make or create (something) so that it is ready for use
>
>
> The pharmacist prepared the prescription.
>
>
>
Another generic(nontechnical) term would be ***extracted***.
>
> We ***extracted*** a dataset consisting of 650k papers.
>
>
>
M-W:
>
> **[extract](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extract)** *verb*
>
>
> : to get (something, such as information) from something
>
>
> Investigators were able to extractuseful information from the
> company's financial records.
>
>
> They are hoping to extract new insights from the test results
>
>
>
. | *"You condensed the data set."*
***Condense*** — [Cambridge](http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/condense)
>
> *verb* To reduce something, such as a speech or piece of writing, in length
>
> *"I condensed ten pages of comments into/to two."*
>
>
> |
349,060 | Suppose that there exists a dataset consisting 1.5m scientific papers. I have done a lot of processing on the table to mitigate the noises in it, handling null values, etc. My extensive work resulted in a much cleaner dataset (of 650k papers). What word can I use:
We ... a dataset consisting 650k papers.
Possible candidates:
* made
* compiled
* built | 2016/09/18 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/349060",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/21999/"
] | There are domain-specific technical terms (verbs) to denote the actions mentioned by the OP like [**cleansing**, **scrubbing**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_cleansing), **[wrangling](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/technology/for-big-data-scientists-hurdle-to-insights-is-janitor-work.html?_r=1)** and **munging** (this one is already mentioned in another answer) but I am not sure if they fit in the example sentence as it is. Perhaps it can be adapted like:
>
> We ***cleansed/scrubbed/wrangled/munged*** the dataset of 1.5m scientific papers into a smaller one of 650k papers.
>
>
>
Also, ***distilled*** connotes reduction (1.5m to 650k) *and* improvement (processing on the table to mitigate the noises in it, handling null values, etc):
>
> We ***distilled*** a dataset consisting of 650k papers.
>
>
>
M-W:
>
> **[distill](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distill)**
> *verb*
>
>
> : **to take** the most important **parts** of something and put them in a
> different and usually **improved** form
>
>
> He has perfectly distilled the meaning of the holiday into a poem.
>
>
>
A widely accepted and understood term would be ***prepared*** (as in data preparation).
>
> We ***prepared*** a dataset consisting of 650k papers.
>
>
>
M-W:
>
> **[prepare](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prepare)**
> *verb*
>
>
> : to make (someone or something) ready for some activity, purpose,
> use, etc.
>
>
> : to make or create (something) so that it is ready for use
>
>
> The pharmacist prepared the prescription.
>
>
>
Another generic(nontechnical) term would be ***extracted***.
>
> We ***extracted*** a dataset consisting of 650k papers.
>
>
>
M-W:
>
> **[extract](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extract)** *verb*
>
>
> : to get (something, such as information) from something
>
>
> Investigators were able to extractuseful information from the
> company's financial records.
>
>
> They are hoping to extract new insights from the test results
>
>
>
. | >
> We *assembled* a dataset consisting 650k papers.
>
>
> |
349,060 | Suppose that there exists a dataset consisting 1.5m scientific papers. I have done a lot of processing on the table to mitigate the noises in it, handling null values, etc. My extensive work resulted in a much cleaner dataset (of 650k papers). What word can I use:
We ... a dataset consisting 650k papers.
Possible candidates:
* made
* compiled
* built | 2016/09/18 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/349060",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/21999/"
] | Another possibility is **[curate](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/curate)**. "We curated a dataset consisting of 650k papers."
>
> Select, organize, and present (online content, merchandise,
> information, etc.), typically using professional or expert knowledge.
>
>
>
An example from "[Genomics Needs A Killer App](https://techcrunch.com/2015/03/27/genomics-needs-a-killer-app/)":
>
> Traditionally, much of this information has been distributed through
> academic publications. Many companies **curate** papers to extract
> valuable information for clinical genomic and R&D applications:
> Ingenuity, Biobase, Thomson Reuters, and others.
>
>
> | There are domain-specific technical terms (verbs) to denote the actions mentioned by the OP like [**cleansing**, **scrubbing**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_cleansing), **[wrangling](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/technology/for-big-data-scientists-hurdle-to-insights-is-janitor-work.html?_r=1)** and **munging** (this one is already mentioned in another answer) but I am not sure if they fit in the example sentence as it is. Perhaps it can be adapted like:
>
> We ***cleansed/scrubbed/wrangled/munged*** the dataset of 1.5m scientific papers into a smaller one of 650k papers.
>
>
>
Also, ***distilled*** connotes reduction (1.5m to 650k) *and* improvement (processing on the table to mitigate the noises in it, handling null values, etc):
>
> We ***distilled*** a dataset consisting of 650k papers.
>
>
>
M-W:
>
> **[distill](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distill)**
> *verb*
>
>
> : **to take** the most important **parts** of something and put them in a
> different and usually **improved** form
>
>
> He has perfectly distilled the meaning of the holiday into a poem.
>
>
>
A widely accepted and understood term would be ***prepared*** (as in data preparation).
>
> We ***prepared*** a dataset consisting of 650k papers.
>
>
>
M-W:
>
> **[prepare](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prepare)**
> *verb*
>
>
> : to make (someone or something) ready for some activity, purpose,
> use, etc.
>
>
> : to make or create (something) so that it is ready for use
>
>
> The pharmacist prepared the prescription.
>
>
>
Another generic(nontechnical) term would be ***extracted***.
>
> We ***extracted*** a dataset consisting of 650k papers.
>
>
>
M-W:
>
> **[extract](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extract)** *verb*
>
>
> : to get (something, such as information) from something
>
>
> Investigators were able to extractuseful information from the
> company's financial records.
>
>
> They are hoping to extract new insights from the test results
>
>
>
. |
349,060 | Suppose that there exists a dataset consisting 1.5m scientific papers. I have done a lot of processing on the table to mitigate the noises in it, handling null values, etc. My extensive work resulted in a much cleaner dataset (of 650k papers). What word can I use:
We ... a dataset consisting 650k papers.
Possible candidates:
* made
* compiled
* built | 2016/09/18 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/349060",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/21999/"
] | If you are speaking of choosing 650K papers from 1.5M papers, then you have [culled](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cull) the papers:
**cull**, transitive verb
>
> to select from a group : choose *culled the best passages from the poet's work*
>
>
> to reduce or control the size of (as a herd) by removal (as by hunting) of especially weaker animals; also : to hunt or kill (animals) as a means of population control
>
>
>
I'm a little unclear as to whether you are controlling the papers (which themselves comprise your data) or the data contained within the papers. I might use *cull* for controlling papers, or *cleanse* the data within the papers. For example:
>
> We culled the papers that were not peer reviewed or that had a p-value of greater than .01.
>
>
> We cleansed the data of the papers that did not take patient's age or socioeconomic status into account.
>
>
> | >
> We *assembled* a dataset consisting 650k papers.
>
>
> |
349,060 | Suppose that there exists a dataset consisting 1.5m scientific papers. I have done a lot of processing on the table to mitigate the noises in it, handling null values, etc. My extensive work resulted in a much cleaner dataset (of 650k papers). What word can I use:
We ... a dataset consisting 650k papers.
Possible candidates:
* made
* compiled
* built | 2016/09/18 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/349060",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/21999/"
] | I like @michael.hor257k's suggestion, but you could also use *munged* (sounds like monger in fishmonger). From [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mung_%28computer_term%29):
>
> Mung or munge is computer jargon for a series of potentially destructive or irrevocable changes to a piece of data or a file. It is sometimes used for vague data transformation steps that are not yet clear to the speaker. Common munging operations include removing punctuation or html tags, data parsing, **filtering**, and transformation. …
> **Munging can also describe the processing or filtering of raw data into another form.**
>
>
>
I often say I've *munged some data*, or *cleaned it up*. There are also several books on how to [*data mung*](https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2/252-8578617-7444543?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=data+munging), so it's a well known term (among people who *mung*:) for this sort of thing. | *"You condensed the data set."*
***Condense*** — [Cambridge](http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/condense)
>
> *verb* To reduce something, such as a speech or piece of writing, in length
>
> *"I condensed ten pages of comments into/to two."*
>
>
> |
4,799 | In an academic paper, we sometimes have a "Results and Discussion" section.
It is not uncommon to add the explanation and discussion of the results together with the results section.
What are the pros and cons of both practices from an academic point of view? How do I weigh them for each paper?
1. List the results without explaining their significance, which is then explained in the discussion section.
2. List the results with their explanation as they are being listed, and eliminate the discussion section.
I find the second approach more appropriate to understand the results, since the reader wouldn't need to be going back and forth the sections, but then again, that is just my feeling. | 2012/10/17 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/4799",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/2806/"
] | I must say that I would have a hard time listing the pros of the first approach (separate *results* and *discussion* sections), because I don't like it and it doesn't fit my style of writing. My advice would be: if you can, **write in the style that you like best, because that's how your writing will be most natural/readable/convincing**.
However, the choice is not Manichaean as you make it sound. There exist a continuum between those two, because it mainly depends on what you call “results” and “discussion”. When I write for a journal that requires a strict “results then discussion” format, what I usually do is that I put most of my text in the *results* part, and leave some general overall discussion for the *discussion* part. Typically, it would given something like:
>
> **Results**
>
>
> * First result. Discuss its implications.
> * Second result. How it confirms result #1. Consistent with previous observations [ref].
> * Third result. Again, some discussion of it.
>
>
> **Discussion**
>
>
> Altogether, what is the insight given by these results. It changes our view of this phenomenon somewhat. It is in line with work by X et al., but highlights some contradictions of Y’s model.
>
>
>
That's a bit “cheating”, but I've never been asked to reörganize any paper written in that way. | My post doc advisor has submitted a number of papers with the "Discussion" section renamed "Speculation". While the editor/reviewers have always required the section be renamed "Discussion", her approach rubbed off on me. By treating the Discussion section as if everything is speculation, it becomes clear what goes into the Discussion and what goes inot the results. |
26,543 | English is not my native language, but I'm a willing pupil and in most cases I'm pretty confident in my knowledge, but sometimes I hesitate to use particular words. I wrote this [tweet recently](http://twitter.com/#!/Nemoden/status/72465335068008448):
>
> I amused. Person who cannot cope with "Cannot modify header information" error should not establish himself a web-developer.
>
>
>
I'm not sure if I made the sentence clear. Shouldn't I have used "establish **as** web-developer," or should I have not used the word "establish"? | 2011/05/23 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/26543",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/8860/"
] | >
> I amused. Person who can not cope with
> "Cannot modify header information"
> error should not establish himself a
> web-developer.
>
>
>
"I am amused. A person who can not cope with a 'cannot modify header information' error should not claim to be a web developer."
That would be a rough fix. An elegant solution would be:
"It's amusing that a person who can't handle a 'cannot modify header information' error claims to be a web developer."
But, in a larger sense, this kind of IT-level sniping is unhappy. If a colleague is having trouble, do not snipe - lend a helping hand. | I don't think 'establish' is apt in that context. An alternative could be "consider" as in ...should not **consider** himself... |
26,543 | English is not my native language, but I'm a willing pupil and in most cases I'm pretty confident in my knowledge, but sometimes I hesitate to use particular words. I wrote this [tweet recently](http://twitter.com/#!/Nemoden/status/72465335068008448):
>
> I amused. Person who cannot cope with "Cannot modify header information" error should not establish himself a web-developer.
>
>
>
I'm not sure if I made the sentence clear. Shouldn't I have used "establish **as** web-developer," or should I have not used the word "establish"? | 2011/05/23 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/26543",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/8860/"
] | >
> I amused. Person who can not cope with
> "Cannot modify header information"
> error should not establish himself a
> web-developer.
>
>
>
"I am amused. A person who can not cope with a 'cannot modify header information' error should not claim to be a web developer."
That would be a rough fix. An elegant solution would be:
"It's amusing that a person who can't handle a 'cannot modify header information' error claims to be a web developer."
But, in a larger sense, this kind of IT-level sniping is unhappy. If a colleague is having trouble, do not snipe - lend a helping hand. | try:
>
> I'm amused. A person who can't cope
> with a "Cannot modify header
> information" error **has no business
> calling** himself a web-developer.
>
>
>
or
>
> I'm amused. A person who can't cope
> with a "Cannot modify header
> information" error **shouldn't pass
> himself** of as a web-developer.
>
>
> |
119,325 | In the new documentary, this place rules, Andrew is seen doing bench push ups with Alex Jones.
Alex Jones is seen doing bench push ups while drinking whiskey and saying 1776 at the same time.
Why would Alex Jones drink whiskey and doing bench push ups at the same time? Is it his personal ritual? | 2023/01/06 | [
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/119325",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/users/41787/"
] | Alex Jones is a talented and successful media personality. This is not an endorsement of his general behavior or of the content of his shows, just an analysis of his success. Lawsuits aside he has made himself extremely rich by producing and presenting Radio and TV, and selling a lot of merchandise on the back of that.
As a media personality, I'm sure that everything he does in front of a camera is carefully considered to project the right image to his fans. Unless a documentary is capturing this behavior entirely secretly, he's doing this for the camera and the people that love him and support him by watching and buying his product.
So, the short answer is: This is behavior that he wants to project to his fans. He thinks they will admire him, or find it funny. | I know it now. Alex Jones has had a brand of sport supplement with a patroic theme called 1776.
That is why he keeps saying 1776, as a way to promote his own products. |
4,787 | I have a lot of HNQ's for some reason I don't quite understand (they're never the ones I think are really interesting) but this one is a real head scratcher.
One day I was bored and letting YouTube suggest things to watch and I came across the clip in [Meaning of "Never get involved in a land war in Asia" in The Princess Bride?](https://movies.stackexchange.com/q/104366/45856) I simply thought the line was peculiar and out of place so I asked here.
In two years it got 36,000 views.
Why might that be? | 2021/09/23 | [
"https://movies.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4787",
"https://movies.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://movies.meta.stackexchange.com/users/45856/"
] | The conjecture I'd propose is that *The Princess Bride* is a very popular movie - it's a cult classic. I'm certain that many people watch it and a subset of them are curious enough about that phrase to go to Google and search for it.
When I search Google in an incognito Chrome window for the phrase "what does never get involved in a land war in Asia mean?" your answer is the #1 result. This means, there's a decent likelihood that other people, even people who don't use Stack Exchange, will often be referred to your question when trying to understand that specific quote.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/jcK6L.png) | Not only HNQ, but the search engine and other websites that may have a link to the post also play the role in getting views. I have [a question](https://movies.stackexchange.com/q/94036/27264) that had around 5k views when it got out of HNQ, but now it has over 112k views. If I put the term "Leta Lestrange fear", this question comes up on the first page.
In your case, if I search the phrase "never get involved in a land war in Asia", your question comes up on the first page, 1st rank for me, as well.
You can find many questions here blessed with hits from search engines. |
10,349 | My question regards a player being dealt 3 cards. (preflop in Texas Hold-em). In this particular situation, a player in seat #7 was dealt 3 cards but failed to notice and immediately speak up. The player under the gun called and the next player called as well. At this time seat #7 says "hey I've got 3 cards".
Is this a misdeal ? or is seat #7's hand dead and play continues ? or should the dealer shuffle seat #7's three cards, let him choose two and play those, then using the third card as the burn card.....I've seen this last option occur at casinos.
I would love to hear some feedback......thanks | 2019/02/14 | [
"https://poker.stackexchange.com/questions/10349",
"https://poker.stackexchange.com",
"https://poker.stackexchange.com/users/6625/"
] | Pretty sure the hand should be declared dead. If you let seat #7 pick two cards he knows the third card is not in play, which gives him an unfair advantage. Not letting him play the hand at all gives him an unfair disadvantage because he is blinding down. Just deal the hand again is the best option. | I Think best way to handle would be to call a misdeal I\*ve seen it done both ways and I think the its better to redeal the cards . |
10,349 | My question regards a player being dealt 3 cards. (preflop in Texas Hold-em). In this particular situation, a player in seat #7 was dealt 3 cards but failed to notice and immediately speak up. The player under the gun called and the next player called as well. At this time seat #7 says "hey I've got 3 cards".
Is this a misdeal ? or is seat #7's hand dead and play continues ? or should the dealer shuffle seat #7's three cards, let him choose two and play those, then using the third card as the burn card.....I've seen this last option occur at casinos.
I would love to hear some feedback......thanks | 2019/02/14 | [
"https://poker.stackexchange.com/questions/10349",
"https://poker.stackexchange.com",
"https://poker.stackexchange.com/users/6625/"
] | How the floorman handles such situations a matter of the casino's rules and policies, and to some extent his own preferences and experience. I don't like declaring misdeals after there has been action, and most casinos have that as a policy.
Personally, I would declare the player's hand dead, give one of his three cards back to the dealer (unexposed) to use as the first burn, remind the player not to say anything about the cards he saw, and let play continue. I don't like the the shuffle-and-pick-2 for the player, because that requires me to expose the third card, which I think affects the hand much more than just killing one player's hand. | Pretty sure the hand should be declared dead. If you let seat #7 pick two cards he knows the third card is not in play, which gives him an unfair advantage. Not letting him play the hand at all gives him an unfair disadvantage because he is blinding down. Just deal the hand again is the best option. |
10,349 | My question regards a player being dealt 3 cards. (preflop in Texas Hold-em). In this particular situation, a player in seat #7 was dealt 3 cards but failed to notice and immediately speak up. The player under the gun called and the next player called as well. At this time seat #7 says "hey I've got 3 cards".
Is this a misdeal ? or is seat #7's hand dead and play continues ? or should the dealer shuffle seat #7's three cards, let him choose two and play those, then using the third card as the burn card.....I've seen this last option occur at casinos.
I would love to hear some feedback......thanks | 2019/02/14 | [
"https://poker.stackexchange.com/questions/10349",
"https://poker.stackexchange.com",
"https://poker.stackexchange.com/users/6625/"
] | "Substantial Action" has occurred: two players have added to the pot.
The 3-card hand is dead, and play continues.
TDA and WSOP rules are incredibly clear about this situation:
Substantial Action = "any two actions in turn, at least one of which puts chips in the pot (i.e. any 2 actions except 2 checks or 2 folds)"
I'd be surprised that a casino (in a tournament, particularly) would ever act differently.
ABSOLUTELY NEVER RE-DEAL THE CARDS. This is a terrible solution. | Pretty sure the hand should be declared dead. If you let seat #7 pick two cards he knows the third card is not in play, which gives him an unfair advantage. Not letting him play the hand at all gives him an unfair disadvantage because he is blinding down. Just deal the hand again is the best option. |
10,349 | My question regards a player being dealt 3 cards. (preflop in Texas Hold-em). In this particular situation, a player in seat #7 was dealt 3 cards but failed to notice and immediately speak up. The player under the gun called and the next player called as well. At this time seat #7 says "hey I've got 3 cards".
Is this a misdeal ? or is seat #7's hand dead and play continues ? or should the dealer shuffle seat #7's three cards, let him choose two and play those, then using the third card as the burn card.....I've seen this last option occur at casinos.
I would love to hear some feedback......thanks | 2019/02/14 | [
"https://poker.stackexchange.com/questions/10349",
"https://poker.stackexchange.com",
"https://poker.stackexchange.com/users/6625/"
] | How the floorman handles such situations a matter of the casino's rules and policies, and to some extent his own preferences and experience. I don't like declaring misdeals after there has been action, and most casinos have that as a policy.
Personally, I would declare the player's hand dead, give one of his three cards back to the dealer (unexposed) to use as the first burn, remind the player not to say anything about the cards he saw, and let play continue. I don't like the the shuffle-and-pick-2 for the player, because that requires me to expose the third card, which I think affects the hand much more than just killing one player's hand. | I Think best way to handle would be to call a misdeal I\*ve seen it done both ways and I think the its better to redeal the cards . |
10,349 | My question regards a player being dealt 3 cards. (preflop in Texas Hold-em). In this particular situation, a player in seat #7 was dealt 3 cards but failed to notice and immediately speak up. The player under the gun called and the next player called as well. At this time seat #7 says "hey I've got 3 cards".
Is this a misdeal ? or is seat #7's hand dead and play continues ? or should the dealer shuffle seat #7's three cards, let him choose two and play those, then using the third card as the burn card.....I've seen this last option occur at casinos.
I would love to hear some feedback......thanks | 2019/02/14 | [
"https://poker.stackexchange.com/questions/10349",
"https://poker.stackexchange.com",
"https://poker.stackexchange.com/users/6625/"
] | Dead hand is technically correct.
A dealer making this mistake is not uncommon and rarely results in a dead hand. The player catches it in time or the dealer does. It is no problem and rarely needs the floor attention to make a decision.
The decision comes when the extra card is mingled with the players hand, then it is a problem. While technically the hand is dead, and if a floor is called it should be ruled as such, players especially higher limit players will prefer a misdeal. Everyone mucks and we start over with no decision, or floor person.
A player or two or maybe more usually gets an extra card when I fail to count to five in a five card draw game, which does happen once in awhile. They prefer the misdeal simply because they are more comfortable, starting over then trying to fix something that is not right and they seem to have a disdain for killing hands. They also run the risk that a decision will result in the hand being fixed and they are not comfortable with that. | I Think best way to handle would be to call a misdeal I\*ve seen it done both ways and I think the its better to redeal the cards . |
10,349 | My question regards a player being dealt 3 cards. (preflop in Texas Hold-em). In this particular situation, a player in seat #7 was dealt 3 cards but failed to notice and immediately speak up. The player under the gun called and the next player called as well. At this time seat #7 says "hey I've got 3 cards".
Is this a misdeal ? or is seat #7's hand dead and play continues ? or should the dealer shuffle seat #7's three cards, let him choose two and play those, then using the third card as the burn card.....I've seen this last option occur at casinos.
I would love to hear some feedback......thanks | 2019/02/14 | [
"https://poker.stackexchange.com/questions/10349",
"https://poker.stackexchange.com",
"https://poker.stackexchange.com/users/6625/"
] | "Substantial Action" has occurred: two players have added to the pot.
The 3-card hand is dead, and play continues.
TDA and WSOP rules are incredibly clear about this situation:
Substantial Action = "any two actions in turn, at least one of which puts chips in the pot (i.e. any 2 actions except 2 checks or 2 folds)"
I'd be surprised that a casino (in a tournament, particularly) would ever act differently.
ABSOLUTELY NEVER RE-DEAL THE CARDS. This is a terrible solution. | I Think best way to handle would be to call a misdeal I\*ve seen it done both ways and I think the its better to redeal the cards . |
10,349 | My question regards a player being dealt 3 cards. (preflop in Texas Hold-em). In this particular situation, a player in seat #7 was dealt 3 cards but failed to notice and immediately speak up. The player under the gun called and the next player called as well. At this time seat #7 says "hey I've got 3 cards".
Is this a misdeal ? or is seat #7's hand dead and play continues ? or should the dealer shuffle seat #7's three cards, let him choose two and play those, then using the third card as the burn card.....I've seen this last option occur at casinos.
I would love to hear some feedback......thanks | 2019/02/14 | [
"https://poker.stackexchange.com/questions/10349",
"https://poker.stackexchange.com",
"https://poker.stackexchange.com/users/6625/"
] | How the floorman handles such situations a matter of the casino's rules and policies, and to some extent his own preferences and experience. I don't like declaring misdeals after there has been action, and most casinos have that as a policy.
Personally, I would declare the player's hand dead, give one of his three cards back to the dealer (unexposed) to use as the first burn, remind the player not to say anything about the cards he saw, and let play continue. I don't like the the shuffle-and-pick-2 for the player, because that requires me to expose the third card, which I think affects the hand much more than just killing one player's hand. | Dead hand is technically correct.
A dealer making this mistake is not uncommon and rarely results in a dead hand. The player catches it in time or the dealer does. It is no problem and rarely needs the floor attention to make a decision.
The decision comes when the extra card is mingled with the players hand, then it is a problem. While technically the hand is dead, and if a floor is called it should be ruled as such, players especially higher limit players will prefer a misdeal. Everyone mucks and we start over with no decision, or floor person.
A player or two or maybe more usually gets an extra card when I fail to count to five in a five card draw game, which does happen once in awhile. They prefer the misdeal simply because they are more comfortable, starting over then trying to fix something that is not right and they seem to have a disdain for killing hands. They also run the risk that a decision will result in the hand being fixed and they are not comfortable with that. |
10,349 | My question regards a player being dealt 3 cards. (preflop in Texas Hold-em). In this particular situation, a player in seat #7 was dealt 3 cards but failed to notice and immediately speak up. The player under the gun called and the next player called as well. At this time seat #7 says "hey I've got 3 cards".
Is this a misdeal ? or is seat #7's hand dead and play continues ? or should the dealer shuffle seat #7's three cards, let him choose two and play those, then using the third card as the burn card.....I've seen this last option occur at casinos.
I would love to hear some feedback......thanks | 2019/02/14 | [
"https://poker.stackexchange.com/questions/10349",
"https://poker.stackexchange.com",
"https://poker.stackexchange.com/users/6625/"
] | "Substantial Action" has occurred: two players have added to the pot.
The 3-card hand is dead, and play continues.
TDA and WSOP rules are incredibly clear about this situation:
Substantial Action = "any two actions in turn, at least one of which puts chips in the pot (i.e. any 2 actions except 2 checks or 2 folds)"
I'd be surprised that a casino (in a tournament, particularly) would ever act differently.
ABSOLUTELY NEVER RE-DEAL THE CARDS. This is a terrible solution. | Dead hand is technically correct.
A dealer making this mistake is not uncommon and rarely results in a dead hand. The player catches it in time or the dealer does. It is no problem and rarely needs the floor attention to make a decision.
The decision comes when the extra card is mingled with the players hand, then it is a problem. While technically the hand is dead, and if a floor is called it should be ruled as such, players especially higher limit players will prefer a misdeal. Everyone mucks and we start over with no decision, or floor person.
A player or two or maybe more usually gets an extra card when I fail to count to five in a five card draw game, which does happen once in awhile. They prefer the misdeal simply because they are more comfortable, starting over then trying to fix something that is not right and they seem to have a disdain for killing hands. They also run the risk that a decision will result in the hand being fixed and they are not comfortable with that. |
9,811 | I'm looking at needing to acquire personal health insurance in the next few months as I move from a job with good benefits to self-employment, and I've found that it's pretty difficult to compare the quality of the various plans out there.
A friend of mine has had a terrible experience with a major company (Aetna), so I'm somewhat sensitized to the risks. However, when I try to Google for information or reviews, I get nothing but internet marketing spam/sales pages, so that's been worse than useless.
How can I find honest information about my options? Is asking around for personal experiences/trial and error the only way? | 2011/07/23 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/9811",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/4245/"
] | [Here's an old-ish article](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/business/smallbusiness/27sbiz.html) from the NYT that discusses this. | Health insurance is tough, as you know, because the offerings vary dramatically by State, and there is the added complication of the Affordable Care Act, which depending on where and who you are has had either a good or bad impact on the available options.
If you are a sole proprietor or other business person, I'd advise talking to someone at a local chamber of commerce. Also, professional organizations like the IEEE or ACM (for IT professionals) often offer catastrophic medical or other health plans.
Some employer plans give you the option to continue coverage at a higher cost when COBRA lapses as well.
If you can't afford a comprehensive plan, make sure to get *something* to protect you against pre-existing conditions or hospitalization. |
9,811 | I'm looking at needing to acquire personal health insurance in the next few months as I move from a job with good benefits to self-employment, and I've found that it's pretty difficult to compare the quality of the various plans out there.
A friend of mine has had a terrible experience with a major company (Aetna), so I'm somewhat sensitized to the risks. However, when I try to Google for information or reviews, I get nothing but internet marketing spam/sales pages, so that's been worse than useless.
How can I find honest information about my options? Is asking around for personal experiences/trial and error the only way? | 2011/07/23 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/9811",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/4245/"
] | I was in your situation a few years ago and I discovered something that worked perfectly for me - a local health insurance broker. I met with her, discussed my needs, reviewed the options with her, then acted. She received a commission from the insurer, so it cost me nothing. I would certainly follow a similar approach again. | [Here's an old-ish article](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/business/smallbusiness/27sbiz.html) from the NYT that discusses this. |
9,811 | I'm looking at needing to acquire personal health insurance in the next few months as I move from a job with good benefits to self-employment, and I've found that it's pretty difficult to compare the quality of the various plans out there.
A friend of mine has had a terrible experience with a major company (Aetna), so I'm somewhat sensitized to the risks. However, when I try to Google for information or reviews, I get nothing but internet marketing spam/sales pages, so that's been worse than useless.
How can I find honest information about my options? Is asking around for personal experiences/trial and error the only way? | 2011/07/23 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/9811",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/4245/"
] | I was in your situation a few years ago and I discovered something that worked perfectly for me - a local health insurance broker. I met with her, discussed my needs, reviewed the options with her, then acted. She received a commission from the insurer, so it cost me nothing. I would certainly follow a similar approach again. | Health insurance is tough, as you know, because the offerings vary dramatically by State, and there is the added complication of the Affordable Care Act, which depending on where and who you are has had either a good or bad impact on the available options.
If you are a sole proprietor or other business person, I'd advise talking to someone at a local chamber of commerce. Also, professional organizations like the IEEE or ACM (for IT professionals) often offer catastrophic medical or other health plans.
Some employer plans give you the option to continue coverage at a higher cost when COBRA lapses as well.
If you can't afford a comprehensive plan, make sure to get *something* to protect you against pre-existing conditions or hospitalization. |
32,849,147 | Google provides a reference application for EME with PlayReady. See EME with PlayReady: <http://goo.gl/0vdok>
Which browser/operating system combination supports this reference setup? According to the documentation from Microsoft Internet Explorer 11 should support EME/PR on Win 8.1 or Win 10, but in my tests the Internet Explorer does not recognize the video format. | 2015/09/29 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/32849147",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/4597945/"
] | Microsoft published this video player reference with PlayReady encyrpted content plays back in IE11 and Edge on Win8.1/10. You can also input your stream to test: <http://aka.ms/azuremediaplayer?url=%2F%2Famssamples.streaming.mediaservices.windows.net%2F91492735-c523-432b-ba01-faba6c2206a2%2FAzureMediaServicesPromo.ism%2Fmanifest>. You could also see Widevine encrypted content playback in Chrome using the same player.
Azure Media Player is a JavaScript player that detects the browser capability and choose appropriate streaming protocols and DRM technology accordingly. It is free to use with Azure Media Services.
Cheers,
Mingfei Yan | You are correct in stating that IE11 on Win8.1+ supports the PlayReady Content Decryption Module (CDM) with EME. I am not sure about the player at the link you provided (<http://goo.gl/0vdok>), but one good way to test this fact is to use a player which correctly uses whatever CDM is in the current browser, such as this one: <http://www.dash-player.com/demo/drm-test-area/>.
This player will use the WideVine CDM on Chrome, and the PlayReady CDM on IE11+ on Win8.1+. |
169,020 | I have used Google Now Launcher on my Redmi 1S that runs Lineage OS 14.1. And, now I am using Nova Launcher as home app(launcher). I have uninstalled Google Now Launcher, and also, its not present in app list. But, it is still listed in launcher settings (Settings->Apps->Configure Apps (settings icon)->Home App). I have tried to clear cache from recovery, but have no result. I have uninstalled Nova launcher, but still it shows Google Now launcher, and Trebuchet to set as Home App. May be it got saved somewhere permanently, otherwise I have tried to make Google Now launcher as system app, it may be happened due to this. How to solve | 2017/02/13 | [
"https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/169020",
"https://android.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.stackexchange.com/users/103614/"
] | Just clearing the cache didn't fix the problem. But restarting the phone afterwards solved it. | I think it is becasue of cache files go in settings>storages>cache data and clear them. |
114,454 | Near the end of *Interstellar*,
>
> Cooper falls into Gargantua.
>
>
>
Time dilation is a huge part of *Interstellar*'s plot. But all of a sudden, at the above mentioned point, time dilation stops being a factor.
>
> From the point of view of an outside observer, an object's or person's crossing of the event horizon would *never* occur. How could he exit the black hole and come out at a time apparently close to when he entered?
>
>
>
Is there an explanation for this besides plot convenience? I don't think the answer is time travel, otherwise the whole plot of the movie seems rather silly.
>
> In the movie, only gravity is shown to be able to travel backwards through time, not matter or energy. Otherwise, it would have been much simpler and more reliable to send back an implement of salvation rather than getting someone to travel into a black hole to learn a unifying solution for gravity.
>
>
> | 2016/01/11 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/114454",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/41328/"
] | **Because Tesseract**
If I'm reading the question correctly, the core is why Cooper isn't effected by the black hole's gravitational time dilation for his time saving the Earth. However, all the time Coop spends saving Earth occurs not within the black hole itself, but [in The Tesseract created for him by the future descendants of Plan B](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/72319/who-exactly-constructed-the-tesseract-room-in-interstellar). Within the confines of The Tesseract he is fifth-dimensional (for lack of a better word) and all of the communication he is doing back to Earth via gravity is more less or timeless to him. Once he leaves the Tesseract, he's returning to our four-dimensional space and is again subject to time dilation before meeting his daughter. | **There's no universal time standard. All time is relative.**
An observer far enough from the black hole's event horizon will never *see* him fall, but for him, crossing the event horizon will happen quickly. Coming out of the black hole without backtracking on his path would allow this apparent paradox.
You may not see him crossing, but it doesn't mean he hasn't crossed the event horizon. Time is different for both of them. Were he to do the same thing again, he would never meet himself. He's not "stopped" at the edge of the black hole for all eternity.
I don't "get" general relativity, but in special relativity you only need high relative speeds to wreak havoc in our sense of causality. Two observers may not agree on the order two separate events occur: one may see "A" before "B" while the other will swear "B" happened before "A". And you don't even need astronomical distances for that, both events may happen side by side, so to speak. See this excelent [explanation](http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/index.html) for details (in Part II, the [Car and Barn paradox](http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_part2.html#sec:carbarn), the observers can't agree on the order of the events). |
114,454 | Near the end of *Interstellar*,
>
> Cooper falls into Gargantua.
>
>
>
Time dilation is a huge part of *Interstellar*'s plot. But all of a sudden, at the above mentioned point, time dilation stops being a factor.
>
> From the point of view of an outside observer, an object's or person's crossing of the event horizon would *never* occur. How could he exit the black hole and come out at a time apparently close to when he entered?
>
>
>
Is there an explanation for this besides plot convenience? I don't think the answer is time travel, otherwise the whole plot of the movie seems rather silly.
>
> In the movie, only gravity is shown to be able to travel backwards through time, not matter or energy. Otherwise, it would have been much simpler and more reliable to send back an implement of salvation rather than getting someone to travel into a black hole to learn a unifying solution for gravity.
>
>
> | 2016/01/11 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/114454",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/41328/"
] | ***Shorter answer:*** The only objective notion of traveling into the past in general relativity is traveling into one's own past light cone, and if you travel into a black hole, your past light cone does not encompass the the entire infinite future history of the outside universe until you cross a particular boundary inside the black hole which *The Science of Interstellar* refers to as the "infalling singularity". But the book also mentions that Cooper is scooped up by the Tesseract when he crosses a distinct horizon called the "outflying singularity", and that at this point his past light cone would *not* include the entire future history of Amelia Brand or the Earth, so as long as he returns to our solar system at a point further in the future than anything included in his past light cone at the moment he was scooped up, he doesn't do any backwards time traveling.
***Longer answer:*** There is [no absolute notion of "simultaneity" in relativity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity)--different coordinate systems can disagree on which pairs of events happened "at the same time", so in one coordinate system Cooper's crossing the event horizon might not be simultaneous with any event on an outside observer's worldline (say, Amelia Brand's) no matter how old they get, while in another coordinate system the event of Cooper crossing the horizon could be simultaneous with Amelia Brand's clock showing only a finite time elapsed since he departed from her, although no matter what coordinate system you use, she will never actually *see* the light from the event of his crossing the horizon ('simultaneity' in a given coordinate system is distinct from visual appearances). For this reason, time dilation, or the rate that one clock is ticking relative to another clock, is coordinate-dependent as well, there isn't really a unique physical answer to the question of how one clock is time-dilated relative to another, although all coordinate systems do agree on how fast each observer can *see* each other's clock ticking visually if they use light signals, and they also agree on how much time will have elapsed on each observer's clock if they depart from a common point in spacetime and later reunite at another point in spacetime (see the [twin paradox](http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_paradox.html)).
The only meaningful notion of traveling into one's "own past" in general relativity is when you can enter into the past [light cone](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone) of some event that you already experienced at an earlier time according to your own clock. The idea of the "past light cone" of a given event A is the complete set of all other events that could have sent a signal, traveling at the speed of light or slower, which would be able to reach A (see [here](http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/spacetime/#Light) for some basic visualizations of the concept). So at a given event A on your own worldline, any past event you see at that moment using light is, by definition, on the outer surface of your past light cone at the moment you see it, since it's an event which could only influence A by a signal traveling at exactly the speed of light.
So pick the moment right before Cooper gets scooped out of our 3D space and into a higher dimension by the Tesseract. His past light cone at this moment does *not* include events arbitrarily far in the future of the moment he departed from Amelia Brand--if he aimed his telescope at Amelia Brand it would show only a finite amount of time had passed on her clock since he departed from her, and if at that moment he was receiving a radio signal from Earth (traveling through the wormhole) it would also show only a finite number of years had passed since he had left Earth. The only way his past light cone could include all of the infinite future history of Amelia and the Earth (or an ideal indestructible object alongside each one, since neither Amelia nor the Earth will actually last forever) would be if, as he traveled into the black hole, he saw the entire infinite future history of the universe outside the black hole compressed into a finite period. But as mentioned in [this answer](http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/fall_in.html) from the [Usenet Physics FAQ](http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/) (hosted on the site of physicist John Baez), this doesn't happen when you enter a black hole, at least not immediately after you cross the initial event horizon:
>
> If an external observer sees me slow down asymptotically as I fall, it might seem reasonable that I'd see the universe speed up asymptotically—that I'd see the universe end in a spectacular flash as I went through the horizon. This isn't the case, though. What an external observer sees depends on what light does after I emit it. What I see, however, depends on what light does before it gets to me. And there's no way that light from future events far away can get to me. Faraway events in the arbitrarily distant future never end up on my "past light-cone," the surface made of light rays that get to me at a given time.
>
>
>
This means that if I depart from a friend orbiting outside a black hole when she's celebrating, say, her 30th birthday, both of the following can be true:
1. She will never see me cross the horizon, i.e. even when she dies at say age 90, the event of my crossing the horizon is still outside her past light cone.
2. Immediately after I cross the horizon, *my* past light cone will not include her entire future history--for example, the event of her reaching age 32 might be outside my past light cone, and thus not part of my own causal past.
So, if the rule is just that Cooper can't travel into his past light cone, there's not necessarily any issue with him traveling to a point in spacetime when Amelia was only a few years older than when he left her, even though she never sees him cross the horizon. The exact number of years would presumably depend on some general relativity calculation I don't know how to do, and I'm not sure if the filmmakers actually designed an exact trajectory for Cooper and calculated his past light cone at every point along it up until he was scooped up by the tesseract (this isn't mentioned in *The Science of Interstellar*). Note however that you can't necessarily assume that just because a brief orbital maneuver near the black hole caused several decades to be added to the outside universe, that Cooper's fall would do the same--gravitational time dilation is not just a function of radius but also of motion, and while an observer hovering or orbiting at a fixed distance above the horizon will see the outside universe aging faster and faster the closer the distance, with the rate of outside aging approaching infinity as the distance above the horizon approaches zero, a *falling* observer does not see the rate of aging of the outside universe approaching infinity as they approach the horizon (if they did, then their past light cone at the moment they crossed would necessarily include the entire infinite future history of the universe).
Things get even more complex if we consider the case of a rotating black hole, which is what Gargantua in Interstellar is supposed to be. An ideal eternal rotating black hole--a [Kerr black hole](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_metric)--would have, in addition to the outer event horizon, a second "inner" event horizon prior to the central singularity, also known as a [Cauchy horizon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy_surface#Cauchy_Horizon). At this point, there is an infinite [blueshift](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueshift) of waves falling in from outside (their wavelength gets compressed to zero), which means that as you cross this boundary you *would* ideally see the entire infinite future history of the universe pass in a finite time. This is also discussed in the FAQ entry above:
>
> That, at least, is the story for an uncharged, nonrotating black hole. For charged or rotating holes, the story is different. Such holes can contain, in the idealized solutions, "timelike wormholes" which serve as gateways to otherwise disconnected regions—effectively, different universes. Instead of hitting the singularity, I can go through the wormhole. But at the entrance to the wormhole, which acts as a kind of inner event horizon, an infinite speed-up effect actually does occur. If I fall into the wormhole I see the entire history of the universe outside play itself out to the end. Even worse, as the picture speeds up the light gets blueshifted and more energetic, so that as I pass into the wormhole an "infinite blueshift" happens which fries me with hard radiation. There is apparently good reason to believe that the infinite blueshift would imperil the wormhole itself, replacing it with a singularity no less pernicious than the one I've managed to miss. In any case it would render wormhole travel an undertaking of questionable practicality.
>
>
>
And the situation becomes still more complicated if you consider a more realistic rotating black hole. The Kerr black hole is idealized as existing eternally in a perfect vacuum, but the more realistic version would be a rotating black hole that forms collapsing rotating star, and also has light waves and gravitational waves continuing to fall in from the outside even after the original star has collapsed. In this case, the fact that waves falling in from outside become infinitely blueshifted at the inner horizon means that the horizon actually becomes a type of singularity where the energy density goes to infinite, distinct from the singularity at the "center" of the black hole. What's more, Kip Thorne mentions in *The Science of Interstellar* that recent theoretical work suggests there are actually *two* distinct blueshift singularities in a rotating black hole distinct from the central singularity, with the more newly-discovered singularity owing to waves that get reflected backwards prior to reaching the inner horizon, and an observer that falls in can cross a boundary where he meets up with all the reflections from waves that fell through the horizon *before* he did, again infinitely blueshifted so they create a singularity. Thorne labels the singularity at the inner horizon the "infalling singularity", and the newly-discovered singularity caused by reflected waves the "outflying singularity". I quoted from passages where he discussed this in [this answer](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/a/86187/22250) to another Interstellar question, if you're interested.
And Thorne also mentions in *The Science of Interstellar* that it was decided that the Tesseract scooped Cooper up at the outflying singularity, not the infalling singularity. Thorne also says that observer's past light cone would *not* include the entire future history of all the waves falling in from the outside universe as they crossed the outflying singularity, unlike with the infalling singularity (the infalling singularity might not include the entire *infinite* future history of the universe for a realistic black hole since physicists now believe that black holes eventually evaporate, but you would at least be able to see the future of the universe up to the evaporation point as you approached the infalling singularity). Further, it's mentioned that the main reason for this decision was that they had already settled on a science-fictional rule that only gravitational signals could actually travel into a person's own past light cone (which is why Cooper had to signal his daughter using gravitational waves), the Tesseract couldn't actually take Cooper back in time to walk around in his own past or interact in any non-gravitational way with it. From chapter 28 of *The Science of Interstellar*, p. 249:
>
> When I explained the two singularities to Chris [Nolan], he immediately knew which one should hit the Ranger. The outflying singularity. Why? Because Chris had already adopted, for *Interstellar*, a variant of the laws of physics that prevents physical objects from ever traveling backward in time (Chapter 30). The infalling singularity is produced by stuff that falls into Gargantua long after Cooper falls in (long after, as measured by the external universe's time; Earth's time). If Cooper is hit by that singularity and survives, the universe's far future will be in his past. He will be so far in *our* future that, even with the help of the bulk beings, he won't be able to return to the solar system until billions of years after he left, if ever. That would prevent him from ever reuniting with is daughter, Murph.
>
>
> So Chris firmly chose Cooper to be hit by the outflying singularity, not the infalling one—hit by the singularity arising from stuff that fell into Gargantua *before* the Ranger, not after it.
>
>
>
And chapter 30 goes into more detail on the rule that only gravitational signals, not people or other objects, can physically interact with their own past (i.e. things within their own past light cone). From p. 263:
>
> Chris made two specific choices for allowed and forbidden time travel—his rule set:
>
>
> Rule 1: Physical objects and fields with three space dimensions, such as people and light rays, cannot travel backward in time from one location in our brane [i.e. our own spacetime with 3 space dimensions and 1 time dimension] to another, nor can information that they carry. The physical laws or the actual warping of spacetime prevent it. This is true whether the objects are forever lodged in our brane or journey through the bulk [the extra space dimension posited in the movie, which is also possible in some real-world theoretical physics models] in a three-dimensional face of a tesseract, from one point in our brane to another. So, in particular, Cooper can never travel to his own past.
>
>
> Rule 2: Gravitational forces can carry messages into our brane's past.
>
>
>
So, you can see that they were careful to arrange things so that Cooper being deposited in our solar system less than a century or so after he left was consistent with these rules, in spite of his journey into the black hole. | **There's no universal time standard. All time is relative.**
An observer far enough from the black hole's event horizon will never *see* him fall, but for him, crossing the event horizon will happen quickly. Coming out of the black hole without backtracking on his path would allow this apparent paradox.
You may not see him crossing, but it doesn't mean he hasn't crossed the event horizon. Time is different for both of them. Were he to do the same thing again, he would never meet himself. He's not "stopped" at the edge of the black hole for all eternity.
I don't "get" general relativity, but in special relativity you only need high relative speeds to wreak havoc in our sense of causality. Two observers may not agree on the order two separate events occur: one may see "A" before "B" while the other will swear "B" happened before "A". And you don't even need astronomical distances for that, both events may happen side by side, so to speak. See this excelent [explanation](http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/index.html) for details (in Part II, the [Car and Barn paradox](http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_part2.html#sec:carbarn), the observers can't agree on the order of the events). |
114,454 | Near the end of *Interstellar*,
>
> Cooper falls into Gargantua.
>
>
>
Time dilation is a huge part of *Interstellar*'s plot. But all of a sudden, at the above mentioned point, time dilation stops being a factor.
>
> From the point of view of an outside observer, an object's or person's crossing of the event horizon would *never* occur. How could he exit the black hole and come out at a time apparently close to when he entered?
>
>
>
Is there an explanation for this besides plot convenience? I don't think the answer is time travel, otherwise the whole plot of the movie seems rather silly.
>
> In the movie, only gravity is shown to be able to travel backwards through time, not matter or energy. Otherwise, it would have been much simpler and more reliable to send back an implement of salvation rather than getting someone to travel into a black hole to learn a unifying solution for gravity.
>
>
> | 2016/01/11 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/114454",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/41328/"
] | ***Shorter answer:*** The only objective notion of traveling into the past in general relativity is traveling into one's own past light cone, and if you travel into a black hole, your past light cone does not encompass the the entire infinite future history of the outside universe until you cross a particular boundary inside the black hole which *The Science of Interstellar* refers to as the "infalling singularity". But the book also mentions that Cooper is scooped up by the Tesseract when he crosses a distinct horizon called the "outflying singularity", and that at this point his past light cone would *not* include the entire future history of Amelia Brand or the Earth, so as long as he returns to our solar system at a point further in the future than anything included in his past light cone at the moment he was scooped up, he doesn't do any backwards time traveling.
***Longer answer:*** There is [no absolute notion of "simultaneity" in relativity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity)--different coordinate systems can disagree on which pairs of events happened "at the same time", so in one coordinate system Cooper's crossing the event horizon might not be simultaneous with any event on an outside observer's worldline (say, Amelia Brand's) no matter how old they get, while in another coordinate system the event of Cooper crossing the horizon could be simultaneous with Amelia Brand's clock showing only a finite time elapsed since he departed from her, although no matter what coordinate system you use, she will never actually *see* the light from the event of his crossing the horizon ('simultaneity' in a given coordinate system is distinct from visual appearances). For this reason, time dilation, or the rate that one clock is ticking relative to another clock, is coordinate-dependent as well, there isn't really a unique physical answer to the question of how one clock is time-dilated relative to another, although all coordinate systems do agree on how fast each observer can *see* each other's clock ticking visually if they use light signals, and they also agree on how much time will have elapsed on each observer's clock if they depart from a common point in spacetime and later reunite at another point in spacetime (see the [twin paradox](http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_paradox.html)).
The only meaningful notion of traveling into one's "own past" in general relativity is when you can enter into the past [light cone](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone) of some event that you already experienced at an earlier time according to your own clock. The idea of the "past light cone" of a given event A is the complete set of all other events that could have sent a signal, traveling at the speed of light or slower, which would be able to reach A (see [here](http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/spacetime/#Light) for some basic visualizations of the concept). So at a given event A on your own worldline, any past event you see at that moment using light is, by definition, on the outer surface of your past light cone at the moment you see it, since it's an event which could only influence A by a signal traveling at exactly the speed of light.
So pick the moment right before Cooper gets scooped out of our 3D space and into a higher dimension by the Tesseract. His past light cone at this moment does *not* include events arbitrarily far in the future of the moment he departed from Amelia Brand--if he aimed his telescope at Amelia Brand it would show only a finite amount of time had passed on her clock since he departed from her, and if at that moment he was receiving a radio signal from Earth (traveling through the wormhole) it would also show only a finite number of years had passed since he had left Earth. The only way his past light cone could include all of the infinite future history of Amelia and the Earth (or an ideal indestructible object alongside each one, since neither Amelia nor the Earth will actually last forever) would be if, as he traveled into the black hole, he saw the entire infinite future history of the universe outside the black hole compressed into a finite period. But as mentioned in [this answer](http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/fall_in.html) from the [Usenet Physics FAQ](http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/) (hosted on the site of physicist John Baez), this doesn't happen when you enter a black hole, at least not immediately after you cross the initial event horizon:
>
> If an external observer sees me slow down asymptotically as I fall, it might seem reasonable that I'd see the universe speed up asymptotically—that I'd see the universe end in a spectacular flash as I went through the horizon. This isn't the case, though. What an external observer sees depends on what light does after I emit it. What I see, however, depends on what light does before it gets to me. And there's no way that light from future events far away can get to me. Faraway events in the arbitrarily distant future never end up on my "past light-cone," the surface made of light rays that get to me at a given time.
>
>
>
This means that if I depart from a friend orbiting outside a black hole when she's celebrating, say, her 30th birthday, both of the following can be true:
1. She will never see me cross the horizon, i.e. even when she dies at say age 90, the event of my crossing the horizon is still outside her past light cone.
2. Immediately after I cross the horizon, *my* past light cone will not include her entire future history--for example, the event of her reaching age 32 might be outside my past light cone, and thus not part of my own causal past.
So, if the rule is just that Cooper can't travel into his past light cone, there's not necessarily any issue with him traveling to a point in spacetime when Amelia was only a few years older than when he left her, even though she never sees him cross the horizon. The exact number of years would presumably depend on some general relativity calculation I don't know how to do, and I'm not sure if the filmmakers actually designed an exact trajectory for Cooper and calculated his past light cone at every point along it up until he was scooped up by the tesseract (this isn't mentioned in *The Science of Interstellar*). Note however that you can't necessarily assume that just because a brief orbital maneuver near the black hole caused several decades to be added to the outside universe, that Cooper's fall would do the same--gravitational time dilation is not just a function of radius but also of motion, and while an observer hovering or orbiting at a fixed distance above the horizon will see the outside universe aging faster and faster the closer the distance, with the rate of outside aging approaching infinity as the distance above the horizon approaches zero, a *falling* observer does not see the rate of aging of the outside universe approaching infinity as they approach the horizon (if they did, then their past light cone at the moment they crossed would necessarily include the entire infinite future history of the universe).
Things get even more complex if we consider the case of a rotating black hole, which is what Gargantua in Interstellar is supposed to be. An ideal eternal rotating black hole--a [Kerr black hole](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_metric)--would have, in addition to the outer event horizon, a second "inner" event horizon prior to the central singularity, also known as a [Cauchy horizon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy_surface#Cauchy_Horizon). At this point, there is an infinite [blueshift](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueshift) of waves falling in from outside (their wavelength gets compressed to zero), which means that as you cross this boundary you *would* ideally see the entire infinite future history of the universe pass in a finite time. This is also discussed in the FAQ entry above:
>
> That, at least, is the story for an uncharged, nonrotating black hole. For charged or rotating holes, the story is different. Such holes can contain, in the idealized solutions, "timelike wormholes" which serve as gateways to otherwise disconnected regions—effectively, different universes. Instead of hitting the singularity, I can go through the wormhole. But at the entrance to the wormhole, which acts as a kind of inner event horizon, an infinite speed-up effect actually does occur. If I fall into the wormhole I see the entire history of the universe outside play itself out to the end. Even worse, as the picture speeds up the light gets blueshifted and more energetic, so that as I pass into the wormhole an "infinite blueshift" happens which fries me with hard radiation. There is apparently good reason to believe that the infinite blueshift would imperil the wormhole itself, replacing it with a singularity no less pernicious than the one I've managed to miss. In any case it would render wormhole travel an undertaking of questionable practicality.
>
>
>
And the situation becomes still more complicated if you consider a more realistic rotating black hole. The Kerr black hole is idealized as existing eternally in a perfect vacuum, but the more realistic version would be a rotating black hole that forms collapsing rotating star, and also has light waves and gravitational waves continuing to fall in from the outside even after the original star has collapsed. In this case, the fact that waves falling in from outside become infinitely blueshifted at the inner horizon means that the horizon actually becomes a type of singularity where the energy density goes to infinite, distinct from the singularity at the "center" of the black hole. What's more, Kip Thorne mentions in *The Science of Interstellar* that recent theoretical work suggests there are actually *two* distinct blueshift singularities in a rotating black hole distinct from the central singularity, with the more newly-discovered singularity owing to waves that get reflected backwards prior to reaching the inner horizon, and an observer that falls in can cross a boundary where he meets up with all the reflections from waves that fell through the horizon *before* he did, again infinitely blueshifted so they create a singularity. Thorne labels the singularity at the inner horizon the "infalling singularity", and the newly-discovered singularity caused by reflected waves the "outflying singularity". I quoted from passages where he discussed this in [this answer](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/a/86187/22250) to another Interstellar question, if you're interested.
And Thorne also mentions in *The Science of Interstellar* that it was decided that the Tesseract scooped Cooper up at the outflying singularity, not the infalling singularity. Thorne also says that observer's past light cone would *not* include the entire future history of all the waves falling in from the outside universe as they crossed the outflying singularity, unlike with the infalling singularity (the infalling singularity might not include the entire *infinite* future history of the universe for a realistic black hole since physicists now believe that black holes eventually evaporate, but you would at least be able to see the future of the universe up to the evaporation point as you approached the infalling singularity). Further, it's mentioned that the main reason for this decision was that they had already settled on a science-fictional rule that only gravitational signals could actually travel into a person's own past light cone (which is why Cooper had to signal his daughter using gravitational waves), the Tesseract couldn't actually take Cooper back in time to walk around in his own past or interact in any non-gravitational way with it. From chapter 28 of *The Science of Interstellar*, p. 249:
>
> When I explained the two singularities to Chris [Nolan], he immediately knew which one should hit the Ranger. The outflying singularity. Why? Because Chris had already adopted, for *Interstellar*, a variant of the laws of physics that prevents physical objects from ever traveling backward in time (Chapter 30). The infalling singularity is produced by stuff that falls into Gargantua long after Cooper falls in (long after, as measured by the external universe's time; Earth's time). If Cooper is hit by that singularity and survives, the universe's far future will be in his past. He will be so far in *our* future that, even with the help of the bulk beings, he won't be able to return to the solar system until billions of years after he left, if ever. That would prevent him from ever reuniting with is daughter, Murph.
>
>
> So Chris firmly chose Cooper to be hit by the outflying singularity, not the infalling one—hit by the singularity arising from stuff that fell into Gargantua *before* the Ranger, not after it.
>
>
>
And chapter 30 goes into more detail on the rule that only gravitational signals, not people or other objects, can physically interact with their own past (i.e. things within their own past light cone). From p. 263:
>
> Chris made two specific choices for allowed and forbidden time travel—his rule set:
>
>
> Rule 1: Physical objects and fields with three space dimensions, such as people and light rays, cannot travel backward in time from one location in our brane [i.e. our own spacetime with 3 space dimensions and 1 time dimension] to another, nor can information that they carry. The physical laws or the actual warping of spacetime prevent it. This is true whether the objects are forever lodged in our brane or journey through the bulk [the extra space dimension posited in the movie, which is also possible in some real-world theoretical physics models] in a three-dimensional face of a tesseract, from one point in our brane to another. So, in particular, Cooper can never travel to his own past.
>
>
> Rule 2: Gravitational forces can carry messages into our brane's past.
>
>
>
So, you can see that they were careful to arrange things so that Cooper being deposited in our solar system less than a century or so after he left was consistent with these rules, in spite of his journey into the black hole. | **Because Tesseract**
If I'm reading the question correctly, the core is why Cooper isn't effected by the black hole's gravitational time dilation for his time saving the Earth. However, all the time Coop spends saving Earth occurs not within the black hole itself, but [in The Tesseract created for him by the future descendants of Plan B](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/72319/who-exactly-constructed-the-tesseract-room-in-interstellar). Within the confines of The Tesseract he is fifth-dimensional (for lack of a better word) and all of the communication he is doing back to Earth via gravity is more less or timeless to him. Once he leaves the Tesseract, he's returning to our four-dimensional space and is again subject to time dilation before meeting his daughter. |
368,856 | (Not entirely sure whether this should go in the information-security StackExchange instead; feel free to move it there if that's where it belongs.)
Unicode has many, many instances of pairs or larger sets of characters with identical glyphs nevertheless being assigned to separate codepoints (for instance, the Latin capital letter A, the Cyrillic capital letter А, and the Greek capital letter Α all have identical glyphs, but are assigned to codepoints U+0041, U+0410, and U+0391, respectively). This causes [severe security issues](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDN_homograph_attack), as well as the more minor problem of cluttering up Unicode with redundant characters.
Why doesn't Unicode assign all characters that share a particular glyph to the same codepoint, which would resolve both of these problems? | 2018/04/04 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/368856",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/302059/"
] | Consider U+0391: GREEK CAPITAL LETTER ALPHA. The lowercase version of that is U+03B1: GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA. If this were instead U+0041, the lowercase version would be U+0061, which is very much a different glyph from U+03B1.
Now you might say that the Cyrilic upper/lowercase versions both use the same glyph as the Latin upper/lowercase versions. But the Cyrilic block was adopted from a particular encoding: [ISO/IEC 8859-5: Latin/Cyrilic alphabet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO/IEC_8859-5). Most of the Cyrilic letters have no equivalent in the Latin alphabet, but there are several in that standard which do. In order to allow Unicode to properly round-trip encode text that was encoded in 8859-5, it had to retain those Cyrilic characters that shared glyphs with Latin or other characters.
It should also be noted that most Cyrilic letters that share glyphs with Latin letters have different names. And therefore, if you wanted to read Cyrilic text letter-by-letter, you need to be able to tell the difference between the Latin and Cyrilic letters.
In short, these encodings are not redundant. Unicode is about the character, not its visual representation. Overall, Unicode was never meant to have a unique mapping from glyph to codepoint. | In my opinion, the main principle behind Unicode is not achieving some kind of linguistic purity, but being **useful** in the real world:
1. If things don't get their own code point in Unicode, they cannot be distinguished without additional metadata. This may be exactly what one wants in one case (think of the glyph variants for lower case Latin a), but not in another (e.g. Latin vs Cyrillic "a").
2. A character set such as ASCII does not just encode individual characters in random fashion but reflects alphabetical order and makes uppercasing/lowercasing comparatively easy to implement. While these features are not strictly necessary for encoding text, it certainly makes life easier for developers and the computer.
3. Unicode *does* minimize the amount of "identical" characters where this is sensible, a look at [CJK Unified Ideographs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CJK_Unified_Ideographs) illustrates this well. Chinese, Japanese and Korean all use Chinese Characters to some degree.
A huge subset of these characters (tens of thousands) can be considered identical across languages (just like Latin a is shared across many languages) and therefore only get a single code point each. Some glyphs may nevertheless slightly differ in appearance (see the article), depending on the display language/font.
On the other hand, there is also a substantial amount of "[simplified](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_on_traditional_and_simplified_Chinese_characters)" and variant characters which are synonymous in meaning to another character but receive their own code point in order to encode simplified and traditional Chinese with no additional metadata (e.g. markup).
4. There is an inherent element of [arbitrariness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_language_is_a_dialect_with_an_army_and_navy) to all this. Consider the [Antiqua vs. Fraktur dispute](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiqua%E2%80%93Fraktur_dispute). If people want to display/print German in Blackletter then they have to select a suitable font in a rich text document, Unicode does not consider Blackletter as distinct characters... except when it does(!) in the capacity as mathematical [symbols](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackletter#Unicode). |
13,271,772 | I have a website written in PHP, the website accepts code snippets written in different programming languages (Java and C#) and perform some static analysis and returns the results to the user. I already wrote different analyzers for Java and C# respectively. The Java analyzer is written in Java; the C# analyzer is written in C#.
My problem is how the PHP website can communicate with those analyzers written in different languages in an efficient way. That is: when the PHP website receives some Java code, it can invokes the Java analyzer, etc. I can of course use PHP’s exec to launch the analyzer process, but that is too slow. | 2012/11/07 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/13271772",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1558128/"
] | I would use Web Services, because they are easy to develop, extensible, scalable, plataform independant, and language independant, and supports standard http protocols; not sure if you will use all the advantages that SOA offers, and probably it's not the best approach, but i would go for it.
Hope it helps.
[Web Service](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_service)
[Web Services Tutorial](http://www.w3schools.com/webservices/default.asp) | For C# i would host it as Windows service and then setup a self hosted WCF service configured for REST. The webserver (PHP) would then communicate using REST
I guess you could do something similar with the Java program, but I do not know how to run it as a service |
583,749 | Imagine you're writing a literature book in English and you want to mention something like the following,
>
> I wanted to crush all the pepper *in one go*, so I used a bigger tool and crushed all of them at once.
>
>
>
I feel like it's not very formal in academia, so what would be a formal word for *in one go*?
(I don't care if my sentence is not grammatically correct, so don't worry about it, I just need a formal synonym.) | 2022/01/27 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/583749",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/445253/"
] | You’ve already found your synonym (*all at once*), and the *OED* has your back. It even uses *in one go* to define it:
>
> **all**, *adj.*, *pron.*, and *n.*, *adv.*, and *conj.*
> PHRASES
>
> **P18.**
>
> **a.** all at once.
>
> **(a)** With everything happening in one go or simultaneously; at one and the same time; all together.
> Source: [*Oxford English
> Dictionary*](https://oed.com) (login required)
>
>
>
Here are some selected usage examples given:
>
> 1588 W. KEMPE *Educ. Children* sig. F2v A sillable
> of eight letters, being too hard for a childe to learne all at once,
> he may learne letter by letter.
>
>
> 1662 R. MATHEWS *Unlearned Alchymist* (new ed.) §82. 109
> She..popt it into her mouth, and swallowed it all at
> once.
>
>
> 1706 *Phillips’s New World of Words* (new ed.) at *Orgues*
> Several Musket-Barrels set in a row within one wooden Stock, to
> be discharged either all at once, or separately.
>
>
> 1930 *Lancet* 27 Sept. 686/2 The recently prepared
> solution is warmed to body heat and may be quite safely injected all
> at once provided it is injected slowly.
>
>
> 1995 *Daily Mirror* 23 Feb. 6/4 Transfer of other
> powers to the new Assembly likely to be phased in rather than
> introduced all at once.
>
>
>
So:
>
> *I wanted to crush the pepper all at once, so I used a bigger tool.*
>
>
> | You could say '[at one fell swoop](https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/at-one-fell-swoop.html)'.
Bit of a cliché, though, and you should avoid clichés like the plague. |
583,749 | Imagine you're writing a literature book in English and you want to mention something like the following,
>
> I wanted to crush all the pepper *in one go*, so I used a bigger tool and crushed all of them at once.
>
>
>
I feel like it's not very formal in academia, so what would be a formal word for *in one go*?
(I don't care if my sentence is not grammatically correct, so don't worry about it, I just need a formal synonym.) | 2022/01/27 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/583749",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/445253/"
] | I suggest (from [Lexico](https://www.lexico.com/definition/attempt))
>
> **attempt**
>
> NOUN
>
>
> An effort to achieve or complete a difficult task or action.
>
>
>
The question mentions 'formal' and 'academia' so I presume it's not entirely about cookery, though I could offer
>
> Jan flipped the pancake at the first attempt.
>
>
> | You could use **at a [single] stroke** etc:
>
> *at one stroke {also, at one blow; at a stroke or blow; in one stroke or blow}*
>
>
> At the same time, with one forceful or quick action.
>
>
>
[[The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer.](https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/in+one+stroke)]
Although usually used metaphorically nowadays, literal examples do exist:
* *Somerset is said to have gone straight up to the unsuspecting Wenlock and at a stroke felled him with his poleaxe.*
[[A Companion and Guide to the Wars of the Roses
By Peter Bramley](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FjQ9AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT220&lpg=PT220&dq=%22at+a+stroke%22+felled&source=bl&ots=DWZhqhoHoQ&sig=ACfU3U3HEmvaZAgTPpp3QoRF9M_w0EqtyA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjmzIzkxNL1AhWPTcAKHaNWBBwQ6AF6BAgnEAM#v=onepage&q=%22at%20a%20stroke%22%20felled&f=false)] |
583,749 | Imagine you're writing a literature book in English and you want to mention something like the following,
>
> I wanted to crush all the pepper *in one go*, so I used a bigger tool and crushed all of them at once.
>
>
>
I feel like it's not very formal in academia, so what would be a formal word for *in one go*?
(I don't care if my sentence is not grammatically correct, so don't worry about it, I just need a formal synonym.) | 2022/01/27 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/583749",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/445253/"
] | I suggest (from [Lexico](https://www.lexico.com/definition/attempt))
>
> **attempt**
>
> NOUN
>
>
> An effort to achieve or complete a difficult task or action.
>
>
>
The question mentions 'formal' and 'academia' so I presume it's not entirely about cookery, though I could offer
>
> Jan flipped the pancake at the first attempt.
>
>
> | >
> I wanted to crush all the pepper **in one batch**, so I used a bigger tool
> and crushed all of it at once.
>
>
>
**batch** (n.)
>
> The quantity of material prepared or required for one operation
> [m-w](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/batch)
>
>
>
I've changed *them* to *it*, since you refer to *pepper*. If you are talking about black pepper, you could also say:
>
> I wanted to crush all the pepper corns **in one batch**, so I used a bigger tool
> and crushed all of them at once.
>
>
> |
583,749 | Imagine you're writing a literature book in English and you want to mention something like the following,
>
> I wanted to crush all the pepper *in one go*, so I used a bigger tool and crushed all of them at once.
>
>
>
I feel like it's not very formal in academia, so what would be a formal word for *in one go*?
(I don't care if my sentence is not grammatically correct, so don't worry about it, I just need a formal synonym.) | 2022/01/27 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/583749",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/445253/"
] | I commented earlier to this effect, but was asked to put that into an answer. So ...
I would say that ***all at once*** fits the bill here rather nicely.
You almost came to it yourself when you said "crushed all of them at once"—but using that together with "in one go" is superfluous at that point. One or the other, but not both. | >
> I wanted to crush all the pepper **in one batch**, so I used a bigger tool
> and crushed all of it at once.
>
>
>
**batch** (n.)
>
> The quantity of material prepared or required for one operation
> [m-w](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/batch)
>
>
>
I've changed *them* to *it*, since you refer to *pepper*. If you are talking about black pepper, you could also say:
>
> I wanted to crush all the pepper corns **in one batch**, so I used a bigger tool
> and crushed all of them at once.
>
>
> |
583,749 | Imagine you're writing a literature book in English and you want to mention something like the following,
>
> I wanted to crush all the pepper *in one go*, so I used a bigger tool and crushed all of them at once.
>
>
>
I feel like it's not very formal in academia, so what would be a formal word for *in one go*?
(I don't care if my sentence is not grammatically correct, so don't worry about it, I just need a formal synonym.) | 2022/01/27 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/583749",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/445253/"
] | You’ve already found your synonym (*all at once*), and the *OED* has your back. It even uses *in one go* to define it:
>
> **all**, *adj.*, *pron.*, and *n.*, *adv.*, and *conj.*
> PHRASES
>
> **P18.**
>
> **a.** all at once.
>
> **(a)** With everything happening in one go or simultaneously; at one and the same time; all together.
> Source: [*Oxford English
> Dictionary*](https://oed.com) (login required)
>
>
>
Here are some selected usage examples given:
>
> 1588 W. KEMPE *Educ. Children* sig. F2v A sillable
> of eight letters, being too hard for a childe to learne all at once,
> he may learne letter by letter.
>
>
> 1662 R. MATHEWS *Unlearned Alchymist* (new ed.) §82. 109
> She..popt it into her mouth, and swallowed it all at
> once.
>
>
> 1706 *Phillips’s New World of Words* (new ed.) at *Orgues*
> Several Musket-Barrels set in a row within one wooden Stock, to
> be discharged either all at once, or separately.
>
>
> 1930 *Lancet* 27 Sept. 686/2 The recently prepared
> solution is warmed to body heat and may be quite safely injected all
> at once provided it is injected slowly.
>
>
> 1995 *Daily Mirror* 23 Feb. 6/4 Transfer of other
> powers to the new Assembly likely to be phased in rather than
> introduced all at once.
>
>
>
So:
>
> *I wanted to crush the pepper all at once, so I used a bigger tool.*
>
>
> | >
> I wanted to crush all the pepper **in one batch**, so I used a bigger tool
> and crushed all of it at once.
>
>
>
**batch** (n.)
>
> The quantity of material prepared or required for one operation
> [m-w](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/batch)
>
>
>
I've changed *them* to *it*, since you refer to *pepper*. If you are talking about black pepper, you could also say:
>
> I wanted to crush all the pepper corns **in one batch**, so I used a bigger tool
> and crushed all of them at once.
>
>
> |
583,749 | Imagine you're writing a literature book in English and you want to mention something like the following,
>
> I wanted to crush all the pepper *in one go*, so I used a bigger tool and crushed all of them at once.
>
>
>
I feel like it's not very formal in academia, so what would be a formal word for *in one go*?
(I don't care if my sentence is not grammatically correct, so don't worry about it, I just need a formal synonym.) | 2022/01/27 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/583749",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/445253/"
] | I commented earlier to this effect, but was asked to put that into an answer. So ...
I would say that ***all at once*** fits the bill here rather nicely.
You almost came to it yourself when you said "crushed all of them at once"—but using that together with "in one go" is superfluous at that point. One or the other, but not both. | "with one whack" comes to mind.
* "I wanted to crush all the pepper **with one whack**, so I used a bigger tool."
>
> * a smart or resounding blow [MW](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whack)
> * a sharp, swift blow [TFD](https://www.thefreedictionary.com/whack)
>
>
>
...tried to split the log with one whack.
...and killed the snake with one whack. |
583,749 | Imagine you're writing a literature book in English and you want to mention something like the following,
>
> I wanted to crush all the pepper *in one go*, so I used a bigger tool and crushed all of them at once.
>
>
>
I feel like it's not very formal in academia, so what would be a formal word for *in one go*?
(I don't care if my sentence is not grammatically correct, so don't worry about it, I just need a formal synonym.) | 2022/01/27 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/583749",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/445253/"
] | I commented earlier to this effect, but was asked to put that into an answer. So ...
I would say that ***all at once*** fits the bill here rather nicely.
You almost came to it yourself when you said "crushed all of them at once"—but using that together with "in one go" is superfluous at that point. One or the other, but not both. | You could use **at a [single] stroke** etc:
>
> *at one stroke {also, at one blow; at a stroke or blow; in one stroke or blow}*
>
>
> At the same time, with one forceful or quick action.
>
>
>
[[The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer.](https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/in+one+stroke)]
Although usually used metaphorically nowadays, literal examples do exist:
* *Somerset is said to have gone straight up to the unsuspecting Wenlock and at a stroke felled him with his poleaxe.*
[[A Companion and Guide to the Wars of the Roses
By Peter Bramley](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FjQ9AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT220&lpg=PT220&dq=%22at+a+stroke%22+felled&source=bl&ots=DWZhqhoHoQ&sig=ACfU3U3HEmvaZAgTPpp3QoRF9M_w0EqtyA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjmzIzkxNL1AhWPTcAKHaNWBBwQ6AF6BAgnEAM#v=onepage&q=%22at%20a%20stroke%22%20felled&f=false)] |
583,749 | Imagine you're writing a literature book in English and you want to mention something like the following,
>
> I wanted to crush all the pepper *in one go*, so I used a bigger tool and crushed all of them at once.
>
>
>
I feel like it's not very formal in academia, so what would be a formal word for *in one go*?
(I don't care if my sentence is not grammatically correct, so don't worry about it, I just need a formal synonym.) | 2022/01/27 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/583749",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/445253/"
] | I commented earlier to this effect, but was asked to put that into an answer. So ...
I would say that ***all at once*** fits the bill here rather nicely.
You almost came to it yourself when you said "crushed all of them at once"—but using that together with "in one go" is superfluous at that point. One or the other, but not both. | You could say '[at one fell swoop](https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/at-one-fell-swoop.html)'.
Bit of a cliché, though, and you should avoid clichés like the plague. |
583,749 | Imagine you're writing a literature book in English and you want to mention something like the following,
>
> I wanted to crush all the pepper *in one go*, so I used a bigger tool and crushed all of them at once.
>
>
>
I feel like it's not very formal in academia, so what would be a formal word for *in one go*?
(I don't care if my sentence is not grammatically correct, so don't worry about it, I just need a formal synonym.) | 2022/01/27 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/583749",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/445253/"
] | I commented earlier to this effect, but was asked to put that into an answer. So ...
I would say that ***all at once*** fits the bill here rather nicely.
You almost came to it yourself when you said "crushed all of them at once"—but using that together with "in one go" is superfluous at that point. One or the other, but not both. | You’ve already found your synonym (*all at once*), and the *OED* has your back. It even uses *in one go* to define it:
>
> **all**, *adj.*, *pron.*, and *n.*, *adv.*, and *conj.*
> PHRASES
>
> **P18.**
>
> **a.** all at once.
>
> **(a)** With everything happening in one go or simultaneously; at one and the same time; all together.
> Source: [*Oxford English
> Dictionary*](https://oed.com) (login required)
>
>
>
Here are some selected usage examples given:
>
> 1588 W. KEMPE *Educ. Children* sig. F2v A sillable
> of eight letters, being too hard for a childe to learne all at once,
> he may learne letter by letter.
>
>
> 1662 R. MATHEWS *Unlearned Alchymist* (new ed.) §82. 109
> She..popt it into her mouth, and swallowed it all at
> once.
>
>
> 1706 *Phillips’s New World of Words* (new ed.) at *Orgues*
> Several Musket-Barrels set in a row within one wooden Stock, to
> be discharged either all at once, or separately.
>
>
> 1930 *Lancet* 27 Sept. 686/2 The recently prepared
> solution is warmed to body heat and may be quite safely injected all
> at once provided it is injected slowly.
>
>
> 1995 *Daily Mirror* 23 Feb. 6/4 Transfer of other
> powers to the new Assembly likely to be phased in rather than
> introduced all at once.
>
>
>
So:
>
> *I wanted to crush the pepper all at once, so I used a bigger tool.*
>
>
> |
583,749 | Imagine you're writing a literature book in English and you want to mention something like the following,
>
> I wanted to crush all the pepper *in one go*, so I used a bigger tool and crushed all of them at once.
>
>
>
I feel like it's not very formal in academia, so what would be a formal word for *in one go*?
(I don't care if my sentence is not grammatically correct, so don't worry about it, I just need a formal synonym.) | 2022/01/27 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/583749",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/445253/"
] | I commented earlier to this effect, but was asked to put that into an answer. So ...
I would say that ***all at once*** fits the bill here rather nicely.
You almost came to it yourself when you said "crushed all of them at once"—but using that together with "in one go" is superfluous at that point. One or the other, but not both. | I suggest (from [Lexico](https://www.lexico.com/definition/attempt))
>
> **attempt**
>
> NOUN
>
>
> An effort to achieve or complete a difficult task or action.
>
>
>
The question mentions 'formal' and 'academia' so I presume it's not entirely about cookery, though I could offer
>
> Jan flipped the pancake at the first attempt.
>
>
> |
195,454 | I realise this question is somewhat of an intersection of OS X and Google but I'll start here. My partner discovered that most of her pictures (up to 2013) that are on her Mac were mysteriously available on Google Photos; we're puzzled as to how all these pictures ended up on Google Photos when we did not explicitly upload them.
What mechanisms are available that would automatically sync up photos from OS X? My prime suspect is Google Drive for OS X. We don't appear to have that installed any more and that might explain why the pics only go to 2013.
What other items can we look at? They're not pictures from her phone (iPhone 4, iOS 7) nor have we installed anything on there that might sync pics from her phone. | 2015/07/11 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/195454",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/56508/"
] | You said you don't want to wipe the phone and reset it, but what about restoring it from a backup? During an iCloud restore, iOS re-downloads most of what it needs from Apple’s servers, so the process might reclaim your lost space, since iOS wouldn’t assign it to anything that isn't actually using it. After the restore, your phone would be returned to the same state you left it in. | Instead of restoring from a backup, one might want to try *logging out of iCloud and back in again*. For me, that fixed a lot of unexplained occupied space.
Furthermore, if you're looking for a possible explanation in your case, in [a different question](https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/162825/iphone-available-space-significant-difference-between-itunes-and-iphone) it was suggested that iTunes Match could be the reason. (I don't use it myself.) |
91,460 | I face a quite uncomfortable situation in my company. Several weeks ago, I was tasked to work with a new coworker. She has been in the same company for a longer time than I, but was assigned to another service, and thus I only met her recently.
During lunches, and breaks, she started talking seamlessly about our different salaries (me and some other coworkers). She, and some others talked quite a lot about it since then, in a way that I feel a bit uneasy with. Indeed, they are quite often ranting about it. Even though it sounds like jokes at first, it isn't.
As of now, I didn't give up and tried to avoid the subject every time. Mostly because I don't want to hear more often bad puns like "Eyh you earn more, you'll pay the bill at the restaurant huh ?". Saying this once a week would be acceptable. The same "joke" three times a lunch sounds like they do not tell it as a joke, and would really want me to do it.
That's really unpleasant, hearing people complaining like that during each break. And I'm sure that giving up and telling them right out of the bat my own salary wouldn't make it easier. I often read that salary is quite a taboo... at first it was not for me, but since some of my coworkers are almost verbally-violent when talking about it, I definitely don't want to talk about this with them.
So, should I avoid the subject and how could I do that ? Or should I give up, tell them in order to make them rant less ? Even though I doubt it would change anything : should I earn less than them they would probably harass me with statements like "Oooooh you should really asks for more", should I earn more... well it could bring jealousy in already unpleasant talks. | 2017/05/23 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/91460",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/51290/"
] | From my own experience, most people I know never disclose their salary because it can create some awkward situations. *Why are you earning more? Should I use you as the benchmark when we demand a raise later? What have you done to deserve more that I haven't?* One of my co-workers once let slip his salary and it caused an uproar among those slightly above us in the corporate ladder, as it turned out my co-worker (and by implication, I too) was being paid more. Though they should have known this could happen, management was not happy.
It might depend on the country, but any courteous co-worker should simply stop asking when you state 'I don't talk salaries'. Here in the UK, many treat it as a personal subject that only HR and their manager should know. If they persist during lunch breaks, they don't seem like a nice crowd to hang out with. Leave them to their moaning. If they are harassing you during work times, have a word with your manager.
The fact that your colleagues are talking like this suggests they are simply unpleasant people, or there is an underlying concern that some of them are underpaid. In either case, it sounds like their problem and should not be making you feel bad for whatever your salary is. Simply ask them to stop asking you and if they continue, you might be best finding somewhere else to sit at lunch. | There are 3 options:
1. Tell them to either get over it or do something about it. What's stopping them from asking for more money?
2. Stop talking to them outside of working together. They seem petty. If this is questioned, explain why.
3. Point out that if they put as much effort into their job as they do in harrassing you, they might be on a higher salary.
Do not do #3 |
91,460 | I face a quite uncomfortable situation in my company. Several weeks ago, I was tasked to work with a new coworker. She has been in the same company for a longer time than I, but was assigned to another service, and thus I only met her recently.
During lunches, and breaks, she started talking seamlessly about our different salaries (me and some other coworkers). She, and some others talked quite a lot about it since then, in a way that I feel a bit uneasy with. Indeed, they are quite often ranting about it. Even though it sounds like jokes at first, it isn't.
As of now, I didn't give up and tried to avoid the subject every time. Mostly because I don't want to hear more often bad puns like "Eyh you earn more, you'll pay the bill at the restaurant huh ?". Saying this once a week would be acceptable. The same "joke" three times a lunch sounds like they do not tell it as a joke, and would really want me to do it.
That's really unpleasant, hearing people complaining like that during each break. And I'm sure that giving up and telling them right out of the bat my own salary wouldn't make it easier. I often read that salary is quite a taboo... at first it was not for me, but since some of my coworkers are almost verbally-violent when talking about it, I definitely don't want to talk about this with them.
So, should I avoid the subject and how could I do that ? Or should I give up, tell them in order to make them rant less ? Even though I doubt it would change anything : should I earn less than them they would probably harass me with statements like "Oooooh you should really asks for more", should I earn more... well it could bring jealousy in already unpleasant talks. | 2017/05/23 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/91460",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/51290/"
] | There are 3 options:
1. Tell them to either get over it or do something about it. What's stopping them from asking for more money?
2. Stop talking to them outside of working together. They seem petty. If this is questioned, explain why.
3. Point out that if they put as much effort into their job as they do in harrassing you, they might be on a higher salary.
Do not do #3 | This conversation simply has no where to go that ends well for you or them.
I would suggest telling your co-worker that you simply will not discuss this topic. If they will not leave the topic alone, tell them they will leave you no choice but to report the behavior to their Manager.
This is a topic that can and usually will burn you and the co-worker from multiple perspectives. DO NOT DISCUSS SALARY with co-workers.....EVER. This topic falls into one of three cautionary topics between friends or co-workers
( Money, politics, and religion )
UPDATE: Take a look at this excellent article for multiple reasons that you should not share salary information. [Dangers of sharing salary info](https://www.monster.com/career-advice/article/dangers-discussing-pay-coworkers) |
91,460 | I face a quite uncomfortable situation in my company. Several weeks ago, I was tasked to work with a new coworker. She has been in the same company for a longer time than I, but was assigned to another service, and thus I only met her recently.
During lunches, and breaks, she started talking seamlessly about our different salaries (me and some other coworkers). She, and some others talked quite a lot about it since then, in a way that I feel a bit uneasy with. Indeed, they are quite often ranting about it. Even though it sounds like jokes at first, it isn't.
As of now, I didn't give up and tried to avoid the subject every time. Mostly because I don't want to hear more often bad puns like "Eyh you earn more, you'll pay the bill at the restaurant huh ?". Saying this once a week would be acceptable. The same "joke" three times a lunch sounds like they do not tell it as a joke, and would really want me to do it.
That's really unpleasant, hearing people complaining like that during each break. And I'm sure that giving up and telling them right out of the bat my own salary wouldn't make it easier. I often read that salary is quite a taboo... at first it was not for me, but since some of my coworkers are almost verbally-violent when talking about it, I definitely don't want to talk about this with them.
So, should I avoid the subject and how could I do that ? Or should I give up, tell them in order to make them rant less ? Even though I doubt it would change anything : should I earn less than them they would probably harass me with statements like "Oooooh you should really asks for more", should I earn more... well it could bring jealousy in already unpleasant talks. | 2017/05/23 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/91460",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/51290/"
] | From my own experience, most people I know never disclose their salary because it can create some awkward situations. *Why are you earning more? Should I use you as the benchmark when we demand a raise later? What have you done to deserve more that I haven't?* One of my co-workers once let slip his salary and it caused an uproar among those slightly above us in the corporate ladder, as it turned out my co-worker (and by implication, I too) was being paid more. Though they should have known this could happen, management was not happy.
It might depend on the country, but any courteous co-worker should simply stop asking when you state 'I don't talk salaries'. Here in the UK, many treat it as a personal subject that only HR and their manager should know. If they persist during lunch breaks, they don't seem like a nice crowd to hang out with. Leave them to their moaning. If they are harassing you during work times, have a word with your manager.
The fact that your colleagues are talking like this suggests they are simply unpleasant people, or there is an underlying concern that some of them are underpaid. In either case, it sounds like their problem and should not be making you feel bad for whatever your salary is. Simply ask them to stop asking you and if they continue, you might be best finding somewhere else to sit at lunch. | This conversation simply has no where to go that ends well for you or them.
I would suggest telling your co-worker that you simply will not discuss this topic. If they will not leave the topic alone, tell them they will leave you no choice but to report the behavior to their Manager.
This is a topic that can and usually will burn you and the co-worker from multiple perspectives. DO NOT DISCUSS SALARY with co-workers.....EVER. This topic falls into one of three cautionary topics between friends or co-workers
( Money, politics, and religion )
UPDATE: Take a look at this excellent article for multiple reasons that you should not share salary information. [Dangers of sharing salary info](https://www.monster.com/career-advice/article/dangers-discussing-pay-coworkers) |
91,460 | I face a quite uncomfortable situation in my company. Several weeks ago, I was tasked to work with a new coworker. She has been in the same company for a longer time than I, but was assigned to another service, and thus I only met her recently.
During lunches, and breaks, she started talking seamlessly about our different salaries (me and some other coworkers). She, and some others talked quite a lot about it since then, in a way that I feel a bit uneasy with. Indeed, they are quite often ranting about it. Even though it sounds like jokes at first, it isn't.
As of now, I didn't give up and tried to avoid the subject every time. Mostly because I don't want to hear more often bad puns like "Eyh you earn more, you'll pay the bill at the restaurant huh ?". Saying this once a week would be acceptable. The same "joke" three times a lunch sounds like they do not tell it as a joke, and would really want me to do it.
That's really unpleasant, hearing people complaining like that during each break. And I'm sure that giving up and telling them right out of the bat my own salary wouldn't make it easier. I often read that salary is quite a taboo... at first it was not for me, but since some of my coworkers are almost verbally-violent when talking about it, I definitely don't want to talk about this with them.
So, should I avoid the subject and how could I do that ? Or should I give up, tell them in order to make them rant less ? Even though I doubt it would change anything : should I earn less than them they would probably harass me with statements like "Oooooh you should really asks for more", should I earn more... well it could bring jealousy in already unpleasant talks. | 2017/05/23 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/91460",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/51290/"
] | From my own experience, most people I know never disclose their salary because it can create some awkward situations. *Why are you earning more? Should I use you as the benchmark when we demand a raise later? What have you done to deserve more that I haven't?* One of my co-workers once let slip his salary and it caused an uproar among those slightly above us in the corporate ladder, as it turned out my co-worker (and by implication, I too) was being paid more. Though they should have known this could happen, management was not happy.
It might depend on the country, but any courteous co-worker should simply stop asking when you state 'I don't talk salaries'. Here in the UK, many treat it as a personal subject that only HR and their manager should know. If they persist during lunch breaks, they don't seem like a nice crowd to hang out with. Leave them to their moaning. If they are harassing you during work times, have a word with your manager.
The fact that your colleagues are talking like this suggests they are simply unpleasant people, or there is an underlying concern that some of them are underpaid. In either case, it sounds like their problem and should not be making you feel bad for whatever your salary is. Simply ask them to stop asking you and if they continue, you might be best finding somewhere else to sit at lunch. | That person is seeking either information for gossip, or to soothe her own ego to make sure you (the newbie) aren't making what she's making. So just to get her to shut up, have a little fun. Give her some extremely low number, or some extremely high number. As long as you don't divulge your actual salary, watching whatever happens might be quite fun. See, neither of you is obligated to tell your own *true* salary - she could be throwing a number your way just to get a rise out of you! People do that!
Or tell her that you get paid with bags of chocolate, or peanuts, or potato chips, or something grossly silly. You can even change the story each time if you like. Make it enjoyable for yourself. She may get tired of your wild story and drop the subject.
Lastly, there's always the direct refusal approach, as others have mentioned. Not as much fun, but it's effective too. |
91,460 | I face a quite uncomfortable situation in my company. Several weeks ago, I was tasked to work with a new coworker. She has been in the same company for a longer time than I, but was assigned to another service, and thus I only met her recently.
During lunches, and breaks, she started talking seamlessly about our different salaries (me and some other coworkers). She, and some others talked quite a lot about it since then, in a way that I feel a bit uneasy with. Indeed, they are quite often ranting about it. Even though it sounds like jokes at first, it isn't.
As of now, I didn't give up and tried to avoid the subject every time. Mostly because I don't want to hear more often bad puns like "Eyh you earn more, you'll pay the bill at the restaurant huh ?". Saying this once a week would be acceptable. The same "joke" three times a lunch sounds like they do not tell it as a joke, and would really want me to do it.
That's really unpleasant, hearing people complaining like that during each break. And I'm sure that giving up and telling them right out of the bat my own salary wouldn't make it easier. I often read that salary is quite a taboo... at first it was not for me, but since some of my coworkers are almost verbally-violent when talking about it, I definitely don't want to talk about this with them.
So, should I avoid the subject and how could I do that ? Or should I give up, tell them in order to make them rant less ? Even though I doubt it would change anything : should I earn less than them they would probably harass me with statements like "Oooooh you should really asks for more", should I earn more... well it could bring jealousy in already unpleasant talks. | 2017/05/23 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/91460",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/51290/"
] | That person is seeking either information for gossip, or to soothe her own ego to make sure you (the newbie) aren't making what she's making. So just to get her to shut up, have a little fun. Give her some extremely low number, or some extremely high number. As long as you don't divulge your actual salary, watching whatever happens might be quite fun. See, neither of you is obligated to tell your own *true* salary - she could be throwing a number your way just to get a rise out of you! People do that!
Or tell her that you get paid with bags of chocolate, or peanuts, or potato chips, or something grossly silly. You can even change the story each time if you like. Make it enjoyable for yourself. She may get tired of your wild story and drop the subject.
Lastly, there's always the direct refusal approach, as others have mentioned. Not as much fun, but it's effective too. | This conversation simply has no where to go that ends well for you or them.
I would suggest telling your co-worker that you simply will not discuss this topic. If they will not leave the topic alone, tell them they will leave you no choice but to report the behavior to their Manager.
This is a topic that can and usually will burn you and the co-worker from multiple perspectives. DO NOT DISCUSS SALARY with co-workers.....EVER. This topic falls into one of three cautionary topics between friends or co-workers
( Money, politics, and religion )
UPDATE: Take a look at this excellent article for multiple reasons that you should not share salary information. [Dangers of sharing salary info](https://www.monster.com/career-advice/article/dangers-discussing-pay-coworkers) |
12,062 | In tennis sport, all 4 grand slams are played in a specific order in a year. First we Australian Open, then French, Wimbledon and in the last we have US Open.
Can anyone explain the exact reason why this order is fixed and how it was decided when first time these championships came into play. | 2015/09/17 | [
"https://sports.stackexchange.com/questions/12062",
"https://sports.stackexchange.com",
"https://sports.stackexchange.com/users/9722/"
] | The Australian Open didn't really become one of the 4 majors that all the top players competed in until the early 1980's. In fact, the tournament wasn't even held in 1986 because of a reshuffling of the schedule that year. As with most tournaments on the ATP and WTA tours, they are held during a time of year that has the best weather. For the Australian Open, that means during the summer time in the southern hemisphere, so, late January/early February. If you go back far enough in the history of the Australian Open you'll see the dates for it being in December, so it's moved around on the calendar a little bit over the years before it finally settled into the same two weeks over the past 25 years or so.
As for the other majors - it's really the same reason. Paris has good weather in late May/early June. Wimbledon has - typically - the best weather for tennis in late June/early July. The US Open could really be played anytime from June through September but Wimbledon and the French Open already had the calendar during the earlier summer months so it's been played in late August.
Also keep in mind that the French-Wimbledon-US Open are three different surfaces so the tour tries to allow for some time in between each event for players to play in warm up tournaments on the respective surfaces to allow players to adjust. | The Australian open is always first for many reasons:
1. In Australia, January is in summer and suits the surface,
2. The whole of January are school holidays allowing people to travel with their kids to the Open.
3. Most tradespeople in Australia don't work in January, thus suiting them.
4. Both the NRL (Rugby league) and the AFL are in their off-season.
5. January attracts extremely large crowds with around 720,899 people as the total attendance figure (compared to around 650,000 for the US Open, 600,000 for Wimbledon and around 450,000 for Roland-Garros) |
6,902 | I am planning to ask a question which requires you to count the number of possible ways to arrange something with certain conditions. Are these on-topic? | 2020/05/08 | [
"https://puzzling.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6902",
"https://puzzling.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://puzzling.meta.stackexchange.com/users/61965/"
] | **Yes, [combinatorics](https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/combinatorics "show questions tagged 'combinatorics'") is on-topic.**
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counting problems are essentially combinatorics, and this is just as much on-topic as other kinds of mathematics. You can browse the linked tag to see what kind of questions we've had on this topic.
As Glorfindel points out, there are caveats to what kinds of maths puzzles can be on-topic. Basically if it's interesting/neat/challenging enough to count as a *puzzle*, then it's fine, but if it's just a basic/rote *problem*, then it's likely to be closed. | Let me quote [this high-scoring answer by @xnor](https://puzzling.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2784/11110) on [Are math-textbook-style problems on topic?](https://puzzling.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2783/11110):
>
> So, what makes something a math puzzle rather than math problem? I think there's a few features.
>
>
> * Clever or elegant solution, often an "aha" moment
> * Unexpected problem statement.
> * Unexpected or counterintuitive result.
>
>
>
Counting problems are math problems, so I think this advice applies here as well. The first and third point can apply to your problem, but you need to know the solution upfront and judge whether those apply or not.
There is a recent counting problem question on our sister site Mathematics Stack Exchange which (IMHO) could be rewritten as a suitable puzzle for us: [Number of ways to stack LEGO bricks](https://math.stackexchange.com/q/3659431/228959). Incidentally, it could also qualify for the second point, though that is rather subjective. |
686,873 | First of all to give you a bit of background on the current environment. We have a number of ASP.NET applications, all of which use session for certain aspects. We are "Load Balanced" over multiple servers due to traffic levels, however, our load balancing is set to use "Sticky Sessions" as currently all web applications are set to use "InProc" for session state.
We are looking at being able to remove the "Sticky Sessions" configuration on our load balancer, as due to our traffic loads servers can and do get overloaded. We want to go with a more balanced approach, but must be able to use session.
I know that SqlServer for session state will work, but for reasons beyond our control, we cannot use SqlServer to store our state. In researching it seems that StateServer is our best bet. We have an additional server, with loads of memory sitting around. This server could be our StateServer for the entire Web Cluster. We just want to know the following things.
1.) Besides any potential serialization issues with the switch from InProc to StateServer, are there any major known issues with losing session objects or generating errors with the above listed environment?
2.) Aside from the single point of failure, and slighly slower performance are there any other gotchas that we need to be aware of with using StateServer.
3.) Are there any metrics that show the performance differences between the three types of state storage? | 2009/03/26 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/686873",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/13279/"
] | Here is a decent FAQ on asp.net state: <http://www.eggheadcafe.com/articles/20021016.asp>
From that Article, here is some information on StateServer:
* In a web farm, make sure you have the same MachineKey in all your web servers. See [KB 313091](http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q313091) on how to do it.
* Also, make sure your objects are serializable. See [KB 312112](http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q312112) for details.
* For session state to be maintained across different web servers in the web farm, the Application Path of the website (For example \LM\W3SVC\2) in the IIS Metabase should be identical in all the web servers in the web farm. See [KB 325056](http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q325056) for details | Make sure your server etag ids are synchronized across the web farm otherwise caching at client browsers will be upset.
Have you reviewed your code in detail to make sure everything can be serialized out of process and across a LAN efficiently?
Are you solving the main performance problem within your system? I ask because the database is the typical source of contention.
My main motivation for moving away from sticky sessions was operational flexibility i.e. cycle down a problematic server or to deploy a software upgrade. So having implemented a central session state service make sure you take full advantage from an operational stand point. |
686,873 | First of all to give you a bit of background on the current environment. We have a number of ASP.NET applications, all of which use session for certain aspects. We are "Load Balanced" over multiple servers due to traffic levels, however, our load balancing is set to use "Sticky Sessions" as currently all web applications are set to use "InProc" for session state.
We are looking at being able to remove the "Sticky Sessions" configuration on our load balancer, as due to our traffic loads servers can and do get overloaded. We want to go with a more balanced approach, but must be able to use session.
I know that SqlServer for session state will work, but for reasons beyond our control, we cannot use SqlServer to store our state. In researching it seems that StateServer is our best bet. We have an additional server, with loads of memory sitting around. This server could be our StateServer for the entire Web Cluster. We just want to know the following things.
1.) Besides any potential serialization issues with the switch from InProc to StateServer, are there any major known issues with losing session objects or generating errors with the above listed environment?
2.) Aside from the single point of failure, and slighly slower performance are there any other gotchas that we need to be aware of with using StateServer.
3.) Are there any metrics that show the performance differences between the three types of state storage? | 2009/03/26 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/686873",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/13279/"
] | Make sure your server etag ids are synchronized across the web farm otherwise caching at client browsers will be upset.
Have you reviewed your code in detail to make sure everything can be serialized out of process and across a LAN efficiently?
Are you solving the main performance problem within your system? I ask because the database is the typical source of contention.
My main motivation for moving away from sticky sessions was operational flexibility i.e. cycle down a problematic server or to deploy a software upgrade. So having implemented a central session state service make sure you take full advantage from an operational stand point. | We are using StateServer for a very small web farm with only two nodes for a few hundred users.
I'm not responsible for its operation but I remember only two issues in two years where the service had to be restarted because it crashed. |
686,873 | First of all to give you a bit of background on the current environment. We have a number of ASP.NET applications, all of which use session for certain aspects. We are "Load Balanced" over multiple servers due to traffic levels, however, our load balancing is set to use "Sticky Sessions" as currently all web applications are set to use "InProc" for session state.
We are looking at being able to remove the "Sticky Sessions" configuration on our load balancer, as due to our traffic loads servers can and do get overloaded. We want to go with a more balanced approach, but must be able to use session.
I know that SqlServer for session state will work, but for reasons beyond our control, we cannot use SqlServer to store our state. In researching it seems that StateServer is our best bet. We have an additional server, with loads of memory sitting around. This server could be our StateServer for the entire Web Cluster. We just want to know the following things.
1.) Besides any potential serialization issues with the switch from InProc to StateServer, are there any major known issues with losing session objects or generating errors with the above listed environment?
2.) Aside from the single point of failure, and slighly slower performance are there any other gotchas that we need to be aware of with using StateServer.
3.) Are there any metrics that show the performance differences between the three types of state storage? | 2009/03/26 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/686873",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/13279/"
] | Make sure your server etag ids are synchronized across the web farm otherwise caching at client browsers will be upset.
Have you reviewed your code in detail to make sure everything can be serialized out of process and across a LAN efficiently?
Are you solving the main performance problem within your system? I ask because the database is the typical source of contention.
My main motivation for moving away from sticky sessions was operational flexibility i.e. cycle down a problematic server or to deploy a software upgrade. So having implemented a central session state service make sure you take full advantage from an operational stand point. | I would like to another one more point to the accepted answer:
* Make sure the version of framework dlls is the same.
In my case the System.Web dll versions were different as a few windows updates were skipped on one of the servers of the farm. |
686,873 | First of all to give you a bit of background on the current environment. We have a number of ASP.NET applications, all of which use session for certain aspects. We are "Load Balanced" over multiple servers due to traffic levels, however, our load balancing is set to use "Sticky Sessions" as currently all web applications are set to use "InProc" for session state.
We are looking at being able to remove the "Sticky Sessions" configuration on our load balancer, as due to our traffic loads servers can and do get overloaded. We want to go with a more balanced approach, but must be able to use session.
I know that SqlServer for session state will work, but for reasons beyond our control, we cannot use SqlServer to store our state. In researching it seems that StateServer is our best bet. We have an additional server, with loads of memory sitting around. This server could be our StateServer for the entire Web Cluster. We just want to know the following things.
1.) Besides any potential serialization issues with the switch from InProc to StateServer, are there any major known issues with losing session objects or generating errors with the above listed environment?
2.) Aside from the single point of failure, and slighly slower performance are there any other gotchas that we need to be aware of with using StateServer.
3.) Are there any metrics that show the performance differences between the three types of state storage? | 2009/03/26 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/686873",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/13279/"
] | Here is a decent FAQ on asp.net state: <http://www.eggheadcafe.com/articles/20021016.asp>
From that Article, here is some information on StateServer:
* In a web farm, make sure you have the same MachineKey in all your web servers. See [KB 313091](http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q313091) on how to do it.
* Also, make sure your objects are serializable. See [KB 312112](http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q312112) for details.
* For session state to be maintained across different web servers in the web farm, the Application Path of the website (For example \LM\W3SVC\2) in the IIS Metabase should be identical in all the web servers in the web farm. See [KB 325056](http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q325056) for details | I have only used sql and in-proc. But these 3 that apply when using sql server apply as well:
* Avoid storing too much information in the session, as it affects both in serialization and data transmitted over the network.
* Make sure you don't have anything that depends on the Session\_onEnd. This is just not available for out of process sessions.
* Turn off session on pages that doesn't uses it. This don't make a difference for in-process session, but for out of process it will save you a lot. |
686,873 | First of all to give you a bit of background on the current environment. We have a number of ASP.NET applications, all of which use session for certain aspects. We are "Load Balanced" over multiple servers due to traffic levels, however, our load balancing is set to use "Sticky Sessions" as currently all web applications are set to use "InProc" for session state.
We are looking at being able to remove the "Sticky Sessions" configuration on our load balancer, as due to our traffic loads servers can and do get overloaded. We want to go with a more balanced approach, but must be able to use session.
I know that SqlServer for session state will work, but for reasons beyond our control, we cannot use SqlServer to store our state. In researching it seems that StateServer is our best bet. We have an additional server, with loads of memory sitting around. This server could be our StateServer for the entire Web Cluster. We just want to know the following things.
1.) Besides any potential serialization issues with the switch from InProc to StateServer, are there any major known issues with losing session objects or generating errors with the above listed environment?
2.) Aside from the single point of failure, and slighly slower performance are there any other gotchas that we need to be aware of with using StateServer.
3.) Are there any metrics that show the performance differences between the three types of state storage? | 2009/03/26 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/686873",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/13279/"
] | In my experience we've found out that native state server or even using SQL Server for sessions is a very scary scenario as both have issues (mainly performance). By the way, we are also using sticky sessions.
I think you can explore other products for this to achive the absolute best. A free option would be [Velocity](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc645013.aspx) but it is still not released.
And another comprehensive but proven product will be (Very expensive actually) [NCache](http://www.alachisoft.com/ncache/). THis will even help in your serilizations with less cost, If you use their API's it will be even better results.
Take a look and see which looks best for you.
About SQL Server, you server will die very soon if you have enough number of hits coming in (I belive you have some hits already which yielded you to do Web Farm or you do it just for the sake of redundancy)
Bottom line: We are evaluating Velocity because NCAchce is really expensive. However advantages are huge. | I would like to another one more point to the accepted answer:
* Make sure the version of framework dlls is the same.
In my case the System.Web dll versions were different as a few windows updates were skipped on one of the servers of the farm. |
686,873 | First of all to give you a bit of background on the current environment. We have a number of ASP.NET applications, all of which use session for certain aspects. We are "Load Balanced" over multiple servers due to traffic levels, however, our load balancing is set to use "Sticky Sessions" as currently all web applications are set to use "InProc" for session state.
We are looking at being able to remove the "Sticky Sessions" configuration on our load balancer, as due to our traffic loads servers can and do get overloaded. We want to go with a more balanced approach, but must be able to use session.
I know that SqlServer for session state will work, but for reasons beyond our control, we cannot use SqlServer to store our state. In researching it seems that StateServer is our best bet. We have an additional server, with loads of memory sitting around. This server could be our StateServer for the entire Web Cluster. We just want to know the following things.
1.) Besides any potential serialization issues with the switch from InProc to StateServer, are there any major known issues with losing session objects or generating errors with the above listed environment?
2.) Aside from the single point of failure, and slighly slower performance are there any other gotchas that we need to be aware of with using StateServer.
3.) Are there any metrics that show the performance differences between the three types of state storage? | 2009/03/26 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/686873",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/13279/"
] | Here is a decent FAQ on asp.net state: <http://www.eggheadcafe.com/articles/20021016.asp>
From that Article, here is some information on StateServer:
* In a web farm, make sure you have the same MachineKey in all your web servers. See [KB 313091](http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q313091) on how to do it.
* Also, make sure your objects are serializable. See [KB 312112](http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q312112) for details.
* For session state to be maintained across different web servers in the web farm, the Application Path of the website (For example \LM\W3SVC\2) in the IIS Metabase should be identical in all the web servers in the web farm. See [KB 325056](http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q325056) for details | In my experience we've found out that native state server or even using SQL Server for sessions is a very scary scenario as both have issues (mainly performance). By the way, we are also using sticky sessions.
I think you can explore other products for this to achive the absolute best. A free option would be [Velocity](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc645013.aspx) but it is still not released.
And another comprehensive but proven product will be (Very expensive actually) [NCache](http://www.alachisoft.com/ncache/). THis will even help in your serilizations with less cost, If you use their API's it will be even better results.
Take a look and see which looks best for you.
About SQL Server, you server will die very soon if you have enough number of hits coming in (I belive you have some hits already which yielded you to do Web Farm or you do it just for the sake of redundancy)
Bottom line: We are evaluating Velocity because NCAchce is really expensive. However advantages are huge. |
686,873 | First of all to give you a bit of background on the current environment. We have a number of ASP.NET applications, all of which use session for certain aspects. We are "Load Balanced" over multiple servers due to traffic levels, however, our load balancing is set to use "Sticky Sessions" as currently all web applications are set to use "InProc" for session state.
We are looking at being able to remove the "Sticky Sessions" configuration on our load balancer, as due to our traffic loads servers can and do get overloaded. We want to go with a more balanced approach, but must be able to use session.
I know that SqlServer for session state will work, but for reasons beyond our control, we cannot use SqlServer to store our state. In researching it seems that StateServer is our best bet. We have an additional server, with loads of memory sitting around. This server could be our StateServer for the entire Web Cluster. We just want to know the following things.
1.) Besides any potential serialization issues with the switch from InProc to StateServer, are there any major known issues with losing session objects or generating errors with the above listed environment?
2.) Aside from the single point of failure, and slighly slower performance are there any other gotchas that we need to be aware of with using StateServer.
3.) Are there any metrics that show the performance differences between the three types of state storage? | 2009/03/26 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/686873",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/13279/"
] | I have only used sql and in-proc. But these 3 that apply when using sql server apply as well:
* Avoid storing too much information in the session, as it affects both in serialization and data transmitted over the network.
* Make sure you don't have anything that depends on the Session\_onEnd. This is just not available for out of process sessions.
* Turn off session on pages that doesn't uses it. This don't make a difference for in-process session, but for out of process it will save you a lot. | We are using StateServer for a very small web farm with only two nodes for a few hundred users.
I'm not responsible for its operation but I remember only two issues in two years where the service had to be restarted because it crashed. |
686,873 | First of all to give you a bit of background on the current environment. We have a number of ASP.NET applications, all of which use session for certain aspects. We are "Load Balanced" over multiple servers due to traffic levels, however, our load balancing is set to use "Sticky Sessions" as currently all web applications are set to use "InProc" for session state.
We are looking at being able to remove the "Sticky Sessions" configuration on our load balancer, as due to our traffic loads servers can and do get overloaded. We want to go with a more balanced approach, but must be able to use session.
I know that SqlServer for session state will work, but for reasons beyond our control, we cannot use SqlServer to store our state. In researching it seems that StateServer is our best bet. We have an additional server, with loads of memory sitting around. This server could be our StateServer for the entire Web Cluster. We just want to know the following things.
1.) Besides any potential serialization issues with the switch from InProc to StateServer, are there any major known issues with losing session objects or generating errors with the above listed environment?
2.) Aside from the single point of failure, and slighly slower performance are there any other gotchas that we need to be aware of with using StateServer.
3.) Are there any metrics that show the performance differences between the three types of state storage? | 2009/03/26 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/686873",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/13279/"
] | In my experience we've found out that native state server or even using SQL Server for sessions is a very scary scenario as both have issues (mainly performance). By the way, we are also using sticky sessions.
I think you can explore other products for this to achive the absolute best. A free option would be [Velocity](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc645013.aspx) but it is still not released.
And another comprehensive but proven product will be (Very expensive actually) [NCache](http://www.alachisoft.com/ncache/). THis will even help in your serilizations with less cost, If you use their API's it will be even better results.
Take a look and see which looks best for you.
About SQL Server, you server will die very soon if you have enough number of hits coming in (I belive you have some hits already which yielded you to do Web Farm or you do it just for the sake of redundancy)
Bottom line: We are evaluating Velocity because NCAchce is really expensive. However advantages are huge. | We are using StateServer for a very small web farm with only two nodes for a few hundred users.
I'm not responsible for its operation but I remember only two issues in two years where the service had to be restarted because it crashed. |
686,873 | First of all to give you a bit of background on the current environment. We have a number of ASP.NET applications, all of which use session for certain aspects. We are "Load Balanced" over multiple servers due to traffic levels, however, our load balancing is set to use "Sticky Sessions" as currently all web applications are set to use "InProc" for session state.
We are looking at being able to remove the "Sticky Sessions" configuration on our load balancer, as due to our traffic loads servers can and do get overloaded. We want to go with a more balanced approach, but must be able to use session.
I know that SqlServer for session state will work, but for reasons beyond our control, we cannot use SqlServer to store our state. In researching it seems that StateServer is our best bet. We have an additional server, with loads of memory sitting around. This server could be our StateServer for the entire Web Cluster. We just want to know the following things.
1.) Besides any potential serialization issues with the switch from InProc to StateServer, are there any major known issues with losing session objects or generating errors with the above listed environment?
2.) Aside from the single point of failure, and slighly slower performance are there any other gotchas that we need to be aware of with using StateServer.
3.) Are there any metrics that show the performance differences between the three types of state storage? | 2009/03/26 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/686873",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/13279/"
] | Here is a decent FAQ on asp.net state: <http://www.eggheadcafe.com/articles/20021016.asp>
From that Article, here is some information on StateServer:
* In a web farm, make sure you have the same MachineKey in all your web servers. See [KB 313091](http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q313091) on how to do it.
* Also, make sure your objects are serializable. See [KB 312112](http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q312112) for details.
* For session state to be maintained across different web servers in the web farm, the Application Path of the website (For example \LM\W3SVC\2) in the IIS Metabase should be identical in all the web servers in the web farm. See [KB 325056](http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q325056) for details | We are using StateServer for a very small web farm with only two nodes for a few hundred users.
I'm not responsible for its operation but I remember only two issues in two years where the service had to be restarted because it crashed. |
686,873 | First of all to give you a bit of background on the current environment. We have a number of ASP.NET applications, all of which use session for certain aspects. We are "Load Balanced" over multiple servers due to traffic levels, however, our load balancing is set to use "Sticky Sessions" as currently all web applications are set to use "InProc" for session state.
We are looking at being able to remove the "Sticky Sessions" configuration on our load balancer, as due to our traffic loads servers can and do get overloaded. We want to go with a more balanced approach, but must be able to use session.
I know that SqlServer for session state will work, but for reasons beyond our control, we cannot use SqlServer to store our state. In researching it seems that StateServer is our best bet. We have an additional server, with loads of memory sitting around. This server could be our StateServer for the entire Web Cluster. We just want to know the following things.
1.) Besides any potential serialization issues with the switch from InProc to StateServer, are there any major known issues with losing session objects or generating errors with the above listed environment?
2.) Aside from the single point of failure, and slighly slower performance are there any other gotchas that we need to be aware of with using StateServer.
3.) Are there any metrics that show the performance differences between the three types of state storage? | 2009/03/26 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/686873",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/13279/"
] | I have only used sql and in-proc. But these 3 that apply when using sql server apply as well:
* Avoid storing too much information in the session, as it affects both in serialization and data transmitted over the network.
* Make sure you don't have anything that depends on the Session\_onEnd. This is just not available for out of process sessions.
* Turn off session on pages that doesn't uses it. This don't make a difference for in-process session, but for out of process it will save you a lot. | I would like to another one more point to the accepted answer:
* Make sure the version of framework dlls is the same.
In my case the System.Web dll versions were different as a few windows updates were skipped on one of the servers of the farm. |
34,715,767 | Iam devoloping an embedded device using **PIC Microcontroller** (**PIC18F4550**).
Iam almost done with the hardware part. I need to control my device via **USB** using **VisualBasic 2010 Express**. Source code is compiled using **MikroC PRO**
My device belongs to an **USB HID** specification and its **VID=1234 and PID=4321**.
I tried many dll's but can't understand logic behind all.
What I need from my application is as follows...
1: Detect all USB devices connected to my PC
2: Detect wether my device(VID=1234,PID=4321) is connected or not
3: Send and recive commands
4: Send and recive Ascii values
Can any of my friends **suggest me which library** is the best and **how to use it** for the above tasks.
\*Iam feeling complex using **WMI** to detect all USB devices. Iam prefering any librarys and the simplest way i can make use of it.
Any help is hopping..! | 2016/01/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/34715767",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/4039091/"
] | If you want to have something working this side of Christmas 2016 then use a USB-serial adapter between the PC and PIC chip.
This way you can use VB to talk via a COM port (serial port, UART, ...) and avoid USB completely.
Like this thing:
<http://pages.ebay.com/link/?nav=item.view&id=141865394463&alt=web> | Check out `libusb` I think there's .NET wrapper libraries too.
Much more complicated than TTL usb-serial adapter, though. |
44,994 | first time posting. I encountered a spellweaver for the first time last night, and now I'm trying to figure out how to be one as a PC.
Five levels of Druid and you can Wild Shape to turn into animals.
Master of Many Forms lets you turn into Monstrous Humanoids at level 3, and assume Extraordinary Special Qualities while Wild Shaping at level 7.
Spellweavers can Spellweave, which is when you can cast up to 6 levels of spells at once by using multiple arms to cast. That's an Ex, so I'm pretty sure it's legit. I'm also pretty sure you still don't gain their spell-like abilities.
But the Spellweaver monster entry also says they can cast spells as a sorcerer two levels higher than their hit dice.
**Can a Druid 5/Master of Many Forms 7 gain the ability to cast as a sorcerer when they Wild Shape into a Spellweaver?** | 2014/07/24 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/44994",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/15246/"
] | RAW, yes, but no one lets that happen.
======================================
The spellweaver’s spellcasting ability is not marked Ex, Sp, or Su; that makes it a [“natural ability”](http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#naturalAbilities) of the spellweaver. Natural abilities are defined thusly:
>
> abilities a creature has because of its physical nature.
>
>
>
They are also explicitly placed in a category separate from Special Abilities. This is relevant to the text of Alternate Form.
Wild Shape is per [Alternate Form](http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#alternateForm), which means a number of things. For example:
>
> * The creature [...] does not gain any special qualities of its new form.
> * The creature [...] does not gain the spell-like abilities or attacks of its new form.
>
>
>
This spellcasting is *not* a special quality, is *not* a spell-like ability or attack.
On the other hand, you do get the *form* of the alternate creature, by definition. You have the physical nature of the creature you become, and for the spellweaver, that includes spellcasting.
### But no one plays that way
This breaks the game into itty bitty pieces. Don’t be the guy who makes your DM explicitly ban it; it’s not good for the game. | **No**
Spellweave is an Ex special quality, so a Master of Many Forms 7 would get that. Spellweave itself doesn't say "Sorcerer spells", it just says "spells". So it would be usable with the MoMF's Druid Spells.
[But, the Spellweaver's Sorceror spell casting is not Ex, and MoMF (like Druid Wild Shape) does not grant the spell casting of the form your change into. You keep your own spell casting.](http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#alternateForm)
>
> The creature retains any spellcasting ability it had in its original
> form, although it must be able to speak intelligibly to cast spells
> with verbal components and it must have humanlike hands to cast spells
> with somatic components.
>
>
> Except as described elsewhere, the creature retains all other game
> statistics of its original form, including (but not necessarily
> limited to) HD, hit points, skill ranks, feats, base attack bonus, and
> base save bonuses.
>
>
>
Since there's no mention anywhere of you gaining spellcasting, and the rules say you keep your original form's stats unless something says you don't, you don't get the spellcasting of the Spellweaver. |
11,465 | Are the following sentences correct? If not, what's the correct usage?
>
> Your letter **was received** last Friday.
>
>
> Your letter **is received** last Friday.
>
>
> | 2013/10/18 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/11465",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/3000/"
] | Yes, that's right. The quote introduces a direct question with *I never know*:
>
> I never know, what's the difference between a stalagmite and a stalactite?
>
>
>
You've turned it into an indirect question (a *wh*-relative clause):
>
> I never know [ what the difference between a stalagmite and stalactite is. ]
>
>
>
The main difference is that the indirect question doesn't take the form of a question grammatically, so it doesn't undergo subject-auxiliary inversion, and it ends with a period rather than a question mark. The other difference is that the original sentence, containing a direct question, can contain a comma between the matrix verb and its complement; see [this answer](https://ell.stackexchange.com/a/10850/230) for a description of that structure. | An indirect question is a request for answer, phrased as a question.
So, in this case it would be:
>
> "Could you tell me what the difference between stalagmite and a stalactite is?"
>
>
> "Hagrid, do you know the difference between a stalagmite and a stalactite?
>
>
>
This is opposed to a direct question:
>
> "Hagrid, what is the difference between stalagmite and a stalactite?"
>
>
>
In your situation, calling your quote an indirect question would be strecthing it: From grammatical point of view, your quote is not a question at all. It's a statement used in function of question. |
208,782 | [https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01DUPXJLI/ref=ppx\_yo\_dt\_b\_asin\_title\_o00\_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/B01DUPXJLI) - bulb example
Fixture is just a single overhead ceiling light with plenty of air flow and cover. I have about 20 of these exact same fixtures across rentals and people love them. All exact same setup, same bulbs, all on a dimmer.
This particular one was installed about 10 years ago. I replaced the bulb for the 3rd time over 10 years about 3 months ago. When these bulbs go out there is usually heavy black marking. So after I replaced it, boom out in 3 days. No marking, filament blasted. Went through this process 4 more times...
Things I have tried...
* took cover off to reduce heat
* brought in new bulbs
* brought in a bulb from working light
* used bulbs from same pack in a different fixture at house
* checked voltage to light and checked connection at switch
So I am either buying new fixture or trying an LED or fixing. I am being stubborn about this so I would like to fix it but really have no reason that this thing is burning out so quick. It seems to be heat related as you can sit there and test the thing out put the dimmer up and down for a half hour and it works fine.
To add on: The tenants love these lights. Looks great. Really warm and bright on dimmer all the way up and almost like a night light all the way down. This is the first light out of the 20 I have had any issues with. Honestly I don't think I have ever replaced any bulbs within a year and some in sparsely used rooms have last a good 5 years. | 2020/11/15 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/208782",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/12002/"
] | First ever... I don't know.
I had two different lamps fail bulbs after 3-4 days. Not 1 day or 4-5 hours buy 3-4 days. I think the lamps are fine. I never put my fingers or anything else on any contacts. I never put my fingers on the end of the bulbs.
So....
* crappy bulbs... guessing so
* tried several variations of LEDs and finally hit one that worked well plus didn't look "white".
So... I should have switched to LEDs sooner. I have no idea why my bulbs burnt out so quick. I rather have the halogen but the LEDs I have are in the same range has them and it is "good enough". The tenants are happy, dimmers working, bulbs lasting. | I had this happen with a ceiling light and it turned out to be caused by an occasional short in the ceiling box resulting from a partially exposed hot that every once in a great while either arced to or touched the metal part of the light housing.
It went on for years - lightbulbs lasting less than a year and having black burned marks when they went out - before I finally found out what was going on and got it fixed.
Have an electrician check out what's going on in that ceiling box. |
4,647 | What are language/platform-agnostic best practices for a small game development team of intermediate to advanced developers?
High-level strategies (as well as suggestions in terms of frameworks, engines or IDEs which might offer a good ROI) are welcome. | 2010/10/20 | [
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/4647",
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com",
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/users/2594/"
] | Small team must target "small but beautiful".
* Be sure of your target. Easy & broad supply is vital.
* The Game design should be very simple(no rpg but more like some tabletop games or oldies),
* The art should be minimalistic/2D (or using procedural
tech)
* the tools must be high level: use a established game engine.
* the Language must be high level also (Python, Lua, C#). You prefer a low dev time over a very speedy program.
But do not sacrifice quality, that the only way to stand out. | Small team + small budget = small games. Never forget that you're on a budget so the team/budget ratio have to define the time you can work on each game.
That said, take time to prototype. You can't afford to make not good enough games.
For the game engine, the current best all-in-one and cross-platform engine affordable for (very) small teams is Unity.
If you think that the games you will make require precise control of the game engine (if it's not an established genre), then you'd better setup a framework made of several specialized libraries (Ogre, FMod, CAudio, RakNet, etc.).
That said, it means you'll have to maintain the glue code yourself, so it have a cost. If you can't afford it, take a full engine anyway and try to wrap your game concepts in it.
Frameworks like SFML might be good for you as it provide basic bricks to build game-specific engine on (but it's more oriented to 2D games).
If you want to make a lot of games quickly, you'd better go the Flash way, as it's like some kind of basic game engine platform. There are a lot of game engine built on it and it's cross-platform.
For the tools, use whatever source control that works fine with your team organisation. Ides are relative to the language you want to use, so you'll have to search. Just know that if you work on Windows with C++ or C# then Visual Studio is always the best choice. It seems XCode is the best on Mac. I'm not sure for other unix platforms.
If you want to make a cross-platform game that is not based on an already cross-platform engine, then use C++. If you target only Windows and want to get fast to game programming (and find an adequate game engine like NeoAxis), then use C#. Python, over a cross-platform game engine or framework like SFML, can be a good idea too.
If you have the time, setup a project management tool. If you don't have time, don't bother and just make someone keep track of everyone's tasks. Redmine or TRAC are good candidates for this kind of stuff, but requires that you know how to install them. A quicker alternative might be Mantis that is php only (copy/past in your web hosting ftp). There are a lot of other simple alternatives on the web but don't spend too much time looking for them. |
20,030 | The Vulcan DBMS for CP/M micros was originally developed in 8080 assembly language by a contractor working for Jet Propulsion Lab, based on an earlier JPL mainframe program. This code went on to be the basis for Ashton-Tate's highly successful dBASE products for CP/M and MS-DOS, as well as being the basis for FoxPro. dBASE (eventually acquired by Borland) and FoxPro (eventually acquired by Microsoft) were dominant database programs throughout the early rise of the PC platform, and *likely were the technology driving many of the small business PC purchases* in the late 1980s.
I'm surprised that a "hobby project" at JPL went on to be the foundation for such a huge microcomputer software enterprise. Was there some specific feature(s) in Vulcan that made it "great" compared to other early DBMS programs for micros? If not, then can some consistent lead developer(s) be identified that made it "great" in its future iterations? | 2021/06/04 | [
"https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/20030",
"https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com",
"https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/users/4335/"
] | Try and find the book "*Programmers at work*" by [Susan Lammers](https://programmersatwork.wordpress.com/), subtitled "*interviews with 19 programmers who shaped the software industry*" (slight hyperbole), written in 1986. Apart from the value of the interviews themselves, it is fascinating to read them 35 years on to see how much has changed.
[One of the interviews is with C. Wayne Ratcliff](http://www.foxprohistory.org/interview_wayne_ratliff.htm), who "In 1978, began writing the Vulcan program, which he marketed by himself from 1979 to 1980. In late 1980 he entered into a marketing agreement with Ashton-Tate and renamed the Vulcan product dBASE H." It looks like Vulcan was a success because it was a good product and didn't have much competition at the time.
>
> RATCLIFF: In October 1979, I went to market and put my first ad for
> Vulcan in BYTE magazine, and I ran a quarter-page ad for four or five
> months thereafter. I got much more response than I could handle.
>
> INTERVIEWER: So your response was immediately positive. Who were your
> competitors at that time?
>
> RATCLIFF: FMS 80, and later Condor and
> Selector. During the year and nine months that I was writing the code
> for Vulcan, my floppy disk drive broke down twice. Each time, it took
> three months to get it up and running again, so I lost six months. I
> kept thinking, if I had come out six months earlier, I would have been
> the very first.
>
> INTERVIEWER: So, suddenly you had a product that was
> penetrating the market. Did this success take you by surprise?
>
> RATCLIFF: I got completely overstressed. I did everything myself. When
> an order came in, I typed out the order, filled out the invoice,
> packaged the program, made a fresh copy of the disk - the whole nine
> yards. I placed all the ads myself, and also I kept working on the
> program. I'd come home from my job, work again until midnight, go to
> sleep exhausted, get up the next day, and repeat the process. Vulcan
> was at the point where I needed to make a lot of advances to it. Over
> the months I really ran out of steam. In the summer of 1980, I decided
> to quit advertising Vulcan and let it drop off to nothing. I would
> continue to support all the people who had purchased it, but I wasn't
> going to aggressively go out to find any new buyers.
>
>
> | For some reason, this just popped up in my feed.
All of these programs date back [RETRIEVE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RETRIEVE) by Tymshare. That was on the SDS 940. JPL had been using Tymshare machines but then bought three UNIVAC 1108s. Fred Thompson and Jack Hatfield ported RETRIEVE to these machines where it became JPLDIS. Jeb Long later took over for Hatfield.
Wang also made an almost identical version known as RECALL for the [Wang 2200](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang_2200)'s.
Ratliff enters the picture when he worked at JPL as a contractor. He had been using JPLDIS but then decided to port it to his own machine, an IMSAI, which became Vulcan. |
41,039 | Imagine I have two sounds:
Sound A is a very saturated, dynamically high and flat sound. Like a distorted guitar.
Sound B is very dynamically complex, such as a vocal line.
Is there any way for me use the frequencies present in sound B to filter sound A? So if I am singing middle C in Sound B, I will only hear the middle C part of Sound A, and when I stop singing Sound A will become quieter. | 2017/02/28 | [
"https://sound.stackexchange.com/questions/41039",
"https://sound.stackexchange.com",
"https://sound.stackexchange.com/users/20521/"
] | For this, you need to:
* Convert the pitch of the vocal track into a control signal (CV or CC or some other kind signal).
* Route that control signal to the appropriate controls of the filter.
Some plugins can do this internally. they have a *pitch follower* or *pitch tracking* feature that can use the pitch of a signal to control the plugin's parameters.
Take a look this video from MeldaProduction, about the "Pitch Mode" modulator built into many of their plugins:
Two apologies:
* The the video is kinda complicated. I couldn't easily find a more straightforward one.
* The video shows how to use the pitch of the incoming signal to control the plugin's parameters. You want to use a *different* signal, and the video doesn't show that.
The Melda plugins (and likely most others that have pitch trackers) allow you to use a "sidechain" signal to control some of the parameters. So (using MeldaProduction's MFilter as an example)
* Add MFilter to your distorted guitar track.
* Route the vocal track into the plugin's sidechain.
* Configure a "pitch mode" modulator that follows the sidechain's pitch and controls the frequency and gain of one or more of the filter's frequency bands.
Configuring the pitch tracker to pick out the exact frequencies may or may not be easy to do.
There are probably also separate pitch tracking plugins that can convert pitch into control signals, which you can then connect (using your DAW's routing features) to control a simple filter or EQ plugin. | If you are using logic you do this with the EVOC20 plug-in which is a vocoder. |
46,826 | I'm considering an appliance that is 240V 16A 3500 Watt with a NEMA 6-20P plug. Is it possible and safe to create an adapter for this so that it can be plugged into a standard 4-prong 14-30R dryer outlet? The adapter would be a typical 4-prong dryer cord with a NEMA 6-20R receptacle.
Would this be possible? NEMA 14 is hot/hot/neutral/ground. Could this be wired to a 6-20 receptacle that is hot/hot/ground? What is done with the neutral? If possible, would it be unsafe because of the 30A circuit and 20A receptacle (or other reasons)?
EDIT:
To add some more info, the appliance is an an Avantco IC3500 induction cooktop. It is ETL listed and the label on the bottom states that it complies with UL Std 197, which I cannot find details on with respect to amperage. | 2014/07/30 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/46826",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/11172/"
] | The answer is it depends on the appliance. As long as the appliance does not expressly forbid using it on a 30A circuit you should be fine. You'll be able to change the plug and put on a 14-30P plug, just ignore the silver terminal (neutral). | You could wire a 20 amp breaker into the adapter. Something along [these lines](http://www.delcity.net/store/Thermal-Push-Button-Circuit-Breakers/p_539615.h_539678.t_1.r_IF1003?mkwid=scHWRqYx9&crid=38094426869&mp_kw=&mp_mt=&gclid=Cj0KEQjwmNuuBRDTu5rDjr2kxJsBEiQAWlm6UjLC3gRJGzK8jDu81t156PhWF-JXQJG-y6AzWW-_aF8aAsa88P8HAQ) would be perfect. Easy to reset as well. |
180,863 | I have not found any Shield proficiency in the game. Can Wizards carry around a Steel Shield, and get +2 AC out of it?
What is the point of the Shield cantrip then? Twice the AC, same action. You can cast with a shield in your hand.
Sure, you cannot use Shield Block, but the cantrip allows it only once per combat anyway, after which you lose the AC too. | 2021/02/16 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/180863",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/9552/"
] | [Shields](https://2e.aonprd.com/Shields.aspx) (and [their rules](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=212)) are discussed on page 277 of the Core Rulebook. The [Raise a Shield Action](https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=98) is on page 472.
You are correct to note that there is no shield proficiency and that anyone can both carry a shield and use the Raise a Shield Action. This requires buying a shield, occupying one hand with the shield, and spending an action to Raise it. You need to Raise a Shield every round if you want to keep the AC bonus.
The [Shield cantrip](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=280) similarly costs one action. So why bother? For one thing, Shield doesn't occupy your hands. That's worth paying attention to. Most mundane shields cost 1 bulk, which you save with the cantrip. And as you noted you gain Shield Block which you may not otherwise have.
If you do plan on Shield Blocking, remember you will need to budget for repairing or replacing your shield when it's broken. You will also need to continuously spend gold to upgrade your shield, keeping its hardness and HP adequate.
You already noted some of the limitations. Shield gives you a measly +1 AC, which is the same lousy bonus a buckler provides. On the other hand, the increasing hardness is quite nice.
So there is your trade off: a physical shield may offer better numerical benefits, but requires the bulk, gp, and hands to operate. If you are reliably taking attacks and the extra AC or shield blocking are important to you, you want a shield. If you only need that benefit in a pinch or if you need your hands/bulk/gp for something else, consider the cantrip. | **tldr;Yes**
The rules for wielded [Shields](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=212) don't list any restrictions or requirements for Raising a Shield, nor do the rules for the [Raise a Shield Activity](https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=98). However, not everyone has access to the Shield Block reaction - it is provided by a [general feat](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=839), and some classes get free access to it, such as the [Champion](https://2e.aonprd.com/Classes.aspx?ID=4), the [Fighter](https://2e.aonprd.com/Classes.aspx?ID=7) and the [Warpriest doctrine](https://2e.aonprd.com/Doctrines.aspx) for the Cleric.
The [Shield](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=280) cantrip uses only a verbal component to cast, meaning you don't need any hands free to use it. Unlike a physical shield, casting the spell grants the use of Shield Block, regardless of whether or not the caster has the Shield Block feat. Also unlike a physical shield, it can also block a Magic Missile. And although the cantrip can only block once per 10 minutes, the heightened version may well block more damage than a similarly-levelled physical shield.
The downsides to using a physical shield compared to the cantrip are the hand needed to wield it, as well as the encumbrance of the item, and having to repair or replace the shield. In contrast, the only real downsides to using the cantrip over the item are the inability to Shield Bash, half of the AC bonus, and only being able to block once per ten minutes. A physical shield is also still usable when the user is silenced, while the cantrip is still usable if the user can speak but not move.
Personally, I have a couple of PF(S)2 martial characters that use the Shield cantrip over a physical shield, due to being dual weapon wielders. I have also learned that the damage mitigation from a shield is usually more important than the AC bonus. Rarely does the AC bonus stop a hit, or lower a critical to a normal hit. |
3,907 | When a child lies there a few common reasons why they may be doing this:
1. To see what happens
2. because it is fun to tell stories that they don't really realize are lies
3. to get someone else in trouble
4. to get themselves out of trouble
How would one go about disciplining these lies (assuming you realize they are lies)? Let's say we are talking about ages 4-8. After that lying is a much more serious issue and must be dealt with, I imagine, in a different way.
Related to number 4, I have heard the theory that whatever the consequence would be for the action they are lying about is doubled. I'd welcome any other suggestions, especially for the other three reasons listed. | 2012/01/03 | [
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com/questions/3907",
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com",
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com/users/1889/"
] | Classify the lie as consequential or inconsequential.
Consequential lie causes a harm and creates a problem. In this case do the following steps:
1. Explain clearly what the lie has caused.
2. Ask the child to admit the truth.
3. Ask the child to apologize to all affected parties.
4. Ask the child to remedy the damage (with your help).
The embarrassment and the pain of going through the above steps is sufficient disciplining.
Inconsequential lie is an insult to the other person's intelligence. It negatively affects the trust and the relationship. This must be explained and demonstrated in the interactions with the lying child. Children are very sensitive to affections and the lack of. The child will learn that lying is taken seriously and reflects back on the child's social relationships.
For 4-8 years old children, I don't recommend any disciplining stronger than the above. | I like Ali's answer in the context of the 4yo.
However, an 8yo is greatly different. An 8yo has a much broader understanding of the world, social expectations and contracts placed upon them, and should understand specific definitions of Right and Wrong. A 4yo barely understands that other people can have ownership of things, too. An 8yo can understand the lesson in Cars (basic respect towards other people) that isn't explicitly spelled out in skywriting.
If you're talking abotu an 8yo that told a 1-off lie about something that could really get them into hot water, then I would suggest dealing with the fact that they lied and move on. Ali's list above would work well, I think.
However, an 8yo that lies regularly is a problem beyond in/consequence. even inconsequential lies are consequential at that point. I would recommend going back to the drawing board and attempting to establish what the *real* problem is and whether or not they understand socially Right and Wrong. Either way, it's probably time to seek a professional.
Appropriate discipline? Man, you know your kids better than I do. What has worked for me with all 5 of my kids is spanking. The only time they get the hand is if they lie. Consequently it rarely happens. 1x a year maybe... matter of fact, i don't think i had to spank the 8 at all in 2011.
But again: your kids. What works for me may (probably) not work for you. |
3,907 | When a child lies there a few common reasons why they may be doing this:
1. To see what happens
2. because it is fun to tell stories that they don't really realize are lies
3. to get someone else in trouble
4. to get themselves out of trouble
How would one go about disciplining these lies (assuming you realize they are lies)? Let's say we are talking about ages 4-8. After that lying is a much more serious issue and must be dealt with, I imagine, in a different way.
Related to number 4, I have heard the theory that whatever the consequence would be for the action they are lying about is doubled. I'd welcome any other suggestions, especially for the other three reasons listed. | 2012/01/03 | [
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com/questions/3907",
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com",
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com/users/1889/"
] | You have a couple good answers about the punishment side of discipline, just don't forget about the reward side as well. If they're honest about something without having to be interrogated, go lenient on them, or even let it slide with just a discussion and a promise from them to do better. It works amazingly well, so much that we've had to be careful not to go too far the other way. For example, my son who had been lying about pooping his pants ended up proudly announcing it instead of stopping doing it. One problem at a time though, right? :-) | I like Ali's answer in the context of the 4yo.
However, an 8yo is greatly different. An 8yo has a much broader understanding of the world, social expectations and contracts placed upon them, and should understand specific definitions of Right and Wrong. A 4yo barely understands that other people can have ownership of things, too. An 8yo can understand the lesson in Cars (basic respect towards other people) that isn't explicitly spelled out in skywriting.
If you're talking abotu an 8yo that told a 1-off lie about something that could really get them into hot water, then I would suggest dealing with the fact that they lied and move on. Ali's list above would work well, I think.
However, an 8yo that lies regularly is a problem beyond in/consequence. even inconsequential lies are consequential at that point. I would recommend going back to the drawing board and attempting to establish what the *real* problem is and whether or not they understand socially Right and Wrong. Either way, it's probably time to seek a professional.
Appropriate discipline? Man, you know your kids better than I do. What has worked for me with all 5 of my kids is spanking. The only time they get the hand is if they lie. Consequently it rarely happens. 1x a year maybe... matter of fact, i don't think i had to spank the 8 at all in 2011.
But again: your kids. What works for me may (probably) not work for you. |
353,461 | In *Wizards Unite*, there will occasionally be a gold beam that shoots from the Foundables that appear on the map.
At first I thought it meant to be Foundable that I had not yet encountered before. However, that theory ended up bring proved wrong after I encountered one of these and it ended up being a Foundable I had already encountered.
So, what does this gold beam mean?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/UVxcnm.png) | 2019/06/25 | [
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/353461",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/124566/"
] | According to this [video](https://youtu.be/IjKLCd4OKfM?t=42) (starting at 42 seconds), it indicates the difficulty of the Foundable
>
> Yellow = Medium
>
>
> Orange = Severe
>
>
> Red = Emergency
>
>
>
Also, if you view this [link](https://www.imore.com/harry-potter-wizards-unite-tips-and-tricks) it says the following:
>
> Keep your eyes peeled for a beam of light shooting up from the Traces
> you see in the world, these are high-risk Foundables, and as such are
> worthy of your time.
>
>
> | I believe that indicates a more difficult Foundable. There are also red beams which indicate an even higher difficulty. |
13,082 | Think you can help make life better for a nation of call center workers?
At a large insurance company, I used to work in the call center for both Auto Claims and then Homeowner Claims, before I was promoted on to other things. It's a complicated and stressful position, where customers are already upset because they have just gotten in a car accident or their house just burned down.
Call volume varies, but tends to be constant during many busy periods. As soon as you're done with one call, sometimes there's a lull, but usually another call is waiting.
**The problem is** that this leads to people taking a breather during "After Call Work," purposefully inflating their call time in order to catch a break from the stressful calls.
**A potential solution**, I've always wondered, is to pre-program an automatic break of no calls for X minutes after Y calls. (e.g. a 1 minute break after every 3 calls.)
**My question** is, would there be any scientific basis that could help justify a Return On Investment? Is a rest period worth the drain on phone coverage? Or is it more beneficial to leave it up to the workers, to sacrifice their Average Handling Time at will to decompress at their own pace? | 2016/01/15 | [
"https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/13082",
"https://cogsci.stackexchange.com",
"https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/users/3020/"
] | [This](http://interruptions.net/literature/McFarlane-HCI02_2.pdf) is the paper you would want to read on this topic. The paper empirically compares four modes of managing interruptions. It is a great (and long) read so I'll try to summarize the bit for you:
There are thus four modes of managing interruptions:
* Immediate interruptions. There is no management whatsoever. As soon there is a distracting stimulus/task, it has to be attended to. In your case, you could think of being in a conversation with one costumer and immediately being switched to another. You can already imagine this is not a very good one.
* Negotiated interruptions. You can decide all by yourself whether and when to attend to the interruptions. You could choose to finish a difficult part of one task and only attend to the interrupting task when that is done.
* Mediated interruptions. Some other metric decides when an interruption is deemed appropriate. A well known metric is workload, as measured by pupil dilation. To bigger you pupil is, the higher workload is. Interrupting would be best in low workload situations ([Salvucci and Bogunovic,2010)](https://www.cs.drexel.edu/~salvucci/publications/Salvucci-CHI10.pdf)). What you suggested, the cooldown time, is also a mediated system.
* Planned interruptions. Interruptions only come at moments you have planned. Though this may seem nice, in many situations, such as yours, this is not possible. Even if you could plan the moments, in dynamic environments you cannot predict the best moments. You could have an incredible high workload on one day, and have nothing to do on another.
So which is best?
-----------------
The results show that the best interruption management systems are a combination of negotiated and mediated management (believe me on this one, I do not want to discuss 20 pages of results here haha). Mediated management systems will determine the best moments of interruptions which is incredibly useful. However, if workload is very high for a longer period of time, the callers may be on hold for too long.
The negotiated management of interruptions allows people to work as hard as they can/want. Some people perform better under pressure than others and may choose to wait for a shorter period of time. The downside, however, is the fact that people are bad at this. Some people stress themselves out and never wait (Asking for reference here) and some people wait to long and may get distracted by other things ([Katidioti et al.,2014](http://www.academia.edu/12664220/CHOICE_IN_MULTITASKING_How_delays_in_the_primary_task_turn_a_rational_into_an_irrational_multitasker)).
A combination would thus be best. Mediate the interruptions, but allow the employees to continue working when they want to. In you case, you could have a short mandatory pause duration and a suggested longer pause duration (or conversely, an maximum pause duration). You could then determine the duration of the pause based on the length of the last call(s) for instance.
I hope this answers your question and if you have any questions just let me know.
EDIT: The literature I described above mainly focuses on multitasking, while your question is about sequential tasking. Nevertheless I do believe the above can be generalized to your problem. The interruptions are now in fact the breaks.
A final note, if people purposefully inflate there call time, this may be an indicator that workload is indeed too high. Talk with the people and ask what they think of the situation and what they think may be a good solution. When changing an interface/task/process, people accept the changes much more quickly if they are involved in the process (Asking for reference).
*References:*
[Daniel C. McFarlane (2002): Comparison of Four Primary Methods for Coordinating the Interruption of People in Human–Computer Interaction](http://interruptions.net/literature/McFarlane-HCI02_2.pdf)
[Salvucci and Bogunovic (2012): Multitasking and Monotasking: The Effects of
Mental Workload on Deferred Task Interruptions](https://www.cs.drexel.edu/~salvucci/publications/Salvucci-CHI10.pdf)
[Katidioti and Taatgen (2014): CHOICE IN MULTITASKING: How delays in the primary task turn a rational into an irrational multitasker](http://www.academia.edu/12664220/CHOICE_IN_MULTITASKING_How_delays_in_the_primary_task_turn_a_rational_into_an_irrational_multitasker) | Taking a break at work wards emotional job-burnout and can also led to job satisfaction, and a greater effort at job tasks. Of one in five of the half of U.S. employees (10%) work a full-time 60+ hours a week (2014 Gallup poll, 2014), one in five of these employees (2%) taking lunch breaks (Right Management, 2012). Employees may take up to 2 breaks a day, feeling more energized and motivated from a morning break, and are more productive throughout the day.
Source: <http://news.health.com/2015/09/18/workday-breaks-help-employees-reboot-researchers-say/> |
465,759 | Just yesterday in chat someone intentionally misquoted Glen [from Chucky](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387575/quotes/qt0256440), saying "dad." They then followed with:
>
> It's technically Daddy but that seems a bit awkward.
>
>
>
[Google ngrams](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=daddy&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cdaddy%3B%2Cc0) shows usage of the word is at an all time high so, curious about the history of the usage they were talking about, I took a look at [the OED](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/46825?redirectedFrom=daddy#eid). It seems like the current sexual usage might come from a combination of prison slang used from the 1930's:
>
> *Prison slang.* A man who takes an active or dominant role in a homosexual relationship, esp. one who provides physical protection to a (typically younger) more vulnerable inmate.
>
>
>
And in the US from the 1910's:
>
> *U.S.* (in early use chiefly in African-American usage). A woman's male lover; a husband. Frequently as a form of address.
>
>
>
However, these are only two of the many definitions--most of which are synonyms for "Dad." So why are these definitions dominating now? How did "Daddy" become synonymous with a sexual kink to the point where people go out of their way to avoid saying it lest it twist their quote? | 2018/09/26 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/465759",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/49506/"
] | Generally speaking, we determine which definition of a multiple-meaning word the speaker/writer meant by the context. This, of course, can be used for humour:
>
> *The town drunk got up off the park bench, stumbled down the street, and walked into a bar. "Ouch!" he said.*
>
>
>
This is equally true of the word ***daddy***. Yes, it can have sexual overtones. The [Washington Post quotes](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46032-2005Jan3.html) the Random House Dictionary of American Slang saying that the notion of *daddy* meaning a *pimp* goes back to the late 1600s and in Blues songs going back to the early 1900s.
Esquire magazine [makes the claim](https://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/sex/a21529729/internet-daddy-what-is-daddy-explainer/) that "no one over the age of 12 is calling anyone "daddy" without a tinge of something else there," something I disagree with completely. (They also suggest that the *pimp* definition dates to 1821.) They go on to discuss various meanings as well as other forms of the word.
The website *Whimn* discusses "[Why Some Women Love Calling Their Partner ‘Daddy’ In Bed](https://www.whimn.com.au/love/intimacy/why-some-women-love-calling-their-partner-daddy-in-bed/news-story/0598a94110baad366d682a7d7d452601)" which basically comes down to feeling safe enough to give up control to someone else and enjoy being submissive in a consentual, trusting situation.
So, yes, there are many cases where the word *Daddy* has sexual overtones and, in our hypersexualized society, the media definitely uses that to boost ratings.
But there are also many who don't see things that way. Recently, a woman posted online saying that her ex-husband had told their kids (ages 10, 9, and 7.5) that they were [too old to call him *Daddy*](https://thestir.cafemom.com/big_kid/212221/dad-thinks-kids-too-old-call-daddy) -- despite the ex still calling his own father *Daddy*. Reactions were mixed, of course, with some saying you're never too old to call your father daddy and others saying the opposite.
So, when I hear someone, especially a child call their father *Daddy*, there's nothing sexual there. If a woman calls her *husband* daddy, it might be sexual and [it might not be](https://www.scarymommy.com/i-call-my-husband-daddy-but-not-for-the-reasons-you-think/). It really depends on the context.
As to why someone would avoid the use of *Daddy*, other than family culture (my parents were always *Mom* and *Dad*; I have no idea why), well, yes, there [could be some confusion](https://www.romper.com/p/i-call-my-husband-daddy-yes-i-know-its-gross-39212), but I don't think the notion of censoring oneself from using *Daddy* is all that common, especially among parents.
>
> Is the primary usage of “Daddy” sexual now?
>
>
>
In some circles, yes, others, no. In general, I don't think so, unless context dictates otherwise.
**Update:** I polled my three kids this morning on the way to school and they all said they would use *Dad*. When I asked about alternative meanings for *Daddy*, my just-started-high-school, puberty-induced-dirty-minded daughter came up with the sexual connotations, though she admitted she didn't understand it (and thought it gross). So maybe the definition varies based on whether or not someone has gone through puberty? | In England *Daddy* is a normal word for father, particularly among very small children, and whilst it has largely been replaced by *Dad*, it lingers as the normal familiar word for father among older, perhaps middle-class people, although much ground has been lost to the almost ubiquitous *Dad*, perhaps as a result of a fear of sounding snooty or 'posh' in our classless times. I only ever called my father *Daddy*. He died in 2011 aged 82. My daughter often calls me *Daddy*, but my sons call me *Dad*.
The sexual overtones are news to me, and must surely be an entirely American thing, although they may be current in gay circles, albeit again imported from the US. They would not be familiar to most British people at all, in fact the idea is quite bizarre and distasteful - shocking even. People use the expression 'who's the Daddy?' in a mildly amusing way to ask who is top-dog, but I dare say 99.9% of British people would understand no sexual implication in it whatsoever, perhaps naively as it is an American import we clearly do not fully understand. In Britain *Mummy* is the exact female equivalent, retreating before *Mum*, but not perhaps retreating as markedly as *Daddy*. There are regional variations: *Mam* and *Mammy* in Wales and parts of the north, *Mom* and *Mommy* (for example in Staffordshire and east Shropshire, the area I come from). |
465,759 | Just yesterday in chat someone intentionally misquoted Glen [from Chucky](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387575/quotes/qt0256440), saying "dad." They then followed with:
>
> It's technically Daddy but that seems a bit awkward.
>
>
>
[Google ngrams](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=daddy&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cdaddy%3B%2Cc0) shows usage of the word is at an all time high so, curious about the history of the usage they were talking about, I took a look at [the OED](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/46825?redirectedFrom=daddy#eid). It seems like the current sexual usage might come from a combination of prison slang used from the 1930's:
>
> *Prison slang.* A man who takes an active or dominant role in a homosexual relationship, esp. one who provides physical protection to a (typically younger) more vulnerable inmate.
>
>
>
And in the US from the 1910's:
>
> *U.S.* (in early use chiefly in African-American usage). A woman's male lover; a husband. Frequently as a form of address.
>
>
>
However, these are only two of the many definitions--most of which are synonyms for "Dad." So why are these definitions dominating now? How did "Daddy" become synonymous with a sexual kink to the point where people go out of their way to avoid saying it lest it twist their quote? | 2018/09/26 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/465759",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/49506/"
] | Generally speaking, we determine which definition of a multiple-meaning word the speaker/writer meant by the context. This, of course, can be used for humour:
>
> *The town drunk got up off the park bench, stumbled down the street, and walked into a bar. "Ouch!" he said.*
>
>
>
This is equally true of the word ***daddy***. Yes, it can have sexual overtones. The [Washington Post quotes](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46032-2005Jan3.html) the Random House Dictionary of American Slang saying that the notion of *daddy* meaning a *pimp* goes back to the late 1600s and in Blues songs going back to the early 1900s.
Esquire magazine [makes the claim](https://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/sex/a21529729/internet-daddy-what-is-daddy-explainer/) that "no one over the age of 12 is calling anyone "daddy" without a tinge of something else there," something I disagree with completely. (They also suggest that the *pimp* definition dates to 1821.) They go on to discuss various meanings as well as other forms of the word.
The website *Whimn* discusses "[Why Some Women Love Calling Their Partner ‘Daddy’ In Bed](https://www.whimn.com.au/love/intimacy/why-some-women-love-calling-their-partner-daddy-in-bed/news-story/0598a94110baad366d682a7d7d452601)" which basically comes down to feeling safe enough to give up control to someone else and enjoy being submissive in a consentual, trusting situation.
So, yes, there are many cases where the word *Daddy* has sexual overtones and, in our hypersexualized society, the media definitely uses that to boost ratings.
But there are also many who don't see things that way. Recently, a woman posted online saying that her ex-husband had told their kids (ages 10, 9, and 7.5) that they were [too old to call him *Daddy*](https://thestir.cafemom.com/big_kid/212221/dad-thinks-kids-too-old-call-daddy) -- despite the ex still calling his own father *Daddy*. Reactions were mixed, of course, with some saying you're never too old to call your father daddy and others saying the opposite.
So, when I hear someone, especially a child call their father *Daddy*, there's nothing sexual there. If a woman calls her *husband* daddy, it might be sexual and [it might not be](https://www.scarymommy.com/i-call-my-husband-daddy-but-not-for-the-reasons-you-think/). It really depends on the context.
As to why someone would avoid the use of *Daddy*, other than family culture (my parents were always *Mom* and *Dad*; I have no idea why), well, yes, there [could be some confusion](https://www.romper.com/p/i-call-my-husband-daddy-yes-i-know-its-gross-39212), but I don't think the notion of censoring oneself from using *Daddy* is all that common, especially among parents.
>
> Is the primary usage of “Daddy” sexual now?
>
>
>
In some circles, yes, others, no. In general, I don't think so, unless context dictates otherwise.
**Update:** I polled my three kids this morning on the way to school and they all said they would use *Dad*. When I asked about alternative meanings for *Daddy*, my just-started-high-school, puberty-induced-dirty-minded daughter came up with the sexual connotations, though she admitted she didn't understand it (and thought it gross). So maybe the definition varies based on whether or not someone has gone through puberty? | In the American South, it's common to hear grown men refer to their (own) father as "Daddy", or "my Daddy". It's a normative usage in that dialect. OTOH, it's common for adult but young women in the American South to use it in both senses. |
465,759 | Just yesterday in chat someone intentionally misquoted Glen [from Chucky](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387575/quotes/qt0256440), saying "dad." They then followed with:
>
> It's technically Daddy but that seems a bit awkward.
>
>
>
[Google ngrams](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=daddy&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cdaddy%3B%2Cc0) shows usage of the word is at an all time high so, curious about the history of the usage they were talking about, I took a look at [the OED](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/46825?redirectedFrom=daddy#eid). It seems like the current sexual usage might come from a combination of prison slang used from the 1930's:
>
> *Prison slang.* A man who takes an active or dominant role in a homosexual relationship, esp. one who provides physical protection to a (typically younger) more vulnerable inmate.
>
>
>
And in the US from the 1910's:
>
> *U.S.* (in early use chiefly in African-American usage). A woman's male lover; a husband. Frequently as a form of address.
>
>
>
However, these are only two of the many definitions--most of which are synonyms for "Dad." So why are these definitions dominating now? How did "Daddy" become synonymous with a sexual kink to the point where people go out of their way to avoid saying it lest it twist their quote? | 2018/09/26 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/465759",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/49506/"
] | In England *Daddy* is a normal word for father, particularly among very small children, and whilst it has largely been replaced by *Dad*, it lingers as the normal familiar word for father among older, perhaps middle-class people, although much ground has been lost to the almost ubiquitous *Dad*, perhaps as a result of a fear of sounding snooty or 'posh' in our classless times. I only ever called my father *Daddy*. He died in 2011 aged 82. My daughter often calls me *Daddy*, but my sons call me *Dad*.
The sexual overtones are news to me, and must surely be an entirely American thing, although they may be current in gay circles, albeit again imported from the US. They would not be familiar to most British people at all, in fact the idea is quite bizarre and distasteful - shocking even. People use the expression 'who's the Daddy?' in a mildly amusing way to ask who is top-dog, but I dare say 99.9% of British people would understand no sexual implication in it whatsoever, perhaps naively as it is an American import we clearly do not fully understand. In Britain *Mummy* is the exact female equivalent, retreating before *Mum*, but not perhaps retreating as markedly as *Daddy*. There are regional variations: *Mam* and *Mammy* in Wales and parts of the north, *Mom* and *Mommy* (for example in Staffordshire and east Shropshire, the area I come from). | In the American South, it's common to hear grown men refer to their (own) father as "Daddy", or "my Daddy". It's a normative usage in that dialect. OTOH, it's common for adult but young women in the American South to use it in both senses. |
105,552 | For the Pathfinder RPG, the costs and limits of a [Bag of Holding](http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/a-b/bag-of-holding/) are defined pretty clearly.
Though it comes in four different types, I'll take a Type I Bag of Holding as an example. The Type I bag weighs
15 pounds, has a Contents Limit of 250 pounds., a Contents Volume Limit of 30 cubic feet, a Market Price of 2,500 gp, and a Cost To Create of 1,250 gp. The creator needs the **Craft Wondrous Item** feat and the spell **Secret Chest**. Caster Level is 9. The bag of holding opens into a nondimensional space.
For my campaign I've created a Mutex Bag of Holding. A Type I Mutex Bag of Holding is actually two different bags (A and B). Both bags open on to the same nondimensional space. Only one bag may be open at a time. If Bag A is already open, Bag B refuses to open and cannot be opened.
The advantage here is that Bag A can be across the globe from Bag B; it provides a way of resupplying a party from across vast distances, passing notes or potions or rations or whatever. Picking up and holding the bag does not provide any sort of identification, location nor communication with the owner of the other bag, but there's aways [Sending](http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/sending/) spells. Passing notes through the bag is permitted.
**EDIT** In case it is relevant, the Player Characters in my campaign currently have only one of the two bags and don't know who possesses the other bag: friend, foe, or absent-minded wizard who left Bag B open.
Does something like this already exist? I have not found it in my searches to date.
How do I figure out the Cost To Create for this item? I treat the two bags as one set. I plan to put a premium on this because the pair allows some new creative uses over a single Bag, but I'm not sure how to cost this out, as it approaches the convenience of a [Teleportation Circle](http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/t/teleportation-circle/) that is both permanent and portable.
--- | 2017/08/19 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/105552",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/27498/"
] | The [*ring gates*](http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/r-z/ring-gates/) are close to the item described:
>
> These always come in pairs—two iron rings, each about 18 inches in diameter. The rings must be on the same plane of existence and within 100 miles of each other to function. Whatever is put through one ring comes out the other, and up to 100 pounds of material can be transferred each day. (Objects only partially pushed through and then retracted do not count.) This useful device allows for instantaneous transport of items or messages, and even attacks. A character can reach through to grab things near the other ring, or even stab a weapon through if so desired. Alternatively, a character could stick his head through to look around. A spellcaster could even cast a spell through a ring gate. A Small character can make a DC 13 Escape Artist check to slip through. Creatures of Tiny, Diminutive, or Fine size can pass through easily. Each ring has an “entry side” and an “exit side,” both marked with appropriate symbols.
>
>
>
Normally, I wouldn't quote the entire description, but I wanted to demonstrate the *extreme* limits placed on this item compared to the item the question describes. And the *ring gates* cost 20,000 for a pair.
This GM wouldn't allow into his campaign a magic item exactly like the one the question describes. It's a world-changer, and maintaining verisimilitude after its introduction will be challenging unless the campaign's designed around it. This GM humbly recommends a per-day insert/extract weight limit similar to that of the *ring gates* equal to the *bag*'s typical capacity. Were that limitation added, a price of 10× the normal cost of a [*bag of holding*](http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/a-b/bag-of-holding) of the same capacity may be reasonable. Absent that limitation, however, and this at least borders on a minor artifact as wide reproduction of such items obviates entire industries. | So, it sounds like this works exactly like two different wizards using the same target for *secret chest*. I would cost it like two spells, at will. That's 2x(9x5x50), plus 5000 for the focus (not doubled). That's 9500, so maybe bump the minimum CL to 10, which moves the price up to 10,000 gold and gives it an even 10 cubic feet.
Wizards already have this in a non-permanent way just by wanting it, so you may as well let non-casters have nice things too. |
105,552 | For the Pathfinder RPG, the costs and limits of a [Bag of Holding](http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/a-b/bag-of-holding/) are defined pretty clearly.
Though it comes in four different types, I'll take a Type I Bag of Holding as an example. The Type I bag weighs
15 pounds, has a Contents Limit of 250 pounds., a Contents Volume Limit of 30 cubic feet, a Market Price of 2,500 gp, and a Cost To Create of 1,250 gp. The creator needs the **Craft Wondrous Item** feat and the spell **Secret Chest**. Caster Level is 9. The bag of holding opens into a nondimensional space.
For my campaign I've created a Mutex Bag of Holding. A Type I Mutex Bag of Holding is actually two different bags (A and B). Both bags open on to the same nondimensional space. Only one bag may be open at a time. If Bag A is already open, Bag B refuses to open and cannot be opened.
The advantage here is that Bag A can be across the globe from Bag B; it provides a way of resupplying a party from across vast distances, passing notes or potions or rations or whatever. Picking up and holding the bag does not provide any sort of identification, location nor communication with the owner of the other bag, but there's aways [Sending](http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/sending/) spells. Passing notes through the bag is permitted.
**EDIT** In case it is relevant, the Player Characters in my campaign currently have only one of the two bags and don't know who possesses the other bag: friend, foe, or absent-minded wizard who left Bag B open.
Does something like this already exist? I have not found it in my searches to date.
How do I figure out the Cost To Create for this item? I treat the two bags as one set. I plan to put a premium on this because the pair allows some new creative uses over a single Bag, but I'm not sure how to cost this out, as it approaches the convenience of a [Teleportation Circle](http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/t/teleportation-circle/) that is both permanent and portable.
--- | 2017/08/19 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/105552",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/27498/"
] | The [*ring gates*](http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/r-z/ring-gates/) are close to the item described:
>
> These always come in pairs—two iron rings, each about 18 inches in diameter. The rings must be on the same plane of existence and within 100 miles of each other to function. Whatever is put through one ring comes out the other, and up to 100 pounds of material can be transferred each day. (Objects only partially pushed through and then retracted do not count.) This useful device allows for instantaneous transport of items or messages, and even attacks. A character can reach through to grab things near the other ring, or even stab a weapon through if so desired. Alternatively, a character could stick his head through to look around. A spellcaster could even cast a spell through a ring gate. A Small character can make a DC 13 Escape Artist check to slip through. Creatures of Tiny, Diminutive, or Fine size can pass through easily. Each ring has an “entry side” and an “exit side,” both marked with appropriate symbols.
>
>
>
Normally, I wouldn't quote the entire description, but I wanted to demonstrate the *extreme* limits placed on this item compared to the item the question describes. And the *ring gates* cost 20,000 for a pair.
This GM wouldn't allow into his campaign a magic item exactly like the one the question describes. It's a world-changer, and maintaining verisimilitude after its introduction will be challenging unless the campaign's designed around it. This GM humbly recommends a per-day insert/extract weight limit similar to that of the *ring gates* equal to the *bag*'s typical capacity. Were that limitation added, a price of 10× the normal cost of a [*bag of holding*](http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/a-b/bag-of-holding) of the same capacity may be reasonable. Absent that limitation, however, and this at least borders on a minor artifact as wide reproduction of such items obviates entire industries. | There are two questions here. One question is : how much should it cost to create this item? The other is: how much can you sell one half of it for?
This item could be used for two-way trade between two cities, so we might estimate its cost as similar to that of two permanent teleportation circles -- so, 47000gp. The teleportation circles are fixed to one place, but they have higher throughput than the bag, so maybe it balances out.
However, one half of the item is basically useless: it's like a normal bag of holding except someone can steal your stuff. No NPC should be willing to buy this.
I assume you're planning to use this as a plot trigger: the npc tries to buy the bag, and one or both sides potentially try to backstab the other? |
105,552 | For the Pathfinder RPG, the costs and limits of a [Bag of Holding](http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/a-b/bag-of-holding/) are defined pretty clearly.
Though it comes in four different types, I'll take a Type I Bag of Holding as an example. The Type I bag weighs
15 pounds, has a Contents Limit of 250 pounds., a Contents Volume Limit of 30 cubic feet, a Market Price of 2,500 gp, and a Cost To Create of 1,250 gp. The creator needs the **Craft Wondrous Item** feat and the spell **Secret Chest**. Caster Level is 9. The bag of holding opens into a nondimensional space.
For my campaign I've created a Mutex Bag of Holding. A Type I Mutex Bag of Holding is actually two different bags (A and B). Both bags open on to the same nondimensional space. Only one bag may be open at a time. If Bag A is already open, Bag B refuses to open and cannot be opened.
The advantage here is that Bag A can be across the globe from Bag B; it provides a way of resupplying a party from across vast distances, passing notes or potions or rations or whatever. Picking up and holding the bag does not provide any sort of identification, location nor communication with the owner of the other bag, but there's aways [Sending](http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/sending/) spells. Passing notes through the bag is permitted.
**EDIT** In case it is relevant, the Player Characters in my campaign currently have only one of the two bags and don't know who possesses the other bag: friend, foe, or absent-minded wizard who left Bag B open.
Does something like this already exist? I have not found it in my searches to date.
How do I figure out the Cost To Create for this item? I treat the two bags as one set. I plan to put a premium on this because the pair allows some new creative uses over a single Bag, but I'm not sure how to cost this out, as it approaches the convenience of a [Teleportation Circle](http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/t/teleportation-circle/) that is both permanent and portable.
--- | 2017/08/19 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/105552",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/27498/"
] | So, it sounds like this works exactly like two different wizards using the same target for *secret chest*. I would cost it like two spells, at will. That's 2x(9x5x50), plus 5000 for the focus (not doubled). That's 9500, so maybe bump the minimum CL to 10, which moves the price up to 10,000 gold and gives it an even 10 cubic feet.
Wizards already have this in a non-permanent way just by wanting it, so you may as well let non-casters have nice things too. | There are two questions here. One question is : how much should it cost to create this item? The other is: how much can you sell one half of it for?
This item could be used for two-way trade between two cities, so we might estimate its cost as similar to that of two permanent teleportation circles -- so, 47000gp. The teleportation circles are fixed to one place, but they have higher throughput than the bag, so maybe it balances out.
However, one half of the item is basically useless: it's like a normal bag of holding except someone can steal your stuff. No NPC should be willing to buy this.
I assume you're planning to use this as a plot trigger: the npc tries to buy the bag, and one or both sides potentially try to backstab the other? |
3,776 | Generally, in English titles should have the first letter of their words capitalized (with the exception of connectives), is this something that still applies on the Chemistry SE (or on any SE as a whole)?
I have also noticed in general chemical names/compounds are also Capitalized in titles (whereas they are not in the question body), is this something that should be done too? | 2017/06/06 | [
"https://chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3776",
"https://chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/users/45696/"
] | As far as I can tell, there are no regulations in place, either on Chem.SE or on the SE network in general. However, the use of **sentence case** seems to be strongly preferred. Hence,
>
> [Is there a general consensus on the causes of the alpha-effect?](https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/7460/is-there-a-general-consensus-on-the-causes-of-the-alpha-effect)
>
>
>
is (generally) preferred to the title case alternative
>
> [Is There a General Consensus on the Causes of the Alpha-effect?](https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/7460/is-there-a-general-consensus-on-the-causes-of-the-alpha-effect)
>
>
>
Some arguments for sentence case are presented in [this](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/98066/capitalizing-titles) Meta Stack Exchange post. For the most part I agree that sentence case is more pleasant to see. Note also that most of the "good titles" listed in [this FAQ post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10647/how-do-i-write-a-good-title) are in sentence case.
---
As for names of elements or compounds, these should **never** be capitalised unless they are at the start of a sentence. | **My two cents:**
If the title is a full grammatical sentence (usually a question), I prefer the use of sentence case:
>
> Why does this alkene addition reaction lead to a racemized mixture of products?
>
>
>
If the title is *not* a full grammatical sentence, but is more of a descriptive phrase, I prefer the use of title case:
>
> Racemized Products in Alkene Addition Reactions
>
>
>
I've found both approaches to be preferable in different circumstances, so I wouldn't personally advocate for one over the other as a general principle.
---
Element names are common nouns; as such, their capitalization patterns should be identical to any other common noun:
>
> Thiol Affinities of Silver and Gold
>
>
>
But:
>
> Why does gold commonly exhibit both the +1 and +3 oxidation states, but silver only the +1?
>
>
> |
3,776 | Generally, in English titles should have the first letter of their words capitalized (with the exception of connectives), is this something that still applies on the Chemistry SE (or on any SE as a whole)?
I have also noticed in general chemical names/compounds are also Capitalized in titles (whereas they are not in the question body), is this something that should be done too? | 2017/06/06 | [
"https://chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3776",
"https://chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/users/45696/"
] | As far as I can tell, there are no regulations in place, either on Chem.SE or on the SE network in general. However, the use of **sentence case** seems to be strongly preferred. Hence,
>
> [Is there a general consensus on the causes of the alpha-effect?](https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/7460/is-there-a-general-consensus-on-the-causes-of-the-alpha-effect)
>
>
>
is (generally) preferred to the title case alternative
>
> [Is There a General Consensus on the Causes of the Alpha-effect?](https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/7460/is-there-a-general-consensus-on-the-causes-of-the-alpha-effect)
>
>
>
Some arguments for sentence case are presented in [this](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/98066/capitalizing-titles) Meta Stack Exchange post. For the most part I agree that sentence case is more pleasant to see. Note also that most of the "good titles" listed in [this FAQ post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10647/how-do-i-write-a-good-title) are in sentence case.
---
As for names of elements or compounds, these should **never** be capitalised unless they are at the start of a sentence. | The difference you are referring to is the difference between *sentence case* (upper and lowercase letters as in any sentence) and *title case* (casing as it would only ever appear in titles).
You do say *generally* and like any weasel word this is *generally* true. However, note that it depends on the style guide you are consulting. [Not all English style guides recommend title case.](https://english.stackexchange.com/q/362245)
---
After having gotten the boring out of the way, here are my suggestions:
* use sentence case if you have a sentence, use title case if not.
* if you run across capitalised chemical names in a non-title case title, it is most likely a capitalisation mistake. Submit an edit to correct it. |
926 | Currently it shows like this (a recent example)
>
> closed as "not programming related" by RSolberg, Tim J, Rob Kennedy, Paul Alexander, Michael Petrotta an hour ago
>
>
>
How about it would show like this.
>
> closed as "not programming related" by RSolberg, Tim J and as "not a real question" by Rob Kennedy, Paul Alexander, Michael Petrotta an hour ago
>
>
>
Or like this.
>
> Closed as:
>
> "not programming related" by RSolberg, Tim J
>
> "not a real question" by Rob Kennedy, Paul Alexander, Michael Petrotta
>
> an hour ago
>
>
> | 2009/06/30 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/926",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/22459/"
] | The current method spreads false information. It claims that all close votes were unanimously for a particular option - this is clearly not the case. In a recent question, I voted to close as "belongs on superuser.com," whereas the majority voted "not programming related." When the question was finally closed, it claimed that I, along with the others, voted to close because it was "not programming related." That is false. | I think this would both clutter up the close-message, and lead to annoyed people wondering *why Rob thought their question was not a "real question", when everyone else though it wasn't programming related*..
This might happen because a user accidently clicked the wrong close message ([example](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/863/ability-to-change-close-reason-before-it-gets-closed)) - it gets averaged out and prevents arguments, I'd say.. |
926 | Currently it shows like this (a recent example)
>
> closed as "not programming related" by RSolberg, Tim J, Rob Kennedy, Paul Alexander, Michael Petrotta an hour ago
>
>
>
How about it would show like this.
>
> closed as "not programming related" by RSolberg, Tim J and as "not a real question" by Rob Kennedy, Paul Alexander, Michael Petrotta an hour ago
>
>
>
Or like this.
>
> Closed as:
>
> "not programming related" by RSolberg, Tim J
>
> "not a real question" by Rob Kennedy, Paul Alexander, Michael Petrotta
>
> an hour ago
>
>
> | 2009/06/30 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/926",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/22459/"
] | I think this would both clutter up the close-message, and lead to annoyed people wondering *why Rob thought their question was not a "real question", when everyone else though it wasn't programming related*..
This might happen because a user accidently clicked the wrong close message ([example](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/863/ability-to-change-close-reason-before-it-gets-closed)) - it gets averaged out and prevents arguments, I'd say.. | I would say even remove the reason from everyone except the moderators. In fact, there should be a way for moderators to filter by close reason to allow them to permanently delete or move questions that just don't belong and add 0 value to Stack Overflow. |
926 | Currently it shows like this (a recent example)
>
> closed as "not programming related" by RSolberg, Tim J, Rob Kennedy, Paul Alexander, Michael Petrotta an hour ago
>
>
>
How about it would show like this.
>
> closed as "not programming related" by RSolberg, Tim J and as "not a real question" by Rob Kennedy, Paul Alexander, Michael Petrotta an hour ago
>
>
>
Or like this.
>
> Closed as:
>
> "not programming related" by RSolberg, Tim J
>
> "not a real question" by Rob Kennedy, Paul Alexander, Michael Petrotta
>
> an hour ago
>
>
> | 2009/06/30 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/926",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/22459/"
] | The current method spreads false information. It claims that all close votes were unanimously for a particular option - this is clearly not the case. In a recent question, I voted to close as "belongs on superuser.com," whereas the majority voted "not programming related." When the question was finally closed, it claimed that I, along with the others, voted to close because it was "not programming related." That is false. | I would say even remove the reason from everyone except the moderators. In fact, there should be a way for moderators to filter by close reason to allow them to permanently delete or move questions that just don't belong and add 0 value to Stack Overflow. |
926 | Currently it shows like this (a recent example)
>
> closed as "not programming related" by RSolberg, Tim J, Rob Kennedy, Paul Alexander, Michael Petrotta an hour ago
>
>
>
How about it would show like this.
>
> closed as "not programming related" by RSolberg, Tim J and as "not a real question" by Rob Kennedy, Paul Alexander, Michael Petrotta an hour ago
>
>
>
Or like this.
>
> Closed as:
>
> "not programming related" by RSolberg, Tim J
>
> "not a real question" by Rob Kennedy, Paul Alexander, Michael Petrotta
>
> an hour ago
>
>
> | 2009/06/30 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/926",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/22459/"
] | The current method spreads false information. It claims that all close votes were unanimously for a particular option - this is clearly not the case. In a recent question, I voted to close as "belongs on superuser.com," whereas the majority voted "not programming related." When the question was finally closed, it claimed that I, along with the others, voted to close because it was "not programming related." That is false. | Does this extra information really add any value? IMHO it doesn't. Nearly all the time there's consensus on the reason too. |
926 | Currently it shows like this (a recent example)
>
> closed as "not programming related" by RSolberg, Tim J, Rob Kennedy, Paul Alexander, Michael Petrotta an hour ago
>
>
>
How about it would show like this.
>
> closed as "not programming related" by RSolberg, Tim J and as "not a real question" by Rob Kennedy, Paul Alexander, Michael Petrotta an hour ago
>
>
>
Or like this.
>
> Closed as:
>
> "not programming related" by RSolberg, Tim J
>
> "not a real question" by Rob Kennedy, Paul Alexander, Michael Petrotta
>
> an hour ago
>
>
> | 2009/06/30 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/926",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/22459/"
] | I think this would both clutter up the close-message, and lead to annoyed people wondering *why Rob thought their question was not a "real question", when everyone else though it wasn't programming related*..
This might happen because a user accidently clicked the wrong close message ([example](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/863/ability-to-change-close-reason-before-it-gets-closed)) - it gets averaged out and prevents arguments, I'd say.. | Does this extra information really add any value? IMHO it doesn't. Nearly all the time there's consensus on the reason too. |
926 | Currently it shows like this (a recent example)
>
> closed as "not programming related" by RSolberg, Tim J, Rob Kennedy, Paul Alexander, Michael Petrotta an hour ago
>
>
>
How about it would show like this.
>
> closed as "not programming related" by RSolberg, Tim J and as "not a real question" by Rob Kennedy, Paul Alexander, Michael Petrotta an hour ago
>
>
>
Or like this.
>
> Closed as:
>
> "not programming related" by RSolberg, Tim J
>
> "not a real question" by Rob Kennedy, Paul Alexander, Michael Petrotta
>
> an hour ago
>
>
> | 2009/06/30 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/926",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/22459/"
] | I like the idea -- it provides full disclosure -- but would prefer to have it handled with a hover effect instead of expanding the close message. See this [feature request](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2519/when-you-hover-over-the-name-of-the-person-closing-a-question-it-should-show-the). | I would say even remove the reason from everyone except the moderators. In fact, there should be a way for moderators to filter by close reason to allow them to permanently delete or move questions that just don't belong and add 0 value to Stack Overflow. |
926 | Currently it shows like this (a recent example)
>
> closed as "not programming related" by RSolberg, Tim J, Rob Kennedy, Paul Alexander, Michael Petrotta an hour ago
>
>
>
How about it would show like this.
>
> closed as "not programming related" by RSolberg, Tim J and as "not a real question" by Rob Kennedy, Paul Alexander, Michael Petrotta an hour ago
>
>
>
Or like this.
>
> Closed as:
>
> "not programming related" by RSolberg, Tim J
>
> "not a real question" by Rob Kennedy, Paul Alexander, Michael Petrotta
>
> an hour ago
>
>
> | 2009/06/30 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/926",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/22459/"
] | The current method spreads false information. It claims that all close votes were unanimously for a particular option - this is clearly not the case. In a recent question, I voted to close as "belongs on superuser.com," whereas the majority voted "not programming related." When the question was finally closed, it claimed that I, along with the others, voted to close because it was "not programming related." That is false. | I like the idea -- it provides full disclosure -- but would prefer to have it handled with a hover effect instead of expanding the close message. See this [feature request](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2519/when-you-hover-over-the-name-of-the-person-closing-a-question-it-should-show-the). |
85,599 | I just fried my first turkey and left the oil outside to cool. While we were inside enjoying the turkey we realized it had been raining for a while. I didn't have a lid on the pot. I was planning on filtering the oil and storing for later use. How bad will it be to reheat the oil with a bit of water in it?
**UPDATE:** I should have given more information about how much water may have entered the pot. It was probably raining anywhere from 2-4 minutes by the time I went out and covered the pot. The oil was still over 200 F at this point. I wouldn't think that much water really made its way in. Also, wouldn't any rain water that hit the oil have immediately evaporated? | 2017/11/13 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62805/"
] | Generic, short answer, just to make sure a potentially dangerous state of things is not left uncommented.
Certainly unsafe for deep frying at that scale unless you can guarantee you got all the water out - any water separating out tends to collect at the bottom of the vessel, where it can boil suddenly when the setup is heated again, propelling hot oil out of the vessel. Hot oil being propelled in any way is usually very unsafe. | Unless you had a deluge you're not going to to have a lot of water in there, even if you do it's no big deal as long as you are thorough in getting rid of it. Oil and water do not mix and oil floats on water, so any water will pool on the bottom at the lowest part of the fryer. You can use a turkey baster to remove and water from the bottom, just squeeze the baster out, stick it down to the bottom, then suck whatever is there up and squeeze it out into a different container. Keep the process up until you are consistently sucking up only oil. Let everything settle for a couple of hours, then repeat the process. Do this until you consistently get only oil. |
85,599 | I just fried my first turkey and left the oil outside to cool. While we were inside enjoying the turkey we realized it had been raining for a while. I didn't have a lid on the pot. I was planning on filtering the oil and storing for later use. How bad will it be to reheat the oil with a bit of water in it?
**UPDATE:** I should have given more information about how much water may have entered the pot. It was probably raining anywhere from 2-4 minutes by the time I went out and covered the pot. The oil was still over 200 F at this point. I wouldn't think that much water really made its way in. Also, wouldn't any rain water that hit the oil have immediately evaporated? | 2017/11/13 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62805/"
] | Generic, short answer, just to make sure a potentially dangerous state of things is not left uncommented.
Certainly unsafe for deep frying at that scale unless you can guarantee you got all the water out - any water separating out tends to collect at the bottom of the vessel, where it can boil suddenly when the setup is heated again, propelling hot oil out of the vessel. Hot oil being propelled in any way is usually very unsafe. | I ended up going to urgent care because of a little water in the bottom of the pot when frying falafel. It was boiling off rapidly, and the pot exploded when I turned the heat **down**. It jumped off the stove, and there was oil on the ceiling. I think I wasn't blinded because of the lid.
What happened was the Leidenfrost effect. You know when you put drops of water on a heated pan and instead of immediately turning to steam, the water skips around on a layer of steam. That's what set up the conditions for the explosion.
The water at the bottom of the pot was steaming enough that the oil didn't come in contact with it. When I turned the heat down, the oil contacted the water and all the water immediately turned to steam. I'd guess there was 2-3 tablespoons of water.
Boiling the water off may be dangerous. I'm not sure how you can prevent the water from boiling suddenly - perhaps by using a low heat with very little boiling over time. It's more dangerous than you'd think. |
69,699,942 | I have referred to [Looping around elements of a message](http://blog.eliasen.dk/2006/11/05/LoopingAroundElementsOfAMessage.aspx) article for debatching however I have little different scenario here wherein I want to split order records in the set of two.
Here is my XML:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/9sE6v.png)
I want some thing like Order record of Id with 1 and 2 into one file order Id with 2, 3 into second file and last order into third file.
I tried to implement position function but somehow that's not working for me. | 2021/10/24 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/69699942",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/4912081/"
] | Usually when there is a requirement to debatch and then rebatch, you either need to use a scatter gather pattern, which can be quite complex to implement
or
I tend to use a database table, I just bulk insert all the records from the payload there, then have a separate process that polls that table using a stored procedure that then returns a payload contain the rebatched records. | U can use the document and envelop schemes and set the body xpath and set the count 2 in the document schema .. this way the receive pipeline with XML disassembler will split the messages.
if you need more logic in splitting u can loop them in an Orchestration or Map using a group by XSLT. |
84,309 | In windows I right click and then there is an option to create a text file.
How to do so in mac? | 2013/03/05 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/84309",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/23343/"
] | If you have the Finder window open, use Spotlight to open TextEdit. When you're ready to save the file, option+drag the text file icon from the title bar of TextEdit into the Finder window where you want to save it. | On the mac in finder, select a .txt file, hold option and drag it to make a copy, then edit it as usual. |
84,309 | In windows I right click and then there is an option to create a text file.
How to do so in mac? | 2013/03/05 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/84309",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/23343/"
] | On el capitan (and probably others) the best solution I found is to download the script here:
<http://www.codium.co.nz/touch%5Fhere%5Fapp/>
Then open a finder window, right click on the top bar > customize toolbar
and put the script on your toolbar.
Now you have it in one click for all your finder windows, and it will prompt you what file name you want instead of just creating a dumb file name.
UPDATE: I just made a repo for that, which exposes the source code:
<https://github.com/lingtalfi/newFileWithPrompt> | I spotlight tex, which will immediately suggest TextEdit.app, hit enter, edit my document and navigate to the directory and Save it. |
84,309 | In windows I right click and then there is an option to create a text file.
How to do so in mac? | 2013/03/05 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/84309",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/23343/"
] | [New File Applescript with Toolbar Icon](https://github.com/RomanSmolka/finder-new-file)
Found this open source gem. Can either use the .App or add the Applescript manually. Will add a New File widget to the Finder toolbar.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/o8OfQ.png) | I spotlight tex, which will immediately suggest TextEdit.app, hit enter, edit my document and navigate to the directory and Save it. |
84,309 | In windows I right click and then there is an option to create a text file.
How to do so in mac? | 2013/03/05 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/84309",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/23343/"
] | Reading through the previous answers, I decided to make a little [AppleScript applet](https://github.com/RomanSmolka/finder-new-file) you can add to the toolbar in Finder. When clicked, it creates a new blank file in the current directory, letting you rename it immediately – just like in Windows.
In the future, I plan to implement it also as a Finder extension. | Open Finder and navigate to Applications. Locate TextEdit.app and open it. Select Format--->Make Plain Text (this can also be done using Shift+Command+T). Select File--->Save... and you can save this as a real empty plain text file of 0 bytes.
(I am using macOS Catalina now and saw that there were no clear, simple answers to this question, so I decided to post this as an answer.) |
84,309 | In windows I right click and then there is an option to create a text file.
How to do so in mac? | 2013/03/05 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/84309",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/23343/"
] | Here is my workaround:
1. Do this once, create an empty text file in your desktop to serve as template.
2. `Opt`/`Alt`-drag this file to the folder to make a copy. | I just downloaded [New File](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/new-file-menu/id1064959555?) menu (2$) from the app store and it seems to work fine. |
84,309 | In windows I right click and then there is an option to create a text file.
How to do so in mac? | 2013/03/05 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/84309",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/23343/"
] | You can use the [Easy New File Creator](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/easy-new-file-free/id1163105418?mt=12&ign-mpt=uo%3D4), a free app for macOS.
Using **Easy New File Creator**, a finder extension you can add create new file functionality in the Finder context menu. You can customise the file name and extension for file to be created. | Have a PC with Windows on board.
In Windows Explorer, right-click inside any folder, choose Create text file. It creates the file.
Upload the file to any cloud service, or attach to a letter.
On your Mac, download the file wherever you want.
Profit! |
214,059 | I often hear that a real programmer can easily learn any language within a week. Languages are just tools for getting things done, I'm told. Programming is the ultimate skill that must be learned and mastered.
How can I make sure that I'm actually learning **how to program** rather than simply learning the details of a language? And how can I develop programming skills that can be applied towards all languages instead of just one? | 2013/10/10 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/214059",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/80843/"
] | Programming is about problems solving in such a way that the solution can be expressed in such a restricted grammar that it can be implemented with a programming language. The art of programming is therefore the art of solving problems.
Certain languages invite other programming paradigms such as object orientation, event driven, multi-threaded and MVC framework based. These are all just models and patterns and have nothing really to do with implementation.
If you can sit and solve a problem on paper in such a way that it could be easily translated into code and is associated with an appropriate model for your platform, then you are a programmer. If all you can do it take those solutions and implement them in our chosen language, then that's another matter.
I have been programming for 30 years (OMFG!) and still use `php.net` to look up commands in PHP because it's not my first language.
I would say that expertise in languages is inversely proportional to how often you look at the manual or stackoverflow. Expertise in programming is how readily you solve problems in a way which is compatible with computer programming languages.
In related news, I learnt Ruby last week. Though I'm no "expert", I can solve you a problem which I could write in Perl, say, and then spend an age translating it to Ruby whilst I learn it some more. | There's the theoretical approach. Learning about how computers actually work under the cover. How the basic processor instructions are stringed together to make the more complex operations and structures that we take for granted in high-level programming land.
Then there's the more practical programming approach. The main sticking point that plague people usually labeled as "not good programmers" is that they only really *know* one language. And even if they know others, they program in them in the same way they do with their *native* language. That's a cycle one must break if they really want to learn how to program. The default answer to that is to learn at least one language from each programming paradigm. So learn an OOP language, a functional language, a scripting language ... etc. And by learning I don't mean learning the *syntax*. You learn a language by actually using it to create something.
Personally, when I want to learn a new language I use [Project Euler](http://projecteuler.net) puzzlers. I go to a puzzle that I have already solved in an OOP language (as an example) and try to solve it using a functional one while trying to follow the best practices of the new language. When you solve the same problem using two fundamentally different approaches you not only see what the real differences are, but they also show you where the common areas are. These common areas that are shared by all languages is the real *programming*, the differences are just different ways to achieve it. |
214,059 | I often hear that a real programmer can easily learn any language within a week. Languages are just tools for getting things done, I'm told. Programming is the ultimate skill that must be learned and mastered.
How can I make sure that I'm actually learning **how to program** rather than simply learning the details of a language? And how can I develop programming skills that can be applied towards all languages instead of just one? | 2013/10/10 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/214059",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/80843/"
] | Pick a language, and start coding. Python is a good choice for a beginner, and there are [tutorials available online](http://www.learnpython.org/), so that you can learn how to do it properly.
Everything follows from that. Your interests will lead you to frameworks and design concepts that will add sophistication to your programs. You will discover that there are online courses you can take that will ground you in the fundamentals and the theory, and that there are different programming paradigms you can explore, and so on.
And yes, you will discover languages like Haskell that will teach you something new, once you have a firm grounding in the fundamentals.
Some programmers probably think all languages are the same because they haven't been exposed to any that make them think differently. All of the most commonly used languages are derived from Algol (they are essentially procedural languages), and of those, most are curly-brace languages similar to C. All of them do essentially the same things, albeit some with more sophistication than others. | I think, if you can think analytically, you have a good start.
Learn any language you want and work yourself trough a series of examples e.g. as presented in nearly ever book that teaches programming.
Next try to solve your own problems. Try to find different solutions and compare them. Speed and memory-usage are commonly used factors that matter. Discuss your solutions with other programmers.
Read code of other programmers and try to understand why they solved the problem this way.
You should also read some books about algorithms to get an overview over standard approaches. New problems are often modifications of old problems.
A lot of practice and working with code also in teams will help you to increase your skills step by step.
I hope my opinion answers you question at least partial. |
214,059 | I often hear that a real programmer can easily learn any language within a week. Languages are just tools for getting things done, I'm told. Programming is the ultimate skill that must be learned and mastered.
How can I make sure that I'm actually learning **how to program** rather than simply learning the details of a language? And how can I develop programming skills that can be applied towards all languages instead of just one? | 2013/10/10 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/214059",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/80843/"
] | Don't worry about meeting some ridiculous concept of "skill" so commonly heard in such statements like:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All programming languages are basically the same.
* Once you pick up one language well you can pick up any other language quickly and easily.
* Languages are just tools, there's some overarching brain-magic that actually makes the software.
These statements are all based on a flawed premise and betray a lack of experience across a broader spectrum of programming languages. They are very common statements and strongly believed by a great swath of programmers, I won't dispute that, but I will dispute their accuracy.
This is proved simply: Spend one week (or really any amount of time greater than a couple days) trying to learn the fundamentals of [Haskell](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haskell_%28programming_language%29), [Prolog](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prolog), or [Agda](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agda_%28programming_language%29). You will soon after start hearing the old [Sesame Street](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sesame_Street) song play in your head "One of these things is not like the others...".
As it turns out, there is a whole swath of programming languages, techniques, and approaches which are so foreign from what 95% of us do or have ever done. Many are completely unaware that any of these other concepts even exist, which is fine and these concepts aren't necessary to be an employed and even effective programmer.
But the fact remains: These techniques and approaches do exist, they are good for many different things and can be very useful, but they are not just like what you're used to and people cannot simply pick them up with an afternoon of fiddling.
Furthermore, I would say the majority of cases where people claim they have or can learn such complex things as programming languages so quickly as a week, they are suffering from a bit of [Dunning Kruger Effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect), Wikipedia (emphasis mine):
>
> The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled
> individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their
> ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a
> metacognitive **inability of the unskilled to recognize their
> mistakes.**
>
>
>
I would refer people to this more experienced perview on the concept of learning to program by Peter Norvig: *[Learn to program in ten years](http://norvig.com/21-days.html)*.
>
> Researchers (Bloom (1985), Bryan & Harter (1899), Hayes (1989), Simmon
> & Chase (1973)) have shown it takes about ten years to develop
> expertise in any of a wide variety of areas, including chess playing,
> music composition, telegraph operation, painting, piano playing,
> swimming, tennis, and research in neuropsychology and topology. The
> key is deliberative practice: not just doing it again and again, but
> challenging yourself with a task that is just beyond your current
> ability, trying it, analyzing your performance while and after doing
> it, and correcting any mistakes. Then repeat. And repeat again.
>
>
>
---
Surely, there is a set of overarching principles that will make all languages easy to learn!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps, but I would argue this set of principles is so large that there will almost always be languages outside of your one-week reach. As you add new concepts to the list you're familiar and comfortable with, this list of languages outside your immediate reach may shrink, but I have a hard time believing it will ever go away. The list of conceptual computing approaches to things is so broad it's baffling, from [concatenative languages](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concatenative_programming_language) to [vector based languages](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Array_programming) to languages specializing in [AI](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence) or [metaprogramming](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaprogramming) ([or languages which exist entirely to support regular expressions](http://www.perl.org/)).
After ten years you will be able to generally program. This means you can write somewhat decent code in some language or style of languages. So after 10 years you are ready to start tackling these countless broad cross-cutting concepts for the rest of your life, and short of being [Edsger W. Dijkstra](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsger_W._Dijkstra), [Donald Knuth](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Knuth) or [John D. Carmack](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Carmack), you're not going to get to all of them. | I'm not going to adress how long it takes to learn a language or what it means to learn a language, instead I'm going to address your actual problem: how to determine if you have learned to program or have learned a programming language.
You've learned to program if you have learned to break a problem down into discrete processes and then use those processes to solve your problem. You've learned a progamming language if you've learned the syntax of a language and know how to adjust how a process works, when implemented in that language.
This is not to say you should program in Fortan when using Lisp or add up the values of a column in a table in a db using a cursor. Just that the language is an implementation detail. One that can change what processes are needed, but not the need for identifing and creating processes -- in the end there is a real world implementation, with input/output and desired results. |
214,059 | I often hear that a real programmer can easily learn any language within a week. Languages are just tools for getting things done, I'm told. Programming is the ultimate skill that must be learned and mastered.
How can I make sure that I'm actually learning **how to program** rather than simply learning the details of a language? And how can I develop programming skills that can be applied towards all languages instead of just one? | 2013/10/10 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/214059",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/80843/"
] | I think, as with anything, practice makes perfect. Just don't pigeonhole yourself into always doing the same thing or always using the same language and keep continuing to learn things on every project.
I think you can easily draw a parallel to something like learning to play a guitar. Any good musician can learn to play a new song in a very short period of time, because they already know all the chords and all the theory behind why the chords are played the way they are. How do they get that good? They just have played so many songs that all the patterns have just blended together, while at the same time supplemented their knowledge with actual documented theory that those patterns subscribe too.
So maybe you can play a few songs very well, but you can't deviate or pick up new songs quickly. This is probably the equivalent of a [.NET](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework) programmer that continues to make the same [CRUD](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Create,_read,_update_and_delete) application over and over, at some point try something new, add in some web service calls or an advanced UI, or writing it in a whole new language. When you hit a snag look into why things happen the way they do, ask questions on Stack Exchange, etc. Eventually, you will see all the patterns that continually come up and know some of the underlying theory and learning a new language won't seem nearly as daunting. | In my case, I learn how to actually program through the following:
1. Learn from the masters. Listen to programming podcasts, read professional blogs in your programming topic of choice, read/watch wonderful tutorials done by gurus that are scattered all over the web and lastly, reading epic books like [The Pragmatic Programmer](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pragmatic_Programmer). This book has a lot of programming gems that have been accumulated throughout the career of the authors. One sure fire way to learn how to actually code is to know how other successful programmers do it.
2. Experience by doing. Reading about it and knowing is one thing, actually putting it into practice and getting it to work is another. There is no better teacher than experience, so put your coding cap on and get started.
3. Ask someone who knows. Just like you're doing now, don't be afraid to ask about best practices or better ways to do things from seniors in your team, or if you're unfortunate enough to not have access to the said seniors or mentors or gurus, then there's still the rest of stackexchange and the internet to ask.
Also, as your commenters have mentioned, don't forget to master your tools as well. Learning all the best practices and greatest theories are all for naught or will be poorly implemented if you don't know enough about your tool, in this case, a programming language. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.