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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
81,577 | From what I understand, the purpose of a variable-pitch propeller (be it manually adjustable, or constant speed) is that it allows the engine to always operate at its most efficient speed, much like the transmission of a car. Is that correct? If so, if an airplane were to accomplish that another way (say, a hybrid gas-electric drive, or an actual transmission with shiftable gears\*), would there be any other advantage to having an adjustable propeller?
\*No, I don't know **why** you would want to mount a car transmission on an airplane. It's a hypothetical question. But now I have this picture in my head of a twin-engine plane with two gear shifts in the cockpit and two clutch pedals next to the rudder pedals. | 2020/10/09 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/81577",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/37253/"
] | Next to the aerodynamic advantages (both engine and propeller can run at their optimum speed for best efficiency) already mentioned in the other answers, there is an important **safety advantage:** a variable pitch propeller can be **feathered** such that its drag after an engine failure is minimized. This is critical for many multi-engine aircraft in order to remain controllable after an engine failure.
>
> On many variable pitch propellers, the blade pitch can be increased to the point that the chord line of the blade is approximately parallel to the on-coming airflow. This process is referred to as feathering.
>
>
> The inflight feathering of the propeller, on an engine that has failed or has been intentionally shut down, greatly reduces the drag that would occur with the blade pitch in any other position. On a single engine aircraft such as a motor glider, feathering the propeller when the engine is shut down results in a significant increase in gliding distance. On a multi-engine aircraft, feathering the propeller of a failed engine results in both a reduction in drag and a reduction in adverse yaw vastly improving the engine-out handling characteristics and the engine-out flight performance of the aircraft.
>
>
>
([SKYbrary - Feathering](https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Feathering))
See also: [What does feathering mean and how does it work technically?](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/11166/what-does-feathering-mean-and-how-does-it-work-technically) | 
Propeller efficiency with pitch, taken from Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators, H.H.Hurt, 1965
Fixed pitch props need to be designed for a specific flight speed, which would invariably be a compromise between takeoff and cruise performance. By varying the propeller pitch, we can run the propeller blades at different angles of attack, and we slow the blade tips down to keep their relative speed (sum of freestream and tangential speeds) constant. Thus, we can run the propeller at a similar efficiency through all flight speeds.
Running the blades at certain angles of attack is not as simple as it sounds, with different tangential speeds along the radius of the propeller, the freestream and tangential speeds will yield different flow angles (highest at the hub, least at the tip). To achieve the same angle of attack everywhere along the blade, we'll then need to twist the blade, but as we cannot change the twist in flight, we can optimize only for one flight condition, and be content with a compromise.
Propeller blade twist. Prop's feathered in this picture, prop turns counterclockwise from the pilot's perspective (this blade moves down).
Another aspect is related to the performance of the engine. Reciprocating (piston) engines only recently had electronic fuel injection systems, thus most aero engines are reliant on having a throttle that restricts airflow to the engine to adjust power. To run the engine at part-power with a throttle is quite inefficient, as the engine actively spends power to suck air through the throttle (This is why newer auto engines have variable valve timing and cylinder shut-off and whatnot, to adjust engine power without choking it). By running the engine at an RPM lower than where it produces maximum power, we can run the engine at a higher throttle setting (ideally full throttle) with the same power.
Porsche 930 dyno graph.
Increasing blade pitch reduces RPM and moves the power (red graph) to the left of the graph, meaning less power at full throttle.
Porsche 930's engine was used as an aero engine by Mooney, with a 0.442:1 reduction gear. |
81,577 | From what I understand, the purpose of a variable-pitch propeller (be it manually adjustable, or constant speed) is that it allows the engine to always operate at its most efficient speed, much like the transmission of a car. Is that correct? If so, if an airplane were to accomplish that another way (say, a hybrid gas-electric drive, or an actual transmission with shiftable gears\*), would there be any other advantage to having an adjustable propeller?
\*No, I don't know **why** you would want to mount a car transmission on an airplane. It's a hypothetical question. But now I have this picture in my head of a twin-engine plane with two gear shifts in the cockpit and two clutch pedals next to the rudder pedals. | 2020/10/09 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/81577",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/37253/"
] | ### Reverse Pitch - Reverse Thrust
If the pitch angle is negative (reverse), then some meaningful amount of thrust is produced in the opposite direction than normal. This can be useful to improve stopping distance when landing, and even taxi in reverse.
[https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Reverse\_Pitch#:~:text=When%20installed%2C%20reverse%20pitch%20is,of%20motion%20of%20the%20aircraft](https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Reverse_Pitch#:%7E:text=When%20installed%2C%20reverse%20pitch%20is,of%20motion%20of%20the%20aircraft).
### Zero Pitch - Idling
At somewhere around a pitch angle of zero, the net thrust becomes zero (forward or reverse). At this point the aerodynamic load on the prop is minimized. This removes unwanted thrust when we want to stand still on the runway, as well as minimizes fuel consumption during idle. | 
Propeller efficiency with pitch, taken from Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators, H.H.Hurt, 1965
Fixed pitch props need to be designed for a specific flight speed, which would invariably be a compromise between takeoff and cruise performance. By varying the propeller pitch, we can run the propeller blades at different angles of attack, and we slow the blade tips down to keep their relative speed (sum of freestream and tangential speeds) constant. Thus, we can run the propeller at a similar efficiency through all flight speeds.
Running the blades at certain angles of attack is not as simple as it sounds, with different tangential speeds along the radius of the propeller, the freestream and tangential speeds will yield different flow angles (highest at the hub, least at the tip). To achieve the same angle of attack everywhere along the blade, we'll then need to twist the blade, but as we cannot change the twist in flight, we can optimize only for one flight condition, and be content with a compromise.
Propeller blade twist. Prop's feathered in this picture, prop turns counterclockwise from the pilot's perspective (this blade moves down).
Another aspect is related to the performance of the engine. Reciprocating (piston) engines only recently had electronic fuel injection systems, thus most aero engines are reliant on having a throttle that restricts airflow to the engine to adjust power. To run the engine at part-power with a throttle is quite inefficient, as the engine actively spends power to suck air through the throttle (This is why newer auto engines have variable valve timing and cylinder shut-off and whatnot, to adjust engine power without choking it). By running the engine at an RPM lower than where it produces maximum power, we can run the engine at a higher throttle setting (ideally full throttle) with the same power.
Porsche 930 dyno graph.
Increasing blade pitch reduces RPM and moves the power (red graph) to the left of the graph, meaning less power at full throttle.
Porsche 930's engine was used as an aero engine by Mooney, with a 0.442:1 reduction gear. |
81,577 | From what I understand, the purpose of a variable-pitch propeller (be it manually adjustable, or constant speed) is that it allows the engine to always operate at its most efficient speed, much like the transmission of a car. Is that correct? If so, if an airplane were to accomplish that another way (say, a hybrid gas-electric drive, or an actual transmission with shiftable gears\*), would there be any other advantage to having an adjustable propeller?
\*No, I don't know **why** you would want to mount a car transmission on an airplane. It's a hypothetical question. But now I have this picture in my head of a twin-engine plane with two gear shifts in the cockpit and two clutch pedals next to the rudder pedals. | 2020/10/09 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/81577",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/37253/"
] | The comparison with a car's gearbox is unfortunate, and leads to misunderstandings...
At the small airspeeds typical of takeoff, the inflow at the rotor plane is small too, and the prop needs a small amount of pitch in order to produce a large amount of thrust at maximum engine revs, the blades working at the angle of attack for best L/D.
But, on cruising flight, there is an important inflow at the plane of the prop disk, that inflow reduces the angle of attack, and –under those conditions– the propeller can deliver enough thrust at maximum engine revs (i.e., with the blades working at the angle of attack for best L/D) only if the pitch is substantially higher than at takeoff...
That's the rationale of the adjustable prop... | 
Propeller efficiency with pitch, taken from Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators, H.H.Hurt, 1965
Fixed pitch props need to be designed for a specific flight speed, which would invariably be a compromise between takeoff and cruise performance. By varying the propeller pitch, we can run the propeller blades at different angles of attack, and we slow the blade tips down to keep their relative speed (sum of freestream and tangential speeds) constant. Thus, we can run the propeller at a similar efficiency through all flight speeds.
Running the blades at certain angles of attack is not as simple as it sounds, with different tangential speeds along the radius of the propeller, the freestream and tangential speeds will yield different flow angles (highest at the hub, least at the tip). To achieve the same angle of attack everywhere along the blade, we'll then need to twist the blade, but as we cannot change the twist in flight, we can optimize only for one flight condition, and be content with a compromise.
Propeller blade twist. Prop's feathered in this picture, prop turns counterclockwise from the pilot's perspective (this blade moves down).
Another aspect is related to the performance of the engine. Reciprocating (piston) engines only recently had electronic fuel injection systems, thus most aero engines are reliant on having a throttle that restricts airflow to the engine to adjust power. To run the engine at part-power with a throttle is quite inefficient, as the engine actively spends power to suck air through the throttle (This is why newer auto engines have variable valve timing and cylinder shut-off and whatnot, to adjust engine power without choking it). By running the engine at an RPM lower than where it produces maximum power, we can run the engine at a higher throttle setting (ideally full throttle) with the same power.
Porsche 930 dyno graph.
Increasing blade pitch reduces RPM and moves the power (red graph) to the left of the graph, meaning less power at full throttle.
Porsche 930's engine was used as an aero engine by Mooney, with a 0.442:1 reduction gear. |
81,577 | From what I understand, the purpose of a variable-pitch propeller (be it manually adjustable, or constant speed) is that it allows the engine to always operate at its most efficient speed, much like the transmission of a car. Is that correct? If so, if an airplane were to accomplish that another way (say, a hybrid gas-electric drive, or an actual transmission with shiftable gears\*), would there be any other advantage to having an adjustable propeller?
\*No, I don't know **why** you would want to mount a car transmission on an airplane. It's a hypothetical question. But now I have this picture in my head of a twin-engine plane with two gear shifts in the cockpit and two clutch pedals next to the rudder pedals. | 2020/10/09 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/81577",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/37253/"
] | It's not just the operating RPM that is pertinent. It's also the pitch of the blades.
If your propeller blades' pitch is optimized for takeoff/climb performance, it's going to be aerodynamically inefficient at high true airspeeds, like taking little tiny footsteps on a treadmill that's going really fast. (It works, but it wastes energy.)
The opposite is true as well. If you have a "cruise" prop on your airplane, it's going to perform poorly on takeoff when the airspeed is slow, like taking large strides on a treadmill that's just barely moving.
If you want to optimize your body mechanics, you change your gait based on the speed you need to go, so you're not wasting energy. If you want optimize a propeller, you change it's pitch based on the speed of the air that's entering it, so you're not wasting energy. | ### Reverse Pitch - Reverse Thrust
If the pitch angle is negative (reverse), then some meaningful amount of thrust is produced in the opposite direction than normal. This can be useful to improve stopping distance when landing, and even taxi in reverse.
[https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Reverse\_Pitch#:~:text=When%20installed%2C%20reverse%20pitch%20is,of%20motion%20of%20the%20aircraft](https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Reverse_Pitch#:%7E:text=When%20installed%2C%20reverse%20pitch%20is,of%20motion%20of%20the%20aircraft).
### Zero Pitch - Idling
At somewhere around a pitch angle of zero, the net thrust becomes zero (forward or reverse). At this point the aerodynamic load on the prop is minimized. This removes unwanted thrust when we want to stand still on the runway, as well as minimizes fuel consumption during idle. |
81,577 | From what I understand, the purpose of a variable-pitch propeller (be it manually adjustable, or constant speed) is that it allows the engine to always operate at its most efficient speed, much like the transmission of a car. Is that correct? If so, if an airplane were to accomplish that another way (say, a hybrid gas-electric drive, or an actual transmission with shiftable gears\*), would there be any other advantage to having an adjustable propeller?
\*No, I don't know **why** you would want to mount a car transmission on an airplane. It's a hypothetical question. But now I have this picture in my head of a twin-engine plane with two gear shifts in the cockpit and two clutch pedals next to the rudder pedals. | 2020/10/09 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/81577",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/37253/"
] | The comparison with a car's gearbox is unfortunate, and leads to misunderstandings...
At the small airspeeds typical of takeoff, the inflow at the rotor plane is small too, and the prop needs a small amount of pitch in order to produce a large amount of thrust at maximum engine revs, the blades working at the angle of attack for best L/D.
But, on cruising flight, there is an important inflow at the plane of the prop disk, that inflow reduces the angle of attack, and –under those conditions– the propeller can deliver enough thrust at maximum engine revs (i.e., with the blades working at the angle of attack for best L/D) only if the pitch is substantially higher than at takeoff...
That's the rationale of the adjustable prop... | Propellers get more effective the faster they spin. The limiting factor is the speed of the blade tip, which must remain subsonic. So a propeller of a given size will offer maximum thrust when its RPM gives a blade tip speed of around Mach 0.8.
Maximum thrust is needed especially for takeoff and for maximum speed. When the plane is stationary on the ground the prop spins wholly sideways, but when at speed it has to follow a much more angled spiral path through the oncoming air. These varying conditions can only be met by varying the blade pitch. |
81,577 | From what I understand, the purpose of a variable-pitch propeller (be it manually adjustable, or constant speed) is that it allows the engine to always operate at its most efficient speed, much like the transmission of a car. Is that correct? If so, if an airplane were to accomplish that another way (say, a hybrid gas-electric drive, or an actual transmission with shiftable gears\*), would there be any other advantage to having an adjustable propeller?
\*No, I don't know **why** you would want to mount a car transmission on an airplane. It's a hypothetical question. But now I have this picture in my head of a twin-engine plane with two gear shifts in the cockpit and two clutch pedals next to the rudder pedals. | 2020/10/09 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/81577",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/37253/"
] | Propellers get more effective the faster they spin. The limiting factor is the speed of the blade tip, which must remain subsonic. So a propeller of a given size will offer maximum thrust when its RPM gives a blade tip speed of around Mach 0.8.
Maximum thrust is needed especially for takeoff and for maximum speed. When the plane is stationary on the ground the prop spins wholly sideways, but when at speed it has to follow a much more angled spiral path through the oncoming air. These varying conditions can only be met by varying the blade pitch. | 
Propeller efficiency with pitch, taken from Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators, H.H.Hurt, 1965
Fixed pitch props need to be designed for a specific flight speed, which would invariably be a compromise between takeoff and cruise performance. By varying the propeller pitch, we can run the propeller blades at different angles of attack, and we slow the blade tips down to keep their relative speed (sum of freestream and tangential speeds) constant. Thus, we can run the propeller at a similar efficiency through all flight speeds.
Running the blades at certain angles of attack is not as simple as it sounds, with different tangential speeds along the radius of the propeller, the freestream and tangential speeds will yield different flow angles (highest at the hub, least at the tip). To achieve the same angle of attack everywhere along the blade, we'll then need to twist the blade, but as we cannot change the twist in flight, we can optimize only for one flight condition, and be content with a compromise.
Propeller blade twist. Prop's feathered in this picture, prop turns counterclockwise from the pilot's perspective (this blade moves down).
Another aspect is related to the performance of the engine. Reciprocating (piston) engines only recently had electronic fuel injection systems, thus most aero engines are reliant on having a throttle that restricts airflow to the engine to adjust power. To run the engine at part-power with a throttle is quite inefficient, as the engine actively spends power to suck air through the throttle (This is why newer auto engines have variable valve timing and cylinder shut-off and whatnot, to adjust engine power without choking it). By running the engine at an RPM lower than where it produces maximum power, we can run the engine at a higher throttle setting (ideally full throttle) with the same power.
Porsche 930 dyno graph.
Increasing blade pitch reduces RPM and moves the power (red graph) to the left of the graph, meaning less power at full throttle.
Porsche 930's engine was used as an aero engine by Mooney, with a 0.442:1 reduction gear. |
81,577 | From what I understand, the purpose of a variable-pitch propeller (be it manually adjustable, or constant speed) is that it allows the engine to always operate at its most efficient speed, much like the transmission of a car. Is that correct? If so, if an airplane were to accomplish that another way (say, a hybrid gas-electric drive, or an actual transmission with shiftable gears\*), would there be any other advantage to having an adjustable propeller?
\*No, I don't know **why** you would want to mount a car transmission on an airplane. It's a hypothetical question. But now I have this picture in my head of a twin-engine plane with two gear shifts in the cockpit and two clutch pedals next to the rudder pedals. | 2020/10/09 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/81577",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/37253/"
] | Next to the aerodynamic advantages (both engine and propeller can run at their optimum speed for best efficiency) already mentioned in the other answers, there is an important **safety advantage:** a variable pitch propeller can be **feathered** such that its drag after an engine failure is minimized. This is critical for many multi-engine aircraft in order to remain controllable after an engine failure.
>
> On many variable pitch propellers, the blade pitch can be increased to the point that the chord line of the blade is approximately parallel to the on-coming airflow. This process is referred to as feathering.
>
>
> The inflight feathering of the propeller, on an engine that has failed or has been intentionally shut down, greatly reduces the drag that would occur with the blade pitch in any other position. On a single engine aircraft such as a motor glider, feathering the propeller when the engine is shut down results in a significant increase in gliding distance. On a multi-engine aircraft, feathering the propeller of a failed engine results in both a reduction in drag and a reduction in adverse yaw vastly improving the engine-out handling characteristics and the engine-out flight performance of the aircraft.
>
>
>
([SKYbrary - Feathering](https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Feathering))
See also: [What does feathering mean and how does it work technically?](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/11166/what-does-feathering-mean-and-how-does-it-work-technically) | ### Reverse Pitch - Reverse Thrust
If the pitch angle is negative (reverse), then some meaningful amount of thrust is produced in the opposite direction than normal. This can be useful to improve stopping distance when landing, and even taxi in reverse.
[https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Reverse\_Pitch#:~:text=When%20installed%2C%20reverse%20pitch%20is,of%20motion%20of%20the%20aircraft](https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Reverse_Pitch#:%7E:text=When%20installed%2C%20reverse%20pitch%20is,of%20motion%20of%20the%20aircraft).
### Zero Pitch - Idling
At somewhere around a pitch angle of zero, the net thrust becomes zero (forward or reverse). At this point the aerodynamic load on the prop is minimized. This removes unwanted thrust when we want to stand still on the runway, as well as minimizes fuel consumption during idle. |
204,597 | I am looking for a verb which means to engage in a debate or argument. For example, how would I fill in the blank in the following sentence?
>
> "That is just my idea and I have no intention to \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_."
>
>
>
The person saying this doesn't have time to debate.
Thanks! | 2014/10/26 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/204597",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/65691/"
] | If you are talking about doing something or asking others to do a thing a certain way, the adverb **SO** should be used;
*'Position the frame on the cone using the sliding bar so that the cursor of the meter is on the crosshairs'*
**SUCH** is a determiner used mainly to add optional emphasis to a noun or noun phrase;
*'she has pretty eyes', 'she has such pretty eyes'*
(Both words have many more meanings and uses which can be studied at leisure)
<http://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/such>
You can ofcourse, use **SUCH** in your instructions if you really want to;
*'Position the lens in such a way so that the lower segment marking is on the measuring dial.'*
A very basic rule-of-thumb is, *'**SO** do something'* and *'**SUCH** emphasis'* | *So that* and *such that* are synonymous in this context. However, *such* is more formal, and commonly appears in mathematics (e.g. "The set of all prime numbers *p* such that *p*+2 is also prime"), while *so* is less formal and more likely to appear in (say) a DIY instruction manual.
Avoid "in a way that"; it's wordy and feels clumsy to me. |
89,064 | So I was perusing through the suggested edit queue and came across this suggestion:
<https://stackoverflow.com/suggested-edits/37540>
I saw the suggestion as a change from a broken link, to a personal blog which is not the sort of changes we should be allowing AFAIK so I rejected it. However immediately after rejecting, I just noticed that it was the original answerer suggesting an edit *to his own answer*. That's odd. Regrettably, I wish I could take back that rejection and instead approve it.
What just happened here? Why does he have to go through the process suggesting an edit? It's his answer, why can't he immediately edit it? Did something fall out of sync? | 2011/04/28 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/89064",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/150562/"
] | Please have a look at the user profiles. They have the same name, but different ID's. This user probably has created a second account by mistake. | It's not the same account. Now that the edit is approved one has 3 rep, the other 1. |
121,858 | In the early 1990s, local television network affiliates across North America aired this promotional advertisement for *The Next Generation*, featuring a song sung to the tune of Billy Joel's "We Didn't Start the Fire":
>
> Jean-Luc, Geordi's specs
>
> Mysteries on the holodecks
>
> Asteroids, triple droids
>
> Telepathic Betazoids
>
> Transporter, deadly claw
>
> Visitor from *L.A. Law*
>
> Photons, no Kirk
>
> Captain has gone berserk
>
>
> Shuttlecraft, Counselor Troi
>
> Doctor Crusher's little boy
>
> Klingon rites, parasites
>
> New heights, phaser fights
>
> Data's head, Tasha's dead
>
> Riker's hangin' by a thread
>
> Celebration, transformation
>
> Everyone to battle stations
>
>
> We didn't start the series
>
> It's the Next Generation on your favourite station
>
> We didn't start the series
>
> But when we are gone it will still be on and on and on...
>
>
>
**Who performed this song?**
I haven't been able to find a web site or other source with this information.
(Bonus: Who wrote the lyrics?) | 2016/03/11 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/121858",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/40294/"
] | As Xantec noted and Richard provided a link in the comments above, Voyager used modified Borg several times:
>
> In 2374, The Doctor was able to modify nanoprobes as an offensive weapon against Species 8472. He reprogrammed them to mimic the alien cells' electrochemical signatures, so that they could evade detection by Species 8472's immune system while continuing to assimilate. These nanoprobes could be delivered inside a photon torpedo or along a phaser beam. (VOY: "Scorpion", "Scorpion, Part II", "Prey")
>
>
> Nanoprobes could also be modified to attack specific cells which contained a virus or some other disease and so help the patient recover. In 2375, Seven of Nine encoded some of her nanoprobes to assimilate the synthehol molecules in Kadi Ambassador Tomin's bloodstream, allowing him to recover from his intoxication in time to return to his people. (VOY: "Someone to Watch Over Me")
>
>
> Since bio-neural circuitry is organic in nature, nanoprobes could also be used to influence or disable this type of circuitry. (VOY: "Warhead")
>
>
>
<https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Nanoprobe> | They have... on several occasions in Voyager.
* They used Seven-of-Nine's nanoprobes to revive Neelix when he was killed by a protomatter cloud discharge in [VOY: Mortal Coil](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Mortal_Coil_(episode))
* They again used her nanoprobes to 'arrest' the alcohol particles and make an alien ambassador... well, sober in [VOY: Someone To Watch Over Me](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Someone_to_Watch_Over_Me_(episode))
* Another occasions saw the use of Seven's nanoprobes to bypass/repair Iko's edema in the brain (Which also seemed to have activated his conscience) in [VOY: Repentance](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Repentance_(episode))
Apart from that, her nanoprobes were also sampled and replicated on several occasions to be used in effective manner against species 8472 in [VOY: Scorpion](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Scorpion_(episode))
Also, the Federation DID develop their own nanites in medicine for surgeries, etc in TNG... however, this is not frequently seen (otherwise, the Doctor in Voyager would not have resorted that often to using Borg nanoprobes).
Then again, none of the show's doctors (either the EMH or Bashir) were seen using stem-cells to regenerate lost limbs in people (Nog's leg for example) or rejuvenate the body to reverse ageing which is already largely possible in real life. Trek seemed to have no problem with prosthetic limbs, etc. but no use of actual stem-cells.
---
I'd imagine that when it comes to program-ability in regards to medical aspects, Federation nanites and Borg nanoprobes are pretty similar if not downright the same. Actually it would be easier and far less dangerous for the Federation to use its own medical nanites than Borg tech which could technically assimilate a person if something goes wrong.
Granted, Borg technology seems to be more adaptive, but the underlying basis of their technology is nanotechnology... and the Federation developed its own version before meeting the Borg... so there's no reason they couldn't use their own nanites and possibly use some of their experiences with Borg nanoprobes to enhance function of their own nanites (not just in medical aspects, but others as well).
>
> **CRUSHER:** *Nanites. Tiny machines built from the atom up. Designed to have exposure only to the inside of nucleii during cellular surgeries. Until then, they are kept tightly confined in a non-functioning state.*
>
>
> **DATA:** *These are not ordinary nanites.*
>
>
> **CRUSHER:** *No, they have evolved.*
>
>
> **STUBBS:** *Evolved? How does a machine evolve?*
>
>
> **WESLEY:** *It's true. I am responsible for this. I allowed two of the nanites to interact for a school project. I wanted to increase their capabilities. And they escaped.*
>
>
> [TNG: Evolution](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Evolution_(episode))
>
>
>
The Federation seems to be using their own developed nanites in cellular surgery, however, prior to Wesley allowing them to interact, they have been using them in a fairly limited fashion. Also, Beverly Crusher DID suggest introducing a destructive breed of nanites into the Collective at one point.
However, I find it very unusual (not to mention implausible) that the Federation wouldn't have the technical ability to program the nanites to interact with each other inside human body or outside of it and perform specific tasks without 'spontaneous evolution' occurring.
And before someone says that this might be akin to keeping nanites in a state that makes them not self aware... one could argue the same thing about Holodecks too, because they are also capable of creating fully self-aware AI for example, but that still doesn't prevent the crew from using the holodecks for training, relaxation, recreation, etc. |
22,817 | I've always wanted to have a home studio and I figured that with around 10K I could build a semi-descent setup. I'm interested in everybody's opinion on what is the best (Pro Tools preferably) setup I can put together for under $10.000?
Thx in advance! | 2010/12/08 | [
"https://sound.stackexchange.com/questions/22817",
"https://sound.stackexchange.com",
"https://sound.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | This is going to be HUGELY subjective based on what your needs are.
Do you need to record a full band, or just yourself? You'll want to consider how the acoustics of the room affect what you're doing and whether you have enough mics, preams, and channels on your recording device. Do you have some particular instrument in mind? You'll want equipment that relates well to that instrument. Will you need an isolation booth? Will you be recording direct? Will your neighbors throw a fit? All of these things matter.
You can build many fantastic setups for less than $10K and the "best" one will be the one that serves your needs the best.
The things I'd consider useful for any project studio would be:
* At least one really nice sounding preamp or interface. I'm partial to tube preamps.
* One dynamic and one large-diaphragm condenser mic. Between these two you can make a good attempt at most simple/straightforward recording situations. If you're going to be doing most of your recording through these mics (as opposed to direct), don't skimp on these. Choose mics suited to things you want to record. Make sure your preamp has phantom power if you have a condenser.
* One nice pair of good nearfield monitors with a reasonably flat response. You want to mix on these, not host a party with them (that's what home stereos are for!)
* A great DAW. Sounds like you want Pro Tools, which is an excellent computer-based DAW.
* Micstands, XLR cables, maybe 1/4" instrument cables, and other such accessories.
* Great friends to work with. | I would definitely spend $120 or so and get a multi-effects processor for the guitars. I've been using a DigiTech RP 255 and couldn't be more pleased. I can get any sound I want by turning a few dials and its got some great pre-sets. It can be the equivalent of hooking a chain of effects together but without all the wires and space needed. Simulates different amps too. |
22,817 | I've always wanted to have a home studio and I figured that with around 10K I could build a semi-descent setup. I'm interested in everybody's opinion on what is the best (Pro Tools preferably) setup I can put together for under $10.000?
Thx in advance! | 2010/12/08 | [
"https://sound.stackexchange.com/questions/22817",
"https://sound.stackexchange.com",
"https://sound.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | Pro tools is great, but I wouldn't go for pro tools if I don't buy the pro-tools hardware.
[Reaper](http://www.reaper.fm/)(DAW) is awesome, works on many platforms (windows, mac, linux) and works great with any hardware. Best of all it's ridiculously cheap and very easy to learn. | I would definitely spend $120 or so and get a multi-effects processor for the guitars. I've been using a DigiTech RP 255 and couldn't be more pleased. I can get any sound I want by turning a few dials and its got some great pre-sets. It can be the equivalent of hooking a chain of effects together but without all the wires and space needed. Simulates different amps too. |
85,115 | I was just reading an e-book and saw this sentence which really confused me:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/CuYCV.png)
"Played twice as fast as written" - This isn't what cut time actually means right, or are there situations where cut time means exactly that?
I thought cut time is basically just 2/2 time signature, but the speed would still depend on the bpm and the note durations... | 2019/05/22 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/85115",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/53907/"
] | The e-book was trying to contrast two different meters, 2/2 to 4/4, kind of assuming that the reader might not notice or understand the difference at all. They were trying to provide a simplified first explanation of an unfamiliar meter symbol.
They meant "Crossing the C has the effect that the conductor's hand will start moving in cycles of two beats rather than four beats and you players will have to play twice faster to keep up."
Except that there's no conductor around which makes the entire difference more abstract to formulate and less constrained to execute. | Adding to the other answers, I played in a group for a few years that liked to take music "a bit" faster than normal, for stylistic purposes, and we would often count 4/4 music in 2 (or 3/4 music in 1) because it was just easier for our leader to count off the tempo (from the piano, often by nodding) when counting at a slower pace and not give herself whiplash. But even if we were counting 4/4 in two, we still played it as if in 4/4 (giving it 4 beats per measure instead of two).
Of cousre, this was the same band leader that would ask us to play in the style of "bad 80's rock music", so perhaps she wasn't always giving us instructions in the most formal music theory lingo possible (although she did know her theory as well).
The problem I have with "played twice as fast as written" is that it ignores the stylistic difference of 4/4 played twice as fast as 2/2. For beginners, this may not matter as much, but it is still there, and we shouldn't confuse them. |
85,115 | I was just reading an e-book and saw this sentence which really confused me:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/CuYCV.png)
"Played twice as fast as written" - This isn't what cut time actually means right, or are there situations where cut time means exactly that?
I thought cut time is basically just 2/2 time signature, but the speed would still depend on the bpm and the note durations... | 2019/05/22 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/85115",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/53907/"
] | No, it's not current... and it doesn't really make much sense. (How fast is it "written"?)
Your assertion that time signatures do not dictate tempo is correct. Certain meters might imply faster tempi (6/4 is probably going to be used for slower pieces, and 12/16 is usually seen in fast pieces like gigues) but those are general usages, not requirements. | The e-book was trying to contrast two different meters, 2/2 to 4/4, kind of assuming that the reader might not notice or understand the difference at all. They were trying to provide a simplified first explanation of an unfamiliar meter symbol.
They meant "Crossing the C has the effect that the conductor's hand will start moving in cycles of two beats rather than four beats and you players will have to play twice faster to keep up."
Except that there's no conductor around which makes the entire difference more abstract to formulate and less constrained to execute. |
85,115 | I was just reading an e-book and saw this sentence which really confused me:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/CuYCV.png)
"Played twice as fast as written" - This isn't what cut time actually means right, or are there situations where cut time means exactly that?
I thought cut time is basically just 2/2 time signature, but the speed would still depend on the bpm and the note durations... | 2019/05/22 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/85115",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/53907/"
] | It would be more accurate to say that cut time "will sound twice as fast as the same notes played in 4/4 at the same tempo". That's essentially what they're trying to get across.
But even that wouldn't really be accurate. Cut time is a duple meter, 4/4 is a quadruple meter. The difference is subtle, but it's still a difference. | In a simple sense, it is correct. "Whatever tempo you have in mind, this is twice as fast as that". This works on the assumption that most people are used to the quarter note being the beat, which happens to be true.
But it basically means that the pulse of the song will be on the half-notes. If someone was standing there waving a baton in front of you, they would be counting the half-notes, and counting two beats per measure (2/2 time as you said).
If it says "moderato" on top of the page it would refer to the speed of the half-notes and if there is a bpm marking it would also refer to the half-notes, although it's common to make this explicit by writing "half-note = tempo" (see top two examples here <http://www.janvanbiezen.nl/bachfig01.gif>).
This is common in marching band music where writing in 2/4 would look awkward (I guess?). |
85,115 | I was just reading an e-book and saw this sentence which really confused me:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/CuYCV.png)
"Played twice as fast as written" - This isn't what cut time actually means right, or are there situations where cut time means exactly that?
I thought cut time is basically just 2/2 time signature, but the speed would still depend on the bpm and the note durations... | 2019/05/22 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/85115",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/53907/"
] | It may be that the e-book used the same notation example written in 4/4 earlier, and is indicating to play this version faster?
You are correct that the time signature is not the indicator for tempo. There is an old tradition of using Alla Breve to indicate the piece is a faster tempo, but current practice is to use tempo markings. The cut time choice changes the feel of the music because of the strong beat. | In a simple sense, it is correct. "Whatever tempo you have in mind, this is twice as fast as that". This works on the assumption that most people are used to the quarter note being the beat, which happens to be true.
But it basically means that the pulse of the song will be on the half-notes. If someone was standing there waving a baton in front of you, they would be counting the half-notes, and counting two beats per measure (2/2 time as you said).
If it says "moderato" on top of the page it would refer to the speed of the half-notes and if there is a bpm marking it would also refer to the half-notes, although it's common to make this explicit by writing "half-note = tempo" (see top two examples here <http://www.janvanbiezen.nl/bachfig01.gif>).
This is common in marching band music where writing in 2/4 would look awkward (I guess?). |
85,115 | I was just reading an e-book and saw this sentence which really confused me:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/CuYCV.png)
"Played twice as fast as written" - This isn't what cut time actually means right, or are there situations where cut time means exactly that?
I thought cut time is basically just 2/2 time signature, but the speed would still depend on the bpm and the note durations... | 2019/05/22 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/85115",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/53907/"
] | That sentence "Played twice as fast as written" indicates that someone must have a misunderstanding. Someone who probably thinks that quarter notes are supposed to be played at a certain speed. That person would need more knowledge and experience with both tempo markings and different kinds of time signatures.
I suppose you could say that in the beginning when you learn your first note values and make your first exercises with the values you do get used to think of quarter notes as indicating some basic speed. You need to crawl before you can walk so to speak. But you certainly better learn to walk before you write a work book on the matter. | No, it's not current... and it doesn't really make much sense. (How fast is it "written"?)
Your assertion that time signatures do not dictate tempo is correct. Certain meters might imply faster tempi (6/4 is probably going to be used for slower pieces, and 12/16 is usually seen in fast pieces like gigues) but those are general usages, not requirements. |
85,115 | I was just reading an e-book and saw this sentence which really confused me:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/CuYCV.png)
"Played twice as fast as written" - This isn't what cut time actually means right, or are there situations where cut time means exactly that?
I thought cut time is basically just 2/2 time signature, but the speed would still depend on the bpm and the note durations... | 2019/05/22 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/85115",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/53907/"
] | That sentence "Played twice as fast as written" indicates that someone must have a misunderstanding. Someone who probably thinks that quarter notes are supposed to be played at a certain speed. That person would need more knowledge and experience with both tempo markings and different kinds of time signatures.
I suppose you could say that in the beginning when you learn your first note values and make your first exercises with the values you do get used to think of quarter notes as indicating some basic speed. You need to crawl before you can walk so to speak. But you certainly better learn to walk before you write a work book on the matter. | Adding to the other answers, I played in a group for a few years that liked to take music "a bit" faster than normal, for stylistic purposes, and we would often count 4/4 music in 2 (or 3/4 music in 1) because it was just easier for our leader to count off the tempo (from the piano, often by nodding) when counting at a slower pace and not give herself whiplash. But even if we were counting 4/4 in two, we still played it as if in 4/4 (giving it 4 beats per measure instead of two).
Of cousre, this was the same band leader that would ask us to play in the style of "bad 80's rock music", so perhaps she wasn't always giving us instructions in the most formal music theory lingo possible (although she did know her theory as well).
The problem I have with "played twice as fast as written" is that it ignores the stylistic difference of 4/4 played twice as fast as 2/2. For beginners, this may not matter as much, but it is still there, and we shouldn't confuse them. |
85,115 | I was just reading an e-book and saw this sentence which really confused me:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/CuYCV.png)
"Played twice as fast as written" - This isn't what cut time actually means right, or are there situations where cut time means exactly that?
I thought cut time is basically just 2/2 time signature, but the speed would still depend on the bpm and the note durations... | 2019/05/22 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/85115",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/53907/"
] | It would be more accurate to say that cut time "will sound twice as fast as the same notes played in 4/4 at the same tempo". That's essentially what they're trying to get across.
But even that wouldn't really be accurate. Cut time is a duple meter, 4/4 is a quadruple meter. The difference is subtle, but it's still a difference. | Adding to the other answers, I played in a group for a few years that liked to take music "a bit" faster than normal, for stylistic purposes, and we would often count 4/4 music in 2 (or 3/4 music in 1) because it was just easier for our leader to count off the tempo (from the piano, often by nodding) when counting at a slower pace and not give herself whiplash. But even if we were counting 4/4 in two, we still played it as if in 4/4 (giving it 4 beats per measure instead of two).
Of cousre, this was the same band leader that would ask us to play in the style of "bad 80's rock music", so perhaps she wasn't always giving us instructions in the most formal music theory lingo possible (although she did know her theory as well).
The problem I have with "played twice as fast as written" is that it ignores the stylistic difference of 4/4 played twice as fast as 2/2. For beginners, this may not matter as much, but it is still there, and we shouldn't confuse them. |
85,115 | I was just reading an e-book and saw this sentence which really confused me:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/CuYCV.png)
"Played twice as fast as written" - This isn't what cut time actually means right, or are there situations where cut time means exactly that?
I thought cut time is basically just 2/2 time signature, but the speed would still depend on the bpm and the note durations... | 2019/05/22 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/85115",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/53907/"
] | It would be more accurate to say that cut time "will sound twice as fast as the same notes played in 4/4 at the same tempo". That's essentially what they're trying to get across.
But even that wouldn't really be accurate. Cut time is a duple meter, 4/4 is a quadruple meter. The difference is subtle, but it's still a difference. | The e-book was trying to contrast two different meters, 2/2 to 4/4, kind of assuming that the reader might not notice or understand the difference at all. They were trying to provide a simplified first explanation of an unfamiliar meter symbol.
They meant "Crossing the C has the effect that the conductor's hand will start moving in cycles of two beats rather than four beats and you players will have to play twice faster to keep up."
Except that there's no conductor around which makes the entire difference more abstract to formulate and less constrained to execute. |
85,115 | I was just reading an e-book and saw this sentence which really confused me:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/CuYCV.png)
"Played twice as fast as written" - This isn't what cut time actually means right, or are there situations where cut time means exactly that?
I thought cut time is basically just 2/2 time signature, but the speed would still depend on the bpm and the note durations... | 2019/05/22 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/85115",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/53907/"
] | That sentence "Played twice as fast as written" indicates that someone must have a misunderstanding. Someone who probably thinks that quarter notes are supposed to be played at a certain speed. That person would need more knowledge and experience with both tempo markings and different kinds of time signatures.
I suppose you could say that in the beginning when you learn your first note values and make your first exercises with the values you do get used to think of quarter notes as indicating some basic speed. You need to crawl before you can walk so to speak. But you certainly better learn to walk before you write a work book on the matter. | In a simple sense, it is correct. "Whatever tempo you have in mind, this is twice as fast as that". This works on the assumption that most people are used to the quarter note being the beat, which happens to be true.
But it basically means that the pulse of the song will be on the half-notes. If someone was standing there waving a baton in front of you, they would be counting the half-notes, and counting two beats per measure (2/2 time as you said).
If it says "moderato" on top of the page it would refer to the speed of the half-notes and if there is a bpm marking it would also refer to the half-notes, although it's common to make this explicit by writing "half-note = tempo" (see top two examples here <http://www.janvanbiezen.nl/bachfig01.gif>).
This is common in marching band music where writing in 2/4 would look awkward (I guess?). |
85,115 | I was just reading an e-book and saw this sentence which really confused me:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/CuYCV.png)
"Played twice as fast as written" - This isn't what cut time actually means right, or are there situations where cut time means exactly that?
I thought cut time is basically just 2/2 time signature, but the speed would still depend on the bpm and the note durations... | 2019/05/22 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/85115",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/53907/"
] | No, it's not current... and it doesn't really make much sense. (How fast is it "written"?)
Your assertion that time signatures do not dictate tempo is correct. Certain meters might imply faster tempi (6/4 is probably going to be used for slower pieces, and 12/16 is usually seen in fast pieces like gigues) but those are general usages, not requirements. | Adding to the other answers, I played in a group for a few years that liked to take music "a bit" faster than normal, for stylistic purposes, and we would often count 4/4 music in 2 (or 3/4 music in 1) because it was just easier for our leader to count off the tempo (from the piano, often by nodding) when counting at a slower pace and not give herself whiplash. But even if we were counting 4/4 in two, we still played it as if in 4/4 (giving it 4 beats per measure instead of two).
Of cousre, this was the same band leader that would ask us to play in the style of "bad 80's rock music", so perhaps she wasn't always giving us instructions in the most formal music theory lingo possible (although she did know her theory as well).
The problem I have with "played twice as fast as written" is that it ignores the stylistic difference of 4/4 played twice as fast as 2/2. For beginners, this may not matter as much, but it is still there, and we shouldn't confuse them. |
82,972 | Is it common to denote a chord symbol with an arpeggio marking? How else would you indicate that the chord is to be played arpeggio? | 2019/04/18 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/82972",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/59256/"
] | The vast majority of chords in piano music are not marked to be played arpeggio, but that still leaves many which are so marked.
Here are typical notations, courtesy of [Dolmetsch Online](https://www.dolmetsch.com/musicalsymbols.htm):
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/9Riyb.gif)
Sometimes composers would just write the word *arpeggio* instead of using these notations. This is to be expected in work from composers who lived before the line notations were introduced. For example, the introductory bars of J. S. Bach's keyboard fugue in A minor BWV 944:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/KMU29.png)
This means that all the chords are to be arpeggiated.
Contrast with this étude by Chopin:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/XPeop.png)
This notation also marks all the chords to be arpeggiated. However, it allows the composer to specify which chords should not be, unlike the general *arpeggio* term.
These examples are different in another respect. There was great freedom to the performer in how to arpeggiate the chords in Bach's time. As the note durations are long in the example, the performer might play up and down the arpeggio slowly, to fill the entire measure, instead of playing fast from bottom to top only.
At other times, composers took still another approach, writing out the arpeggio directly with grace notes, as in this example from Mozart K. 309:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Iutte.png)
Here, there can be a difference in intent. If all four notes in this arpeggio were written as a chord with the wavy line notation used, normally the player would continue to hold all the notes. As written with grace notes, however, normally the player would not retain them after playing them. | Another commenter explained the arpeggio symbols used in staff notation, but your question is about **chord symbols.**
The principle behind the chord symbols used in jazz and pop music is to let the instrumentalist follow their own intuition in choosing voicings and textures. If there is a specific arpeggiated pattern you want, it's best to simply write it out note by note, or write out one bar of example notation and then write the word *simile* over the subsequent measures.
If you don't have a particular arpeggiated pattern in mind, you can simply write the word *arpeggio* near the chord symbol. Any literate musician will understand this to mean that they should improvise their own arpeggiated pattern.
When you'd like them to stop arpeggiating, you can use the word *comp* in jazz, or simply *end arpeggio* or something to that effect.
Another option is to refer to a specific style of arpeggiation, like *montuno, Coldplay,* or *in the style of John Lennon's "Imagine."* A pianist experienced with reading jazz and pop charts will know what these things mean.
My larger point is that if there is an accompanying technique that you feel you can describe better in words than in notation, then you should simply **use words.** Many beginning composers feel pressured to use the "proper" Italian terms and musical symbols to communicate their ideas, but it has long been a staple of notational practice for composers to add instructions in their native languages. |
82,972 | Is it common to denote a chord symbol with an arpeggio marking? How else would you indicate that the chord is to be played arpeggio? | 2019/04/18 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/82972",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/59256/"
] | As far as I know, for instruments that use chord symbols (not piano, but guitar maybe), **no, this is not common.** Chord symbols break down when trying to convey performance text specifically like that in general; how one chooses to convey that arpeggio is up to the transcriber/composer.
However, any well-trained musician in music theory should recognise what your proposed system is trying to say. Even beginners might guess at the meaning, but most intermediate musicians with some music theory training would get it.
I wouldn't advise doing it if you don't think the performers will understand. Of course, if the symbols are for you, then of course write it however you'll remember it! | Another commenter explained the arpeggio symbols used in staff notation, but your question is about **chord symbols.**
The principle behind the chord symbols used in jazz and pop music is to let the instrumentalist follow their own intuition in choosing voicings and textures. If there is a specific arpeggiated pattern you want, it's best to simply write it out note by note, or write out one bar of example notation and then write the word *simile* over the subsequent measures.
If you don't have a particular arpeggiated pattern in mind, you can simply write the word *arpeggio* near the chord symbol. Any literate musician will understand this to mean that they should improvise their own arpeggiated pattern.
When you'd like them to stop arpeggiating, you can use the word *comp* in jazz, or simply *end arpeggio* or something to that effect.
Another option is to refer to a specific style of arpeggiation, like *montuno, Coldplay,* or *in the style of John Lennon's "Imagine."* A pianist experienced with reading jazz and pop charts will know what these things mean.
My larger point is that if there is an accompanying technique that you feel you can describe better in words than in notation, then you should simply **use words.** Many beginning composers feel pressured to use the "proper" Italian terms and musical symbols to communicate their ideas, but it has long been a staple of notational practice for composers to add instructions in their native languages. |
82,972 | Is it common to denote a chord symbol with an arpeggio marking? How else would you indicate that the chord is to be played arpeggio? | 2019/04/18 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/82972",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/59256/"
] | For piano music it is common to mark the chord with one of the usual signs. (Look up the other answers.)
But in simple chord accompaniments for guitar in folk -
and pop music it is up to the interpret if he wants to play arpeggio or a strummed chord. This means: There is not a common sign.
(I didn’t understand the question in the sense that you were asking as a songwriter or composer how you could mark a arpeggio for the players.) | Another commenter explained the arpeggio symbols used in staff notation, but your question is about **chord symbols.**
The principle behind the chord symbols used in jazz and pop music is to let the instrumentalist follow their own intuition in choosing voicings and textures. If there is a specific arpeggiated pattern you want, it's best to simply write it out note by note, or write out one bar of example notation and then write the word *simile* over the subsequent measures.
If you don't have a particular arpeggiated pattern in mind, you can simply write the word *arpeggio* near the chord symbol. Any literate musician will understand this to mean that they should improvise their own arpeggiated pattern.
When you'd like them to stop arpeggiating, you can use the word *comp* in jazz, or simply *end arpeggio* or something to that effect.
Another option is to refer to a specific style of arpeggiation, like *montuno, Coldplay,* or *in the style of John Lennon's "Imagine."* A pianist experienced with reading jazz and pop charts will know what these things mean.
My larger point is that if there is an accompanying technique that you feel you can describe better in words than in notation, then you should simply **use words.** Many beginning composers feel pressured to use the "proper" Italian terms and musical symbols to communicate their ideas, but it has long been a staple of notational practice for composers to add instructions in their native languages. |
242,508 | Most robots that exist in the world today are factory robots. Not particularly humanoid, except the arm+hand concept. When you design a robot to replace the human task of pushing a vacuum cleaner around the house, you don't design a robot that resembles a human in any way.
Roboticists today are designing all sorts of robots: with wheels, with tracks, with six legs, etc. So my question is: should we expect robots of a near-future setting to be humanoid? Would they be bipedal?
Of course, one thing sophisticated robots (not hoover robots and factory robots) need is adaptability. The human body-form can do a lot of different things. But so can the hexapedal form, for example.
Mother Nature already dealt with this question of what body-plan to use for Her most sophisticated beings, and she settled on humanoid for reasons I don't fully understand, discussed a bit in [this question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/25209/would-intelligent-life-evolve-any-other-body-plan-than-humanoid).
Would people in the near-future bother manufacturing humanoid/bipedal robots, or could we get any job done with other body-plans? | 2023/02/24 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/242508",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/95860/"
] | It makes sense for robots to be humanoid if they're expected to be generalists that are interchangeable with humans in their roles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A humanoid robot can use things designed for humans. They can sit at human chairs, type on human keyboards, drive human cars, wash-up in human sinks, fire human guns - you get the idea. For any *one* of those roles you can design a better robot, but if you want a robot that fits seamlessly into human life, you need a humanoid robot.
So for a situation where humanoid robots are common, you need a situation where roles are expected to be taken either by humans or robots on a regular basis. If any role is *only* performed by robots then it'll be better to use peripherals on your robot than have it pick up a designed-for-humans tool.
Perhaps laws limiting robots taking human roles were introduced so now your starship has a maximum of 20% robot crew or something, or perhaps you have population issues that mean there aren't enough humans for the roles, or perhaps its just cheaper to pay one of the masses of humans desperate for food to do the role than pay for expensive robots, or perhaps your robots are considered sapient and have flexible and extensive rights over what jobs they take rather than being tools you can slap a hose attachment on. There are many options. | AI relies on a model of the human brain.
========================================
Most AIs in the future are based off human models. Their minds inherently value a humanoid form. Efforts to insert them into other forms have resulted in robopsychosis where the dehumanization makes them go insane.
Efforts to design non human based robots have gone poorly, and few animals have been well suited to replacement.
As such, most advanced robots are built in a humanoid form so they can function well. |
242,508 | Most robots that exist in the world today are factory robots. Not particularly humanoid, except the arm+hand concept. When you design a robot to replace the human task of pushing a vacuum cleaner around the house, you don't design a robot that resembles a human in any way.
Roboticists today are designing all sorts of robots: with wheels, with tracks, with six legs, etc. So my question is: should we expect robots of a near-future setting to be humanoid? Would they be bipedal?
Of course, one thing sophisticated robots (not hoover robots and factory robots) need is adaptability. The human body-form can do a lot of different things. But so can the hexapedal form, for example.
Mother Nature already dealt with this question of what body-plan to use for Her most sophisticated beings, and she settled on humanoid for reasons I don't fully understand, discussed a bit in [this question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/25209/would-intelligent-life-evolve-any-other-body-plan-than-humanoid).
Would people in the near-future bother manufacturing humanoid/bipedal robots, or could we get any job done with other body-plans? | 2023/02/24 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/242508",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/95860/"
] | Form follows function
---------------------
When identifying what you want your robot to do, you make a list of priorities. If "interacting with people" isn't on the list, then you don't put any effort into their appearance. Making something "humanoid" is an additional qualification that is really too expensive for most development teams.
Just bipedal walking is an expensive proposition. Trying to fit all of the necessary sensors into a human-shaped bulb of a head is an unnecessary challenge. Trying to make dexterous human hands is something our world is still working on.
The super-expensive Honda ASIMO was built basically as a PR stunt. After doing some dancing around on stage, it spent the rest of its days as a receptionist. It is now a museum piece.
Humanoid forms are actually a detraction to the natural functions of robots. The problem with humanoid robots is that humans can't help anthropomorphising them. We get nervous about being naked in front of them. You make a toaster with a human face, and pretty soon people are waving signs that say "free the toasters!"
So, overall, if you don't *need* to make something humanoid, then you won't.
OTOH, if you *do* need to make something humanoid, you will. We're entering the age where humans will need to work side-by-side with robots. Being able to predict a robot's behavior can be the difference between successfully building an automobile and getting your hand broken, so there is good reason to model robots on something we're familiar with.
I'm reminded of C3PO, who is a protocol droid. R2D2 doesn't need to interact with people, so it's ok for him to look like a fire plug. C3PO's function was to provide translation services and explain things to guests. Any hospitality robot will inevitably trend towards humanoid because it makes their job easier. | I haven't seen anyone state what I believe to be the primary reason you don't see many humanoid robots: It is vastly more difficult and costly to build a humanoid robot.
Most motion devices we have to work with are rotary motors, solenoids, rotary and linear servos, etc. These devices are not conducive to moving the human shape. So, if you want to do anything robotically, it is almost guaranteed to be easier and cheaper to do that thing in a non-human form.
Absent some exotic devices being researched, a humanoid robot will need to be powered by hydraulics or pneumatics. Each muscle needs to be powered by it's own cylinder and tubing. You can do some things with cable to reduce the number of components, but it's just a beast of a job.
Even the most advanced publicly known semi-humanoid robot in the world (Boston Dynamics 'Atlas'), which is the result of millions of dollars of work and research, can only lift about 15 pounds. And for getting any real work done, it is outclassed by their dog robot, which is orders of magnitude less productive than the kind of square cart robots in an Amazon warehouse.
I'm not saying that Boston Dynamics (or anyone else's) human and animal shaped robots don't have capabilities that other (boxy) robots don't have. I'm just saying they are very expensive and only make sense for relatively rare use cases.
If there were magic to make them available, quick and strong, I have no doubt that humanoid robots would be very popular. As there is no such magic, we tend to get what can be made effective for a given task at a price that businesses can afford. |
242,508 | Most robots that exist in the world today are factory robots. Not particularly humanoid, except the arm+hand concept. When you design a robot to replace the human task of pushing a vacuum cleaner around the house, you don't design a robot that resembles a human in any way.
Roboticists today are designing all sorts of robots: with wheels, with tracks, with six legs, etc. So my question is: should we expect robots of a near-future setting to be humanoid? Would they be bipedal?
Of course, one thing sophisticated robots (not hoover robots and factory robots) need is adaptability. The human body-form can do a lot of different things. But so can the hexapedal form, for example.
Mother Nature already dealt with this question of what body-plan to use for Her most sophisticated beings, and she settled on humanoid for reasons I don't fully understand, discussed a bit in [this question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/25209/would-intelligent-life-evolve-any-other-body-plan-than-humanoid).
Would people in the near-future bother manufacturing humanoid/bipedal robots, or could we get any job done with other body-plans? | 2023/02/24 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/242508",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/95860/"
] | Nature *hasn't* settled on a humanoid form. There's only been a handful of humanoid species, and all but one are extinct. If anything, the ideal form is apparently [crablike](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinisation), or perhaps some variety of [beetle](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Inordinate_fondness_for_beetles.jpg).
One of the more successful robots in the DARPA Robotics Challenge was the JPL Robosimian, which was loosely based on an ape-like form factor (which also turned out a bit crab-like or beetle-like), a quadruped with four grasping/walking limbs. It also used common hardware for its limbs, arms and legs being largely interchangeable, and it could arrange itself to roll around on wheels. | There are three things that you need to take in to account:
Firstly, would the robot be performing a specific talk using purpose built tools. Or would it be a multi purpose robot sharing tools with its owner.
For example, a Roomba uses its own built in vacuum unit so it can be constructed in a very simple non-humanoid form. Whereas a cleaning robot that would be using an off the shelf vacuum cleaner that a human would use would require limbs capable of holding it, and a body capable of doing things like moving furniture or bending down to hoover under furniture.
The same with a robot to wash dishes, would it be a dishwasher on wheels, or would it need to stand at a sink and handle a scrubbing brush?
Would a robot soldier carry a rifle, and need to load clips into it, or would they just be a tank with a Gatling gun on the top?
Secondly, what kind of environment would the robot need to be in, would it need to be static or to move, and if it did need to move would this be once a day to get to a recharging station or would it be in constant motion.
Thirdly, how much computing power would it have to spare. Movement is complicated, and the more you need to move the more computing power is required. A robot with 6 legs would require more computing power to move them around than a robot with 4 legs, while a robot with wheels would require almost no computing power except that needed to navigate. |
242,508 | Most robots that exist in the world today are factory robots. Not particularly humanoid, except the arm+hand concept. When you design a robot to replace the human task of pushing a vacuum cleaner around the house, you don't design a robot that resembles a human in any way.
Roboticists today are designing all sorts of robots: with wheels, with tracks, with six legs, etc. So my question is: should we expect robots of a near-future setting to be humanoid? Would they be bipedal?
Of course, one thing sophisticated robots (not hoover robots and factory robots) need is adaptability. The human body-form can do a lot of different things. But so can the hexapedal form, for example.
Mother Nature already dealt with this question of what body-plan to use for Her most sophisticated beings, and she settled on humanoid for reasons I don't fully understand, discussed a bit in [this question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/25209/would-intelligent-life-evolve-any-other-body-plan-than-humanoid).
Would people in the near-future bother manufacturing humanoid/bipedal robots, or could we get any job done with other body-plans? | 2023/02/24 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/242508",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/95860/"
] | It makes sense for robots to be humanoid if they're expected to be generalists that are interchangeable with humans in their roles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A humanoid robot can use things designed for humans. They can sit at human chairs, type on human keyboards, drive human cars, wash-up in human sinks, fire human guns - you get the idea. For any *one* of those roles you can design a better robot, but if you want a robot that fits seamlessly into human life, you need a humanoid robot.
So for a situation where humanoid robots are common, you need a situation where roles are expected to be taken either by humans or robots on a regular basis. If any role is *only* performed by robots then it'll be better to use peripherals on your robot than have it pick up a designed-for-humans tool.
Perhaps laws limiting robots taking human roles were introduced so now your starship has a maximum of 20% robot crew or something, or perhaps you have population issues that mean there aren't enough humans for the roles, or perhaps its just cheaper to pay one of the masses of humans desperate for food to do the role than pay for expensive robots, or perhaps your robots are considered sapient and have flexible and extensive rights over what jobs they take rather than being tools you can slap a hose attachment on. There are many options. | Nature *hasn't* settled on a humanoid form. There's only been a handful of humanoid species, and all but one are extinct. If anything, the ideal form is apparently [crablike](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinisation), or perhaps some variety of [beetle](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Inordinate_fondness_for_beetles.jpg).
One of the more successful robots in the DARPA Robotics Challenge was the JPL Robosimian, which was loosely based on an ape-like form factor (which also turned out a bit crab-like or beetle-like), a quadruped with four grasping/walking limbs. It also used common hardware for its limbs, arms and legs being largely interchangeable, and it could arrange itself to roll around on wheels. |
242,508 | Most robots that exist in the world today are factory robots. Not particularly humanoid, except the arm+hand concept. When you design a robot to replace the human task of pushing a vacuum cleaner around the house, you don't design a robot that resembles a human in any way.
Roboticists today are designing all sorts of robots: with wheels, with tracks, with six legs, etc. So my question is: should we expect robots of a near-future setting to be humanoid? Would they be bipedal?
Of course, one thing sophisticated robots (not hoover robots and factory robots) need is adaptability. The human body-form can do a lot of different things. But so can the hexapedal form, for example.
Mother Nature already dealt with this question of what body-plan to use for Her most sophisticated beings, and she settled on humanoid for reasons I don't fully understand, discussed a bit in [this question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/25209/would-intelligent-life-evolve-any-other-body-plan-than-humanoid).
Would people in the near-future bother manufacturing humanoid/bipedal robots, or could we get any job done with other body-plans? | 2023/02/24 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/242508",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/95860/"
] | Form follows function
---------------------
When identifying what you want your robot to do, you make a list of priorities. If "interacting with people" isn't on the list, then you don't put any effort into their appearance. Making something "humanoid" is an additional qualification that is really too expensive for most development teams.
Just bipedal walking is an expensive proposition. Trying to fit all of the necessary sensors into a human-shaped bulb of a head is an unnecessary challenge. Trying to make dexterous human hands is something our world is still working on.
The super-expensive Honda ASIMO was built basically as a PR stunt. After doing some dancing around on stage, it spent the rest of its days as a receptionist. It is now a museum piece.
Humanoid forms are actually a detraction to the natural functions of robots. The problem with humanoid robots is that humans can't help anthropomorphising them. We get nervous about being naked in front of them. You make a toaster with a human face, and pretty soon people are waving signs that say "free the toasters!"
So, overall, if you don't *need* to make something humanoid, then you won't.
OTOH, if you *do* need to make something humanoid, you will. We're entering the age where humans will need to work side-by-side with robots. Being able to predict a robot's behavior can be the difference between successfully building an automobile and getting your hand broken, so there is good reason to model robots on something we're familiar with.
I'm reminded of C3PO, who is a protocol droid. R2D2 doesn't need to interact with people, so it's ok for him to look like a fire plug. C3PO's function was to provide translation services and explain things to guests. Any hospitality robot will inevitably trend towards humanoid because it makes their job easier. | Most robots are designed for a quite specific range of tasks. So, factory robots for example, are usually intended to do a repetitive set of tasks. They are not intended to be arbitrarily capable. They are supposed to be doing things like putting a part on a device, weld it, take a photo or x-ray, spray some paint on, and various other things like so.
So a human-form robot, especially one that began to look substantially like a human, would require a specific purpose that required that shape and appearance.
Even tasks that currently have human adapted interfaces are unlikely to be filled by human-appearing robots. Consider the autopilot of a plane, or the computer-driven function on some new cars. (I'm deliberately avoiding the brand name.) There is no human-resembling body required. The effort to build one would actually be a lot of trouble. It's easier to redesign the interface to the computer than to build something to act like a human.
The only real opportunity for robots that strongly resemble humans would be where the resemblance was the purpose. Let's be delicate about that purposes. Let us say "companionship" might be the goal.
There are already a few types of "robot dog" available. It's not too far to imagine moving from that to "robot friends." Recall the movie AI, with robot children for childless couples.
There might be room for robot nannies and robot nurses. They might be made to look like humans because it was comforting to their clients.
Or, to avoid putting too fine a point on it, there might be robots that you call. At night. That also appears in the movie AI. Jude Law plays a robot called Gigolo Joe.
The resemblance might not be universally popular, however. There is the effect of the [uncanny valley.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley) Some people find things that look *nearly* human to be quite disconcerting.
=====
There have been comments to the effect that if you want a robot to do a bunch of things humans currently do, then it will start to look like a human.
No.
Even the example: It is much easier to design a robot to drive any car if you are not required to make it human shaped.
Consider a head with eyes on a neck that can turn and look at mirrors or look behind to reverse or check if it is safe to change lanes. This is massively restrictive and a lot of work. Much easier and much more productive to have cameras that can be mounted on any convenient location on the car. Even human-driven cars are doing this today, with such things as lane-assist and backup cameras.
Consider a human body plan for moving the controls. Two arms, two legs, a torso. Making the linkages to look like a human body plan, then having them find the controls, then having them work the controls, is way too much work. Much easier to have a few servo motors to actuate the controls.
Consider getting in and out of the car. Much easier to have an install/removal robot. That would look like a panel van with one or two "factory" robot arms that could open the side door, open the car door, stick the various parts of the driver robot in or remove them, fasten the cameras on, etc.
Indeed, such linkages could be constructed such that the drive seat was relatively unobstructed and still available for a human to ride in.
As well, layering on demands that a single robot do many human tasks in a human fashion is moving into the "I want a buddy to fetch my car for me, do the laundry, make toast, help the kids with homework, have a beer with me, etc. etc. etc." In other words, it's becoming companionship rather than the tasks.
Otherwise your toaster would already look humanoid. |
242,508 | Most robots that exist in the world today are factory robots. Not particularly humanoid, except the arm+hand concept. When you design a robot to replace the human task of pushing a vacuum cleaner around the house, you don't design a robot that resembles a human in any way.
Roboticists today are designing all sorts of robots: with wheels, with tracks, with six legs, etc. So my question is: should we expect robots of a near-future setting to be humanoid? Would they be bipedal?
Of course, one thing sophisticated robots (not hoover robots and factory robots) need is adaptability. The human body-form can do a lot of different things. But so can the hexapedal form, for example.
Mother Nature already dealt with this question of what body-plan to use for Her most sophisticated beings, and she settled on humanoid for reasons I don't fully understand, discussed a bit in [this question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/25209/would-intelligent-life-evolve-any-other-body-plan-than-humanoid).
Would people in the near-future bother manufacturing humanoid/bipedal robots, or could we get any job done with other body-plans? | 2023/02/24 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/242508",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/95860/"
] | Form follows function
---------------------
When identifying what you want your robot to do, you make a list of priorities. If "interacting with people" isn't on the list, then you don't put any effort into their appearance. Making something "humanoid" is an additional qualification that is really too expensive for most development teams.
Just bipedal walking is an expensive proposition. Trying to fit all of the necessary sensors into a human-shaped bulb of a head is an unnecessary challenge. Trying to make dexterous human hands is something our world is still working on.
The super-expensive Honda ASIMO was built basically as a PR stunt. After doing some dancing around on stage, it spent the rest of its days as a receptionist. It is now a museum piece.
Humanoid forms are actually a detraction to the natural functions of robots. The problem with humanoid robots is that humans can't help anthropomorphising them. We get nervous about being naked in front of them. You make a toaster with a human face, and pretty soon people are waving signs that say "free the toasters!"
So, overall, if you don't *need* to make something humanoid, then you won't.
OTOH, if you *do* need to make something humanoid, you will. We're entering the age where humans will need to work side-by-side with robots. Being able to predict a robot's behavior can be the difference between successfully building an automobile and getting your hand broken, so there is good reason to model robots on something we're familiar with.
I'm reminded of C3PO, who is a protocol droid. R2D2 doesn't need to interact with people, so it's ok for him to look like a fire plug. C3PO's function was to provide translation services and explain things to guests. Any hospitality robot will inevitably trend towards humanoid because it makes their job easier. | **[Uncanny Valley](https://spectrum.ieee.org/what-is-the-uncanny-valley)**
I think Boba Fit's answer pretty well covers the main reason why we might not see humanoid robots much, which is that robots are normally "built to task" but I wanted to elaborate on what I believe is an important ancillary reason we don't see humanoid robots: they creep us out, with the phenomena being called "uncanny valley".
In short, humans are pretty comfortable with machines. Cars, drones, etc, all perfectly reasonable, even if they are AI and fully automated. As things start to look more and more human, though, there is some real monkey-brain thinking that kicks in and kinda creeps us out, and the closer to human they look, the more creeped out we get. Things "don't move right" or "don't look right". (Horror movies get a lot of mileage out of this too, making humanoid horror entities move in weird ways or do something not quite human, which naturally creeps us out.)
The link I started with does pose some solutions to the problem, but it is a problem.
Plus, **purpose-built robots are also just easier**. Building wheeled or tracked [delivery robots](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delivery_robot) isn't nearly as difficult as building a humanoid robot! The humanoid could have some real advantages. Maybe it can get on a bus. It's easier to see and not trip over. But it's also going to be bigger, heavier, more inherently dangerous (stepping on your toes, falling over, etc) and enormously more complicated to develop. Mechanically, the human form is really complicated, versus a simple tracked vehicle. |
242,508 | Most robots that exist in the world today are factory robots. Not particularly humanoid, except the arm+hand concept. When you design a robot to replace the human task of pushing a vacuum cleaner around the house, you don't design a robot that resembles a human in any way.
Roboticists today are designing all sorts of robots: with wheels, with tracks, with six legs, etc. So my question is: should we expect robots of a near-future setting to be humanoid? Would they be bipedal?
Of course, one thing sophisticated robots (not hoover robots and factory robots) need is adaptability. The human body-form can do a lot of different things. But so can the hexapedal form, for example.
Mother Nature already dealt with this question of what body-plan to use for Her most sophisticated beings, and she settled on humanoid for reasons I don't fully understand, discussed a bit in [this question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/25209/would-intelligent-life-evolve-any-other-body-plan-than-humanoid).
Would people in the near-future bother manufacturing humanoid/bipedal robots, or could we get any job done with other body-plans? | 2023/02/24 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/242508",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/95860/"
] | Most robots are designed for a quite specific range of tasks. So, factory robots for example, are usually intended to do a repetitive set of tasks. They are not intended to be arbitrarily capable. They are supposed to be doing things like putting a part on a device, weld it, take a photo or x-ray, spray some paint on, and various other things like so.
So a human-form robot, especially one that began to look substantially like a human, would require a specific purpose that required that shape and appearance.
Even tasks that currently have human adapted interfaces are unlikely to be filled by human-appearing robots. Consider the autopilot of a plane, or the computer-driven function on some new cars. (I'm deliberately avoiding the brand name.) There is no human-resembling body required. The effort to build one would actually be a lot of trouble. It's easier to redesign the interface to the computer than to build something to act like a human.
The only real opportunity for robots that strongly resemble humans would be where the resemblance was the purpose. Let's be delicate about that purposes. Let us say "companionship" might be the goal.
There are already a few types of "robot dog" available. It's not too far to imagine moving from that to "robot friends." Recall the movie AI, with robot children for childless couples.
There might be room for robot nannies and robot nurses. They might be made to look like humans because it was comforting to their clients.
Or, to avoid putting too fine a point on it, there might be robots that you call. At night. That also appears in the movie AI. Jude Law plays a robot called Gigolo Joe.
The resemblance might not be universally popular, however. There is the effect of the [uncanny valley.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley) Some people find things that look *nearly* human to be quite disconcerting.
=====
There have been comments to the effect that if you want a robot to do a bunch of things humans currently do, then it will start to look like a human.
No.
Even the example: It is much easier to design a robot to drive any car if you are not required to make it human shaped.
Consider a head with eyes on a neck that can turn and look at mirrors or look behind to reverse or check if it is safe to change lanes. This is massively restrictive and a lot of work. Much easier and much more productive to have cameras that can be mounted on any convenient location on the car. Even human-driven cars are doing this today, with such things as lane-assist and backup cameras.
Consider a human body plan for moving the controls. Two arms, two legs, a torso. Making the linkages to look like a human body plan, then having them find the controls, then having them work the controls, is way too much work. Much easier to have a few servo motors to actuate the controls.
Consider getting in and out of the car. Much easier to have an install/removal robot. That would look like a panel van with one or two "factory" robot arms that could open the side door, open the car door, stick the various parts of the driver robot in or remove them, fasten the cameras on, etc.
Indeed, such linkages could be constructed such that the drive seat was relatively unobstructed and still available for a human to ride in.
As well, layering on demands that a single robot do many human tasks in a human fashion is moving into the "I want a buddy to fetch my car for me, do the laundry, make toast, help the kids with homework, have a beer with me, etc. etc. etc." In other words, it's becoming companionship rather than the tasks.
Otherwise your toaster would already look humanoid. | Nature *hasn't* settled on a humanoid form. There's only been a handful of humanoid species, and all but one are extinct. If anything, the ideal form is apparently [crablike](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinisation), or perhaps some variety of [beetle](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Inordinate_fondness_for_beetles.jpg).
One of the more successful robots in the DARPA Robotics Challenge was the JPL Robosimian, which was loosely based on an ape-like form factor (which also turned out a bit crab-like or beetle-like), a quadruped with four grasping/walking limbs. It also used common hardware for its limbs, arms and legs being largely interchangeable, and it could arrange itself to roll around on wheels. |
242,508 | Most robots that exist in the world today are factory robots. Not particularly humanoid, except the arm+hand concept. When you design a robot to replace the human task of pushing a vacuum cleaner around the house, you don't design a robot that resembles a human in any way.
Roboticists today are designing all sorts of robots: with wheels, with tracks, with six legs, etc. So my question is: should we expect robots of a near-future setting to be humanoid? Would they be bipedal?
Of course, one thing sophisticated robots (not hoover robots and factory robots) need is adaptability. The human body-form can do a lot of different things. But so can the hexapedal form, for example.
Mother Nature already dealt with this question of what body-plan to use for Her most sophisticated beings, and she settled on humanoid for reasons I don't fully understand, discussed a bit in [this question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/25209/would-intelligent-life-evolve-any-other-body-plan-than-humanoid).
Would people in the near-future bother manufacturing humanoid/bipedal robots, or could we get any job done with other body-plans? | 2023/02/24 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/242508",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/95860/"
] | Most robots are designed for a quite specific range of tasks. So, factory robots for example, are usually intended to do a repetitive set of tasks. They are not intended to be arbitrarily capable. They are supposed to be doing things like putting a part on a device, weld it, take a photo or x-ray, spray some paint on, and various other things like so.
So a human-form robot, especially one that began to look substantially like a human, would require a specific purpose that required that shape and appearance.
Even tasks that currently have human adapted interfaces are unlikely to be filled by human-appearing robots. Consider the autopilot of a plane, or the computer-driven function on some new cars. (I'm deliberately avoiding the brand name.) There is no human-resembling body required. The effort to build one would actually be a lot of trouble. It's easier to redesign the interface to the computer than to build something to act like a human.
The only real opportunity for robots that strongly resemble humans would be where the resemblance was the purpose. Let's be delicate about that purposes. Let us say "companionship" might be the goal.
There are already a few types of "robot dog" available. It's not too far to imagine moving from that to "robot friends." Recall the movie AI, with robot children for childless couples.
There might be room for robot nannies and robot nurses. They might be made to look like humans because it was comforting to their clients.
Or, to avoid putting too fine a point on it, there might be robots that you call. At night. That also appears in the movie AI. Jude Law plays a robot called Gigolo Joe.
The resemblance might not be universally popular, however. There is the effect of the [uncanny valley.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley) Some people find things that look *nearly* human to be quite disconcerting.
=====
There have been comments to the effect that if you want a robot to do a bunch of things humans currently do, then it will start to look like a human.
No.
Even the example: It is much easier to design a robot to drive any car if you are not required to make it human shaped.
Consider a head with eyes on a neck that can turn and look at mirrors or look behind to reverse or check if it is safe to change lanes. This is massively restrictive and a lot of work. Much easier and much more productive to have cameras that can be mounted on any convenient location on the car. Even human-driven cars are doing this today, with such things as lane-assist and backup cameras.
Consider a human body plan for moving the controls. Two arms, two legs, a torso. Making the linkages to look like a human body plan, then having them find the controls, then having them work the controls, is way too much work. Much easier to have a few servo motors to actuate the controls.
Consider getting in and out of the car. Much easier to have an install/removal robot. That would look like a panel van with one or two "factory" robot arms that could open the side door, open the car door, stick the various parts of the driver robot in or remove them, fasten the cameras on, etc.
Indeed, such linkages could be constructed such that the drive seat was relatively unobstructed and still available for a human to ride in.
As well, layering on demands that a single robot do many human tasks in a human fashion is moving into the "I want a buddy to fetch my car for me, do the laundry, make toast, help the kids with homework, have a beer with me, etc. etc. etc." In other words, it's becoming companionship rather than the tasks.
Otherwise your toaster would already look humanoid. | Obviously if people want general purpose servant robots to replace servants or slaves they would have to have humanoid body form to be able to perform many or all of the things a human servant could do.
And obviously sexbots would be built to look very human.
Some people might want robot companions (and maybe caretakers) which might look like dogs, or adult humans, or human children, depending on what sort of companions they wanted.
War robots are already being researched and developed, and mostly look like weird machines. But possibly some army might design general purpose war robots which have the same shape and size as human soldiers, and can be programmed to function as various types of soldiers, sailors, air crew, etc. with modules for different functions. Thus they can use weapons designed for human use and a country might build billions of them.
Even highly automated factories still have some human workers, and many third world factories have many human workers instead of automation. And I can imagine a process in which men, women, and children are replaced in factories by man, woman, or child sized humanoid robots which can be programmed to do any task a human can.
And possibly people in the future will not work but will own a few robot "slaves" they lease to various businesses and live on the rent paid for the use of their robot "slaves". An ordinary citizen might own a dozen, richer people might have sole or shared ownership of hundreds and/or invest in companies having many millions to rent out, and rich people might own millions of robots.
If married couples have fewer children in the future than the replacement number the population will decline. And possibly humanoid robots with human level intelligence may be created to perform the task formerly performed by humans, and to gradually replace the diminishing human population and live in their designed for humans structures, so that human civilization will not die out even when humans do.
And humanoid robot bodies might be built to be remotely controlled by humans who thus can avoid the unhealthy environments like deserts, the sea floor, outer space, etc. the robots operate in. If the humans want to experience being in those locations without actually being there, the robots should be highly humanoid and there should be methods for the human operators to see, hear, and feel though the sensory devices of the robots. And the robots might use tools and devices designed for humans to take advantage of the long practice the human operators might have with those tools and devices. Thus those robots controlled by telepresence for work or play might be built with humanoid bodies.
So I have listed a number of reasons why humanoid robots might conceivably be built in large numbers and be common in some hypothetical futures.
Many other answers have mentioned reasons why in many cases it would be more reasonable to build highly nonhumanoid robots designed for very specific single tasks. Most work robots today are highly non humanoid.
And that has been more or less predicted long before any working robots were built.
See, for example, "Q.U.R." by Anthony Boucher, *Astounding Science Fiction* March, 1943.
<https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?46709> |
242,508 | Most robots that exist in the world today are factory robots. Not particularly humanoid, except the arm+hand concept. When you design a robot to replace the human task of pushing a vacuum cleaner around the house, you don't design a robot that resembles a human in any way.
Roboticists today are designing all sorts of robots: with wheels, with tracks, with six legs, etc. So my question is: should we expect robots of a near-future setting to be humanoid? Would they be bipedal?
Of course, one thing sophisticated robots (not hoover robots and factory robots) need is adaptability. The human body-form can do a lot of different things. But so can the hexapedal form, for example.
Mother Nature already dealt with this question of what body-plan to use for Her most sophisticated beings, and she settled on humanoid for reasons I don't fully understand, discussed a bit in [this question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/25209/would-intelligent-life-evolve-any-other-body-plan-than-humanoid).
Would people in the near-future bother manufacturing humanoid/bipedal robots, or could we get any job done with other body-plans? | 2023/02/24 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/242508",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/95860/"
] | Versatility: A good reason for a humanoid robot is to use things designed for humans.
If you run a hotel, you could have a robot vacuum cleaner shaped like R2D2, a robot bellhop that's basically a luggage cart with mechnical arms and a motor, and a valet robot that's basically a tow truck with autopilot.
Or you could buy one humanoid robot that can use an ordinary vacuum cleaner, push an ordinary luggage cart, and drive the cars itself. All these devices were designed to be used by humanoids, so a humanoid shape is really handy. | They wouldn't. Just look at nature and the real world.
======================================================
If you've browsed the questions in this site about realistic angels and mermaids, you probably found answers that were a variation of "they're not realistic as they're depicted because the human body plan is anything but ideal for doing these". Humans are very similar from apes, they're our closest relatives, but it's nearly impossible to mistake an adult human and an adult chimpanzee, it's also nearly impossible for a human to beat a chimpanzee when it comes to move quickly by swinging through branches.
When you look at the types of animals in nature and the types of robots in the world today, you can easily arrive to the same conclusion: there's no such thing as a "one size fits all", and that's also true for shape. Something specialized from flying at high speeds will not be the best at ambushing something 5 km underwater. Similarly, a robot that's ideal for doing something in a factory line will look nothing like the one designed to film things from above. It makes no sense for humanoid robots to be built for everything because the humanoid shape is not good for everything. Many people on this site and many biologists will even agree that the humanoid form isn't even the best for humans, since the requirements to achieve what we've achieved are basically the ability to use tools and a brain like ours. For all intents and purposes a species of crow-like creatures with dexterous pincer-like mouthparts could probably achieve everything we have while also having to deal with a society of flying individuals.
Both in nature and in mechanics, one rule almost always applies: form follows function. Even in animals with traits that make it harder to survive, these traits usually play a role that ultimately makes them useful enough to be selected, like the feathers in male peacocks.
So would humanoid robots take over? No, not at all. Just looking at the real world shows us how much easier it is to make things that aren't meant to look, move and act like humans. There is however one thing a humanoid robot would be best as: substitute companions and caretakers.
Humans, at the end of the day, are social animals that have vastly modified the world and built machines to suit their needs and with their own form in mind. Based on this, a humanoid form is the ideal form with the function is to take care of and provide comfort to another human. The uncanny valley is a thing, but still humans are usually at their most comfortable when they're dealing with something that's also mostly human shaped. Being capable of doing everything a human can also enables these robots to perform nearly any function a normal human would need assistance with: be it cooking, taking them somewhere or operating other machines.
So summing it up: no, humanoid robots wouldn't take over as the one form of all machines, because that's just dumb. Modern engineering shows us how hard it is to make robots that can get even close to moving and acting like humans, with just about 0 current examples of one that can mostly move, talk and look like one. However, it's easy to make a drone or a roomba, and it's apparently also easier to make cars that drive themselves. The humanoid form is the best at dealing with and using equipment designed for humanoids. Other than that the human form is often not the best. |
242,508 | Most robots that exist in the world today are factory robots. Not particularly humanoid, except the arm+hand concept. When you design a robot to replace the human task of pushing a vacuum cleaner around the house, you don't design a robot that resembles a human in any way.
Roboticists today are designing all sorts of robots: with wheels, with tracks, with six legs, etc. So my question is: should we expect robots of a near-future setting to be humanoid? Would they be bipedal?
Of course, one thing sophisticated robots (not hoover robots and factory robots) need is adaptability. The human body-form can do a lot of different things. But so can the hexapedal form, for example.
Mother Nature already dealt with this question of what body-plan to use for Her most sophisticated beings, and she settled on humanoid for reasons I don't fully understand, discussed a bit in [this question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/25209/would-intelligent-life-evolve-any-other-body-plan-than-humanoid).
Would people in the near-future bother manufacturing humanoid/bipedal robots, or could we get any job done with other body-plans? | 2023/02/24 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/242508",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/95860/"
] | Versatility: A good reason for a humanoid robot is to use things designed for humans.
If you run a hotel, you could have a robot vacuum cleaner shaped like R2D2, a robot bellhop that's basically a luggage cart with mechnical arms and a motor, and a valet robot that's basically a tow truck with autopilot.
Or you could buy one humanoid robot that can use an ordinary vacuum cleaner, push an ordinary luggage cart, and drive the cars itself. All these devices were designed to be used by humanoids, so a humanoid shape is really handy. | Robot soldiers **might** look somewhat human so the enemy might waste ammunition on them that is ineffective.
Other answers have thoroughly covered other reasons for or against.
One more: if a large subculture is so anti-robot that they resort to sabotage, making their targets harder to distinguish from humans would be a good strategy. |
34,224 | I am confused in how to distinguish a syntactically oriented language exercise from semantically oriented language exercise.
For example, suppose a teacher gave the English exercise below to his student:
>
> Question: Consider the sentence below.
>
>
> "When I was at the party, I didn't drink much but I had a few sodas with ice.
> They were delicious.
> They didn't have many snacks available, but I found some chips and candy."
>
>
> What does "they" refer to?
>
>
>
(from: <https://www.helpteaching.com/questions/Parts_of_Speech>)
Does this exercise test syntactic (because it's about finding meaning of the pronoun) or semantic (because the student would need to understand the sentence to solve this problem) knowledge of a student?
Thank you, | 2019/11/16 | [
"https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/34224",
"https://linguistics.stackexchange.com",
"https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/users/27220/"
] | >
> Does this exercise test syntactic (because it's about finding meaning
> of the pronoun) or semantic (because the student would need to
> understand the sentence to solve this problem) knowledge of a student
>
>
>
The question reveals a misunderstanding about the difference between syntax and semantics, and a more fundamental problem with the task of separating syntax and semantics. The basic idea is that there are certain aspects of sentence structure which are just about classes of words and how they combine (that's syntax); and then there are aspects of sentence structure which are about the meaning of sentences (that's semantics). In English, "John walked", "The boy walked", "Some wealthy women walked", "The rock walked" and "Individuality walked" are all syntactically well-formed: they have a general form, being composed of a noun-like expression and a predicate composed of just a verb. The last two examples have a problem that is related to semantics, that in the first case the situation described can't happen, and in the second you can't even imagine what that situation would even be like.
There are some cases where pronoun distribution and interpretation
reference is somewhat syntactically influenced. For instance, in English you can't say "\*Myself walked", "\*Himself walked", also you can't say "\*He likes myself", "\*I like himself". You can't say "\*I like me", "\*You like you", "\*We like us", and you also can't say "\*She likes himself" or "\*He likes herself". This inspires a rule to the effect that a reflexive pronoun has to be preceded by a subject that refers to that pronoun. "Reference" is a property of meaning. This is an example of a general problems in syntax and semantics, often referred to as "[binding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_(linguistics))". The syntactic part of the puzzle is answering questions like "in what structural context can a reflexive pronoun appear?" which could sort out the above distinctions. But also there are pairs like "He saw himself" and "He saw him", where in the former the person being seen is the same individual as the person seeing, and in the latter the person being seen is a different person from the person seeing (i.e. the sentences mean different things: the pronouns in object position have different referents).
Syntactic theory has tended to resolve these issues by assigning indices to words, then stating syntactic rules for using the same index versus different indices. A reflexive pronoun appears iff it has the same index as the subject (very rough approximation). An ordinary pronoun can generally have any index, meaning that it can refer to some nominal term within the sentence, or to can refer to an arbitrary individual not mentioned in the sentence. There are some syntactic rules governing these options, so that in "Kim claim that she was sick", "she" could refer to Kim or to some other person not mentioned, but in "She claimed that Kim was sick", "she" cannot refer to Kim (because of the syntactic relationship between the words).
The thing(s) that a pronoun refers to is mostly a semantic problem, but there are syntactic restrictions on where pronoun-like expressions can refer to the same versus different individuals. The most solidly-syntactic distribution is use of reflexive pronouns as subject and direct object, and even then there are cases like "Screw you" vs. "Screw yourself". In the sentence "They were delicious", there is no nominal expression that "They" can be co-indexed with, so syntactic relations are irrelevant in regulating what "they" refers to. Given this short context, we can use practical reasoning to figure out that "they" most likely refers to sodas. I can rewrite the paragraph to make it refer to "shrimp chips". In that case, you could call it "semantics", but many people would say that this is "pragmatics" (practical reasoning about what speakers intended). | It's clearly expected that the answer is
Semantics
---------
although I don't think a fine line can be drawn. So I understand that the question can be confusing. It needs to be asked because some facts about syntax hold true invaruably of the semantics, and vice versa, so we want to disambiguate. Specifically:
The reader needs to apply sentence level syntax to find the verbs corresponding to each occasion of "they". Then it's a matter of semantics to understand what agent could fulfill that verb, and a matter of text-level syntax to find the nearest noun that can fulfill that role.
Sodas don't possess anything, so the second occasion of "they", that is "they didn't have many snacks available", must refer to something else. What else? Well, that's not really a matter of syntax for various reasons. One could conclude that *backtracking* is not a sentence-syntactic operation and chalk it up to pragmatics and context. One could also say that part of the semantics of *they* is introducing indefinite subjects. That is, we haven't even been told who threw the party.
PS: Although the word "party" derives from the description of a group of people that usually has a leader, semantics only can extract this throug contextual inference, in which syntactic production only plays a minor role, covering the meaning up under an adverb of place, "at the party", that is commanded by the verb of movement, *arrive*. The referent of the indefinite pronoun is hidden in the text-level semantics and needs to be extracted semantically.
PPS: Also, as a metter of semantics, we can tell from the negative polarity item, "didn't", that it doesn't matter who did not provide for many snacks: *Nobody* had many available for the speaker. We later infer that *they* had chips, but we don't really care who, as far as syntax is concerned. Thus we merely infer through syntax, that *I* ate chips at the party.
What's more, I'm not sure, but I'd guess in a regional jocular "I ate me some chips" there's a mediopassive. The chips are their own, not mine or anyones. Only through eating do they become a part of me. The category does not make much sense for English, though, because the verbs are not morphemically inflected.
Hope I didn't confuse. |
526,609 | 
Consider the example shown above. Ideal fluid is flowing along the flat tube of uniform cross section area located in the horizontal plane and bent as shown. The flow is steady. My text book says following two things:
1. Pressure at point 1 will be greater than the pressure at point 2 and velocity at point 1 will be less than the velocity at point 2.
2. Streamlines will be higher in density near point 2 than point 1.
I understand that point 1 implies point 2, as velocity is directly proportional to the number of streamlines crossing a unit area.
What I fail to understand are the following points:
1. How do we intuitively understand the idea that pressure at point 1 will be greater than the pressure at point 2?
2. My textbook uses Bernoulli's equation and says that since pressure at point 1 is greater than pressure at point 2, so velocity at point 1 will be less than the velocity at point 2. I completely fail to understand the distribution of velocity at the turning point in the appratus above. Mathematically I am convinced that Bernoulli's equation gives a certain answer but Intuitively I totally fail to understand this answer.
3. Can somebody help me to understand this phenomena just on the basis of forces and not on the basis of Bernoulli's equation?
4. How do we understand the distribution of velocity intuitively?
5. Apart from the bending/turning, in the straight portions, will the streamlines be equidistant? or they will follow the same kind of distribution they are following at the turning? And why? If we assume the streamlines to be equidistant in the straight portions then it means that their distribution changes at the turning point and then again it resets back to what it was earlier, how is this all happening?
6. Can somebody help me to understand the velocity distribution, and the pressure distribution in the above case intuitively, without using Bernoulli's equation?
Thanks in advance. | 2020/01/23 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/526609",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/185612/"
] | Laplace's equation in terms of the stream function is based on Euler's equation (which takes into account the inertial forces involved). The solution to Euler's equation will show that the streamlines are closer together at point 2 than at point 1. The pressure has to be higher at point 1 than point 2 because it is on the outside of the curve, so that this region must support the centripetal acceleration of the fluid nearer the center of curvature. | Bennoulis principle has a condition that the flow must be streamline. The curve will create Eddies and Bernoulli's principle will not apply |
158,439 | Moderators should be able to comment on things after normal users are unable to, such as when a post is deleted or locked. As a moderator on Programmers, I try to leave a comment (if necessary) before taking the appropriate action on the post. However, in the time it takes to write a comment (which often includes digging up links to the most relevant resources and citing specific problems), things may happen - users can leave new answers or comments, Community or the author can delete the post, and so on.
A responding moderator should be able to take the appropriate moderator action on the post to remove the problematic behavior/content from the site and then leave a comment so that the user can learn why this behavior is unacceptable or what needs to be done to fix the content (if it's fixable).
This would effectively change the workflow from {hope no one will do anything -> write a comment -> hope nothing happened to the post that invalidates or blocks the comment -> moderate} to {moderate -> comment}.
Diamond moderators should be able to comment on posts that are otherwise locked from comments.
When a moderator comments on a deleted post, the comment should generate an inbox notification for the post's author just as it would if it were posted right before the post was deleted. | 2012/12/12 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/158439",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/572/"
] | This would be extremely helpful.
I've had the following real world cases happen:
* A user defaces their own post. I lock the post, then remember I should comment letting everyone know why it's locked. I unlock the post, and write a comment, only to discover that the user has *once again* defaced the post in the meantime.
* I delete a post, then remember, "Hey, I should comment to let them know why it's being deleted.", and then I have to undelete the post, comment, and re-delete.
Both of these are sub-optimal for me and for the users who frequent these posts. I believe this feature is necessary to allow moderators the ability to moderate in the least surprising way possible. | *Educational* aspect of deleted content has been specifically stressed in the rationale for a recently introduced change:
* [Turbocharging the Roomba: solutions for premature deletion](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/173513/165773)
>
> Show users their deleted content. ...without this, it's always a trade-off between cleaning up trash and **letting the asker know what they did wrong**.
>
>
>
From above perspective, allowing moderators add explanatory comments in the deleted posts makes perfect sense.
* Related, although probably less important, as a [10Ker](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/privileges/moderator-tools "having a privilege to see deleted content") at Programmers I also would appreciate seeing and learning from "post-mortem" mod comments in some of deleted posts I see.
---
For the sake of completeness, it is worth noting that *technically*, there is a workaround for moderator to temporarily undelete, add comment, then re-delete the post.
It is also worth noting that frequent usage of mentioned workaround could be [*considered harmful*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Considered_harmful) as it would pollute "Recent Occurrences" section at [10K tools page](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/tags/10k-tools/info) by bumping posts that are not intended to be there, thus causing reviewers waste efforts trying to decrypt WTH caused particular post get there and figure what actions to take about it.
>
> 
>
>
> |
1,983,330 | I have a good grasp of unit testing, DI, mocks, and all the design principal goodness required to have as close to full code coverage as humanly possible (single responsibility principal, think 'how will i test this' as I code, etc...).
My most recent app, I did not code doing true TDD. I kept unit-testing in mind as I coded, and wrote my tests after writing the code, refactoring, etc.. I did TDD when it was 'easy' to do... however I did not have as good of a grasp as I do now... That was the first project I made full use of DI, mocking frameworks, etc, and the first which had full code coverage - and I learned a lot from it as I went along. I'm itching to get assigned to my next project so I can code it completely doing TDD from scratch.
I know this is a broad question, and I've already ordered TDD by example and XP Unleashed, but I'm hoping for a brief overview of how you all design / write a large application doing TDD.
**Do you write the entire application, using nothing but stubbed out code?** (e.g., write all the function signatures, interfaces, structures, and write the entire application but without writing any actual implementation)? I could picture it working on small-mid sized, but is this even possible on large applications?
**If not, how the heck would you write your first unit test for the highest level function in your system**? Lets say for example - on a web service where you have a function called DoSomethingComplicated(param1,...,param6) exposed to the world. Obviously, writing the test first for a simple function like AddNumbers() is trivial - but when the function is at the top of the call stack such as this?
**Do you still do design up-front**? Obviously you still want to do 'architecture' design - e.g., a flow chart showing IE talking to IIS which talks to a windows service via WCF which talks to the SQL Database... an ERD which shows all your SQL tables and their fields, etc... but what about class design? Interactions between the classes, etc? Do you design this up-front, or just keep writing stub code, refactoring the interactions as you go along, until the whole thing connects and looks like it will work?
Any advice is much appreciated | 2009/12/31 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1983330",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/191206/"
] | **Do I write the entire application, using nothing but stubbed out code?**
No, not in the slightest sense - that sounds like a very wasteful approach. We must always keep in mind that the underlying reason for doing TDD is **rapid feedback**. An automated test suite can tell us if we broke anything much faster than a manual test can. If we wait wiring things together until the last moment, we don't get rapid feedback - while we may get rapid feedback from our unit tests, we wouldn't know if the application works as a whole. Unit tests are only one form of test we need to perform to verify the application.
A better approach is to start with the **most important feature** and work your way in from there, using an **outside-in** approach. This often means starting with some UI.
The way I do it is by creating the desired UI. Since we normally can't develop UI with TDD, I simply create the View with the technology of choice. No tests there, but I wire up the UI to some API (preferrably using declarative databinding), and that's when the testing begins.
In the beginning, I would then TDD my ViewModels/Presentation Models and corresponding Controllers, possibly hard-coding some responses to see that the UI works. As soon as I have something that doesn't explode when you run it, I check in the code (remember, many small incremental check-ins).
I subsequently work my way **vertically** down that feature and ensure that this particular piece of UI can go all the way to the data source (or whatever), ignoring all other features.
When the feature is done, I can start on the next feature. The way I picture this process is that I fill out the application by doing one vertical slice at a time until all features are done.
Kick-starting a greenfield app this way always takes extra **long time for the first feature** since this is where you have to wire up everything, so pick something simple (like the initial View of the app) to keep things as simple as possible. Once the first feature is done, the **next ones become much easier** because the foundations are now in place.
**Do I still design up-front?**
Not much, no. I normally have an overall design in mind before I start, and when I work in a team, we sketch this overall architecture on a whiteboard or a slide deck before we start.
This is more or less limited to
* The number and names of layers (UI, Presentation Logic, Domain Model, Data Access, etc).
* The technologies used (WPF, ASP.NET MVC, SQL Server, .NET 3.5 or whatnot)
* How we structure production code and test code, and which test technologies we use
* Quality requirements for the code (pair programming, static code analysis, coding standards, etc.)
The rest we figure out as we go, but we use many ad-hoc design sessions at the whiteboard as we go along. | +1 Good question
I truly don't know the answer, but I would start with building blocks of classes that I could test then build into the application, not with the top-level stuff. And yes I would have a rough up-front design of the interfaces, otherwise I think you would find those interfaces changing so often as you refactor that it would be a real hinderance.
TDD By Example won't help I don't think. IIRC it goes through a simple example. I am reading Roy Osherove's The Art of Unit Testing and while it seems to comprehensively cover tools and techniques like mocks and stubs, the example so far seem also pretty simple and I don't see that it tells you how to approach a large project. |
1,983,330 | I have a good grasp of unit testing, DI, mocks, and all the design principal goodness required to have as close to full code coverage as humanly possible (single responsibility principal, think 'how will i test this' as I code, etc...).
My most recent app, I did not code doing true TDD. I kept unit-testing in mind as I coded, and wrote my tests after writing the code, refactoring, etc.. I did TDD when it was 'easy' to do... however I did not have as good of a grasp as I do now... That was the first project I made full use of DI, mocking frameworks, etc, and the first which had full code coverage - and I learned a lot from it as I went along. I'm itching to get assigned to my next project so I can code it completely doing TDD from scratch.
I know this is a broad question, and I've already ordered TDD by example and XP Unleashed, but I'm hoping for a brief overview of how you all design / write a large application doing TDD.
**Do you write the entire application, using nothing but stubbed out code?** (e.g., write all the function signatures, interfaces, structures, and write the entire application but without writing any actual implementation)? I could picture it working on small-mid sized, but is this even possible on large applications?
**If not, how the heck would you write your first unit test for the highest level function in your system**? Lets say for example - on a web service where you have a function called DoSomethingComplicated(param1,...,param6) exposed to the world. Obviously, writing the test first for a simple function like AddNumbers() is trivial - but when the function is at the top of the call stack such as this?
**Do you still do design up-front**? Obviously you still want to do 'architecture' design - e.g., a flow chart showing IE talking to IIS which talks to a windows service via WCF which talks to the SQL Database... an ERD which shows all your SQL tables and their fields, etc... but what about class design? Interactions between the classes, etc? Do you design this up-front, or just keep writing stub code, refactoring the interactions as you go along, until the whole thing connects and looks like it will work?
Any advice is much appreciated | 2009/12/31 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1983330",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/191206/"
] | * Do you do design up front?
Of course you do. You've got a big application in front of you. You've got to have some idea of the structure it will have before you start writing tests and code. You don't have to have it all worked out in detail, but you should have some basic idea of the layers, components, and interfaces. For example, if you are working on a web services system, you ought to know what the top level services are, and have a good first approximation of their signatures.
* Do you write the entire application using nothing but stubbed out code?
No. You stub things out only if they are really difficult to control in a test. For example, I like to stub out the database, and the UI. I will also stub out third party interfaces. Sometimes I will stub out one of my own components if it vastly increases the test time, or it forces me to create test data that is too complicated. But most of the time I let my tests work on a pretty well integrated system.
I have to say I really dislike the style of testing that relies heavily on mocks and stubs. Don't get me wrong, I think mocks and stubs are very useful for decoupling from things that are hard to test. But I don't like writing things that are hard to test, and so I don't use a lot of mocks and stubs.
* How do you write your first unit test for a high level function?
Most high level functions have degenerate behavior. For example, login is a pretty high level function and can be very complicated. But if you try to log in with no user name and no password, the response from the system is going to be pretty simple. Writing that tests will also be very simple. So you start with the degenerate cases. Once you have exhausted them, you move on to the next level of complexity. For example, what if a user tries to log in with a username but no password? Bit by bit you climb the ladder of complexity, never tackling the more complex aspects until the less complex aspects are all passing.
It is remarkable how well this strategy works. You might think that you'd just be climbing around the edges all the time and never getting to the meat; but that's not what happens. Instead you find yourself designing the internal structure of the code based on all the degenerate and exceptional cases. When you finally get around to the primary flow, you find that the structure of the code you are working on has a nice hole of just the right shape to plug the main flow in.
* Please don't create your UI first.
UIs are misleading things. They make you focus on the wrong aspects of the system. Instead, imagine that your system must have many different UIs. Some will be web, some will be thick client, some will be pure text. Design your system to work properly irrespective of the UI. Get all the business rules working first, with all tests passing. Then plug the UI in later. I know this flies in the face of a lot of conventional wisdom, but I wouldn't do it any other way.
* Please don't design the database first.
Databases are details. Save the details for later. Rather, design your system as though you had no idea what kind of database you were using, Keep any notion of schema, tables, rows, and columns out of the core of the system. Implement your business rules as though all the data were kept in memory all the time. Then add the database later, once you've gotten all the business rules working. Again, I know this flies in the face of some conventional wisdom, but coupling systems to databases too early is a source of a lot of badly warped designs. | +1 Good question
I truly don't know the answer, but I would start with building blocks of classes that I could test then build into the application, not with the top-level stuff. And yes I would have a rough up-front design of the interfaces, otherwise I think you would find those interfaces changing so often as you refactor that it would be a real hinderance.
TDD By Example won't help I don't think. IIRC it goes through a simple example. I am reading Roy Osherove's The Art of Unit Testing and while it seems to comprehensively cover tools and techniques like mocks and stubs, the example so far seem also pretty simple and I don't see that it tells you how to approach a large project. |
1,983,330 | I have a good grasp of unit testing, DI, mocks, and all the design principal goodness required to have as close to full code coverage as humanly possible (single responsibility principal, think 'how will i test this' as I code, etc...).
My most recent app, I did not code doing true TDD. I kept unit-testing in mind as I coded, and wrote my tests after writing the code, refactoring, etc.. I did TDD when it was 'easy' to do... however I did not have as good of a grasp as I do now... That was the first project I made full use of DI, mocking frameworks, etc, and the first which had full code coverage - and I learned a lot from it as I went along. I'm itching to get assigned to my next project so I can code it completely doing TDD from scratch.
I know this is a broad question, and I've already ordered TDD by example and XP Unleashed, but I'm hoping for a brief overview of how you all design / write a large application doing TDD.
**Do you write the entire application, using nothing but stubbed out code?** (e.g., write all the function signatures, interfaces, structures, and write the entire application but without writing any actual implementation)? I could picture it working on small-mid sized, but is this even possible on large applications?
**If not, how the heck would you write your first unit test for the highest level function in your system**? Lets say for example - on a web service where you have a function called DoSomethingComplicated(param1,...,param6) exposed to the world. Obviously, writing the test first for a simple function like AddNumbers() is trivial - but when the function is at the top of the call stack such as this?
**Do you still do design up-front**? Obviously you still want to do 'architecture' design - e.g., a flow chart showing IE talking to IIS which talks to a windows service via WCF which talks to the SQL Database... an ERD which shows all your SQL tables and their fields, etc... but what about class design? Interactions between the classes, etc? Do you design this up-front, or just keep writing stub code, refactoring the interactions as you go along, until the whole thing connects and looks like it will work?
Any advice is much appreciated | 2009/12/31 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1983330",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/191206/"
] | **Do I write the entire application, using nothing but stubbed out code?**
No, not in the slightest sense - that sounds like a very wasteful approach. We must always keep in mind that the underlying reason for doing TDD is **rapid feedback**. An automated test suite can tell us if we broke anything much faster than a manual test can. If we wait wiring things together until the last moment, we don't get rapid feedback - while we may get rapid feedback from our unit tests, we wouldn't know if the application works as a whole. Unit tests are only one form of test we need to perform to verify the application.
A better approach is to start with the **most important feature** and work your way in from there, using an **outside-in** approach. This often means starting with some UI.
The way I do it is by creating the desired UI. Since we normally can't develop UI with TDD, I simply create the View with the technology of choice. No tests there, but I wire up the UI to some API (preferrably using declarative databinding), and that's when the testing begins.
In the beginning, I would then TDD my ViewModels/Presentation Models and corresponding Controllers, possibly hard-coding some responses to see that the UI works. As soon as I have something that doesn't explode when you run it, I check in the code (remember, many small incremental check-ins).
I subsequently work my way **vertically** down that feature and ensure that this particular piece of UI can go all the way to the data source (or whatever), ignoring all other features.
When the feature is done, I can start on the next feature. The way I picture this process is that I fill out the application by doing one vertical slice at a time until all features are done.
Kick-starting a greenfield app this way always takes extra **long time for the first feature** since this is where you have to wire up everything, so pick something simple (like the initial View of the app) to keep things as simple as possible. Once the first feature is done, the **next ones become much easier** because the foundations are now in place.
**Do I still design up-front?**
Not much, no. I normally have an overall design in mind before I start, and when I work in a team, we sketch this overall architecture on a whiteboard or a slide deck before we start.
This is more or less limited to
* The number and names of layers (UI, Presentation Logic, Domain Model, Data Access, etc).
* The technologies used (WPF, ASP.NET MVC, SQL Server, .NET 3.5 or whatnot)
* How we structure production code and test code, and which test technologies we use
* Quality requirements for the code (pair programming, static code analysis, coding standards, etc.)
The rest we figure out as we go, but we use many ad-hoc design sessions at the whiteboard as we go along. | * Do you do design up front?
Of course you do. You've got a big application in front of you. You've got to have some idea of the structure it will have before you start writing tests and code. You don't have to have it all worked out in detail, but you should have some basic idea of the layers, components, and interfaces. For example, if you are working on a web services system, you ought to know what the top level services are, and have a good first approximation of their signatures.
* Do you write the entire application using nothing but stubbed out code?
No. You stub things out only if they are really difficult to control in a test. For example, I like to stub out the database, and the UI. I will also stub out third party interfaces. Sometimes I will stub out one of my own components if it vastly increases the test time, or it forces me to create test data that is too complicated. But most of the time I let my tests work on a pretty well integrated system.
I have to say I really dislike the style of testing that relies heavily on mocks and stubs. Don't get me wrong, I think mocks and stubs are very useful for decoupling from things that are hard to test. But I don't like writing things that are hard to test, and so I don't use a lot of mocks and stubs.
* How do you write your first unit test for a high level function?
Most high level functions have degenerate behavior. For example, login is a pretty high level function and can be very complicated. But if you try to log in with no user name and no password, the response from the system is going to be pretty simple. Writing that tests will also be very simple. So you start with the degenerate cases. Once you have exhausted them, you move on to the next level of complexity. For example, what if a user tries to log in with a username but no password? Bit by bit you climb the ladder of complexity, never tackling the more complex aspects until the less complex aspects are all passing.
It is remarkable how well this strategy works. You might think that you'd just be climbing around the edges all the time and never getting to the meat; but that's not what happens. Instead you find yourself designing the internal structure of the code based on all the degenerate and exceptional cases. When you finally get around to the primary flow, you find that the structure of the code you are working on has a nice hole of just the right shape to plug the main flow in.
* Please don't create your UI first.
UIs are misleading things. They make you focus on the wrong aspects of the system. Instead, imagine that your system must have many different UIs. Some will be web, some will be thick client, some will be pure text. Design your system to work properly irrespective of the UI. Get all the business rules working first, with all tests passing. Then plug the UI in later. I know this flies in the face of a lot of conventional wisdom, but I wouldn't do it any other way.
* Please don't design the database first.
Databases are details. Save the details for later. Rather, design your system as though you had no idea what kind of database you were using, Keep any notion of schema, tables, rows, and columns out of the core of the system. Implement your business rules as though all the data were kept in memory all the time. Then add the database later, once you've gotten all the business rules working. Again, I know this flies in the face of some conventional wisdom, but coupling systems to databases too early is a source of a lot of badly warped designs. |
1,983,330 | I have a good grasp of unit testing, DI, mocks, and all the design principal goodness required to have as close to full code coverage as humanly possible (single responsibility principal, think 'how will i test this' as I code, etc...).
My most recent app, I did not code doing true TDD. I kept unit-testing in mind as I coded, and wrote my tests after writing the code, refactoring, etc.. I did TDD when it was 'easy' to do... however I did not have as good of a grasp as I do now... That was the first project I made full use of DI, mocking frameworks, etc, and the first which had full code coverage - and I learned a lot from it as I went along. I'm itching to get assigned to my next project so I can code it completely doing TDD from scratch.
I know this is a broad question, and I've already ordered TDD by example and XP Unleashed, but I'm hoping for a brief overview of how you all design / write a large application doing TDD.
**Do you write the entire application, using nothing but stubbed out code?** (e.g., write all the function signatures, interfaces, structures, and write the entire application but without writing any actual implementation)? I could picture it working on small-mid sized, but is this even possible on large applications?
**If not, how the heck would you write your first unit test for the highest level function in your system**? Lets say for example - on a web service where you have a function called DoSomethingComplicated(param1,...,param6) exposed to the world. Obviously, writing the test first for a simple function like AddNumbers() is trivial - but when the function is at the top of the call stack such as this?
**Do you still do design up-front**? Obviously you still want to do 'architecture' design - e.g., a flow chart showing IE talking to IIS which talks to a windows service via WCF which talks to the SQL Database... an ERD which shows all your SQL tables and their fields, etc... but what about class design? Interactions between the classes, etc? Do you design this up-front, or just keep writing stub code, refactoring the interactions as you go along, until the whole thing connects and looks like it will work?
Any advice is much appreciated | 2009/12/31 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1983330",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/191206/"
] | **Do I write the entire application, using nothing but stubbed out code?**
No, not in the slightest sense - that sounds like a very wasteful approach. We must always keep in mind that the underlying reason for doing TDD is **rapid feedback**. An automated test suite can tell us if we broke anything much faster than a manual test can. If we wait wiring things together until the last moment, we don't get rapid feedback - while we may get rapid feedback from our unit tests, we wouldn't know if the application works as a whole. Unit tests are only one form of test we need to perform to verify the application.
A better approach is to start with the **most important feature** and work your way in from there, using an **outside-in** approach. This often means starting with some UI.
The way I do it is by creating the desired UI. Since we normally can't develop UI with TDD, I simply create the View with the technology of choice. No tests there, but I wire up the UI to some API (preferrably using declarative databinding), and that's when the testing begins.
In the beginning, I would then TDD my ViewModels/Presentation Models and corresponding Controllers, possibly hard-coding some responses to see that the UI works. As soon as I have something that doesn't explode when you run it, I check in the code (remember, many small incremental check-ins).
I subsequently work my way **vertically** down that feature and ensure that this particular piece of UI can go all the way to the data source (or whatever), ignoring all other features.
When the feature is done, I can start on the next feature. The way I picture this process is that I fill out the application by doing one vertical slice at a time until all features are done.
Kick-starting a greenfield app this way always takes extra **long time for the first feature** since this is where you have to wire up everything, so pick something simple (like the initial View of the app) to keep things as simple as possible. Once the first feature is done, the **next ones become much easier** because the foundations are now in place.
**Do I still design up-front?**
Not much, no. I normally have an overall design in mind before I start, and when I work in a team, we sketch this overall architecture on a whiteboard or a slide deck before we start.
This is more or less limited to
* The number and names of layers (UI, Presentation Logic, Domain Model, Data Access, etc).
* The technologies used (WPF, ASP.NET MVC, SQL Server, .NET 3.5 or whatnot)
* How we structure production code and test code, and which test technologies we use
* Quality requirements for the code (pair programming, static code analysis, coding standards, etc.)
The rest we figure out as we go, but we use many ad-hoc design sessions at the whiteboard as we go along. | * **Do you write the entire application, using nothing but stubbed out code?**
To test our systems we mainly do unit, integration and remote services testing. In unit tests we stub out all long running, time consuming, and external services, i.e. database operations, web services connection or any connection to external services. This is to make sure that our tests are fast, independent and not relying on the response of any external service to provide us quick feedback. We have learnt this the hard way because we do have some tests that do database operations which makes it really slow that goes against the principle "Unit tests must be fast to run"
In integration tests, we test the database operations but still not the web services and external services because that can make the test brittle depending on their availability and we use autotest to run the tests in the background all the while we are coding.
However, **to test any kind of remote services**, we have tests that connect to the external services, do the operation on them and get the response. What matters to the test is their response and their end state if it is important for the test. The important thing here is, we keep these kind of tests in another directory called remote (that's a convention we created and follow) and these remote tests are only run by our CI (continuous integration) server when we merge any code to the master/trunk branch and push/commit it to the repo so that we know quickly if there has been any changes in those external services that can affect our application.
* **Do I still design up-front?**
Yes but we don't do big design up front basically what uncle Bob (Robert C. Martin) said.
In addition, we get to the whiteboard before immersing ourself into coding and create some Class Collaboration Diagrams just to make it clear and sure that everyone in the team is on the same page and this also helps us to divide the work amongst the team members. |
1,983,330 | I have a good grasp of unit testing, DI, mocks, and all the design principal goodness required to have as close to full code coverage as humanly possible (single responsibility principal, think 'how will i test this' as I code, etc...).
My most recent app, I did not code doing true TDD. I kept unit-testing in mind as I coded, and wrote my tests after writing the code, refactoring, etc.. I did TDD when it was 'easy' to do... however I did not have as good of a grasp as I do now... That was the first project I made full use of DI, mocking frameworks, etc, and the first which had full code coverage - and I learned a lot from it as I went along. I'm itching to get assigned to my next project so I can code it completely doing TDD from scratch.
I know this is a broad question, and I've already ordered TDD by example and XP Unleashed, but I'm hoping for a brief overview of how you all design / write a large application doing TDD.
**Do you write the entire application, using nothing but stubbed out code?** (e.g., write all the function signatures, interfaces, structures, and write the entire application but without writing any actual implementation)? I could picture it working on small-mid sized, but is this even possible on large applications?
**If not, how the heck would you write your first unit test for the highest level function in your system**? Lets say for example - on a web service where you have a function called DoSomethingComplicated(param1,...,param6) exposed to the world. Obviously, writing the test first for a simple function like AddNumbers() is trivial - but when the function is at the top of the call stack such as this?
**Do you still do design up-front**? Obviously you still want to do 'architecture' design - e.g., a flow chart showing IE talking to IIS which talks to a windows service via WCF which talks to the SQL Database... an ERD which shows all your SQL tables and their fields, etc... but what about class design? Interactions between the classes, etc? Do you design this up-front, or just keep writing stub code, refactoring the interactions as you go along, until the whole thing connects and looks like it will work?
Any advice is much appreciated | 2009/12/31 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1983330",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/191206/"
] | * Do you do design up front?
Of course you do. You've got a big application in front of you. You've got to have some idea of the structure it will have before you start writing tests and code. You don't have to have it all worked out in detail, but you should have some basic idea of the layers, components, and interfaces. For example, if you are working on a web services system, you ought to know what the top level services are, and have a good first approximation of their signatures.
* Do you write the entire application using nothing but stubbed out code?
No. You stub things out only if they are really difficult to control in a test. For example, I like to stub out the database, and the UI. I will also stub out third party interfaces. Sometimes I will stub out one of my own components if it vastly increases the test time, or it forces me to create test data that is too complicated. But most of the time I let my tests work on a pretty well integrated system.
I have to say I really dislike the style of testing that relies heavily on mocks and stubs. Don't get me wrong, I think mocks and stubs are very useful for decoupling from things that are hard to test. But I don't like writing things that are hard to test, and so I don't use a lot of mocks and stubs.
* How do you write your first unit test for a high level function?
Most high level functions have degenerate behavior. For example, login is a pretty high level function and can be very complicated. But if you try to log in with no user name and no password, the response from the system is going to be pretty simple. Writing that tests will also be very simple. So you start with the degenerate cases. Once you have exhausted them, you move on to the next level of complexity. For example, what if a user tries to log in with a username but no password? Bit by bit you climb the ladder of complexity, never tackling the more complex aspects until the less complex aspects are all passing.
It is remarkable how well this strategy works. You might think that you'd just be climbing around the edges all the time and never getting to the meat; but that's not what happens. Instead you find yourself designing the internal structure of the code based on all the degenerate and exceptional cases. When you finally get around to the primary flow, you find that the structure of the code you are working on has a nice hole of just the right shape to plug the main flow in.
* Please don't create your UI first.
UIs are misleading things. They make you focus on the wrong aspects of the system. Instead, imagine that your system must have many different UIs. Some will be web, some will be thick client, some will be pure text. Design your system to work properly irrespective of the UI. Get all the business rules working first, with all tests passing. Then plug the UI in later. I know this flies in the face of a lot of conventional wisdom, but I wouldn't do it any other way.
* Please don't design the database first.
Databases are details. Save the details for later. Rather, design your system as though you had no idea what kind of database you were using, Keep any notion of schema, tables, rows, and columns out of the core of the system. Implement your business rules as though all the data were kept in memory all the time. Then add the database later, once you've gotten all the business rules working. Again, I know this flies in the face of some conventional wisdom, but coupling systems to databases too early is a source of a lot of badly warped designs. | * **Do you write the entire application, using nothing but stubbed out code?**
To test our systems we mainly do unit, integration and remote services testing. In unit tests we stub out all long running, time consuming, and external services, i.e. database operations, web services connection or any connection to external services. This is to make sure that our tests are fast, independent and not relying on the response of any external service to provide us quick feedback. We have learnt this the hard way because we do have some tests that do database operations which makes it really slow that goes against the principle "Unit tests must be fast to run"
In integration tests, we test the database operations but still not the web services and external services because that can make the test brittle depending on their availability and we use autotest to run the tests in the background all the while we are coding.
However, **to test any kind of remote services**, we have tests that connect to the external services, do the operation on them and get the response. What matters to the test is their response and their end state if it is important for the test. The important thing here is, we keep these kind of tests in another directory called remote (that's a convention we created and follow) and these remote tests are only run by our CI (continuous integration) server when we merge any code to the master/trunk branch and push/commit it to the repo so that we know quickly if there has been any changes in those external services that can affect our application.
* **Do I still design up-front?**
Yes but we don't do big design up front basically what uncle Bob (Robert C. Martin) said.
In addition, we get to the whiteboard before immersing ourself into coding and create some Class Collaboration Diagrams just to make it clear and sure that everyone in the team is on the same page and this also helps us to divide the work amongst the team members. |
689,401 | My laptop is Lenovo T400, whose CPU is 64-bit and RAM is 1x2GB. When I bought it, it already had 32-bit Windows 7. Then I partition the hard drive and install 32-bit Ubuntu 12.04 alongside Windows 7.
Now I am going to reintall the Ubuntu part from 32-bit 12.04 to 64-bit (possibly the latest version), while still keeping 32-bit Windows 7.
I am also going to change my RAM from 1x2GB to 2x4GB.
1. I heard that I have to make some change in BIOS (from a commend on
my another post, which has now been deleted). Do you know what
change it is? Is it for reinstalation of Ubuntu from 32-bit to
64-bit, or for changing RAM from 1x2GB to 2x4GB?
2. What is the order of the following steps: change BIOS, reinstall
Ubuntu from 32-bit to 64-bit, change RAM from 1x2GB to 2x4GB?
Thanks! | 2013/12/17 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/689401",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/9265/"
] | No steps required really. I would load the system with the memory and then go ahead with the Ubuntu install. Keep in mind that Win 7 and Ubuntu 32 bit will load quite happily with 8 gigs of memory but at the most will only be able to access 4 gigs tops.
Consider upgrading your Win 7 to a 64 bit version too - just sounds like a waste to have a 32 bit OS on an 8 gig system. | No Bios changes required. simply goahead. probably this is the interface you're going to work with
Just Customize the existing ubuntu partition(meaning just delete and create again)
then just press next, next, next and you're there. you don't need to worry about bootloaders ubuntu GRUB will Take care of that. by the time you boot that will show you GRUB. hope you're familiar with that. in case any problem with boot order or GRUB just install EasyBCD <http://neosmart.net/EasyBCD/>
this allows you to Edit the boot order and more other things as well |
163,843 | After 2.5 years working at my current job (programming), I recently came to the conclusion that I want to find a new workplace.
Reason for this is solely my boss who (in general has a good heart but) is never satisfied with my work, never shows appreciation, gets angry over almost everything I do (no matter what I do) and in general is very disrespectful and offensive.
I get along very well with my coworkers. Most of them have the same problems with the boss.
I want to start applying for other jobs and as soon as I find something hand in my resignation.
Currently I'm at the beginning of a project which is transferred to me and a coworker, by another coworker who will leave the company at the end of the year.
The guy who's leaving is basically teaching us what he knows so we can continue his work once he is gone.
Since I already know that I will leave as soon as I find a suitable job, this might become a problem. It would make more sense to transfer this project to someone who stays in the company. On the other hand, I don't know how long it will take to find a new job. It could take only 2 months or if I am unlucky much longer.
Should I tell my boss or colleagues that I will leave the company?
If I do so, working there could get weird and also he could fire me which would make me unemployed for an unknown period.
If I don't tell anyone, people might be mad at me for getting trained and then leaving.
I am living and working in one of the DACH (Germany, Austria and Switzerland) countries in Europe. | 2020/09/11 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/163843",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/71108/"
] | **No, just give your notice once you have a job.**
I think organizations would gain enormously if they welcomed people telling them that they were planning to leave. The knowledge losses are enormous from it.
But you have to protect yourself. Your boss might fire you if he thinks you are disloyal. And you probably could use the income and it is much easier to find a job when you already have one. | >
> Should I tell my boss or colleagues that I will leave the company?
>
>
>
No.
Do your job search interview and wait until you have an offer in hand that you are ready to sign. Make sure that factor in your legally required notice time into negotiating the start date of your new job. Maybe you also want to do a few weeks of in-between down time, if you can afford it.
When the new job is ready to go, hand in your resignation and serve your notice period as stated in your contract. Sometimes you can negotiate an early departure, but be prepared to serve the full period.
If you want to be nice to your current employer, take good notes during your project onboarding that you can share with whoever will be taking over from you and you can start working (quietly) on a hand-over plan on the side. That's the best you can do. |
163,843 | After 2.5 years working at my current job (programming), I recently came to the conclusion that I want to find a new workplace.
Reason for this is solely my boss who (in general has a good heart but) is never satisfied with my work, never shows appreciation, gets angry over almost everything I do (no matter what I do) and in general is very disrespectful and offensive.
I get along very well with my coworkers. Most of them have the same problems with the boss.
I want to start applying for other jobs and as soon as I find something hand in my resignation.
Currently I'm at the beginning of a project which is transferred to me and a coworker, by another coworker who will leave the company at the end of the year.
The guy who's leaving is basically teaching us what he knows so we can continue his work once he is gone.
Since I already know that I will leave as soon as I find a suitable job, this might become a problem. It would make more sense to transfer this project to someone who stays in the company. On the other hand, I don't know how long it will take to find a new job. It could take only 2 months or if I am unlucky much longer.
Should I tell my boss or colleagues that I will leave the company?
If I do so, working there could get weird and also he could fire me which would make me unemployed for an unknown period.
If I don't tell anyone, people might be mad at me for getting trained and then leaving.
I am living and working in one of the DACH (Germany, Austria and Switzerland) countries in Europe. | 2020/09/11 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/163843",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/71108/"
] | **No, just give your notice once you have a job.**
I think organizations would gain enormously if they welcomed people telling them that they were planning to leave. The knowledge losses are enormous from it.
But you have to protect yourself. Your boss might fire you if he thinks you are disloyal. And you probably could use the income and it is much easier to find a job when you already have one. | >
> Since I already know that I will leave as soon as I find a suitable job, this might become a problem. It would make more sense to transfer this project to someone who stays in the company.
>
>
>
Frankly, I think you are overestimating how crucial you are to this project.
Your managers never took it for granted that you are always available and if
they thought it would be problematic if you leave, they would have taken countermeasures.
All you would be doing is creating a weird situation and harming your own standing in the company until you leave. |
160,107 | I am studying spin-spin coupling theory in NMR. Below is an exercise from Mcmurry's organic chemistry.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/zacXW.png)
The textbook says that \* stands for chiral center. But is it true? When I searched for it some said that there is no chiral center in cyclohexanol. Then, Aren't this hydrogens enantiotopic? | 2021/12/02 | [
"https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/160107",
"https://chemistry.stackexchange.com",
"https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/users/70497/"
] | The substitution of one of the two hydrogens leads to the *cis* or the *trans* isomer of the disubstituted cyclohexane. Thus, they are certainly diastereotopic.
Perhaps, what confused you, as well me in a previous answer focused on 1,3-cyclohexandiol, is that substitution with an OH group leads to two diastereoisomers one of which consists of a couple of enantiomers (the other is the *meso* form).
A prochiral H on a stereogenic center does not imply its enantiotopic character. The obtained diastereoisomers can be optically active in fact, but not enantiomers. | Cyclohexanol does not have a chiral carbon but hydrogen atoms are diasteotopic because the substitution for one of the two hydrogen atoms (in alternate fashion) would give diastereomers, as the $\ce{C-1}$ carbon of cyclohexanol will now become either chiral (for C-2 and C-3 H-substitution) or will have specific cis or trans geometry(for C-4 H-substitution).
The enantiotopic hydrogen word is used only when one of the hydrogen replacement generates an enantiomer with only one chiral carbon (at the site of hydrogen replacement). |
518,895 | Which one is correct? Can I use both?
"I am going to listen and read."
"I am going to listen and to read." | 2019/11/22 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/518895",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/357181/"
] | Depends on how distinct you want *listen* and *read* to sound. Tying both objects to one infinitive conveys the sense of a single activity, while preceding each object with *to* conveys distinct activities. | It really depends on how you group the *to* and what you intend it to mean.
If you are using the phrasal verb "going to" as in:
>
> What are you going to do when you get there?
>
> I am [going to] listen and read.
>
>
>
But if you are just using the verb "go" as in:
>
> Why are you going to the exhibition?
>
> I am going [to listen] and [to read].
>
>
> |
8,328 | Under Article 5, if one member country is attacked, all member countries may be required to respond with military force. But the U.S. Constitution says we aren't allowed to go to war without Congressional approval. If the United States of America assists another country with military force, would it be acting in violation of its Constitution? | 2015/05/25 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/8328",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/5703/"
] | Short version...
* Only Congress has the Power to declare War.
* The military only takes orders from the President.
* The money to run the military can only come from congress.
In effect, "Declaring War" is not a prerequisite to having a war. If congress doesn't like what the President is doing they can stop funding it (e.g., Vietnam).
In the case of NATO the congress agreed to a law by treaty that requires the President to act if Article 5 is invoked.
Details and such...
>
> The Congress shall have Power [...] To declare War,... - *U.S. Const.
> art. I, § 8.*
>
>
>
However,
>
> The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
> United States, and of the Militia of the several States,... - *U.S.
> Const. art. II, § 2.*
>
>
>
And,
>
> [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent
> of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators
> present concur;... - *U.S. Const. art. II, § 2.*
>
>
>
So once ratified by the Senate, the North Atlantic Treaty became part of U.S. Federal Law.
In other words, if Article 5 of the treaty is invoked, the President is legally required to respond (a "declaration of war" is not required).
>
> Under the Constitution, a treaty, like a Federal statute, is part of
> the "supreme Law of the Land." Self-executing treaties, those that do
> not require implementing legislation, automatically become effective
> as domestic law immediately upon entry into force. Other treaties do
> not become effective as domestic law until implementing legislation is
> enacted, and then technically it is the legislation, not the treaty
> unless incorporated into the legislation, that is the law of the land.
>
>
> Sometimes it is not clear on the face of a treaty whether it is
> self-executing or requires implementing legislation. Some treaties
> expressly call for implementing legislation or deal with subjects
> clearly requiring congressional action, such as the appropriation of
> funds or enactment of domestic penal provisions. The question of
> whether or not a treaty requires implementing legislation or is
> self-executing is a matter of interpretation largely by the executive
> branch or, less frequently, by the courts. On occasion, the Senate
> includes an understanding in the resolution of ratification that
> certain provisions are not self-executing or that the President is to
> exchange or deposit the instrument of ratification only after
> implementation legislation has been enacted.
>
>
> When a treaty is deemed self-executing, it overrides any conflicting
> provision of the law of an individual signatory state. If a treaty is
> in irreconcilable conflict with a Federal law, the one executed later
> in time prevails, although courts generally try to harmonize domestic
> and international obligations whenever possible.
>
>
> Source: [Treaties and other International Agreements: the Role of the
> United States Senate (Congressional Research Service
> 2001)](http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/congress/treaties_senate_role.pdf)
>
>
>
---
The North Atlantic Treaty was ratified by the U.S. Senate on 21 July 1949 by a vote of 82 to 13; it entered into force on 14 August 1949.
Trivia bonus...
Article 5 has only been invoked once.
On October 2, 2001 NATO "determined that the attack against the United States on 11 September was directed from abroad and shall therefore be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which states that an armed attack on one or more of the Allies in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all." | The premise of the question is wrong:
>
> Article 5
>
> The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, **such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.**
>
> Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
>
> <http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm>
>
>
>
So no country is forced to immediately surrender all military control to the Supreme Allied Commander, but will decide individually on the appropriate personal response.
THe only time Article 5 was invoked was over 9/11
>
> On September 12th, the North Atlantic Council met again in response to the appalling attacks perpetrated yesterday against the United States.
>
> The Council agreed that if it is determined that this attack was directed from abroad against the United States, it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which states that an armed attack against one or more of the Allies in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.
>
> ...
>
> Article 5 of the Washington Treaty stipulates that in the event of attacks falling within its purview, each Ally will assist the Party that has been attacked by taking such action as it deems necessary. Accordingly, the United States' NATO Allies stand ready to provide the assistance that may be required as a consequence of these acts of barbarism.
>
> <http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2001/p01-124e.htm>
>
>
>
For [example](http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2001/p010913e.htm) Russia only expressed its anger and indignation and vowed to intensify their [cooperation](http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2001/p011002e.htm).
On the other hand the UK participated, [from the beginning](http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2001/p01-138e.htm), in retaliatory measures in the Afghanistan War.
In the case of Germany the legal basis for participating in the Afghanistan War has to come from the Bundestag and has to be [renewed every few months](http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/EN/Aussenpolitik/RegionaleSchwerpunkte/AfghanistanZentralasien/AktuelleArtikel/140220-ISAF-Mandat-BT.html).
Not even the NATO as a whole is required to start battling immediately: A little over 2 months later:
>
> The reports that NATO has been discussing sending troops, including German units, to Afghanistan as part of a peacekeeping force are unfounded.
>
> NATO is not planning or discussing this issue in the Military Committee or any other body.
>
> <http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2001/p01-151e.htm>
>
>
> |
25,797 | I started gathering some information about Iceland reading Travel.SE (what else?) and I was quite surprised I didn't find a single question about moving around Iceland using public transport, a car seems mandatory.
How widespread is the public transportation system net in July? Would it be viable to rely upon it to move around the Ring road and the Golden circle? Is there a bus (or a train?) which goes in the central area of Iceland? | 2014/04/06 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/25797",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/2523/"
] | It definitely [looks like](http://www.thrillophilia.com/blog/camps-of-india-50-best-one/) almost anyone can set a camp almost anywhere in India.
If I were a non-local camping in India, I would definitely swing by the local police station and inquire if it was safe to stay put where I wanted to camp. This way, I'd know a)if the area is safe or not b) at least some authority is informed of my whereabouts. If there are women in the group, additional police patrolling can also be requested.
From what I know, one is as free to roam in India. | Legally it is ok to camp almost anywhere in India.
I am a local and have traveled a lot (especially South India). I've gone on a 2240 kms motorcycle journey through Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka on my HERO HONDA PASSION PLUS(2003 edition-silver.)
While you are in India, try do/not-to-do the following things:
1. Don't wait for too late to pick a spot and camp. Best if you camp before sun goes down.
2. There are a lot of 'dhabas' or night restaurants open in almost all small and big cities. (I won't lie, they are not free) but you could camp near one; that way, you can ensure a little more security.
3. If you are in a remote place, inform the police station if there's one near you (like someone mentioned above.)
4. Please DO NOT CARRY anything valuable with you like gold or too much money, etc. Keep your cameras, phone, laptop, etc. (if you have any) safely hidden, just in case.
Also do not carry too much weapons for your safety, people see that as a suspicious thing here in India. Just keep a knife (small and sharp), a pepper spray, a long and strong walking stick (and a torch with stun gun attached if you are too worried.)
5. If you need, keep strong whistle with you (but honestly, it won't do you much good here.)
6. Toll booths are a good place to camp. There are people around all night long, and there's light and police near too. But tolls are usually only in main roads, and are rare.
7. If you feel too much insecure in a place, just go to a primary hospital (there is one in almost all villages) and talk to the hospital head and stay there for the night. I would also suggest petrol bunks (but these days, its not as safe as it used to be).
8. To enter some states or places, you need government approval, like protected forests and the like. Its better to have a general awareness of these things before you start your journey, better safe than sorry.
9. If police stops you for an inquiry, tell them the truth and don't be arrogant. They mostly would help you if you are genuine but they will give you a lot of trouble if you insult them.
10. Above all, 70% of the locals are friendly, supporting and helpful; please don't hurt them. And STAY AWAY from the rest of the 30%. Your journey's success depends on this!!
11. India is a beautiful place and solo or group traveling (trekking, biking, cycling or any other kind) is beyond mesmerizing. But it comes with its own risks. Know this, take proper steps and keep safe. |
53,271 | I was awakened last night to a thump on my front door. When I turned the knob, I found none other than my close friend Dmitri! Before I could begin to inquire what he needed at this late hour, he uttered this nonsense:
>
> Eggs rotting, guns shooting: I smell hell!
>
> Let's not eat the crust's abundant; it's toxic when pure!
>
> Everyone knows how to buy a Coke (in 1944)!
>
> Map-making Vespucci says his name's been misspoken!
>
> Evil (quite Great) awaits red-headed hero (from Texas???)!
>
> Newsflash: young male's fall ends years of strife!
>
> Take charge, keep your eye on the battery!
>
> Sooth us with something from Lawrence's Noiseless!
>
>
>
I scarcely had time to write down this moonlit lunacy before he strolled away without so much as a wink or a nod! I'm certain my friend is trying to tell me something, but my Encyclopedia collection was recently stolen!
**What word was my friend trying to convey, and why did he visit at such a late hour??** | 2017/07/10 | [
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/53271",
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com",
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/users/38165/"
] | **Partial answer**
Having stared at this for a while and stopped making progress, here's what I have so far.
>
> The first letters say ELEMENTS and the friend is called [Dmitri](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitri_Mendeleev) so of course each line is a clue to a chemical element:
>
> S (sulfur) -- hydrogen sulfide is the smell of rotting eggs, gunpowder contains sulfur, one traditional depiction of the Christian hell involves a lake of molten sulfur.
>
> O (oxygen) -- most abundant element in the earth's crust; although we need it to live, when very pure it's toxic. (And we breathe it but of course don't eat it.)
>
> Ni (nickel) -- in 1944, a Coke cost five cents or one nickel.
>
> Am (americium) -- named for America, which is named for *Amerigo* Vespucci.
>
> ???? -- I haven't figured out the "Evil..." one yet.
>
> U (uranium) -- used in the "Little Boy" bomb dropped on Hiroshima which probably ended WW2.
>
> Pb (lead) -- to lead is to take charge, and lead is used in e.g. car batteries.
>
> ???? -- I haven't figured out the "Sooth..." one yet.
>
>
>
So maybe
>
> this leads to the name of someone called SONIA, though that PB is awkward if so. (Lots of other elements are used in batteries, but the pun on "lead" seems quite convincing.)
>
>
> | Each line seems to refer to some element(s):
Eggs rotting, guns shooting: I smell hell!
>
> Things that smell like Sulfur (S)
>
>
>
Let's not eat the crust's abundant; it's toxic when pure!
>
> Oxygen is the most abundant element in the Earth's crust, toxic in high enough concentrations (O)
>
>
>
Everyone knows how to buy a Coke (in 1944)!
>
> Coke cost a nickel for 70 years (Ni)
>
>
>
Map-making Vespucci says his name's been misspoken!
>
> Americium is named after America, which is named after Amerigo (Vespucci) (Am)
>
>
>
Evil (quite Great) awaits red-headed hero (from Texas???)!
>
> No clue, all I can find is about a centipede...
>
>
>
Newsflash: young male's fall ends years of strife!
>
> Humpty Dumpty brought all the king's men together; his shell is made of Calcium (Ca)
>
>
>
Take charge, keep your eye on the battery!
>
> Lithium rechargeable batteries (Li)
>
>
>
Sooth us with something from Lawrence's Noiseless!
>
> Cobalt-Samarium noiseless pickups (Co/Sm)
>
>
>
All together, I have:
>
> "Son I am...calicosm"
>
>
>
Clearly not there yet, but kind of stuck. |
53,271 | I was awakened last night to a thump on my front door. When I turned the knob, I found none other than my close friend Dmitri! Before I could begin to inquire what he needed at this late hour, he uttered this nonsense:
>
> Eggs rotting, guns shooting: I smell hell!
>
> Let's not eat the crust's abundant; it's toxic when pure!
>
> Everyone knows how to buy a Coke (in 1944)!
>
> Map-making Vespucci says his name's been misspoken!
>
> Evil (quite Great) awaits red-headed hero (from Texas???)!
>
> Newsflash: young male's fall ends years of strife!
>
> Take charge, keep your eye on the battery!
>
> Sooth us with something from Lawrence's Noiseless!
>
>
>
I scarcely had time to write down this moonlit lunacy before he strolled away without so much as a wink or a nod! I'm certain my friend is trying to tell me something, but my Encyclopedia collection was recently stolen!
**What word was my friend trying to convey, and why did he visit at such a late hour??** | 2017/07/10 | [
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/53271",
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com",
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/users/38165/"
] | As @IanMacDonald pointed out in a comment,
>
> The first letters of each line spell out ELEMENTS. We can see that each line describes a chemical element. Combine their symbols.
>
>
>
Eggs rotting, guns shooting: I smell hell!
>
> Sulfur (straightforward) -> S
>
>
>
Let's not eat the crust's abundant; it's toxic when pure!
>
> Oxygen, the earth's crust's most abundant element -> O
>
>
>
Everyone knows how to buy a Coke (in 1944)!
>
> During WWII, American nickels were make made from Manganese -> Mn
>
>
>
Map-making Vespucci says his name's been misspoken!
>
> Amerigo Vespucci gave his name to America, which gave its name to Americium -> Am
>
>
>
Evil (quite Great) awaits red-headed hero (from Texas???)!
>
> The red-headed hero (from Texas???) refers to Leeloo (Dallas), the Fifth Element, i.e. Boron -> B
>
>
>
Newsflash: young male's fall ends years of strife!
>
> The atomic bomb "Little Boy" helped end WWII. Uranium -> U
>
>
>
Take charge, keep your eye on the battery!
>
> charge + "eye on" (ion) + battery = Lithium -> Li
>
>
>
Sooth us with something from Lawrence's Noiseless!
>
> Googling brought me Bill Lawrence's Noiseless guitar pickups, made from Samarium -> Sm
>
>
>
Together, they spell
>
> SOMNAMBULISM, i.e. sleep-walking.
>
>
> | Each line seems to refer to some element(s):
Eggs rotting, guns shooting: I smell hell!
>
> Things that smell like Sulfur (S)
>
>
>
Let's not eat the crust's abundant; it's toxic when pure!
>
> Oxygen is the most abundant element in the Earth's crust, toxic in high enough concentrations (O)
>
>
>
Everyone knows how to buy a Coke (in 1944)!
>
> Coke cost a nickel for 70 years (Ni)
>
>
>
Map-making Vespucci says his name's been misspoken!
>
> Americium is named after America, which is named after Amerigo (Vespucci) (Am)
>
>
>
Evil (quite Great) awaits red-headed hero (from Texas???)!
>
> No clue, all I can find is about a centipede...
>
>
>
Newsflash: young male's fall ends years of strife!
>
> Humpty Dumpty brought all the king's men together; his shell is made of Calcium (Ca)
>
>
>
Take charge, keep your eye on the battery!
>
> Lithium rechargeable batteries (Li)
>
>
>
Sooth us with something from Lawrence's Noiseless!
>
> Cobalt-Samarium noiseless pickups (Co/Sm)
>
>
>
All together, I have:
>
> "Son I am...calicosm"
>
>
>
Clearly not there yet, but kind of stuck. |
53,271 | I was awakened last night to a thump on my front door. When I turned the knob, I found none other than my close friend Dmitri! Before I could begin to inquire what he needed at this late hour, he uttered this nonsense:
>
> Eggs rotting, guns shooting: I smell hell!
>
> Let's not eat the crust's abundant; it's toxic when pure!
>
> Everyone knows how to buy a Coke (in 1944)!
>
> Map-making Vespucci says his name's been misspoken!
>
> Evil (quite Great) awaits red-headed hero (from Texas???)!
>
> Newsflash: young male's fall ends years of strife!
>
> Take charge, keep your eye on the battery!
>
> Sooth us with something from Lawrence's Noiseless!
>
>
>
I scarcely had time to write down this moonlit lunacy before he strolled away without so much as a wink or a nod! I'm certain my friend is trying to tell me something, but my Encyclopedia collection was recently stolen!
**What word was my friend trying to convey, and why did he visit at such a late hour??** | 2017/07/10 | [
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/53271",
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com",
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/users/38165/"
] | As @IanMacDonald pointed out in a comment,
>
> The first letters of each line spell out ELEMENTS. We can see that each line describes a chemical element. Combine their symbols.
>
>
>
Eggs rotting, guns shooting: I smell hell!
>
> Sulfur (straightforward) -> S
>
>
>
Let's not eat the crust's abundant; it's toxic when pure!
>
> Oxygen, the earth's crust's most abundant element -> O
>
>
>
Everyone knows how to buy a Coke (in 1944)!
>
> During WWII, American nickels were make made from Manganese -> Mn
>
>
>
Map-making Vespucci says his name's been misspoken!
>
> Amerigo Vespucci gave his name to America, which gave its name to Americium -> Am
>
>
>
Evil (quite Great) awaits red-headed hero (from Texas???)!
>
> The red-headed hero (from Texas???) refers to Leeloo (Dallas), the Fifth Element, i.e. Boron -> B
>
>
>
Newsflash: young male's fall ends years of strife!
>
> The atomic bomb "Little Boy" helped end WWII. Uranium -> U
>
>
>
Take charge, keep your eye on the battery!
>
> charge + "eye on" (ion) + battery = Lithium -> Li
>
>
>
Sooth us with something from Lawrence's Noiseless!
>
> Googling brought me Bill Lawrence's Noiseless guitar pickups, made from Samarium -> Sm
>
>
>
Together, they spell
>
> SOMNAMBULISM, i.e. sleep-walking.
>
>
> | **Partial answer**
Having stared at this for a while and stopped making progress, here's what I have so far.
>
> The first letters say ELEMENTS and the friend is called [Dmitri](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitri_Mendeleev) so of course each line is a clue to a chemical element:
>
> S (sulfur) -- hydrogen sulfide is the smell of rotting eggs, gunpowder contains sulfur, one traditional depiction of the Christian hell involves a lake of molten sulfur.
>
> O (oxygen) -- most abundant element in the earth's crust; although we need it to live, when very pure it's toxic. (And we breathe it but of course don't eat it.)
>
> Ni (nickel) -- in 1944, a Coke cost five cents or one nickel.
>
> Am (americium) -- named for America, which is named for *Amerigo* Vespucci.
>
> ???? -- I haven't figured out the "Evil..." one yet.
>
> U (uranium) -- used in the "Little Boy" bomb dropped on Hiroshima which probably ended WW2.
>
> Pb (lead) -- to lead is to take charge, and lead is used in e.g. car batteries.
>
> ???? -- I haven't figured out the "Sooth..." one yet.
>
>
>
So maybe
>
> this leads to the name of someone called SONIA, though that PB is awkward if so. (Lots of other elements are used in batteries, but the pun on "lead" seems quite convincing.)
>
>
> |
95,497 | I am currently working as the DM for Out of the Abyss and have a Paladin in my party. This means at level 5, I need to come up with a Mount for her.
Due to the Underdark being the Underdark, traditional surface world mounts aren't terribly useful. A Horse is going to have a hard time navigating the tunnels and cliffs and ledges and everything else that makes up the terrain. I don't want to give one of my players a basically useless class feature.
According to everything I have run across for 5E, there are only two types of creature used in the Underdark as Mounts... Giant Lizards and Steeders.
I would like to give her more options than that.
So, are there any other creatures traditionally used as viable mounts in the Underdark? I will gladly accept results from other editions of D&D...I don't mind re-statting things. The player is controlling a medium-sized character.
As my choice of tags and wording did not make this clear, allow me to clarify what I am looking for.
I am looking for a Mount for a Paladin using Find Steed at Fifth Level. It must meet the following requirements:
* Large Size
* CR no greater than 1 (CR of a Steeder)
* Is used *in lore* by Underdark races as a mount.
* Must meet the 'physical anatomy' requirements necessary to be ridden
* Must not have a Flying Speed
* Must come from official D&D material, or WotC sanctioned fiction
I am looking for another mount that is in the same 'class' of creatures as the ones that are already listed as options for the Find Steed Spell (warhorse, pony, camel, elk, or mastiff), but is *canonically* used as a mount in the Underdark, by one of the races that lives there. I am looking for an answer from official Dungeons and Dragons material, not homebrew, and would greatly appreciate a reference to the rulebook or D&D publication that contains this information. I will also accept WotC sanctioned fiction that features adventures in the Underdark and having a creature as a mount.
If no in-lore, canonical alternative exists, then 'there is nothing else' is a valid answer (assuming it is properly backed).
To be clear: I am looking *exclusively* for mounts used by the races of the Underdark, *not* mounts from the surface that could be useful on rough terrain or in caverns. I am capable of doing the research for other suitable non-Underdark mounts on my own and am looking to supplement this with lore-friendly Underdark options. | 2017/02/23 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/95497",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/16358/"
] | ### A Giant Goat fits your needs; roughly the same power level as warhorse
>
> A Horse is going to have a hard time navigating the tunnels and cliffs
> and ledges and everything else that makes up the terrain.
>
>
>
Using the same CR as warhorse (1/2) and the same HP (19) you can offer a [Giant goat](http://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/DnD_BasicRules_2018.pdf#page=132), and should be able to handle the tricky footing. It is large sized and thus can carry a medium sized creature. (MM p. 326/SRD 5.1/Basic Rules p. 132) A few salient points.
>
> Giant Goat Armor Class 11 (natural armor) Hit Points 19 (3d10 + 3)
>
> Speed 40 ft. {snip}
>
> ***Sure‐Footed*.** The goat has advantage on Strength and Dexterity saving
> throws made against effects that would knock it prone.
>
>
>
It also has a charge attack, see [the link for details](http://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/DnD_BasicRules_2018.pdf#page=132).
### Find Steed spell description extract
>
> ... the steed takes on *a form that you choose*: a warhorse, a pony, a camel, an elk, or a mastiff. (*Your GM might allow other animals to be summoned as steeds*.) The steed has the statistics of the chosen form, though it is a celestial, fey, or fiend (your choice) instead of its normal type. Additionally, if your steed has an Intelligence of 5 or less, *its Intelligence becomes 6*, and it gains the ability to understand one language of your choice that you speak.
>
>
>
Because the summoned steed is *a spirit in the form of a giant goat*, I see no obstacle to using one.
Now that the question has changed to only include lore-based Underdark mounts, this answer only fits if someone in the Underdark ever had a goat. As I have not read all Underdark stories ever, I can't say either way. | [Carrion Crawler](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrion_crawler), Monster Manual page 37.
It's a large creature (a monstrosity, not a beast, which makes a difference for some spells and features) with spider climb. I think its a GM call whether it has the strength and rigidity to carry a medium character. It should at least be able to carry small characters.
In our Out of the Abyss game, we recently came across a carrion crawler with a saddle on it. We are trying to tame it, as we think it would go well with the giant spider we already have.
Next, we need find a lizard, to gain the Monstrous Mount Trifecta achievement. :-) |
95,497 | I am currently working as the DM for Out of the Abyss and have a Paladin in my party. This means at level 5, I need to come up with a Mount for her.
Due to the Underdark being the Underdark, traditional surface world mounts aren't terribly useful. A Horse is going to have a hard time navigating the tunnels and cliffs and ledges and everything else that makes up the terrain. I don't want to give one of my players a basically useless class feature.
According to everything I have run across for 5E, there are only two types of creature used in the Underdark as Mounts... Giant Lizards and Steeders.
I would like to give her more options than that.
So, are there any other creatures traditionally used as viable mounts in the Underdark? I will gladly accept results from other editions of D&D...I don't mind re-statting things. The player is controlling a medium-sized character.
As my choice of tags and wording did not make this clear, allow me to clarify what I am looking for.
I am looking for a Mount for a Paladin using Find Steed at Fifth Level. It must meet the following requirements:
* Large Size
* CR no greater than 1 (CR of a Steeder)
* Is used *in lore* by Underdark races as a mount.
* Must meet the 'physical anatomy' requirements necessary to be ridden
* Must not have a Flying Speed
* Must come from official D&D material, or WotC sanctioned fiction
I am looking for another mount that is in the same 'class' of creatures as the ones that are already listed as options for the Find Steed Spell (warhorse, pony, camel, elk, or mastiff), but is *canonically* used as a mount in the Underdark, by one of the races that lives there. I am looking for an answer from official Dungeons and Dragons material, not homebrew, and would greatly appreciate a reference to the rulebook or D&D publication that contains this information. I will also accept WotC sanctioned fiction that features adventures in the Underdark and having a creature as a mount.
If no in-lore, canonical alternative exists, then 'there is nothing else' is a valid answer (assuming it is properly backed).
To be clear: I am looking *exclusively* for mounts used by the races of the Underdark, *not* mounts from the surface that could be useful on rough terrain or in caverns. I am capable of doing the research for other suitable non-Underdark mounts on my own and am looking to supplement this with lore-friendly Underdark options. | 2017/02/23 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/95497",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/16358/"
] | ### A Giant Goat fits your needs; roughly the same power level as warhorse
>
> A Horse is going to have a hard time navigating the tunnels and cliffs
> and ledges and everything else that makes up the terrain.
>
>
>
Using the same CR as warhorse (1/2) and the same HP (19) you can offer a [Giant goat](http://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/DnD_BasicRules_2018.pdf#page=132), and should be able to handle the tricky footing. It is large sized and thus can carry a medium sized creature. (MM p. 326/SRD 5.1/Basic Rules p. 132) A few salient points.
>
> Giant Goat Armor Class 11 (natural armor) Hit Points 19 (3d10 + 3)
>
> Speed 40 ft. {snip}
>
> ***Sure‐Footed*.** The goat has advantage on Strength and Dexterity saving
> throws made against effects that would knock it prone.
>
>
>
It also has a charge attack, see [the link for details](http://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/DnD_BasicRules_2018.pdf#page=132).
### Find Steed spell description extract
>
> ... the steed takes on *a form that you choose*: a warhorse, a pony, a camel, an elk, or a mastiff. (*Your GM might allow other animals to be summoned as steeds*.) The steed has the statistics of the chosen form, though it is a celestial, fey, or fiend (your choice) instead of its normal type. Additionally, if your steed has an Intelligence of 5 or less, *its Intelligence becomes 6*, and it gains the ability to understand one language of your choice that you speak.
>
>
>
Because the summoned steed is *a spirit in the form of a giant goat*, I see no obstacle to using one.
Now that the question has changed to only include lore-based Underdark mounts, this answer only fits if someone in the Underdark ever had a goat. As I have not read all Underdark stories ever, I can't say either way. | If you want material for an underdark campaign, the [drowtales](http://www.drowtales.com) comic is set there and may provide inspiration. For your specific question, various drow clans in the comic use:
* [Dire wolves](https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Dire%20Wolf), which have non-sight-based bonuses to perception. ([Basic Rules p. 123](http://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/DnD_BasicRules_2018.pdf#page=123))
* Pony-like dawmere. I don't think this is a DnD creature though.
* [Giant spiders](http://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/DnD_BasicRules_2018.pdf#page=126), as [Doctor Kill mentions](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/95500/9399).
Sorry I can't provide pages for dawmere.
The golems and dragon like creatures in the comic don't fit into your CR restrictions. |
95,497 | I am currently working as the DM for Out of the Abyss and have a Paladin in my party. This means at level 5, I need to come up with a Mount for her.
Due to the Underdark being the Underdark, traditional surface world mounts aren't terribly useful. A Horse is going to have a hard time navigating the tunnels and cliffs and ledges and everything else that makes up the terrain. I don't want to give one of my players a basically useless class feature.
According to everything I have run across for 5E, there are only two types of creature used in the Underdark as Mounts... Giant Lizards and Steeders.
I would like to give her more options than that.
So, are there any other creatures traditionally used as viable mounts in the Underdark? I will gladly accept results from other editions of D&D...I don't mind re-statting things. The player is controlling a medium-sized character.
As my choice of tags and wording did not make this clear, allow me to clarify what I am looking for.
I am looking for a Mount for a Paladin using Find Steed at Fifth Level. It must meet the following requirements:
* Large Size
* CR no greater than 1 (CR of a Steeder)
* Is used *in lore* by Underdark races as a mount.
* Must meet the 'physical anatomy' requirements necessary to be ridden
* Must not have a Flying Speed
* Must come from official D&D material, or WotC sanctioned fiction
I am looking for another mount that is in the same 'class' of creatures as the ones that are already listed as options for the Find Steed Spell (warhorse, pony, camel, elk, or mastiff), but is *canonically* used as a mount in the Underdark, by one of the races that lives there. I am looking for an answer from official Dungeons and Dragons material, not homebrew, and would greatly appreciate a reference to the rulebook or D&D publication that contains this information. I will also accept WotC sanctioned fiction that features adventures in the Underdark and having a creature as a mount.
If no in-lore, canonical alternative exists, then 'there is nothing else' is a valid answer (assuming it is properly backed).
To be clear: I am looking *exclusively* for mounts used by the races of the Underdark, *not* mounts from the surface that could be useful on rough terrain or in caverns. I am capable of doing the research for other suitable non-Underdark mounts on my own and am looking to supplement this with lore-friendly Underdark options. | 2017/02/23 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/95497",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/16358/"
] | I did a [search](https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters?filter-type=0&filter-search=&filter-cr-min=&filter-cr-max=5&filter-size=5&filter-environment=9&filter-armor-class-min=&filter-armor-class-max=&filter-average-hp-min=&filter-average-hp-max=&filter-is-legendary=&filter-has-lair=) on D&D Beyond for Large Underdark creatures of CR 1 or below. From that here are the suitable mounts:
* **Giant Lizard/Giant Lizard (Variant)/Giant Riding Lizard:** This CR1/4 lizard has appeared a couple of places and seems a pretty solid choice.
* **Giant Spider (AKA Steeder):** You already pointed this out. CR1 and provided your table doesn't have an arachnophobe it's a good choice.
* **Giant Strider:** Introduced with Volo's Guide to monsters this CR1 creature is IMO the best choice. The book even says "striders voluntarily serve as mounts".
* **Giant Toad:** CR1 and if you don't mind hopping everywhere the extra jump distance can get you places other mounts can't.
* **Half-Ogre:** In theory you could but this is more of an NPC than a mount.
* **Reduced Threat Carrion Crawler:** A standard Carrion Crawler is CR2 but the reduced threat template makes this a suitable mount. Plus is has a climb speed.
### Why the Giant Strider is the best option
Lets look at your requirements:
* *Large Size* - Check
* *CR no greater than 1 (CR of a Steeder)* - CR1 exactly
* *Is used in lore by Underdark races as a mount* - More so than any other option. This creature literally only exists in the lore as a mount for Firenewt warriors.
* *Must meet the 'physical anatomy' requirements necessary to be ridden* - Check
* *Must not have a Flying Speed* - Check
* *Must come from official D&D material, or WotC sanctioned fiction* - Published in Volo's Guide to Monsters.
I cannot see a better and more suitable option that the Giant Strider for an underdark mount. | ### A Giant Goat fits your needs; roughly the same power level as warhorse
>
> A Horse is going to have a hard time navigating the tunnels and cliffs
> and ledges and everything else that makes up the terrain.
>
>
>
Using the same CR as warhorse (1/2) and the same HP (19) you can offer a [Giant goat](http://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/DnD_BasicRules_2018.pdf#page=132), and should be able to handle the tricky footing. It is large sized and thus can carry a medium sized creature. (MM p. 326/SRD 5.1/Basic Rules p. 132) A few salient points.
>
> Giant Goat Armor Class 11 (natural armor) Hit Points 19 (3d10 + 3)
>
> Speed 40 ft. {snip}
>
> ***Sure‐Footed*.** The goat has advantage on Strength and Dexterity saving
> throws made against effects that would knock it prone.
>
>
>
It also has a charge attack, see [the link for details](http://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/DnD_BasicRules_2018.pdf#page=132).
### Find Steed spell description extract
>
> ... the steed takes on *a form that you choose*: a warhorse, a pony, a camel, an elk, or a mastiff. (*Your GM might allow other animals to be summoned as steeds*.) The steed has the statistics of the chosen form, though it is a celestial, fey, or fiend (your choice) instead of its normal type. Additionally, if your steed has an Intelligence of 5 or less, *its Intelligence becomes 6*, and it gains the ability to understand one language of your choice that you speak.
>
>
>
Because the summoned steed is *a spirit in the form of a giant goat*, I see no obstacle to using one.
Now that the question has changed to only include lore-based Underdark mounts, this answer only fits if someone in the Underdark ever had a goat. As I have not read all Underdark stories ever, I can't say either way. |
95,497 | I am currently working as the DM for Out of the Abyss and have a Paladin in my party. This means at level 5, I need to come up with a Mount for her.
Due to the Underdark being the Underdark, traditional surface world mounts aren't terribly useful. A Horse is going to have a hard time navigating the tunnels and cliffs and ledges and everything else that makes up the terrain. I don't want to give one of my players a basically useless class feature.
According to everything I have run across for 5E, there are only two types of creature used in the Underdark as Mounts... Giant Lizards and Steeders.
I would like to give her more options than that.
So, are there any other creatures traditionally used as viable mounts in the Underdark? I will gladly accept results from other editions of D&D...I don't mind re-statting things. The player is controlling a medium-sized character.
As my choice of tags and wording did not make this clear, allow me to clarify what I am looking for.
I am looking for a Mount for a Paladin using Find Steed at Fifth Level. It must meet the following requirements:
* Large Size
* CR no greater than 1 (CR of a Steeder)
* Is used *in lore* by Underdark races as a mount.
* Must meet the 'physical anatomy' requirements necessary to be ridden
* Must not have a Flying Speed
* Must come from official D&D material, or WotC sanctioned fiction
I am looking for another mount that is in the same 'class' of creatures as the ones that are already listed as options for the Find Steed Spell (warhorse, pony, camel, elk, or mastiff), but is *canonically* used as a mount in the Underdark, by one of the races that lives there. I am looking for an answer from official Dungeons and Dragons material, not homebrew, and would greatly appreciate a reference to the rulebook or D&D publication that contains this information. I will also accept WotC sanctioned fiction that features adventures in the Underdark and having a creature as a mount.
If no in-lore, canonical alternative exists, then 'there is nothing else' is a valid answer (assuming it is properly backed).
To be clear: I am looking *exclusively* for mounts used by the races of the Underdark, *not* mounts from the surface that could be useful on rough terrain or in caverns. I am capable of doing the research for other suitable non-Underdark mounts on my own and am looking to supplement this with lore-friendly Underdark options. | 2017/02/23 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/95497",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/16358/"
] | I don't speak for the canonicity of these alternatives, as I've not read the source material, but I draw the references from this [website](https://www.textise.net/showText.aspx?strURL=http%253A//drowcampaign.roleplaynexus.com/drowcreatures.html). I summarize here in the event of link rot. I'm only including the ones from the list that could conceivably be big enough to carry a person.
* [Dire Bat](http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/direBat.htm)
* Night Hunter [Monster Compendium: Monsters of Faerûn], actually not sure if this could carry a person. It has 7 foot wingspan, weighs 250 pounds. Given that the Dire Bat could be said to carry a person and weighs only 200 pounds (albeit with a 15' wingspan) it might fit the bill. Worth investigating.
* [Riding Lizard](http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Riding_lizard) you already mentioned but why not include it anyway for completeness.
* [Monstrous Spider](http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/monstrousSpider.htm) comes in several sizes, surely one big enough to ride. Probably falls under the "steeder" category you mentioned. Notably, there are several varieties of spider in the underdark, including the...
* [Phase Spider](http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/phaseSpider.htm)
* [Deep Rothe](http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Deep_roth%C3%A9) a fungus and moss eating musk-ox. Oxen can be ridden. You're looking for the "Deep" Rothe, not an ordinary, surface dwelling Rothe. | [Carrion Crawler](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrion_crawler), Monster Manual page 37.
It's a large creature (a monstrosity, not a beast, which makes a difference for some spells and features) with spider climb. I think its a GM call whether it has the strength and rigidity to carry a medium character. It should at least be able to carry small characters.
In our Out of the Abyss game, we recently came across a carrion crawler with a saddle on it. We are trying to tame it, as we think it would go well with the giant spider we already have.
Next, we need find a lizard, to gain the Monstrous Mount Trifecta achievement. :-) |
95,497 | I am currently working as the DM for Out of the Abyss and have a Paladin in my party. This means at level 5, I need to come up with a Mount for her.
Due to the Underdark being the Underdark, traditional surface world mounts aren't terribly useful. A Horse is going to have a hard time navigating the tunnels and cliffs and ledges and everything else that makes up the terrain. I don't want to give one of my players a basically useless class feature.
According to everything I have run across for 5E, there are only two types of creature used in the Underdark as Mounts... Giant Lizards and Steeders.
I would like to give her more options than that.
So, are there any other creatures traditionally used as viable mounts in the Underdark? I will gladly accept results from other editions of D&D...I don't mind re-statting things. The player is controlling a medium-sized character.
As my choice of tags and wording did not make this clear, allow me to clarify what I am looking for.
I am looking for a Mount for a Paladin using Find Steed at Fifth Level. It must meet the following requirements:
* Large Size
* CR no greater than 1 (CR of a Steeder)
* Is used *in lore* by Underdark races as a mount.
* Must meet the 'physical anatomy' requirements necessary to be ridden
* Must not have a Flying Speed
* Must come from official D&D material, or WotC sanctioned fiction
I am looking for another mount that is in the same 'class' of creatures as the ones that are already listed as options for the Find Steed Spell (warhorse, pony, camel, elk, or mastiff), but is *canonically* used as a mount in the Underdark, by one of the races that lives there. I am looking for an answer from official Dungeons and Dragons material, not homebrew, and would greatly appreciate a reference to the rulebook or D&D publication that contains this information. I will also accept WotC sanctioned fiction that features adventures in the Underdark and having a creature as a mount.
If no in-lore, canonical alternative exists, then 'there is nothing else' is a valid answer (assuming it is properly backed).
To be clear: I am looking *exclusively* for mounts used by the races of the Underdark, *not* mounts from the surface that could be useful on rough terrain or in caverns. I am capable of doing the research for other suitable non-Underdark mounts on my own and am looking to supplement this with lore-friendly Underdark options. | 2017/02/23 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/95497",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/16358/"
] | I don't speak for the canonicity of these alternatives, as I've not read the source material, but I draw the references from this [website](https://www.textise.net/showText.aspx?strURL=http%253A//drowcampaign.roleplaynexus.com/drowcreatures.html). I summarize here in the event of link rot. I'm only including the ones from the list that could conceivably be big enough to carry a person.
* [Dire Bat](http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/direBat.htm)
* Night Hunter [Monster Compendium: Monsters of Faerûn], actually not sure if this could carry a person. It has 7 foot wingspan, weighs 250 pounds. Given that the Dire Bat could be said to carry a person and weighs only 200 pounds (albeit with a 15' wingspan) it might fit the bill. Worth investigating.
* [Riding Lizard](http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Riding_lizard) you already mentioned but why not include it anyway for completeness.
* [Monstrous Spider](http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/monstrousSpider.htm) comes in several sizes, surely one big enough to ride. Probably falls under the "steeder" category you mentioned. Notably, there are several varieties of spider in the underdark, including the...
* [Phase Spider](http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/phaseSpider.htm)
* [Deep Rothe](http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Deep_roth%C3%A9) a fungus and moss eating musk-ox. Oxen can be ridden. You're looking for the "Deep" Rothe, not an ordinary, surface dwelling Rothe. | If you want material for an underdark campaign, the [drowtales](http://www.drowtales.com) comic is set there and may provide inspiration. For your specific question, various drow clans in the comic use:
* [Dire wolves](https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Dire%20Wolf), which have non-sight-based bonuses to perception. ([Basic Rules p. 123](http://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/DnD_BasicRules_2018.pdf#page=123))
* Pony-like dawmere. I don't think this is a DnD creature though.
* [Giant spiders](http://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/DnD_BasicRules_2018.pdf#page=126), as [Doctor Kill mentions](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/95500/9399).
Sorry I can't provide pages for dawmere.
The golems and dragon like creatures in the comic don't fit into your CR restrictions. |
95,497 | I am currently working as the DM for Out of the Abyss and have a Paladin in my party. This means at level 5, I need to come up with a Mount for her.
Due to the Underdark being the Underdark, traditional surface world mounts aren't terribly useful. A Horse is going to have a hard time navigating the tunnels and cliffs and ledges and everything else that makes up the terrain. I don't want to give one of my players a basically useless class feature.
According to everything I have run across for 5E, there are only two types of creature used in the Underdark as Mounts... Giant Lizards and Steeders.
I would like to give her more options than that.
So, are there any other creatures traditionally used as viable mounts in the Underdark? I will gladly accept results from other editions of D&D...I don't mind re-statting things. The player is controlling a medium-sized character.
As my choice of tags and wording did not make this clear, allow me to clarify what I am looking for.
I am looking for a Mount for a Paladin using Find Steed at Fifth Level. It must meet the following requirements:
* Large Size
* CR no greater than 1 (CR of a Steeder)
* Is used *in lore* by Underdark races as a mount.
* Must meet the 'physical anatomy' requirements necessary to be ridden
* Must not have a Flying Speed
* Must come from official D&D material, or WotC sanctioned fiction
I am looking for another mount that is in the same 'class' of creatures as the ones that are already listed as options for the Find Steed Spell (warhorse, pony, camel, elk, or mastiff), but is *canonically* used as a mount in the Underdark, by one of the races that lives there. I am looking for an answer from official Dungeons and Dragons material, not homebrew, and would greatly appreciate a reference to the rulebook or D&D publication that contains this information. I will also accept WotC sanctioned fiction that features adventures in the Underdark and having a creature as a mount.
If no in-lore, canonical alternative exists, then 'there is nothing else' is a valid answer (assuming it is properly backed).
To be clear: I am looking *exclusively* for mounts used by the races of the Underdark, *not* mounts from the surface that could be useful on rough terrain or in caverns. I am capable of doing the research for other suitable non-Underdark mounts on my own and am looking to supplement this with lore-friendly Underdark options. | 2017/02/23 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/95497",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/16358/"
] | I did a [search](https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters?filter-type=0&filter-search=&filter-cr-min=&filter-cr-max=5&filter-size=5&filter-environment=9&filter-armor-class-min=&filter-armor-class-max=&filter-average-hp-min=&filter-average-hp-max=&filter-is-legendary=&filter-has-lair=) on D&D Beyond for Large Underdark creatures of CR 1 or below. From that here are the suitable mounts:
* **Giant Lizard/Giant Lizard (Variant)/Giant Riding Lizard:** This CR1/4 lizard has appeared a couple of places and seems a pretty solid choice.
* **Giant Spider (AKA Steeder):** You already pointed this out. CR1 and provided your table doesn't have an arachnophobe it's a good choice.
* **Giant Strider:** Introduced with Volo's Guide to monsters this CR1 creature is IMO the best choice. The book even says "striders voluntarily serve as mounts".
* **Giant Toad:** CR1 and if you don't mind hopping everywhere the extra jump distance can get you places other mounts can't.
* **Half-Ogre:** In theory you could but this is more of an NPC than a mount.
* **Reduced Threat Carrion Crawler:** A standard Carrion Crawler is CR2 but the reduced threat template makes this a suitable mount. Plus is has a climb speed.
### Why the Giant Strider is the best option
Lets look at your requirements:
* *Large Size* - Check
* *CR no greater than 1 (CR of a Steeder)* - CR1 exactly
* *Is used in lore by Underdark races as a mount* - More so than any other option. This creature literally only exists in the lore as a mount for Firenewt warriors.
* *Must meet the 'physical anatomy' requirements necessary to be ridden* - Check
* *Must not have a Flying Speed* - Check
* *Must come from official D&D material, or WotC sanctioned fiction* - Published in Volo's Guide to Monsters.
I cannot see a better and more suitable option that the Giant Strider for an underdark mount. | I don't speak for the canonicity of these alternatives, as I've not read the source material, but I draw the references from this [website](https://www.textise.net/showText.aspx?strURL=http%253A//drowcampaign.roleplaynexus.com/drowcreatures.html). I summarize here in the event of link rot. I'm only including the ones from the list that could conceivably be big enough to carry a person.
* [Dire Bat](http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/direBat.htm)
* Night Hunter [Monster Compendium: Monsters of Faerûn], actually not sure if this could carry a person. It has 7 foot wingspan, weighs 250 pounds. Given that the Dire Bat could be said to carry a person and weighs only 200 pounds (albeit with a 15' wingspan) it might fit the bill. Worth investigating.
* [Riding Lizard](http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Riding_lizard) you already mentioned but why not include it anyway for completeness.
* [Monstrous Spider](http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/monstrousSpider.htm) comes in several sizes, surely one big enough to ride. Probably falls under the "steeder" category you mentioned. Notably, there are several varieties of spider in the underdark, including the...
* [Phase Spider](http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/phaseSpider.htm)
* [Deep Rothe](http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Deep_roth%C3%A9) a fungus and moss eating musk-ox. Oxen can be ridden. You're looking for the "Deep" Rothe, not an ordinary, surface dwelling Rothe. |
95,497 | I am currently working as the DM for Out of the Abyss and have a Paladin in my party. This means at level 5, I need to come up with a Mount for her.
Due to the Underdark being the Underdark, traditional surface world mounts aren't terribly useful. A Horse is going to have a hard time navigating the tunnels and cliffs and ledges and everything else that makes up the terrain. I don't want to give one of my players a basically useless class feature.
According to everything I have run across for 5E, there are only two types of creature used in the Underdark as Mounts... Giant Lizards and Steeders.
I would like to give her more options than that.
So, are there any other creatures traditionally used as viable mounts in the Underdark? I will gladly accept results from other editions of D&D...I don't mind re-statting things. The player is controlling a medium-sized character.
As my choice of tags and wording did not make this clear, allow me to clarify what I am looking for.
I am looking for a Mount for a Paladin using Find Steed at Fifth Level. It must meet the following requirements:
* Large Size
* CR no greater than 1 (CR of a Steeder)
* Is used *in lore* by Underdark races as a mount.
* Must meet the 'physical anatomy' requirements necessary to be ridden
* Must not have a Flying Speed
* Must come from official D&D material, or WotC sanctioned fiction
I am looking for another mount that is in the same 'class' of creatures as the ones that are already listed as options for the Find Steed Spell (warhorse, pony, camel, elk, or mastiff), but is *canonically* used as a mount in the Underdark, by one of the races that lives there. I am looking for an answer from official Dungeons and Dragons material, not homebrew, and would greatly appreciate a reference to the rulebook or D&D publication that contains this information. I will also accept WotC sanctioned fiction that features adventures in the Underdark and having a creature as a mount.
If no in-lore, canonical alternative exists, then 'there is nothing else' is a valid answer (assuming it is properly backed).
To be clear: I am looking *exclusively* for mounts used by the races of the Underdark, *not* mounts from the surface that could be useful on rough terrain or in caverns. I am capable of doing the research for other suitable non-Underdark mounts on my own and am looking to supplement this with lore-friendly Underdark options. | 2017/02/23 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/95497",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/16358/"
] | If you want material for an underdark campaign, the [drowtales](http://www.drowtales.com) comic is set there and may provide inspiration. For your specific question, various drow clans in the comic use:
* [Dire wolves](https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Dire%20Wolf), which have non-sight-based bonuses to perception. ([Basic Rules p. 123](http://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/DnD_BasicRules_2018.pdf#page=123))
* Pony-like dawmere. I don't think this is a DnD creature though.
* [Giant spiders](http://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/DnD_BasicRules_2018.pdf#page=126), as [Doctor Kill mentions](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/95500/9399).
Sorry I can't provide pages for dawmere.
The golems and dragon like creatures in the comic don't fit into your CR restrictions. | [Carrion Crawler](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrion_crawler), Monster Manual page 37.
It's a large creature (a monstrosity, not a beast, which makes a difference for some spells and features) with spider climb. I think its a GM call whether it has the strength and rigidity to carry a medium character. It should at least be able to carry small characters.
In our Out of the Abyss game, we recently came across a carrion crawler with a saddle on it. We are trying to tame it, as we think it would go well with the giant spider we already have.
Next, we need find a lizard, to gain the Monstrous Mount Trifecta achievement. :-) |
95,497 | I am currently working as the DM for Out of the Abyss and have a Paladin in my party. This means at level 5, I need to come up with a Mount for her.
Due to the Underdark being the Underdark, traditional surface world mounts aren't terribly useful. A Horse is going to have a hard time navigating the tunnels and cliffs and ledges and everything else that makes up the terrain. I don't want to give one of my players a basically useless class feature.
According to everything I have run across for 5E, there are only two types of creature used in the Underdark as Mounts... Giant Lizards and Steeders.
I would like to give her more options than that.
So, are there any other creatures traditionally used as viable mounts in the Underdark? I will gladly accept results from other editions of D&D...I don't mind re-statting things. The player is controlling a medium-sized character.
As my choice of tags and wording did not make this clear, allow me to clarify what I am looking for.
I am looking for a Mount for a Paladin using Find Steed at Fifth Level. It must meet the following requirements:
* Large Size
* CR no greater than 1 (CR of a Steeder)
* Is used *in lore* by Underdark races as a mount.
* Must meet the 'physical anatomy' requirements necessary to be ridden
* Must not have a Flying Speed
* Must come from official D&D material, or WotC sanctioned fiction
I am looking for another mount that is in the same 'class' of creatures as the ones that are already listed as options for the Find Steed Spell (warhorse, pony, camel, elk, or mastiff), but is *canonically* used as a mount in the Underdark, by one of the races that lives there. I am looking for an answer from official Dungeons and Dragons material, not homebrew, and would greatly appreciate a reference to the rulebook or D&D publication that contains this information. I will also accept WotC sanctioned fiction that features adventures in the Underdark and having a creature as a mount.
If no in-lore, canonical alternative exists, then 'there is nothing else' is a valid answer (assuming it is properly backed).
To be clear: I am looking *exclusively* for mounts used by the races of the Underdark, *not* mounts from the surface that could be useful on rough terrain or in caverns. I am capable of doing the research for other suitable non-Underdark mounts on my own and am looking to supplement this with lore-friendly Underdark options. | 2017/02/23 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/95497",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/16358/"
] | I did a [search](https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters?filter-type=0&filter-search=&filter-cr-min=&filter-cr-max=5&filter-size=5&filter-environment=9&filter-armor-class-min=&filter-armor-class-max=&filter-average-hp-min=&filter-average-hp-max=&filter-is-legendary=&filter-has-lair=) on D&D Beyond for Large Underdark creatures of CR 1 or below. From that here are the suitable mounts:
* **Giant Lizard/Giant Lizard (Variant)/Giant Riding Lizard:** This CR1/4 lizard has appeared a couple of places and seems a pretty solid choice.
* **Giant Spider (AKA Steeder):** You already pointed this out. CR1 and provided your table doesn't have an arachnophobe it's a good choice.
* **Giant Strider:** Introduced with Volo's Guide to monsters this CR1 creature is IMO the best choice. The book even says "striders voluntarily serve as mounts".
* **Giant Toad:** CR1 and if you don't mind hopping everywhere the extra jump distance can get you places other mounts can't.
* **Half-Ogre:** In theory you could but this is more of an NPC than a mount.
* **Reduced Threat Carrion Crawler:** A standard Carrion Crawler is CR2 but the reduced threat template makes this a suitable mount. Plus is has a climb speed.
### Why the Giant Strider is the best option
Lets look at your requirements:
* *Large Size* - Check
* *CR no greater than 1 (CR of a Steeder)* - CR1 exactly
* *Is used in lore by Underdark races as a mount* - More so than any other option. This creature literally only exists in the lore as a mount for Firenewt warriors.
* *Must meet the 'physical anatomy' requirements necessary to be ridden* - Check
* *Must not have a Flying Speed* - Check
* *Must come from official D&D material, or WotC sanctioned fiction* - Published in Volo's Guide to Monsters.
I cannot see a better and more suitable option that the Giant Strider for an underdark mount. | [Carrion Crawler](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrion_crawler), Monster Manual page 37.
It's a large creature (a monstrosity, not a beast, which makes a difference for some spells and features) with spider climb. I think its a GM call whether it has the strength and rigidity to carry a medium character. It should at least be able to carry small characters.
In our Out of the Abyss game, we recently came across a carrion crawler with a saddle on it. We are trying to tame it, as we think it would go well with the giant spider we already have.
Next, we need find a lizard, to gain the Monstrous Mount Trifecta achievement. :-) |
95,497 | I am currently working as the DM for Out of the Abyss and have a Paladin in my party. This means at level 5, I need to come up with a Mount for her.
Due to the Underdark being the Underdark, traditional surface world mounts aren't terribly useful. A Horse is going to have a hard time navigating the tunnels and cliffs and ledges and everything else that makes up the terrain. I don't want to give one of my players a basically useless class feature.
According to everything I have run across for 5E, there are only two types of creature used in the Underdark as Mounts... Giant Lizards and Steeders.
I would like to give her more options than that.
So, are there any other creatures traditionally used as viable mounts in the Underdark? I will gladly accept results from other editions of D&D...I don't mind re-statting things. The player is controlling a medium-sized character.
As my choice of tags and wording did not make this clear, allow me to clarify what I am looking for.
I am looking for a Mount for a Paladin using Find Steed at Fifth Level. It must meet the following requirements:
* Large Size
* CR no greater than 1 (CR of a Steeder)
* Is used *in lore* by Underdark races as a mount.
* Must meet the 'physical anatomy' requirements necessary to be ridden
* Must not have a Flying Speed
* Must come from official D&D material, or WotC sanctioned fiction
I am looking for another mount that is in the same 'class' of creatures as the ones that are already listed as options for the Find Steed Spell (warhorse, pony, camel, elk, or mastiff), but is *canonically* used as a mount in the Underdark, by one of the races that lives there. I am looking for an answer from official Dungeons and Dragons material, not homebrew, and would greatly appreciate a reference to the rulebook or D&D publication that contains this information. I will also accept WotC sanctioned fiction that features adventures in the Underdark and having a creature as a mount.
If no in-lore, canonical alternative exists, then 'there is nothing else' is a valid answer (assuming it is properly backed).
To be clear: I am looking *exclusively* for mounts used by the races of the Underdark, *not* mounts from the surface that could be useful on rough terrain or in caverns. I am capable of doing the research for other suitable non-Underdark mounts on my own and am looking to supplement this with lore-friendly Underdark options. | 2017/02/23 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/95497",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/16358/"
] | I did a [search](https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters?filter-type=0&filter-search=&filter-cr-min=&filter-cr-max=5&filter-size=5&filter-environment=9&filter-armor-class-min=&filter-armor-class-max=&filter-average-hp-min=&filter-average-hp-max=&filter-is-legendary=&filter-has-lair=) on D&D Beyond for Large Underdark creatures of CR 1 or below. From that here are the suitable mounts:
* **Giant Lizard/Giant Lizard (Variant)/Giant Riding Lizard:** This CR1/4 lizard has appeared a couple of places and seems a pretty solid choice.
* **Giant Spider (AKA Steeder):** You already pointed this out. CR1 and provided your table doesn't have an arachnophobe it's a good choice.
* **Giant Strider:** Introduced with Volo's Guide to monsters this CR1 creature is IMO the best choice. The book even says "striders voluntarily serve as mounts".
* **Giant Toad:** CR1 and if you don't mind hopping everywhere the extra jump distance can get you places other mounts can't.
* **Half-Ogre:** In theory you could but this is more of an NPC than a mount.
* **Reduced Threat Carrion Crawler:** A standard Carrion Crawler is CR2 but the reduced threat template makes this a suitable mount. Plus is has a climb speed.
### Why the Giant Strider is the best option
Lets look at your requirements:
* *Large Size* - Check
* *CR no greater than 1 (CR of a Steeder)* - CR1 exactly
* *Is used in lore by Underdark races as a mount* - More so than any other option. This creature literally only exists in the lore as a mount for Firenewt warriors.
* *Must meet the 'physical anatomy' requirements necessary to be ridden* - Check
* *Must not have a Flying Speed* - Check
* *Must come from official D&D material, or WotC sanctioned fiction* - Published in Volo's Guide to Monsters.
I cannot see a better and more suitable option that the Giant Strider for an underdark mount. | If you want material for an underdark campaign, the [drowtales](http://www.drowtales.com) comic is set there and may provide inspiration. For your specific question, various drow clans in the comic use:
* [Dire wolves](https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Dire%20Wolf), which have non-sight-based bonuses to perception. ([Basic Rules p. 123](http://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/DnD_BasicRules_2018.pdf#page=123))
* Pony-like dawmere. I don't think this is a DnD creature though.
* [Giant spiders](http://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/DnD_BasicRules_2018.pdf#page=126), as [Doctor Kill mentions](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/95500/9399).
Sorry I can't provide pages for dawmere.
The golems and dragon like creatures in the comic don't fit into your CR restrictions. |
19,009,531 | I'm trying to create a new Wordpress website in Azure. Today when I get to the page about creating a new mySQL database, I can't check the box to agree to the ClearDB terms - even in the HTML box it's disabled.
Tried this on both US East and US West servers, same thing. Database name meets their requirements, I've done this a few times in the past. No idea why I can't today. | 2013/09/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/19009531",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1489234/"
] | try this:
New -> Store
Data -> ClearDB
After that try to add the Wordpress (New -> Compute -> Web Site ->From Gallery), but instead of create a new Mysql database, use this one that you create in the step above. | We getting following error after the step you mentioned.
We cannot provide a billing estimate at this time. Please try again later. If this error persists, contact support with the following information.
Subscription could not be found for the provided subscription id |
95,598 | I innocently edited the title of the question, [I accidentally a whole fact table](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6364780/i-accidentally-a-whole-fact-table). Apparently, this kind of grammar with no verb is [an internet meme](http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-accidentally). Because I was not familiar with said meme (which I do find funny and will probably use elsewhere), it suckered me and at least two others into [revising it](https://stackoverflow.com/posts/6364780/revisions).
When I edit a post, I spend my own valuable time to contribute to the quality of the site, with no other compensation than the fact that I am indefinably helping somehow (and, I suppose, serving the complaining OCD voices in my head that don't like to see poor grammar).
Anyway, while the title may be humorous, I'm not so sure it's the best kind of humor to have here, given how it's going to keep sucking people in to try to edit the question.
I also don't think locking the question is the right answer, either, because this won't prevent people from visiting the question to *try* to fix it.
What do you think? | 2011/06/18 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/95598",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/142684/"
] | The title should be edited correctly and the post locked. The users involved should at least be looked at closely. While perhaps not intended as such, it's just internet vandalism and isn't really what this site is about. | One of the main goals of Stack Exchange is to be the first hit (or one of the first hits) for people trying to solve problems using Google searches. To that end, the clearer the title, the better.
In this case, it appears the author and a high rep user have decided that's not important and are entering into an edit war over a really lame title.
I don't think you're being trolled *per se*, but some people tend to forget there's a bigger picture and think you're just being a stick in the mud by changing a "funny" title. They also tend to forget that Stack Exchange is [collaboratively edited](https://stackoverflow.com/faq#editing), and that the original poster's intent does not outweigh the greater good.
Bringing it to the attention of the greater community is *A Good Thing*, but you can't fight and win every internet battle: if a user is so adamant about not accepting community input to the point where it's disruptive, flag it for a moderator so they can weigh in on it and move on. |
95,598 | I innocently edited the title of the question, [I accidentally a whole fact table](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6364780/i-accidentally-a-whole-fact-table). Apparently, this kind of grammar with no verb is [an internet meme](http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-accidentally). Because I was not familiar with said meme (which I do find funny and will probably use elsewhere), it suckered me and at least two others into [revising it](https://stackoverflow.com/posts/6364780/revisions).
When I edit a post, I spend my own valuable time to contribute to the quality of the site, with no other compensation than the fact that I am indefinably helping somehow (and, I suppose, serving the complaining OCD voices in my head that don't like to see poor grammar).
Anyway, while the title may be humorous, I'm not so sure it's the best kind of humor to have here, given how it's going to keep sucking people in to try to edit the question.
I also don't think locking the question is the right answer, either, because this won't prevent people from visiting the question to *try* to fix it.
What do you think? | 2011/06/18 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/95598",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/142684/"
] | One of the main goals of Stack Exchange is to be the first hit (or one of the first hits) for people trying to solve problems using Google searches. To that end, the clearer the title, the better.
In this case, it appears the author and a high rep user have decided that's not important and are entering into an edit war over a really lame title.
I don't think you're being trolled *per se*, but some people tend to forget there's a bigger picture and think you're just being a stick in the mud by changing a "funny" title. They also tend to forget that Stack Exchange is [collaboratively edited](https://stackoverflow.com/faq#editing), and that the original poster's intent does not outweigh the greater good.
Bringing it to the attention of the greater community is *A Good Thing*, but you can't fight and win every internet battle: if a user is so adamant about not accepting community input to the point where it's disruptive, flag it for a moderator so they can weigh in on it and move on. | Found some relevant discussions:
* [Stack Overflow: Where We Hate Fun](https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/01/stack-overflow-where-we-hate-fun/) - Jeff basically says *some* fun will be tolerated, as long as it's not disruptive. But **no** smiling.
* [Joke Questions: Please Refrain](https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/04/joke-questions-please-refrain/) - more problematic than just a joke in the title, but the issues are related
* [Should April Fools' Day questions be only asked on Meta?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/45248/should-april-fools-day-questions-be-only-asked-on-meta)
* [Why was the "How to launch a missile" question deleted?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/47929/why-was-the-how-to-launch-a-missile-question-deleted)
Personally I think if the question *body* had started with "I accidentally my whole table" it would've been just fine. And then if someone then commented "Sounds dangerous" that'd be fine to. But question titles are much more visible. In many cases they'll be people's first introduction to the site as they find questions through Google, so it's important that they are clear and accurate. In any case, getting into an edit war over any of these is just silly.
**Edit**: TheTXI makes a good point in [Should 'Hi', 'thanks', taglines, and salutations be removed from posts?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2950/should-hi-thanks-and-taglines-and-salutations-be-removed-from-posts/3021#3021). *Starting* with a joke uses up space in the question preview, making it a little harder for people to tell what it's about. I'm not sure that means you *can't* start with a joke, but it's worth considering. Even better would be to *end* the question with "I can't believe I accidentally the whole thing!". |
95,598 | I innocently edited the title of the question, [I accidentally a whole fact table](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6364780/i-accidentally-a-whole-fact-table). Apparently, this kind of grammar with no verb is [an internet meme](http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-accidentally). Because I was not familiar with said meme (which I do find funny and will probably use elsewhere), it suckered me and at least two others into [revising it](https://stackoverflow.com/posts/6364780/revisions).
When I edit a post, I spend my own valuable time to contribute to the quality of the site, with no other compensation than the fact that I am indefinably helping somehow (and, I suppose, serving the complaining OCD voices in my head that don't like to see poor grammar).
Anyway, while the title may be humorous, I'm not so sure it's the best kind of humor to have here, given how it's going to keep sucking people in to try to edit the question.
I also don't think locking the question is the right answer, either, because this won't prevent people from visiting the question to *try* to fix it.
What do you think? | 2011/06/18 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/95598",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/142684/"
] | One of the main goals of Stack Exchange is to be the first hit (or one of the first hits) for people trying to solve problems using Google searches. To that end, the clearer the title, the better.
In this case, it appears the author and a high rep user have decided that's not important and are entering into an edit war over a really lame title.
I don't think you're being trolled *per se*, but some people tend to forget there's a bigger picture and think you're just being a stick in the mud by changing a "funny" title. They also tend to forget that Stack Exchange is [collaboratively edited](https://stackoverflow.com/faq#editing), and that the original poster's intent does not outweigh the greater good.
Bringing it to the attention of the greater community is *A Good Thing*, but you can't fight and win every internet battle: if a user is so adamant about not accepting community input to the point where it's disruptive, flag it for a moderator so they can weigh in on it and move on. | I was the OP of the SO question being debated here and I'm sorry for creating such a hubbub.
I'd like to point out that I made the first rollback with a note attached explaining my reasons -- as well as the second (because I was feeling chuffed) but the flurry of edits that followed came from 2 unrelated users, not me.
I chose the original title because it was entertaining (to me at least) and eye catching but also because it was accurate. I had no idea what I had done to the fact table after cancelling the update. "I accidentally a whole fact table" was exactly the state I was in at the time. I knew I had done something to the fact table and it was accidental but I couldn't say exactly what it was that I had done.
I understand the concerns of the community to provide clear questions and answers. I felt like the content of the post was serious and valuable enough that a bit of levity would be overlooked. I obviously under-estimated the will of the editors.
Anyway, my concern now is that the question as written "Corrupted database table with invalid query: what has it done and will it roll back?" is actually incorrect. The table wasn't corrupted. I'd not have a problem, for the sake of peace, to see it changed to a more accurate: "Invalid Update Statement: What has it done and will it roll back?" if anyone with the authority cares enough to make the change.
Lastly, I find the furor over this to be disheartening. I'm not here to cause trouble, I've been a member since the whole thing started and have preached the value of the site to everyone who's ever come to me with a question. While I take my work quite seriously, I think it's fun, fascinating and quite often funny. I have worked with the guys who never smile at work. "The Glower" and "The Sigh" are the only 2 expressions they own and you know what? They crush they enthusiasm out of a team. Using words like "Vandal" and "Troll" to describe a little levity and letting that sort of attitude pervade the spirit of the site is the short road to ending up like ExpertsExchange. |
95,598 | I innocently edited the title of the question, [I accidentally a whole fact table](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6364780/i-accidentally-a-whole-fact-table). Apparently, this kind of grammar with no verb is [an internet meme](http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-accidentally). Because I was not familiar with said meme (which I do find funny and will probably use elsewhere), it suckered me and at least two others into [revising it](https://stackoverflow.com/posts/6364780/revisions).
When I edit a post, I spend my own valuable time to contribute to the quality of the site, with no other compensation than the fact that I am indefinably helping somehow (and, I suppose, serving the complaining OCD voices in my head that don't like to see poor grammar).
Anyway, while the title may be humorous, I'm not so sure it's the best kind of humor to have here, given how it's going to keep sucking people in to try to edit the question.
I also don't think locking the question is the right answer, either, because this won't prevent people from visiting the question to *try* to fix it.
What do you think? | 2011/06/18 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/95598",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/142684/"
] | The title should be edited correctly and the post locked. The users involved should at least be looked at closely. While perhaps not intended as such, it's just internet vandalism and isn't really what this site is about. | Found some relevant discussions:
* [Stack Overflow: Where We Hate Fun](https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/01/stack-overflow-where-we-hate-fun/) - Jeff basically says *some* fun will be tolerated, as long as it's not disruptive. But **no** smiling.
* [Joke Questions: Please Refrain](https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/04/joke-questions-please-refrain/) - more problematic than just a joke in the title, but the issues are related
* [Should April Fools' Day questions be only asked on Meta?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/45248/should-april-fools-day-questions-be-only-asked-on-meta)
* [Why was the "How to launch a missile" question deleted?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/47929/why-was-the-how-to-launch-a-missile-question-deleted)
Personally I think if the question *body* had started with "I accidentally my whole table" it would've been just fine. And then if someone then commented "Sounds dangerous" that'd be fine to. But question titles are much more visible. In many cases they'll be people's first introduction to the site as they find questions through Google, so it's important that they are clear and accurate. In any case, getting into an edit war over any of these is just silly.
**Edit**: TheTXI makes a good point in [Should 'Hi', 'thanks', taglines, and salutations be removed from posts?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2950/should-hi-thanks-and-taglines-and-salutations-be-removed-from-posts/3021#3021). *Starting* with a joke uses up space in the question preview, making it a little harder for people to tell what it's about. I'm not sure that means you *can't* start with a joke, but it's worth considering. Even better would be to *end* the question with "I can't believe I accidentally the whole thing!". |
95,598 | I innocently edited the title of the question, [I accidentally a whole fact table](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6364780/i-accidentally-a-whole-fact-table). Apparently, this kind of grammar with no verb is [an internet meme](http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-accidentally). Because I was not familiar with said meme (which I do find funny and will probably use elsewhere), it suckered me and at least two others into [revising it](https://stackoverflow.com/posts/6364780/revisions).
When I edit a post, I spend my own valuable time to contribute to the quality of the site, with no other compensation than the fact that I am indefinably helping somehow (and, I suppose, serving the complaining OCD voices in my head that don't like to see poor grammar).
Anyway, while the title may be humorous, I'm not so sure it's the best kind of humor to have here, given how it's going to keep sucking people in to try to edit the question.
I also don't think locking the question is the right answer, either, because this won't prevent people from visiting the question to *try* to fix it.
What do you think? | 2011/06/18 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/95598",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/142684/"
] | The title should be edited correctly and the post locked. The users involved should at least be looked at closely. While perhaps not intended as such, it's just internet vandalism and isn't really what this site is about. | I was the OP of the SO question being debated here and I'm sorry for creating such a hubbub.
I'd like to point out that I made the first rollback with a note attached explaining my reasons -- as well as the second (because I was feeling chuffed) but the flurry of edits that followed came from 2 unrelated users, not me.
I chose the original title because it was entertaining (to me at least) and eye catching but also because it was accurate. I had no idea what I had done to the fact table after cancelling the update. "I accidentally a whole fact table" was exactly the state I was in at the time. I knew I had done something to the fact table and it was accidental but I couldn't say exactly what it was that I had done.
I understand the concerns of the community to provide clear questions and answers. I felt like the content of the post was serious and valuable enough that a bit of levity would be overlooked. I obviously under-estimated the will of the editors.
Anyway, my concern now is that the question as written "Corrupted database table with invalid query: what has it done and will it roll back?" is actually incorrect. The table wasn't corrupted. I'd not have a problem, for the sake of peace, to see it changed to a more accurate: "Invalid Update Statement: What has it done and will it roll back?" if anyone with the authority cares enough to make the change.
Lastly, I find the furor over this to be disheartening. I'm not here to cause trouble, I've been a member since the whole thing started and have preached the value of the site to everyone who's ever come to me with a question. While I take my work quite seriously, I think it's fun, fascinating and quite often funny. I have worked with the guys who never smile at work. "The Glower" and "The Sigh" are the only 2 expressions they own and you know what? They crush they enthusiasm out of a team. Using words like "Vandal" and "Troll" to describe a little levity and letting that sort of attitude pervade the spirit of the site is the short road to ending up like ExpertsExchange. |
82,661 | Hello,
I'd like to hear your opinion for ergodic theory books which would suit a beginner (with background in measure theory, real analysis and topological groups). I am looking for something well structured, well motivated, and perhaps with application to other fields.
any such book exists?
I tried a book by nadkarni, and could not read through it, seemed to concise to me, and tried the book by Petersen which I felt was accessible but didn't follow a clear path, jumping from subject to subject with lots of different object or properties.
What are your recommendations on the subject? | 2011/12/05 | [
"https://mathoverflow.net/questions/82661",
"https://mathoverflow.net",
"https://mathoverflow.net/users/14105/"
] | I really like (and recommend) Billingsley's *Ergodic Theory and Information*. It is a well-written book with very clear explanations. For example, his treatment of entropy tops those in both Walter's *An Introduction to Ergodic Theory* and Petersen's *Ergodic Theory*, both of which are also good books though. | I have learned topological dynamics from this [textbook](http://www.cts.cuni.cz/~kurka/studij.html). |
82,661 | Hello,
I'd like to hear your opinion for ergodic theory books which would suit a beginner (with background in measure theory, real analysis and topological groups). I am looking for something well structured, well motivated, and perhaps with application to other fields.
any such book exists?
I tried a book by nadkarni, and could not read through it, seemed to concise to me, and tried the book by Petersen which I felt was accessible but didn't follow a clear path, jumping from subject to subject with lots of different object or properties.
What are your recommendations on the subject? | 2011/12/05 | [
"https://mathoverflow.net/questions/82661",
"https://mathoverflow.net",
"https://mathoverflow.net/users/14105/"
] | What about the following?
Sinai, Ya. G.
Introduction to ergodic theory.
Translated by V. Scheffer. Mathematical Notes, 18. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1976. 144 pp. ISBN: 0-691-08182-4
This seems to have the highest content-to-volume ratio. It treats, among others, invariant measures, translations on compact abelian groups, geodesic flows on Riemannian manifolds; it gives applications to number theory and discusses ergodic theory of ideal gas (as applications to "other fields" that you may be interested in). Two chapters deal with entropy.
The proofs are not always carried out in full detail, though. | I have learned topological dynamics from this [textbook](http://www.cts.cuni.cz/~kurka/studij.html). |
82,661 | Hello,
I'd like to hear your opinion for ergodic theory books which would suit a beginner (with background in measure theory, real analysis and topological groups). I am looking for something well structured, well motivated, and perhaps with application to other fields.
any such book exists?
I tried a book by nadkarni, and could not read through it, seemed to concise to me, and tried the book by Petersen which I felt was accessible but didn't follow a clear path, jumping from subject to subject with lots of different object or properties.
What are your recommendations on the subject? | 2011/12/05 | [
"https://mathoverflow.net/questions/82661",
"https://mathoverflow.net",
"https://mathoverflow.net/users/14105/"
] | I really like (and recommend) Billingsley's *Ergodic Theory and Information*. It is a well-written book with very clear explanations. For example, his treatment of entropy tops those in both Walter's *An Introduction to Ergodic Theory* and Petersen's *Ergodic Theory*, both of which are also good books though. | I recommend Foundations of Ergodic Theory by Marcelo Viana and Oliviera <https://books.google.it/books/about/Foundations_of_Ergodic_Theory.html?id=vlRyCwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false>
This book has almost everything explained. |
82,661 | Hello,
I'd like to hear your opinion for ergodic theory books which would suit a beginner (with background in measure theory, real analysis and topological groups). I am looking for something well structured, well motivated, and perhaps with application to other fields.
any such book exists?
I tried a book by nadkarni, and could not read through it, seemed to concise to me, and tried the book by Petersen which I felt was accessible but didn't follow a clear path, jumping from subject to subject with lots of different object or properties.
What are your recommendations on the subject? | 2011/12/05 | [
"https://mathoverflow.net/questions/82661",
"https://mathoverflow.net",
"https://mathoverflow.net/users/14105/"
] | I really like (and recommend) Billingsley's *Ergodic Theory and Information*. It is a well-written book with very clear explanations. For example, his treatment of entropy tops those in both Walter's *An Introduction to Ergodic Theory* and Petersen's *Ergodic Theory*, both of which are also good books though. | Personally, I like Mañe's book Teoría Ergódica. I do think it's a classical book full of exercises. On the other hand the book has loads of mistakes, which makes it interesting to read, you realise that you are understanding everything when you spot the mistakes. As far as I know, both versions (English and Portuguese) are sold out. |
82,661 | Hello,
I'd like to hear your opinion for ergodic theory books which would suit a beginner (with background in measure theory, real analysis and topological groups). I am looking for something well structured, well motivated, and perhaps with application to other fields.
any such book exists?
I tried a book by nadkarni, and could not read through it, seemed to concise to me, and tried the book by Petersen which I felt was accessible but didn't follow a clear path, jumping from subject to subject with lots of different object or properties.
What are your recommendations on the subject? | 2011/12/05 | [
"https://mathoverflow.net/questions/82661",
"https://mathoverflow.net",
"https://mathoverflow.net/users/14105/"
] | For me the standard text is Peter Walters, "[An Introduction to Ergodic Theory](http://books.google.ca/books?id=eCoufOp7ONMC&lpg=PP1&dq=peter%2520walters%2520ergodic%2520theory&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false)", Springer Graduate Texts in Mathematics. | Personally, I like Mañe's book Teoría Ergódica. I do think it's a classical book full of exercises. On the other hand the book has loads of mistakes, which makes it interesting to read, you realise that you are understanding everything when you spot the mistakes. As far as I know, both versions (English and Portuguese) are sold out. |
82,661 | Hello,
I'd like to hear your opinion for ergodic theory books which would suit a beginner (with background in measure theory, real analysis and topological groups). I am looking for something well structured, well motivated, and perhaps with application to other fields.
any such book exists?
I tried a book by nadkarni, and could not read through it, seemed to concise to me, and tried the book by Petersen which I felt was accessible but didn't follow a clear path, jumping from subject to subject with lots of different object or properties.
What are your recommendations on the subject? | 2011/12/05 | [
"https://mathoverflow.net/questions/82661",
"https://mathoverflow.net",
"https://mathoverflow.net/users/14105/"
] | I think another good choice is the book "Ergodic Theory: With a View Towards Number Theory" by Manfred Einsiedler and Thomas Ward,Graduate Texts in Mathematics 259.Besides basic concepts of ergodic theory,the book also discusses the connection between ergodic theory and number theory,which is a hot topic recently.And a forthcoming second volume will discuss about entropy,drafts of the book can be found on the homepage of Thomas Ward (<https://tbward0.wixsite.com/books>). | I have learned topological dynamics from this [textbook](http://www.cts.cuni.cz/~kurka/studij.html). |
82,661 | Hello,
I'd like to hear your opinion for ergodic theory books which would suit a beginner (with background in measure theory, real analysis and topological groups). I am looking for something well structured, well motivated, and perhaps with application to other fields.
any such book exists?
I tried a book by nadkarni, and could not read through it, seemed to concise to me, and tried the book by Petersen which I felt was accessible but didn't follow a clear path, jumping from subject to subject with lots of different object or properties.
What are your recommendations on the subject? | 2011/12/05 | [
"https://mathoverflow.net/questions/82661",
"https://mathoverflow.net",
"https://mathoverflow.net/users/14105/"
] | I think another good choice is the book "Ergodic Theory: With a View Towards Number Theory" by Manfred Einsiedler and Thomas Ward,Graduate Texts in Mathematics 259.Besides basic concepts of ergodic theory,the book also discusses the connection between ergodic theory and number theory,which is a hot topic recently.And a forthcoming second volume will discuss about entropy,drafts of the book can be found on the homepage of Thomas Ward (<https://tbward0.wixsite.com/books>). | Personally, I like Mañe's book Teoría Ergódica. I do think it's a classical book full of exercises. On the other hand the book has loads of mistakes, which makes it interesting to read, you realise that you are understanding everything when you spot the mistakes. As far as I know, both versions (English and Portuguese) are sold out. |
82,661 | Hello,
I'd like to hear your opinion for ergodic theory books which would suit a beginner (with background in measure theory, real analysis and topological groups). I am looking for something well structured, well motivated, and perhaps with application to other fields.
any such book exists?
I tried a book by nadkarni, and could not read through it, seemed to concise to me, and tried the book by Petersen which I felt was accessible but didn't follow a clear path, jumping from subject to subject with lots of different object or properties.
What are your recommendations on the subject? | 2011/12/05 | [
"https://mathoverflow.net/questions/82661",
"https://mathoverflow.net",
"https://mathoverflow.net/users/14105/"
] | I second Siming Tu's recommendation for E-W book.
It is a well balanced book (regarding theory vs applications), it has nice appendix contains relevant theory from functional analysis, and it contains a nice selection of subjects (although not addressing entropy, which one might say is a very big problem).
I think that overall, Petersen's book is good as well, maybe not as streamlined as one might expect, but still very through.
So apart from this, which are "standard references", and maybe also Walters' book (which is kind of dated, and the last chapters are biased towards entropy theory of continuous maps over compact spaces), there are few references which are good for specific subjects and maybe not as a whole standard reference book.
Dan Rudolph have a very nice book called - "Fundamentals of Measurable Dynamics: Ergodic Theory on Lebesgue Spaces", it is one of the most accurate books in the technical level (Lebesgue spaces, ergodic decomposition), plus it have nice treatments of the theory of joinings and entropy. He also actually proves Ornstein's theorem, kind of a rare thing.
Another nice option is the classic book by Furstenberg - "Recurrence in ergodic theory and combinatorial number theory" (Princeton).
It is an extremely suitable book for students I think (because Furstenberg is a great teacher and lecturer), and it shows part of the motivations towards the modern development of ergodic theory, and it shows also topics in topological dynamics, which other books omit.
Nevertheless, it does not as extensive as E-W or Petersen on the ergodic theoretic part, but it definitely worth your time after you got the hang of the basics.
The last option I have in mind is Shmuel (Eli) Glasner's book - "Ergodic Theory via Joinings" (AMS).
This is a very extensive book, but it is kind of deep, and in my opinion, doesn't suitable fro students (although he for example discuss the general notion of ergodic group action, besides Z or R actions). | Let me suggest you a recent book by Steve Kalikow and Randall McCutcheon:
"An Outline of Ergodic Theory". This is a nice book to get a solid background in isomorphism theory of measurable dynamical systems. I like the way proofs of theorems are presented through guided exercises. |
82,661 | Hello,
I'd like to hear your opinion for ergodic theory books which would suit a beginner (with background in measure theory, real analysis and topological groups). I am looking for something well structured, well motivated, and perhaps with application to other fields.
any such book exists?
I tried a book by nadkarni, and could not read through it, seemed to concise to me, and tried the book by Petersen which I felt was accessible but didn't follow a clear path, jumping from subject to subject with lots of different object or properties.
What are your recommendations on the subject? | 2011/12/05 | [
"https://mathoverflow.net/questions/82661",
"https://mathoverflow.net",
"https://mathoverflow.net/users/14105/"
] | I really like (and recommend) Billingsley's *Ergodic Theory and Information*. It is a well-written book with very clear explanations. For example, his treatment of entropy tops those in both Walter's *An Introduction to Ergodic Theory* and Petersen's *Ergodic Theory*, both of which are also good books though. | I'd recommend "Introduction to Ergodic Theory" by Nathanial A. Friedman. The book is reasonably concrete and short and treats the important "cutting and stacking" constructions in detail. This only will help you with the measurable setting and is an older book, though. |
82,661 | Hello,
I'd like to hear your opinion for ergodic theory books which would suit a beginner (with background in measure theory, real analysis and topological groups). I am looking for something well structured, well motivated, and perhaps with application to other fields.
any such book exists?
I tried a book by nadkarni, and could not read through it, seemed to concise to me, and tried the book by Petersen which I felt was accessible but didn't follow a clear path, jumping from subject to subject with lots of different object or properties.
What are your recommendations on the subject? | 2011/12/05 | [
"https://mathoverflow.net/questions/82661",
"https://mathoverflow.net",
"https://mathoverflow.net/users/14105/"
] | I think another good choice is the book "Ergodic Theory: With a View Towards Number Theory" by Manfred Einsiedler and Thomas Ward,Graduate Texts in Mathematics 259.Besides basic concepts of ergodic theory,the book also discusses the connection between ergodic theory and number theory,which is a hot topic recently.And a forthcoming second volume will discuss about entropy,drafts of the book can be found on the homepage of Thomas Ward (<https://tbward0.wixsite.com/books>). | I really like (and recommend) Billingsley's *Ergodic Theory and Information*. It is a well-written book with very clear explanations. For example, his treatment of entropy tops those in both Walter's *An Introduction to Ergodic Theory* and Petersen's *Ergodic Theory*, both of which are also good books though. |
417,635 | I have a Philips 222E display connected via a mini-DP to DVI adapter and DVI cable to a Macbook Air (mid-2011).
Every time that the MBA wakes from sleep, the display shows this static:
The static is replaced with the proper desktop image after around 20 seconds, or after a power cycling the display (which could take only 10 seconds but is highly annoying just the same.)
Things I tried and their results:
1. A different display (LG) - no static
2. A different computer (Mac Mini) - no static
3. Different adapter and DVI cable - static remains
4. When booting the MBA (not rebooting) - no static
5. When disconnecting and reconnecting the 222E to the MBA - no static | 2012/04/27 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/417635",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/32448/"
] | I've been investigating a little bit and would be good for you guys have a try with this steps. The steps are written for a different type of Display, but can get the idea:
>
> * Under "SIZE & POSITION" menu, go to "Image Size" and set to "Screen Fit"
> * Under "SETUP & RESET" menu (down on the second page with my model), go to "Auto Source" and set to "Manual"
> * Finally,still under the same "SETUP & RESET" menu page, go to "PC/AV Mode" and set to "AV"
>
>
> Bingo! Now when the computer wakes up from sleep, the screens are
> going back on like a charm!
>
>
>
Here's the source:
<https://discussions.apple.com/message/13221480#13221480> | I had similar issues (exactly the same static problems) with a device that did not support HDCP negotiation ([High Bandwidth Digital Content Protection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-bandwidth_Digital_Content_Protection)) properly whenever I woke the device up from standby (in my case a Sky+/BenQ monitor combination).
So what's the cause of static? As per this site (though I copy only for the HDCP explanation I appreciate it's not relevant to your devices):
>
> If HDCP is not detected
>
>
> If HDCP authentication does not succeed, you may see one of the following symptoms:
>
>
> * A message may appear on your television stating "This content requires HDCP for playback. HDCP isn't supported by your HDMI connection."
> * You may see periodic bands of static, or full screen static, flashing across your TV screen.
>
>
>
<https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201310>
I think when you resume from sleep it doesn't do a full HDCP negotiation again.. but power-cycling the display forces it to.
HDCP can be fraught with all sorts of weird incompatibility issues:
>
> Anyway, the new TV apparently keeps the HDMI connection active when it's powered off; but, it doesn't keep the HDCP handshake active. So, TiVo sees that as a bad HDMI connection, and refuses to show any video signal except for an HDMI error; this shows up on the TV that's connected by component cables. I can get video over component if I turn the TV on or if I unplug the main TV so that the HDMI connection is not at all active, but in the main TV's power-off mode all I get over component is the HDMI warning message.
>
>
>
<http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-lcd-flat-panel-displays/1432643-hdcp-hdmi-power-standby-mode-suggestions.html>
It's hard to say which is not following HDCP negotiation properly, but it sounds like either Apple or the monitor manufacturer need to update their HDCP software (check the Philips site for a software/firmware upgrade at least?) to be more compatible with eachother and sometimes the adapters can complicate things too so try to stick with the ports the device expects to see the connections on :-).
There are HDCP strippers that will fake HDCP authentication so you can then plug into devices that may not support it correctly, but I'm not sure whether it's appropriate to discuss these on this site. |
188 | I see a lot of blogs that seem to have really cluttered sidebars, with a ton of additional widgets, navigation, etc, that I never find myself using. What are some tips for things that make good additions to the sidebar, and some things that are unnecessary?
One example that springs to mind are Tag Clouds. I see these everywhere, but how often to people actually use them? | 2010/08/10 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/188",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/72/"
] | Maybe it's just me, but I *like* when a blog has a tag cloud. It lets me see at a glance what kinds of things the author talks about, and gives me a really easy way to browse the content that I'm interested in. I also like the archive links, if I've just discovered a blog that's been around for a while and I want to go back to the beginning and get caught up.
I agree, though, that a lot of extra widgets in a sidebar make me not want to visit certain sites that I may otherwise frequent. All of those things have to load and initialize, and that takes time and resources I'd rather not spend. | If you think of sidebars in the case of blogs, it's a good guess the majority are set up by people who are not strong on UI, UX or usability. Often, they want everything they are linking to visible all the time or they simply do not know how to add context to their sidebar implementation.
With a platform like Wordpress for example, there are now plugins which will help you contextualize your widgets and customize them right down to the page/post level.
Overall, many sites now implement a global navigation horizontally in the header and then more granular navigation in the sidebar. My own preference is for sidebars to be contextually sensitive. It's generally not helpful when a user has drilled down from a homepage, to the specific post, or even lands directly on the post, to have the main content littered with mostly irrelevant meta data or secondary content.
Ideally, if the site is well-designed and a user is interested in exploring, the information scent presented in the global navigation (even if that appears persistently in a sidebar widget), then they'll discover the other information where it's contextually relevant.
Usually free-for-all over-widgetized sidebars are useless and some of the heat map types of applications will often show that a lot of that stuff will not get clicked much. |
188 | I see a lot of blogs that seem to have really cluttered sidebars, with a ton of additional widgets, navigation, etc, that I never find myself using. What are some tips for things that make good additions to the sidebar, and some things that are unnecessary?
One example that springs to mind are Tag Clouds. I see these everywhere, but how often to people actually use them? | 2010/08/10 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/188",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/72/"
] | Maybe it's just me, but I *like* when a blog has a tag cloud. It lets me see at a glance what kinds of things the author talks about, and gives me a really easy way to browse the content that I'm interested in. I also like the archive links, if I've just discovered a blog that's been around for a while and I want to go back to the beginning and get caught up.
I agree, though, that a lot of extra widgets in a sidebar make me not want to visit certain sites that I may otherwise frequent. All of those things have to load and initialize, and that takes time and resources I'd rather not spend. | I'd say that the cleaner the side bar is - the better.
My personal preference is to have there some info about the blog or the blogger, plus maybe a blog roll, which most people expect in the side bar.
I think tag clouds are usually useless and I'll explain:
* The context is too wide (the whole blog). It's much more effective to use the tags in each post to follow through to the topics that interest you.
* Often the most prominent word is the topic of the blog and since it appears on almost all the posts, it becomes redundant.
* Sometimes tags are abused for SEO purposes, so some might have weak connections to the actual content. |
188 | I see a lot of blogs that seem to have really cluttered sidebars, with a ton of additional widgets, navigation, etc, that I never find myself using. What are some tips for things that make good additions to the sidebar, and some things that are unnecessary?
One example that springs to mind are Tag Clouds. I see these everywhere, but how often to people actually use them? | 2010/08/10 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/188",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/72/"
] | I never use the tags cloud. Vote up if you do not use them as well ;-) | Maybe it's just me, but I *like* when a blog has a tag cloud. It lets me see at a glance what kinds of things the author talks about, and gives me a really easy way to browse the content that I'm interested in. I also like the archive links, if I've just discovered a blog that's been around for a while and I want to go back to the beginning and get caught up.
I agree, though, that a lot of extra widgets in a sidebar make me not want to visit certain sites that I may otherwise frequent. All of those things have to load and initialize, and that takes time and resources I'd rather not spend. |
188 | I see a lot of blogs that seem to have really cluttered sidebars, with a ton of additional widgets, navigation, etc, that I never find myself using. What are some tips for things that make good additions to the sidebar, and some things that are unnecessary?
One example that springs to mind are Tag Clouds. I see these everywhere, but how often to people actually use them? | 2010/08/10 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/188",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/72/"
] | Be careful about what you put in the sidebar. Most often people just throw stuff in there that they are used to seeing. Drop the archive links (who browses by date?), especially if it's a calendar, drop the tag cloud, etc.
Put things that people are likely to click on, a list of recent posts, if they liked your post, they will probably want more like it (a list of related posts is even better, but usually put below the post). A search box (if it's not already somewhere else) is necessary. Then give people options for being notified of new posts from you, an RSS feed, an email subscription box, etc.
You can also put links to other things you do that people visiting your blog might be interested in (other blogs, link to communities you participate in, etc.).
Usually, just thinking about what *you* really use in a sidebar is enough to know if a widget makes sense. | If you think of sidebars in the case of blogs, it's a good guess the majority are set up by people who are not strong on UI, UX or usability. Often, they want everything they are linking to visible all the time or they simply do not know how to add context to their sidebar implementation.
With a platform like Wordpress for example, there are now plugins which will help you contextualize your widgets and customize them right down to the page/post level.
Overall, many sites now implement a global navigation horizontally in the header and then more granular navigation in the sidebar. My own preference is for sidebars to be contextually sensitive. It's generally not helpful when a user has drilled down from a homepage, to the specific post, or even lands directly on the post, to have the main content littered with mostly irrelevant meta data or secondary content.
Ideally, if the site is well-designed and a user is interested in exploring, the information scent presented in the global navigation (even if that appears persistently in a sidebar widget), then they'll discover the other information where it's contextually relevant.
Usually free-for-all over-widgetized sidebars are useless and some of the heat map types of applications will often show that a lot of that stuff will not get clicked much. |
188 | I see a lot of blogs that seem to have really cluttered sidebars, with a ton of additional widgets, navigation, etc, that I never find myself using. What are some tips for things that make good additions to the sidebar, and some things that are unnecessary?
One example that springs to mind are Tag Clouds. I see these everywhere, but how often to people actually use them? | 2010/08/10 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/188",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/72/"
] | +1 to the points about making it context sensitive.
+1 to the idea that tag clouds are a bad idea - they just aren't very meaningful.
A further point is to avoid using graphical banners, as many users confuse these with ads and will reflexively avoid them. | If you think of sidebars in the case of blogs, it's a good guess the majority are set up by people who are not strong on UI, UX or usability. Often, they want everything they are linking to visible all the time or they simply do not know how to add context to their sidebar implementation.
With a platform like Wordpress for example, there are now plugins which will help you contextualize your widgets and customize them right down to the page/post level.
Overall, many sites now implement a global navigation horizontally in the header and then more granular navigation in the sidebar. My own preference is for sidebars to be contextually sensitive. It's generally not helpful when a user has drilled down from a homepage, to the specific post, or even lands directly on the post, to have the main content littered with mostly irrelevant meta data or secondary content.
Ideally, if the site is well-designed and a user is interested in exploring, the information scent presented in the global navigation (even if that appears persistently in a sidebar widget), then they'll discover the other information where it's contextually relevant.
Usually free-for-all over-widgetized sidebars are useless and some of the heat map types of applications will often show that a lot of that stuff will not get clicked much. |
188 | I see a lot of blogs that seem to have really cluttered sidebars, with a ton of additional widgets, navigation, etc, that I never find myself using. What are some tips for things that make good additions to the sidebar, and some things that are unnecessary?
One example that springs to mind are Tag Clouds. I see these everywhere, but how often to people actually use them? | 2010/08/10 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/188",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/72/"
] | Sidebars are great! you just have to use the right widgets.
I use sidebars for sub navigation, or to promote certain pages on a site, or to promote an activity (like register here, or buy now).
Many people use ready made templates and don't know how to setup the sidebar widgets, but those who do get a lot of use out of them. | Avoid using chat boxes on the sidebar of your blogs. An example is the Cbox, etc. This will only take away comments on your blog posts and is a magnet for spam messages. |
188 | I see a lot of blogs that seem to have really cluttered sidebars, with a ton of additional widgets, navigation, etc, that I never find myself using. What are some tips for things that make good additions to the sidebar, and some things that are unnecessary?
One example that springs to mind are Tag Clouds. I see these everywhere, but how often to people actually use them? | 2010/08/10 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/188",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/72/"
] | Sidebars are great! you just have to use the right widgets.
I use sidebars for sub navigation, or to promote certain pages on a site, or to promote an activity (like register here, or buy now).
Many people use ready made templates and don't know how to setup the sidebar widgets, but those who do get a lot of use out of them. | +1 to the points about making it context sensitive.
+1 to the idea that tag clouds are a bad idea - they just aren't very meaningful.
A further point is to avoid using graphical banners, as many users confuse these with ads and will reflexively avoid them. |
188 | I see a lot of blogs that seem to have really cluttered sidebars, with a ton of additional widgets, navigation, etc, that I never find myself using. What are some tips for things that make good additions to the sidebar, and some things that are unnecessary?
One example that springs to mind are Tag Clouds. I see these everywhere, but how often to people actually use them? | 2010/08/10 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/188",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/72/"
] | I never use the tags cloud. Vote up if you do not use them as well ;-) | I'd say that the cleaner the side bar is - the better.
My personal preference is to have there some info about the blog or the blogger, plus maybe a blog roll, which most people expect in the side bar.
I think tag clouds are usually useless and I'll explain:
* The context is too wide (the whole blog). It's much more effective to use the tags in each post to follow through to the topics that interest you.
* Often the most prominent word is the topic of the blog and since it appears on almost all the posts, it becomes redundant.
* Sometimes tags are abused for SEO purposes, so some might have weak connections to the actual content. |
188 | I see a lot of blogs that seem to have really cluttered sidebars, with a ton of additional widgets, navigation, etc, that I never find myself using. What are some tips for things that make good additions to the sidebar, and some things that are unnecessary?
One example that springs to mind are Tag Clouds. I see these everywhere, but how often to people actually use them? | 2010/08/10 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/188",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/72/"
] | Be careful about what you put in the sidebar. Most often people just throw stuff in there that they are used to seeing. Drop the archive links (who browses by date?), especially if it's a calendar, drop the tag cloud, etc.
Put things that people are likely to click on, a list of recent posts, if they liked your post, they will probably want more like it (a list of related posts is even better, but usually put below the post). A search box (if it's not already somewhere else) is necessary. Then give people options for being notified of new posts from you, an RSS feed, an email subscription box, etc.
You can also put links to other things you do that people visiting your blog might be interested in (other blogs, link to communities you participate in, etc.).
Usually, just thinking about what *you* really use in a sidebar is enough to know if a widget makes sense. | I'd say that the cleaner the side bar is - the better.
My personal preference is to have there some info about the blog or the blogger, plus maybe a blog roll, which most people expect in the side bar.
I think tag clouds are usually useless and I'll explain:
* The context is too wide (the whole blog). It's much more effective to use the tags in each post to follow through to the topics that interest you.
* Often the most prominent word is the topic of the blog and since it appears on almost all the posts, it becomes redundant.
* Sometimes tags are abused for SEO purposes, so some might have weak connections to the actual content. |
188 | I see a lot of blogs that seem to have really cluttered sidebars, with a ton of additional widgets, navigation, etc, that I never find myself using. What are some tips for things that make good additions to the sidebar, and some things that are unnecessary?
One example that springs to mind are Tag Clouds. I see these everywhere, but how often to people actually use them? | 2010/08/10 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/188",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/72/"
] | I never use the tags cloud. Vote up if you do not use them as well ;-) | +1 to the points about making it context sensitive.
+1 to the idea that tag clouds are a bad idea - they just aren't very meaningful.
A further point is to avoid using graphical banners, as many users confuse these with ads and will reflexively avoid them. |
3,984 | The author of [this answer](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/72101/why-was-the-dispatch-reliability-of-the-a320-low-during-its-first-years/72108#72108) wrote "despatch" instead of "dispatch" several times, which is (being a non-native English speaker myself) an understandable mistake. It was corrected in an edit by [ymb1](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/14897/ymb1).
The author then undid this correction (not by rolling back, but by editing every instance of "dispatch" back to "despatch"). I rolled this change back and left the following comment:
>
> Please don't undo the spelling corrections. It is spelled [dispatch](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/dispatch), not despatch.
>
>
>
Unfortunately, the author repeated the previous editing back to "despatch" without replying to the comment.
**What can we do to prevent such intentional harming of answers?**
Of course I could roll back again, but this would just start an endless cycle. | 2019/12/01 | [
"https://aviation.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3984",
"https://aviation.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.meta.stackexchange.com/users/33692/"
] | When I made the edit I didn't realize (until *now*) that [despatch](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/despatch) is an alternative spelling.
So in this case, let it go.
In other cases, where there would be a wrong spelling, I have no idea! I couldn't find an answer on MSE.
---
Side note: [tags are to be in American English](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/23873), and the tag is already [dispatch](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/dispatch "show questions tagged 'dispatch'") :) | No comment on the right/wrong spelling, but to avoid a continual edit war flag the answer for mod attention with a custom message describing the problem, and if need be, we will lock the answer to stop further edits. |
14,898 | I am a Dutch citizen moving from the United Kingdom to Germany. I have received a conditional employment offer. My next employer has asked me to submit my *Lohnsteuerklasse und Steuer-Identifikationsnummer* (salary tax classification and tax identification number) at least one month prior to my start of employment. I understand that I can obtain those from *Finanzamt* (finance office), but apparently only after I have registered with the *Meldebehörde* (registration authority), for which I apparently need a *Wohnungsgeberbestätigung*. Is there any way I can get obtain the *Lohnsteuerklasse und Steuer-Identifikationsnummer* (at least) a month before my start of employment, without physically moving a month before I am due to start (which might mean being unemployed for a month)?
I suppose I would need to rent a place to get a *Wohnungsgeberbestätigung*, but signing a lease in order to register more than a month before I move without actually moving would be costly (double rent), and I fear it may be considered fraudulent, too. Similarly fraudulent may be to temporarily register at my wifes *Zweitwohnung* (secondary residence) without ever planning to live there (and the landlord may be unwilling to provide a *Wohnungsgeberbestätigung* for two for an apartment so small it is only fit for one). Is there another way out of this catch? | 2018/10/22 | [
"https://expatriates.stackexchange.com/questions/14898",
"https://expatriates.stackexchange.com",
"https://expatriates.stackexchange.com/users/6/"
] | Your employer is making an unreasonable request. Either they have no idea how things are working in their country or they don't care.
The very first thing you need is an *Arbeitsvertrag*. You don't need a German tax registration or *Anmeldung* to get an *Arbeitsvertrag*.
Once you have an *Arbeitsvertrag* you can start to search for an appartment. While in theory it's not required, hardly anyone will want to show you the appartment if you have no solid job (except overpriced appartments, I speak from experience). People are not interested in short-time rental, they look for candidates with solid employment, and having a choice they will prefer those with stable employment over those with temporary jobs.
Then, having the rental agreement, you can arrange other formalities, like tax and social security registration, opening a bank account etc.
If you have no title for German tax residency (no citizenship, no residence, no job) I doubt you'll be able to register... even if theoretically possible, it would look so suspicious, you'd most likely (once again, speaking from my experience) have big problems arranging it. | Since there are, I believe, people living in neighbouring countries and working in Germany, you should probably be able to register with the Finanzamt using your UK address. |
77,839 | In Revelation 12:12, we have this passage “Therefore rejoice, you heavens and you who dwell in them!” Heavens is the universe, so who dwells in it? Could God create other intelligent beings in our cosmos?
Also in this passage “You have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host... The host of heaven worships You.” (Nehemiah 9:6 ESV) it seems again it talks about some other beings, not angels. | 2022/08/06 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/77839",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/51354/"
] | There are numerous references to other beings "in the heavens" or outside the earth as we know it such as:
* 1 Kings 22:19 - Micaiah continued, “Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on His throne, and **all the host of heaven** standing by Him on His right and on His left.
* Neh 9:6 - You alone are the LORD. You created the heavens, **the highest heavens with all their host**, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. You give life to all things, and the host of heaven worships You.
* Job 1:6, 2:1 - One day the **sons of God** came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them. ... On another day the **sons of God** came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satana also came with them to present himself before Him.
* Job 38:4, 7 - Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? ... while **the morning stars** sang together and all **the sons of God** shouted for joy?
* Ps 33:6 - By the word of the LORD **the heavens** were made, And **all the host of them** by the breath of His mouth.
* Isa 34:4 - All the **host of heaven** shall rot away, and the skies roll up like a scroll. All their host shall fall, as leaves fall from the vine, like leaves falling from the fig tree.
* Isa 45:12 - It is I who made the earth and created man upon it. It was My hands that stretched out **the heavens**, and I ordained **all their host**.
* Luke 2:13 - And suddenly there appeared with the angel a great **multitude of the heavenly host**, praising God and saying:
* Rev 12:12 - Therefore rejoice, O **heavens, and you who dwell in them**! But woe to the earth and the sea; with great fury the devil has come down to you, knowing he has only a short time.”
[Note: the word "host" in the OT is צָבָא (tsaba) and means "army, war", etc.]
Note that whoever these beings are that inhabit the heavens, they are called by various names such as:
* "host of heaven"
* "multitudes of heaven"
* "sons of God"
* "morning stars"
Such beings presumably include angels (cherubim and seraphim and others?) and possibly others whose identity, function and characteristics are never stated. The closest we get to a description of the throne room of heaven is in Rev 4 & 5 (presumably symbolic) where we have several classes of beings all praising God. [It appears that Satan came from among these heavenly creatures as hinted at in Isa 14:12-15, Luke 10:18, Rev 12:7-12.]
Further than this we cannot go. | In order to understand the "who", we need to look at the context to understand the "where".
First, let's look at the word "heaven(s)" in the original languages.
**Hebrew שָׁמַיִם *shamayim* ([Strong's H8064](https://biblehub.com/hebrew/8064.htm))**
Brown-Driver-Briggs defines it as:
* visible heavens, sky, where stars, etc., are
* rarely of angels
* before which fowl fly
* as abode of God
**Greek οὐρανός *ouranos* ([Strong's G3772](https://biblehub.com/greek/3772.htm))**
Thayer's Greek Lexicon defines it as:
* the vaulted expanse of the Sky with all the things visible in it
* "the region above the sidereal heavens, the seat of an order of things eternal and consummately perfect, where God dwells and the other heavenly beings" in [2 Corinthians 12:2](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_corinthians/12-2.htm)
The topic of "[Heaven](https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001949)" in the *Insight on the Scriptures* gives a fuller definition of the concept that corroborates with both BDB and Thayer.
Within the context of Revelation 12:12, this is the spiritual realm where Jehovah God, Michael the archangel, all the other angels (including Satan the Devil) are located. In vss 7-9, we see Satan being cast out of heaven and therefore those "who dwell in them" would be spiritual beings (Jehovah, Michael, angels) that are righteous and faithful.
Jeremiah 9:6 breaks down "heaven(s)" into different locations:
* "made heaven", most likely the physical sky
* "the heaven of heavens", the spiritual realm
At the end of the verse, "the host of heaven" seems to be somewhat ambiguous. Different translations have different wording:
* *the angels of heaven*; New Living Translation
* *the heavenly lights*; New American Standard Bible
* *the stars of heaven*; Christian Standard Bible
* *the companies of Heaven*; Aramaic Bible in Plain English
* *praised by the stars that fill the heavens*; Contemporary English Version
* *The heavenly powers*; Good News Translation
* *the army of heaven*; International Standard Version, New Heart English Bible, World English Bible
The Hebrew word צָבָא *tsaba* ([Strong's H6635](https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6635.htm)) is used which is defined as army, war, warfare. So Jeremiah is most likely speaking about angels worshipping Jehovah God. |
77,839 | In Revelation 12:12, we have this passage “Therefore rejoice, you heavens and you who dwell in them!” Heavens is the universe, so who dwells in it? Could God create other intelligent beings in our cosmos?
Also in this passage “You have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host... The host of heaven worships You.” (Nehemiah 9:6 ESV) it seems again it talks about some other beings, not angels. | 2022/08/06 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/77839",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/51354/"
] | In the OP, two verses are mentioned.
1. Revelation 12:12 - “Therefore rejoice, you heavens and you who dwell
in them!”
2. Nehemiah 9:6 - “You have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with
all their host... The host of heaven worships You.”
In both of these verses there is a link between heaven and its "inhabitants", and the OP asks about the nature of those inhabitants.
But I think there is a misunderstanding here. We should not necessarily assume that inhabitants means intelligent beings such as people or angels. That may be the case, but it's far more likely that we have here normal Hebraic language describing creation at large.
Consider Psalm 148 as an illustration. The opening verses say:
Praise the Lord from the heavens;
praise him in the heights above.
Praise him, all his angels;
praise him, all his heavenly hosts.
Praise him, sun and moon;
praise him, all you shining stars.
Praise him, you highest heavens
and you waters above the skies.
Now what does "heavenly hosts" mean in line 4? Well, it could mean "angels", given that Hebrew poetry often repeats an idea with different words. Or it could be some kind of host different from the angels. Or, it could refer to the sun and moon and stars that appear in the following lines. What we cannot do is limit this based on the fact that this host praises God. The whole point of this psalm is that all creation, from the furthest star to the nearest flower, everything worships God in its own way.
We see a similar idea in Isaiah 45:12:
It is I who made the earth
and created mankind on it.
My own hands stretched out the heavens;
I marshaled their starry hosts.
The parallelism shows God creating the heavens and the earth, and in both cases it is a two part creation. God makes the earth, and he makes people to fill the earth. Likewise, God creates the heavens and he makes "the starry host" to fill the heavens. In that context "starry host" is surely just a poetic way to talk about the stars. God has made the heavens and filled them with stars. Read this way, we are simply following the outline of Genesis 1, in which God creates the heavens and the earth (day 1-3), then fills them with all kinds of creatures (including sun, moon and stars).
Finally, Nehemiah 9:6 itself supports this view. In the OP only part of the verse was quoted. But when we read the whole verse, we see there is a context which suggests a different meaning:
You alone are the Lord.
You made the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host,
the earth and all that is on it,
the seas and all that is in them.
You give life to everything, and the multitudes of heaven worship you.
This is part of a thanksgiving prayer offered to the God who has made all things. Creation is described in three part language: heavens, earth, seas. And in each case, God has made both the framework of creation and the creatures that inhabit that framework. When the prayer describes "the seas and all that is in them", what are we talking about? Surely the list would include fish, whales, plankton, crabs, sea horses, dolphins, sea weed, coral, barnacles, ice bergs... So it will be with the heavens. "The host of heaven" includes the sun, the moon, the rings of Saturn, the comets, black holes, galaxies, you name it. It will also include angels and other intelligent life, if any. But that's not the point here. The prayer doesn't depend on us knowing the exact meaning of "hosts", because by definition everything is included.
Ultimately what we are doing here is applying a common sense approach to the natural literary meaning of the words used. | In order to understand the "who", we need to look at the context to understand the "where".
First, let's look at the word "heaven(s)" in the original languages.
**Hebrew שָׁמַיִם *shamayim* ([Strong's H8064](https://biblehub.com/hebrew/8064.htm))**
Brown-Driver-Briggs defines it as:
* visible heavens, sky, where stars, etc., are
* rarely of angels
* before which fowl fly
* as abode of God
**Greek οὐρανός *ouranos* ([Strong's G3772](https://biblehub.com/greek/3772.htm))**
Thayer's Greek Lexicon defines it as:
* the vaulted expanse of the Sky with all the things visible in it
* "the region above the sidereal heavens, the seat of an order of things eternal and consummately perfect, where God dwells and the other heavenly beings" in [2 Corinthians 12:2](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_corinthians/12-2.htm)
The topic of "[Heaven](https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001949)" in the *Insight on the Scriptures* gives a fuller definition of the concept that corroborates with both BDB and Thayer.
Within the context of Revelation 12:12, this is the spiritual realm where Jehovah God, Michael the archangel, all the other angels (including Satan the Devil) are located. In vss 7-9, we see Satan being cast out of heaven and therefore those "who dwell in them" would be spiritual beings (Jehovah, Michael, angels) that are righteous and faithful.
Jeremiah 9:6 breaks down "heaven(s)" into different locations:
* "made heaven", most likely the physical sky
* "the heaven of heavens", the spiritual realm
At the end of the verse, "the host of heaven" seems to be somewhat ambiguous. Different translations have different wording:
* *the angels of heaven*; New Living Translation
* *the heavenly lights*; New American Standard Bible
* *the stars of heaven*; Christian Standard Bible
* *the companies of Heaven*; Aramaic Bible in Plain English
* *praised by the stars that fill the heavens*; Contemporary English Version
* *The heavenly powers*; Good News Translation
* *the army of heaven*; International Standard Version, New Heart English Bible, World English Bible
The Hebrew word צָבָא *tsaba* ([Strong's H6635](https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6635.htm)) is used which is defined as army, war, warfare. So Jeremiah is most likely speaking about angels worshipping Jehovah God. |
77,839 | In Revelation 12:12, we have this passage “Therefore rejoice, you heavens and you who dwell in them!” Heavens is the universe, so who dwells in it? Could God create other intelligent beings in our cosmos?
Also in this passage “You have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host... The host of heaven worships You.” (Nehemiah 9:6 ESV) it seems again it talks about some other beings, not angels. | 2022/08/06 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/77839",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/51354/"
] | In the OP, two verses are mentioned.
1. Revelation 12:12 - “Therefore rejoice, you heavens and you who dwell
in them!”
2. Nehemiah 9:6 - “You have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with
all their host... The host of heaven worships You.”
In both of these verses there is a link between heaven and its "inhabitants", and the OP asks about the nature of those inhabitants.
But I think there is a misunderstanding here. We should not necessarily assume that inhabitants means intelligent beings such as people or angels. That may be the case, but it's far more likely that we have here normal Hebraic language describing creation at large.
Consider Psalm 148 as an illustration. The opening verses say:
Praise the Lord from the heavens;
praise him in the heights above.
Praise him, all his angels;
praise him, all his heavenly hosts.
Praise him, sun and moon;
praise him, all you shining stars.
Praise him, you highest heavens
and you waters above the skies.
Now what does "heavenly hosts" mean in line 4? Well, it could mean "angels", given that Hebrew poetry often repeats an idea with different words. Or it could be some kind of host different from the angels. Or, it could refer to the sun and moon and stars that appear in the following lines. What we cannot do is limit this based on the fact that this host praises God. The whole point of this psalm is that all creation, from the furthest star to the nearest flower, everything worships God in its own way.
We see a similar idea in Isaiah 45:12:
It is I who made the earth
and created mankind on it.
My own hands stretched out the heavens;
I marshaled their starry hosts.
The parallelism shows God creating the heavens and the earth, and in both cases it is a two part creation. God makes the earth, and he makes people to fill the earth. Likewise, God creates the heavens and he makes "the starry host" to fill the heavens. In that context "starry host" is surely just a poetic way to talk about the stars. God has made the heavens and filled them with stars. Read this way, we are simply following the outline of Genesis 1, in which God creates the heavens and the earth (day 1-3), then fills them with all kinds of creatures (including sun, moon and stars).
Finally, Nehemiah 9:6 itself supports this view. In the OP only part of the verse was quoted. But when we read the whole verse, we see there is a context which suggests a different meaning:
You alone are the Lord.
You made the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host,
the earth and all that is on it,
the seas and all that is in them.
You give life to everything, and the multitudes of heaven worship you.
This is part of a thanksgiving prayer offered to the God who has made all things. Creation is described in three part language: heavens, earth, seas. And in each case, God has made both the framework of creation and the creatures that inhabit that framework. When the prayer describes "the seas and all that is in them", what are we talking about? Surely the list would include fish, whales, plankton, crabs, sea horses, dolphins, sea weed, coral, barnacles, ice bergs... So it will be with the heavens. "The host of heaven" includes the sun, the moon, the rings of Saturn, the comets, black holes, galaxies, you name it. It will also include angels and other intelligent life, if any. But that's not the point here. The prayer doesn't depend on us knowing the exact meaning of "hosts", because by definition everything is included.
Ultimately what we are doing here is applying a common sense approach to the natural literary meaning of the words used. | There are numerous references to other beings "in the heavens" or outside the earth as we know it such as:
* 1 Kings 22:19 - Micaiah continued, “Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on His throne, and **all the host of heaven** standing by Him on His right and on His left.
* Neh 9:6 - You alone are the LORD. You created the heavens, **the highest heavens with all their host**, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. You give life to all things, and the host of heaven worships You.
* Job 1:6, 2:1 - One day the **sons of God** came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them. ... On another day the **sons of God** came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satana also came with them to present himself before Him.
* Job 38:4, 7 - Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? ... while **the morning stars** sang together and all **the sons of God** shouted for joy?
* Ps 33:6 - By the word of the LORD **the heavens** were made, And **all the host of them** by the breath of His mouth.
* Isa 34:4 - All the **host of heaven** shall rot away, and the skies roll up like a scroll. All their host shall fall, as leaves fall from the vine, like leaves falling from the fig tree.
* Isa 45:12 - It is I who made the earth and created man upon it. It was My hands that stretched out **the heavens**, and I ordained **all their host**.
* Luke 2:13 - And suddenly there appeared with the angel a great **multitude of the heavenly host**, praising God and saying:
* Rev 12:12 - Therefore rejoice, O **heavens, and you who dwell in them**! But woe to the earth and the sea; with great fury the devil has come down to you, knowing he has only a short time.”
[Note: the word "host" in the OT is צָבָא (tsaba) and means "army, war", etc.]
Note that whoever these beings are that inhabit the heavens, they are called by various names such as:
* "host of heaven"
* "multitudes of heaven"
* "sons of God"
* "morning stars"
Such beings presumably include angels (cherubim and seraphim and others?) and possibly others whose identity, function and characteristics are never stated. The closest we get to a description of the throne room of heaven is in Rev 4 & 5 (presumably symbolic) where we have several classes of beings all praising God. [It appears that Satan came from among these heavenly creatures as hinted at in Isa 14:12-15, Luke 10:18, Rev 12:7-12.]
Further than this we cannot go. |
150,024 | I recently joined this company and they have this tradition wherein *newcomers* must "perform" in the Year-end/Christmas party. It's going to be a short performance in the stage, most likely in-between breaks. I've talked with my seniors about this and they told me that they did a performance before too, even if they don't want to. The thing is;
* I'm an introvert
* I don't like to be in the spotlight where people (specially those who I don't know) watch/stare at me.
* I don't like doing things that I am not comfortable doing.
*What's even worse for me is that the performance must be a **'dance performance'**.* I can already imagine the cringe-worthy dance that I am forced to do.
I haven't talked with our HR regarding this as I don't know what to say. Also, I've been told by my seniors that they tried asking our HR(to not perform) before but they were told that it is required. I'm planning on taking a sick leave just to avoid performing during the party but it might seems suspicious and rude. How will I confront our HR regarding this? The Christmas party is approaching and this looks like an inescapable scenario for me.
UPDATE: Hi all! I've been browsing through your answers and suggestions and I just want to say that I appreciate all of it. From what I gathered, these two seem to came up a lot;
1. ***DON'T.***
I think this is the most straight forward and easiest way for me to solve this situation. I will politely talk to our HR and express how I feel about this and why I *don't* want to perform. I don't like to do something that I will possibly regret doing someday. I've seen some answers who had been in a similar situation and regret doing a performance. I feel sorry for you guys. This is what exactly I've been trying to avoid. And it made me think of how potentially scary the situation is especially in our time today, the digital age. Embarrassing videos spread quickly nowadays through social medias and other platforms.
2. ***OFFER AN ALTERNATIVE.***
This one I think is the plan B for me. Wherein I may not do exactly what they want me to do, but at least I'm showing that I'm willing to participate in the event. And I think this is the best way to go as it will show them that I'm socializing and cooperating in their tradition. A lot suggested interesting and creative ideas. I may have to look into it and do something that is easy and I feel comfortable doing. I'll just make it short and simple and be done with it.
I'll think about this and again, thank you all and have a great day! | 2019/12/18 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/150024",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/112115/"
] | >
> How do I tell our HR that I don't want to “perform” in our Christmas
> party?
>
>
>
Dear HR,
I will not dance in our Christmas party because I don't feel comfortable doing this. Thank you for your understanding.
Best regards,
donotexecuteorder66
---
If you don't want to do something, you don't have to do something. Nobody will blame you because of this. Just tell(write) your boss and HR(if needed) as soon as possible. Make it clear that you don't want to and you won't do. Of course be polite. If I right understood, you will attend party and.. it is enough already.
**PS** Thanks to MawgsaysreinstateMonica and mikeazo for email template edit suggestion | Unless you have been hired as a professional dancer (or something of the like), this is ridiculous. There is no reason to humiliate new hires in a way like that. And no, humiliation has nothing to do with team building.
As somebody has already said in the comments: What would they do if the new hire was physically unable to perform the dance? Or are handicapped people generally not hired by this company? If so, is this legal in your country?
Is it possible that your seniors are just making fun of you? What would be the consequences if you refused? Would you lose you job? Really?
You have two possibilities:
1. Take a sick leave, perhaps for 2-3 days, so that it is not too obvious that you are just trying to avoid the christmas party.
2. OR politely ask HR if this performance is really mandatory and why (and perhaps about the consequences).
*Do not* take a sick leave if they tell you it is mandatory. This is too obvious.
To be honest: If they really insist that you have to dance or face serious consequences, this would be a big red flag for me and I would start looking for a new job. |
150,024 | I recently joined this company and they have this tradition wherein *newcomers* must "perform" in the Year-end/Christmas party. It's going to be a short performance in the stage, most likely in-between breaks. I've talked with my seniors about this and they told me that they did a performance before too, even if they don't want to. The thing is;
* I'm an introvert
* I don't like to be in the spotlight where people (specially those who I don't know) watch/stare at me.
* I don't like doing things that I am not comfortable doing.
*What's even worse for me is that the performance must be a **'dance performance'**.* I can already imagine the cringe-worthy dance that I am forced to do.
I haven't talked with our HR regarding this as I don't know what to say. Also, I've been told by my seniors that they tried asking our HR(to not perform) before but they were told that it is required. I'm planning on taking a sick leave just to avoid performing during the party but it might seems suspicious and rude. How will I confront our HR regarding this? The Christmas party is approaching and this looks like an inescapable scenario for me.
UPDATE: Hi all! I've been browsing through your answers and suggestions and I just want to say that I appreciate all of it. From what I gathered, these two seem to came up a lot;
1. ***DON'T.***
I think this is the most straight forward and easiest way for me to solve this situation. I will politely talk to our HR and express how I feel about this and why I *don't* want to perform. I don't like to do something that I will possibly regret doing someday. I've seen some answers who had been in a similar situation and regret doing a performance. I feel sorry for you guys. This is what exactly I've been trying to avoid. And it made me think of how potentially scary the situation is especially in our time today, the digital age. Embarrassing videos spread quickly nowadays through social medias and other platforms.
2. ***OFFER AN ALTERNATIVE.***
This one I think is the plan B for me. Wherein I may not do exactly what they want me to do, but at least I'm showing that I'm willing to participate in the event. And I think this is the best way to go as it will show them that I'm socializing and cooperating in their tradition. A lot suggested interesting and creative ideas. I may have to look into it and do something that is easy and I feel comfortable doing. I'll just make it short and simple and be done with it.
I'll think about this and again, thank you all and have a great day! | 2019/12/18 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/150024",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/112115/"
] | Do it without doing it
----------------------
One possible solution, snag some "dance" video of internet fame that you find humorous (or think your coworkers will), whether it's I'm a kitty cat and I dance dance dance or baby shark or a video of someone else dancing from last year... whatever you feel is the right video. Load this up on your tablet/laptop (largest screen device you have access to). When it's your turn bring this onto stage, play the video on the device (standing as motionless as possible), and when it's done walk off the stage (maybe take a bow if people clap or laugh). Decide before hand whether you want a neutral expression or to smile, and maintain the same expression through the whole ordeal.
If you do decide to go this route, you'll want to practice ahead of time several times. This will let you make sure the video is downloaded to the device, and make sure you don't accidentally play something embarrassing by accident. If you have any videos that might be considered NSFW or even just inappropriate, I'd remove them from the device before hand. I'd also suggest testing somewhere without wifi beforehand to make sure you really do have the file downloaded.
This will let you participate, still be entertaining, and you've fulfilled the spirit of the requirement if not the letter. | ### *This is more of a supplement to all the "Don't do it" answers:*
I strongly suggest considering a "make up move". All the others before you had to complete this initiating dance while they didnt want to and "*this new guy gets away with not doing it?!?!?*" Regarding what *you* think, you will be one step behind at that moment.
I doubt you will undo the "reputation damage" completely, but you can soften it. You might make/buy a special cake, or add a significant feature to the party. You could do something you feel more confortable with, something that you might also consider initiating, but is less in the spotlight. |
150,024 | I recently joined this company and they have this tradition wherein *newcomers* must "perform" in the Year-end/Christmas party. It's going to be a short performance in the stage, most likely in-between breaks. I've talked with my seniors about this and they told me that they did a performance before too, even if they don't want to. The thing is;
* I'm an introvert
* I don't like to be in the spotlight where people (specially those who I don't know) watch/stare at me.
* I don't like doing things that I am not comfortable doing.
*What's even worse for me is that the performance must be a **'dance performance'**.* I can already imagine the cringe-worthy dance that I am forced to do.
I haven't talked with our HR regarding this as I don't know what to say. Also, I've been told by my seniors that they tried asking our HR(to not perform) before but they were told that it is required. I'm planning on taking a sick leave just to avoid performing during the party but it might seems suspicious and rude. How will I confront our HR regarding this? The Christmas party is approaching and this looks like an inescapable scenario for me.
UPDATE: Hi all! I've been browsing through your answers and suggestions and I just want to say that I appreciate all of it. From what I gathered, these two seem to came up a lot;
1. ***DON'T.***
I think this is the most straight forward and easiest way for me to solve this situation. I will politely talk to our HR and express how I feel about this and why I *don't* want to perform. I don't like to do something that I will possibly regret doing someday. I've seen some answers who had been in a similar situation and regret doing a performance. I feel sorry for you guys. This is what exactly I've been trying to avoid. And it made me think of how potentially scary the situation is especially in our time today, the digital age. Embarrassing videos spread quickly nowadays through social medias and other platforms.
2. ***OFFER AN ALTERNATIVE.***
This one I think is the plan B for me. Wherein I may not do exactly what they want me to do, but at least I'm showing that I'm willing to participate in the event. And I think this is the best way to go as it will show them that I'm socializing and cooperating in their tradition. A lot suggested interesting and creative ideas. I may have to look into it and do something that is easy and I feel comfortable doing. I'll just make it short and simple and be done with it.
I'll think about this and again, thank you all and have a great day! | 2019/12/18 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/150024",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/112115/"
] | Don't do it!
------------
I had a similar experience where **I did a singing performance**. Like Joe's answer suggests, **I thought I could put it behind me** after. Someone recorded it, shared it, kept sharing it for years, kept bringing it up occasionally years later. And this was before the days of YouTube and prolific smart-phones - now it's even easier to suffer this fate.
There was nothing wild or crazy about it. I just tried to sing a popular song and sounded bad. Apparently that is hilarious to some people.
They actively made fun of me about it for years, playing the recording and laughing at me even when I asked them to stop. I hardly see them anymore, but last time I met one of them because of a party he played the recording and laughed at me before I left.
**It never died. Last I knew the recording was still being shared and laughed at, sometimes to people who know me. There was no "putting it behind me". *Beware!***
---
Wow, wasn't expecting all this attention. I should probably answer the question explicitly since my answer is highly rated now.
What to do (if you're ok risking your job)
------------------------------------------
What I would do...
Act natural 1 or 2 times, after that "I will not dance." You don't need any excuse. I would just keep saying "No."
HR: "Do it or lose your job!" Me: "I don't want trouble, but I will not dance." Keep working and refusing until they actually fire you.
If you go to the party it will be very awkward and you will feel a lot of pressure, but you can keep saying "No." Even if No doesn't make sense. "Why not?" "No." "But why?" "Just no." After a few times you can try "Stop asking"
It *will* be awkward, but not more than the performance or any possible recordings. Be as polite as possible the entire time.
Even if it is legal to fire for this reason in your area, it is without justification. If they try to say you were insubordinate, that is nonsense. | ...implying a duty to loiter for the entire party
-------------------------------------------------
Let's flip it, and take it from the perspective of a social butterfly.
First, the fashionable holiday party period is very short - just a couple of weeks. *And there are a **lot** of holiday parties*. That means a social butterfly will have a very full schedule this season. And that practically guarantees some sort of **schedule conflict** for a socially active person.
And a 7pm-10pm event *actually being* 7pm-10pm? Not for a social butterfly. They'll flit in and flit out. Fair chance thgey can't even use all that time, because they have a well-tuned sense of when to end a conversation to "leave the other person wanting more" rather than "wondering when you'd leave". As such, they can move through a party pretty quickly, doing their social interactions and then moving on. **At this point, a social butterfly is unlikely to linger**. It's off to another party, or simply to take a "me break" to recharge social batteries.
So pretend to be a butterfly.
a) Officially, you have a prior engagement
------------------------------------------
You already have a party scheduled for then. Can't really break it.
However, you show up anyway, *just to make an appearance*, and explain you could squeeze it in.
b) Flit in for 15 minutes, then disappear
-----------------------------------------
So you show up anyway, on the excuse "I can squeeze in a 'quick hello' and be fashionably late for my prior engagement". That makes you seem thougtful, curious, engaging and magnanimous, since you *went out of your way to make it fit*.
Do just like the butterfly. Show up, make a beeline for the people you have social obligations to interact with, say hello, and do the very opposite of making them wonder when you'd end the conversation.
* Give the person your undivided attention, 90% listen, make the person feel heard; and don't really talk much yourself. The goal here is to maximize *their perception of* a quality conversation, in the absolute minimum time.
+ This isn't about you; this is hell for you; it's about fulfilling the social obligation as efficiently as possible.
* Don't add any subjects to the conversation, because that will be time-inefficient (because you'll ramble) and reduce the perceived quality of the conversation.
* Long before the well of conversation runs dry and starts to be awkward, excuse yourself using one of a variety of stock methods, and flit to the next person.
Flit flit flit, and out the door. "Oh gosh, look at the time... I really need to get to my prior engagement!"
I would aim for very early, before they get the dance thing organized. Others who arrive "fashionably late" will be told by others that they missed you, but you had to be at another engagement.
Don't talk to HR about that, *are you kidding?*
-----------------------------------------------
>
> "Multiple hull fractures, nine overloaded power conduits, and Ensign Davis spilled soy sauce on his pants."
>
>
> "He put that in a damage report!?"
>
>
> "Yes."
>
>
> "Man, we've got to get better people."
>
>
> -- The Orville, "Into The Fold"
>
>
>
This is just not the kind of thing to take to HR. It is patently absurd (and potentially illegal) to make an HR issue out of *office party behavior*. The person who initiates that will be at great disadvantage, because they will look petty, self-centered and very much not a team player. *Make that be the other person*.
Wow, if your management did make it an HR/disciplinary issue, that's pretty much an automatic win if they fire you and dispute your unemployment claim. No court on earth is going to see that as reasonable. *Maybe* if it was an official team-building exercise, but a party is not that. It's a party.
That said, there's nothing weird or inappropriate about staff pressuring other staff to participate in silly stuff like karaoke, talent shows or other being an idiot in front of the company staff. **Because honestly, if they didn't pressure people, *nobody* would do it**. But weaseling out of it is equally fair game. |
150,024 | I recently joined this company and they have this tradition wherein *newcomers* must "perform" in the Year-end/Christmas party. It's going to be a short performance in the stage, most likely in-between breaks. I've talked with my seniors about this and they told me that they did a performance before too, even if they don't want to. The thing is;
* I'm an introvert
* I don't like to be in the spotlight where people (specially those who I don't know) watch/stare at me.
* I don't like doing things that I am not comfortable doing.
*What's even worse for me is that the performance must be a **'dance performance'**.* I can already imagine the cringe-worthy dance that I am forced to do.
I haven't talked with our HR regarding this as I don't know what to say. Also, I've been told by my seniors that they tried asking our HR(to not perform) before but they were told that it is required. I'm planning on taking a sick leave just to avoid performing during the party but it might seems suspicious and rude. How will I confront our HR regarding this? The Christmas party is approaching and this looks like an inescapable scenario for me.
UPDATE: Hi all! I've been browsing through your answers and suggestions and I just want to say that I appreciate all of it. From what I gathered, these two seem to came up a lot;
1. ***DON'T.***
I think this is the most straight forward and easiest way for me to solve this situation. I will politely talk to our HR and express how I feel about this and why I *don't* want to perform. I don't like to do something that I will possibly regret doing someday. I've seen some answers who had been in a similar situation and regret doing a performance. I feel sorry for you guys. This is what exactly I've been trying to avoid. And it made me think of how potentially scary the situation is especially in our time today, the digital age. Embarrassing videos spread quickly nowadays through social medias and other platforms.
2. ***OFFER AN ALTERNATIVE.***
This one I think is the plan B for me. Wherein I may not do exactly what they want me to do, but at least I'm showing that I'm willing to participate in the event. And I think this is the best way to go as it will show them that I'm socializing and cooperating in their tradition. A lot suggested interesting and creative ideas. I may have to look into it and do something that is easy and I feel comfortable doing. I'll just make it short and simple and be done with it.
I'll think about this and again, thank you all and have a great day! | 2019/12/18 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/150024",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/112115/"
] | >
> How do I tell our HR that I don't want to “perform” in our Christmas
> party?
>
>
>
Dear HR,
I will not dance in our Christmas party because I don't feel comfortable doing this. Thank you for your understanding.
Best regards,
donotexecuteorder66
---
If you don't want to do something, you don't have to do something. Nobody will blame you because of this. Just tell(write) your boss and HR(if needed) as soon as possible. Make it clear that you don't want to and you won't do. Of course be polite. If I right understood, you will attend party and.. it is enough already.
**PS** Thanks to MawgsaysreinstateMonica and mikeazo for email template edit suggestion | ...implying a duty to loiter for the entire party
-------------------------------------------------
Let's flip it, and take it from the perspective of a social butterfly.
First, the fashionable holiday party period is very short - just a couple of weeks. *And there are a **lot** of holiday parties*. That means a social butterfly will have a very full schedule this season. And that practically guarantees some sort of **schedule conflict** for a socially active person.
And a 7pm-10pm event *actually being* 7pm-10pm? Not for a social butterfly. They'll flit in and flit out. Fair chance thgey can't even use all that time, because they have a well-tuned sense of when to end a conversation to "leave the other person wanting more" rather than "wondering when you'd leave". As such, they can move through a party pretty quickly, doing their social interactions and then moving on. **At this point, a social butterfly is unlikely to linger**. It's off to another party, or simply to take a "me break" to recharge social batteries.
So pretend to be a butterfly.
a) Officially, you have a prior engagement
------------------------------------------
You already have a party scheduled for then. Can't really break it.
However, you show up anyway, *just to make an appearance*, and explain you could squeeze it in.
b) Flit in for 15 minutes, then disappear
-----------------------------------------
So you show up anyway, on the excuse "I can squeeze in a 'quick hello' and be fashionably late for my prior engagement". That makes you seem thougtful, curious, engaging and magnanimous, since you *went out of your way to make it fit*.
Do just like the butterfly. Show up, make a beeline for the people you have social obligations to interact with, say hello, and do the very opposite of making them wonder when you'd end the conversation.
* Give the person your undivided attention, 90% listen, make the person feel heard; and don't really talk much yourself. The goal here is to maximize *their perception of* a quality conversation, in the absolute minimum time.
+ This isn't about you; this is hell for you; it's about fulfilling the social obligation as efficiently as possible.
* Don't add any subjects to the conversation, because that will be time-inefficient (because you'll ramble) and reduce the perceived quality of the conversation.
* Long before the well of conversation runs dry and starts to be awkward, excuse yourself using one of a variety of stock methods, and flit to the next person.
Flit flit flit, and out the door. "Oh gosh, look at the time... I really need to get to my prior engagement!"
I would aim for very early, before they get the dance thing organized. Others who arrive "fashionably late" will be told by others that they missed you, but you had to be at another engagement.
Don't talk to HR about that, *are you kidding?*
-----------------------------------------------
>
> "Multiple hull fractures, nine overloaded power conduits, and Ensign Davis spilled soy sauce on his pants."
>
>
> "He put that in a damage report!?"
>
>
> "Yes."
>
>
> "Man, we've got to get better people."
>
>
> -- The Orville, "Into The Fold"
>
>
>
This is just not the kind of thing to take to HR. It is patently absurd (and potentially illegal) to make an HR issue out of *office party behavior*. The person who initiates that will be at great disadvantage, because they will look petty, self-centered and very much not a team player. *Make that be the other person*.
Wow, if your management did make it an HR/disciplinary issue, that's pretty much an automatic win if they fire you and dispute your unemployment claim. No court on earth is going to see that as reasonable. *Maybe* if it was an official team-building exercise, but a party is not that. It's a party.
That said, there's nothing weird or inappropriate about staff pressuring other staff to participate in silly stuff like karaoke, talent shows or other being an idiot in front of the company staff. **Because honestly, if they didn't pressure people, *nobody* would do it**. But weaseling out of it is equally fair game. |
150,024 | I recently joined this company and they have this tradition wherein *newcomers* must "perform" in the Year-end/Christmas party. It's going to be a short performance in the stage, most likely in-between breaks. I've talked with my seniors about this and they told me that they did a performance before too, even if they don't want to. The thing is;
* I'm an introvert
* I don't like to be in the spotlight where people (specially those who I don't know) watch/stare at me.
* I don't like doing things that I am not comfortable doing.
*What's even worse for me is that the performance must be a **'dance performance'**.* I can already imagine the cringe-worthy dance that I am forced to do.
I haven't talked with our HR regarding this as I don't know what to say. Also, I've been told by my seniors that they tried asking our HR(to not perform) before but they were told that it is required. I'm planning on taking a sick leave just to avoid performing during the party but it might seems suspicious and rude. How will I confront our HR regarding this? The Christmas party is approaching and this looks like an inescapable scenario for me.
UPDATE: Hi all! I've been browsing through your answers and suggestions and I just want to say that I appreciate all of it. From what I gathered, these two seem to came up a lot;
1. ***DON'T.***
I think this is the most straight forward and easiest way for me to solve this situation. I will politely talk to our HR and express how I feel about this and why I *don't* want to perform. I don't like to do something that I will possibly regret doing someday. I've seen some answers who had been in a similar situation and regret doing a performance. I feel sorry for you guys. This is what exactly I've been trying to avoid. And it made me think of how potentially scary the situation is especially in our time today, the digital age. Embarrassing videos spread quickly nowadays through social medias and other platforms.
2. ***OFFER AN ALTERNATIVE.***
This one I think is the plan B for me. Wherein I may not do exactly what they want me to do, but at least I'm showing that I'm willing to participate in the event. And I think this is the best way to go as it will show them that I'm socializing and cooperating in their tradition. A lot suggested interesting and creative ideas. I may have to look into it and do something that is easy and I feel comfortable doing. I'll just make it short and simple and be done with it.
I'll think about this and again, thank you all and have a great day! | 2019/12/18 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/150024",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/112115/"
] | Don't do it!
------------
I had a similar experience where **I did a singing performance**. Like Joe's answer suggests, **I thought I could put it behind me** after. Someone recorded it, shared it, kept sharing it for years, kept bringing it up occasionally years later. And this was before the days of YouTube and prolific smart-phones - now it's even easier to suffer this fate.
There was nothing wild or crazy about it. I just tried to sing a popular song and sounded bad. Apparently that is hilarious to some people.
They actively made fun of me about it for years, playing the recording and laughing at me even when I asked them to stop. I hardly see them anymore, but last time I met one of them because of a party he played the recording and laughed at me before I left.
**It never died. Last I knew the recording was still being shared and laughed at, sometimes to people who know me. There was no "putting it behind me". *Beware!***
---
Wow, wasn't expecting all this attention. I should probably answer the question explicitly since my answer is highly rated now.
What to do (if you're ok risking your job)
------------------------------------------
What I would do...
Act natural 1 or 2 times, after that "I will not dance." You don't need any excuse. I would just keep saying "No."
HR: "Do it or lose your job!" Me: "I don't want trouble, but I will not dance." Keep working and refusing until they actually fire you.
If you go to the party it will be very awkward and you will feel a lot of pressure, but you can keep saying "No." Even if No doesn't make sense. "Why not?" "No." "But why?" "Just no." After a few times you can try "Stop asking"
It *will* be awkward, but not more than the performance or any possible recordings. Be as polite as possible the entire time.
Even if it is legal to fire for this reason in your area, it is without justification. If they try to say you were insubordinate, that is nonsense. | I agree with Joe that this is something you probably can, but shouldn't, refuse. And yeah, it's one of those things that I as an introvert would also rather avoid. But it's probably better not to dodge it.
It's a bit like fraternity hazing. Not quite as juvenile, but kinda reminds you. You don't get to be the cool kid by trying to weasel out of it. It can be a bit embarrassing, but everyone else has also been through it and it's okay to be a bit embarrassed.
I do think that if this sort of thing is required of newcomers who aren't that high on the totem pole yet, that it would be a good gesture if someone established at the company *also* has to do such a dance act, to sort of share the awkwardness. (And I'm not talking about the manager who happens to be a seriously good dancer, showing off. I'm talking someone regular who shows that they're human too, and that it's all in good fun, and they're not afraid to look funny at a party.)
Also, if you decide to do this, do make sure you practice. Ask if there's someone at the company who's good at this who's willing to help you practice. That person will also be able to help you mentally prepare for it. The point of practice isn't to suddenly become a star dancer, but to feel mentally ready for it.
It's probably going to be awkward. But not maliciously awkward. Everyone else who's had to go through it will laugh a bit but ultimately sympathize with you. Try to enjoy it, even if it's not something you'd volunteer for normally. It'll help you become part of the gang.
**EDIT**
This answer is getting a lot of downvotes, but almost as many upvotes. I guess I struck a nerve, and that the answer needs improvement.
Let me start by saying that I don't think this office policy is a good policy. I would hate to have to do such a dance act myself. I'm also an introvert, in a world that sometimes seems built for the pleasure of extroverts. And I've always been nervous around these "put the newcomer on stage" things.
But I also try to be pragmatic. I could take a principled stand and refuse to perform, but I'd probably get a reputation as a sourpuss. Maybe it'd cause some change in the company, but the chance of that doesn't seem very large, because as a newcomer I don't have a lot of sway yet. I think that if I tried to fight this head on, it'd just give my career in the company a bad start.
The OP reports that seniors have also asked HR to not have to perform but that HR required it. I suspect that HR has an attitude of "oh, it's just a dance, it's fun, don't be a childish whiner". As a newcomer, you don't have the social power to challenge this. But the OP's colleagues who are by now seniors have more power now than they had when they joined and they had to dance. If you want to effectively challenge this policy, you need help from people with more status in the company.
That's why I said that what *should* happen is that the OP's manager (or a senior colleague) gets involved. It's easy to point and laugh at the insecure newcomer. Not so easy and risk-free to do that if the newcomer is dancing together with someone with some status in the company. A good manager would recognize this situation and use their social power to protect their junior. In this case, by going on stage and shaming HR. |
150,024 | I recently joined this company and they have this tradition wherein *newcomers* must "perform" in the Year-end/Christmas party. It's going to be a short performance in the stage, most likely in-between breaks. I've talked with my seniors about this and they told me that they did a performance before too, even if they don't want to. The thing is;
* I'm an introvert
* I don't like to be in the spotlight where people (specially those who I don't know) watch/stare at me.
* I don't like doing things that I am not comfortable doing.
*What's even worse for me is that the performance must be a **'dance performance'**.* I can already imagine the cringe-worthy dance that I am forced to do.
I haven't talked with our HR regarding this as I don't know what to say. Also, I've been told by my seniors that they tried asking our HR(to not perform) before but they were told that it is required. I'm planning on taking a sick leave just to avoid performing during the party but it might seems suspicious and rude. How will I confront our HR regarding this? The Christmas party is approaching and this looks like an inescapable scenario for me.
UPDATE: Hi all! I've been browsing through your answers and suggestions and I just want to say that I appreciate all of it. From what I gathered, these two seem to came up a lot;
1. ***DON'T.***
I think this is the most straight forward and easiest way for me to solve this situation. I will politely talk to our HR and express how I feel about this and why I *don't* want to perform. I don't like to do something that I will possibly regret doing someday. I've seen some answers who had been in a similar situation and regret doing a performance. I feel sorry for you guys. This is what exactly I've been trying to avoid. And it made me think of how potentially scary the situation is especially in our time today, the digital age. Embarrassing videos spread quickly nowadays through social medias and other platforms.
2. ***OFFER AN ALTERNATIVE.***
This one I think is the plan B for me. Wherein I may not do exactly what they want me to do, but at least I'm showing that I'm willing to participate in the event. And I think this is the best way to go as it will show them that I'm socializing and cooperating in their tradition. A lot suggested interesting and creative ideas. I may have to look into it and do something that is easy and I feel comfortable doing. I'll just make it short and simple and be done with it.
I'll think about this and again, thank you all and have a great day! | 2019/12/18 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/150024",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/112115/"
] | I have actually been in a similar situation.
I worked at a large company, in a small department. Each department within our division were creating short videos that would be presented at an annual management conference.
My department's video involved us all dancing. It was intended to be humorous.
I am **very** uncomfortable dancing, with the sole exception of dancing with my wife. I'm introverted, have strong social anxiety, and no sense of rhythm.
There was **no** way I was going to dance. My manager was insistent. My team members all repeatedly assured me that it was not a big deal, that it was supposed to be funny so if I danced badly, everyone would assume it was intentional, etc..
I stood my ground, and said that while I was willing to participate, under no circumstances would I dance.
My manager was angry. My team was disappointed.
We shot the video with me sitting down, not dancing.
No one on my team ever brought up my refusal again. It just wasn't a big deal once it was over.
This was nearly 20 years ago. Last year, one of my coworkers that I am still in touch with shared that same video, now hosted on YouTube. I was *very* glad I had refused to dance.
In your case, it's a bit different, since this is a live, apparently solo performance. Yet I suggest taking a similar approach: state very firmly that you **will not** dance, but you are willing to participate as far as you are comfortable. Decide before hand just *what* you are comfortable with, and I strongly suggest pushing that a bit outside of what you are actually comfortable with.
Can you tolerate being on stage alone, if you don't have to dance? How about in a group? Is there something else you can do, like sing, recite your favorite poem, an excerpt from a story? Re-enact funny scenes from movies?
The key is to offer alternatives to dancing; tell them what you *are* willing to do. Even if they say "no", you are at least showing that you are willing to compromise.
If you truly are not comfortable getting up on stage *at all*, and they are unwilling to budge on that, then you should look for another job. While your refusal (and you should still refuse) will create a negative impression, the bigger issue by far is a company culture that refuses to respect personal boundaries in favor of "fitting in". This is a huge flag that there will almost certainly be other, rather severe, downsides to working there. I don't see much distance between "dance for our entertainment" and "you should cancel your family vacation because the company comes first". | I am also an introvert, but I do my best to fight it, in the workplace, as seemingly going along to get along works better in the long term. Let me caveat this by stating I am at the tail end of being a "baby boomer" (I was born in 1964.) Were I to be 'commanded' to dance, I would 'own it'. All four of the following do not require your legs to do anything, but stand still.
I would begin by saying that growing up, I really enjoyed Charley Brown comics and TV specials, and I was especially fond of Snoopy's [Happy Dance](https://youtu.be/tTF4gN6XhF0). Close your eyes, tilt your head back with a sly grin, and slowly shake your head no while flailing your arms. Don't worry about moving your feet. Those who remember Snoopy's Happy Dance will get it.
Then, I would state that one of the seminal movies in my younger years was Caddyshack, staring Bill Murray and that this is your interpretation of the [gopher dance](https://youtu.be/u1z2pxHVoWE). Again, stand there, face front, eyes can be closed, and just 'wipe your back off with a towel', without actually using a towel.
Next, say that these last two are for the Millennial's, and you just learned them recently. Do the "[Floss](https://youtu.be/0Kj3wWKjMSQ)" and end with the "[Dab](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dab_(dance))". If the first two are too much for you, you can always limit yourself to these two. They are easy to do and a minute or two up front, and you'll have completed your command performance.
You'll be embarrassed, that simply can't be helped. Anything you do that puts you in the spot-light will. But you'll have done your best and the fact that you can name what you are doing, will earn you social 'points'. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.