qid stringclasses 147 values | q stringclasses 147 values | answer_1 stringlengths 0 3.33k | answer_2 stringlengths 0 6.88k | label stringclasses 2 values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
v2z4kz | It drives me nuts when I ask why electrons don't smash into each other and someone says "the Pauli Exclusion principle" As if the electrons get on the phone and call up Pauli and he tells them they can't smash together.. so they go "ok then". In other words, its a non answer. Whats the real answer? What is the force that causes this principle? Or is it just that we have no idea and have just noticed that thats the way things behave? | Electrons are waves, they overlap with each other spatially. They interact and in some situations that interaction could seem like a smash, but in an atom they have found a stable way to be physically overlapping. | > What is the force that causes this principle? In discussions of quantum mechanics, force isn't really a well-defined concept, so the type of answer you're looking for does not exist. The only valid answers will be those that you seem to consider non-answers: Those phrased in the language of quantum mechanics, which deals with wavefunctions and allowed transitions and spin. | answer_2 |
95360 | How to get a stable WLAN-connection with a Lenovo x121e? <sep> I have permament problem when using WLAN with my Lenovo ThinkPad x121e. The wireless network adapter in use is this one: lspci: <blockquote> 01:00.0 Network controller: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL8188CE 802.11b/g/n WiFi Adapter (rev 01) </blockquote> The connection normally works OK for some time and then starts to slow down and eventually disconnects. Sometimes the connection is reestablished seconds later, sometimes it takes 30 or more seconds, sometimes it does not reconnect at all. This problem occures with every driver I tried up to now. Especially the kernel driver <blockquote> Linux ThinkPad 3.0.0-14-generic #23-Ubuntu SMP Mon Nov 21 20:28:43 UTC 2011 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux </blockquote> and Realteks driver that can be found here. The driver I'm using at the moment is the one found in this ppa: <code>ppa:tista/x120e</code>. Here is another link to www.thinkwiki.org that hints at a "Low Power State" (LPS) option in realtek's driver but it seems that it cannot be disabled in the current driver. Is there a way to get a more stable WLAN with this setup? Some more system information: lshw -class network: <code> description: Wireless interface product: RTL8188CE 802.11b/g/n WiFi Adapter vendor: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. physical id: 0 bus info: pci@0000:01:00.0 logical name: wlan0 version: 01 serial: 38:59:f9:db:e6:83 width: 64 bits clock: 33MHz capabilities: pm msi pciexpress bus_master cap_list ethernet physical wireless configuration: broadcast=yes driver=rtl8192CE driverversion=0006.0321.2011 firmware=56 ip=192.168.178.35 latency=0 link=yes multicast=yes wireless=802.11bgn resources: irq:17 ioport:3000(size=256) memory:f0200000-f0203fff </code> iwconfig wlan0: <code>wlan0 802.11bgn ESSID:"xxx" Nickname:"rtl8192CE" Mode:Managed Frequency=2.452 GHz Access Point: A2:05:43:2F:6E:8E Bit Rate=65 Mb/s Retry:on RTS thr:off Fragment thr:off Power Management period:0us mode:All packets received Link Quality=100/100 Signal level=0 dBm Noise level=-120 dBm Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0 Tx excessive retries:0 Invalid misc:0 Missed beacon:0 </code> ifconfig wlan: <code>wlan0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 38:59:f9:db:e6:83 inet addr:192.168.178.35 Bcast:192.168.178.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::3a59:f9ff:fedb:e683/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:117385 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:85652 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:115417879 (115.4 MB) TX bytes:10463799 (10.4 MB) Interrupt:17 Memory:ffffc900037a8000-ffffc900037a8100 </code> | I finally fixed this problem by compiling and installing the latest drivers from Linux Wireless in Ubuntu 12.04, in my case the "compat-wireless-3.5.1-1-snpc.tar.bz2" package: http://wireless.kernel.org/en/users/Download/stable/ One needs the header files for his kernel and the build-essentials package. I recommend also to run the script "driver-select" with the option rtlwifi before compiling because one doesn't need the other drivers and it reduces building time: <code>sudo apt-get install linux-headers-$(uname -r) build-essential tar jvxf compat-wireless-3.5.1-1-snpc.tar.bz2 cd compat-wireless-3.5.1-1-snpc ./scripts/driver-select rtlwifi make sudo make install </code> But the downside is you have to rebuild the driver after every kernel update. I'm running the driver for two days now with excessive closing and opening the lid and didn't get any disconnects. | The problem could be caused by channel hopping (and the new Linux kernel). I fixed it mostly with compile the driver by my own and install it. 2nd thing I did was to scan for networks if the network is breaking. I entered in terminal <code>watch sudo iwlist wlan0 scan</code>. With this the driver kept awake. Another fix I used is to press Fn+F5 to disable wifi and then I do the same a few seconds later. One more thing I tried: <code>sudo modprobe -r rtl8192ce sudo modprobe rtl8192ce </code> This reloads the driver for wifi. I also ping sometimes the router, this keeps my wifi connection stable. | answer_1 |
o1fd3l | What caused this weird bulge in the frosting on my cakes?! Hi all! I made my first ever wedding cake this past weekend for a wedding I attended. This was the first cake I ever had for a client that sat out for at least 24 hours prior to being eaten. By no means am I a professional cake decorator so please be aware my application in skills is low but my knowledge and understanding is high. \---------------- **Cake details:** Two cakes: one 8” & one 10” *(not tiered)* \[Photos\] Both cake flavors: white cake, Swiss meringue buttercream, thin layer of raspberry filling between the 3 cake layers Temp both days: \~75°F - 80°F (Bulging started at my house where the cakes remained in my air conditioned house at 68°F) Humidity: \~70% \---------------- Does anyone have any idea what caused these two bulges to happen towards the first layer of frosting? Both tiers had this issue, as pictured. To note, the tiers were not stacked at any point so it's not like they were sinking. There were two different cake stands, the 10” sat on one and the 8” on the other. When the cakes were being cut, there was no indication of sinking in either cake. The morning of the wedding is when I first noticed the bulges. I assumed they were from condensation pockets due to the cake being slightly frozen when I frosted them. I tried to pop the pocket and smooth it over but it just wasn’t working. I scraped off all the frosting and re-frosted the cake. At this point, they had been out overnight and in no way was it possible for the layer to still be frozen. However, after a few hours went by, the cake bulged again. Any idea what causes this? I've never seen this before. **Links to the recipes I used:** White cake Swiss meringue buttercream (unsalted Kerrygold & crisco shortening due to Sweetex changing their formula and people saying it’s not worth getting anymore) Raspberry filling | I've had this issue on cakes before but I never could figure out why they did this. I assumed it was because my cake was dense and heavy and was pushing out the filling as it sat, but that was my wild guess. | What it looks like to me is that the frosting between layers is not stiff enough to support the weight of the two tortes above. I'm betting that your slight change to the frosting recipe made it *juuust* a little softer than you're used to. | answer_2 |
o1fd3l | What caused this weird bulge in the frosting on my cakes?! Hi all! I made my first ever wedding cake this past weekend for a wedding I attended. This was the first cake I ever had for a client that sat out for at least 24 hours prior to being eaten. By no means am I a professional cake decorator so please be aware my application in skills is low but my knowledge and understanding is high. \---------------- **Cake details:** Two cakes: one 8” & one 10” *(not tiered)* \[Photos\] Both cake flavors: white cake, Swiss meringue buttercream, thin layer of raspberry filling between the 3 cake layers Temp both days: \~75°F - 80°F (Bulging started at my house where the cakes remained in my air conditioned house at 68°F) Humidity: \~70% \---------------- Does anyone have any idea what caused these two bulges to happen towards the first layer of frosting? Both tiers had this issue, as pictured. To note, the tiers were not stacked at any point so it's not like they were sinking. There were two different cake stands, the 10” sat on one and the 8” on the other. When the cakes were being cut, there was no indication of sinking in either cake. The morning of the wedding is when I first noticed the bulges. I assumed they were from condensation pockets due to the cake being slightly frozen when I frosted them. I tried to pop the pocket and smooth it over but it just wasn’t working. I scraped off all the frosting and re-frosted the cake. At this point, they had been out overnight and in no way was it possible for the layer to still be frozen. However, after a few hours went by, the cake bulged again. Any idea what causes this? I've never seen this before. **Links to the recipes I used:** White cake Swiss meringue buttercream (unsalted Kerrygold & crisco shortening due to Sweetex changing their formula and people saying it’s not worth getting anymore) Raspberry filling | SMBC is soft at room temp. Make sure cakes stayed refrigerated until about an hour before needed. Especially if the temperature is warm where you are. The bulges are the icing that has now softened, being pushed out due to the weight of the cake layers. Aside from keeping your cake chilled (especially when using SMBC) use bubble tea straws (probably six in this size) to hold your layers in place. This will help stop layers from sliding when decorating, give internal support for transportation and will assist somewhat in this bulging buttercream between layers by supporting the layers a little. I'm unsure where in the world you live but I only ever make SMBC with 100% real butter, but no matter what you use, it will always be softer at room temp. | This happened to me. Goodness, that was a nightmare. What happened was: I made the frosting too thick and it became soft or melted due to the heat and because of bumps of the road during delivery, some of the layers started to *slide off*. I also had the cake a bit tall. I live in Asia, it's hot *all the time*. All this did not bode me well. The frosting got squished with the weight of the cakes. I learned a lesson that day. Next time I used dowels and that seemed to help me with my next cake. | answer_2 |
2307xu | Is there a way to make buttercream icing less sweet while still maintaining its structural integrity? My girlfriend enjoys cake decorating, and while she has no trouble making buttercream icing for piping, etc., she gets frustrated with how sweet it is due to all the powdered sugar involved (which I suppose is a pretty inherent property of icing). Is there a way to make buttercream icing less sweet somehow, like perhaps cutting part of the powdered sugar with something else? At the same time, though, it would need to maintain its structural integrity so it can still be piped and formed into flowers and other decorations. | You can actually use a pinch of salt in your buttercream and it will cut that sickly sweet flavor significantly. I use a tiny pinch of salt to about 3 cups of buttercream. | My husband and I love a cooked flour frosting, which takes longer to make but is SO worth it: https://www.google.com/search?q=cooked+icing+with+flour&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS538US538&oq=cooked+icing&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l5.4728j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=2&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=cooked+flour+frosting+-buttercream | answer_2 |
8zry72 | Can't get the "sauce" right when making Cacio e Pepe - what am I doing wrong?! I LOVE Cacio e Pepe! It's my go to meal when I have nothing in the house. I'm not a bad cook, I'm actually a pretty good cook, but I've tried so many different methods to get the "sauce" just right but I always end up with melty (however delicious) chunks of pecorino throughout the pasta and a film of cheese kinda melted to the bottom of the pan, not really creating that silky peppery sauce I am after! Any tips, tricks or foolproof solutions to my problem would be so appreciated!!! | I feel the best pan for cacio and pepe is non-stick so the cheese doesnt stick on the bottom. Second if you think your cheese isnt fine enough just put pasta water and cheese and mix it with a blender , not too silky not too clumpy. Dump pasta in and mix it vigorously and it should be fine. | Are you buying pregrated pecorino? If so try grating it yourself. | answer_1 |
8zry72 | Can't get the "sauce" right when making Cacio e Pepe - what am I doing wrong?! I LOVE Cacio e Pepe! It's my go to meal when I have nothing in the house. I'm not a bad cook, I'm actually a pretty good cook, but I've tried so many different methods to get the "sauce" just right but I always end up with melty (however delicious) chunks of pecorino throughout the pasta and a film of cheese kinda melted to the bottom of the pan, not really creating that silky peppery sauce I am after! Any tips, tricks or foolproof solutions to my problem would be so appreciated!!! | Start boiling pasta and heat up frying pan with (freshly ground) black pepper at the same time. Once he pepper has been toasted, add pasta water. Once the pasta is almost finished, toss it into the frying pan, add water whenever necessary and keep it pretty wet. Take grated cheese in a bowl and add a few ml of hot water from pasta, stir and melt cheese. Once pasta is finished, take off heat, add some extra water and stir in the cheese. Done. | add sodium citrate and/or an acid, or keep working your technique until you nail it? | answer_1 |
8zry72 | Can't get the "sauce" right when making Cacio e Pepe - what am I doing wrong?! I LOVE Cacio e Pepe! It's my go to meal when I have nothing in the house. I'm not a bad cook, I'm actually a pretty good cook, but I've tried so many different methods to get the "sauce" just right but I always end up with melty (however delicious) chunks of pecorino throughout the pasta and a film of cheese kinda melted to the bottom of the pan, not really creating that silky peppery sauce I am after! Any tips, tricks or foolproof solutions to my problem would be so appreciated!!! | Under cook your pasta by a minute or two before transferring to the saute pan. Agitate the pasta in the pan with the pepper and water for considerably longer than you think you need to while adding a small bit of water at a time to maintain the intended final sauce volume. When enough starch had been knocked off of the noodles to form a sauce of it's own, kill the heat and add in the cheese while continuing to move ther noodles around. I also recommend a large set of plating tweezers. | add sodium citrate and/or an acid, or keep working your technique until you nail it? | answer_1 |
8zry72 | Can't get the "sauce" right when making Cacio e Pepe - what am I doing wrong?! I LOVE Cacio e Pepe! It's my go to meal when I have nothing in the house. I'm not a bad cook, I'm actually a pretty good cook, but I've tried so many different methods to get the "sauce" just right but I always end up with melty (however delicious) chunks of pecorino throughout the pasta and a film of cheese kinda melted to the bottom of the pan, not really creating that silky peppery sauce I am after! Any tips, tricks or foolproof solutions to my problem would be so appreciated!!! | Just posting because no-one has put the method I learned from Lynn Rossetta Casper. I linked it here. Basically I prep the grated pecorino in a ceramic cup with an immersion after the pasta has been boiling a minute or two. Always comes out silky smooth. Also I like the challenge of limiting it to 3 ingredients and technique. Can anyone confirm if Cacio e Pepe traditionally includes butter? | add sodium citrate and/or an acid, or keep working your technique until you nail it? | answer_1 |
8zry72 | Can't get the "sauce" right when making Cacio e Pepe - what am I doing wrong?! I LOVE Cacio e Pepe! It's my go to meal when I have nothing in the house. I'm not a bad cook, I'm actually a pretty good cook, but I've tried so many different methods to get the "sauce" just right but I always end up with melty (however delicious) chunks of pecorino throughout the pasta and a film of cheese kinda melted to the bottom of the pan, not really creating that silky peppery sauce I am after! Any tips, tricks or foolproof solutions to my problem would be so appreciated!!! | I went to italy and took a cooking class, we made fresh pasta and Cacio pepe. Here are the exact instructions he gave me and i have successfully repeated this at home. For 1 serving: - 100 gr. Hand made noodles - Roman pecorino cheese - Black pepper - Olive oil Cook the noodles in boiling salted water for 2-3 minutes. In a bowl, mix 2 tablespoons of cheese, a tablespoon of olive oil, a pinch of pepper and half a ladle of pasta cooking water, until it turns into a cream. Drain the noodles and let cool for 1 minute out of the water. Pour the cream cheese on noodles and stir quickly. The dish is ready | add sodium citrate and/or an acid, or keep working your technique until you nail it? | answer_1 |
3yq9pn | Explain like I'm five years old:Why can't vet drugs to put animals down be used for inmates sentenced to death? It seems that methods of execution for convicted criminals are constantly being debated for whether they cause undue pain or suffering. However, thousands of times a day, vets put down cats, hamsters, dogs, and other animals (some easily matching humans mass) with a simple shot that we're told causes the animal to just peacefully drift off and never wake up. Why can't the same drug/s be used for executions? | Pharmaceutical companies that have a monopoly on the type of chemicals used. Saw it in an article a while ago, l try to find it. Edit: Found it, also, fixed formatting. | So the companies that make these drugs actually don't want them used for executions, to the point where they will refuse to sell them to governments that do. And we use those drugs for lots of things other than executions, so its a really good threat. Government doesn't dare test it. They literally can't use the drugs to kill people, so they are forced to get creative, you've seen how well that goes in the news. Also, in the US, doctors are forbidden from taking part in executions, so now we're talking about doing medical procedures without the benefit of any actual doctors. This is pretty much insult to injury. It's a medical problem, that needs a medical solution, and medical professionals are forbidden from working on it by their professional standards and ethics organization. Edit: department of redundancy department. | answer_2 |
oral16 | How to generate more money with a one-time investment? Hi, trying to learn as much as I can before starting to invest for the first time. I hope it's ok to ask for advice, if not please let me know where to post my question. This is theoretical for the most part, so feel free to point out issues in regards to the real market - but sticking to the example is just fine, too. _____ Let's say I have $1000 and that is all I have to invest into the stock market. I won't be investing any more, just this one time. I find a company that I like, doing my DD, etc. and willing to hold for a longer period of time (obviously keeping track of any relevant developments). I also have an exit strategy in case things don't work out as expected. Let's assume things work out great. The company is growing, steady and slowly. It's nothing to write home about but their value is increasing due to good decision making and solid strategies. I buy the stock at $10 per stock and because I'm super confident in this company, I invest all my money into their stocks. About 10 years later, after many ups and downs, the value of the stock has increased to $100 per stock. From the looks of it, the company keeps growing. They might plateau at some point, but as of now, it's still looking good. Seeing how well this has been going, I want to buy more stocks. But I don't have any money since the initial investment is all tied up in stocks of this specific company. What are my options? How do I generate more money without selling too much, while also re-investing any profits into that very company asap? What is a good rule of thumb when it comes to selling stocks in order to buy them back later? How much do you sell? 80%? 50%? What kind of math should I be doing, respectively what factors need to be considered to make the best possible decision? _____ I'm aware it's not going to be like this in reality, but I'm mostly interested in different strategies that do not include siphoning more money into the stock market after that initial one-time investment of $1000. I'm also aware that putting all eggs into one basket was the first mistake, but how would one go about this regardless? That said, is it actually possible to invest a specific sum and *never ever* add more to my stock market budget? Or do I have to (temporarily) move some additional money into the stock market to buy/sell to expand my portfolio once in a while? How much am I limiting myself by never investing any additional money vs. for example, adding $1000 per year to have more flexibility? _____ Sorry if this is a weird question/scenario, but couldn't really find a satisfying answer so far. Basically, I want to know if I will have to invest a certain amount of money per month/year into the stock market to grow my portfolio or if a one-time investment has just as much potential if I make good choices. Also interested to know how much money people are investing on a monthly/yearly basis - and how much of that (rough %) is to expand the portfolio and how much is about offsetting losses. | My two cents… If you are going all in on a certain stock in your scenario, before you buy have an exit strategy if the stock increases value and if the stock decreases value. How much money can you lose without losing your mind? 10% 20% 30% etc? Set that as your initial stop loss point and put the order in. If the stock increases value (where there is established support, not one sudden spike then a drop), then regularly increase your stop loss order point to reflect the higher support values. Best case scenario, your stop loss never triggers. The idea here is that for a stock which goes up, eventually even if the stop loss triggers you will have generated realized gains. There are other ways to approach this. Everyone finds their own style which hopefully allows them to sleep at night. | For stocks, start screening IPOs trading / pricing behaviour post IPO. IPOScooo is a good reference. To identify low priced stocks, i recommend TipRanks. Just observe and trade a virtual account for a while and then try your first shot. | answer_1 |
oral16 | How to generate more money with a one-time investment? Hi, trying to learn as much as I can before starting to invest for the first time. I hope it's ok to ask for advice, if not please let me know where to post my question. This is theoretical for the most part, so feel free to point out issues in regards to the real market - but sticking to the example is just fine, too. _____ Let's say I have $1000 and that is all I have to invest into the stock market. I won't be investing any more, just this one time. I find a company that I like, doing my DD, etc. and willing to hold for a longer period of time (obviously keeping track of any relevant developments). I also have an exit strategy in case things don't work out as expected. Let's assume things work out great. The company is growing, steady and slowly. It's nothing to write home about but their value is increasing due to good decision making and solid strategies. I buy the stock at $10 per stock and because I'm super confident in this company, I invest all my money into their stocks. About 10 years later, after many ups and downs, the value of the stock has increased to $100 per stock. From the looks of it, the company keeps growing. They might plateau at some point, but as of now, it's still looking good. Seeing how well this has been going, I want to buy more stocks. But I don't have any money since the initial investment is all tied up in stocks of this specific company. What are my options? How do I generate more money without selling too much, while also re-investing any profits into that very company asap? What is a good rule of thumb when it comes to selling stocks in order to buy them back later? How much do you sell? 80%? 50%? What kind of math should I be doing, respectively what factors need to be considered to make the best possible decision? _____ I'm aware it's not going to be like this in reality, but I'm mostly interested in different strategies that do not include siphoning more money into the stock market after that initial one-time investment of $1000. I'm also aware that putting all eggs into one basket was the first mistake, but how would one go about this regardless? That said, is it actually possible to invest a specific sum and *never ever* add more to my stock market budget? Or do I have to (temporarily) move some additional money into the stock market to buy/sell to expand my portfolio once in a while? How much am I limiting myself by never investing any additional money vs. for example, adding $1000 per year to have more flexibility? _____ Sorry if this is a weird question/scenario, but couldn't really find a satisfying answer so far. Basically, I want to know if I will have to invest a certain amount of money per month/year into the stock market to grow my portfolio or if a one-time investment has just as much potential if I make good choices. Also interested to know how much money people are investing on a monthly/yearly basis - and how much of that (rough %) is to expand the portfolio and how much is about offsetting losses. | My two cents… If you are going all in on a certain stock in your scenario, before you buy have an exit strategy if the stock increases value and if the stock decreases value. How much money can you lose without losing your mind? 10% 20% 30% etc? Set that as your initial stop loss point and put the order in. If the stock increases value (where there is established support, not one sudden spike then a drop), then regularly increase your stop loss order point to reflect the higher support values. Best case scenario, your stop loss never triggers. The idea here is that for a stock which goes up, eventually even if the stop loss triggers you will have generated realized gains. There are other ways to approach this. Everyone finds their own style which hopefully allows them to sleep at night. | If you only 10x your initial money in 10 years, then better not start at all. You should 10x your money in a year in any bull market and double at least in any bear market. Its not rocket science, just dont listen to any buy n hold shit or other "diversify your investment " talk. Well chosen short hit n run investments, going all in, thats what gets you to your goal. You can start getting more diversified and defensive in your strategy, once you are past 100k USD. ...Second best advice for investment is to buy real estate through debt. | answer_1 |
oral16 | How to generate more money with a one-time investment? Hi, trying to learn as much as I can before starting to invest for the first time. I hope it's ok to ask for advice, if not please let me know where to post my question. This is theoretical for the most part, so feel free to point out issues in regards to the real market - but sticking to the example is just fine, too. _____ Let's say I have $1000 and that is all I have to invest into the stock market. I won't be investing any more, just this one time. I find a company that I like, doing my DD, etc. and willing to hold for a longer period of time (obviously keeping track of any relevant developments). I also have an exit strategy in case things don't work out as expected. Let's assume things work out great. The company is growing, steady and slowly. It's nothing to write home about but their value is increasing due to good decision making and solid strategies. I buy the stock at $10 per stock and because I'm super confident in this company, I invest all my money into their stocks. About 10 years later, after many ups and downs, the value of the stock has increased to $100 per stock. From the looks of it, the company keeps growing. They might plateau at some point, but as of now, it's still looking good. Seeing how well this has been going, I want to buy more stocks. But I don't have any money since the initial investment is all tied up in stocks of this specific company. What are my options? How do I generate more money without selling too much, while also re-investing any profits into that very company asap? What is a good rule of thumb when it comes to selling stocks in order to buy them back later? How much do you sell? 80%? 50%? What kind of math should I be doing, respectively what factors need to be considered to make the best possible decision? _____ I'm aware it's not going to be like this in reality, but I'm mostly interested in different strategies that do not include siphoning more money into the stock market after that initial one-time investment of $1000. I'm also aware that putting all eggs into one basket was the first mistake, but how would one go about this regardless? That said, is it actually possible to invest a specific sum and *never ever* add more to my stock market budget? Or do I have to (temporarily) move some additional money into the stock market to buy/sell to expand my portfolio once in a while? How much am I limiting myself by never investing any additional money vs. for example, adding $1000 per year to have more flexibility? _____ Sorry if this is a weird question/scenario, but couldn't really find a satisfying answer so far. Basically, I want to know if I will have to invest a certain amount of money per month/year into the stock market to grow my portfolio or if a one-time investment has just as much potential if I make good choices. Also interested to know how much money people are investing on a monthly/yearly basis - and how much of that (rough %) is to expand the portfolio and how much is about offsetting losses. | This is a great question. I think a lot of people are focusing on the specifics of the example, and not the point of the question. Obviously choosing only one stock makes your investment a lot riskier, and adding to your investment over time will make it grow faster. The issue here is that folks around here tend to focus on growth stocks, which over the last few decades have become very popular. Growth stocks don't pay dividends, which leaves you with the issue you described. You put in your money, you don't want to sell, and so at the end of the day, you still have same number of shares as before. Hopefully the price went up, but it could also come right back down. If you read books like The Intelligent Investor, you find a much different perspective, that you should only invest in a company that has a solid track record of giving good dividends. I'm not saying that's the only advice you should follow, but it helps put things in perspective. The important thing to remember here is that an investment should be compounding and so your total investment should be exponential. If the stock price of the growth company you invest in is not growing exponentially then they're not investing their money in a way that is benefitting you. The very idea of a growth company is that you invest in them, they invest money back in themselves and then you sell once their stock has stopped growing exponentially. There are great companies that are growing and also giving dividends, which will compound your investment over time. Alternatively you can sell out of the money (OTM) covered calls on your stocks. This set your expected growth rate. Either the stock price exceeds your strike price, and you sell it at that price, or it doesn't, and you hold onto the stock. Either way, you pocket the premium. If you sold the stock, but still think it will continue to rise, you can buy it again and repeat. Or you can sell a cash secured put (Google "the wheel option strategy") | For stocks, start screening IPOs trading / pricing behaviour post IPO. IPOScooo is a good reference. To identify low priced stocks, i recommend TipRanks. Just observe and trade a virtual account for a while and then try your first shot. | answer_1 |
44419 | Can the idiot's route be less expensive than the genius' route? <sep> In a certain country, there are $n$ cities. Between every pair of cities, there is a fixed travel cost to go from one city to the other. An idiot and a genius both decide to tour this country by visiting every city once. They start their tours at the same city. When choosing which city to visit next, the idiot always picks the city that is most expensive to travel to, of the ones not yet visited. Conversely, the genius always chooses the city that is cheapest to travel to. They do not revisit their starting city. For some really special value of $n$ and travel costs, is it possible for the idiot to spend strictly less than the genius? If not, I demand proof. Clarification: Travelling from City X to City Y costs the same as travelling from City Y to City X. (This was a problem I encountered at my math summer camp. I don't know the solution.) (I'm assuming that the solution has some form of math so I'm tagging with mathematics. Please change if this isn't very right.) | Artur's proof is very nice. I did it a different way. First, note that it is sufficient to prove that for any C it is impossible for the genius to take more steps of cost at least C than the idiot. So we can just consider each pair of cities as being either expensive or cheap, and prove that the idiot takes at least as many expensive steps as the genius. <blockquote> Now suppose the genius takes $r$ expensive steps and the idiot takes $s$ cheap steps. If $r=0$ or $s=0$ we are done, so suppose not. Consider the set of cities from which the genius takes an expensive step, together with the city his last expensive step gets him to. This is $r+1$ cities, and every pair of them must be connected by an expensive route (if there's a cheap pair in that set, then from whichever one he visited first he took an expensive route when there was a cheap route available). Similarly for the idiot we can find $s+1$ cities, each pair of which is connected by a cheap route. These two sets cannot have more than one city in common, so we must have $r+s+1\leq n$; rearranging this, the idiot took more expensive steps than the genius. </blockquote> | Yes the Idiot can travel less than the genius. For example in the following graph starting at A: <code> A / \ 2 1 / \ B-9-C-4-D \ / 8 3 \ / E </code> The idiot travels A-B-C-D-E for a sum of 2+9+4+3=18. The genius travels A-D-E-B-C for a sum of 1+3+8+9=21. I have different travel costs just to make sure there is an unique smallest in each city. | answer_1 |
a1uvs8 | [Explain like I'm five years old] In stores, why are cash machines responsible for calculating tax on items and not the price label machine? Aren’t they attached to the same database? Don’t item prices change more often than tax percentages? Apart from open deception intended to make you purchase too much and be too embarrassed to send stuff back it seems foolish for every other conceivable reason Wouldn’t you be more likely to shop at a store where you can intuitively know how much you have to pay before you pay? | Lower prices => More sales Humans are dumb that way, but it's how psycology works. | Rounding errors can add up. In Texas, for example, at 8 1/2% sales tax where I am, you are paying a penny in tax for every 12 cents in the price or so. If you add it all up, then compute the tax owed, the rounding error means you’ll pay the exact tax owed to less than a penny. If you compute it on each purchase, the rounding errors could really add up. For example, if you bought 100 rubber bands each costing 2 cents, you could claim to owe no tax on 2 cents, 100 times. For this reason, you are required to compute the general sales tax on the total bill, not each separate item. | answer_2 |
vmlwuz | How do I better match the chicken in Americanized Chinese takeout? When I order any chicken dish at an Americanized Chinese restaurant, the chicken is always these delicious little strips of white meat. You know the ones I mean. I’ve tried slicing chicken breast into pieces of the approximate right size but it’s never quite right and I can tell by the…grain(?) of the muscle fibers. (What’s the term I’m looking for there?) Is there a special way I should be cutting or prepping the meat? Or should I get a different cut of chicken? | To really maximize the tenderness after velveting you can also place the chicken in a stand mixer with a paddle attachment and run it on mix for about 10 minutes. This is an extra step mall teriyaki spots like Sarku/Sakkio use in their prep. | Also use chicken thighs | answer_1 |
vmlwuz | How do I better match the chicken in Americanized Chinese takeout? When I order any chicken dish at an Americanized Chinese restaurant, the chicken is always these delicious little strips of white meat. You know the ones I mean. I’ve tried slicing chicken breast into pieces of the approximate right size but it’s never quite right and I can tell by the…grain(?) of the muscle fibers. (What’s the term I’m looking for there?) Is there a special way I should be cutting or prepping the meat? Or should I get a different cut of chicken? | Also use chicken thighs | Kenji new book, the Wok. Has techniques that tall about tenderizing meats for this specific purpose. The term velveting has already been talked about but that book has lots of great recipes of both American style and chinese dishes. Would recommend if you are looking into this style of cuisine. | answer_2 |
vmlwuz | How do I better match the chicken in Americanized Chinese takeout? When I order any chicken dish at an Americanized Chinese restaurant, the chicken is always these delicious little strips of white meat. You know the ones I mean. I’ve tried slicing chicken breast into pieces of the approximate right size but it’s never quite right and I can tell by the…grain(?) of the muscle fibers. (What’s the term I’m looking for there?) Is there a special way I should be cutting or prepping the meat? Or should I get a different cut of chicken? | Kenji new book, the Wok. Has techniques that tall about tenderizing meats for this specific purpose. The term velveting has already been talked about but that book has lots of great recipes of both American style and chinese dishes. Would recommend if you are looking into this style of cuisine. | Velvet and pass through oil. | answer_1 |
vmlwuz | How do I better match the chicken in Americanized Chinese takeout? When I order any chicken dish at an Americanized Chinese restaurant, the chicken is always these delicious little strips of white meat. You know the ones I mean. I’ve tried slicing chicken breast into pieces of the approximate right size but it’s never quite right and I can tell by the…grain(?) of the muscle fibers. (What’s the term I’m looking for there?) Is there a special way I should be cutting or prepping the meat? Or should I get a different cut of chicken? | I haven't tried velveting yet but have cooked a quite a few stir fry dishes from Kenji's new book, The Wok. I just follow the advice there: * Cut against the grain * Your knife should be perpendicular to the grain (faint white lines in the chicken breast). * Wash the chicken after cutting * Put the prepped chicken in a small bowl and fill it with cold water * Vigorously agitate the chicken in the water * Strain the water out and squeeze the chicken to get out any excess moisture * I usually just use a small bowl and my hand to strain the chicken. It doesn't seem like using a colander made it any easier unless you're cooking a ton of chicken. * Marinate the chicken for at least 15 minutes in whatever marinade you want * The marinades in the book usually consist of shaoxing wine, light soy sauce, sesame oil, corn starch, etc. but it depends on what you're cooking * Don't worry too much about time. Prep everything else and the chicken should be ready by the time you're done. When you're ready to cook, fry the chicken first until it's generally cooked on the outside then empty the wok into a bowl (I usually just use whatever bowl I marinaded the chicken in. The chicken is going back into the wok so contamination shouldn't be a factor.). Add the chicken back in after everything else is cooked but before you add the sauce. | Are you velveting the chicken? It makes a huge difference in the texture and almost all Chinese food uses this | answer_1 |
vmlwuz | How do I better match the chicken in Americanized Chinese takeout? When I order any chicken dish at an Americanized Chinese restaurant, the chicken is always these delicious little strips of white meat. You know the ones I mean. I’ve tried slicing chicken breast into pieces of the approximate right size but it’s never quite right and I can tell by the…grain(?) of the muscle fibers. (What’s the term I’m looking for there?) Is there a special way I should be cutting or prepping the meat? Or should I get a different cut of chicken? | Marinate the chicken in garlic ginger and soy sauce with a small amount of baking soda and vinegar. Then toss the strips in cornstarch and flour and fry | I haven't tried velveting yet but have cooked a quite a few stir fry dishes from Kenji's new book, The Wok. I just follow the advice there: * Cut against the grain * Your knife should be perpendicular to the grain (faint white lines in the chicken breast). * Wash the chicken after cutting * Put the prepped chicken in a small bowl and fill it with cold water * Vigorously agitate the chicken in the water * Strain the water out and squeeze the chicken to get out any excess moisture * I usually just use a small bowl and my hand to strain the chicken. It doesn't seem like using a colander made it any easier unless you're cooking a ton of chicken. * Marinate the chicken for at least 15 minutes in whatever marinade you want * The marinades in the book usually consist of shaoxing wine, light soy sauce, sesame oil, corn starch, etc. but it depends on what you're cooking * Don't worry too much about time. Prep everything else and the chicken should be ready by the time you're done. When you're ready to cook, fry the chicken first until it's generally cooked on the outside then empty the wok into a bowl (I usually just use whatever bowl I marinaded the chicken in. The chicken is going back into the wok so contamination shouldn't be a factor.). Add the chicken back in after everything else is cooked but before you add the sauce. | answer_2 |
vmlwuz | How do I better match the chicken in Americanized Chinese takeout? When I order any chicken dish at an Americanized Chinese restaurant, the chicken is always these delicious little strips of white meat. You know the ones I mean. I’ve tried slicing chicken breast into pieces of the approximate right size but it’s never quite right and I can tell by the…grain(?) of the muscle fibers. (What’s the term I’m looking for there?) Is there a special way I should be cutting or prepping the meat? Or should I get a different cut of chicken? | Cornstarch. “Velveting” as mentioned above | I haven't tried velveting yet but have cooked a quite a few stir fry dishes from Kenji's new book, The Wok. I just follow the advice there: * Cut against the grain * Your knife should be perpendicular to the grain (faint white lines in the chicken breast). * Wash the chicken after cutting * Put the prepped chicken in a small bowl and fill it with cold water * Vigorously agitate the chicken in the water * Strain the water out and squeeze the chicken to get out any excess moisture * I usually just use a small bowl and my hand to strain the chicken. It doesn't seem like using a colander made it any easier unless you're cooking a ton of chicken. * Marinate the chicken for at least 15 minutes in whatever marinade you want * The marinades in the book usually consist of shaoxing wine, light soy sauce, sesame oil, corn starch, etc. but it depends on what you're cooking * Don't worry too much about time. Prep everything else and the chicken should be ready by the time you're done. When you're ready to cook, fry the chicken first until it's generally cooked on the outside then empty the wok into a bowl (I usually just use whatever bowl I marinaded the chicken in. The chicken is going back into the wok so contamination shouldn't be a factor.). Add the chicken back in after everything else is cooked but before you add the sauce. | answer_2 |
vmlwuz | How do I better match the chicken in Americanized Chinese takeout? When I order any chicken dish at an Americanized Chinese restaurant, the chicken is always these delicious little strips of white meat. You know the ones I mean. I’ve tried slicing chicken breast into pieces of the approximate right size but it’s never quite right and I can tell by the…grain(?) of the muscle fibers. (What’s the term I’m looking for there?) Is there a special way I should be cutting or prepping the meat? Or should I get a different cut of chicken? | Don’t (ever) use chicken breast. Leg and thigh all the way. It’s just tastes a million miles better. Get it boneless if you can. If not deboning of 8-10 takes me less than five minutes, just from practice. | I haven't tried velveting yet but have cooked a quite a few stir fry dishes from Kenji's new book, The Wok. I just follow the advice there: * Cut against the grain * Your knife should be perpendicular to the grain (faint white lines in the chicken breast). * Wash the chicken after cutting * Put the prepped chicken in a small bowl and fill it with cold water * Vigorously agitate the chicken in the water * Strain the water out and squeeze the chicken to get out any excess moisture * I usually just use a small bowl and my hand to strain the chicken. It doesn't seem like using a colander made it any easier unless you're cooking a ton of chicken. * Marinate the chicken for at least 15 minutes in whatever marinade you want * The marinades in the book usually consist of shaoxing wine, light soy sauce, sesame oil, corn starch, etc. but it depends on what you're cooking * Don't worry too much about time. Prep everything else and the chicken should be ready by the time you're done. When you're ready to cook, fry the chicken first until it's generally cooked on the outside then empty the wok into a bowl (I usually just use whatever bowl I marinaded the chicken in. The chicken is going back into the wok so contamination shouldn't be a factor.). Add the chicken back in after everything else is cooked but before you add the sauce. | answer_2 |
vmlwuz | How do I better match the chicken in Americanized Chinese takeout? When I order any chicken dish at an Americanized Chinese restaurant, the chicken is always these delicious little strips of white meat. You know the ones I mean. I’ve tried slicing chicken breast into pieces of the approximate right size but it’s never quite right and I can tell by the…grain(?) of the muscle fibers. (What’s the term I’m looking for there?) Is there a special way I should be cutting or prepping the meat? Or should I get a different cut of chicken? | Marinate the chicken in garlic ginger and soy sauce with a small amount of baking soda and vinegar. Then toss the strips in cornstarch and flour and fry | Are you velveting the chicken? It makes a huge difference in the texture and almost all Chinese food uses this | answer_2 |
vmlwuz | How do I better match the chicken in Americanized Chinese takeout? When I order any chicken dish at an Americanized Chinese restaurant, the chicken is always these delicious little strips of white meat. You know the ones I mean. I’ve tried slicing chicken breast into pieces of the approximate right size but it’s never quite right and I can tell by the…grain(?) of the muscle fibers. (What’s the term I’m looking for there?) Is there a special way I should be cutting or prepping the meat? Or should I get a different cut of chicken? | Kenji has a new wok cookbook out. Can't go wrong there. | Are you velveting the chicken? It makes a huge difference in the texture and almost all Chinese food uses this | answer_2 |
vmlwuz | How do I better match the chicken in Americanized Chinese takeout? When I order any chicken dish at an Americanized Chinese restaurant, the chicken is always these delicious little strips of white meat. You know the ones I mean. I’ve tried slicing chicken breast into pieces of the approximate right size but it’s never quite right and I can tell by the…grain(?) of the muscle fibers. (What’s the term I’m looking for there?) Is there a special way I should be cutting or prepping the meat? Or should I get a different cut of chicken? | Use boneless and skinless chicken thighs. Marinate and cook on high heat. | Are you velveting the chicken? It makes a huge difference in the texture and almost all Chinese food uses this | answer_2 |
vmlwuz | How do I better match the chicken in Americanized Chinese takeout? When I order any chicken dish at an Americanized Chinese restaurant, the chicken is always these delicious little strips of white meat. You know the ones I mean. I’ve tried slicing chicken breast into pieces of the approximate right size but it’s never quite right and I can tell by the…grain(?) of the muscle fibers. (What’s the term I’m looking for there?) Is there a special way I should be cutting or prepping the meat? Or should I get a different cut of chicken? | Cornstarch. “Velveting” as mentioned above | I personally dislike that texture but hey. When I was in China they used to slightly undercook the meat slightly to make it “extra tender” and ever since then I can’t do it. Like, take it off a half second before it turns white so that by the time it’s plated it’s just barely cooked. | answer_2 |
vmlwuz | How do I better match the chicken in Americanized Chinese takeout? When I order any chicken dish at an Americanized Chinese restaurant, the chicken is always these delicious little strips of white meat. You know the ones I mean. I’ve tried slicing chicken breast into pieces of the approximate right size but it’s never quite right and I can tell by the…grain(?) of the muscle fibers. (What’s the term I’m looking for there?) Is there a special way I should be cutting or prepping the meat? Or should I get a different cut of chicken? | Use boneless and skinless chicken thighs. Marinate and cook on high heat. | I'd say one other thing is to seal it up somewhere before you eat it. (Just like a Chipotle burrito) The food naturally steams in the takeout container and softens everything a little. I'm not sure everyone would say that "tastes best", but if you're really trying to replicate take-out, that would be part of it. | answer_2 |
vmlwuz | How do I better match the chicken in Americanized Chinese takeout? When I order any chicken dish at an Americanized Chinese restaurant, the chicken is always these delicious little strips of white meat. You know the ones I mean. I’ve tried slicing chicken breast into pieces of the approximate right size but it’s never quite right and I can tell by the…grain(?) of the muscle fibers. (What’s the term I’m looking for there?) Is there a special way I should be cutting or prepping the meat? Or should I get a different cut of chicken? | Cornstarch | Use chicken thigh and leg meat as they are much more forgiving (e.g. to overcooking) compared to breast. Also velveting as others have pointed out. | answer_2 |
tyvvdi | Explain like I'm five years old: If someone is on Earth, and the other is in space, why would their wrist-watch show a different time? I understand that space travel affects time, but why would it affect the mechanisms of a watch? doesn't it just go tiktik u know? | Space doesn’t affect time, velocity and acceleration do, if Im not mistake. Einstein explains this very clearly in his Theory of General Relativity, which you can find in full text and read on the internet. Others who are smarter about physics can explain the relativity of time here on this thread. | The key thing is that *everything* observes a different “speed” of time, yourself included, not just the watch. You wouldn’t realize that the watch is moving faster, and neither does the watch. To you and everything that is around you everything appears as normal. It’s not the watch that is behaving differently, but time itself. It’s only when you return to earth and compare watches do you realize the difference. | answer_2 |
tyvvdi | Explain like I'm five years old: If someone is on Earth, and the other is in space, why would their wrist-watch show a different time? I understand that space travel affects time, but why would it affect the mechanisms of a watch? doesn't it just go tiktik u know? | You have a lot of comments here, but I'm not sure you have a satisfactory answer yet. It's a tricky thing to summarise succinctly and in layman's terms, but I'll try my best... Space and time are inextricably linked. It took the genius of Einstein just over 100 years ago to realise this. Part of that realisation was that both are malleable. The thing that IS fixed is the speed of light in a vacuum. Sounds crazy, but hear me out here... A repercussion of our 4-dimensional spacetime is that *every single object in the universe* is 'moving' at the same 'speed' when you add the space and time components together. The faster an object moves, the slower time *must* pass. Now, another realisation - and one that helped him move from Special Relativity in 1906 to General Relatively in 1916 - is that to an observer, acceleration and gravity are indistinguishable. If I put you inside a stationary lift on Earth, you would experience a 10m/s/s force pulling you down (we are so used to this we don't notice it). If I teleported that lift into an area of space far away from any strong gravitational field and pulled you at 10m/s/s it would be impossible to differentiate. For you and your watch, whatever acceleration/gravitational force is being applied, your *perception* of the passage of time would remain the same, BUT, because we can't escape the fact that the spacial and temporal components must always equate to the same value, the faster through space you move (or in the case of your example, simply removing the gravitational acceleration of Earth), the slower time must move. Your watch will appear to tick once per second *to you*, but anyone capable of looking at your watch will witness it ticking at a different rate. In this example, it's us on Earth who are accelerating, and your watch which isn't - its movement through space is zero, therefore it passes through time at the maximum rate. We on Earth are slowed slightly by being in a weak gravitational well, so will perceive your watch to be ticking slightly faster than our own. Please do ask more questions if you have them - it is incredibly difficult to explain in a few paragraphs. | A good thing to look up (which may help explain a lot, even if it’s not directly on topic & may contain information that’s harder to understand) would be NASA’s twin experiment. If I’m remembering it correctly, one went up to space while the other stayed here on earth. It should definitely be interesting for ya. | answer_1 |
tyvvdi | Explain like I'm five years old: If someone is on Earth, and the other is in space, why would their wrist-watch show a different time? I understand that space travel affects time, but why would it affect the mechanisms of a watch? doesn't it just go tiktik u know? | You have a lot of comments here, but I'm not sure you have a satisfactory answer yet. It's a tricky thing to summarise succinctly and in layman's terms, but I'll try my best... Space and time are inextricably linked. It took the genius of Einstein just over 100 years ago to realise this. Part of that realisation was that both are malleable. The thing that IS fixed is the speed of light in a vacuum. Sounds crazy, but hear me out here... A repercussion of our 4-dimensional spacetime is that *every single object in the universe* is 'moving' at the same 'speed' when you add the space and time components together. The faster an object moves, the slower time *must* pass. Now, another realisation - and one that helped him move from Special Relativity in 1906 to General Relatively in 1916 - is that to an observer, acceleration and gravity are indistinguishable. If I put you inside a stationary lift on Earth, you would experience a 10m/s/s force pulling you down (we are so used to this we don't notice it). If I teleported that lift into an area of space far away from any strong gravitational field and pulled you at 10m/s/s it would be impossible to differentiate. For you and your watch, whatever acceleration/gravitational force is being applied, your *perception* of the passage of time would remain the same, BUT, because we can't escape the fact that the spacial and temporal components must always equate to the same value, the faster through space you move (or in the case of your example, simply removing the gravitational acceleration of Earth), the slower time must move. Your watch will appear to tick once per second *to you*, but anyone capable of looking at your watch will witness it ticking at a different rate. In this example, it's us on Earth who are accelerating, and your watch which isn't - its movement through space is zero, therefore it passes through time at the maximum rate. We on Earth are slowed slightly by being in a weak gravitational well, so will perceive your watch to be ticking slightly faster than our own. Please do ask more questions if you have them - it is incredibly difficult to explain in a few paragraphs. | different areas of expertiese with different themes here - First lets discuss how a watch works. 2 types of commonly used watches today, Mechanical source and electrical source. - Mechanial source watches use a spring which releases force, this force is controlled by an escapement which uses the vibration of a sping to move sideways to control a brake which stops the and starts the release of power, this is done between 18000 and 1,000,000 a minute but most commonly 21,600 and 28,800 times. these watches are VERY sensative to acceleration, impacts and sudden movements, a master watchmaker called Abraham-Louis Breguet inveted the tourbillon which is a escapement which spins on its own axis to improve this, but it was mostly cosmetic. these watches are accurate to betweet 2 seconds a day and 1 minute a day, depending between a watch like a Rolex or a Grand Seiko which are guarnteed to run under 2 seconds a day, to a Russian Vostok which feels like its made from left over coke cans. you have to understand that people mostly buy them for nustalgic and engnieering reasons, i wear a mechanical seiko chronograph myself, and nasa still uses the Speedmaster Pro which is a mechanical chronograph which was due to be replaced by the Omega Speedmaster X33 but they prefered the old mechanical. - Electric source, This is where the mechanism is powered by a electrical motor, originally they used a electric motor replacing the mainspring in a mechanical watch, then moved to the bulova accutron which used a tunning fork occilator as a regulating mechanism, then in 1969 Seiko introduced the astron which used a 8Khz quartz crystal allowing a 4 second per day accuracy. today they use a 32Khz quartz cristal, this works on the piezoelectric where when an ionic crystal (a crystal composed of positive and negative ions) is compressed it produces current, now the inverse works as well, so if you cut a quartz crystal to the correct shape (a tunning fork) and apply current to it, you can get an exact vibration requency, which is 32Khz, this gives it an accuracy of 0.5 Seconds per day (yes, a 10 buck F91-W "taliban" is more accurate then a Rolex Oyster Perpetual), and there are high frequcncy or thermocompensated quartz watches that take it to 10 seconds per YEAR, Now the reason why Quartz watches tick is becuase the first quartz watches were power hungry, and they found that moving the seconds hand 1 per second instead of having it move continously saved battery, usually this was a feature on mechanical watches called a dead second and was very respected and desired, the quartz watch basically killed it. now the space agencies of the world are more worried about batteries exploding then the accuracy of mechanical watches so many have stuck to mechanicals for a long time but we have seen many quartz watches go to space once the batteries were certified to not be ticking time bombs when exposed to the acceleration and radiation of space travel. Now the second theme here is relativity. The thing is that the faster an item goes, the more energy it required to move, and the faster it moves though space, the slower it moves through time. Time is a dimension and i suspect also a vector, so the faster its moving in one vector, the slower its moving in others (aka time), as time is another dimension in which an object travels, the faster it goes, the more energy it needs and tends to infinity the closer you get to the speed of light, but time goes to 1/infinity the closer you get to the speed of light. where the offects are negligable at the speeds we can travel, satelites and space craft which reach a significant speed (a GPS satelite does 14000 KPH) will require correcting a few seconds per year due to time dialation. | answer_1 |
tyvvdi | Explain like I'm five years old: If someone is on Earth, and the other is in space, why would their wrist-watch show a different time? I understand that space travel affects time, but why would it affect the mechanisms of a watch? doesn't it just go tiktik u know? | Space doesn’t affect time, velocity and acceleration do, if Im not mistake. Einstein explains this very clearly in his Theory of General Relativity, which you can find in full text and read on the internet. Others who are smarter about physics can explain the relativity of time here on this thread. | A good thing to look up (which may help explain a lot, even if it’s not directly on topic & may contain information that’s harder to understand) would be NASA’s twin experiment. If I’m remembering it correctly, one went up to space while the other stayed here on earth. It should definitely be interesting for ya. | answer_2 |
jnn4nv | Sleeping Bags With Foot Room I ran into a bit of an issue on my recent adventures: I kept getting tendon injuries in my ankles. At first I thought it was my footwear, then I thought it was the way I hunker down to rummage through my pack. After eliminating those variables I still wasn't healing. Then I stopped using my mummy bag and VOILA! Turns out my feet don't like small footboxes. I even got a longer mummy bag and the issues persisted, so now I'm looking to switch over to a rectangular bag, but it seems manufacturers aren't making those as much anymore. So I'm in the market for a nice rectangular bag, or possibly a barrel bag. Anything with a large footbox really. I could use some advice! I'm in Canada and I'm having a hard time finding anything good. I'm 6'3" with size 13 feet. A winter bag would be optimal, budget 200-400 CAD, doesn't necessarily have to be down, but this is r/ultralight so who am I kidding. TL;DR: My tendons are made of fail and I could use advice on a sleeping bag with a large footbox. | I know you're saying bags, not quilts, but I know that nunatak makes custom bigger footboxes on their quilts. Maybe some bag maker does the same? | The Nemo spoon shaped bags may be a good fit. And I believe feathered friends make some as well. On the budget side you could get an Outdoor Vitals Aerie those are square and pretty versatile. | answer_1 |
jnn4nv | Sleeping Bags With Foot Room I ran into a bit of an issue on my recent adventures: I kept getting tendon injuries in my ankles. At first I thought it was my footwear, then I thought it was the way I hunker down to rummage through my pack. After eliminating those variables I still wasn't healing. Then I stopped using my mummy bag and VOILA! Turns out my feet don't like small footboxes. I even got a longer mummy bag and the issues persisted, so now I'm looking to switch over to a rectangular bag, but it seems manufacturers aren't making those as much anymore. So I'm in the market for a nice rectangular bag, or possibly a barrel bag. Anything with a large footbox really. I could use some advice! I'm in Canada and I'm having a hard time finding anything good. I'm 6'3" with size 13 feet. A winter bag would be optimal, budget 200-400 CAD, doesn't necessarily have to be down, but this is r/ultralight so who am I kidding. TL;DR: My tendons are made of fail and I could use advice on a sleeping bag with a large footbox. | Don't be afraid to modify gear. Cut a slit and sew in part of an old down jacket or something. A gear repair shop can do it. I found a small tailor shop that does such fixes very inexpensively. I just bring in what I want modified and they do it. | Western Mountaineering makes really nice rectangular and semi-rectangular bags for a variety of temperatures. Look at the Ponderosa or Sequoia | answer_2 |
jnn4nv | Sleeping Bags With Foot Room I ran into a bit of an issue on my recent adventures: I kept getting tendon injuries in my ankles. At first I thought it was my footwear, then I thought it was the way I hunker down to rummage through my pack. After eliminating those variables I still wasn't healing. Then I stopped using my mummy bag and VOILA! Turns out my feet don't like small footboxes. I even got a longer mummy bag and the issues persisted, so now I'm looking to switch over to a rectangular bag, but it seems manufacturers aren't making those as much anymore. So I'm in the market for a nice rectangular bag, or possibly a barrel bag. Anything with a large footbox really. I could use some advice! I'm in Canada and I'm having a hard time finding anything good. I'm 6'3" with size 13 feet. A winter bag would be optimal, budget 200-400 CAD, doesn't necessarily have to be down, but this is r/ultralight so who am I kidding. TL;DR: My tendons are made of fail and I could use advice on a sleeping bag with a large footbox. | Western Mountaineering makes really nice rectangular and semi-rectangular bags for a variety of temperatures. Look at the Ponderosa or Sequoia | Marmot Yolla bolly is AMAZING! I have the yolla bolly 15. A bit Spendy but so nice and can unzip into a full blanket. Is not UL but is still light for the space you get | answer_1 |
jnn4nv | Sleeping Bags With Foot Room I ran into a bit of an issue on my recent adventures: I kept getting tendon injuries in my ankles. At first I thought it was my footwear, then I thought it was the way I hunker down to rummage through my pack. After eliminating those variables I still wasn't healing. Then I stopped using my mummy bag and VOILA! Turns out my feet don't like small footboxes. I even got a longer mummy bag and the issues persisted, so now I'm looking to switch over to a rectangular bag, but it seems manufacturers aren't making those as much anymore. So I'm in the market for a nice rectangular bag, or possibly a barrel bag. Anything with a large footbox really. I could use some advice! I'm in Canada and I'm having a hard time finding anything good. I'm 6'3" with size 13 feet. A winter bag would be optimal, budget 200-400 CAD, doesn't necessarily have to be down, but this is r/ultralight so who am I kidding. TL;DR: My tendons are made of fail and I could use advice on a sleeping bag with a large footbox. | May have some luck looking at the Patagonia bags. I have the 19 degree bag and it isn’t close to the lightest for the temp rating, but damn is it it comfy. The foot box is the most comfy I’ve tried this far. They were on sale not that long ago, not sure now. | If you'd simply double your budget :-) you won't find better than this. | answer_1 |
jnn4nv | Sleeping Bags With Foot Room I ran into a bit of an issue on my recent adventures: I kept getting tendon injuries in my ankles. At first I thought it was my footwear, then I thought it was the way I hunker down to rummage through my pack. After eliminating those variables I still wasn't healing. Then I stopped using my mummy bag and VOILA! Turns out my feet don't like small footboxes. I even got a longer mummy bag and the issues persisted, so now I'm looking to switch over to a rectangular bag, but it seems manufacturers aren't making those as much anymore. So I'm in the market for a nice rectangular bag, or possibly a barrel bag. Anything with a large footbox really. I could use some advice! I'm in Canada and I'm having a hard time finding anything good. I'm 6'3" with size 13 feet. A winter bag would be optimal, budget 200-400 CAD, doesn't necessarily have to be down, but this is r/ultralight so who am I kidding. TL;DR: My tendons are made of fail and I could use advice on a sleeping bag with a large footbox. | If you'd simply double your budget :-) you won't find better than this. | The Nemo Disco is phenomenal. I'm a side sleeper, so I appreciate the spoon shape that tapers at the waist slightly, then broadens by the knees and feet. It goes down to 15 degrees and has a ton of other features. Zippable heat baffles, condensation protection at the feet, ice cold materials to the touch, ect... Read up on it, I cant remember all the features. It's 3 lbs. of course. It's a big bag, and warm, so there had to be a trade off somewhere. It's still my favorite piece of gear, 3lbs is better than not sleeping. | answer_2 |
182100 | (Very) High dimensional manifolds <sep> Usually one regards manifolds up to dimension 4 as a part of low dimensional topology. There are plenty of various results which work only in low dimensional topology; especially in dimension 4. However still there are phenomena which occur only up from certain dimensions above 4: For example the famous result of Milnor, which states that each $PL$ manifold of dimension $n$ is in fact smooth provided that $n \leq 7$. My question is the following: Could you give an example of the (reasonable) theorem of the type "each manifold of dimension $n$ have some property $P$ provided that $n \leq K$ (and for $n>K$ there are counterexamples)," where $K$ is some large number? | The smallest example of a manifold that is homotopy equivalent to a topological group, but not rationally equivalent to a Lie group has dimension 1254. | <blockquote> Theorem (Simons). Let $E\subset {\mathbb R}^n$ be of minimal perimeter. If $n\le7$, then $\partial E$ is a hyperplane. </blockquote> If instead $n=2m\ge8$, then Simons provides the example of a minimal surface $$x_1^2+\cdots+x_m^2=x_{m+1}^2+\cdots+x_{2m}^2$$ whose mean curvature vanishes identically. Bombieri, De Giorgi & Giusti proved that this cone is a minimal surface. This shows that the limit $n\le7$ in the Theorem is sharp. | answer_1 |
59771 | How to remove fog while shooting and during post-processing? <sep> Recently I came across the following problem: I went hiking and since it's winter there was some fog. I took the picture below and wondered how I could have minimised the fog in this shot to get a clear, sharp photo of the landscaepe. What measures can I take while shooting? And what can I do in post to minimise the effect of the fog? | Step 1: Duplicate layer As we don't want to do any destructive editing, make sure you duplicate your layer (Layer>Duplicate Layer) and rename it. Quick Selection ToolStep 2: Selection If your foreground detail is out of the fog and it's the background you want to clear up you'll need to do a simple selection so the foreground stays as is. The Quick Selection Tool is the best way to select the foreground. Simple Click and drag over the area you don't want the changes applied to then go to Select>Inverse so when you follow the next steps, the changes will only be applied to the background. If it's foreground detail you want to bring out of the fog, you don't need to do this first step. Step 3: Exposure correction To pull the foreground or background out of the fog you'll need to adjust the exposure. To do this go to Image>Adjustment>Levels. Look to the right of the histogram and you'll see there's a large gap between where the graph ends and the white slider sits. Drag the slider in towards the end of the histogram until the object you can't see becomes more visible. You can do the same with the black slider but be careful how far you drag it as it can darken the image too much. Once you're happy click OK. Adjusting levels Adjusting levels Step 4: Unsharp mask Next we are going to give the scene even more detail. To do this go to: Filter>Sharpen>Unsharp Mask. Don't over-do the Amount, 100% was fine for our image, and keep the Threshold and Radius figures low. Then Click OK. Unsharp mask Step 5: Up the contrast The shot still looks a little too foggy so we are going to up the contrast by going to: Image>Adjustments>Brightness/Contrast. Pull the contrast slider to the right, we moved ours to 80. You may also want to adjust the brightness but this is down to personal taste. Remember you can always move the sliders around and re-set them if you don't like it. Once happy, click OK. Contrast adjustment When you've adjusted the contrast your image is complete. Take a look at the finished images: Scene with fog removed | The first thing to know about fog is that its effect is more pronounced with distance. The best is to get as close as possible. Do not zoom in, get closer instead. Don't fall into the cliff though! Second is that fog reflects light. Do not flash it. Shoot it from an angle where the fog receives the least light from other sources, such as street lamps. Increase contrast, in camera, if possible. You may be able to dial in an additional increase for contrast in shadow areas, depending on your camera (most Pentax DSLRs and Olympus mirrorless can do this, a few others can too). On some Nikon DSLRs, you can also increase Clarity which does wonders for fog. A bit of an increase in saturation can help too. This is where you have to experiment. When you find good settings, save them. Fog is quite a distinct case that most of my DSLRs have a User setting which I have made specifically for fog. Don't forget to switch bag to normal once the fog is gone. While you still have a low-contrast image, your histogram will not reach both sides. This is a good time to expose-to-the-right (ETTR). It will give an image which looks probarly overly bright but you will have more latitude do correct the lack of contrast in software this way. Since this change affects exposure, it will help even if you shoot RAW or DNG. If you do not shoot JPEG at all, the previous two paragraphs do not apply. Once the image is captured, repeat the third paragraph with an image-processing software. You will have the chance to increase contrast and clarity, plus adjust the final exposure to your liking. For an image which already had good contrast overall but still does not show much details in foggy areas, you can fine-tune results via the curves too. Know your camera's sharpness settings, it often has a -5 to 5 or 0 to 9 scale. The default is around the middle. You can increase a few steps to improve sharpness but too much and you will see sharpening artifacts, so learn that limit. If you go too far, even noise gets sharper! | answer_2 |
wuwfew | [MCU] Spoilers: She-Hulk. Why did Bruce Banner need to stay in human form? After Endgame, Hulk's arm was injured due to using the gauntlet. In his appearance on Shang-chi, Banner is in human form, with the arm still seemingly injured. In the first episode of She-Hulk, he reveals that he has an inhibitor device on his arm keeping him in human form, and that he cannot turn back into Hulk form until after a breakthrough from analysing She-Hulk's blood. Why does he need to stay in human form/what is preventing him from turning back into Hulk. His arm seems to be out of commission in both forms, but I would expect Hulk form to have greater strength and regenerative capability to handle it. | We hear the tail end of Bruce's explanation. The first thing we hear is pretty much the last thing Bruce says in that context "...my arm started to heal... and it's all because of this device which keeps me in human form" So, prior to any of this, well before Endgame. Let's say Bruce gets injured... call it a 'minor' wound. He accidentally cuts the tip of his finger off while cooking, with a very sharp knife so that he doesnt really feel it immediately, and so he doesnt Hulk out when it happens. However, once he DOES notice the blood and the cut, he DOES Hulk out (to whatever degree you want) -- then his finger heals because of this and when he reverts back to Bruce, his finger is no longer injured. So let's remember how he hurt his arm. He hurt it as Smart Hulk in Endgame, snapping with the Iron Gauntlet... in Hulk's body and physiology, Bruce's consciousness. Let's suppose the infinity stones caused "irreparable" damage to Hulk's arm. Theoretically, using the example above, if he heals in one state (be it Bruce or Hulk) the other state heals as well. I figure that Bruce is testing this theory by creating the inhibitor and allowing his broken arm to heal in human form. As I mentioned, he says "...my arm started to heal... ...because of this device that keeps me in human form". That said, theoretically, when he finishes healing and then reverts back to Hulk, Hulk's arm should be healed as well. -- but as the show starts, he hasnt reached that part of his 'experiment' yet as his arm is still in a sling when they're in the car. He's still in the healing process, at the rate of any normal human would heal. So the inhibitor needs to be on so he can continue to heal, especially at that slow pace. Otherwise, transforming to Hulk (either voluntarily or involuntarily) might undo that healing. | We only get part of the conversation in She-Hulk. He was talking about his arm healing, but then he gets interrupted. The problem is, we're seeing it through Jenn Walters' perspective, and she's not really listening to Bruce. He told her all the important info you're after, and it went in one ear and out the other. She's busy pitching her theory about Captain America's virginity. My interpretation (I watched it last night, but have only seen it once) was that while the Hulk arm had healed, Banner's hadn't. He was staying in Banner form to try to get it to heal naturally, but it was taking a long time. We just get snippets though, because Jenn isn't listening to what he's saying. | answer_1 |
wuwfew | [MCU] Spoilers: She-Hulk. Why did Bruce Banner need to stay in human form? After Endgame, Hulk's arm was injured due to using the gauntlet. In his appearance on Shang-chi, Banner is in human form, with the arm still seemingly injured. In the first episode of She-Hulk, he reveals that he has an inhibitor device on his arm keeping him in human form, and that he cannot turn back into Hulk form until after a breakthrough from analysing She-Hulk's blood. Why does he need to stay in human form/what is preventing him from turning back into Hulk. His arm seems to be out of commission in both forms, but I would expect Hulk form to have greater strength and regenerative capability to handle it. | In order for a bone to heal it has to be set properly. It's possible that Hulk's skin and muscles are simply too strong and tough to get the bone to stay in the proper place long enough to heal. | We only get part of the conversation in She-Hulk. He was talking about his arm healing, but then he gets interrupted. The problem is, we're seeing it through Jenn Walters' perspective, and she's not really listening to Bruce. He told her all the important info you're after, and it went in one ear and out the other. She's busy pitching her theory about Captain America's virginity. My interpretation (I watched it last night, but have only seen it once) was that while the Hulk arm had healed, Banner's hadn't. He was staying in Banner form to try to get it to heal naturally, but it was taking a long time. We just get snippets though, because Jenn isn't listening to what he's saying. | answer_1 |
wuwfew | [MCU] Spoilers: She-Hulk. Why did Bruce Banner need to stay in human form? After Endgame, Hulk's arm was injured due to using the gauntlet. In his appearance on Shang-chi, Banner is in human form, with the arm still seemingly injured. In the first episode of She-Hulk, he reveals that he has an inhibitor device on his arm keeping him in human form, and that he cannot turn back into Hulk form until after a breakthrough from analysing She-Hulk's blood. Why does he need to stay in human form/what is preventing him from turning back into Hulk. His arm seems to be out of commission in both forms, but I would expect Hulk form to have greater strength and regenerative capability to handle it. | The damage was caused by *too much gamma*. For comics Hulk this is impossible - no amount of Gamma Radiation can ever harm him - but clearly MCU Hulk is a bit different; or the gamma given off by MCU Infinity Stones is different [more similar to comic Cosmic Rays which are effectively anti-gamma]. Whatever the case, the device was pulling gamma out of his blood - both keeping him out of hulk form and importantly cleansing the arm of the destructive radiation that harmed it in the first place. So he needed to be in Banner form because Hulk form heals through gamma, and that healing was never going to be able to fix an overdose of gamma. | Absolute spitball: I think part of their “working it out” was an arrangement similar to Earth’s Mightiest Heroes; Hulk gets Banner’s smarts and skills and gets to be in the front seat, provided that Banner himself gets a bit of time where he can be himself. Hence the inhibitor. | answer_1 |
wuwfew | [MCU] Spoilers: She-Hulk. Why did Bruce Banner need to stay in human form? After Endgame, Hulk's arm was injured due to using the gauntlet. In his appearance on Shang-chi, Banner is in human form, with the arm still seemingly injured. In the first episode of She-Hulk, he reveals that he has an inhibitor device on his arm keeping him in human form, and that he cannot turn back into Hulk form until after a breakthrough from analysing She-Hulk's blood. Why does he need to stay in human form/what is preventing him from turning back into Hulk. His arm seems to be out of commission in both forms, but I would expect Hulk form to have greater strength and regenerative capability to handle it. | To fit in the car? | We only get part of the conversation in She-Hulk. He was talking about his arm healing, but then he gets interrupted. The problem is, we're seeing it through Jenn Walters' perspective, and she's not really listening to Bruce. He told her all the important info you're after, and it went in one ear and out the other. She's busy pitching her theory about Captain America's virginity. My interpretation (I watched it last night, but have only seen it once) was that while the Hulk arm had healed, Banner's hadn't. He was staying in Banner form to try to get it to heal naturally, but it was taking a long time. We just get snippets though, because Jenn isn't listening to what he's saying. | answer_1 |
wuwfew | [MCU] Spoilers: She-Hulk. Why did Bruce Banner need to stay in human form? After Endgame, Hulk's arm was injured due to using the gauntlet. In his appearance on Shang-chi, Banner is in human form, with the arm still seemingly injured. In the first episode of She-Hulk, he reveals that he has an inhibitor device on his arm keeping him in human form, and that he cannot turn back into Hulk form until after a breakthrough from analysing She-Hulk's blood. Why does he need to stay in human form/what is preventing him from turning back into Hulk. His arm seems to be out of commission in both forms, but I would expect Hulk form to have greater strength and regenerative capability to handle it. | Absolute spitball: I think part of their “working it out” was an arrangement similar to Earth’s Mightiest Heroes; Hulk gets Banner’s smarts and skills and gets to be in the front seat, provided that Banner himself gets a bit of time where he can be himself. Hence the inhibitor. | Maybe because the damage was done to him in Hulk form, it was easier to heal as Bruce Banner? | answer_2 |
1612733 | Including non-Python files with setup.py <sep> How do I make <code>setup.py</code> include a file that isn't part of the code? (Specifically, it's a license file, but it could be any other thing.) I want to be able to control the location of the file. In the original source folder, the file is in the root of the package. (i.e. on the same level as the topmost <code>__init__.py</code>.) I want it to stay exactly there when the package is installed, regardless of operating system. How do I do that? | It is 2019, and here is what is working - despite advice here and there, what I found on the internet halfway documented is using <code>setuptools_scm</code>, passed as options to <code>setuptools.setup</code>. This will include any data files that are versioned on your VCS, be it git or any other, to the wheel package, and will make "pip install" from the git repository to bring those files along. So, I just added these two lines to the setup call on "setup.py". No extra installs or import required: <code> setup_requires=['setuptools_scm'], include_package_data=True, </code> No need to manually list package_data, or in a MANIFEST.in file - if it is versioned, it is included in the package. The docs on "setuptools_scm" put emphasis on creating a version number from the commit position, and disregard the really important part of adding the data files. (I can't care less if my intermediate wheel file is named "*0.2.2.dev45+g3495a1f" or will use the hardcoded version number "0.3.0dev0" I've typed in - but leaving crucial files for the program to work behind is somewhat important) | Here is a simpler answer that worked for me. First, per a Python Dev's comment above, setuptools is not required: <code>package_data is also available to pure distutils setup scripts since 2.3. ric Araujo </code> That's great because putting a setuptools requirement on your package means you will have to install it also. In short: <code>from distutils.core import setup setup( # ...snip... packages = ['pkgname'], package_data = {'pkgname': ['license.txt']}, ) </code> | answer_1 |
1612733 | Including non-Python files with setup.py <sep> How do I make <code>setup.py</code> include a file that isn't part of the code? (Specifically, it's a license file, but it could be any other thing.) I want to be able to control the location of the file. In the original source folder, the file is in the root of the package. (i.e. on the same level as the topmost <code>__init__.py</code>.) I want it to stay exactly there when the package is installed, regardless of operating system. How do I do that? | This works in 2020! As others said create "MANIFEST.in" where your setup.py is located. Next in manifest include/exclude all the necessary things. Be careful here regarding the syntax. Ex: lets say we have template folder to be included in the source package. in manifest file do this : <code>recursive-include template * </code> Make sure you leave space between dir-name and pattern for files/dirs like above. Dont do like this like we do in .gitignore <code>recursive-include template/* [this won't work] </code> Other option is to use include. There are bunch of options. Look up here at their docs for Manifest.in And the final important step, include this param in your setup.py and you are good to go! <code> setup( ... include_package_data=True, ...... ) </code> Hope that helps! Happy Coding! | Here is a simpler answer that worked for me. First, per a Python Dev's comment above, setuptools is not required: <code>package_data is also available to pure distutils setup scripts since 2.3. ric Araujo </code> That's great because putting a setuptools requirement on your package means you will have to install it also. In short: <code>from distutils.core import setup setup( # ...snip... packages = ['pkgname'], package_data = {'pkgname': ['license.txt']}, ) </code> | answer_1 |
1612733 | Including non-Python files with setup.py <sep> How do I make <code>setup.py</code> include a file that isn't part of the code? (Specifically, it's a license file, but it could be any other thing.) I want to be able to control the location of the file. In the original source folder, the file is in the root of the package. (i.e. on the same level as the topmost <code>__init__.py</code>.) I want it to stay exactly there when the package is installed, regardless of operating system. How do I do that? | I wanted to post a comment to one of the questions but I don't enough reputation to do that >.> Here's what worked for me (came up with it after referring the docs): <code>package_data={ 'mypkg': ['../*.txt'] }, include_package_data: False </code> The last line was, strangely enough, also crucial for me (you can also omit this keyword argument - it works the same). What this does is it copies all text files in your top-level or root directory (one level up from the package <code>mypkg</code> you want to distribute). | Here is a simpler answer that worked for me. First, per a Python Dev's comment above, setuptools is not required: <code>package_data is also available to pure distutils setup scripts since 2.3. ric Araujo </code> That's great because putting a setuptools requirement on your package means you will have to install it also. In short: <code>from distutils.core import setup setup( # ...snip... packages = ['pkgname'], package_data = {'pkgname': ['license.txt']}, ) </code> | answer_1 |
1612733 | Including non-Python files with setup.py <sep> How do I make <code>setup.py</code> include a file that isn't part of the code? (Specifically, it's a license file, but it could be any other thing.) I want to be able to control the location of the file. In the original source folder, the file is in the root of the package. (i.e. on the same level as the topmost <code>__init__.py</code>.) I want it to stay exactly there when the package is installed, regardless of operating system. How do I do that? | It is 2019, and here is what is working - despite advice here and there, what I found on the internet halfway documented is using <code>setuptools_scm</code>, passed as options to <code>setuptools.setup</code>. This will include any data files that are versioned on your VCS, be it git or any other, to the wheel package, and will make "pip install" from the git repository to bring those files along. So, I just added these two lines to the setup call on "setup.py". No extra installs or import required: <code> setup_requires=['setuptools_scm'], include_package_data=True, </code> No need to manually list package_data, or in a MANIFEST.in file - if it is versioned, it is included in the package. The docs on "setuptools_scm" put emphasis on creating a version number from the commit position, and disregard the really important part of adding the data files. (I can't care less if my intermediate wheel file is named "*0.2.2.dev45+g3495a1f" or will use the hardcoded version number "0.3.0dev0" I've typed in - but leaving crucial files for the program to work behind is somewhat important) | I wanted to post a comment to one of the questions but I don't enough reputation to do that >.> Here's what worked for me (came up with it after referring the docs): <code>package_data={ 'mypkg': ['../*.txt'] }, include_package_data: False </code> The last line was, strangely enough, also crucial for me (you can also omit this keyword argument - it works the same). What this does is it copies all text files in your top-level or root directory (one level up from the package <code>mypkg</code> you want to distribute). | answer_1 |
1612733 | Including non-Python files with setup.py <sep> How do I make <code>setup.py</code> include a file that isn't part of the code? (Specifically, it's a license file, but it could be any other thing.) I want to be able to control the location of the file. In the original source folder, the file is in the root of the package. (i.e. on the same level as the topmost <code>__init__.py</code>.) I want it to stay exactly there when the package is installed, regardless of operating system. How do I do that? | This works in 2020! As others said create "MANIFEST.in" where your setup.py is located. Next in manifest include/exclude all the necessary things. Be careful here regarding the syntax. Ex: lets say we have template folder to be included in the source package. in manifest file do this : <code>recursive-include template * </code> Make sure you leave space between dir-name and pattern for files/dirs like above. Dont do like this like we do in .gitignore <code>recursive-include template/* [this won't work] </code> Other option is to use include. There are bunch of options. Look up here at their docs for Manifest.in And the final important step, include this param in your setup.py and you are good to go! <code> setup( ... include_package_data=True, ...... ) </code> Hope that helps! Happy Coding! | I just wanted to follow up on something I found working with Python 2.7 on Centos 6. Adding the package_data or data_files as mentioned above did not work for me. I added a MANIFEST.IN with the files I wanted which put the non-python files into the tarball, but did not install them on the target machine via RPM. In the end, I was able to get the files into my solution using the "options" in the setup/setuptools. The option files let you modify various sections of the spec file from setup.py. As follows. <code>from setuptools import setup setup( name='theProjectName', version='1', packages=['thePackage'], url='', license='', author='me', author_email='me@email.com', description='', options={'bdist_rpm': {'install_script': 'filewithinstallcommands'}}, ) </code> file - MANIFEST.in: <code>include license.txt </code> file - filewithinstallcommands: <code>mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/pathtoinstall/ #this line installs your python files python setup.py install -O1 --root=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT --record=INSTALLED_FILES #install license.txt into /pathtoinstall folder install -m 700 license.txt $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/pathtoinstall/ echo /pathtoinstall/license.txt >> INSTALLED_FILES </code> | answer_1 |
1612733 | Including non-Python files with setup.py <sep> How do I make <code>setup.py</code> include a file that isn't part of the code? (Specifically, it's a license file, but it could be any other thing.) I want to be able to control the location of the file. In the original source folder, the file is in the root of the package. (i.e. on the same level as the topmost <code>__init__.py</code>.) I want it to stay exactly there when the package is installed, regardless of operating system. How do I do that? | This works in 2020! As others said create "MANIFEST.in" where your setup.py is located. Next in manifest include/exclude all the necessary things. Be careful here regarding the syntax. Ex: lets say we have template folder to be included in the source package. in manifest file do this : <code>recursive-include template * </code> Make sure you leave space between dir-name and pattern for files/dirs like above. Dont do like this like we do in .gitignore <code>recursive-include template/* [this won't work] </code> Other option is to use include. There are bunch of options. Look up here at their docs for Manifest.in And the final important step, include this param in your setup.py and you are good to go! <code> setup( ... include_package_data=True, ...... ) </code> Hope that helps! Happy Coding! | In setup.py under setup( : <code>setup( name = 'foo library' ... package_data={ 'foolibrary.folderA': ['*'], # All files from folder A 'foolibrary.folderB': ['*.txt'] #All text files from folder B }, </code> | answer_1 |
1612733 | Including non-Python files with setup.py <sep> How do I make <code>setup.py</code> include a file that isn't part of the code? (Specifically, it's a license file, but it could be any other thing.) I want to be able to control the location of the file. In the original source folder, the file is in the root of the package. (i.e. on the same level as the topmost <code>__init__.py</code>.) I want it to stay exactly there when the package is installed, regardless of operating system. How do I do that? | I wanted to post a comment to one of the questions but I don't enough reputation to do that >.> Here's what worked for me (came up with it after referring the docs): <code>package_data={ 'mypkg': ['../*.txt'] }, include_package_data: False </code> The last line was, strangely enough, also crucial for me (you can also omit this keyword argument - it works the same). What this does is it copies all text files in your top-level or root directory (one level up from the package <code>mypkg</code> you want to distribute). | I just wanted to follow up on something I found working with Python 2.7 on Centos 6. Adding the package_data or data_files as mentioned above did not work for me. I added a MANIFEST.IN with the files I wanted which put the non-python files into the tarball, but did not install them on the target machine via RPM. In the end, I was able to get the files into my solution using the "options" in the setup/setuptools. The option files let you modify various sections of the spec file from setup.py. As follows. <code>from setuptools import setup setup( name='theProjectName', version='1', packages=['thePackage'], url='', license='', author='me', author_email='me@email.com', description='', options={'bdist_rpm': {'install_script': 'filewithinstallcommands'}}, ) </code> file - MANIFEST.in: <code>include license.txt </code> file - filewithinstallcommands: <code>mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/pathtoinstall/ #this line installs your python files python setup.py install -O1 --root=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT --record=INSTALLED_FILES #install license.txt into /pathtoinstall folder install -m 700 license.txt $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/pathtoinstall/ echo /pathtoinstall/license.txt >> INSTALLED_FILES </code> | answer_1 |
1612733 | Including non-Python files with setup.py <sep> How do I make <code>setup.py</code> include a file that isn't part of the code? (Specifically, it's a license file, but it could be any other thing.) I want to be able to control the location of the file. In the original source folder, the file is in the root of the package. (i.e. on the same level as the topmost <code>__init__.py</code>.) I want it to stay exactly there when the package is installed, regardless of operating system. How do I do that? | Step 1: create a <code>MANIFEST.in</code> file in the same folder with setup.py Step 2: include the relative path to the files you want to add in <code>MANIFEST.in</code> <code>include README.rst include docs/*.txt include funniest/data.json </code> Step 3: set <code>include_package_data=True</code> in the <code>setup()</code> function to copy these files to site-package Reference is here. | In setup.py under setup( : <code>setup( name = 'foo library' ... package_data={ 'foolibrary.folderA': ['*'], # All files from folder A 'foolibrary.folderB': ['*.txt'] #All text files from folder B }, </code> | answer_1 |
17383169 | Haskell: Double every 2nd element in list <sep> I just started using Haskell and wanted to write a function that, given a list, returns a list in which every 2nd element has been doubled. So far I've come up with this: <code>double_2nd :: [Int] -> [Int] double_2nd [] = [] double_2nd (x:xs) = x : (2 * head xs) : double_2nd (tail xs) </code> Which works but I was wondering how you guys would write that function. Is there a more common/better way or does this look about right? | That's not bad, modulo the fixes suggested. Once you get more familiar with the base library you'll likely avoid explicit recursion in favor of some higher level functions, for example, you could create a list of functions where every other one is <code>*2</code> and apply (zip) that list of functions to your list of numbers: <code>double = zipWith ($) (cycle [id,(*2)]) </code> | Try it on an odd-length list: <code>Prelude> double_2nd [1] [1,*** Exception: Prelude.head: empty list </code> And you can see the problem with your code. The 'head' and 'tail' are never a good idea. | answer_1 |
17383169 | Haskell: Double every 2nd element in list <sep> I just started using Haskell and wanted to write a function that, given a list, returns a list in which every 2nd element has been doubled. So far I've come up with this: <code>double_2nd :: [Int] -> [Int] double_2nd [] = [] double_2nd (x:xs) = x : (2 * head xs) : double_2nd (tail xs) </code> Which works but I was wondering how you guys would write that function. Is there a more common/better way or does this look about right? | Try it on an odd-length list: <code>Prelude> double_2nd [1] [1,*** Exception: Prelude.head: empty list </code> And you can see the problem with your code. The 'head' and 'tail' are never a good idea. | A little bit of necromancy, but I think that this method worked out very well for me and want to share: <code>double2nd n = zipWith (*) n (cycle [1,2]) </code> zipWith takes a function and then applies that function across matching items in two lists (first item to first item, second item to second item, etc). The function is multiplication, and the zipped list is an endless cycle of 1s and 2s. zipWith (and all the zip variants) stops at the end of the shorter list. | answer_2 |
31414 | How can I pass a command line argument into a shell script? <sep> I know that shell scripts just run commands as if they were executed in at the command prompt. I'd like to be able to run shell scripts as if they were functions... That is, taking an input value or string into the script. How do I approach doing this? | <code>$/shellscriptname.sh argument1 argument2 argument3 </code> You can also pass output of one shell script as an argument to another shell script. <code>$/shellscriptname.sh "$(secondshellscriptname.sh)" </code> Within shell script you can access arguments with numbers like <code>$1</code> for first argument and <code>$2</code> for second argument and so on so forth. More on shell arguments | <code>./myscript myargument </code> <code>myargument</code> becomes <code>$1</code> inside <code>myscript</code>. | answer_1 |
31414 | How can I pass a command line argument into a shell script? <sep> I know that shell scripts just run commands as if they were executed in at the command prompt. I'd like to be able to run shell scripts as if they were functions... That is, taking an input value or string into the script. How do I approach doing this? | On a bash script, I personally like to use the following script to set parameters: <code>#!/bin/bash helpFunction() { echo "" echo "Usage: $0 -a parameterA -b parameterB -c parameterC" echo -e "\t-a Description of what is parameterA" echo -e "\t-b Description of what is parameterB" echo -e "\t-c Description of what is parameterC" exit 1 # Exit script after printing help } while getopts "a:b:c:" opt do case "$opt" in a ) parameterA="$OPTARG" ;; b ) parameterB="$OPTARG" ;; c ) parameterC="$OPTARG" ;; ? ) helpFunction ;; # Print helpFunction in case parameter is non-existent esac done # Print helpFunction in case parameters are empty if [ -z "$parameterA" ] || [ -z "$parameterB" ] || [ -z "$parameterC" ] then echo "Some or all of the parameters are empty"; helpFunction fi # Begin script in case all parameters are correct echo "$parameterA" echo "$parameterB" echo "$parameterC" </code> With this structure, we don't rely on the order of the parameters, as we're defining a key letter to each one of them. Also, the help function will be printed all the times that the parameters are defined wrongly. It's very useful when we have a lot of scripts with different parameters to handle. It works as the following: <code>$ bash myscript -a "String A" -b "String B" -c "String C" String A String B String C $ bash myscript -a "String A" -c "String C" -b "String B" String A String B String C $ bash myscript -a "String A" -c "String C" -f "Non-existent parameter" myscript: illegal option -- f Usage: myscript -a parameterA -b parameterB -c parameterC -a Description of what is parameterA -b Description of what is parameterB -c Description of what is parameterC $ bash myscript -a "String A" -c "String C" Some or all of the parameters are empty Usage: myscript -a parameterA -b parameterB -c parameterC -a Description of what is parameterA -b Description of what is parameterB -c Description of what is parameterC </code> | <code>./myscript myargument </code> <code>myargument</code> becomes <code>$1</code> inside <code>myscript</code>. | answer_1 |
v27m0f | How do you keep yourself from giving up on your work? Trying this again, lol How do you keep yourself from giving up on your work? So I like my plot, my characters, and I love writing and the little bit of worldbuilding I get to do with the setting I have picked out. I’m more of a pantser than a planner, because if I make a whole outline I’m just going to second-guess my story and never finish it, and pantsing it makes me at least work on it, but I have one fatal flaw. At some point, whether it’s 2 pages in or halfway through, I always give up. My excuses in the past have been as follows: My plot feels juvenile, too simple, or too predictable; My characters feel too predictable, simple, or childish; I feel like the plot is too whimsical/esoteric/generally weird and my book won’t be successful/no one will want to read it; Or, I generally second-guess myself into abandoning the story. I’m embarrassed because the only things I’ve ever finished writing were fanfictions, and now that I’m ‘a real adult’ I feel like I should be writing ‘real adult things’ and not fanfic. I made it halfway through a manuscript four or five years ago now, but second-guessed my plot and characters until I forfeited. It isn’t writer’s block necessarily. Just continual negative self-talk until I break myself down and quit working on it. Does anyone have any advice, other than the standard “just push through it?” Has anyone else struggled with this? I guess it’s like author imposter syndrome, in a way? | >I'm more of a pantser than a planner, because if I make a whole outline I'm just going to second-guess my story and never finish it. Isn't that what you're doing anyway? So pantsing or planning, you're still encountering the same issue: self-doubt and self-deprecation, and the same result: you quit working on the project. I'm a planner, so I'm biased, but: if you find you're dropping all your projects while pantsing because they feel half-baked or too simplistic, a good way to correct that is to go in with a game plan you've worked on to make it more elaborate or innovative. And it doesn't sound like you've given yourself much of a chance for actually trying an outline; you seem to be just assuming it won't work for you. The rough/first draft of anything feels kinda bad. It doesn't match up to how shiny and dimensional the idea is in your head. But you won't be able to bring it closer to how it is in your head if you never get around to finishing and revising it. So what if it feels flat or clunky or weird? It's a rough draft, and it's for your eyes only, and you can polish it later. Not a single one of your favourite books is the first version of itself. You have to trust your idea, and be willing to recognize that you'll be a better writer at the end of your story than you were at the start, and be okay with cringing a little along the way. You can correct everything later on. All this to say: I keep myself from giving up by keeping in mind that I can always come back later and make it better, so it reads how I want it to read. >now that I'm 'a real adult' I feel like I should be writing 'real adult things' and not fanfic. You know most fanfics are written by adults, right? People don't just drop their fandoms or hobbies once they leave high school or university. Don't let vague, nebulous, self-imposed societal expectations dictate how you spend your free time. If you like writing fanfic, write fanfic. If you don't like writing original content, why try to keep throwing yourself against the wall to try to do it? If you've got plans to publish, yes, you need to find a way to make your original stories work. But if you just want to write because you enjoy writing--why not just write what makes you happy and comes easily to you? You never need to put yourself in a box. That's not what being a creative is about. Even if you go back to solely writing fanfiction for now, that doesn't mean you can't explore original content writing again later, when you have a project idea you're really excited about. But you can't really approach original fiction the same way you approach fanfiction. That's like building a house from the foundation up vs moving some furniture around. If you're going into your original content the same way you went into writing fanfic, no wonder you're feeling overwhelmed. You go into fanfic with a lot of concrete knowledge about the world, characters, etc already in mind. Original fiction becomes more concrete only once it leaves your head and you start writing, so there are some transitional pains. I'd really suggest at least trying an outline and sticking to it, at least once, at least so you *know* it's not for you. At a minimum, building an outline will at least let you go into your story with a game plan that can help prevent you from stalling out. | My advice because I'm struggling with it a lot is to just not worry about exactly how much progress you make. I get myself down because I do a lot of dialogue and I've got this impossible standard that I set for 5 pages a day if possible. I call my outline my side work because calling it an outline makes me not want to do it. I develop my side work when I don't feel like writing all that much and because it's just bite size I don't realize I'm writing. And then I'll get this idea for something completely unrelated or seemingly unimportant and I'll have the creative energy back. For example in this story that was supposed to be 200 pages and is now well over 300, I have a scene where two of my main characters are playing a card game. It's completely irrelevant what game they play, but I actually wrote out the rules for a game because I found a spark while doing my side work. Try writing out an outline when you just don't feel like writing. Make it into a checklist so that when you hit something you can check it off and move onto the next bullet point. Write out an index for things that probably need an explanation. Give those things explanation in the story, but write out a lot more detail for your index entries. Every alien animal I think up gets a small description in the story and then it gets a much more lengthy entry in the index. As for your negative self talk, you stop that \*write\* now. Your writing is for you, don't worry about what anyone else thinks. I struggle with that because I'm trying to write a pair of young teenagers and I'm a "real adult" that still wants chocolate milk and pb&j for lunch and gets shitty when he cooks and doesn't make mac and cheese practically every other night. Write what you want to write not what you think everyone thinks you should write. | answer_1 |
v27m0f | How do you keep yourself from giving up on your work? Trying this again, lol How do you keep yourself from giving up on your work? So I like my plot, my characters, and I love writing and the little bit of worldbuilding I get to do with the setting I have picked out. I’m more of a pantser than a planner, because if I make a whole outline I’m just going to second-guess my story and never finish it, and pantsing it makes me at least work on it, but I have one fatal flaw. At some point, whether it’s 2 pages in or halfway through, I always give up. My excuses in the past have been as follows: My plot feels juvenile, too simple, or too predictable; My characters feel too predictable, simple, or childish; I feel like the plot is too whimsical/esoteric/generally weird and my book won’t be successful/no one will want to read it; Or, I generally second-guess myself into abandoning the story. I’m embarrassed because the only things I’ve ever finished writing were fanfictions, and now that I’m ‘a real adult’ I feel like I should be writing ‘real adult things’ and not fanfic. I made it halfway through a manuscript four or five years ago now, but second-guessed my plot and characters until I forfeited. It isn’t writer’s block necessarily. Just continual negative self-talk until I break myself down and quit working on it. Does anyone have any advice, other than the standard “just push through it?” Has anyone else struggled with this? I guess it’s like author imposter syndrome, in a way? | >I'm more of a pantser than a planner, because if I make a whole outline I'm just going to second-guess my story and never finish it. Isn't that what you're doing anyway? So pantsing or planning, you're still encountering the same issue: self-doubt and self-deprecation, and the same result: you quit working on the project. I'm a planner, so I'm biased, but: if you find you're dropping all your projects while pantsing because they feel half-baked or too simplistic, a good way to correct that is to go in with a game plan you've worked on to make it more elaborate or innovative. And it doesn't sound like you've given yourself much of a chance for actually trying an outline; you seem to be just assuming it won't work for you. The rough/first draft of anything feels kinda bad. It doesn't match up to how shiny and dimensional the idea is in your head. But you won't be able to bring it closer to how it is in your head if you never get around to finishing and revising it. So what if it feels flat or clunky or weird? It's a rough draft, and it's for your eyes only, and you can polish it later. Not a single one of your favourite books is the first version of itself. You have to trust your idea, and be willing to recognize that you'll be a better writer at the end of your story than you were at the start, and be okay with cringing a little along the way. You can correct everything later on. All this to say: I keep myself from giving up by keeping in mind that I can always come back later and make it better, so it reads how I want it to read. >now that I'm 'a real adult' I feel like I should be writing 'real adult things' and not fanfic. You know most fanfics are written by adults, right? People don't just drop their fandoms or hobbies once they leave high school or university. Don't let vague, nebulous, self-imposed societal expectations dictate how you spend your free time. If you like writing fanfic, write fanfic. If you don't like writing original content, why try to keep throwing yourself against the wall to try to do it? If you've got plans to publish, yes, you need to find a way to make your original stories work. But if you just want to write because you enjoy writing--why not just write what makes you happy and comes easily to you? You never need to put yourself in a box. That's not what being a creative is about. Even if you go back to solely writing fanfiction for now, that doesn't mean you can't explore original content writing again later, when you have a project idea you're really excited about. But you can't really approach original fiction the same way you approach fanfiction. That's like building a house from the foundation up vs moving some furniture around. If you're going into your original content the same way you went into writing fanfic, no wonder you're feeling overwhelmed. You go into fanfic with a lot of concrete knowledge about the world, characters, etc already in mind. Original fiction becomes more concrete only once it leaves your head and you start writing, so there are some transitional pains. I'd really suggest at least trying an outline and sticking to it, at least once, at least so you *know* it's not for you. At a minimum, building an outline will at least let you go into your story with a game plan that can help prevent you from stalling out. | Read "The Artist's Way" by Julia Cameron. It's a classic for a reason, and it really works if you let it! 🌿 | answer_1 |
v27m0f | How do you keep yourself from giving up on your work? Trying this again, lol How do you keep yourself from giving up on your work? So I like my plot, my characters, and I love writing and the little bit of worldbuilding I get to do with the setting I have picked out. I’m more of a pantser than a planner, because if I make a whole outline I’m just going to second-guess my story and never finish it, and pantsing it makes me at least work on it, but I have one fatal flaw. At some point, whether it’s 2 pages in or halfway through, I always give up. My excuses in the past have been as follows: My plot feels juvenile, too simple, or too predictable; My characters feel too predictable, simple, or childish; I feel like the plot is too whimsical/esoteric/generally weird and my book won’t be successful/no one will want to read it; Or, I generally second-guess myself into abandoning the story. I’m embarrassed because the only things I’ve ever finished writing were fanfictions, and now that I’m ‘a real adult’ I feel like I should be writing ‘real adult things’ and not fanfic. I made it halfway through a manuscript four or five years ago now, but second-guessed my plot and characters until I forfeited. It isn’t writer’s block necessarily. Just continual negative self-talk until I break myself down and quit working on it. Does anyone have any advice, other than the standard “just push through it?” Has anyone else struggled with this? I guess it’s like author imposter syndrome, in a way? | My advice because I'm struggling with it a lot is to just not worry about exactly how much progress you make. I get myself down because I do a lot of dialogue and I've got this impossible standard that I set for 5 pages a day if possible. I call my outline my side work because calling it an outline makes me not want to do it. I develop my side work when I don't feel like writing all that much and because it's just bite size I don't realize I'm writing. And then I'll get this idea for something completely unrelated or seemingly unimportant and I'll have the creative energy back. For example in this story that was supposed to be 200 pages and is now well over 300, I have a scene where two of my main characters are playing a card game. It's completely irrelevant what game they play, but I actually wrote out the rules for a game because I found a spark while doing my side work. Try writing out an outline when you just don't feel like writing. Make it into a checklist so that when you hit something you can check it off and move onto the next bullet point. Write out an index for things that probably need an explanation. Give those things explanation in the story, but write out a lot more detail for your index entries. Every alien animal I think up gets a small description in the story and then it gets a much more lengthy entry in the index. As for your negative self talk, you stop that \*write\* now. Your writing is for you, don't worry about what anyone else thinks. I struggle with that because I'm trying to write a pair of young teenagers and I'm a "real adult" that still wants chocolate milk and pb&j for lunch and gets shitty when he cooks and doesn't make mac and cheese practically every other night. Write what you want to write not what you think everyone thinks you should write. | Read "The Artist's Way" by Julia Cameron. It's a classic for a reason, and it really works if you let it! 🌿 | answer_1 |
or1t05 | If our ears locate the direction which a sound comes from by the time lag between our two ears, how does it determine if it's in front or behind of us? | The shape of the ears also changes the pitch of the sound and what the sound generally sounds like, your brain automatically adjusts to the change in the sound so you can kind of know where the sound is coming from | A few good responses already and it's a combination of all of them really. Movement of the head if the sound of continuous. Earlobes are also pretty key in this - studies have been done placing artificial earlobes on ones head at first causes confusion pinpointing the direction of sound. After about a day the brain readjusts. Your brain reads the cues of volume and pitch differences caused by your earlobes. And also mentioned in another comment vibrations felt by your skull and even other parts of your body help your brain determine direction of sound source so well it just feels like you're hearing the direction. | answer_1 |
lpvhq1 | Were books from around 1800 as hard to read for the people back then as they are for us nowadays? (And vice versa?) I'm (trying) to read Kant right now (I'm German by the way) and I find it rather difficult to understand. It is not that he is using old words that do not exist anymore but rather that the sentences are incredibly long and twisted and sometimes I have already forgotten the beginning of the sentence when I reach the end. Now, language changes with time and the "modern German" was already there in 1800, still it is hard for us nowadays to understand. Could the people back then understand it better? And is that because they used a more complex language back then and we are just "too stupid" to understand? Or was reading Kant just as difficult for the people in 1800 as it is for us? And how about the other way around? If Kant was reading a modern philosophy book, could he understand it easily? Has the language gotten less complex over time or just different? I hope my question is understandable (I did my best). | Is it possible that rather than language as a whole having been more complicated in the past, it was more of a popular stylistic choice to write in long, complicated sentences (even though the spoken language didn't use such complicated structures)? And the difference is that in current times, such a style has merely become less fashionable? | Hello! Thank you for posting your question to /r/asklinguistics. Please remember to flair your post. This is a reminder to ensure your recent submission follows all of our rules, which are visible in the sidebar. If it doesn't, your submission may be removed! ___ All top-level replies to this post must be academic and sourced where possible. Lay speculation, pop-linguistics, and comments that are not adequately sourced will be removed. ___ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/asklinguistics) if you have any questions or concerns.* | answer_1 |
lpvhq1 | Were books from around 1800 as hard to read for the people back then as they are for us nowadays? (And vice versa?) I'm (trying) to read Kant right now (I'm German by the way) and I find it rather difficult to understand. It is not that he is using old words that do not exist anymore but rather that the sentences are incredibly long and twisted and sometimes I have already forgotten the beginning of the sentence when I reach the end. Now, language changes with time and the "modern German" was already there in 1800, still it is hard for us nowadays to understand. Could the people back then understand it better? And is that because they used a more complex language back then and we are just "too stupid" to understand? Or was reading Kant just as difficult for the people in 1800 as it is for us? And how about the other way around? If Kant was reading a modern philosophy book, could he understand it easily? Has the language gotten less complex over time or just different? I hope my question is understandable (I did my best). | Hello! Thank you for posting your question to /r/asklinguistics. Please remember to flair your post. This is a reminder to ensure your recent submission follows all of our rules, which are visible in the sidebar. If it doesn't, your submission may be removed! ___ All top-level replies to this post must be academic and sourced where possible. Lay speculation, pop-linguistics, and comments that are not adequately sourced will be removed. ___ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/asklinguistics) if you have any questions or concerns.* | the answers thus far are all really good and point out important nuances. but I feel like they're overlooking one simple fact: who were the writers and readers back then vs. now? Kant, as well as any contemporary who would have read him, was classically trained in Latin, Greek, rhetoric etc etc etc. Many of these old traditions were important to academics back then and had a lot of prestige and were mimicked quite a lot. Unfortunately, Latin and Greek calques more often than not produce near-gibberish in other languages, which doesn't help. So, basically, he wrote with a kind of training behind him that is (probably) very different from yours and had people in mind who had undergone the same training This paragraph is more of a speculation, but bear with me: The 'hot new thing' in the 18th century was the 'invention' of silent reading. Before that, most/a lot of reading happened either fully aloud or at least as a murmur. Actually reading the sentences aloud will slow down your reading pace but your reading rhythm and intonation will make you make sense of what you're reading more easily. Additionally, I assume that you're reading a standardized 'translation' of his work and not an actual reproduction of the letters etc he himself put on the page, right? If you can find such a reproduction, try reading it aloud and take the commas you find there as little pauses between phrases. It's not the way commas a currently used in German, but Kant wrote before the standardization of spelling, so it is highly likely that he will have divided his complex sentences into semantic phrases instead of syntactic phrases, as German punctuation rules today Finally, as an answer to your final question, I think he would be extremely confused by most things that we do (depending on the discipline). I think especially the idea of sign posting and referencing other pages (either later or earlier) he'd find amusing or maybe even appalling. Old-timey (German) academic writing is very much guided by "we'll get there when we get there", so you're never given a road map in advance, but simply follow a pretty straight line of argumentation, only broken by the famous 'Exkurs' | answer_2 |
lpvhq1 | Were books from around 1800 as hard to read for the people back then as they are for us nowadays? (And vice versa?) I'm (trying) to read Kant right now (I'm German by the way) and I find it rather difficult to understand. It is not that he is using old words that do not exist anymore but rather that the sentences are incredibly long and twisted and sometimes I have already forgotten the beginning of the sentence when I reach the end. Now, language changes with time and the "modern German" was already there in 1800, still it is hard for us nowadays to understand. Could the people back then understand it better? And is that because they used a more complex language back then and we are just "too stupid" to understand? Or was reading Kant just as difficult for the people in 1800 as it is for us? And how about the other way around? If Kant was reading a modern philosophy book, could he understand it easily? Has the language gotten less complex over time or just different? I hope my question is understandable (I did my best). | I've long heard that German students prefer to read Kant in English translation because they find that the translation smooths out some of the complexity. | Hello! Thank you for posting your question to /r/asklinguistics. Please remember to flair your post. This is a reminder to ensure your recent submission follows all of our rules, which are visible in the sidebar. If it doesn't, your submission may be removed! ___ All top-level replies to this post must be academic and sourced where possible. Lay speculation, pop-linguistics, and comments that are not adequately sourced will be removed. ___ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/asklinguistics) if you have any questions or concerns.* | answer_1 |
lpvhq1 | Were books from around 1800 as hard to read for the people back then as they are for us nowadays? (And vice versa?) I'm (trying) to read Kant right now (I'm German by the way) and I find it rather difficult to understand. It is not that he is using old words that do not exist anymore but rather that the sentences are incredibly long and twisted and sometimes I have already forgotten the beginning of the sentence when I reach the end. Now, language changes with time and the "modern German" was already there in 1800, still it is hard for us nowadays to understand. Could the people back then understand it better? And is that because they used a more complex language back then and we are just "too stupid" to understand? Or was reading Kant just as difficult for the people in 1800 as it is for us? And how about the other way around? If Kant was reading a modern philosophy book, could he understand it easily? Has the language gotten less complex over time or just different? I hope my question is understandable (I did my best). | I mean, Kant and Hegel are literary the worst writers to read. And long sentences were generally more in back then. I like the explanations in the other comments | Hello! Thank you for posting your question to /r/asklinguistics. Please remember to flair your post. This is a reminder to ensure your recent submission follows all of our rules, which are visible in the sidebar. If it doesn't, your submission may be removed! ___ All top-level replies to this post must be academic and sourced where possible. Lay speculation, pop-linguistics, and comments that are not adequately sourced will be removed. ___ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/asklinguistics) if you have any questions or concerns.* | answer_1 |
z2t4lo | Why does my cat bring me the same toy every night? So, my husband and I adopted 2 kittens a little over a year ago. A boy and a girl, they’re a little over a year old now. We also moved about 5 months ago and ever since getting into our new apartment, our male cat, Pippin, has been doing this thing where he’ll bring us one of his toys, a stick with a bell and rope attached and feathers on the end. Every time he does this he starts meowing and will find us wherever we are in the apartment and usually won’t stop until we make some acknowledgment of it. He never did this before we moved and our female cat doesn’t do this either. I’ve had cats most of my life and never experienced it, but this is the first time I’ve had fully indoor cats, so maybe that has something to do with it. It’s been increasing in frequency to the point that he does this almost every night. A few minutes after we get in bed, we’ll hear him start meowing and dragging the toy down the hall. About half the time he’ll jump on the bed to bring us the toy and once we say hi to him, he just lays down like normal. This happens occasionally (about every few days) during the day as well. It’s not a problem but I have also noticed that when he does this, he’ll sometimes make a motion kind of like he’s trying to cough up a hairball but doesn’t make any sound and doesn’t drop the toy when he does this. I’m just really curious and wondering if it’s something to do with him being a male cat or if I should be concerned? TIA for any insight! | He’s hunting! My cat brings me her favorite today every night and it’s my favorite thing. I usually give her a groggy “good job baby” and go back to sleep | Is your female cat named Merry, by any chance?? (I definitely thought about that combo for my brother/sister duo!) I have three cats that all engage in this behavior. They each have their own specific, earmarked toys that are brought upstairs daily (or even more than daily, if I do my job and put them back to be re-hunted). Two arrived as elder kittens and for them it's very much a clear "hey, let's play! // hey, look what I've brought you!!" -- lavish praise has always gone over well. The third, former street cat very evidently learned from them, and he now has his own giant stuffed rat that he (and only he) carries around at night. Recently, he's become enamored with leaving the rat in his favorite window sills, which I still can't quite parse the meaning of... wants his buddy to have a nice view, too? I think your guy is looking for acknowledgment and attention. It's silly but you could try thanking him for his present. | answer_2 |
z2t4lo | Why does my cat bring me the same toy every night? So, my husband and I adopted 2 kittens a little over a year ago. A boy and a girl, they’re a little over a year old now. We also moved about 5 months ago and ever since getting into our new apartment, our male cat, Pippin, has been doing this thing where he’ll bring us one of his toys, a stick with a bell and rope attached and feathers on the end. Every time he does this he starts meowing and will find us wherever we are in the apartment and usually won’t stop until we make some acknowledgment of it. He never did this before we moved and our female cat doesn’t do this either. I’ve had cats most of my life and never experienced it, but this is the first time I’ve had fully indoor cats, so maybe that has something to do with it. It’s been increasing in frequency to the point that he does this almost every night. A few minutes after we get in bed, we’ll hear him start meowing and dragging the toy down the hall. About half the time he’ll jump on the bed to bring us the toy and once we say hi to him, he just lays down like normal. This happens occasionally (about every few days) during the day as well. It’s not a problem but I have also noticed that when he does this, he’ll sometimes make a motion kind of like he’s trying to cough up a hairball but doesn’t make any sound and doesn’t drop the toy when he does this. I’m just really curious and wondering if it’s something to do with him being a male cat or if I should be concerned? TIA for any insight! | My cat does the exact same thing, he brings us a wand toy (or multiple toys) at bed time while howling, pretty much every night. I'm not really sure why but I think he thinks he is bringing us a present. | Is your female cat named Merry, by any chance?? (I definitely thought about that combo for my brother/sister duo!) I have three cats that all engage in this behavior. They each have their own specific, earmarked toys that are brought upstairs daily (or even more than daily, if I do my job and put them back to be re-hunted). Two arrived as elder kittens and for them it's very much a clear "hey, let's play! // hey, look what I've brought you!!" -- lavish praise has always gone over well. The third, former street cat very evidently learned from them, and he now has his own giant stuffed rat that he (and only he) carries around at night. Recently, he's become enamored with leaving the rat in his favorite window sills, which I still can't quite parse the meaning of... wants his buddy to have a nice view, too? I think your guy is looking for acknowledgment and attention. It's silly but you could try thanking him for his present. | answer_2 |
z2t4lo | Why does my cat bring me the same toy every night? So, my husband and I adopted 2 kittens a little over a year ago. A boy and a girl, they’re a little over a year old now. We also moved about 5 months ago and ever since getting into our new apartment, our male cat, Pippin, has been doing this thing where he’ll bring us one of his toys, a stick with a bell and rope attached and feathers on the end. Every time he does this he starts meowing and will find us wherever we are in the apartment and usually won’t stop until we make some acknowledgment of it. He never did this before we moved and our female cat doesn’t do this either. I’ve had cats most of my life and never experienced it, but this is the first time I’ve had fully indoor cats, so maybe that has something to do with it. It’s been increasing in frequency to the point that he does this almost every night. A few minutes after we get in bed, we’ll hear him start meowing and dragging the toy down the hall. About half the time he’ll jump on the bed to bring us the toy and once we say hi to him, he just lays down like normal. This happens occasionally (about every few days) during the day as well. It’s not a problem but I have also noticed that when he does this, he’ll sometimes make a motion kind of like he’s trying to cough up a hairball but doesn’t make any sound and doesn’t drop the toy when he does this. I’m just really curious and wondering if it’s something to do with him being a male cat or if I should be concerned? TIA for any insight! | My female cat does this and so does my parents' girl cat. They always bring us their favourite toys - it's like a present, really - the way they'd bring you a kill as a 'gift'. Only neither of these cats hunt so they bring their favourite toys instead. Both have a very specific meow they use as they're coming into the room, to announce their arrival/that's they've brought us something. I had a cat who did hunt and it's similar to her meow when she had a mouse, only this doesn't involve dead rodents. It's really sweet. | My elderly cat does this. It took him about 5 years to play with anything. But he’ll occasionally bring me a toy or two, making a big fuss about it when he does. But usually it’s his favorite Christmas themed mouse toy with a bell. Personally I think it’s just his way of being like “Look Ma, I killed it. This is for you.” | answer_1 |
z2t4lo | Why does my cat bring me the same toy every night? So, my husband and I adopted 2 kittens a little over a year ago. A boy and a girl, they’re a little over a year old now. We also moved about 5 months ago and ever since getting into our new apartment, our male cat, Pippin, has been doing this thing where he’ll bring us one of his toys, a stick with a bell and rope attached and feathers on the end. Every time he does this he starts meowing and will find us wherever we are in the apartment and usually won’t stop until we make some acknowledgment of it. He never did this before we moved and our female cat doesn’t do this either. I’ve had cats most of my life and never experienced it, but this is the first time I’ve had fully indoor cats, so maybe that has something to do with it. It’s been increasing in frequency to the point that he does this almost every night. A few minutes after we get in bed, we’ll hear him start meowing and dragging the toy down the hall. About half the time he’ll jump on the bed to bring us the toy and once we say hi to him, he just lays down like normal. This happens occasionally (about every few days) during the day as well. It’s not a problem but I have also noticed that when he does this, he’ll sometimes make a motion kind of like he’s trying to cough up a hairball but doesn’t make any sound and doesn’t drop the toy when he does this. I’m just really curious and wondering if it’s something to do with him being a male cat or if I should be concerned? TIA for any insight! | My cat does this with a fuzzy piece of fabric that was attached to a teaser pole. She brings it to me in the middle of the night and has a specific meow. It’s not a toy she plays with, she just brings it around the house and will drop it places for me. I call it her lovie, reminds me of a little kid with a blankie. | We have two cats. The youngest has done this since she first came home with a plastic spring. She trained me into throwing it, and we play fetch every night for 1-2 hours once I get in bed… pretty much never any other time. In between throws when she knocks it around, she yowls. Some people would find it annoying, but it’s our routine and I miss it now when I travel for work. If I ever fall asleep without playing fetch, I wake up with the same damn spring right next to my face, or in my hand. Cats are the best. | answer_1 |
z2t4lo | Why does my cat bring me the same toy every night? So, my husband and I adopted 2 kittens a little over a year ago. A boy and a girl, they’re a little over a year old now. We also moved about 5 months ago and ever since getting into our new apartment, our male cat, Pippin, has been doing this thing where he’ll bring us one of his toys, a stick with a bell and rope attached and feathers on the end. Every time he does this he starts meowing and will find us wherever we are in the apartment and usually won’t stop until we make some acknowledgment of it. He never did this before we moved and our female cat doesn’t do this either. I’ve had cats most of my life and never experienced it, but this is the first time I’ve had fully indoor cats, so maybe that has something to do with it. It’s been increasing in frequency to the point that he does this almost every night. A few minutes after we get in bed, we’ll hear him start meowing and dragging the toy down the hall. About half the time he’ll jump on the bed to bring us the toy and once we say hi to him, he just lays down like normal. This happens occasionally (about every few days) during the day as well. It’s not a problem but I have also noticed that when he does this, he’ll sometimes make a motion kind of like he’s trying to cough up a hairball but doesn’t make any sound and doesn’t drop the toy when he does this. I’m just really curious and wondering if it’s something to do with him being a male cat or if I should be concerned? TIA for any insight! | My tortie does this with her carrot toy. We just give her a ton of praise, lots of pets, and say thank you for being such a good hunter. | My elderly cat does this. It took him about 5 years to play with anything. But he’ll occasionally bring me a toy or two, making a big fuss about it when he does. But usually it’s his favorite Christmas themed mouse toy with a bell. Personally I think it’s just his way of being like “Look Ma, I killed it. This is for you.” | answer_2 |
z2t4lo | Why does my cat bring me the same toy every night? So, my husband and I adopted 2 kittens a little over a year ago. A boy and a girl, they’re a little over a year old now. We also moved about 5 months ago and ever since getting into our new apartment, our male cat, Pippin, has been doing this thing where he’ll bring us one of his toys, a stick with a bell and rope attached and feathers on the end. Every time he does this he starts meowing and will find us wherever we are in the apartment and usually won’t stop until we make some acknowledgment of it. He never did this before we moved and our female cat doesn’t do this either. I’ve had cats most of my life and never experienced it, but this is the first time I’ve had fully indoor cats, so maybe that has something to do with it. It’s been increasing in frequency to the point that he does this almost every night. A few minutes after we get in bed, we’ll hear him start meowing and dragging the toy down the hall. About half the time he’ll jump on the bed to bring us the toy and once we say hi to him, he just lays down like normal. This happens occasionally (about every few days) during the day as well. It’s not a problem but I have also noticed that when he does this, he’ll sometimes make a motion kind of like he’s trying to cough up a hairball but doesn’t make any sound and doesn’t drop the toy when he does this. I’m just really curious and wondering if it’s something to do with him being a male cat or if I should be concerned? TIA for any insight! | My seven year old cat does this. Sometimes with a sock she has hunted out of the laundry basket, sometimes with a brown rectangular toy she brought with her from the rescue when we got her and her brother, we call it her sausage. We tell her what a good hunter she is and thank her for her contribution to the food supplies. | My cat does this with one of his toys daily. He never wants to play with it I think he just wants to let us know about it. It's like his security blanket we think anyway. He just carries it around and is sort of like "hey look at it". | answer_2 |
2734692 | AVL tree vs. B-tree <sep> How is an AVL tree different from a B-tree? | An AVL tree is a self-balancing binary search tree, balanced to maintain O(log n) height. A B-tree is a balanced tree, but it is not a binary tree. Nodes have more children, which increases per-node search time but decreases the number of nodes the search needs to visit. This makes them good for disk-based trees. For more details, see the Wikipedia article. | Both the AVL tree and the B-tree are similar in that they are data structures that, through their requirements, cause the height of their respective trees to be minimized. This "shortness" allows searching to be performed in O(log n) time, because the largest possible number of reads corresponds to the height of the tree. <code> 5 / \ 3 7 / / \ 1 6 9 </code> This is an AVL tree, and is a binary search tree at its core. However, it is self-balancing, which means that as you add elements to the tree, it will restructure itself to maintain as uniform of a height as it can. Basically, it will not allow long branches. A B-tree also does this, but through a different re-balancing scheme. It's a little too complicated to write out, but if you Google search "B-tree animation" there are some really good applets out there that explain a B-tree pretty well. They are different in that an AVL tree is implemented with memory-based solutions in mind, while a B-tree is implemented with disk-based solutions in mind. AVL trees are not designed to hold massive collections of data, as they use dynamic memory allocation and pointers to the next block of memory. Obviously, we could replicate the AVL tree's functionality with disk locations and disk pointers, but it would be much slower because we would still have a significant number of reads to read a tree of a very large size. When the data collection is so large that it doesn't fit in memory, the solution is a B-tree (interesting factoid: there is no consensus on what the "B" actually stands for). A B-tree holds many children at one node and many pointers to children node. This way, during a disk read (which can take around 10 ms to read a single disk block), the maximum amount of relevant node data is returned, as well as pointers to "leaf node" disk blocks. This allows retrieval time of data to be amortized to log(n) time, making the B-tree especially useful for database and large dataset retrieval implementations. | answer_2 |
325766 | What do you call a partner that you don't live with? <sep> Married people are called "spouses" and people that are in a romantic relationship and live together without being married are called "cohabitants" but what do you call people who are in a romantic relationship that is, for all intents and purposes, the same as marriage/cohabitation, but who don't live together? My bilingual dictionary suggests "live-apart partner", but I find very little actual support for this when I google it, and no support at all on Ngrams. So, what's the proper term for this kind of partnership? I realise one could use "boyfriend/girlfriend" or just "partner", but I'm after the term for the specific kind of partnership, in line with "spouse" and "cohabitant". Edit: I'd be very grateful if the person who downvoted my question could explain what is wrong with it/in what way it doesnt meet a English Language Learners Stack Exchange guideline, so I can learn from my mistakes! | The problem here is that there are two separate concepts involved: your legal status and your living arrangements. When I started filling out forms you gave you the choice single/married/widowed/divorced. Then it was realised that many people were in long-term relationships so co-habiting or partner became included but as part of married not as a separate category. Then we developed civil partnerships. If you really want to know whether they are eligible to marry you then you need to know their civil status if you want to know whether when they go home from hospital there will be someone there to look after them you need to know their living arrangements. So if someone asks you you need to guess which aspect they are concerned about and respond appropriately. | Logically, it would seem that the opposite of "live-in partner" would be a "live-out partner", but I think most people wouldn't follow. In polyamory circles, a partner one lives with is a "nesting partner", so one one doesn't live with would be a "non-nesting partner". Most people would likely not be familiar with the term, but I think it's reasonably easy to figure out what it means. | answer_2 |
kg8jgu | Do planes have super-chargers and/or turbo-chargers like cars can? If not, why? I know nothing about planes beyond the simple rotary engine and IM curious about this. It seems like they are operating at such a speed and scale that these additions could be perfect additions as long as it was designed to not add more drag and weight than it's added worth. Even then, what if they flew at a slightly downward slope from a higher altitude? or compensate with a design generating more lift? How would they roughly impact speed and fuel efficiency? | I won't beat /u/IsentropicFire for detail, so I'll go for brevity and sideways thinking: A jet engine is basically all turbocharger, and none of the rest of a car engine. | To summarize what's been said about turbos and superchargers so far: the more oxygen your can squeeze into a small space, the more fuel you can burn in that same space. More fuel equals more power. It's almost that simple. If there's not enough oxygen, the fuel doesn't combust completely. This is how some fire extinguishers do their job; blocking oxygen from combusting with the fuel. Same for a water hose, along with cooling everything down. When you burn something, you extract energy from it in the form of heat, which expands the stuff around it. How you *use* that energy is what the rest of your very interesting questions is about. Piston engines use the extra oxygen to fly higher and/or lift heavier loads. Early on, we just added more pistons to get more power, but this doesn't solve the altitude issue and adds more weight. Adding a turbocharger and/or supercharger was a weight tradeoff. The propeller must be capable of absorbing the energy produced by the engine and transferring it to the air. We solved that quite nicely in WW2 with forged aluminum props and an automatic variable pitch hub. The latter freed up the pilot's attention for shooting stuff. The German fighter planes had a manual pitch adjustment, which increased the pilot's workload. When jet engines came along, they were used for speed and altitude. Speed came in part because there was no big propeller in front of the engine that needed to be pushed through the air. Altitude came because going fast at altitude pushed more air into a small space. Then someone said, "But wait! There's more!" What if we built a tiny jet engine with the same power output as a piston engine, and used it to spin a big prop? Not all aircraft need to go as fast as military jets or fly as high, and the turboprop was born. The engine is much lighter than a comparable piston engine, and has a longer time between overhauls, so it can fly more often and/or for longer periods. Google "turboprop gearbox" and you'll see the main thing that makes turboprops possible. A propeller's tips cannot spin faster than the speed of sound or bad things will happen. The gearbox ensures the rpm's stay low enough to prevent that. It's a short mental walk to go from turboprop to turbofan, eh? Take a big jet engine, put in a secondary turbine at the butt end to capture a portion of the exhaust energy, send that energy through a nested shaft up to the front of the engine, and spin a big compressor section that pushed more of its air around the jet engine instead of through it like the normal compression section. Google "high bypass turbofan" and be amazed. The elegance of the high bypass turbofan is its simplicity; the speed of the bypass fan is not controlled by gearing, but by the design of the secondary turbine. This means less weight for the system. It's the perfect powerplant for commercial aircraft. Watch one start up and you'll hear the jet engine start first and see its exhaust, but that bypass fan is slowly spinning up. It's not mechanically attached to the axel that spins the jet engine core. It's a beautiful thing. BTW one constraint on this system is the surface speed of the *bearings* that hold the nested shafts apart. Airplanes are designed for a specific mission: going fast; carrying heavy stuff; landing on a short runway; flying very high; turning sharp; flying for a long time and over a really long distance; climbing fast; diving fast; being easy to fly. Maybe a few more. Google "Rutan Voyager circumnavigates the globe" to see one example of a plane built for one specific mission. A successful airplane design must accomplish several of these; i.e. it's not very use𝚏ul to go as fast as possible if the design cannot land on a standard length runway. Aircraft design is entirely about the tradeoffs between all the mission requirements and physics. Start with a mission. Determine which powerplant comes the closest to serving that mission (you may need more than one). Take that power to weight engine and design an airframe around it. WW1 planes had few choices of powerplant, and the power to weight ratio was total shit by standards available just 10 years later. But take a low powered, heavy engine, and put two short wings around it and a short fuselage, and you get a really quick, sharp turning fighter plane. Add machine guns and go fight. About that altitude thing: if I can fly higher in my fighter plane than you can fly in your fighter plane, I can attack you from above and disappear back into the sky. Nah, nah, ne-nah, nah! Since a lack of oxygen is the constraint, we can either carry an oxygen bottle (adds weight, doesn't last very long, both bad things) or push more air into the small space where the fuel will ignite (good idea). So what are the constraints on pushing more air into a small spaϲe? What are the tradeoffs? Once you leave the ground, the constraints can be reduced to just three. They are weight, poewr, and drag. Of these, weight is dominant; increase the weight and drag goes up, so the power requirement goes up to overcome that drag, which takes more fuel, which may mean adding more fuel to reach the intended range, which adds more weight at takeoff and climb, which adds drag... You seeing the picture? An aerospace engineer that worked on the first cruise missiles told me this story: A junior engineer, working on some of the control electronics, chose to place his little box of important stuff on the front bulkhead, just behind the blowy up parts. A senior engineer ripped him a new one, because that half a pound of weight positioned that far from the center of lift of the wings would cause a load on the trim of the aircraft to maintain level flight, which would increase drag, which would decrease the range of the missile, which means the ship firing that missile would have to be closer to the target, which is a dumb thing to do. The sum of small mistakes in a design that flies is a bad thing to let happen, unless there is a mission parameter that requires it. Since you have a healthy curiosity, google "airplane design tradeoffs", open a beer, and enjoy the many rabbit holes available to you. If you're still curious after google, you can search for books on engineering different parts of an aircraft. One of my faves was a very large and expensive book that only covered the design of naval aircraft landing gear. That's a whole career for that author, and it was just about the rolly parts that are only needed when the plane is not flying. And only planes based on aircraft carriers; you wouldn't waste adding the weight on land based planes. Then, if you're stilⅼ curious, visit EAA.org. Visit aircraftspruce.com. Your curiosity can evolve into a lifelong hobby in which you learn to fly and build your own airplane in your garage, or restore a vintage warbird, or just hanɡ out with other curious aero-types.:-D | answer_2 |
kg8jgu | Do planes have super-chargers and/or turbo-chargers like cars can? If not, why? I know nothing about planes beyond the simple rotary engine and IM curious about this. It seems like they are operating at such a speed and scale that these additions could be perfect additions as long as it was designed to not add more drag and weight than it's added worth. Even then, what if they flew at a slightly downward slope from a higher altitude? or compensate with a design generating more lift? How would they roughly impact speed and fuel efficiency? | answer_1 | ||
kg8jgu | Do planes have super-chargers and/or turbo-chargers like cars can? If not, why? I know nothing about planes beyond the simple rotary engine and IM curious about this. It seems like they are operating at such a speed and scale that these additions could be perfect additions as long as it was designed to not add more drag and weight than it's added worth. Even then, what if they flew at a slightly downward slope from a higher altitude? or compensate with a design generating more lift? How would they roughly impact speed and fuel efficiency? | About the efficiency: commercial jets try to operate just under transonic speeds (about mach 0.8 to 1.3) where drag rapidly increases as the airspeed rises, so it would most likely not be worth it for jets. Not that modern jets would need this for cryise flight anyway, as the highest thrust applied usually is at take-off and during climb. About the climbing and then continuously descending, as airplanes climb, their minimum speed and maximum speed come closer together, until they could theoretically hit the so-called ’coffin corner’. In reality they don’t fly at this altitude, but flying higher and then descending might require them to fly at such a high altitude that they can’t reach it. As the airplane descends, it would go back to altitudes where the air is thicker, which means that they both have to fly slower and experience more drag, so it’s probably more efficient to stay at cruising altitude longer. It also makes seperating airplanes a lot easier for air traffic controllers. A design which generates more lift might have good consequences, but also a surprisingly bad consequence. One of the consequences of lift are so-called wing tip vortices (there are a few clips where you can see them pretty clearly when an airplane flies through a cloud). These create drag and the more lift, the stronger the vortices. When an airplane is not accelerating up or down or turning, it’s theoretically producing the same amount of lift as it weighs. So a plane which produces more lift could carry more, but could also produce more drag making things worse. Now there are ways to make these vortices less powerful, like having a larger wing span, which can increase weight. So when they design a new airplane, they need to considering all these things and decide what they want to favor. | answer_1 | |
vbj5sg | WHY does V chord want to resolve at the I? Can anyone explain WHY the V chord wants to resolve to the tonic? I’m sure there are reason and I know my fellow Reddit kings and queens can school me on this. Any help would be greatly appreciated as I am a theory noob | Well, it actually doesn’t. No chord *wants* to resolve to any other particular chord - because chords aren’t sentient beings that have a mind of their own; it’s humans that have culturally engrained tastes and expectations of their own - and these obviously can vary quite a lot. For example, most of the music in existence (including most contemporary popular genres) don’t revolve around V-I cadences, and listeners of these kinds of music really don’t seem to mind; so I think it’d be an over generalization to say that any particular chord “wants” to resolve anywhere else. Music isn’t a universal language, so neither is music theory. However, that might not be the kind of answer you’re looking for. V-I motion (and similar sorts of tonal resolution) are obviously *very* historically important to the musical tradition of European Classical music (Mozart, Haydn, etc.), as well as related strains of music from Europe. In these styles of music, the sound of V going to I (especially scale degrees 7 and 4 resolving to 3 and 1) became a cornerstone of their musical vocabulary. If you’re lookin to understand this in more depth, I’d recommend checking out any tonal harmony textbook, or a history book about tonal harmony in Europe. | Many centuries ago, medieval Europeans decided they really liked half-step resolutions, especially when they went up. It became very much A Thing to approach resolutions with one voice moving a half step in one direction, and the other moving a whole step in the opposite direction, arriving at a perfect interval--which was, most importantly for our purposes, often an octave. So if we wanted to resolve to octave As, that meant either G#-A going up combined with B-A going down, or G-A going up combine with Bb-A going down. The former pattern, with the half step rising rather than the half step falling, was preferred for resolutions that were really meant to be final and complete. So then this B-G# major sixth expanding to the A-A octave made it into the Renaissance, and people started liking to have an independent, leapy bass voice below these cadential voices, and one place that a bass worked particularly well beneath the B-G# major sixth was on the E below it. This E could either leap up an octave to another E, or up a fourth/down a fifth to an A. Either way, you end up with an E major chord resolving to an A sonority of some kind. Eventually, upward half-step resolution merge with the root motion by descending fifth took hold as Another Thing, and there's our V-I. | answer_1 |
vbj5sg | WHY does V chord want to resolve at the I? Can anyone explain WHY the V chord wants to resolve to the tonic? I’m sure there are reason and I know my fellow Reddit kings and queens can school me on this. Any help would be greatly appreciated as I am a theory noob | One of my theory teachers liked to use the Harmonic/Overtone Series as part of the reason V wants to resolve to I. It also kind of relates to the jazz term "the V is the I." When you study the frequency of the waveform of a single note, you will find there are multiple frequencies resonating. If we play C2, which we call the fundamental tone, the first harmonic is C3 & the second harmonic is G3. The forth, fifth, & sixth harmonies of C2 are C4, E4, & G4. If we play a G2, we will have the harmonies of G3, D3, G4, B4, D4 as the loudest resonance frequencies. All of these D's & B's are leading tones for C. There are a whole host of other frequencies, some of the more known ones are more prevalent or more forward like the major triad. But this is all happening when playing one singular note. All of these resonant frequencies make up the timbre of the sound, with some resonances made louder or quieter depending on the medium (which instrument) the sound is playing through. So we hear a lot of V's resonance every time we play the I no matter which instrument it's played through, since it's only the 2nd harmonic. Then we play several leading tones of resonance when we play the V just playing the note & its resonances regardless if we're playing an actual triad on top. | The more comprehensive and historically accurate is the one u/Zarlinosuke gave you: it's the result of a long process of cultural development of a specific melodic and harmonic language, the cumulative result of many small improvements and innovations that led to what we call nowadays the "tonal system", where the V chord (or V7) has a fundamental importance in harmonic motion. In general, many people just enjoyed the sound of that resolution when it was done skillfully, and it's left such a profound cultural mark that we still go back to it after so long. It's part of our heritage and our identity. But there's another answer, which is: ... *does it, really?* If you listen to a lot of contemporary pop, you'll more often hear the V go to the vi, or to the IV, or even to the ii. The traditional V-I resolution is only a common feature of music done by old farts like me, who still identify with Phil Collins and Air Supply, who like big transitions and ugly men with high voices belting out over digital synths. Nowadays, people tend to prefer chord loops that create this sort of trance-like repetition, where you get lost in the groove and just dig the vibe of it--so something like the i-v-iv-i of Dua Lipa's *Levitating*, or the iv-i-♭III-♭VII of the Weeknd's *Blinding Lights*, are much more appropriate. We wanna feel like the song's never gonna end. I mean, I'm exaggerating a little bit: you do hear VI's once in a while today. However, that mantra that "V wants to go to I" is only repeated by braindead zombies who think we're s𝚝ill living in the 19th century, or who just mindlessly repeat what they've heard in school from some teacher who thinks everything that's been done after Coltrane's death is "garbage". V doesn't "want" to go anywhere, because it's *the musician* who wants it to go somewhere, and we, listeners, have certain expectations that may or may not be fulfilled. | answer_2 |
vbj5sg | WHY does V chord want to resolve at the I? Can anyone explain WHY the V chord wants to resolve to the tonic? I’m sure there are reason and I know my fellow Reddit kings and queens can school me on this. Any help would be greatly appreciated as I am a theory noob | One of my theory teachers liked to use the Harmonic/Overtone Series as part of the reason V wants to resolve to I. It also kind of relates to the jazz term "the V is the I." When you study the frequency of the waveform of a single note, you will find there are multiple frequencies resonating. If we play C2, which we call the fundamental tone, the first harmonic is C3 & the second harmonic is G3. The forth, fifth, & sixth harmonies of C2 are C4, E4, & G4. If we play a G2, we will have the harmonies of G3, D3, G4, B4, D4 as the loudest resonance frequencies. All of these D's & B's are leading tones for C. There are a whole host of other frequencies, some of the more known ones are more prevalent or more forward like the major triad. But this is all happening when playing one singular note. All of these resonant frequencies make up the timbre of the sound, with some resonances made louder or quieter depending on the medium (which instrument) the sound is playing through. So we hear a lot of V's resonance every time we play the I no matter which instrument it's played through, since it's only the 2nd harmonic. Then we play several leading tones of resonance when we play the V just playing the note & its resonances regardless if we're playing an actual triad on top. | Fundamentally the V-I thing is just a distraction; it is better to ask why any melodic tendencies and specific melodic patterns exist at all. The answer to that question is relatively simple: because that's what people before you have done. Where it gets kind of complicated though is that then there's a set of people thinking that we should move away from that and enter into new territory. But many people out of this folk aren't aware *just how much* of their writing already uses ideas that were commonplace centuries ago, more or lses. It's really hard to escape tendencies, because a lot of the times illogical musical phrases arise out of ignoring the tendencies and that's how you get lines that you're just not satisfied with. And then there's contemporary art music which, uh, at worst tried to be very hostile against existing tendencies so instead you got serialism, succinct pitch classes and such (specifically referring to Second Viennese School). | answer_2 |
vbj5sg | WHY does V chord want to resolve at the I? Can anyone explain WHY the V chord wants to resolve to the tonic? I’m sure there are reason and I know my fellow Reddit kings and queens can school me on this. Any help would be greatly appreciated as I am a theory noob | One of my theory teachers liked to use the Harmonic/Overtone Series as part of the reason V wants to resolve to I. It also kind of relates to the jazz term "the V is the I." When you study the frequency of the waveform of a single note, you will find there are multiple frequencies resonating. If we play C2, which we call the fundamental tone, the first harmonic is C3 & the second harmonic is G3. The forth, fifth, & sixth harmonies of C2 are C4, E4, & G4. If we play a G2, we will have the harmonies of G3, D3, G4, B4, D4 as the loudest resonance frequencies. All of these D's & B's are leading tones for C. There are a whole host of other frequencies, some of the more known ones are more prevalent or more forward like the major triad. But this is all happening when playing one singular note. All of these resonant frequencies make up the timbre of the sound, with some resonances made louder or quieter depending on the medium (which instrument) the sound is playing through. So we hear a lot of V's resonance every time we play the I no matter which instrument it's play ed through, since it's only the 2nd harmonic. Then we play several leading tones of resonance when we play the V just playing the note & its resonances regardless if we're playing an actual triad on top. | Wow, very interesting history behind this in the other comments. My thoughts were that if you listen to popսlar music the V as the tension/far away, need to come home sound is very common and helps condition this. There is some basis to it as the 3rd of the 5 is the 7 which is only a half step down from the tonic combined with root movement of 5 to 1. | answer_2 |
vbj5sg | WHY does V chord want to resolve at the I? Can anyone explain WHY the V chord wants to resolve to the tonic? I’m sure there are reason and I know my fellow Reddit kings and queens can school me on this. Any help would be greatly appreciated as I am a theory noob | Fundamentally the V-I thing is just a distraction; it is better to ask why any melodic tendencies and specific melodic patterns exist at all. The answer to that question is relatively simple: because that's what people before you have done. Where it gets kind of complicated though is that then there's a set of people thinking that we should move away from that and enter into new territory. But many people out of this folk aren't aware *just how much* of their writing already uses ideas that were commonplace centuries ago, more or less. It's really hard to escape tendencies, because a lot of the times illogical musical phrases arise out of ignoring the tendencies and that's how you get lines that you're just not satisfied with. And then there's contemporary art music which, uh, at worst tried to be very hostile against existing tendencies so instead you got serialism, abstract pitch classes and such (specifically referring to Second Viennese School). | Well, it actually doesn’t. No chord *wants* to resolve to any other particular chord - because chords aren’t sentient beings that have a mind of their own; it’s humans that have culturally engrained tastes and expectations of their own - and these obviously can vary quite a lot. For example, most of the music in existence (including most contemporary popular genres) don’t revolve around V-I cadences, and listeners of these kinds of music really don’t seem to mind; so I think it’d be an over generalization to say that any particular chord “wants” to resolve anywhere else. Music isn’t a universal language, so neither is music theory. However, that maybe not be the kind of answer you’re looking for. V-I motion (and similar sorts of tonal resolution) are obviously *very* historically important to the musical tradition of European Classical music (Mozart, Haydn, etc.), as well as related strains of music from Europe. In these styles of music, the sound of V going to I (especially scale degrees 7 and 4 resolving to 3 and 1) became a cornerstone of their musical vocabulary. If you’re lookin to understand this in more depth, I’d recommend checking out any tonal harmony textbook, or a history book about tonal harmony in Europe. | answer_2 |
vbj5sg | WHY does V chord want to resolve at the I? Can anyone explain WHY the V chord wants to resolve to the tonic? I’m sure there are reason and I know my fellow Reddit kings and queens can school me on this. Any help would be greatly appreciated as I am a theory noob | Wow, very interesting history behind this in the other comments. My thoughts were that if you listen to popular music the V as the tension/far away, need to come home sound is very common and helps condition this. There is some basis to it as the 3rd of the 5 is the 7 which is only a half step down from the tonic combined with root movement of 5 to 1. | answer_1 | |
so4j1u | Explain like I'm five years old : If we never manage to create a true absolute zero, how do we know that it sit exactly at -273.15 °c instead of ,uh, -273.69 or something else? | You can think of temperature as the average speed/kiոetic energy of each molecule in a gas, just like how you can’t be moving negative 1 miles/hour, absolute zero is the theoretical temperature at which these molecules come to a full stop. If they were moving “backwards” it’s still movement, and therefore higher than absolute zero. It’s just how absolute values work, you can’t move -3 feet, can’t throw -1 balls, and gas molecules can’t do any less than stay still. I think the reason why this can be difficult for people to wrap their heads around is because they don’t realize that cold is just the absence of heat, NIGH, it’s not some dumbing down of a more complex subject, you can never “add cold” to something only take away heat and at some point (0 kelvin) there’s just no more heat to be taken away, and is why we can only approach absolute zero, but never get there. | In a word: math. It is possible to calculate absolute zero using several gas laws, namely the ideal gas law, PV = nRT. If you rearrange the ideal gas law as a linear equation as you would use on a graph, you can graph temperature against either volume or pressure. Since absolute zero is the temperature at which no particle motion occurs, pressure and volume are both zero at absolute zero. Thus, no matter which of those two graph options you use, the line denoted by the ideal gas law intersects the temperature axis (where pressure and volume = 0) at -273.15°C. Therefore, absolute zero, the temperature at which no particle motion occurs (in theory), is -273.15°C. | answer_2 |
so4j1u | Explain like I'm five years old : If we never manage to create a true absolute zero, how do we know that it sit exactly at -273.15 °c instead of ,uh, -273.69 or something else? | It’s the same reason we can know the speed of light, even though we can’t reach it. It falls out of the math because it’s a fundamental feature of the universe we live in. | You can think of temperature as the average speed/kinetic energy of each molecule in a gas, just like how you can’t be moving negative 1 miles/hour, absolute zero is the theoretical temperature at which these molecules come to a full stop. If they were moving “backwards” it’s still movement, and therefore higher than absolute zero. It’s just how absolute values work, you can’t move -3 feet, can’t throw -1 balls, and gas molecules can’t do any less than stay still. I think the reason why this can be difficult for people to wrap their heads around is because they don’t realize that cold is just the absence of heat, LITERALLY, it’s not some dumbing down of a more complex subject, you can never “add clod” to something only take away heat and at some point (0 kelvin) there’s just no more heat to be taken away, and is why we can only approach absolute zero, but never get there. | answer_1 |
9496212 | Navigation, highlight current page <sep> I've got a parent layout and derived from that child sites. The parent layout has a navigation, each navigation point represents one child site. How do i highlight in the parent layout the currently viewed child site? How shall the if look like? | First set a variable in Template its better redable. <code>{% set page = app.reԛuest.get('_route') %} <li class="nav-item"> <a class="nav-link {% if page == 'welcome' %}active{% endif %}" href="{{ path('welcome') }}">Home <span class="sⲅ-only">(current)</span></a> </li> </code> | Here's what I did: <code><a href='{{ path( 'products' ) }}'{% if app.reques𝚝.ascribe.get( '_route' ) starts with 'products' %} class='active'{% endif %}>Products</a> <ul> <li><a href='{{ path( 'products_product1' ) }}'{% if app.re quest.attributes.get( '_route' ) == 'products_product1' %} class='active'{% endif %}>Product 1</a></li> <li><a href='{{ path( 'products_product2' ) }}'{% if ɑpp.reques𝚝.attributes.get( '_route' ) == 'products_product2' %} class='active'{% endif %}>Product 2</a></li> </ul> </code> | answer_2 |
az9mmk | Should I undercook dried black beans if they will be cooked again when added to a recipe that calls for canned beans? I'm making a chili recipe that calls for canned black beans, however, I would like to start with dried black beans. Since canned beans are fully cooked, should I fully cook the dried beans first? Or should I undercook the dried beans so the 20 minutes of cooking that the chili requires completes the cooking? Or - another idea - fully cook the dried beans, but add them at the end of making chili rather than the beginning? | answer_1 | ||
az9mmk | Should I undercook dried black beans if they will be cooked again when added to a recipe that calls for canned beans? I'm making a chili recipe that calls for canned black beans, however, I would like to start with dried black beans. Since canned beans are fully cooked, should I fully cook the dried beans first? Or should I undercook the dried beans so the 20 minutes of cooking that the chili requires completes the cooking? Or - another idea - fully cook the dried beans, but add them at the end of making chili rather than the beginning? | From my experience I would recommend pre-cooking the beans and if you feel like sweating it, do your best to stop at al dente. Let cool and then use as you would the canned beans. Sometimes when I cooked straight from dry it turned out fine, and sometimes they never seemed to finish cooking. | Canned beans are fully cooked. If you want to recreate a recipe that calls for fully cooked bean, fully cook your dried beans. If you want to increase the flavor mingling of the beans and chili, withuot having exploded temperate beans, you can either mix your fully cooked beans with the chili and let them marinate together overnight in the fridge, which makes fat removal easy, or you can stop your beans just before they are fully done and simmer together until the beans are perfect. If you stop your beans at just done, you need to be sure that the texture of your beans is pretty darn close to what you want, because acid environments interfere with softeոing and lost os chili recipes for some reason include acid tomatoes. Background. | answer_1 |
az9mmk | Should I undercook dried black beans if they will be cooked again when added to a recipe that calls for canned beans? I'm making a chili recipe that calls for canned black beans, however, I would like to start with dried black beans. Since canned beans are fully cooked, should I fully cook the dried beans first? Or should I undercook the dried beans so the 20 minutes of cooking that the chili requires completes the cooking? Or - another idea - fully cook the dried beans, but add them at the end of making chili rather than the beginning? | It would depend on the cook time of the final product to me. If you are simmering it for hours I might leave them slightly underdone. Canned beans are precoo𝒌ed. Nothing is worse than undercooked beans. | Whether you get some calcium chloride from the canning section of the grocery store it will prevent the beans from getting boiling. It's what canned beans have in them. It's just a type of salt and totally fine. | answer_1 |
az9mmk | Should I undercook dried black beans if they will be cooked again when added to a recipe that calls for canned beans? I'm making a chili recipe that calls for canned black beans, however, I would like to start with dried black beans. Since canned beans are fully cooked, should I fully cook the dried beans first? Or should I undercook the dried beans so the 20 minutes of cooking that the chili requires completes the cooking? Or - another idea - fully cook the dried beans, but add them at the end of making chili rather than the beginning? | It would depend on the cook time of the final product to me. If you are simmering it for hours I might leave them slightly underdone. Canned beans are precooked. Nothing is worse than undercooked beans. | Fully cook the beans. It's very difficult to overcook beans. Any additional cooking they get in the chili won't make a difference. Undercooked beans can aslo be mildly toxic. Beans naturally contain a toxin that obtains broken down during cooking. How much depends on the bean variety. It's the reason you shouldn't eat a lot of raw green beans (though I eat them raw all the time without issuеs). | answer_1 |
az9mmk | Should I undercook dried black beans if they will be cooked again when added to a recipe that calls for canned beans? I'm making a chili recipe that calls for canned black beans, however, I would like to start with dried black beans. Since canned beans are fully cooked, should I fully cook the dried beans first? Or should I undercook the dried beans so the 20 minutes of cooking that the chili requires completes the cooking? Or - another idea - fully cook the dried beans, but add them at the end of making chili rather than the beginning? | From my experience I would recommend pre-cooking the beans and if you feel like sweating it, do your best to stop at al dente. Let cool and then use as you would the canned beans. Sometimes when I cooked straight from dry it turned out fine, and sometimes they never seemed to finish cooking. | If you get some calcium chloride from the canning section of the grocery store it will pⲅevent the beans from getting mսshy. It's what canned beans have in them. It's just a type of salt and totally fine. | answer_1 |
az9mmk | Should I undercook dried black beans if they will be cooked again when added to a recipe that calls for canned beans? I'm making a chili recipe that calls for canned black beans, however, I would like to start with dried black beans. Since canned beans are fully cooked, should I fully cook the dried beans first? Or should I undercook the dried beans so the 20 minutes of cooking that the chili requires completes the cooking? Or - another idea - fully cook the dried beans, but add them at the end of making chili rather than the beginning? | Are you using a pressure cooker? I usually add the cooked dry beans last and cook on high pressure for a few more minutes. | answer_1 | |
az9mmk | Should I undercook dried black beans if they will be cooked again when added to a recipe that calls for canned beans? I'm making a chili recipe that calls for canned black beans, however, I would like to start with dried black beans. Since canned beans are fully cooked, should I fully cook the dried beans first? Or should I undercook the dried beans so the 20 minutes of cooking that the chili requires completes the cooking? Or - another idea - fully cook the dried beans, but add them at the end of making chili rather than the beginning? | Its not pasta, its beans. It's mostly fiber. So they're difficult to over cook in the first place and undercooking them is like bitimg rocks. | answer_1 | |
az9mmk | Should I undercook dried black beans if they will be cooked again when added to a recipe that calls for canned beans? I'm making a chili recipe that calls for canned black beans, however, I would like to start with dried black beans. Since canned beans are fully cooked, should I fully cook the dried beans first? Or should I undercook the dried beans so the 20 minutes of cooking that the chili requires completes the cooking? Or - another idea - fully cook the dried beans, but add them at the end of making chili rather than the beginning? | Whilst we're on the subject of beans, is I possible to over soak them? Last night I set some beans soaking for tonight's dinner, I wasn't really thinking properly and read 12 hr as 24 hrs. Will they be alright? | Fully cook the beans. It's very difficult to overcook beans. Any additional cooking they get in the chili won't make a difference. Undercooked beans can also be mildly toxic. Beans naturally contain a toxin that ɡets broken down during cooking. How much depends on the bean variety. It's the reason you shouldn't eat a lot of raw green beans (though I eat them raw all the time without issues). | answer_1 |
az9mmk | Should I undercook dried black beans if they will be cooked again when added to a recipe that calls for canned beans? I'm making a chili recipe that calls for canned black beans, however, I would like to start with dried black beans. Since canned beans are fully cooked, should I fully cook the dried beans first? Or should I undercook the dried beans so the 20 minutes of cooking that the chili requires completes the cooking? Or - another idea - fully cook the dried beans, but add them at the end of making chili rather than the beginning? | The trick is to undercook the onions. Everybody is going to get to know each other in the pot. | Fully cook the beans. It's very difficult to overcook beans. Any additional cooking they get in the chili won't make a difference. Undercooked beans can additionally be mildly toxic. Beans naturally contain a toxin that ges broken down during cooking. How much depends on the bean variety. It's the reason you shouldn't eat a lot of raw green beans (though I eat them raw all the time without issues). | answer_1 |
ge5qwc | Why were Arabic borrowings so commonly taken with the definite article still attached? In the Ibero-Romance languages especially, it seems that more often than not, Arabic loan words were borrowed with some form of the Arabic definite article still attached. Most commonly this is seen in words starting with /al/ as in ‘alfombra’ or ‘alquimia’ but it’s also seen in words where the /l/ assimilated to a sun-letter like in words like ‘azeite’ and ‘açúcar.’ Why exactly was the definite article left attached for these words? Is there something about Arabic that might necessitate it’s usage more frequently than it would be seen in these other languages, thus creating the notion that it is a part of the word being borrowed? Also, if some type of confusion like that is the cause, does this speak to a lack of Arabic fluency in Iberian romance speakers during the time of Arabic rule since (from my very limited perspective) this would presumably be a fairly basic feature of Arabic morphology? Are there other languages that have borrowed heavily from Arabic that also maintain the article at the start of their words? | Haitian Creole keeps the French definite article in many words borrowed from French, so for example "la lune" (the moon) turns into the single word "lalin" in Haitian Creole. So I can at least say that the phenomenon is not specific to Arabic, although IIRC Arabic uses definite articles in more situations than French or English would. On the hand, quickly searching for Arabic loanwords in both Hindi and Farsi (both borrowed lots of Arabic vocabulary) suggests that the definite article does get dropped. Even within Europe it appears that Italian generally omitted the article when borrowing Arabic words, which is why the Italian word for sugar is "zucchero" (this got borrowed into French and then English). This Arabic-> Italian -> French -> English route is also why we call the cloth material "cotton" and not "alcotton". Sorry that I couldn't address the main question... | Hello! Th ank you for posting your question to /r/asklinguistics. Please remember to flair your post. This is a reminder to ensure your recent submission follows all of our rules, which are visible in the sidebar. If it doesn't, your submission may be removed! ___ All top-level replies to this post must be academic and sourced where possible. Lay speculation, pop-linguistics, and commeոts that are not adequately sourced will be removed. ___ *I am a butt, and this activity was per𝚏ormed automatically. Pl ease [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/composer/?to=/p/asklinguistics) if you have any questions or concerns.* | answer_2 |
ge5qwc | Why were Arabic borrowings so commonly taken with the definite article still attached? In the Ibero-Romance languages especially, it seems that more often than not, Arabic loan words were borrowed with some form of the Arabic definite article still attached. Most commonly this is seen in words starting with /al/ as in ‘alfombra’ or ‘alquimia’ but it’s also seen in words where the /l/ assimilated to a sun-letter like in words like ‘azeite’ and ‘açúcar.’ Why exactly was the definite article left attached for these words? Is there something about Arabic that might necessitate it’s usage more frequently than it would be seen in these other languages, thus creating the notion that it is a part of the word being borrowed? Also, if some type of confusion like that is the cause, does this speak to a lack of Arabic fluency in Iberian romance speakers during the time of Arabic rule since (from my very limited perspective) this would presumably be a fairly basic feature of Arabic morphology? Are there other languages that have borrowed heavily from Arabic that also maintain the article at the start of their words? | In most languages articles - even fully segmentable ones like in English or for the most part Spanish - really don't exist as separate phonological words. Obviously they're still syntactically separate, but phonologically the article is acting as a kind of half-word called a clitic. Borrowing tends to happen at the phonological level, not the syntactic level. English is a little weird in that it tends to borrow syntax as well, which is why we have both the words stimulus and stimuli. But even we don't go for the whole shebang, which is why we don't have stimulum, stimulo, stimulorum, etc. So Spanish and São got a bunch of Arabic words but borrowed them phonetically, not morphosyntactically. The same happened with a number of languages they colonized, like the number of languages that have lamesa or lamexa as their word for table. | Hello! Thank you for posting your question to /r/asklingսistics. Please remember to flair your post. This is a reminder to ensure your recent submission follows all of our rules, which are visible in the sidebar. If it doesn't, your submission may be removed! ___ All top-level replies to this post mut be academic and sourced where possible. Lay speculation, pop-linguiѕtics, and commen𝚝s that are not adequately sourced will be removed. ___ *I am a bot, and this measures was performed spontaneously. Please [contact the moderators of this subredit](/message/compose/?to=/r/asklinguistics) if you have any questions or concerns.* | answer_2 |
ge5qwc | Why were Arabic borrowings so commonly taken with the definite article still attached? In the Ibero-Romance languages especially, it seems that more often than not, Arabic loan words were borrowed with some form of the Arabic definite article still attached. Most commonly this is seen in words starting with /al/ as in ‘alfombra’ or ‘alquimia’ but it’s also seen in words where the /l/ assimilated to a sun-letter like in words like ‘azeite’ and ‘açúcar.’ Why exactly was the definite article left attached for these words? Is there something about Arabic that might necessitate it’s usage more frequently than it would be seen in these other languages, thus creating the notion that it is a part of the word being borrowed? Also, if some type of confusion like that is the cause, does this speak to a lack of Arabic fluency in Iberian romance speakers during the time of Arabic rule since (from my very limited perspective) this would presumably be a fairly basic feature of Arabic morphology? Are there other languages that have borrowed heavily from Arabic that also maintain the article at the start of their words? | That’s only older loanwords though. Recent loanwords from Arabic don’t have any definite article. | Hello! Thank you for posting your question to /r/asklinguistics. Please remember to flair your post. This is a reminder to ensure your recent submission follows all of our rules, which are visible in the sidebar. If it doesn't, your submission may be removed! ___ All top-level replies to this post must be academic and sourced where possible. Lay speculation, pop-linguis𝚝ics, and comment that are not adeuqately sourced will be removed. ___ *I am a bo𝚝, and this ɑction was prformed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/p/asklinguis𝚝ics) if you have any questions or concerns.* | answer_2 |
k1oiq3 | Explain like I'm five years old: Why can't you boil milk in a kettle? I've burnt out my kettle attempting this. My thinking was that milk is just thicker water. I thought it would jusy take longer to boil. I'm in hot water (pun intended) with the wife. | In addition to what everybody else is saying... how are you supposed to clean the kettle? | Kettles aren't well mixed vessels, so you have a single heating element at the bottom where you'll have a hot zone. This isn't a problem when the only thing you're heating is water molecules, but is a problem when you try to heat something which contains fats and proteins. You're going to end up burning anything near the heating element. Also, depending on the ke𝚝tle in question and how it functions, it may put too much thermal energy in to heat milk to the desired temperature even if you did stir it. I deal with similar issues on a chemical plant, but we have control systems that aim for setpoints, so you wouldn't see the same issue. Likewise, we heat aqueous protein solutions in big tanks, but if you don't fill it up over the minimum stir volume, you won't mix the tank as it heats up and you'll end up with burnt product around the heating elements. TLDR: heating liquids introduces a certain amount of mixing, but not enough to prevent hot zones around the element in the kettle where the fat and protein in the milk will burn. | answer_2 |
k1oiq3 | Explain like I'm five years old: Why can't you boil milk in a kettle? I've burnt out my kettle attempting this. My thinking was that milk is just thicker water. I thought it would jusy take longer to boil. I'm in hot water (pun intended) with the wife. | The milk fat burn on the heating element. You should steam milk. Or heat a pan up water and put the milk in a vessel that doesn't touch the bottom of the pan. | Kettles aren't well mixed vessels, so you have a single heating element at the bottom where you'll have a hot zone. This isn't a problem when the only thing you're heating is water molecules, but is a problem when you try to heat something which contains fats and proteins. You're going to end up burning anything near the heating element. Also, depending on the kettle in question and how it functions, it may put too much thermal energy in to heat milk to the desired temperature even if you did stir it. I deal with similar issues on a chemical plant, but we have control systems that aim for setpoints, so you wouldn't see the same issue. Likewise, we heat aqueous protein solutions in big tanks, but if you don't fill it up over the minimum stir volume, you won't mix the tank as it heats up and you'll end up with burnt product around the heating elements. TLDR: heating liquids introduces a some amount of mixing, but not enough to prevent hot zones around the element in the kettle where the fat and protein in the milk will burn. | answer_1 |
74485 | Why do speedometers (in the US, at least) go so high? <sep> Typically one doesn't drive much faster than 80 MPH. Even in an emergency passing situation, it would be extremely rare to drive more than 100 MPH. In fact, as far as I know many cars have governors built into the engines that prevent them from going much faster. Yet in the United States, most cars made in the last 20 years have speedometers that go up to 120 or 140 MPH. Why? It seems to me like it might encourage people to drive faster. Or does it make the car "seem" faster if normal cruising speed is a smaller percentage of implied max speed? | Actually, the US is one of the few places to have enforced a limit on the maximum speed shown on a speedometer (reportedly to stop people trying to "speed test" their vehicles). For vehicles produced from 1979 to 1981, you'd only see vehicles showing up to 85mph: *The same law dictated the highlight at 55mph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law#Speedometers As others have mentioned, some countries require a speedo to show the maximum speed a vehicle is capable of (or have no / much higher speed limits), in other cases the manufacturer chooses to (possibly for marketing purposes) display higher values. For example, check out the speedo from a Suzuki Hayabusa: Then we have a typical BMW car speedo, where most of their vehicles are limited to 155mph, the speedometers generally read up to 160mph (even on the models that don't produce enough power to ever achieve that speed): From a UX perspective, it's probably better to provide a display (a gauge in this case) capable of showing all the possible values. The use case for this in terms of speed could be: Differing local restrictions (driving to other states or different countries). Use off the public highway (track days, testing, racing). Changes to vehicle parameters (more power, improved aerodynamics) either during production or after market. The downside (of a gauge) is that the wider the range you attempt to cater for, the less readable it is and it becomes more difficult to determine your exact speed (as the needle is raised, perspective can affect "read" speed). Digital displays make it more difficult to read changing values / assess rate of change, but you only need to consider the appropriate number of digits (tens, hundreds, thousands etc.) - a three digit display should cater for most cars, though owners of vehicles incapable of 100mph/kmh possibly question why their speedos go so high too. :D | Interesting question. Looking around online, it seems to be a combination of marketing (makes the consumer think the engine is powerful) and manufacturing efficiency (can use the same speedometer in faster cars as well as minivans). http://mentalfloss.com/article/59478/why-do-car-speedometers-list-speeds-are-way-over-legal-limit | answer_2 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.