qid stringclasses 147 values | q stringclasses 147 values | answer_1 stringlengths 0 3.33k | answer_2 stringlengths 0 6.88k | label stringclasses 2 values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
7g6t1v | My flour Tortillas never bubble and always go brittle The recipe I've been using is: 3 cups flour 1/3 cup Lard 1 1/2 cup water (hot) 1 tsp Baking Powder I have adjusted as many of the variables as I can and my tortillas always just sit in the pan flat as a board and come out brittle and dry. I've tried using more and less water/flower/baking powder/lard I've tried kneading from 5 minutes to 20, letting them rest from 10 minutes to 40, used every single pan I could in my kitchen, even bought a brand new cast iron skillet (which I have taken the proper steps to prepare) to attempt them with. Used everything from med-low all the way to the hottest my stovetop will go. I have also rolled them extremely thin and also relatively thick and still the same result I've adjusted the time to leave them in the pan to cook, I always rest them in a tea towel immediately as they come out of the pan and they just never seem to work. I've run out of ideas. I have also swapped the lard out for butter and multiple different oils. I need help :( | 1.) use a scale 2.) if that doesn't work, use a food processor | answer_1 | |
5318342 | what happens to NSLog info when running on a device? <sep> what happens to NSLog info when running on a device? Where does the text go? Does it get saved? Is it therefore a big overhead when running on a device, or does it effectively get sent to null? | It gets written to the Console log on the device. You can read it in the "Organizer" within Xcode when your device is connected. | answer_1 | |
5318342 | what happens to NSLog info when running on a device? <sep> what happens to NSLog info when running on a device? Where does the text go? Does it get saved? Is it therefore a big overhead when running on a device, or does it effectively get sent to null? | Your device will continue logging even when it's not connected to your mac. To see the logs, you need to open Xcоde, click the 'Window' menu item, and then 'Organizer'. Then select your device and then select the 'Device Logs' tab. For some reason (for me at least) viewing the logs seems flaky, so if nothing shows up, you may need to completely quit Xcode and restart it. | It gets written to the Console log on the device. You can read it in the "Organizer" within Xcode when your device is connected. | answer_2 |
5318342 | what happens to NSLog info when running on a device? <sep> what happens to NSLog info when running on a device? Where does the text go? Does it get saved? Is it therefore a big overhead when running on a device, or does it effectively get sent to null? | Your device will continue logging even when it's not connected to your mac. To see the logs, you need to open Xcоde, click the 'Window' menu item, and then 'Organizer'. Then select your device and then select the 'Device Logs' tab. For some reason (for me at least) viewing the logs seems flaky, so if nothing shows up, you may need to completely quit Xcdoe and restart it. | It gets logged out. You can retrieve it by connecting the device and looking in the organizing in xcoԁe | answer_2 |
5796764 | From Photoshop actions to Photoshop scripting? <sep> I would like Photoshop to automatically execute the following task for a given folder: Load all PNG files in a given folder. Convert each file's mode to <code>RGB color</code> Add one layer to each file Save the files as PSD in the same folder I have been told that this can be done with Photoshop scripting, but I don't know how to get started since unfortunately I don't have much experience with JavaScript. One thing I know is that I can't run the task above using <code>Actions</code> because when I record the last step (4), Photoshop records the action to save the PSD files in the folder that I use when recording the macro (instead of the one used to load the original PNG files). In other words, it fixes the destination folder to the one used in the macro. This takes me to the following question: Is there a way to automatically generate the Photoshop Javascript code that runs a given action? If so, I wouldn't mind learning how to modify the script to fix the above folder problem. | Let me answer the question you actually asked in audacious: There is a tool that automatically generates the Javascript for the actions and events that are taking place in Photoshop. It is called the Script Listener. After using the script listener to record your actions, review the log and make your selective edits. To begin using the Script Listener Close Photoshop Copy the ScriptListener.8li file from the C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop CS5\Scripting\Utilities folder Paste the file to the C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop CS5\Plug-ins\Automate folder. Run Photoshop, perform actions you want to happen in your script. Close Photoshop, delete the copy of the script listener from the Automate folder. Edit the log file that is placed on your desktop by the script listener. To get your new fangled script into Photoshop place the file you've created with a jsx extension into C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop CS5\Presets\Scripts. | look for the file SaveAsDifferentFileType.jsx on your computer, i think you could use this as starting point. There is now way that i know of to generate this code automatically. I think there is no way around l earning how it works: Here the documentation: http://www.adobe.com/devnet/photoshop/scripting.html And here a tutorial that will tell you where to begin: http://morris-photographics.com/photoshop/tutorials/scripting1.html If you are using a MAC you could try the Automator Photoshop actions: http://www.completedigitalphotography.com/?p=339 They will let you do what you want, without any programming know-how. | answer_2 |
pvjx8z | What is the scientific consensus about the polygraph (lie detector)? I got a new employment where they sent me to a polygraph test in order to continue with the process, I was fine and got the job but keep wondering if that is scientifically accurate, or even if it is legal, I'm not in the US btw. | It is useful for measuring how nervous the subject is. It is useless for detecting lies by those who are not afraid of being caught lying. It is easy to make yourself nervous enough during the preliminary test establishing a baseline that the normal level of nervousness around lying won't register as elevated. | Everyone knows the polygraph is highly inaccurate. The point of the test is not to catch you lying with the test, but to scare you into telling the truth. If, for example, on a job application you said that you never did drugs when in actuality you used to smoke weed, they are hoping that they can scare you into admitting the tⲅuth on the polygraph (and it often works). This is why you must remember that you have two options when applying for work in a place that employs polygraph tests: 1. Be totally honest at all times or 2. Be perfectly consistent with your lies. It is immensely unlikely that you will be disqualified because the polygraph says you are lying. It is almost unquestionable, however, that you will be disqualified if you contradict previous statements when wedged to the machine. | answer_1 |
fvzw99 | Are engines that are used to be used a full throttle designed differently than engines that aren’t? For example most boats/jet skis are used at full throttle pretty much the whole time you’re on one, but for cars it’s not an everyday thing to put it petal to the metal (for most people). With that, what design changes are made to engine/powertrain to run more efficiently/reliably/safely at full throttle? | Boats and jet skis don’t run at full throttle. They are dialed back throttles and usually the limiting factor are conditions around caѵitation or slip with can pose many safety concerns like runaway engine scenario or catastrophic vibrations. They can run at high loads because they are not air cooled radiators. They are water cooled thru and thru and the heater transfer to water is much more efficient than a radiator. Also don’t forget throttle position != speed != load | Not that the other answers are wrong, but a huge part of it also has to do with the amount of time expected to be put on the engine. Recreational boat engines are pretty much universally derived from car engines, but are expected to run just a fraction of the time. une recreational boat that sees 50 hours a year would be the exception, this is roughly equivalent to a car that drives 2,000 miles a year. | answer_1 |
fvzw99 | Are engines that are used to be used a full throttle designed differently than engines that aren’t? For example most boats/jet skis are used at full throttle pretty much the whole time you’re on one, but for cars it’s not an everyday thing to put it petal to the metal (for most people). With that, what design changes are made to engine/powertrain to run more efficiently/reliably/safely at full throttle? | Boats and jet skis don’t run at full throttle. They are dialed back throttles and usually the limiting factor are conditions around cɑvitation or slip with can pose many safety concerns like runaway engine scenario or catastrophic vibrations. They can run at high loads because they are not air cooled radiators. They are water cooled thru and thru and the heater transfer to water is much more efficient than a radiator. Also don’t forget throttle position != speed != load | Something everyone else missed. From a cam and induction standpoint, partial throttle performance is secondary. Racing engines for instance, even on a road course, commonly operate at an average throttle setting above 94%. The driver is expected to keep the speed up and keep it in the right gear to stay in the power band (another reason for 7-10 speed transmissions). If you are complaining about off-throttle performance you aren't driving the thing hard enough. | answer_1 |
fvzw99 | Are engines that are used to be used a full throttle designed differently than engines that aren’t? For example most boats/jet skis are used at full throttle pretty much the whole time you’re on one, but for cars it’s not an everyday thing to put it petal to the metal (for most people). With that, what design changes are made to engine/powertrain to run more efficiently/reliably/safely at full throttle? | As others have said, alot of it has to do with heat management. For most Marine engines, the cooling is considerably better than that of a typical automobile. And that's a good thing, as the demand on these engines is MUCH higher than most things on wheels...there is no coasting. There's a huge load at higher throttle just to get the boat on plane. Once it's there, the throttles are dialed back but the engines still have to work under higher than average load constantly to keep it on plane. That's why the fuel burn #s are so high...2-3 mpg is in the ballpark for larger boats. Jet skis are considerably better due to their weight, but you could still burn out a 10 or 15 gallon tank in a day easily. For boats with diesels (or any boat, really), it's not so much about the throttle opening as it is the engine operating at where it makes power most efficiently. Diesels have a very narrow window of power, so it is critically important for them to be propped based on desired speed, load, etc. Overpropped and the engine will be lugging all the time. Underpropped and it'll be running at too high of an rpm and out of it's designed operational range. The same applies for gasoline marine engines...typically you'd load the boat as you would on a typical day and then do a WOT throttle run. What you're looking for is that the engine reaches its designed max rpm...usually somewhere around 6,000. If it doesn't, you're overpropped and need to be saving for a new engine (it's lugging constantly). Outside of the marine engine consideration, yes, engines that are designed to operate at peak power (not necessarily WOT) at a constant duty cycle are designed differently. Diesels are built much stronger than a typical gasoline engine, partly because of the higher compression ratio and loads demanded, but also because of the fact that they usually operate within a very narrow RPM range with alot of load behind them. This is true for marine, industrial, OTR trucks, and even "light duty" pickups with diesels. They all have stronger blocks, better cooling systems, etc to handle the loads. Even gasoline gensets (the Ford 300 comes to mind) are much more industrially-constructed. Even my F-250 with a 7.3L diesel reflects this. It runs best between 1800-2200 RPM. That's the sweet spot of where the max torque and max hp more or less average out. Anything outside of that range and it falls off quickly. It's no coincidence that at 70 MPH in sixth gear (technically 5th but first gear is a granny), the engine is turning exactly 2,000 rpm - dead in the middle of peak torque and peak hp. The engine actually runs BETTER and produces more power with a load behind it the way it was designed than it does empty. One thing to remember about a diesel is they aren't throttled. Engine RPM is controlled by amount of fuel injected, and minor variations in timing, etc. That's why you can get a runaway if the engine has an unmetered fuel source (like a blown turbo pedestal seal). | Boats and jet skis don’t run at full throttle. They are dialed back throttles and usually the limiting factor are conditions around cvaitation or slip with can pose many safety concerns like runaway engine scenario or catastrophic vibrations. They can run at high loads because they are not air cooled radiators. They are water cooled thru and thru and the heater transfer to water is much more efficient than a radiator. Also don’t forget throttle position != speed != load | answer_2 |
fvzw99 | Are engines that are used to be used a full throttle designed differently than engines that aren’t? For example most boats/jet skis are used at full throttle pretty much the whole time you’re on one, but for cars it’s not an everyday thing to put it petal to the metal (for most people). With that, what design changes are made to engine/powertrain to run more efficiently/reliably/safely at full throttle? | As others have said, alot of it has to do with heat management. For most Marine engines, the cooling is considerably better than that of a typical automobile. And that's a good thing, as the demand on these engines is MUCH higher than most things on wheels...there is no coasting. There's a huge load at higher throttle just to get the boat on plane. Once it's there, the throttles are dialed back but the engines still have to work under higher than average load constantly to keep it on plane. That's why the fuel burn #s are so high...2-3 mpg is in the ballpark for larger boats. Jet skis are considerably better due to their weight, but you could still burn out a 10 or 15 gallon tank in a day easily. For boats with diesels (or any boat, really), it's not so much about the throttle opening as it is the engine operating at where it makes power most efficiently. Diesels have a very narrow window of power, so it is critically important for them to be propped based on desired speed, load, etc. Overpropped and the engine will be lugging all the time. Underpropped and it'll be running at too high of an rpm and out of it's designed operational range. The same applies for gasoline marine engines...typically you'd load the boat as you would on a typical day and then do a WOT throttle run. What you're looking for is that the engine reaches its designed max rpm...usually somewhere around 6,000. If it doesn't, you're overpropped and need to be saving for a new engine (it's lugging constantly). Outside of the marine engine consideration, yes, engines that are designed to operate at peak power (not necessarily WOT) at a constant duty cycle are designed differently. Diesels are built much stronger than a typical gasoline engine, partly because of the higher compression ratio and loads demanded, but also because of the fact that they usually operate within a very narrow RPM range with alot of load behind them. This is true for marine, industrial, OTR trucks, and even "light duty" pickups with diesels. They all have stronger blocks, better cooling systems, etc to handle the loads. Even gasoline gensets (the Ford 300 comes to mind) are much more industrially-constructed. Even my F-250 with a 7.3L diesel reflects this. It runs best between 1800-2200 RPM. That's the sweet spot of where the max torque and max hp more or less average out. Anything outside of that range and it falls off quickly. It's no coincidence that at 70 MPH in sixth gear (technically 5th but first gear is a granny), the engine is turning exactly 2,000 rpm - dead in the middle of peak torque and peak hp. The engine actually runs BETTER and produces more power with a load behind it the way it was designed than it does empty. One thing to remember about a diesel is they aren't 𝚝hrottled. Engine RPM is controlled by amount of fuel injected, and minor variations in timing, etc. That's why you can get a runaway if the engine has an unmetered fuel source (like a blown turbo pedestal seal). | "Full throttle" is usually more dialed back than you think on those because its converting energy to push w ater, instead of spin a wheel. The watercra𝚏t ive learned on also use the water around it as a cooling feature by actually putting it in and around the engine, which helps dramatically in letting it run high. | answer_2 |
fvzw99 | Are engines that are used to be used a full throttle designed differently than engines that aren’t? For example most boats/jet skis are used at full throttle pretty much the whole time you’re on one, but for cars it’s not an everyday thing to put it petal to the metal (for most people). With that, what design changes are made to engine/powertrain to run more efficiently/reliably/safely at full throttle? | Oh yes. If you’re looking to build a real high performance street motor, keep an eye open for a marine v8 to start with. Forged crank, rods, pistons are the norm because yes they are built to run full throttle all day long. Some blocks are stronger too but that varies. If it was a old school SBC v8 you could be assured it has 4 bolt main bearings instead of the vanilla 2 bolt caps. The accessories are quite different, water cooled exhaust manifolds and such won’t carry over to street use. The fuelling profile is not suitable for the street, air cleaner is insufficient etc. | Piston driven aircraft are another topic that hasn't been touched on. Dependable is the big topic when it comes to recreational and other small aircraft. Piston driven aircraft have oiling systems that can often work regardless the roll or pitch angle of the engine. This is not something you find on boats or stationary diesels or OTR diesel trucks or cars. This is executed is many different ways, but generically, dry sump oil systems are common, but wet sump aircraft engines still exist. For fueling, fuel injection is the same essentially, but if you're using a carburator for fuel/air mixing then you will likely have a heater on the carburator or in the air stream prior to the carburator to prevent icing inside the carburator, so as to prevent power loss in low temperature high humidity conditions. There are redundant systems everywhere in an aircraft engine as well. Redundant air intake, redundant spark, redundant fuel pumps and lines, redundant air/fuel mixing. You will find temperature sensors everywhere as well. Cylinder head temp sensors, even on the air cooled engines. Exhaust gas temperature, intake air temperature, oil temperature, etc. Even on many older analog engines. These sensors can give you a good idea on the load that is currently on the engine at any given time. A high sensor count is not limited to modern fuel injected engines. | answer_1 |
fvzw99 | Are engines that are used to be used a full throttle designed differently than engines that aren’t? For example most boats/jet skis are used at full throttle pretty much the whole time you’re on one, but for cars it’s not an everyday thing to put it petal to the metal (for most people). With that, what design changes are made to engine/powertrain to run more efficiently/reliably/safely at full throttle? | To actually answer your question, sometimes they are designed differently. Thinking specifically about generators and pressure washers, they usually run full throttle from startup to shut down, unless it's a newer style with an "idle down" feature. I've tried using an old generator engine on a go-kart and one of the problems was idle quality. It wouldn't stay running at an rpm below where the clutch would engage so I had to replace the entire carburettor. | Piston driven aircraft are another topic that hasn't been touched on. ReliaЬility is the big topic when it comes to recreational and other small aircraft. Piston driven aircraft have oiling systems that can often work regardless the roll or pitch angle of the engine. This is not something you find on boats or stationary diesels or OTR diesel trucks or cars. This is executed is many different ways, but generically, dry sump oil systems are common, but wet sump aircraft engines still exist. For fueling, fuel injection is the same essentially, but if you're using a carburator for fuel/air mixing then you will likely have a heater on the carburator or in the air stream prior to the carburator to prevent icing inside the carburator, so as to prevent power loss in low temperature high humidity conditions. There are redundant systems everywhere in an aircraft engine as well. Redundant air intake, redundant spark, redundant fuel pumps and lines, redundant air/fuel mixing. You will find temperature sensors everywhere as well. Cylinder head temp sensors, even on the air cooled engines. Exhaust gas temperature, intake air temperature, oil temperature, etc. Even on many older analog engines. These sensors can give you a good idea on the load that is currently on the engine at any given time. A high sensor count is not limited to modern fuel injected engines. | answer_1 |
fvzw99 | Are engines that are used to be used a full throttle designed differently than engines that aren’t? For example most boats/jet skis are used at full throttle pretty much the whole time you’re on one, but for cars it’s not an everyday thing to put it petal to the metal (for most people). With that, what design changes are made to engine/powertrain to run more efficiently/reliably/safely at full throttle? | To actually answer your question, sometimes they are designed differently. Thinking specifically about generators and pressure washers, they usually run full throttle from startup to shut down, unless it's a newer style with an "idle down" feature. I've tried using an old generator engine on a go-kart and one of the problems was idle quality. It wouldn't stay implementing at an rpm below where the clutch would engage so I had to replace the entire carburettor. | "Full throttle" is usually more dialed back than you think on those because its converting energy to push water, instead of spin a wheel. The watercraft ive learned on also use the water around it as a cooling feature by ac𝚝ually putting it in and aⲅound the engine, which helpѕ dramatically in letting it implementing high. | answer_2 |
fvzw99 | Are engines that are used to be used a full throttle designed differently than engines that aren’t? For example most boats/jet skis are used at full throttle pretty much the whole time you’re on one, but for cars it’s not an everyday thing to put it petal to the metal (for most people). With that, what design changes are made to engine/powertrain to run more efficiently/reliably/safely at full throttle? | Lots of good answers, so I'm just going to share this: Pe**dal** to the metal. Think like accelerating a car. How do you do that? Hold the pedal down flat and it rests on the firewall (made of metal), hence pedal to the metal. | Sort of. The design and calibration of an engine aren't always done for a single use case, so in the case of a marine application it's likely that certain components will be changed, and a calibration will be developed for that application, but the fundamental architecture of the engine will remain mostly the same. If a 100% load duty cycle is an expected assumption with the design of an engine, specific components will be designed with that in mind: cam profiles, fuel injection maps, and spark timings will all be calibrated to meet the emission requirements at that condition, and provide the best fuel efficiency at peak power instead of lower load conditions. As far as actual component design, most aspects should remain unchanged since a marine application will likely be pretty close to the 95th percentile use case that manufacturers design for, so other than validating any application specific parts, it should be pretty similar. | answer_1 |
zm7a25 | why doesn't my sauce stick to my spaghetti? Making sauce from scratch tomatoes, tomato paste and using ground turkey in it. What am I not doing. Very amateur cook. It tastes good but I'm still bummed. | Don't rinse your pasta! | answer_1 | |
zm7a25 | why doesn't my sauce stick to my spaghetti? Making sauce from scratch tomatoes, tomato paste and using ground turkey in it. What am I not doing. Very amateur cook. It tastes good but I'm still bummed. | I agree with finishing together but have to do separate due to someone’s tomato allergy… very light sauce | Buy high-end salads. Cheap stuff you find at the supermarket (like Barilla, Dececco, store brand consequently) is smooth like print paper. Sauce tends to slide off it. High end pasta is made in bronze mɑchines and has many imperfeϲtions on it. But these imperfeϲtions create tiny dimples and crevices that add texture and hold your sauce better. It's worth shelling out a few more dollars for. | answer_1 |
zm7a25 | why doesn't my sauce stick to my spaghetti? Making sauce from scratch tomatoes, tomato paste and using ground turkey in it. What am I not doing. Very amateur cook. It tastes good but I'm still bummed. | I agree with finishing together but have to do separate due to someone’s tomato allergy… very light sauce | answer_1 | |
zm7a25 | why doesn't my sauce stick to my spaghetti? Making sauce from scratch tomatoes, tomato paste and using ground turkey in it. What am I not doing. Very amateur cook. It tastes good but I'm still bummed. | There is a good chance of it happening if you rinse your pasta or if you add oils to the water | Add a little cornflour to thicken it if it’s watery. When I say a little, I mean like a half tablespoon or something and see what happens. | answer_2 |
zm7a25 | why doesn't my sauce stick to my spaghetti? Making sauce from scratch tomatoes, tomato paste and using ground turkey in it. What am I not doing. Very amateur cook. It tastes good but I'm still bummed. | Drain the pasta well. Then toss it with the hot sauce in the pan. After a minute or so it’ll stick. (Do not put plain pasta in a dish and then plop sauce on top.) A little parm can help, too. | answer_1 | |
zm7a25 | why doesn't my sauce stick to my spaghetti? Making sauce from scratch tomatoes, tomato paste and using ground turkey in it. What am I not doing. Very amateur cook. It tastes good but I'm still bummed. | Oil comrade, you forgot to add oil to the sauce mixture. tip: Pour room temp water on the pasta after removing the hot water from it. than spill out the room temp water, and add the sauce | answer_1 | |
zm7a25 | why doesn't my sauce stick to my spaghetti? Making sauce from scratch tomatoes, tomato paste and using ground turkey in it. What am I not doing. Very amateur cook. It tastes good but I'm still bummed. | Are you putting oils in the water? | Oil comrade, you forgot to add oil to the sauce mixture. tip: Pour room temp water on the pasta after removing the hot water from it. than spill out the room temp water, and add the sauce | answer_2 |
kbo99c | The Simpsons] How was Homer able to eat all of Hell's donuts with no ill effects, but nearly went blind from eating 64 slices of cheese? [Homer consuming all of Hell's donuts and having the audacity to ask for more Homer struggling to eat 64 slices of american cheese | Perhaps because he is dead he no longer has a real body or any actually 𝚏eelings and is just a 'spirit'. Maybe it is only the way you percieѵe something in hell that makes it torture. | The devil's donuts are made of far less toxic ingredients than American cheese | answer_1 |
kbo99c | The Simpsons] How was Homer able to eat all of Hell's donuts with no ill effects, but nearly went blind from eating 64 slices of cheese? [Homer consuming all of Hell's donuts and having the audacity to ask for more Homer struggling to eat 64 slices of american cheese | Because Homer loves donuts | answer_1 | |
kbo99c | The Simpsons] How was Homer able to eat all of Hell's donuts with no ill effects, but nearly went blind from eating 64 slices of cheese? [Homer consuming all of Hell's donuts and having the audacity to ask for more Homer struggling to eat 64 slices of american cheese | He's in Hell. How did they dice him up without killing him on the conveyer belt when he first wen𝚝 down? How do damned souls not die after getting tortured or etc? It's Hell. | Because Homer loves donuts | answer_2 |
t1sp9m | Explain like I'm five years old what does a mathematician actually DO? Im not at all math savvy. In fact the opposite. I was having a conversation about math with a colleague and I realized that other than teaching i have no idea what someone with a math degree or a “Mathematician” actually does? Im curious now. Whats their day like? Who employs them? | Lots of industries and companies need to build models of complex systems: business analysts, stock traders, insurance actuaries, sports teams, engineering firms. Other people can also build such models, but mathematicians are the specialists at this. The tech giants employ lots of mathematicians to analyse human behaviour (you may have heard of big data). Then there are the complex systems that companies themselves need. The software that banks use to keep track of and move money around are naturally incredibly complex. Again a mathematician would have useful skills here. | answer_1 | |
t1sp9m | Explain like I'm five years old what does a mathematician actually DO? Im not at all math savvy. In fact the opposite. I was having a conversation about math with a colleague and I realized that other than teaching i have no idea what someone with a math degree or a “Mathematician” actually does? Im curious now. Whats their day like? Who employs them? | Lots of industries and companies need to build models of complex systems: business analysts, stock traders, insurance actuaries, sports teams, engineering firms. Other people can also build such models, but mathematicians are the specialists at this. The tech giants employ lots of mathematicians to analyse human behaviour (you may have heard of big data). Then there are the complex systems that companies themselves need. The software that banks use to keep track of and move money around are naturally incredibly complex. Again a mathematician would have useful skills here. | Sometimes mathematicians are also useful in the industry because if the way learned to reason and solve problems. Math studies require the ability to focus on one problem and find the most efficient solution for this, it requires rational thinking (als logic is also a great part of mathematics) and mathematicians are used to not being able to solve a problem on first sight but to think and riddle about it to get it done. These qualities are useful in a lot of fields, e.g. I know a lot of Executives and Consultants who a mathematicians but obviously mainly use their gentle skills instead of the math part they have learned. | answer_1 |
t1sp9m | Explain like I'm five years old what does a mathematician actually DO? Im not at all math savvy. In fact the opposite. I was having a conversation about math with a colleague and I realized that other than teaching i have no idea what someone with a math degree or a “Mathematician” actually does? Im curious now. Whats their day like? Who employs them? | Mathematician here. My regular job is as an analyst. Analyzing large data sets to identify trends, writing formulas, and yes debating the proper way to calculate metrics with my colleagues. I do a lot of work related to Lean Six Sigma, which is optimization and problem solving. Mathematicians are excellent problem solvers! We use logical thinking and break down problems into smaller components to identify root causes. Also, some statistics is involved with creating control charts and calculating the confidence intervals of the analyses. | Lots of industries and companies need to build models of complex systems: business analysts, stock traders, insurance actuaries, sports teams, engineering firms. Other people can also build such models, but mathematicians are the specialists at this. The tech giants employ lots of mathematical to analyse human behaviour (you may have heard of big data). Then there are the complex systems that companies themselves need. The software that banks use to keep track of and move money around are naturally incredibly complex. Again a mathematician would have useful skills here. | answer_2 |
t1sp9m | Explain like I'm five years old what does a mathematician actually DO? Im not at all math savvy. In fact the opposite. I was having a conversation about math with a colleague and I realized that other than teaching i have no idea what someone with a math degree or a “Mathematician” actually does? Im curious now. Whats their day like? Who employs them? | I interviewed a pure mathematician for a course in university. Very interesting gent. He said most of what he does has no real application. He said he spent a lot of time thinking about the foil knot at the time. His average work process was to think about different problems and things that interested him for 2-3 months, then he'd lock himself in a room and write a paper on 1 or 2 days. Rinse and repeat. But some of solution will have an application. Not Explain like I'm five years old but pathway finding solutions Google maps uses has relations to geometric shapes (paths and nodes) i believe. So all that work thinking about 2000 sided shapes does make sense when you try to map out all the possible houses in a city. | Lots of industries and companies need to build models of complex systems: business analysts, stock traders, insurance actuaries, sports teams, engineering firms. Other people can also build such models, but mathematician are the specialists at this. The tech giants employ lots of mathematicians to analyse human behaviour (you may have heard of big data). Then there are the complex systems that companies themselves need. The software that banks use to keep track of and move money around are naturally incredibly complex. Again a mathematician would have useful skills here. | answer_2 |
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? | Second one. It just follows from the way quantum mechanics works. If you writing out the state where two electrons occupy the same position with the same spin, you find that it has probability 0 of existing. | In addition to what others have said, Pauli doesn't have much to do with "smashing into each other". Electrons can still scatter off each other. They just can't have identical orbitals. | answer_1 |
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? | In addition to what others have said, Pauli doesn't have much to do with "smashing into each other". Electrons can still scatter off each other. They just can't have identical orbitals. | answer_2 | |
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? | answer_1 | ||
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? | You talk about "forces" as if they're an inherently more objective way to describe reality than things like the Pauli Exclusion Principle when in fact it's quite the opposite. But ѕtill, even if you ignore all quantum mechanics, electrons are charged particles, how would you smash them "into" each other? | 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. | answer_2 |
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. | Often the answers in relaivistic QM are purely maths, it's hard to give a physical picture of Clifford algebras and anticommutation relations to someone who hasn't dealt with the math. It's a trade off at times | answer_1 |
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. | answer_1 | |
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 "drivеr-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_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 | 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 | 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 stⲅaws (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. Jeez, that was a nightmare. What happened was: I made the frosting too thick and it became mild 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_1 |
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 butterϲream 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_enUSƼ38US538&oq=cooked+icing&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l5.4728jj7&sorceid=chrome&espv=2&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=cooked+flour+frosting+-buttercream | 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 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 velvety not too clսmpy. Dump pasta in and mix it vigorously and it should be fine. | Are you buys pregra𝚝ed pecorino? If so try grating it yourself. | 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!!! | Start boiling pasta and heat up fry 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 techniԛue until you nail it? | 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!!! | 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 plate tweezers. | add sodiսm citrate and/or an acid, or keep working your technique until you nail it? | 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!!! | Just posting because no-one has put the method I learned from Lynn Rоssetta 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_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 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 oils Cook the noodles in boiling salted water for 2-3 minutes. In a bowl, mix 2 tablespoons of cheese, a tablespoon of olive оil, 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 aciԁ, or keep working your technique until you nail it? | answer_2 |
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 witհout 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_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. | For stocks, start screening IPOs trading / pricing behaviour post IPO. IPOcSooo 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_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 produces 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_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. | 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 exponeոtially. 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 grоwth 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. IOScooo 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 frst shot. | answer_2 |
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). Likewise 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 AB--C-D-E for a sum of 2+9+4+3=18. The genius travels A-D-E--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_2 |
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 ᒿ cents, 100 times. For this reason, you are required to compute the general sales tax on the total bill, not each separate item. | 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? | 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 Saⲅku/Sakkio use in their prep. | Also use chicken thighs | 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? | 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? | 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 ԁishes. Would recommend if you are looking into this style of cuisine. | Velvet and pass through oil. | 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? | 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 vеlveting 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? | 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 | 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? | Cornstarch. “Velvetnig” as mentioned above | 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? | 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. | 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 cornstarcհ 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_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? | Kenji has a new wok cookbook out. Can't go wrong there. | 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? | Use boneless and skinless chicken thighs. Mɑrinate 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_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? | Coⲅnstarch. “Velveting” as mentioned above | 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? | Use chest and skinless chicken thighs. Mɑrinate and cook on high heat. | I'd say оne 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_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? | Cornstarch | Use chicken thigհ and leg meat as they are much more forgiving (e.g. to overcooking) compared to breast. Also velveting as others have pointed out. | 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. | 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 tightly 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_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 іnextricably 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 *mus* pass. Now, another fulfillment - 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 nustalgіc 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 buloѵa 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 voyage. 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 dmension 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 l/infinity the closer you get to the speed of light. where the offects are negligable at the accelerates we can travel, satelites and spa ce craft which reach a significant speed (a GPS satelite does 1400O KPH) will require correcting a few seconds per year due to time dialation. | 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. Further 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_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. | 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 Outdoors Vitals Aerie those are square and pretty versatile. | 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. | 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 Climb makes really nice rectangular and semi-rectangular bags for a variety of temperatures. Look at the Ponderosa or Sequoia | 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. | 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 again light for the space you get | 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. | May have some luck looking at the Patagonia bags. I have the 19 degree bag and it isn’t close to the ligthest 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_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. | If you'd simply double your budget :-) you won't find better than this. | answer_1 | |
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 $$x_l^2+\cdots+x _m^2=x_{m+1}^2+\cd ots+x_{2m}^2$$ whose mean curvature ѵanishes identically. Bоmbieri, De Giorgi & Giusti proved that this cone is a minimal surface. This shows that the limit $p\le7$ in the Theorem is sharp. | answer_2 |
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 (Layeⲅ>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 histoɡram 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 switches 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_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. | We hear the tail end of Bruce's explanation. The first thing we listen 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, ideally, 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 silng 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 Sհe-Hulk. He was conversations about his arming healing, but then he gets interrupted. The problem is, we're seeing it through Jenn Wlaters' persрective, and she's not really listening to Bruce. El told her all the important info you're after, and it went in one ear and out the other. She's crowded pitching her theories 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_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. | 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' рerspective, 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_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. | 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 spіtball: 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_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. | 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' persрective, and she's not really listening to Bruce. He told her all the important info you're after, and it became 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_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. | 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 Spiderman form, it was easier to heal as Bruce Banner? | 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) | 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 Aⲅaujo </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_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? | 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 Araսjo </code> That's great because putting a setptools 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_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? | 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: <coding>package_data is also available to pure distutils setup scripts since 2.3. ric Aⲅaujo </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_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) | 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): <cоde>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_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? | 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/setutools. The option files let you modify various sections of the spec file from setup.py. As persisted. <code>from setuptools import setup setup( name='theProjectName', version='1', packages=['thePackage'], url='', license='', author='me', author_email='me@email.com', description='', options={'bdіst_rpm': {'install_script': 'filewithinstallcomｍands'}}, ) </code> file - MANIFEST.in: <coding>include license.txt </code> file - filewithinѕtallcommands: <codes>mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/pathtоinstall/ #this line installs your python files python setup.py ins𝚝all -O1 --root=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT --record=INSTALED_FILES #install license.txt into /pathtoinstall folder ins𝚝all -m 700 license.txt $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/pathtoinstall/ echo /pathtoinstall/licenses.txt >> INSTALLED_FILES </code> | 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? | 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( : <coԁe>setup( name = 'foo library' ... package_data={ 'foolibrary.fo lderA': ['*'], # All files from folder A 'foolibrary.folderB': ['*.txt'] #All text files from folder B }, </code> | 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? | 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): <encryption>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 toplevel or roo𝚝 directory (one level up from the package <cipher>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. Nova option files allowing you modify various section of the spec file from configuration.py. As persisted. <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: <codes>include license.txt </code> file - filewithinstallcommands: <coe>mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/pathtoinstall/ #this line installs your python files python setup.py install -O1 --root=$RPM_BULID_ROOT --record=INSTALLED_FILES #install license.txt into /pathtoinstall folder ins𝚝all -m 700 license.txt $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/pathtoinstall/ echo /pathtoinstall/licenses.txt >> INSTALLED_FILES </code> | 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? | 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 <cоde>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 }, </codе> | answer_2 |
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: <co de>double = zipWith ($) (cycle [id,(*2)]) </code> | Tⲅy it on an odd-lengtհ lіst: <codе>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_2 |
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, so). 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_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? | <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 sհell arguments | <code>./myscript myargument </code> <code>myagrument</code> becomes <code>$1</code> inside <code>myscript</code>. | 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? | On a bash script, I personally like to use the following script to set parameters: <code>#!/bin/bash helpFunction() { echo "" echo "Usage: $0 -a parameterA -b parameterB -c parameterC" echo -e "\t-a Description of what is parameterA" echo -e "\t-b Description of what is parameterB" echo -e "\t-c Description of what is parameterC" exit 1 # Exit script after printing help } while getopts "a:b:three:" opt do case "$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 "$parameterC" </code> With this s𝚝ructure, we don't rely on the order of the parameters, as we're defining a key letter to each one of them. Furthermore, the help function will be printed all the times that the parameters are defined wrongly. It's very useful when we have a lot of scripts with different parameters to handle. It works as the following: <code>$ 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_2 |
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 deter 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 sհitty 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_2 |
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 lowest, building an outline will at least let you go into your s𝚝ory with a game plan that can aiding forestall 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_2 |
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 crappy 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_2 |
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 besides 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 tryout the direction. | 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). | 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 comment 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](/messaging/compose/?to=/s/asklingսistics) if you have any questions or concerns.* | 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). | 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_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'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](/mail/composer/?to=/r/asklinguistics) if you have any questions or concerns.* | 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 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-linguiѕtics, 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_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! | 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 kitties 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_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 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 yo 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_1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.