What could be a few examples of such matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grotesquetruth (talk • contribs) 08:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by Corporeal matter and Incorporeal matter? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The literal meaning of the adjective incorporeal is, "not having a body", but the usual meaning is, "having no material form or physical substance". So then "incorporeal matter" is an oxymoron. The philosophy of matter has been a hotly debated subject though the centuries – that is, hotly debated by philosophers and hardly anybody else. See also the section Incorporeality § Philosophy. As commonly used, a substance refers to something material, but philosophers also use the term for non-material concepts. The philosopher Giordano Bruno, now considered a martyr for for free thought and speech, argued in his book De la causa, principio, et uno (1584) that matter is a single potency comprising both corporeal and incorporeal substances.^[1][2] On the other hand, he concedes that "the matter of corporeal things is different from that of incorporeal things".^[3] I find it difficult to see how Bruno meant the concepts of corporeality and incorporeality to be understood.  --Lambiam 12:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this is out of curiosity, but could incorporeal subjects as in intellectual creations be shared? Grotesquetruth (talk) 06:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to the fourth century, the nature of Christ (homoousion or homoiousion) was a hotly debated topic on every street corner. Hence the proverbial reference to the inclusion of "every jot and tittle". What happened to Arius after he was rehabilitated led the general public to remark "I told you so":

It was then Saturday, and Arius was expecting to assemble with the church on the day following: but divine retribution overtook his daring criminalities. For going out of the imperial palace, attended by a crowd of Eusebian partisans like guards, he paraded proudly through the midst of the city, attracting the notice of all the people. As he approached the place called Constantine's Forum, where the column of porphyry is erected, a terror arising from the remorse of conscience seized Arius, and with the terror a violent relaxation of the bowels: he therefore enquired whether there was a convenient place near, and being directed to the back of Constantine's Forum, he hastened thither. Soon after a faintness came over him, and together with the evacuations his bowels protruded, followed by a copious hemorrhage, and the descent of the smaller intestines: moreover portions of his spleen and liver were brought off in the effusion of blood, so that he almost immediately died.

…Then there is the “matter” of semantics, which is entirely incorporeal. DOR (HK) (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Semantics is a cognitive process. The brain, presumably, is corporeal. The mind may be incorporeal. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The mind is cognitive processes. Your sentence is nonsensical if you change out other body systems and their process "The stomach is corporeal, digestion may be incorporeal" "Legs are corporeal, walking may be incorporeal". "The heart is corporeal, blood flow may be incorporeal". --Jayron32 17:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And yet, modern conceptions of mind further decentralize and extend its reach beyond the individual. Remove a smartphone from someone for an entire day and watch them go through withdrawals, as if part of their mind now exists in the cloud. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW: @Jayron32: From our article on mind: Mind or mentality is usually contrasted with body, matter or physicality. QED. Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How true is it that any event/action of the past, acts as guides in recalibrating inefficiencies of the present economy? Grotesquetruth (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is very vague, to the point of being impossible to answer. If you want to know about the effect of a specific event or action from the past, please ask about that. --Jayron32 15:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The vagueness invites a highly specific response. Central bankers constantly review history to figure out what to do now, six days to six months before they actually know what’s going on. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People who attempt recalibration to address inefficiencies of the present economy have little else to go by than experiences of the past. Since economic efficiency depends on a chaotic system, they are generally not very successful.  --Lambiam 12:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone once quipped that being an economist is like driving a car forward while only looking in the rear-view mirror. Xuxl (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Central bankers have had very good success in some economies, as evidenced by the very rapid increase in wealth (total or per capita), if that is an acceptable measure. And, they do so with both rear-looking views of the economy and ... theory. DOR (HK) (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What impact does the Super Bowl winner have on recalibrating inefficiencies of the economy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The comic book Asterix is set in a fictional Gaul village, that manages to escape the Rome conquest during the Gallic Wars because their druid prepares a magic potion that gives super strength. One of the characters is the chief Vitalstatistix, who is always transported over a shield carried by two guys. See here. The comic is focused on humor and satire, and there are frequent jokes about Vitalstatistix falling from the shield because of the bearers' incompetence.

Now seriously, is such a thing based on any custom from those ancient times, or is it completely made up by the comic to begin with? It seems quite impractical and dangerous for real-life, but being a satire it could also be that they laugh about the actual danger and impractibility of some real custom by showing it in an exaggerated and caricaturized manner. Cambalachero (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the Merovingians says "The army also acclaimed new kings by raising them on its shields continuing an ancient practice that made the king leader of the warrior-band." Further details, including this 19th-century painting, at French wiki article. Now this is centuries after the purported time, but it shows not necessarily made up of whole cloth. What we'd really need is a source where the cartoon creators talk about their inspirations. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) From Tacitus, Histories, book IV [4]: "Among the Canninefates there was a certain Brinno, a man of a certain stolid bravery and of distinguished birth. [...] Raised aloft on a shield after the national fashion, and balanced on the shoulders of the bearers, he was chosen general." --Wrongfilter (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably the Merovingians one. The comic is not really meant to be historically accurate in the slightest anyway, so I wouldn't be surprised if they took things from other time periods and, as long as it sounds as something those crazy Gauls would do, throw it in. After all, there are 39 adventures, and they are all supposed to fit somewhere in the brief 8 years between the battle of Alesia and the death of Caesar. Cambalachero (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't underestimate Asterix and his creators. Here's a scholarly article on the practice and it mentions Vitalstatistix (Abraracourcix in the French original) and Brinno on the first page (the only page I have access to). --Wrongfilter (talk) 06:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is mainly concerned with the Roman tradition of raising new emperors on the shield, starting in 361 with Julian, some four centuries after the adventures of Asterix. The article ascribes the physical elevation in this style of the new emperor to his Gallic and Germanic soldiers. For the rest, the article states that the ritual shield raising of new leaders was of Germanic origin. Other than the fictional Gauls of Asterix and the mention of the Gallic soldiers of Julian, there are no suggestions of this being a Gallic tradition.  --Lambiam 12:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Jan Lievens - Brinio Raised on a Shield, a 17th century depiction of Brinno, who was the chief of the Germanic Cananefates tribe in AD 70. Alansplodge (talk) 12:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2007_February_4#Heroic_Roman_fashion_-_Asterix_'shield'_inspiration?, tho the link is no longer valid, try "Raising on a Shield: Origin and Afterlife of a Coronation Ceremony". fiveby(zero) 17:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia says at List of U-boats of Germany: "The submarines have usually been designated with a U followed by a number... When Germany resumed building submarines in the 1930s, the numbering of the submarines was restarted at 1." However, while reading the World War II memoir Iron Coffins, I noticed that the submarine U-230 was newer than the U-557. The linked articles confirm this, and it's not a small difference: the lower-numbered sub was newer than the other one by well over a year, although they were both the same class of sub.

So is there any information as to how those numbers were assigned? --174.95.81.219 (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The U-Boat Wars, Edwin Palmer Hoyt (1986), p. 94 says that after U-100 the numbering ceased to be sequential to give the impression that there were more boats than actually existed, a deception plan by Karl Dönitz. Alansplodge (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However, Hunt and Kill: U-505 and the Battle of the Atlantic Theodore P. Savas (2004) p. 16 says:

The numbering system of Type IX boats, and indeed that of all German submarines in World War II, at first glance defies logic and continues to confound anyone except the most knowledgeable of experts or those with a superbly developed memory. Instead of numbering boats in the chronological order in which they were commissioned and joined active service, the German Navy designated its submarines more or less according to the sequence in which the construction orders were allocated to the individual shipyards. This arrangement lead to some confusion, because some boats carrying high numbers had been commissioned (and sometimes even sunk) before a boat with a lower number had even hoisted its battle ensign.

He goes on to say that later in the war, whole contracts for older designs were sometimes cancelled in favour of newer designs, with the numbers allocated being reused later. Sounds a bit more plausible than the deception theory. Alansplodge (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the particular case I mentioned, the U-557 was ordered over a year earlier, construction began over a year earlier, it was launched over a year earlier, and commissioned over a year earlier than the U-230. But if a contract was canceled and then the numbering gap was filled later, that makes sense. Thanks. --174.95.81.219 (talk) 04:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The deception hypothesis may be based (perhaps inaccurately) on the real German tank problem. --Error (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Watching the funeral of Elizabeth II yesterday it struck me how beautiful the choral music sounded as it amplified across the Abbey and reverberated across its ancient walls.

I know the Abbey is an ancient place with parts of it dating to Edward the Confessor. What understanding of acoustics, if any, did medieval church architects have. Or is it merely a coincidence that sung music sounds so spectacular in places like it? —Andrew 09:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a full reply, though I'm sure the answer is that they had a lot of practical knowledge of acoustics. But see acoustic jar for a specific example. ColinFine (talk) 10:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverberation is typically high in large Gothic churches due to the low absorption of the stone walls, largely left uncovered, and the sheer height (see Sabine's reverberation equation). Reverberation does not agree with coloratura but works well with solemn choral music with its slow-moving chord progression.  --Lambiam 11:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ACOUSTICS OF GOTHIC CHURCHES has a lot of technical details but not much on whether these acoustic features were created intentionally, except to say that there was no need for the spoken word to be audible in medieval churches, that would only come with the Reformation when sermons and Bible reading became important. Alansplodge (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That said, using churches (not necessarily gothic) as recording venues for music is a very common thing because of these acoustic features. Xuxl (talk) 13:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The causation is the other way round. Gothic cathedrals were built because they looked wonderful, they fitted the theology, and technology existed to do it (only sometimes; but all the badly-built ones fell down centuries ago). Having built them, people started singing in them, and discovered that some types of music sounded fantastic, while others didn't work so well. Cue the composers writing the sort of music that made the most of the existing acoustics.

Acoustics was not well understood even in the 1800s. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 20:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustics and architectual engineering share some mathematical principles. For example, Musical scales are related to Fibonacci numbers and the "golden ratio" (phi) --based on Fibonacci numbers-- has been important in architecture for millennia. It's not entirely coincidental that what looks beautiful also sounds beautiful. I recall an engineering professor who would say "when in doubt, use the phi ratio". Harley Earl probably said the same thing; he and his design studio used it often. 136.56.52.157 (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A further thought is that polyphonic singing was introduced into Western liturgy some time after people started building tall cathedrals. So it seems likely that the music was made to suit the building rather than t'other way about. The wonderful Funeral Sentences (sung as the coffin entered [5]) were written by William Croft specifically for use in the Abbey - he was the organist there from 1708 to 1727, and would have known perfectly well how to get the best out of the space. Alansplodge (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies -- Verbarson , you have made the same point above. I should pay more attention. Alansplodge (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just an echo - Wikipedia must have a very long reverberation! -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 21:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where you will find exactly the same point, with examples. Wikipedia:WHAAOE! -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 21:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, a flavor of Phibaloney that I may not have seen before. How does 13 figure into musical scales? It's true that 2,3,5,8 do, but that they are Fibonacci numbers is the strong law of small numbers at work. Note that 4 (non-Fib) is more important than 8. —Tamfang (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, to the point that I starting looking for a translation of "le monde est bien fait" (such a beautiful world) but the web engine not being aware of my quest proposed me only assertions rather the opposite. --Askedonty (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to the phibaloney (great word BTW!) web site linked by the IP, "There are 13 notes in the span of any note through its octave." I guess that translates as "There are 12 notes in the chromatic scale, but 12 is not a Fibonacci number, so let's throw one more in there to make the data fit the hypothesis". CodeTalker (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zooming in to Mamoru Shigemitsu's pen tip at the surrender of Japan, it appears as though the pen's writing tip during signing is on the table cloth, outside the paper, instead of being on the document itself. Why is that? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me as if his hand and pen are just hovering above the paper at that moment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This image, and this one, show him actually putting pen to paper. Alansplodge (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the different royal titles princes and princesses in the UK get after marriage (in particular royal dukes/duchesses), I'm confused as to why the standard format for men seems to be:

HRH The Duke of Cambridge

But for princesses, it becomes:

HRH The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh

In other words, why do royal princes become exclusively known formally as the 'Duke of XYZ' while princesses become 'The Princess ABC, Duchess of DEF'?

113.196.51.134 (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, these titles are at the whim of the reigning monarch. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 03:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth II was heir to the throne from the Abdication of Edward VIII in 1936, and she married in 1947. William, Prince of Wales married in 2011 and only later became heir to the throne (just this month). William is now also The Prince of Wales, while before his marriage he was Prince William of Wales. The version without "The" was a courtesy title. --Amble (talk) 04:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Small technicality (which doesn't contradict anything you say): Elizabeth was Heir Presumptive, because George VI could theoretically have produced a son to supplant her. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

113.196.51.134 -- There's also a traditional British rule that a title which a woman has because of her marriage is never directly prefixed to her first name (forename). So "Diana, Princess of Wales" was correct, but "Princess Diana of Wales" was incorrect (I assume it's the same for Kate now). This was also the original reason for "Mrs. John Smith" etc. AnonMoos (talk) 08:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensively discussed at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 May 21#Need someone who REALLY knows how British royal titles work. 2A00:23C3:F780:EC01:945:BF17:9FE0:1DC6 (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If husbands could acquire peerage titles by marriage, then you might well see "Prince Richard, Duke of Wifestitle". But that is not now the custom. — In pre-Tudor England, most peerages could be inherited by women, and were usually exercised by their husbands (Neville the Kingmaker had an earldom from his mother and another from his wife). I don't know how, or exactly when, that changed. Nearly all Scottish peerages (created before 1707), I believe, can still pass to daughters. —Tamfang (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

doesn't the easements right pose a free riders problem? Grotesquetruth (talk) 06:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any examples? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is quite unclear. If you gave us a hint of 1) which meaning of "easement" you are referring to, and 2) what you mean by a "free riders" problem, somebody might be able to give you an answer. ColinFine (talk) 10:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Easements do not arise randomly and arbitrarily. While such rights can be created in many ways, these are based on grounds that are generally deemed reasonable and equitable. A free-rider problem arises when people avail themselves of benefits in a way that is generally considered unreasonable and inequitable. Thus, the two tend to be mutually exclusive.  --Lambiam 11:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link easement (see Lambiam's first link). If there is abuse of a privilege you may be able to take action under the law of nuisance. 2A00:23C3:F780:EC01:945:BF17:9FE0:1DC6 (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yes correct, but when lets say a portion of property is shared under mutual benefits of specific parties for making way of a hindrance in the name of easements, don't you think there could be a possibility of others(public) who could be free riding who weren't a part of the mutual agreements of the specific party circles in the first place? Grotesquetruth (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need an easement to have free riders. Unless someone's property, say a swimming pool, is actively guarded, people may come and enjoy a free dip to which they have no legal right. They may camp and picnic without permission on someone's private meadow, or fish in their private pond. Perhaps effective guarding becomes more challenging when multiple parties are involved that hold rights, a practical issue. But I don't see how having an easement situation makes the potential problem more pressing.  --Lambiam 18:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the historical character in this painting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.10.75.134 (talk) 06:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Sir Out-of-Focus? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be a Spanish noble or king. Can you find it? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.10.75.134 (talk) 06:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The attire, specifically the millstone collar, makes this a person from the mid-16th to mid-17th century, not necessarily from Spanish nobility, but a European gentleman of some importance. For many similar portraits, the identity of the portrayed character has been lost to history, and they are now catalogued as just "portrait of a gentleman"; e.g. this one, this one and this one.  --Lambiam 11:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this Portrait of a Gentleman, where the pose is very similar. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, this page at the Detective Conan Wiki identifies it as Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. (But I have a feeling that you already knew that.) I'm not offhand finding a potrait of Charles V that matches it, however. Deor (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just like the OP's similar question last week, it may well just be a generic figure based on what was a common style of portrait painting in the 17th century. The fact it's out of focus makes it even more likely it's not based on a specific painting that could or should be recognized by viewers. Xuxl (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The figure may be wearing a collar of the Order of the Golden Fleece, which is consistent with the theory he represents Charles V, who was head of the order. Most portraits of the Emperor in his forties and fifties also have a similar head shape, with the beard masking his excessively elongated jaw. But the image appears not to match any of the many contemporary portraits of Charles V.  --Lambiam 17:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Are we sure it's not an Anthony Van Dyck portrait? It certainly doesn't feel like Charles V. The fashion is about a century too late. It has a very Van Dyck style to it. --Jayron32 23:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Bingo, See File:Van Dyck - Portrait of William Herbert, 3rd Earl of Pembroke (1580-1630), 1632-1638.jpg. Dead ringer. --Jayron32 23:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia has an article on him, with additional portraits by other artists. William Herbert, 3rd Earl of Pembroke. --Jayron32 23:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To view a copy, reproduced in colour with higher resolution, click here.  --Lambiam 12:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Excuse me, but can you help me also for this Biblical portrait: 1, 2? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.20.9.15 (talk) 08:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The colors and style seem to be from the Rococo period about a century later. I can't place it, unfortunately. --Jayron32 11:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Calypso and Odysseus", Joos de Momper (1564-1635) [6][7]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Future Perfect at Sunrise. About this which I've asked before, can you find something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.162.236 (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How many King James Version bibles have been printed? --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 11:45, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean number of editions or number of copies? 2A00:23C3:F780:EC01:945:BF17:9FE0:1DC6 (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Number of copies printed in book form (i.e. millions?).--Christie the puppy lover (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found a number, but this website says; "With more than 6 billion copies published, the Bible is the most popular book in the world, and the King James Bible is the most published Bible translation". Alansplodge (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page you link to also says about the King James Bible specifically that "an estimated 1 billion or more copies have been published". --Antiquary (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is: All of them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of them have necessarily been printed - some may exist only in electronic format. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hand-written? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if there's even a rough count of all the individual coins, banknotes and stamps from all the Commonwealth countries that have ever featured a portrait of Queen Elizabeth II. Obviously it's "billions", but can we get a more precise count?

This is your homework for the weekend. Extra points for sources. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:45, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The linguist Robert M. W. Dixon claimed (perhaps incorrectly) that the counting systems of most Australian Aboriginal languages don't extend beyond "one, two, three, many". [8] On that basis, I'm going with "many". Alansplodge (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or "several". But seriously, we regularly crow about our much-vaunted WHAAOE. This so-called Wikimapedia thing is obviously hopeless when it comes to the crunch, and I wouldn't give it the time of day. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a quotation one sees attributed to John Maynard Keynes - "Whenever you save five shillings you put a man out of work for a day". I have been unable to verify it. Can anyone help? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keynes, John Maynard (1931). "Inflation and Deflation". Essays in Persuasion.

@Fiveby: Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that Keynes was writing in 1931, a time of severe deflation. In 1928, or 1948, his advice would have been quite different. DOR (HK) (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with, I'm asking this as a German (with a Polish mother and an American Jewish father of Ukrainian heritage): My mendacious government has been claiming for months now it cannot send the German "Leopard" battle tanks as well as "Marder" IFVs long-desired by Ukraine, as none of its allies has done similarly so far in terms of providing Western battle tanks. However, it's a fact, for instance, that Poland has provided more than 200 T-72 battle tanks modernized and adapted to NATO standards to Ukraine.

Hence, I tried to find a rationale why the US and UK as well are still reluctant to provide their tanks to Ukraine - although e. g. the US embassy in Germany recently tweeted in this context that every ally is free to choose the kind of assistance to Ukraine, a hint which is currently under hot discussion in Germany. However, I was unable to find a single article tackling the issue of providing "Anglo-Saxon" US / UK battle tanks.

Therefore I'm asking: Why is this obviously not at all discussed in the Anglo-Saxon world, considering that delivering US or UK tanks to Ukraine would make a huge difference as to ending that goddam war, and also would debunk the said spurious German line of argument for non-delivery, thus probably prompting the lame, lily-livered Huns to finally follow suit (the US / UK governments surely know that the Germans are scaredy-cats in military terms not least due to their ignominious history)? Hildeoc (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I may venture to add an appeal in these abnormal days: Please do talk about this issue to as many people as you can – as this may once get things going to definitively end that senseless, barbarian bloodshed and destruction ...--Hildeoc (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are there ever simple reasons for the choices made by government leadership? I don't think I know enough about the invasion of Ukraine (or about the foreign policies of NATO members) to offer a solid explanation for this decision. Here is one guess I can offer: So far, the military materiel provided to Ukraine has been for the implicit purpose of defense against Russian invasion. Now, however, Ukraine is undertaking a counteroffensive, which has been highly successful; it could become more successful still should strong support (in the form of a shipment of modern MBTs) be thrown behind it. It may be that the big sticks in NATO are wary of sending military aid for an implicitly offensive (even if counteroffensive) purpose, for various reasons of both foreign and domestic policy. Shells-shells (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hildeoc -- The word "Anglo-Saxon" in the way that you used it is actually a kind of calque on a French-language meaning. Many people in the United States would have little idea what you were talking about... AnonMoos (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonMoos: Thanks for pointing this out. However, confer e.g. the definition here (at section in American English): 10. English-speaking; British or American. But I've now changed it anyway. Best, Hildeoc (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no military experience, but tanks are not cars. You can't just hop in an unfamiliar one and just drive to the front. It's probably very, very, very difficult to transition from Russian tanks to American. Also, the maintenance issues are immense. You have to set up a whole new infrastructure and train mechanics to keep tanks running (and tanks need a LOT of maintenance). When you're fighting for your national life, you don't have the time and resources to do that. Better to get whatever Russian tanks ex-Warsaw Pact countries are willing to donate, like the Polish T-72s you mentioned (as well as the ones the Russians leave laying around when they are advancing hurriedly to the rear). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: Well, to tell the truth, this is exactly what they've been telling us here with regard to Panzerhaubitze 2000 as well as Flakpanzer Gepard (both being said to be like some of the most sophisticated [German] combat vehicles there are) for months as well – and now? The Ukrainians have been handling both remarkably well already in the past weeks ... Hildeoc (talk) 10:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Kyiv government has been requesting Leopards and Marders (as well as Pumas, Boxers and Fuchses) for many months. A plan to send 100 Marders was blocked by Scholz in April, the stated reason being, reportedly, that Germany needs them for its own defense.^[9] This was well before the recent success of the Ukrainian counteroffensive. On would think that Ukraine accounted for the cost of training and maintenance in calculating the balance.  --Lambiam 11:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to later news, Germany dispatched 50 Leopards and 60 Marders to Ukraine later in April.^[10]  --Lambiam 11:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam: NOPE. That's definitely fake news! Also, I'm afraid I didn't quite get the point of your last post. What were you trying to say regarding the provision of Western MBTs? Hildeoc (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to make three points. One: that Scholz earlier came up (if the reporting by Politico is correct) with a very different excuse than his latest one of the necessity of coordination with NATO and the EU. Two and three: that the issues of the Ukrainian counteroffensive and of training and maintenance (now struck out) can hardly have played a role in the reluctance.  --Lambiam 13:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I got it. Thank you. Of course, you are totally right: Scholz is indeed a nasty little liar, and the official excuses for his inaction in this respect seem to change with his underwear. (Sorry for being polemical at this point, but this man's shifty demeanor really keeps driving me up the wall. His prevarications actually at times remind me very much of Putin's rhetorical games and distortion of facts.) Hildeoc (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hildeoc, please be aware that WP:BLP policy applies everywhere on Wikipedia including the reference desks. You are not permitted to describe Scholz or anyone else in such terms. Consider this a warning. Cullen328 (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

US may give Ukraine tanks in the future, senior US military official says (CNN - 19 September)

Tanks are “absolutely on the table” for the US to provide to Ukraine in the future, according to a senior US military official, but are not an option for the immediate fight because of issues with training, maintenance and sustainment.

If that training is already underway, they are unlikely to advertise it. It is worth pointing out that the unique propulsion of the M1 Abrams is a gas turbine (basically a helicopter engine), which famously requires a massive support infrastucture. In the field it is relatively easy to swap engines, but then the used one has to be refurbished in a rear area. Facts M1 Abrams tank revealed

In the case of the UK, they have a much smaller tank force. Only 386 Challenger 2 tanks were built, with 227 now in service. Production of new tanks ended in 2002. If NATO does get dragged into a full-scale European war, they're going to need all of them. Alansplodge (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect (but can't confirm) that the out-of-service Challengers are earmarked for the upgrade to Challenger 3, otherwise the front-line strength would be degraded during this process. Alansplodge (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansplodge: First of all, thank you so much for your profound information. Now, does "Production of new tanks ended in 2002" mean that no new models were developed, or, in fact, no more units (of the existing types) were built at all? And does that apply to both US and UK? Hildeoc (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC) I just saw that was indeed only referring to the Challengers.--Hildeoc (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Britain's last tank factory, ROF Leeds, closed in 2004 after some further Challengers had been built for Oman. It is now a housing estate. The plan to upgrade the Challenger hulls (by a German company) was the only alternative to buying foreign tanks. Alansplodge (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I heard there is one that is registered as a church in Arkansas, but operates in the Coachella Valley. It's a marijuana related religion used as a front to avoid licensing laws. They specialized in cannagummies. What is it called and where is it? 2600:1700:C440:95C0:C9B6:6E7B:E37B:D917 (talk) 05:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a growing problem [11], Coachella Valley Church. 78.141.40.98 (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some would call it a solution, rather than a problem. —Tamfang (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know which one is "not" a problem in Palm Springs area? 2600:1700:C440:95C0:C9B6:6E7B:E37B:D917 (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe there is another one but the one I am asking about is located in the vicinity of Palm Springs' Coachella Valley, do you know of one there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.94.26.173 (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Has a complete transcription of the original ancient text of the PGM ever been published?-The Traditionalist (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the bibliography of the article you cited, there are a number of avenues for you to pursue. It is likely one of those contains the transcriptions you seek. --Jayron32 14:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: Obviously. But I don't have access to most of the titles, so that's why I ask if anyone knows.-The Traditionalist (talk) 05:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose a person has a passport that with "Date of Expiry" identified as 15 April. Is it still possible to use the document on the 15th until midnight, or is it invalid from midnight between 14th and 15th? (I know many countries have minimum 6 months validity or similar for entry rules, but that's not the question here) --Soman (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As with so many other questions relating to “The Law”… I doubt that there is one single answer, and that “it depends on the country”. I suspect that some countries will say the passport is valid through the expiration date, while others will say it is valid until the expiration date, and yet others have never defined it. Blueboar (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And in which time zones, that of the issuing office or that of a country where one is seeking entrance? So many questions, so few answers... Some credit cards have the text "Valid thru",^[12] which (as I interpret it) means it remains valid throughout that date. Others have "Expiration date",^[13] which I take to mean just the same as "Valid thru".  --Lambiam 08:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The standard advice given to travelers is not to travel with passports that will expire in less than six months [14] [15], as many countries will not grant entrance to persons bearing them (the exact minimum period of validity varies from country to country). So the problem is likely to arise well before the clock strikes midnight on the fateful day. Xuxl (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inspired by a previous question here, I was curious about why in the United Kingdom, only the reigning monarch is addressed as His/Her Majesty and other royals as His/Her Royal Highness. Surely all royals are majestic and royally high? JIP | Talk 21:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Majesty and Royal Highness#United Kingdom may help. DuncanHill (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One could equally wonder whether only popes are holy, only cardinals are eminent etc. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Molies are also holy.  --Lambiam 07:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be accurate, Camilla is also Her Majesty The Queen Consort -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 10:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because, through a combination of historical precedent, and someone just kinda deciding it should be so, rules of protocol were developed and laid out and they just are. Protocol are not determined by the laws of the universe, and are mostly arbitrary rules that just exist. They could have been literally anything. They are what they are. --Jayron32 11:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More interesting to me is why Serene Highness and Illustrious Highness are lower than plain Highness! —Tamfang (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's always Serene Highness. Why never Anxious Highness? --Jayron32 17:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Highnesses only become anxious when there is a serious concern of them being forced out of being Highnesses. You know, revolutions and guillotines and such. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serenity now, anxiety later. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Came across recent news controversy about French male cyclist getting a better traveling facilities their female counter part.

From the news published in English language media it seems The French Cycling Federation is defending their differential treatment on perceived chances of men bringing a medal.

1) Is it a case that French media talked about differential on basis of 'merit' but English media did not translate word merit properly?

2) Are there any examples of France's female sports winners have got preferential treatment for winning any games from their respective sports body?

3) What is Gender pay gap or is it equal for women in sports in western countries in general and France in particular? With citations if available and possible.

Thanks Bookku (talk) 06:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article in Le Monde quotes the words of the technical director of the FCC, defending the decision in a telephone interview with AFP.^[16] These quotes do not contain any term that could be translated as merit. They are fairly translated in a Yahoo!News article,^[17] and copied identically in the road.cc article linked to above.  --Lambiam 07:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by question 3. Surely, you can read the article Gender pay gap and find out what the term means. There are clear gender pay gaps in sports, if you google "gender pay gap in women's sports" you get this as the very first link. It is not hard to find the information yourself without needing to involve anyone here. --Jayron32 12:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem like a Gender pay gap thing at all; the first linked reference in your question quotes Christophe Manin: “If we had the mountain bike world championships in Australia with the same economic choice to make, we would put the two girls in business and the boys in economy". In this case it was the "star" team that got preferential treatment, not the men's or women's team. 2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:F81F:15C7:56E8:1694 (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you rightly say the defense seems more like for special treatment for a movie star. Here what I am trying to confirm is, whether the differentiation being claimed to be fair is really fair (of course within limits of scope of this forum).

• Questions like whether each of male team member had been successful previously, or is there any new entrant in that team.
• Question 2 and 3 are distinct questions, seeking to cross check on over all background of gender equilibrium in French sports culture

Bookku (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 code for Cambodia KHM? I am aware that Cambodia is mostly inhabited by Khmer people, but this is not a usual derivation of the ISO code. And why is the ITU letter code CBG? What does the G stand for? --KnightMove (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CBG may be derived from the French Cambodge. --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, thank you. --KnightMove (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has some background. When the 3 letter codes were established, the official name of Cambodia was Kampuchea. --Jayron32 12:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 "They were first included as part of the ISO 3166 standard in its first edition in 1974" and at that time Cambodia was the Khmer Republic. KHM are the first three letters of Khmer Republic. DuncanHill (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And according to our article ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 the two-letter code KH, introduced at the same time, is "taken from former name: Khmer Republic". DuncanHill (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Somewhat strange that this code was retained when the name of the country changed. --KnightMove (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't seem important to change it, perhaps? There are many such situations in which the norms do not change following actual life, for instance, in Europe we use swift codes for bank transactions, but the codes do not change even if banks change ownership/ names and the like - there is no provision in the scheme for them to be changed at all. --Ouro (blah blah) 20:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once a code is established, there's not necessarily any practical reason to change it. Hence the O'Hare Airport code ORD, which orginally stood for "Orchard" or "Orchard/Douglas". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another example: Even given the high profile conflict regarding the country name of Macedonia, now North Macedonia, the ISO codes remain MKD and MK. --T*U (talk) 09:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are two posters of real-life Japanese karatekas. One of them is Mas Oyama, but the other?

Is this dark headgear around keffiyeh an older variety of agal or something else? Appears to be out of fashion now. Thanks. Brandmeister^talk 17:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a type of agal. they come in many shapes and sizes and fashions come and go, but they all serve the same function. Xuxl (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what is the science behind passive smoking/secondhand smoking being a 60% more harmful than active smokers? Grotesquetruth (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that the way you describe the evidence is correct. Read Passive smoking, which has over 200 references to reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure but sources tell passive smokers are at a higher percent chance of risk than active smokers? I just want to know what the science behind that is? Grotesquetruth (talk) 08:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources claim that? HiLo48 (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look for this subject on Google? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hm. is there no such evidence? or is the purport just a fallacy? Grotesquetruth (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So far, the only one who's claiming that is you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know which section of highway in Medellín Colombia is this? —128.163.238.167 (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should be Puente de la Madre Laura. Note that in the video you see three place names in the traffic signs - Aranjuez, Regional, Carabobo. The there two exits to the right labelled 'Regional' and one exit to the right labelled 'Carabobo'. 'Aranjuez' is straight ahead in all three cases. This matches well with https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRp-Yg_LbjU and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSD8u2OcvbI --Soman (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a Google street view showing one of the Aranjuez/Regional signs. Perhaps the skaters were filmed after the Puente de la Madre Laura had been completed (in 2015?) but before it had been opened for traffic. Deor (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

concept of right and liability in the light of jurisprudence? Grotesquetruth (talk) 07:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't really ask a specific question, just pointed to a very vague and broad topic. AnonMoos (talk) 11:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grotesquetruth Have you read our article on jurisprudence? Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On Sunday 13th February 1916 Roberto Centaro, the First Secretary of the Italian Embassy in London, was found shot in his private suite at Claridge's. Life was extinct. A revolver was found near the body. He had been in ill-health for some days (some newspapers say neurasthenia), but "nothing is known which would go to explain the cause of the tragedy". The Cavaliere was about thirty-five and had been at the Embassy for four months. Before that he had been Second Secretary at the Washington Embassy. No inquest was held, the Ambassador claiming diplomatic immunity. Was anything more ever discovered about his death and the reasons for it? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article on the pushback of migrants, this practice is highly illegal under not only Protocol 4 to the European Convention on Human Rights which prohibits collective expulsion of aliens (though that obviously did not stop France from expelling Romani people en masse back in 2009-2011) but also the international law prohibition on non-refoulment. Governments of the countries that have been engaging in this practice, most notably Greece, Poland, and Lithuania, defend their policies by alleging that the influx of migrants is part of a hybrid warfare of "push forward" by their respective neighbors, Turkey and Belarus. However, I am also pretty sure that ton of migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers engage in asylum shopping of their own free will and volition. Just look how many of them have died fleeing France and trying to get to the UK. Is "push forward" illegal under international human rights laws?

Also, I swear I am not affiliated with either the government of Belarus or the government of Turkey. I am not asking for legal advice. StellarHalo (talk) 04:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most anything can be declared "illegal". But what would the punishment be in this case? <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 05:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protocol No. 4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms states that collective expulsion of aliens is prohibited. It does not make a distinction between expulsion back and expulsion forward.  --Lambiam 07:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's the punishment, if any, for violating that rule? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Dublin Convention places an undue burden on the EU states which have borders with non-EU states or are accesible by boat crossings. If the EU didn't want to see ugly scenes at the Greek border, then it shouldn't have enacted the Dublin Convention, then punished Greece over its alleged fiscal sins by imposing a severe years-long depression on its economy, which made it hardly likely to welcome migrants. (Of course, at the best of times Greece is unlikely to want large-scale Muslim immigration, due to sensitive cultural and historical issues -- we're coming up on the 100th anniversary of the population exchange between Greece and Turkey next year). AnonMoos (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to find the text of the 1876 Constitution of the Ottoman Empire in the original ottoman turkish script. I was able to find a PDF version of it (https://web.archive.org/web/20170201142642/https://anayasa.tbmm.gov.tr/docs/1876/1876ilkmetinler/1876-ilkhal-osmanlica.pdf) but I would like to copy parts of the text. Do you have any idea where to find a non-PDF version? Thanks! 80.104.99.96 (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you Google "covert pdf to text file", you will find a lot of software tools. Whether they can handle Ottoman Turkish script, I do not know. Cullen328 (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I started to wonder why even the possibly inflated Ukrainian figure of 56,000 Russian combat losses (let alone lower conservative estimates) during the invasion of Ukraine had such a debilitating effect on Russian military that a partial mobilization of at least 300,000 more was announced. First, Russian_Armed_Forces#Personnel says that there were nearly 400,000 contractors in the Russian Army as of March 2019 (by 2020 it reportedly increased to 405,000) and the number of Russian Ground Forces alone is given as 300,000 - which translates into merely 14% of losses among contractors or 18% among Ground Forces.

Secondly, the Roman Republic, for example, repeatedly suffered higher losses in single battles (let alone campaigns) and yet was able to rebound (e.g. 120,000 killed at Arausio, 67,500 at Cannae, etc). I do understand that in modern warfare the sheer number of manpower isn't significant anymore. But still why such comparatively low modern combat losses seem to be serious when several historical armies like Roman retained their combat capacities amid much higher losses and more limited manpower, as evidenced by List_of_battles_by_casualties#Classical_formation_battles? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually, the Romans didn't bounce back. After the quasi-anarchic, "Crisis of the Third Century", there was a chronic shortage of military manpower in the 4th century, with only a few effective mobile units (the rest being static defense units). This led to the fall of the western Roman Empire, and the eastern (Byzantine) Roman Empire converting to a quasi-feudal system, with cavalry gaining priority over infantry... AnonMoos (talk) 01:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Among other things, equipment losses were probably easier to replace: gladius ($) <<< T-90 ($$$$$$$$). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the ancient Romans were more willing to serve, and then there's that "defending the homeland from annihilation" vs. "invading the peaceful neighbor" thing. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not convinced we should take the enormous numbers given in ancient sources in any way seriously. Cheers ❖ _hugarheimur 11:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]