Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

September 10

Dates

When English speakers use DMY format, do they use leading zeros like 10/09/2026 or not like 10/9/2026? --40bus (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

You'll see both used, but leading zeroes is more formal. DuncanHill (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

In both M/D/Y and D/M/Y format, there is no HUMAN need for leading zeros. That became a thing with computers. The algorithm to sort dates is less complex if you enforce leading zeros. But, the order of values makes sorting dates complicated which is why Y-M-D is more common when you have leading zeros and it is very uncommon to see Y-M-D without leading zeros. ~2026-46630-01 (talk) 11:09, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Also, before we started worrying about the Millenium Bug, the year was only ever given as two digits, 10/9/89 for example. Alansplodge (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

The leading zeros is sometimes also seen with the American format, though less common than the UK/International format seeing as by default, Windows doesn't include them for Americans (I guess). I normally include the leading zero in (short) dates. It's for the same reason why the leading zero is used for 24 hour formats, but not 12 (and for the fact that its currently 9/11) JuniperChill (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

As someone who spent half my life in the United States and half in British-oriented places, I assert that there is no difference between them regarding the use of the leading zero. It is purely computerese. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

September 12

Website Laws Across Borders

My understanding from years ago was that a website was only subject to the laws of the country where it was hosted. But that seems to have changed over the past 5 to 10 years. Now countries are making laws that effectively assert jurisdiction over every website, no matter where it’s hosted. I know the laws don’t literally say that, but the thresholds seem easy for a site to meet. Wikipedia’s own Legal Policy was updated on 15 October 2021 to reflect this new reality. An example is the 4chan vs. Ofcom case, which is what got me started looking into all of this.

I’ve thought about starting a website or app before, but now I worry I’d end up dealing with an endless parade of regulators from every country, each demanding reports, changes to the site, and threatening fines for failing to comply.

Russia sent a demand to Wikipedia to censor information about the Ukraine war and then fined them. Wikipedia ignored that. But Wikipedia did comply with the demand to take down the Asian News Network page (at least temporarily). Wikipedia has a legal team that can figure this stuff out. How is an individual running an online forum supposed to know which “fines” to respect and which to ignore? In this new system, you could just receive a random fine via email from some country you’ve never heard of. And there’s no oversight from your local courts. They don’t need a treaty, or recognition from local courts-nothing.

I don’t understand where this ends up. According to Ofcom, it’s acceptable for them to demand changes to a U.S. site based on UK law. But what happens when another country demands changes to a UK site based on their laws? Take an extreme example: an Islamic country demands that the BBC censor women’s faces and fines them when they don’t. The UK would never pay that, no matter what argument the Islamic country made. So how does the UK justify demanding that U.S. operators pay? Temp-guy-54321 (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Internet freedom encompasses freedom of information, the right to Internet access and freedom from Internet censorship. See the list of Internet censorship and surveillance by country. A vast amount of digital content that is illegal or objectionable in some jurisdictions is nevertheless distributed by websites that operate in the Deep web and whose content is inaccessible to a regular Search engine. Legitimate deep web sites include web mail, online banking, cloud storage, restricted-access social-media pages and profiles, and web forums that require user registration. Also within the deep web are Dark web sites that communicate and conduct business anonymously without divulging identifying information, such as a user's location. Being difficult to trace and operating across national borders, such unregulated sites may carry a variety of controversial or illegal content. ~2026-39925-22 (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Looking at part of your question: "According to Ofcom, it’s acceptable for them to demand changes to a U.S. site based on UK law ... how does the UK justify demanding that U.S. operators pay?", I believe the issue at hand here is that some (social media) platforms have users in many countries, including the UK, and it is the UK government's view that these platforms have demonstrably failed to act to prevent harm to UK users, particularly children. A common complaint from the UK government and the public is general is that the platforms might have a reporting tool to report potentially harmful content, but then fail to actually remove the harmful content despite multiple requests. Instead they tend to defend the harmful content, including material promoting, for example: suicide, anorexia, violent pornography, hate speech, false news, and so on as "free speech", while expert analysis and testimony from whistleblowers say it is much more about promoting engagement and profit. The failure of the sites to address these issues effectively when asked nicely, is what has resulted in the UK government having to pass the Online Safety Act 2023. The act requires platforms to take action against harmful content, or face substantial fines.

As for the BBC censoring women's faces, the BBC doesn't do that. However, in coverage of news in places like Iran, the BBC is often allowed to operate in Iran on the understanding that the news report is not made available on the BBC Persian service where it might be seen by Iranians (see this report). The BBC news shown in the UK, will often make mention of that restriction. Astronaut (talk) 02:48, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

But why should operators of US sites care what view the UK government takes of their content? It's completely outrageous that they try to apply their speech restrictions extraterritorially. Luckily they would have a tough time getting a US court to enforce any judgment they might make if the content is legal in the US. --Trovatore (talk) 23:38, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

On a (somewhat) related note, anytime I try and visit bbc.com (such as from Wikipedia citations, or Google News), it just takes/redirects me to bbc.co.uk and I guess it works out the other way for people outside the UK. And BBC iPlayer is off-limits internationally due to rights issues and also due to the fact that a UK TV licence is required to watch anything on it, even VOD (in addition to watching live TV in the UK from all channels). No TV licence is required for watching Channel 4 or ITV on demand via its streaming platforms (but is still required for watching live TV there) so watching soaps like Hollyoaks or Coronation Street is safe bet, but not Eastenders (as that's broadcast by the BBC).

Anyway, GDPR is likely the reason why anyone from the EU/EEA/UK are precluded from accessing some news articles in the US. I think its due to the fact that a website that holds data for people from Europe (even for website owners outside Europe) has to comply with the act. It's likely the reason why Playstation deletes inactive accounts after three years of inactivity, for Europeans, but not elsewhere. It does get annoying that anytime I sign up to a website (such as after applying for jobs) and don't use it for a year or so, that my account gets deleted and have to create a new account. JuniperChill (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

If only the laws of the country where the website is hosted matter, than we get the same problem that we already have in shipping, and maybe to lesser extend in road transport, aviation and spaceflight: all hosting providers simply move to the country with the weakest rules. That's why countries make rules applying to the country of the client. If you don't want to deal with rules from country X, just block clients from X based on their IP address. The options those countries have to enforce their rules are limited, but they may block your website or your other activities in those countries. If they hold you personally responsible and you pay a visit to that country, you may have a problem. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:02, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

That's better than the inverse situation, where the most restrictive rules apply everywhere. --Trovatore (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Not an answer, but a related question. Nauruan is an official language of Nauru. In theory, the government of Nauru could require that any website that can be viewed on Nauru also offers its natural-language content in Nauruan and impose heavy fines on offenders. Assisted by AI, Rosy Rosewood has set up a website with nursery rhymes and does not know about this requirement, which has been published solely in Nauruan; in fact, even if she did, she wouldn't know how to block access by Nauruan IPs. She is fined. What can Nauru do (if anything) in such a hypothetical case to collect the fine or otherwise punish Rosy? (She would not particularly mind if Nauru itself locally blocked access to her website.) What can Rosy (or her guardians) do (if anything) to prevent this? Would there be any reason for people setting up such websites to worry at all?  ​‑‑Lambiam 11:01, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I think I know this one. 4chan have been fined £520,000 by Ofcom. 4chan are refusing to pay, their argument being that thy are a US company not subject to UK law. 4chan have no assets in the UK, and I imagine they don't care about being blocked. The consensus seems to be that Ofcom have no realistic chance of getting any of that money. So it would be the same for Nauru. They can block the site but that have no way to actually get the money. Temp-guy-54321 (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't know if you did it ironically, but In May 2026, a constitutional amendment was passed to change the official English name to "Republic of Naoero", matching the spelling in the Nauruan language.[30][6][31] On 26 June 2026, Nauru informed the United Nations that it had changed its official name to the Republic of Naoero.[32]. So Nauru is asking the rest of the world to respect its constitution.

--Error (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I suppose the question is whether that request will be honored the way Ivory Coast was (NOT) so honored, vs. the way Burma WAS so honored. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Maybe if I try to rephrase and try to focus my question.

Let’s say I set up a website in the US.

1. I get an email form Ofcom saying, “We have determined that our laws apply to your site, you must remove page X from your site immediately and we are fining you 1 million dollars.”

2. And I get an email from some rouge nation that basically says the same thing: “We have determined that our laws apply to your site, you must remove page Y from your site immediately and we are fining you 1 million dollars.” Page Y is something we would consider innocent, like pictures of girls in bikinis or something.

So, I’m expected to comply with number 1, but can I ignore number 2? But why? From my point of view, they are both the same. They are both “legal” demands from a foreign government to censor my US site and pay fines.

See I had thought that to do 1 or 2 the country in question would have to through the US government at some point, like opening a lawsuit in the US or use an existing treaty between the countries (like copyright). But now countries can just make laws and assert they apply to you. And obviously you are not going to pay number 2, but that seems like you’re just deciding by yourself what legal fines you will and won’t pay.Temp-guy-54321 (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

It's not about "our laws apply to your site", it's about "you're sending stuff to computer users in our country that's illegal here". You actively send data across the border. Compare it to the receiving country prosecuting somebody for using a catapult to throw packages of cocaine across the border, even when this person doesn't set foot in the receiving country. My understanding is that the US would shoot this catapult operator straight away. PiusImpavidus (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that answers my question, but I decided to ask AI about this scenario.

According to the AI (Copilot) the US would arrest the person under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act. Basically if the person is on land, they would attempt to extradite the person. If the person is on a vessel, the U.S. can board and enforce U.S. law only if the flag state consents or does not object. Temp-guy-54321 (talk) 10:47, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

So you do agree that the US would take action against this person, despite this person not setting foot on US soil to perform the, in US eyes illegal, actions. That was my point.

Also, that chatbot seems to have a little more confidence in the US adhering to (international) law than warranted. Be careful: AI chatbots can and will be tuned to promote political ideas when this is beneficial to their owners. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:53, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

An argument that the US would do it is not an argument that it's an OK thing to do. --Trovatore (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Some would go further than that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:33, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Is this section about what ought, or what is? —Antonissimo (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

In recent news, the government of the US has forced the Italian organization Autistici/Inventati to dissolve by putting them in the specially designated global terrorist list. Its bank Banca Etica complied, not because American law applies in Italy, but because secondary sanctions would cut them from the American banking system including Visa and Mastercard. Few banks globally can resist American sanctions, specially if they don't have state support.

--Error (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

September 14

Two questions

1. How many people in the US consider today (14 September) as the first day of the current week?
2. How many people are aware that every day in 2026 from the start of March onwards falls on that weekday it falls on this year the last time until 2037?

--40bus (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

1. It's the first work day of the week.

2. I don't understand the question.

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

In some places, Sunday is day number 7 and Monday is at the left edge of the calendar. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:29, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

1. The first day of the week is Sunday.

2. There are 14 calendars covering years with 365 days and 366 days.
Sleigh (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Every day since 1 March 2026 is not on the same day of week it is on this year again until 2037. For example, 15 September is not on Tuesday, which it is on this year, again until 2037. --40bus (talk) 05:41, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

The average American couldn't care less about that bit of trivia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:12, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I reuse wall calendars. I currently have one from 1998, 2009 and 2026 on the wall. If the year modulo 4 equals 0, it's a leap year and the wall calendar can be reused after 28 years. If it's 1, the days of the week will repeat on the same dates after 6 years, if it's 2 or 3, they will repeat after 11 years. 2026 mod 4 = 2 and 2026 + 11 = 2037. So it turns out that if year mod 4 = 2, the days of the week don't repeat on the same date after the leap day in the next 3 leap years either. Not what I call a remarkable fact. How many people are aware of a particular unremarkable fact? Why would one even try to find out?

I've ignored the years when year mod 400 equals 100, 200 or 300. PiusImpavidus (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

It has been discussed here that you need a maximum of 14 calendars. You need 7 for non-leap years and 7 for leap years. That's it. No need to calculated mods as it will be well advertised if the upcoming year is a leap year or not. You grab that pile of 7 calendars and grab the one where Jan 1 falls on the correct day of the week. Done. ~2026-46630-01 (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

A calendar of a year with exactly same calendar as this year cannot be reused unless dates of events related to Easter (especially if they are public holidays) are also same as in the current year. For example, of the recent years the same calendar as this year, only 2015 had also the same date of Easter (5 April), others like 2009 and 1998 has it on 12 April, and 1987 and 1981 on 19 April. Before 2015, the last year with exactly same calendar as this year (a common year when Easter is on 5 April) was in 1953. And in 2027, the calendar with Easter date also same as that year last occurred in 1937, and will next occur only in 2100 (meaning a common year when Easter is on 28 March), plus in 2028, which is a leap year when Easter is on 16 April, the last identical year was in 1876, and the next will be in 2180. A leap year with Easter date also same as the year in question cannot occur until 84 years at earliest , meaning a calendar of a leap year cannot be used again until 84 years at earliest, if Easter date is also same. --40bus (talk) 07:18, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

The date for Easter depends on the phases of the Moon, which don't necessarily line up all that well with our standard calendar. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:09, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I looked for a reliable source reporting on a world-wide survey that would answer question 2, but no luck.  ​‑‑Lambiam 08:18, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

People in the US who consider Monday the first day of the week: If they haven't previously lived in a country where Monday is the first day of the week (and Sunday is the seventh day of the week and not first in any sense), then the number is near zero, and among those in the majority, their answer is quite likely to be [incomprehending stare] from not knowing it isn't universal. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:29, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Many busineses adhere to ISO 8601 to deal with date and time. This specifies that Monday is the first day of the week. However, it is common practise in the USA for Sunday to be considered the first day of the week (see Date and time notation in the United States), and many international businesses are aware of this difference - just like they are aware of the M/D/Y ordering of dates in the USA. For example, this can have an impact when it comes to calculating the week number which is sometimes used in things like manufacturing, food safety, and billing cycles. Astronaut (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

September 15

Kuala Lumpur

Hi!

I have a very simple question.

Is there someone that can kindly help me to find where are, in Kuala Lumpur, that buildings: https://www.bing.com/spotlight?spotlightid=DS_KLCityscape&setlang=it-it&mkt=it-it&q=Kuala%20Lumpur,%20Malaysia&carindexpill=0&carindeximg=0&textorimgcar=img&isfullscreen=true&carscrlimgv2=0&form=SLVFUL&ssid=NONE&trsid=NONE&chevclk=false

Many, many and many thanks in advance for all your answers!!! ~2026-49938-44 (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

It's here. Adam Sampson (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

September 16

Administrative and statutory hurdles for modifying 2030 US Census demographic categories

Hello. The current administration has recently issued a proposed rule through the Commerce Department to eliminate race and ethnicity questions from the short-form questionnaire for the upcoming 2030 United States census.From an administrative and constitutional standpoint, what is the exact mechanism required for an administration to finalize a fundamental change to the decennial questionnaire, and what specific statutory or judicial roadblocks historically govern this process?I am looking for factual, encyclopedic information regarding:

• The Congressional Role: Given that Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution vests final census authority in Congress, what is the exact legislative process required to override or approve Bureau-level topic changes before the April 1 report deadline? Can Congress block questionnaire overhauls purely through the appropriations/funding process, or does it require a statutory veto?
• The Administrative Procedure Act (APA): During the 2020 census cycle, the Supreme Court ruled against the administration's citizenship query addition under the APA (Department of Commerce v. New York). What standard of "administrative justification" must the Bureau meet during the ongoing public comment period to survive an APA challenge when removing metrics that have been collected for over two centuries?
• Statutory Interdependence: How tightly linked is the collection of this demographic data to the mandatory enforcement of other federal laws, such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965? If a federal agency relies on census data to enforce a separate statutory mandate, does the elimination of that data create an actionable statutory conflict in federal court?I am looking for references to constitutional law monographs, past Supreme Court precedents regarding census administration, or legal analyses of the Census Act. Thank you. ~2026-50008-57 (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

The lack of recent white American male supercentenarians on the current top 100 men list?

Out of all of the American (United States) men on this list of the oldest validated 100 men ever, there is only one white American man born after 1901 (George Feldman) and no white American men born after 1906. I've checked the race data for all of the American men on this list based on their historical US Census data, World War II draft registration cards, etc. Why did recent white American male supercentenarians perform so poorly, failing to reach the most extreme ages? For American white men born in the 1880s and 1890s, they routinely reached ages 112 and even 113, with Walter Breuning even reaching age 114 and Christian Mortensen (born in Denmark but immigrated to the US and a US citizen, with him spending the lion's share of his life in the US and dying in the US) reaching age 115. But white American men born after 1901 struggle to even reach age 112 (George Feldman is the longest-lived of them, and he died on his 112th birthday). Why is this? World War II? Smoking? Unhealthier food habits? Air pollution due to increased urbanization and industrialization? Something else? ~2026-50008-57 (talk) 03:54, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

And even though there were almost certainly several times or more less black births in the US than white births 110+ years ago, five validated African-American men born after 1901 are on this list: Richard Arvin Overton, Lawrence Brooks, CP Crawford, Ernest Peronneau, and Ezra Hill. I heard that African-American troops in World War II were less likely to see deadly combat, though I don't know if that's actually true. ~2026-50008-57 (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Maybe the list is incomplete? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:45, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

For an American white man born after 1901 to reach age 111 years, 249+ days and be unknown or unvalidated when his age is true is quite a challenge, I think? I don't even know of any plausible men who meet this criteria. ~2026-50008-57 (talk) 05:37, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Someone like Emilio Flores Marquez in Puerto Rico or Joao Marinho Neto in Brazil can be discovered and validated at age 112, but American white men generally don't stay anonymous for that long. Though admittedly there are exceptions even in the developed world; Frenchman Georges Thomas remained unknown and anonymous until his death at age 112 years, 195 days at the start of June 2024. ~2026-50008-57 (talk) 05:44, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

If those hypothetical men are "unknown or unvalidated," you wouldn't know them by definition. in solidarity Chuntuk (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Hard for a white American man to remain anonymous after his death if his grave and gravestone will almost certainly end up on Find-A-Grave sooner or later. ~2026-50008-57 (talk) 02:24, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps improvements in record-keeping in the rest of the world means other nationalities and ethnic groups are now better represented. The US has approximately 4% of the world's population (341 million/8.3 billion), so the US is doing very well in having 25% of the entries in the table. According to List of countries by life expectancy, the US is currently 55th for life expectancy at birth, so it seems their proportion on the table will drop over time.-Gadfium (talk) 05:24, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

But white men from other countries, such as Europe and the rest of the Anglosphere, born after 1901 continue to have strong representation on this list. I'll exclude white Hispanic and Latin American men for the sake of simplicity, but even so, we have Israel Kristal (Poland/Israel), Ilie Ciocan (Romania), Ken Weeks (Australia), Georges Thomas (France), Vitantonio Lovallo (Italy), Marcel Meys (France), John Tinniswood (Britain), Robert Weighton (Britain), Arturo Licata (Italy), Stanislaw Kowalski (Poland), Valerio Piroddi (Italy), Reuben Sinclair (Canada), and Maurice Le Coutour (France) for non-US white men born after 1901 who are still on the top 100 oldest validated men list! Most of these men are from Romance-speaking countries but several of them are not, such as Ken Weeks, John Tinniswood, Robert Weighton, Stanislaw Kowalski, and Reuben Sinclair. And four out of these five men (all but Kowalski) are from the non-US Anglosphere! ~2026-50008-57 (talk) 05:37, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Maybe the US's relatively low average life expectancy, including for men, in recent years contributes to so few new American white men reaching the top 100 list over the last 10 years relative to European white men and white men from the rest of the Anglosphere? ~2026-50008-57 (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I think at this point it might be worth a small digression to talk about life expectancy and what exactly it means. Honestly I didn't realize this until a few years ago.

The "life expectancy" measures that you see published are what our article calls "period LEB" (period life expectancy at birth). This does not mean the average age that a baby born today will live to. How could we possibly know that? It doesn't even mean the expected value based on our best current estimates of the probability distribution.

So what does it mean? It means the expected value based on a probability distribution that assumes that each baby will have the same risk of death per unit time, at any given age, that a person of that age has right now.

To take an analogy: Let's say you want Google Maps or Apple Maps or some similar service to predict how long it will take you to drive from San Diego to Santa Clarita heading up the 5 and the 405 the whole way, and you leave at, I don't know, 4 PM on a Friday. I don't know how the services actually do this, but one simple way would be to look at the traffic right now, 4 PM on a Friday, when it is presumably quite heavy. Let's say it's moving at 20 mph till you get to Oceanside then picks up to 30 mph till you get to Long Beach then slows down to 15 mph from there to your destination. So it takes you 1.9 hrs to get to Oceanside, then 2.3 hrs to get to Long Beach, then another 4.2 hours to get to Santa Clarita, for a total of 8.4 hours.

But of course we know that by the time we get to Oceanside, it's 6 PM and the traffic should be easing off a bit, and by Long Beach maybe it's only 7:15 but still the traffic should have let up quite a bit, and maybe we really get to Santa Clarita by 9:15. The problem is that that's a lot harder to model and relies on a lot more assumptions about the facts.

So this is in part what happened during Covid, which is when I became aware of this. At the height of the pandemic before the vaccine, we had to assume that a baby born that day would be subjected to the risks of dying from the disease every day for its whole life, with the risk matching the risk of a person of that age at that time, and with no consideration whatsoever of the fact that there would eventually be a vaccine, better treatments, or that having been through the disease and lived you had less chance of dying when you got it again.

So why use this figure? Is it meaningless nonsense? No, not at all. It means something very precise and well-specified, and if you understand it, useful to know. Just not what you might have thought it meant. --Trovatore (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Obviously the environment affects life expectancy. If we discovered a cure to aging that works we'd be able to have the average life expectancy go way above 100, for example. ~2026-50008-57 (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

You can't have a cure for something that is not a medical condition, or, indeed, any sort of problem to be solved. But you seem to be talking about immortality, not aging. You could live forever but still get - and look - old. Incredibly old. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:55, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

For a non-medical condition, aging is deadly as hell! ~2026-50008-57 (talk) 05:52, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

You talk as if death is a tragedy to be avoided at all costs. Just sit back and embrace the inevitability of death, then your life will be the richer for it. We're all in the same mortal boat, but what matters is how we live our life. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:23, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Cryonics. Even if there's only a 1% chance that it succeeds, 1% > 0%. ~2026-50008-57 (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Somewhat disappointed that no one has commented on the substance of my comment. I know it was a little long; not sure I'd have read it either. But I'm not sure where I'd cut it, except maybe in the details of the proposed car trip. --Trovatore (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I get what you said. A car trip to the same place, the exact same distance, takes a different amount of time depending on the time of day and driving conditions of your trip. Same with life expectancy; environment determines a lot. ~2026-50008-57 (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Uh, no, I don't think you got it. --Trovatore (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

You are saying scientists are measuring the current state of life expectancy and not how it might change in the future. If I'm following you, because the current state is useful. Modocc (talk) 01:25, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Well, yes. Except I'm pointing out what someone might consider a flaw in doing that. In, say, June 2020, to calculate my life expectancy, you have to assume that Covid is a permanent, statistically independent, threat for the rest of my life, which is obviously not so. Not only can't you consider that things will eventually change, but you also can't consider that the fact that I didn't die in 2021 means I'm less likely to have comorbidities or genetics that would have predisposed me to die at that time or at a later time.

So this means that the dip in life expectancy around that time, taken naively, would massively overestimate the total years of life lost to Covid. (And we knew that at the time.)

Taken non-naively, yes, it's a useful and meaningful metric, but it doesn't mean what you might think. --Trovatore (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Fluctuations show up in past decades too. But like stock market predictions it is a bit naive and perhaps fearmongering if the media misinterpret an on-going dip or rebound as a trend of what will happen. The future mortality rates for all causes are opaque. Modocc (talk) 11:52, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but you still haven't engaged with the substance of my point. This way of computing life expectancy, during the upswing of a pandemic, ignores large, known effects: It is not always going to be the pandemic. There are going to be preventative and curative measures. And the probability that you will die in 2028 of Covid is not independent of the chance that you will die in 2027 of Covid.

The sign of these effects is not in any reasonable doubt, and they all point in the same direction, which is that the dip in life expectancy overestimates the real impact. (To be sure, we could all be wiped out by an asteroid in a year, but that's not relevant here.)

The magnitude of the effects is much harder to pin a number on, so this life expectancy calculation does have the advantage of being a precise number that can be calculated without guesswork, but you do need to understand why it systematically overestimates the effect of events like this. --Trovatore (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

The metric is not meant to be a prediction. It is simply a measurement that always requires analysis. Modocc (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

True. But that's the point that people might easily misunderstand.

The term "life expectancy" certainly sounds like it should be the expected value of the amount of time a person has to live, and if you had to say "under what probability distribution", the most natural and most useful answer would be, "our best estimate of the probability distribution given our knowledge at the current time".

But it isn't that, because it would be very difficult to come up with a defensible methodology for making that estimate, and slightly different assumptions might give wildly different answers. Instead we use this artificial, unrealistic, but at least well-defined probability distribution based on death rate at a given age (possibly including other known factors such as sex).

What is very very clear is that, in a situation like we were in in June 2020, the reported life expectancy using the artificial probability distribution is lower than the life expectancy using the best-estimate probability distribution, and this is a systematic effect that you need to understand when interpreting the figures. --Trovatore (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

This. Modocc (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

The paper "Mortality shifts and mortality compression in period and cohort life tables" analyses how, historically, the period life expectancy distorts cohort life expectancy. Figure 1 shows it. Modocc (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I'd cut the modeling of its future and all predictive detours, since only the current and past states are known. Modocc (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

September 17

Lodz Ghetto survives who lived to age 107 or more?

Other than Israel Kristal and Yehuda Aharon Vidovsky, both of whom later made aliyah and died in Israel, were there any Lodz Ghetto survivors who lived to age 107 or more? ~2026-50008-57 (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I really want age 107 or more, but I can also accept runner-ups who lived to ages 105-106. But again, I'm really looking for ages 107 or more. ~2026-50008-57 (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Both men and women. ~2026-50008-57 (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Yisrael Kristal died in 2017 aged 113 years. Long is the way (talk) 09:07, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

The OP explicitly said Israel Kristal, who is the exact same person as Yisrael Kristal. ~2026-51340-23 (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

September 18

Second option for Talk:Goofy

I would like to get a second option on Talk:Goofy#Mickey's Revue released on the 27th. We have two competing dates for the release of Mickey's Revue: May 25 and May 27, 1932. A contemporary 1932 issue of Motion Picture Herald appears to give May 27. How should Wikipedia handle this? Issac I Navarro (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

The article Mickey's Revue seems to have a reference for the 25th, although I cannot check it. I see two options: If there are reliable sources for both dates then both dates ought to be mentioned; don't try to hide the uncertainty. Alternatively, ask yourself whether the exact date is really that important. How about "end of May"? As a sanity check: 25 May was a Wednesday, 27 May a Friday. Was there a customary week day for movie releases? Note that this argument alone should not be used to decide between the two dates. --Wrongfilter (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: ~2026-48165-53, the unregistered user that brought this to my attention. Issac I Navarro (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I think we can trust a contemporary source specialized in the motion picture trade. The release charts in the issues of Motion Picture's Herald from July 2 to December 31, 1932, have:

Mickey's Revue .......... May 27 

 ​‑‑Lambiam 07:38, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

First and last names that don't sound very good in English?

Not a forum The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Which first and last names don't sound very good in English, other than Semen (name), Everhard, Gay (given name), Gaylord (given name), Lesbia (disambiguation), Van Dyke, Dick (nickname), and Negar (name)? ~2026-50008-57 (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

September 20

Single phase, dual capacitor, external reversing

We have a 240v single phase motor. We have an external 4 lead feed to the motor junction box. It has start winding and capacitor, run winding and capacitor, plus an electronic starting relay. I can't find a diagram anywhere that shows how to reverse the run winding. I think the start winding is normally reversed unless there is a run capacitor. ~2026-50922-93 (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I forgot to mention the reversing is done with two × three pole contactors. ~2026-50922-93 (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

September 22

Timestamps

Are timestamps ever used to show local time with the letter in the local time zone? For example, the current time here as a timestamp would be 2026-09-22T08:00:00C, since the time zone we are currently is UTC+3, which is indicated by the letter C. I have never seen any other letter than Z for UTC used in timestamps. --40bus (talk) 04:59, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Where do you see that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:29, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

In various machine-readable contexts, such as in APIs and synoptic weather observations, as well as METAR messages. There I see timestamps in UTC time, but do any timestamps ever use local time? --40bus (talk) 08:28, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

In Nautical/Military UTC time, J is optionally used for "local time". ~2026-38520-51 (talk) 13:02, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

The single letter is Nautical time. Except for Z/Zulu, I've never heard it used (but I'm not a sailor). Alien878 (talk) 10:40, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Profiles of senior high schools in China

Hello, áre there different subject profiles of high schools in China? Where does it say, which particular schools are part of this kind of school? Kind regards Sarcelles (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by "subject profiles" of high schools? This is not as far as I know a term used by Wikipedia (as you will know given your long history here), and I cannot make sense of it in the context. Do you mean types of schools (as in, some being general, some specialising in particular areas like music or crafts, etc.)? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

In China's high school education system, students typically need to select specific academic tracks—such as the traditional division into liberal arts and sciences (called 文理分科) or the "subject combination" (選科組合) model under the new college entrance examination system—based on their personal interests and plans for university admission. Stanleykswong (talk) 07:36, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

In addition to the standard academic tracks, high schools in China also offer specialized classes for students with specific talents. One such category is the "Academic Competition Track" (focusing on subjects like mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) Students in this track delve into the advanced content of academic Olympiads alongside their regular high school curriculum, aiming for admission to top universities via the "Strong Foundation Plan" (強基計劃) or through direct recommendation. Another category is the "Arts and Sports Track" (the students are called 藝體特長生), focusing on areas such as fine arts, music, dance, broadcasting and hosting, and athletics. Students here must balance academic coursework—where requirements are typically lower than those for general students—with extremely intensive specialized skills training, seeking admission through specialized arts or sports entrance examinations. However, it needs to note that, in recent years, China's Ministry of Education has implemented sweeping reforms to the admissions policies for students with special talents in the arts and athletics; the previous policy allowing admission to prestigious universities with lower test scores (known as 降分上名校) has been significantly tightened. Stanleykswong (talk) 07:48, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your messages. I mean schools specialising in particular fields. One such category is the "Academic Competition Track" (focusing on subjects like mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) There are different kinds of final school-leaving exams. Sarcelles (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Origin of the Blue Raspberry flavour

Ever since about mid-2017, I discovered this flavour called blue raspberry after being handed a popsicle of said flavour, this has made me curious ever since–why are raspberry flavoured sweets produced specifically in the colour blue, and not in a shade of red, and what's the origin behind it? Goats 601 (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

We have an article Blue raspberry flavor which may help. DuncanHill (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

But what's the historical reason for the selection of the colour blue? Goats 601 (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

The blue color was used to differentiate raspberry-flavored foods from those for cherry, watermelon, and strawberry, each of which is typically red or pink. The use of blue dye is also partially due to the FDA's 1976 banning of Red Dye No. 2, which had previously been commonly used in raspberry-flavored products. Red was overexposed, so to speak, with too many flavors using that color; so when a new blue dye came along it got associated with raspberry which had been more marginal among the red/pink flavors. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2026 (UTC)