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.
Twenty-six percent (N=44) of the 168 subjects were employed; half of them were classified as working in unskilled jobs. Thirty-three percent (N=56) were un-employed, 8% (N= 14) were volunteers, and 5% (N=8) were housewives. Due to the advanced ages in the sample, an additional 26% (N=44) were classified as elderly, widowed, or retired. Solid information was unavailable on four (2%) of the subjects for this rating.
Is it just me or does her math not add up? If you have 168 subjects, and 44 employed, 56 unemployed, 14 volunteers, 8 housewives, 44 EWR, 4 not assessed, you get 170? Aside from this, does this mean of the 168 diagnosed with schizophrenia who were work eligible (116, 168 minus 8 housewives minus 44 elderly, widowed or retired), a full 37% were employed? This would seem to conflate with the 10% general employment rate for schizophrenics? I'm aware of the law of small numbers as described in Thinking Fast and Slow leading to more lopsided results, would this be an example of that? The study's author just published a book through Oxford University press, is this a scam or is it a worthwhile read? Therapyisgood (talk) 03:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford University Press is about as respectable a publisher as one could hope to find – it's unlikely that they would publish a 'scam'.
The apparently error-containing paper you have quoted and linked appeared in a journal in 1987; I think it unlikely that one minor mistake in a research paper co-authored 37 years ago by 5 people (only one of whom is the author of the new work) has much bearing on the quality of a book published only last year.
Few if any works, even scholarly ones, are entirely without errors whether by the author or the typesetters; this is especially true of matter published in journals with their frequent and pressurised deadlines, as opposed to books which have a more protracted editorial process. I am a former editor (who once turned down a job offer from OUP because of travel logistics!), and rarely see any book or periodical without at least one typo. (A pro or ex-pro editor notices such things when reading even when not looking for them.)
I don't know the source of this error, if it is one, but I doubt it casts significant doubt on this researcher's competence. Have you checked subsequent issues of the journal to see if it published a corrective note? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.64.108 (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The easiest explanation is that a clerical error was made in the last sentence, which should have read, "Solid information was unavailable on two (1%) of the subjects for this rating." ‑‑Lambiam13:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered the possibility that one of the housewives -- or the employed, or unemployed -- volunteers? Some people might fall into more than one category. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can "Chemical castration" be reversal like "Vasectomy reversal"?
That name is also used by the third source in the list above, as well as the amusing variant "retort-scurf ". ‑‑Lambiam21:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's soot. But the point is that it's a solid carbon deposited by a vapour phase process (see chemical vapor deposition, although this isn't epitaxial). That gives it a particular mechanical structure. In this case one with a surface that produces grains which, when loosely packed, gives a surface contact and resistive connection that's extremely variable, and varies by mechanical contact pressure. So for the carbon microphone, one where there's a correlation between the physical movement (caused by the microphone diaphragm) and the electrical resistance of the microphone, thus the output signal. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I recall reading, decades ago, of a development by Soviet scientists of a technique for inducing sleep via electric current applied to, I think, the eyelids. It's used as a plot element in certain Larry Niven stories, especially A Gift from Earth. But I haven't had much luck googling it; it's confounded by a grossout story called the "Russian sleep experiment", and if I add -experiment to the search, I get a lot of random stuff but not what I'm looking for.
Thanks, Modocc. That does look like what I was looking for. I still find it a little surprising that there isn't more on this. Insomnia is a huge medical issue that could attract massive money, and this is such a simple thing. You'd expect to see, if not more use of it, then some sort of reason why, along the lines of "we couldn't reproduce the Soviet results" or "well, it sorta works sometimes but not really that well" or "it has these significant downsides", but mostly it seems to be just kinda half-ignored. --Trovatore (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I could imagine that the exact number of days, hours and minutes between each could vary somewhat. It could be interesting to review a few of them and see how much time there is between the points of totality or the closest thing to it, for a few recent and future years, and see how much variance there is. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Half a month apart is the closest they can occur. A solar eclipse happens when it's new moon and the line of nodes of the moon's orbit points more or less to the Sun, a lunar eclipse when it's full moon and the line of nodes points more or less to the Sun. Over two weeks, the Earth doesn't orbit too far around the Sun, so the line of nodes (which only changes slowly) still points more or less right. These eclipses often come in pairs, although on many occasions (including this one), at least one of them will only be a partial eclipse. About half a year later, the line of nodes points again more or less right, giving two more opportunities. PiusImpavidus (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(ec, not much difference to PiusImpavidus' reply) An eclipse happens when full or new moon occurs at one of the lunar nodes, i.e. the intersections of the moon's orbit and the ecliptic. Because earth and moon run around the sun, the syzygies shift with respect to the node passages. However, this shift is slow enough that half a synodic month after an eclipse the moon can again be sufficiently close to a node that another eclipse can occur; therefore pairs of eclipses are fairly common. The time between two node passages is a draconic month (27d 5h 5m), the time between two full moons a synodic month (29d 12h 44m). --Wrongfilter (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This led me to this unanswered question from Baseball Bugs: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2014 December 25#Christmas Day moon eclipse. There are two tropes that are repeated over and over again by people who have an agenda. The first is that a canon of the Council of Nicaea ordained that Easter must be celebrated in the week following the full moon which occurs on or next after 21 March. It didn't. Reads the canons. The second is that some Orthodox churches observe the dedicated festival of the Nativity in January. Nobody observes it in January. Orthodox churches which use the Revised Julian calendar celebrate it on the same day as us, 25 December. Orthodox churches which still use the Julian calendar likewise celebrate it on 25 December, which for the time being falls on the same day as our 7 January. 2A00:23C7:C9B7:A01:68B1:562A:5DCE:A157 (talk) 09:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You misspelled "worl". The correct spelling is "whorl". If the whorl is an ideal mathematical logarithmic spiral, it extends infinitely, both outwards and inwards, but the whorlings of any material realizations eventually come to an end, either because they reach an end of the material of which the whorl is fashioned, or because its very whorliness ceases to whorl. Or, after a very long time, the whorl itself may cease to exist as such; see Ultimate fate of the universe. ‑‑Lambiam23:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot tell a lie. It was I, m'lud. But I don't resile from it. The original header was "Science", which is exquisitely unhelpful for a header on a page where every thread, ever, is by definition about science. So I borrowed the OP's own words, but I thought it would be presumptuous to translate their spelling into what I guessed they were probably asking, so I left them exactly as written, but I wasn't going to have my legacy to posterity be that my unprecedented spelling error was on a Wikipedia page, so I did what any gentleman would do: I noted the placement of the gun on the sideboard, considered my position, and did the decent thing. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]18:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While a claim posted on April Fools' Day must encounter a well founded tradition of scepticism about its seriousness, the evidence on April 2nd is that what you posted has survived in legible form through a day's rotation of our planet, is likely to continue do so, and thereby establishes that the world in which you wrote did not end entirely immediately after you wrote. The monistic assertion that there exists only a single thing, the universe, which can only be artificially and arbitrarily divided contradicts your claim that "the world ends each instant of time". The monist view held around 500 BC by Parmenides was last challenged playfully by Zeno of Elea (c. 490–430 BC) who teases us with paradoxes resulting from attempts to fragment the progression of Time. Such fanciful notions have since been resolutely disposed of by such undoubted authorities as Aristotle "Time is not composed of indivisible nows any more than any other magnitude is composed of indivisibles." who is echoed by Thomas Aquinas "time is not made up of instants any more than a magnitude is made of points". Philvoids (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Here we propose a new adaptation rule for periodically driven complex elastic networks that accounts for the effect of short-term pulsatile dynamics on the remodeling signal at long time-scales. ... Specifically resonant frequencies are shown to prioritize the stabilization of fully looped structures or higher level loops proximal to the source, whereas anti-resonant frequencies predominantly stabilize loop-less structures or lower-level loops distal to the source. Thus, this model offers a mechanism that can explain the stabilization of phenotypically diverse loopy network architectures in response to source pulsatility..."
What's the networking term that describes this global-proximate characteristic of "higher level loops proximal to the source"? Also, does it include the extra-loopiness the authors put alongside it? I suppose they do seem to go together.
For context on Wikidata we are trying to figure out how to list the GPU variant on items about graphics cards. The only property to use i can think of is model number/product code but i am unsure if this the correct thing to do Trade (talk) 05:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, I have read that there is a hypothesis that dark matter might consist of a particle which is its own anti-particle and when two of them meet they annihilate to form an electron-positron pair. This cannot be mediated by a virtual photon since only charged particles interact directly with photons and dark matter cannot be charged since it would not then be dark, but visible instead. So could it be mediated by a virtual Z^0 particle which would then decay into an electron-positron pair? JRSpriggs (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to our article on W and Z bosons, the Z boson, unlike the two W bosons, is not involved in the absorption or emission of electrons or positrons. Also, still according to the article, the exchange of a Z boson between particles (called a neutral current interaction) leaves the interacting particles unaffected. This still leaves a hypothetical role for virtual W bosons. As far as I could readily see, the recent study that drew some media attention does not address the issue. Since the idea of dark matter annihilation is an old one, perhaps earlier publications do, but those I looked at, such as this one, seemed to assume no mediation was needed. The Wikipedia reference desk is not really a venue for speculation on which particles might mediate in hypothetical interactions between hypothetical particles. ‑‑Lambiam07:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to that article, " Z bosons decay into a fermion and its antiparticle.". The electron is a fermion, so Z^0 could decay into an electron and a positron. If the emission of a Z^0 by the dark matter particle leaves the dark matter particle unaffected, then one can merely make the out-going dark matter particle into an in-coming anti-particle (time reversal) which by hypothesis is the same as an in-coming dark matter particle. So your own source material supports my position. JRSpriggs (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to conventional passenger trains, the floor level is well above the tops of the wheels, which are generally on bogies. Same for most flatbed freight wagons. Given the need for bogies to turn, you'd complicate the internal layout, with very little benefit in terms of extra height. And with regard to passenger transport, you generally build new stock to suit existing platform heights - you wouldn't want a step down into the carriage.
There may possibly be trams and/or metro stock where the floor is lower than the tops of the wheels, but as far as mainline rail goes, the loading gauge allows plenty of height. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AndyTheGrump, that's correct for the trams. Here in Melbourne, the older trams are high-floor (so you have to climb a few steps to get inside), so there's no "bump", but in newer low-floor trams, everything's much lower down, and a good deal of space is occupied by the "bumps". See image of low-floor tram and images one and two of high-floor trams. Unfortunately I don't have interior images conveniently available. Nyttend (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The initial lines of the NYC Subway were (mostly) constructed as cut-and-cover tunnels, like the initial lines of the London Underground of the 1860s. Compared to the later bored tube lines in London, there was less need for a small profile, so it was decided to keep them compatible with existing above ground lines. PiusImpavidus (talk) 08:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To add to the above, one exception to this seems to be for double-decker coaches, which are often built with the lower floor dropped down below the top of the wheels, between the bogies. Presumably the benefit of extra passenger space is seen to outweigh the obvious accessibility issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, I've been on those but not in so long I forgot (bi-levels don't fit in my city's subway & direct (non-transfer) suburban or longer journeys from it cause of the tunnels) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Apparently Americans call it a "truck", but I wouldn't have known it by that name either, so that wouldn't have helped. I guess Andy knows more about trains than I do. --Trovatore (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at my car, and it seems typical for smallish compact, sedan, and similar models. The wheels set further forward and backward of the passenger compartment. But in the engine compartment and in the rear luggage compartment (and typically extending under the rear seats) are indeed humps. SUVs and hatchbacks often have a hump in the rear-most compartment. In some cases, the rear hump is hidden by using the space between them a covered compartment such as for a spare tire. DMacks (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bilevel rail cars may feature designs that accommodate the wheels and their supporting apparatus ('bogies' or 'trucks') in different ways. For example, these Bombardier bilevel coaches have a single intermediate-height passenger area above the trucks at either end (look at the windows on the side), with a lower floor in the middle of the car.
Trams, streetcars, and light-rail vehicles also come in low-floor versions. Here's an interior shot of a Flexity tram during manufacturing. The 'boxes' over the wheelsets are quite obvious; in the final assembled vehicle, each box would have back-to-back pairs of seats on top. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that siphonophores are classed as colonial organisms, made up of genetically identical but morphologically specialized zooids, which all develop from a single fertilization. In what way are the zooids determined to be separate individuals comprising a colony, as opposed to just organs or structures in an ordinary organism? How are the physical boundaries of a single zooid determined? ꧁Zanahary꧂07:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Zooids are either the founder of a colony, its first zooid, by developing by metamorphosis from a larva (itself developing from a single fertilized egg), or they arise, by "budding", from another zooid of the colony. This is radically different from the development of animal organs. Also, organs are morphologically much more varied than zooids, which mostly have, despite their specialized functions, a strong commonality. ‑‑Lambiam08:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking for speculation, I'm asking for information about current speculation, particularly among orca scientists: Do scientists speculate that the motive for orca attacks on boats is the orcas have figured out that humans have caused pollution to the ocean and other environmental damage to the ocean and are retaliating?Rich (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WHAAOE! See Iberian orca attacks for some referenced speculations: hopefully this article will continue to be updated as further studies are published.
The referenced suggestion in the Possible motivations section – "The behaviour could also be the result of a combination of factors including disturbances created by vessels, depletion of the orcas' prey and interaction with fisheries" – somewhat matches your conjecture. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.194.109.80 (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
