"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)
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)
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. ‑‑Lambiam 07:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Why didn't the NYC subway do that since the first line was dug ~1900-04 almost as old as very narrow London tubes? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
What's a bogy? We have a Bogy article but it's a proper name, somewhere in France. --Trovatore (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. ‑‑Lambiam 08:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
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)
The OP is asking a legitimate question that animal experts have been asking. It is not a joke. Yes, OP is probably off-base about the reason for the attacks, but the question is a good one. Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
"the orcas have figured out that humans have caused pollution to the ocean" is a joke. Unless the OP thinks they've been watching PBS specials on the subject. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 05:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
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)
Some idiot screened Jaws for them. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
Does anyone have any ideas as to what the very spiky limpet or other mollusc in the bottom right of this picture is? Cremastratalk 16:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Probably Lottia scabra, the rough limpet. But it would be best to ask at iNaturalist, where that photo came from. Abductive (reasoning) 20:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
According to the linked source: Morro Bay, CA, USA, which falls within the species' range according to its article. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.194.109.80 (talk) 07:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Because there are electricity plans where the cost of electricity depends on the time of day you use it, some things like heat pumps and Tesla Powerwalls consume electricity from the grid at off-peak hours and avoid consuming electricity during peak hours in order to reduce the cost. Since these systems (I would guess) are becoming more and more common, I could imagine that the price during off-peak hours would be increasing due to an increase in demand at that time because of them, and the price during peak hours would decrease due to a decrease in demand. Is this actually happening? Is the difference in the cost during peak compared to off-peak hours getting smaller? Is it possible that eventually the cost of electricity will be independent of the time of day? ―Panamitsu(talk) 11:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
I think it's more like the opposite. Solar power, mostly available around noon, off-peak, increases the variation in the electricity price over the day. Utility companies try to counter this problem by promoting contracts with variable prices, to shift some of the consumption to off-peak hours, but this only offers partial compensation. Adjusting electricity consumption to availability has a cost. PiusImpavidus (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Electricity price forecasting (EPF) is a branch of energy forecasting which focuses on using mathematical, statistical and machine learning models to predict electricity prices in the future.
may be helpful. One wishes to know more about how different pricing for consumption during on-peak vs. off-peak hours will affect a national electricity grid's Load profile but, as noted in the header, we remain unable to give predictions. The OP seems to imagine a simple fully adaptable model of Energy economics where consumers can choose their time of consumption and do so; ultimately when everyone has learned to avoid peak hour consumption there will no longer be any peaks and therefore no longer any reason for price difference.
However Energy economics is more complex than a simple supply vs. demand price model may imply.
Development of energy economics theory over the last two centuries can be attributed to three main economic subjects – the rebound effect, the energy efficiency gap and more recently, 'green nudges'.
For illustration consider an area or country that has a copious installed generation capacity because its geography of mountains and lakes favours hydreoelectric stations that give year-round electric power at near zero (only maintenance cost) at source. Therefore a significant part of the price to consumers goes to maintain the distribution grid which, due to the same mountainous geography, is expensive to maintain (and continue extending). All parts of the grid must be dimensioned to handle the peak load whose magnitude becomes a major influence on consumer price. Government intervention in pricing results from A) calculations of a potential loss of energy security when peak energy demand cannot be met, B) political parties that promote adjustments to make pricing "fairer" e.g. by means of tax rebate and C) more or less rational appeals to climate consciousness about energy consumption. Philvoids (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
See these comments:
In Britain, the companies which supply electricity and gas for domestic use are pressing customers to install smart meters. Some people are resisting as they see it as a way of manipulating pricing so that the cost goes up when demand is high. 2A00:23C5:8410:4A01:907A:4B08:B028:3AA1 (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Also another which was unsigned:
The "smart meter" article states:
Though the task of meeting national electricity demand with accurate supply is becoming ever more challenging as intermittent renewable generation sources make up a greater proportion of the energy mix, the real-time data provided by smart meters allow grid operators to integrate renewable energy onto the grid in order to balance the networks.
Thanks for the responses. Looks like I was oversimplifying it a bit. ―Panamitsu(talk) 23:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
The view from Pik Dankova in Kyrgyzstan to Hindutash Pass in the Kunlun Mountains in China is often cited as one of the longest (known, there are likely others not yet known) unphotographed sightlines on Earth. My question is why hasn’t anyone setup remote cameras to try and capture this fleeting photograph? Viriditas (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Maybe I’m thinking about this wrong, but wouldn’t this be a great proof of concept for an analogue, autonomous robotics space mission using AI? Give the probe a set of directions to reach the area and deploy a robot that has to climb to the peak and capture the photo? Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Whether a robotics mission, viewed as a proof of concept, is "great", is largely a matter of opinion. As such, it is, in general, not a suitable topic for discussion here. ‑‑Lambiam 09:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Presumably lack of any funding or incentive. I don't think mountaineering robots are a thing yet. Shantavira|feed me 08:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
The distance between these two sites is about 543 kilometres (337 mi). Due to Rayleigh scattering, visibility is limited to about 296 km even in the cleanest possible atmosphere. Not only the cost, but more so the futility of such a camera expedition may explain why this has not been tried. ‑‑Lambiam 09:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
The current record is 483.5 km followed by 443 km and many others. I don’t understand why you say the visibility is limited to 296 km. Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
It's a "you're both right" situation. It comes down to how you want to define 'visibility', and how you measure it.
That 300-ish kilometer number is defined and derived in the article on visibility, already linked by Lambiam. It specifies a particular minimum contrast ratio as the threshold for naked-eye visibility, and I believe the derivation also assumes sea-level air.
In digital photography, you can capture and discriminate regions with smaller contrast ratios than can be easily perceived with the naked eye. The use of tools like polarizing filters can also reduce the contribution of scattered light to the image, providing better actual contrast than with the unaided eye. There's probably also some correction due to the path not being through entirely sea-level air--there's less Rayleigh scattering at high altitudes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
@TenOfAllTrades: That makes sense. I figured it had to do with the high altitude. Tangentially, one other thing is bothering me. My weather app said the visibility in my area was 33.8 km (21 mi) yesterday. I know that from sea level, the maximum visibility is 4.7 km (2.9 mi) looking towards the horizon. How are they calculating the 33.8 km? Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
I'm guessing they are starting at 100 m (328 ft)? Is there a reason for that? Viriditas (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
ChatGPT seems to imply (hard to say) that ~100 m was the average elevation of a lighthouse, and visibility measured at 100 m might relate to this old standard? No idea if this is correct. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
(As a general rule, don't trust ChatGPT for scientific or technical information. Better yet, don't trust ChatGPT.)
Without knowing which weather app you were using and which sources it relies upon, it's hard to say precisely what visibility standard your app is reporting. That said, I would expect the 'visibility' reported is something like an ICAO definition (Visibility#Definition) or the IALA definition (of Meteorological optical range).
It's not about how far away you can see based on your height and the Earth's curvature (that is, the geodetic visibility). It's about how much thickness of the air around you (given its current humidity and temperature and level of fog and so forth) that you could see a (sufficiently contrasty) target through. To a fairly reasonable approximation, if you were in a Cessna at low altitude, trying to land, how far away could you be and still see the runway? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Ventusky. It just says GFS (NOAA) as the data source. Viriditas (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
On their webpage "Weather Glossary: V's" ,the NOAA defines visibility as "The greatest distance an observer can see and identify prominent objects."
And on their webpage "Types of Weather Phenomena" they write: "An obscuration is any phenomena in the atmosphere, other than precipitation, that reduces the horizontal visibility. The most common is fog." ‑‑Lambiam 04:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
100 metres is pretty tall for a lighthouse. Depending on climate, there's a significant risk of getting the lantern in the clouds and in the 19th century, when most were built, building 100 metres high was expensive if there was no convenient cliff to put them on. In my area (Netherlands, quite cloudy in winter), the tall lighthouses are 40–60 metres from sea level to lantern. The Pharos of Alexandria (not cloudy at all) was probably a little over 100 metres.
With a sufficiently bright lantern, a lighthouse can be seen from much farther than a high contrast object. PiusImpavidus (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. I just checked the height of the nearest lighthouse to me, and even though it sits on a cliff, it is only 50 m above sea level. Viriditas (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
At the weather station, often at an airfield, there's a device that sends a beam of light through the air, over a distance of a metre of so. It measures how much light is scattered. Then the computer calculates at what distance a high contrast object should be just visible, assuming no objects like trees, buildings, Great Walls, mountains or horizons get in the way. Chances are that less than 33.8 km from the device the visibility has changed by more than 0.1 km, so the number is somewhat theoretical. PiusImpavidus (talk) 07:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. When you say a "beam of light", do you mean a laser? Viriditas (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Just thinking... Possibly climbing to Hindutash Pass can be easier than to Dankov Peak, so may be the distance actually has been photographed, just in the opposite direction...? CiaPan (talk) 09:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Hindutash Pass is a mountain pass; while not at all easy, people have passed through for centuries. But it is like a trough cutting through a higher mountain range, so good luck even seeing the horizon from there. ‑‑Lambiam 14:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
I believe traumatic memories can definitely cause anger issues and cause the person with those anger issues to pass those traumas on to younger people.
If a method to remove specific traumatic memories was made available to The Wider world, would the world overall become a better place or what would happen?
Anyways, what would it take to develop a practical method to remove specific traumatic memories?
1 – is a request for a speculation or prediction – as it says at the top of this Reference desk, "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate."
2 – this is what (some) research is endeavoring to discover; depending on your definition of 'practical' a simple surgical method hasn't been discovered yet, but Behavioral therapy can be helpful, which doesn't necessarily 'remove' memories, but may rather change one's attitude to them, thus ameliorating their effects.
Hope this helps to guide your enquiries; doubtless other responders will also have some (more expert and informed) suggestions. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.194.109.80 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
