Humanities desk
< September 29	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	October 1 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 30

Rosetta Stone

What does it say? I am surprised that our article and google searches don't provide the actual test in English. I know what the text is about but not a direct translation. Please provide if possible. Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 09:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rosetta Stone decree. 41.165.67.114 (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pal! Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Rosetta Stone article not only links to "Rosetta Stone decree" in its first sentence, but also has a hatnote above that, directing you to that article. At the risk of sounding sarcastic, I'm not sure how we can make that any more obvious. Alansplodge (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, what it actually says is unimportant, it's the fact that it says it in 3 languages that is so valuable for translators. It could just as well have been graffiti: "Akhenshemp eats dog poo !". SinisterLefty (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting to note that many ancient texts we have are rather banal things, stuff like accounting ledgers and things like that. Much of what we know of extant cuneiform writing, for example, consists of things like "Gilgamesh purchased 27 sheep from Sinbad for the price of 35 bales of wheat" and things like that (see for example Ebla tablets#Content and significance. --Jayron 32 17:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

paid wages, complaints about quality of delivered stuff, order to dispatch workers, ...

BTW I just discovered Behistun Inscription, the "Rosetta Stone" for cuneiform. Gem fr (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly mundane stuff, yet quite valuable in terms of understanding everyday life. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more interesting but quite irrelevant fact is that Sir Henry Rawlinson, 1st Baronet who first deciphered cuneiform was father to Henry Rawlinson, 1st Baron Rawlinson the First World War general, and also to Sir Alfred Rawlinson, 3rd Baronet, a larger-than-life daredevil pilot and racing driver, who started the war in 1914 as an amateur chauffeur on the Western Front but by sheer bluster had by 1916 had been given command of the anti-aircraft defences of London. He finished the war as an intelligence officer and was incarcerated by the Turks until 1921. Alansplodge (talk) 09:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike you, I’m not being sarcastic: that’s irrelevant and it’s inappropriate for you to drag such an irrelevant thing into the discussion of ancient texts. Christ, admins come down on me for questions here that are less questions than requests for discussion, while you get away with drag in braggadocio about the british upper classes.Rich (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@81.131.40.58: Unfortunately, the translation given at Rosetta Stone decree is very hard to read, but clearer translations can be found here and here. A. Parrot (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Rich (talk) 02:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

.:To clarify, I’m not the op,Anton.Rich (talk) 03:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Military decoration questions

Robert Halperin's article states he was awarded a "presidential citation", with a link to Presidential Unit Citation (United States), which isn't an individual award. Is there some other sort of presidential citation? Also, he was awarded the highest award of the Nationalist Chinese, called the "Clouded Banner" by the Chicago Tribune and the "Cloud Banner" by a book. It is linked to the Order of the Cloud and Banner, which isn't the highest. Is this the wrong link? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the first question, the article cites his Chicago Tribune obituary, which says: "In the invasion of North Africa, he received a presidential citation and the Navy Cross for landing his boat on the shore of French Morocco in total darkness, locating and marking landing beaches, guiding assault troops to their objectives and capturing two enemy officers." However, this page and this page both quote the citation for his Navy Cross, which begins "The President of the United States of America takes pride in presenting the Navy Cross". (Curiously, although the two pages are showing the same citation, one of them adds "(posthumously)" at this point, when he actually died over 40 years later!) My guess is that the reference to "presidential citation" in the Tribune obit only means that his Navy Cross was presented by the President or in the name of the President, in which case the words should be deleted from the article and a note added somewhere so that they don't get re-added. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 08:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm going to take out the "presidential citation", and the link to the Chinese award too. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific evidence for supernatural magic

The introduction to Magic (supernatural) states that "the concept of magic has again changed, usually being defined as a technique for bringing about changes in the physical world through the force of one's will". Have there been any controlled scientific experiments to test this claim? Is there any scientific evidence at all that the use of magic can bring about changes in the physical world? --Viennese Waltz 09:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd point you first to One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, and suggest you explore links and categories from there. The answer to your first question is yes. The answer to the second question is no. In fact, the intellectualist approach to "magic" described in that link is actually used sometimes to analyze certain kinds of crank beliefs, at least the descriptions of how they work. Basically, if you can show by logical deduction that a proposed explanation for a crank idea is functionally identical to a description of sympathetic magic, you have proved it is unscientific. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) See Parapsychology and Synchronicity, which generally come up whenever an occultist wants to argue that magic is totally scientific and not "beyond" science. For example, Isaac Bonewits's Real Magic has an entire chapter explaining how parapsychology proves that magic happens. Likewise, Jeffrey Mishlove's Psi Development Systems includes chapters such as Shamanism, Divination, Ceremonial Magic, Occultism, Spiritualism, and a lot of other stuff.

Of course, parapsychology is bullshit and it'd be impossible to prove the existence of synchronicity since it's supposed to be inherently acausal in nature.

Now, I do recall there was some part of Eliphas Levi's Doctrine and Ritual of High Magic that I almost fell for, where he explains that a lot of the ritual necessary for magic requires a (premodern) person to get their shit together to begin with and focuses their mind achieving on a specific goal in this world. He almost makes it sound like a pretty plausible, until he starts combining Schopenhauer's Will with Mesmerism to argue that something called the "astral light" exists (basically The Force) and that it allows the magician to accomplish truly supernatural feats. Oh well. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also Stargate Project: "a secret U.S. Army unit established in 1978 at Fort Meade, Maryland, by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and SRI International (a California contractor) to investigate the potential for psychic phenomena in military and domestic intelligence applications... The Stargate Project was terminated and declassified in 1995 after a CIA report concluded that it was never useful in any intelligence operation. Information provided by the program was vague and included irrelevant and erroneous data, and there was reason to suspect that its project managers had changed the reports so they would fit background cues". Alansplodge (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And then someone said, "I knew you were going to draw that conclusion." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I liked The Magic of Reality. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the way you defined it, it may be possible to control the physical world in a rough manner by monitoring brain waves remotely, or more precisely using brain implants and training the brain and CPU to work together: [1]. So, you might want to refine your def to add "...without the aid of a device". (But then that would also exclude using crystals, pyramids, candles, etc.) I suppose you could make the exclusion for an "electrical device", to try to straddle that line. SinisterLefty (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, supernatural only comes of the unexplained kind, that is, miracle and other medical condition cure where medical doctor fail, often related to autosuggestion. Dowsing and such have been proven to do no better than random in a controlled environment (a dowser may still somehow correlates the way vegetation grows on the surface to underground water, but this won't qualify as supernatural). The Church also practice exorcism, with some fail and some success, but makes a point this is NOT magic (the practice of which is utterly forbidden). Unexplained does happen, and calling it "magic" is just unarguable matter of vocabulary. Gem fr (talk) 07:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In your jurisdiction, can public bus drivers have schizophrenia?

Speculating about the medical conditions of random people we happen to see in our daily travels is not the appropriate here. --Jayron 32 12:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

In my suburbs of my city, I recently rode a public bus driving through a highway and the bus operator kept talking to himself out loud. He was the only 1 on the bus talking. Old White male with glasses. I felt like reporting him to the bus company's website, but maybe this kind of stuff is known and allowed? I know every bus agency is safety 1st motto, but perhaps there's scientific studies that prove schizophrenia does not impair your ability to drive? Anyways not talking about school bus drivers, pretty sure they wouldn't allow that. 170.76.231.162 (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

If you go accusing someone of schizophrenia, you might find yourself at the wrong end of a defamation suit, and then it might be you that ends up taking to yourself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure he wasn't talking to someone else via a hands-free phone with earpieces? I regularly see people in the street doing this and sometimes can't actually see any of the equipment involved.

Eliminating that possibility, I don't think talking out loud to oneself is a definitive sign of schizophrenia. It may be just a personal habit, one which several of my (perfectly well, to my knowledge) past/present acquaintences have and which I have sometimes indulged in myself. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 18:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.161.82 (talk)

Note: having a cat around allows one to talk to one's self without feeling crazy. 2606:A000:1126:28D:69F0:AEB4:365B:6338 (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talking to yourself can help you remember things, too, like a shopping list. But I try to only do this when alone, so I can avoid having people think I'm crazy (whether they are correct or not). Of course, writing it down or recording it on a cell phone works better, but you can't always do that, say when driving. So, if I thought of something I need, while driving, I might well repeat it out loud until I stop, then record it in some manner. SinisterLefty (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ruled out the possibility of spontaneous spoken word free form poetry as a means of countering boredom and possibly striking up a conversation with passengers? I agree hands-free mobile voice communication is more likely these days. 73.222.1.26 (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But in some jurisdictions that is also illegal, at least for some drivers. It says here that in Virginia it is illegal for school bus drivers. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 08:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Schizophrenia is a medical disorder that can be treated with various prescription meds and other such interventions. As such, some people who have it are still capable of holding down jobs, including intellectually challenging ones, like math professor John Forbes Nash Jr., subject of the book and movie A Beautiful Mind. Bus driver doesn't seem like that big a deal as long as the person isn't actively having hallucinations etc. Talking to ones' self is typically a sign of anxiety, a routine condition that affects everyone at times, and is not something to worry about unless it's unusually strong or persistent. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I get a list of the largest 100% remote companies by number of employees?

I believe GitLab is currently the largest. Is that correct? 73.222.1.26 (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A search engine is probably your best bet. Using Google and "largest remote only company", I found Automattic which has 952 employees [2], which is more than Git-hub. RudolfRed (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but which employs more gits ? SinisterLefty (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]