Miscellaneous desk
< February 2	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 4 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

February 3

Chronicles of wasted time

If one is chilling out in front of the TV, and idly flicking between channels to find something of possible interest, and then alights upon something the name of which suggests it's worth checking out, what is the chance that one happens to be at the start of a long group of ads and has to sit through them all in order to find out whether the program lives up to its name? In my experience, this is about a 95% chance. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You were probably watching something at least semi-interesting until it cut to a commercial, and then started flicking between channels at that point. Since programs tend to have commercial breaks at about the same intervals, there's a high chance that if you start flicking between channels during a break on one channel, you'll also find commercials on other channels with comparable programs. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that groups of channels operated by the same company typically have synchronized commercial breaks (so you have to switch to another company's channel to avoid sitting through the crap). I assume bad faith on the company's part. 93.136.7.51 (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the same company. Time slots for programming is standardized, so that a typical TV show is written around these time slots. A typical 30-minute sitcom has 22 minutes of action broken down into very specific length segments, and these will be industry standard across all networks, so that all such programs will have commercial breaks at the same time. This is not necessarily the intent (though may be a happy accident) of the format, but it is how it works. --Jayron 32 15:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A typical US sitcom. This varies from country to country. In the UK for instance, there's a maximum of 9 minutes of advertising per hour averaged over the day, with an absolute maximum of 12 minutes per hour (see here). (And of course a blessed relief from ads on tbe BBC). Fgf10 (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True, but those minutes will be distributed the same way in all programs, resulting in the effect that every station has commercials at the same time. --Jayron 32 13:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on the country. Here some channels have more advertising, some less. Some only put commercials between shows and some have none at all. Most non-cable channels don't have shows starting at the full hour since there's never going to be enough commercials to pad the American "hour" of television to full 60 minutes. In the end it's properly randomized so you never have to watch commercials if you're willing to channel surf. 78.0.157.8 (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. I guess the explanation given would cover many cases. Others I'm not sure of, because I sometimes turn the TV on at a random time, and start out my TV session by going straight to the guide and choosing something that sounds interesting, and even then I mostly get a damn bloc of damn ads. But, as they say, it is what it is. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline to comment

Does declining to comment imply also declining to say why one is declining to comment? It is my understanding these are two different things, but the latter seems to be implied by the former. 66.234.210.119 (talk) 07:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Declining to comment means to refuse to respond to a question (beyond by expressing this refusal). In a way, "taking the fifth" is a way of declining to comment that implies the reason of the refusal. For a harassed politician muttering "no comment" while speeding away, it is not a logical implication. In most situations, though, in which they take this exit, explaining why would reveal more about the situation than they want the public to know. One reason may be that their immediate circle has not yet had a chance to agree on what spin to give to an embarrassing news item; you can hardly expect them to say, "because we haven't yet got our story straight". Or they hope the issue will just blow over in the 24/7 news cycle; then the more they say, the longer it remains a news item. --Lambiam 07:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Information"

Additional question: Does saying something like "there is no information to share at this time" imply there is nothing to share regarding when there will be information to share? It seems like a reasonable thing to ask given the conditional "at this time" phrase, but the time at which there will be information to share could itself be considered information. 66.234.210.119 (talk) 06:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shampoo and conditioner

Does shampoo and conditioner have benefits for hair as well as scalp or just hair and just scalp? Please help this is really important. Reason I ask is because I was told that shampoo only helps with hair not your scalp I just wanted to know if this was true or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.115.152 (talk) 11:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every head of hair is different. Have you asked your barber or hair stylist? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1) This venue is not for seeking opinions 2) hair types and skin types vary so greatly there is no general advice to give. 3) If it is really important to you, then asking a bunch of randos on the internet is not the way to get a correct answer. Instead, seek the advice of a dermatologist or other professional if it is a concern of yours. This is probably your best leads outside of asking someone directly, but again, articles on the internet are not an adequate substitute for direct examination and the advice of professionals. --Jayron 32 12:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The OP modified their question after several answered had already been proffered. this was the original version of the question. --Jayron 32 18:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This makes at least 3 sections where the OP (under different IP's) is asking the same general question. Should these sections be merged? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we knew why this is so important, we might be able to give better responses. If you are experiencing some condition in connection with hair washing, see a specialist. Shampoo is formulated for washing your hair, and when applied to the top of the head will usually also wash the scalp. Moderately frequent washing followed by thorough rinsing is good for hygiene, but too often, or using shampoos that are harsh or contain a component to which one is allergic, may lead to skin problems such as eczema. Claims by manufacturers that various additions to their shampoos "feed" your hair are baseless. They do not do anything that is specifically good for the hair or the scalp. Shampoos tend to make the hair dryer and harder to comb; it may become more brittle and break off when being combed. Conditioner counteracts this. Some shampoos are formulated to combine cleansing action and conditioning. The effect of commercially produced conditioner on skin is normally neutral, but some people may be allergic to some component, in which case they can use natural oils or hypoallergenic conditioners. --Lambiam 04:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]