Miscellaneous desk
< August 3	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	Current desk >

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.

August 4

"Parents" as a surname

Is there anyone notable with a surname of "Parents" (not "Parent"), either with or without their own Wikipedia article? 66.234.210.119 (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of the 236 results returned from a search for intitle:"Parents" are surnames, so there's nobody with this surname with a Wikipedia article. The surname appears on this surname frequency list from the 1990 US census, with a frequency of less than 0.001%, so it does exist. You didn't ask that, but I wondered, and search engines like Google make it hard to find certain things out, since they have an aversion to returning negative results. Card Zero (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any good lists with relevant literatures on what traits defines us as human species

I am flabbergasted by this article in The Guardian on long childhood of homo sapiens. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/10/long-childhood-humans-earths-most-complex-animal

what are other traits that uniquely homo sapien and how does it compared to other animals?

Kaveinthran (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not unique to humans, but primates have trichromacy and other mammals don't. Humans are uniquely sweaty, rivalled only by horses. Endurance running hypothesis is the article about how that trait helps with the relentless long distance pursuit of prey until it is exhausted. Humans also have, along with other simians, guinea pigs, and some bats, the special inability to synthesize vitamin C. Humans are uniquely good at throwing. There's also bipedalism, of course. Human_evolution#Other_changes also mentions larynx adaptations for speaking, and a short gut and high metabolism, presumably related to cooking. Card Zero (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I would suggest something along the lines of having mostly exposed skin not overgrown by feathers, hair or something to that effect, in contrast to most other animals. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ye Olde featherless biped. Card Zero (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The relation of cooking to human evolution is still debated, coming down to the fact that the earliest archaeological evidence for fire use and cooking is significantly later (especially for direct evidence, which at <100kA BP would make significant evolution virtually impossible) than the evolution of Homo erectus (1.8MA BP) with their puny jaws and guts, and early Homo possibly could have survived by mashing food. However, the possible earliest date of fire has been significantly pushed back (800kA BP) in the last decade. IMO scientific controversies are such fun to watch -- what will the next paper reveal? Stay tuned! SamuelRiv (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have read somewhere or other (my favorite source!) that chimpanzees will bring food to a heat source if one is available, such as a tree smoldering after a lightning strike. —Tamfang (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked but didn't find an example of untrained apes using fire or embers to cook. However, Warneken and Rosati 2015 chimps had significant preference for cooked food, willing to go to some effort to pseudo-"cook" the food. (By the way, I had never heard of Future Science Leaders, but their writeup is far better than NatGeo's, NPR's, and everyone else who publicized this, though PBS links to (locked) videos.) The review criticisms are worth considering however. I was thinking the lack of heat or fire in association with the act of "cooking" was problematic, but chimps in the wild do seem to have a relatively good understanding of fire (though nothing there about using it as a tool, for cooking or anything else, although I saw elsewhere they preferentially eat cooked/burnt seeds after fires pass). SamuelRiv (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Humans are the only animals with chins. --Jayron 32 13:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“Man is the only animal that blushes. Or needs to." - Mark Twain ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

H. sapiens is the only species that wonders what makes it more unique than other species. --Lambiam 10:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...that we know of. --Ouro (blah blah) 04:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaf year

banned user

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

On its letters page The Times carries a feature "FROM THE TIMES" followed by a date which is always exactly 100 years before the date the feature appears. Since the newspaper doesn't publish on a Sunday, reading this feature this morning in the issue for Saturday, 16 April 2022 made me wonder if there really was a Times on 16 April 1922. I suppose what made me wonder was the sentence which reads "The Peace Conference that might have saved and may still save the situation met on Good Friday." If the 16th had been a Saturday and the conference had happened over the Easter weekend (the headline over the story was "EASTER IN IRELAND" or similar) the sentence would have read "The Peace Conference that might have saved and may still save the situation met yesterday." A little research established that that year Good Friday was 14 April, and the Times was quoting from a 16 April issue which never existed, because that day must have been Sunday. My guess is that the story appeared on Monday, 17 April 1922. Am I right? Also, how long has the paper being falsifying the dates of stories in this manner? 2A00:23C5:C719:7201:AC86:666F:575F:2F7C (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The story ""Ireland's Easter" appeared in the Times on Monday 17 April 1922 on Page 11. MilborneOne (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since they don't publish on Sunday, the actual anniversary on the story would have fallen on a Sunday this year. It seems perfectly reasonable that the anniversary of such an important event would have been run a day early. There's nothing nefarious or untowards, just a newspaper printing information on an important historical event. --Jayron 32 13:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's up, Doc?

Watching some trashy American TV programme, I noticed it seems to be popular/acceptable in some circles to call other people "dog" over there.

It made me think of Bugs Bunny who calls everyone "Doc". Was this just something whimsical, made up for Bugs or was it similarly a popular way of addressing people, 80-odd years ago in the States? --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 13:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The carrot-chewing scenes are generally followed by Bugs' most well-known catchphrase, "What's up, Doc?", which was written by director Tex Avery for his first Bugs Bunny film, A Wild Hare (1940). Avery explained later that it was a common expression in his native Texas and that he did not think much of the phrase. Back then "doc" meant the same as "dude" does today. When the cartoon was first screened in theaters, the "What's up, Doc?" scene generated a tremendously positive audience reaction. --Jayron 32 14:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How the heck did I miss that!?!? Thanks, Doc. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 17:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't very unique. Doc had a time. Dude had a time. Man, by itself, was popular. Hoss even went on for too long. They all have an origin that made them popular, which is rarely the original use of the word for the purpose of a general "you" pronoun. My son and his friends are stuck on bru right now, but that will change. I also remember use of homey and homes/holmes when I was young. Every generation tries to create an identity through slang and altering pronouns is just one of the ways they create and popularize slang. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget "Daddy-O". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or "Mac", Jack. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like the ones used by the waitresses at the Waffle House like "sweetheart" or "honey" or "darling." 97.82.165.112 (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of a southern thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wood paneling

What's the name of this type of wood paneling?Americanfreedom (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There may well be a name for it if it really is wood, and if so I'm sure someone else will be able to name it.

However, I suspect that it's actually plastic panelling made to look like wood: the givaway is how the sequence of board widths and shades exactly repeats. Also, the likely cost of such an installation in real wood is at odds with the room's other furniture and fittings, suggestive of an inexpensive hotel function room. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.195.175.46 (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's called "vertical wall panelling", though most people would picture exactly that, and only that, if you called it "1970s wood panelling" as the stuff was ubiquitous at the time, and strongly associated with it. --Jayron 32 17:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what "horizontal" paneling would be. Maybe when it's lying on the delivery truck? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are several styles of horizontal panelling. One of the more fashionable is shiplap, which can be mounted either as exterior siding or interior panelling. That was mentioned in the source I linked. --Jayron 32 12:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While it is commonly placed horizontal, shiplap refers to the join, not the orientation. The photo shown looks like a shiplap join. More common in the 70's was a beadboard join. The shiplap has enough of a gap between the boards that you easily see the join, accented by a bevel at the join, which can be very large. It isn't like a tongue and groove or a flat join where the boards are hard-pressed together. It isn't like beadboard which has a gap filled with a bead run. There are many other joins as well, but they are rarely mentioned now that wood panels are not common. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm it is real wood, sort of. I've torn it off and refinished the walls behind it. It is an engineered product made of ground up wood fibers and pressed into sheets with a resin. The 'wood' finish is glued paper. My old office was full of it. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That wood be MDF (or maybe veneered MDF). Shantavira|^{feed me} 20:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, unless it's going to be visible itself, the supporting wood under the veneer or paper is often LDF (particle board or chipboard) or OSB. If you can't see the wood itself, there's often no need for anything as expensive as MDF or masonite. Higher-end applications may use it instead of particle board because it is more durable, but "builder grade" construction often forgoes such expense. --Jayron 32 12:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]