Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2016 April 19

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

April 19

US Primary Convention Delegates

When delegates are sent to a party's presidential nominating convention, who pays their travel and expenses at the convention? Dragons flight (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

It appears that the delegates pay their own way.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Mostly true, but I know from OR that some delegates receive financial help from those who (s)elect them. American Democrats Abroad, for example, may subsidize travel expenses. (There is no Republican counterpart.) DOR (HK) (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

siracusa 4xx

Tell me 2-3 sentence about this car and the producer please.--Ip80.123 (talk) 02:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

We have an article about the producer: Mansory; however, the article needs to be updated to include the 2016 Ferrari 488 GTB 4XX Siracusa. A google search might be more useful than Wikipedia on this subject. --2600:1004:B01B:42DB:C4DA:1612:EF07:B7C0 (talk) 04:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Staff and budget for a Walmart store

I'm trying to find a couple of simple, average statistics. I'd like to know the number of staff, and the annual budget of a regular Walmart store. I'm sure there are all sorts of variables to consider. I'm just trying to illustrate a point - to compare the staff and annual (expense) budget of a peacebuilding NGO (say Search for Common Ground, for example), with the staff and annual budget of a big grocery or retail store. So the specifics are less critical, but a credible number, with a source that I can footnote/reference ... to say something like, 'This peacebuilding NGO has 100 staff and and $20M annual budget, but a 'Walmart' store (or Safeway store)...has 150 staff and a $45M annual budget. Just one store...'. Like that. I've googled around trying to find a useful statistic, but mostly I get 'how to reduce your monthly grocery bill'. Maybe my google skills need work (too). Thanks if you can point me to a useful reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.210.130.103 (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Just comparing number of staff might not be useful, since Walmart and the like often have more staff, but working part-time, to avoid paying government or union-mandated benefits (in the case where they have unions). I suggest comparing number of hours worked, instead. StuRat (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, interesting point, thanks for that. However I still need help to find a source for whichever stats. I understand your point about Walmart. Most peacebbuilding NGOs have part-time interns and/or volunteers. I'm making a mostly rhetorical speaking point, so I don't need a statistically valid methodology as much as I need a simple, credible, quotable statistic. How may people work at a large grocery store, like a Safeway store, or a store like a Walmart, and what size annual budget do they have? Thanks again for anybody who can point to a couple usable stats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.210.130.103 (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

One place you might look is at newspaper articles about a new store opening up. They often say it's "projected to bring X jobs and Y revenue to the area". Of course, if those projections come from the store, they are likely to be overly optimistic, but you said they don't need to be exact. This article mentions "as many as" (meaning optimistic estimate) 300 full or part-time workers: [2]. The budget is likely to be harder to find. StuRat (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

aromatherapy diffuser downsides?

Hello,

I am considering using some form of aromatherapy diffuser. I want to try the effect of incense in my home, but i have read that burning the sticks is harmful for the health.

Is there any downside to using aromatherapy diffusers? By downside i don't mean things like "Evaporation based diffusers may not diffuse the oil evenly".... I'm talking about issues outside of the effectiveness of the therapy itself. Is there any health issue associated with breathing in the oils? Will these oils eventually leave some sort of residue on my furniture/electronics? Is there anything else i should know about?

Thanks for the time in response!

216.173.144.188 (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

If you knock the oil over on a plastic, painted or varnished surface, you may wreck it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett - Perhaps i should either be very careful, or consider putting the diffuser on something that will catch spills if they happen. :o

216.173.144.188 (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Aromatherapy does not seem to be total bunk, however it also is not well understood, and its benefits so far seem limited and short-lived, as far as modern science can tell. Here are a selection of freely accessible scientific studies: First, a review article from 2000 [3]. Please read that. Next are a few specific studies [4] [5]. I have not seen in there any mention there or elsewhere of damage associated with inhaling vapors. The biggest risk seems to be the risk of wasting money, but if you enjoy it, then nobody can tell you it's a waste. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Too strong of an odor might block your ability to detect other smells as quickly, and some of those can be safety concerns, like smoke or leaking gas.

• Heating a liquid on the stove can cause smoke or even fire, if it burns down all the way, or add scale to pots, in any case.

• There's the risk that a visitor may not like, or may even be allergic to, the scent.

You might consider "highly localizing" the aromatherapy, say by drinking herbal tea with a pleasant scent. This will give you more bang for the buck, as you don't need to buy enough scent to fill the entire house. A potpourri by your seat during the day, or bed at night, are other options. StuRat (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's spit this up. The OP is interested in aromatherapy. Nothing wrong in that, I love the smell of lavender and the faire la fine bouchea of a good brandy (which is just Rich-Banker Yuppie speak for -it smells enticing and exquisite). Both lift my spirits. But then the OP goes on about incense sticks. A no-no. Incense smoke and cancer risk Then there are scented candles that can make ones home smell like a Saigon brothel (ask any Nam' Vet). The ones on sale at my last google/doodling were all Chines in origin. The wicks use Lead. Bad! – 100 mg per hour diffused into you air. So, now we come back to aromatherapy proper. Buy the oil concentrate (lavender, frankincense, bergamot -you name it) and put a few drops on to ones handkerchief. If the OP is of that certain age that he does not posses a handkerchief – then drip it onto one's tissue that one keep in-one's pocketed and sniff pro re natter (which is posh academic talk for as-and-when-the-need-arises).--Aspro (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

What do animal doctors from Vietnam have to do with brothels in Saigon? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 10:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Also note that not all aromas come in the form of oils. There are also water- and alcohol-soluble scents. The alcohol-soluble ones present a slight fire risk, but the water-soluble ones should be perfectly safe, unless there are pets or kids who might drink it (in this case all forms might present a danger). StuRat (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

A lot will depend on the type of diffuser you use. If you use something that doesn't need water, but just heats the oils so their molecules permeate the atmosphere, you won't get the effects that you will get if you have to use water in the diffuser. The one I've got on the go at the moment uses the same technology as the nebulisers that are used in hospitals, and apparently this forces the oil molecules down deeper into the lungs than a normal oil diffuser, so is not good if you have severe asthma or COPD. To get the effect of incense without burning incense itself, you need to use Frankincense essential oil in your diffuser. The oils shouldn't leave a residue on anything but your diffuser, which will need to be cleaned regularly. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Why would a babysitting job require references?

On Craigslist, there is a babysitting job. It requires references. If a teenager were to apply to that job, would a good reference be one's own parents who observe how the babysitter takes care of his/her siblings? Or should relatives be avoided at all cost? 140.254.77.233 (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

References are supposed to be like reliable sources: independent of the subject! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

If they actually provided unsupervised babysitting for their younger siblings, then I suppose that's better than no reference at all, but yes, references from relatives aren't the best option, as they are always suspect. Also note that references from other jobs are helpful. For example, if they delivered newspapers, then that's some proof of their level of responsibility, attendance, punctuality, etc. StuRat (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Parents are statistically likelier to confuse their babies with meals (or like, whatever) than strange stoned teenagers are. Toddler gangs coming from inside the house are also a more realistic fear. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

A better reference would be previous clients who also know the parents, such as neighbors who've had their young ones babysat by her. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh lets cut to the quick on this. If one recruits a baby sitter from Craigslist, then one wouldn't know her from Eve. 'Cause you need references. Your entrusting your own little brats into her safe keeping so that they don't set fire to your home whilst you're away. And if your proto-renegades (bigoted of your own seed) - should meet-with an accident, one needs to be sure the baby-sitter doesn't panic but knows what to do.--Aspro (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Dig a hole out behind the garage ? StuRat (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Even if a prospective babysitter has no bad intentions, experience is a must. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I had some trouble reading Aspro's contribution. I think I've understood most of it, but what does "bigoted of your own seed" mean? Prejudiced by breeding? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Probably a typo for begotten. Iapetus (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• If you are applying for a job, a "reference" always means someone you have already worked for or with. Ideally, a reference should be someone who can comment on how well you would do the job you are applying for, a prior supervisor (if you worked for a firm) or a client (if you worked as an "independent contractor"). As a baby-sitter, you would be working as an independent contractor, so the Craig's List ad is asking for you to provide them with names and contact information for prior clients: people whose kids you previously watched. This article here and this article here and this article here all give some good general advice on how to choose good job references. --Jayron32 14:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

If it's not obvious, you should always ask the person if they are willing to be a reference for you, don't just put someone down even if you "know" they will say nice things about you. Secondly, if you agree to be a reference for someone, it is bad etiquette and in some cases even illegal (in Australian labour law for example) to say bad things about someone who you agreed to be a reference for. If you don't have only nice things to say about someone, you should not accept to be a reference for them, instead of accepting and then saying negative things. Vespine (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a cite for the Australian claim? These sources don't seem to mention any such thing and are dealing with Australian law [6] [7] [8] [9]. The only mention the obvious i.e. defamation, invasion of privacy or negligence if an untruthful negative reference is provided or information that shouldn't be revealed is revealed or the reference isn't given with sufficient duty of care.

Given the risk of litigation, employers may be reluctant to provide largely negatives references even if truthful, sufficient care is taken and no information is revealed which shouldn't be. But that doesn't mean it's illegal. (I don't think it's helpful to talk about defacto here.) Notably the last 2 references also mention the risk if negative information is withheld and the employer asking for the reference makes a poor decision due to the lack of this withheld information so effectively what you're saying is it's illegal to provide a reference if you have any sufficiently bad information about the employee.

For the avoidance of doubt, I'll repeat what I said earlier; as employers by and large aren't required to provide references, many may choose simply not to provide one in such cases regardless of legality. I'm simply suggesting that some may still choose to provide one, particularly if the information is largely positive and I haven't seen anything to suggest it would be illegal. (If no one is doing it, I guess you could say legality is moot.)

Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Just as a matter of course, saying nothing is still saying something. If I, as a prospective client called a listed reference, and that reference refused to provide information one way or the other, I would take that as a very bad sign indeed. A reference is "someone who has something good to say about you". If a reference says nothing, that literally means they have nothing good to say about you. Not good for a prospective client. --Jayron32 15:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

In the UK, you can ask a teacher to be a reference, or anybody else in a position of authority who knows you. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 11:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

What is the largest series-produced item that is used only once?

Hello, I've been thinking and wondering in my spare time, what would be the physically largest series-produced item that is only used once and then discarded? Series-produced means that it more or less should not be custom made, and that the design does not change from unit to unit, and thus I think I would include things like rocket fuel containers, since they are discarded once empty and as far as I know (though I have not checked) they are not recovered, at least not usually. However, things like torpedoes cannot be included since they are only meant to be used once. Containers (as in shipping containers) are also reused. Any other ideas? Honk if you're bored. --Ouro (blah blah) 20:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

How about 300-foot-long tunnel boring machines? [10] --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

However, things like torpedoes cannot be included since they are only meant to be used once. That confused me. Doesn't this exactly meet your criterion? Except that it's not "discarded" after use, as it's been destroyed on impact with its target. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

See "SpaceX reusable launch system development program".—Wavelength (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is irony? They have not been used again so far, but are still in development, so this is not valid answer. Fgf10 (talk) 06:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Cofferdams are sometimes constructed to hold water back while the main dam (or other project) is constructed. Not sure if they qualify as "series produced", though. StuRat (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

How about Saturn V? --2600:1004:B023:DB3A:65D2:6190:89D:80CC (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Good shout, any expendable launch vehicle is a good answer, and Saturn 5 was indeed the largest. Question is, does the OP consider a production run that short as series-produced? Otherwise Proton rocket is a good shout, since it has been around for decades. Fgf10 (talk) 06:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Miss some criteria, but just for fun fact's sake, the Seawise Giant was according to experts the largest thing ever intentionally scrapped and The Harmon was the largest thing to be tossed before it was used once. Schwerer Gustav had a less famous sister in his series, who actually was used once, if "used" is taken loosely enough. Fairly large. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Death Star almost fits your criteria, especially as you didn't exclude fictional items. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

What about the big fixed oil platforms, which are set in place and cannot be moved to a new location but will eventually just have to be demolished. The largest is in excess of 600,000 tons! Some may be one off designs, but others were built in some number. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 09:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the difference between rocket fuel contains and torpedoes, since they are almost literally the same. But does OP have in mind something like the RMS Titanic, clearly not designed to sail just the once, but destroyed on its first journey? I think searching "used only once" in the Wikipedia search box will turn up other buildings, ships, railway lines etc that were used only once. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• (Edit for some reason, misread this as being about "most expensive". In that case, ignore this part.) Continuing the theme of spaceflight, the Apollo Lunar Modules were all single-use (15 were built, 10 were flown, 6 landed on the moon), as were the Lunar Roving Vehicles. The Venera spacecraft 7 through 14 of the Soviet Union are also probably an example: Venus is so hostile that spacecraft that land there are immediately destroyed, so each one only operated for a very limited time. These weren't exactly mass produced, but they were all built on a common bus. While not in the same league, medicines can be very expensive for their size - one dose of Glybera cost $1.6 million at launch. Smurrayinchester 11:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

If you want largest, the answer might be a Bailey bridge, a type of bridge built of mass-produced modular components. Many of these were temporary solutions to replacing broken bridges, and the largest was a 788 m bridge used after the Tasman Bridge disaster. It looks like this was scrapped when the new Tasman Bridge was built, so it was never reused. Of course, in this case, the components are mass-produced but the bridge itself needs some assembly... Smurrayinchester 11:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

For the largest series (and possibly largest in aggregate), try toilet paper ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Multiplying this by this by that first one again gets me 3.016 quadrillion square inches per year. I could be wrong, but that seems to be about 750,000 square miles, or one Mexico. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, everyone. Wows, great ideas. I have a little while so I'll go through Your answers one by one tersely: What I meant with discarding and torpedoes is that torpedoes cannot be recovered after the first use, as it is quite destructive (if all goes according to plan), I was aiming at things that can principally be recovered, but aren't. Saturn V appeals to me very much. I have just read my original post, and I feel that I was being quite vague on what I was going for. Are oil platforms really basically series-produced items? And as for the modular bridges, I'll definitely have to read up on those, it sounds fascinating. But all in all I was going for singular, complete units that are mass-produced. I know it's vague. And the Death star is quite an intriguing answer ;) cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 20:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

By principally I'm guessing you mean in principle. —Tamfang (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The Phoenix caissons used in the Mulberry harbours are approximately 60 metres long, 20 metres wide, and 15 metres high. Each weighs 7,700 tons. (Stats from this article). Iapetus (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The pyramids of Egypt? Similar designs - not identical - not mass-produced. Discarded when people stopped believing in all of the stuff that the pyramids were intended to convey. SteveBaker (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Likely no. 1 in fictional would be our beloved planet Earth 1.--TMCk (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The water in a lock (water navigation) is really stretching the interpretation of the question but so are some of the other answers. The lock "produces" the water by getting it to the wanted place. Many locks discard the water into a large body of water after one use (some locks are in a series where the same water may be used in multiple locks). PrimeHunter (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)