Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2017 August 16

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 16

Before the fuel crisis, was there any talk that full-size cars were nearing limits?

Like, I don't know, 1970s suspension tech causing a heavy steel car to have an F-350 like ride unladen if it got much bigger. Or larger would make it best suited for 3.5 adults in a row which would be a waste of width but 4 would use too much lane. Or some adults couldn't lift the hood anymore if it got bigger. Or, I don't know, I wasn't born yet. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe 1973 oil crisis#Automotive industry can point you towards some info? Sorry, I'm not a gearhead. --47.138.161.183 (talk) 04:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Heavy hoods had springs to assist lifting them, and still do. The cut-off would have more to do with "When do we go with another type of vehicle ?". Station wagons, for example, tended to serve the same role as mini-vans do now. Then there were pick-up trucks and cargo vans, but those were strictly for hauling cargo then, and not considered luxury vehicles. I would argue that handling was an issue, with sports cars rarely being very big, because they wouldn't handle well if they were. One thing I do recall being problematic was the size of doors on large coupes, making it a challenge to open the door in a parking lot unless there was an empty space next to you. If you wanted an extra large luxury car, there was always a stretch limo, then as now. StuRat (talk) 04:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

There were cars that were hitting limits in the early 70s. The Plymouth Road Runner, for example, put a lot of horse power in a cheap (and light) car. The end result was that the frame couldn't handle the engine and it would bend. At the same time, the Chevrolet Corvette was getting lighter and faster. I personally know of two guys who raced Corvettes at the time and they had their cars lift off the ground and flip over. One died. The other was paralyzed. After 1969, the Corvette was a little heavier and remained basically the same through the 70s. Large cars got larger and larger. By 1972, the Buick Electra was huge. My 72 Electra 225 was longer than a Cadillac (a very large car) and weighed a ton. It was 19 feet long and 5,000 pounds. Yes, that is as long as heavy as a modern Cadillac Escalade - but in a 4-door car. I got a whopping 6 miles to the gallon if I was light on the pedal. The gas shortages of the 70s killed off muscle cars. By 1980, the Mustang, Charger, and Camaro were just names, not muscle cars. I had a 1980 Mustang. A tiny engine in a light compact hatch-back. In my opinion, the auto industry pretty much gave up in the 70s, put out the same junk in the 80s as Japan took over a large chunk of the market, then pushed everyone to SUVs in the 90s. It isn't until very recent that they've attempted to rejuvenate the muscle cars. I personally trace it to the Dodge Magnum. Would anyone actually purchase a station wagon with a V8 Hemi? Yes. They all sold quickly. So, if people want a station wagon with 400 horsepower, they must want a sports car with at least that much. So, the Mustang, Charger, and Camaro are back. What I love about the cars right now is that we are greatly exceeding the horsepower of the late 60s with much higher gas mileage. My V8 Hemi with a CAI has over 500 horsepower and gets over 20 miles per gallon. I know that 20 mpg is low, but compared to the 6 I was getting in 72, it is great. My conclusion is that they found limits in the 70s and quit because of the gas shortage and then the influx of Japanese cars. Now, they are revisiting those limits and making larger cars and faster cars with much better gas mileage. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Chinese jiao?

Do I have it right that this is 8 jiao which is what Americans might call 80 cents if it was in US currency? image. Thanks, †dismas†|^(talk) 02:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

That's 8 jiao, which comes out to 8/10's of a kuai (i.e. 10 jiao = 1 RMB). You'll have to make a serious effort (or seriously get ripped off) to find any of the 1/100 RMB currency markers. The yellow coin should have a 5 on the other side (or at least the ones I handled did, though I did see some regional variation... And bills). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah! Sorry. Yes, it does have a 5 on the other side. I forgot to mention that. So, how much is this in US currency? †dismas†|^(talk) 02:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

0.8 RMB currently comes out to 12 cents (0.12 USD). The exchange rate usually hangs around 7 RMB = 1 USD,^{(oh, now that I've left it's back down to 6.6 RMB to 1 USD)} though I found that treating 100 RMB bills like $20 bills (except when buying food) made more sense (it's what you get at ATMs, and something that'd cost $20 in the US usually goes for 100 RMB in China). When it comes to food, it's not hard to eat well for 15-25 RMB ($2 or $3). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! That's what I figured and that's what I exchanged it for when counting money in donation boxes for my local animal shelter. And I'll try to get better photos of these for upload to Commons. †dismas†|^(talk) 02:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

We ain't got photos of those? I've got 1 and 5 jiao coins but also a 1 jiao bill, a 1 kuai coin (yuan, 1 RMB), as well as 10 and 20 RMB bills. (Also a bunch of JPY coins since I passed though Japan on the way out). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Not that I've seen. I'm adding mine now... †dismas†|^(talk) 02:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

That's cool, I'd need to clean my coins off first anyway. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Btw, "kuai" is a slang term for "yuan", like "buck" for "dollar" or "quid" for "pound". I always find it a bit funny when people us it in otherwise non-slang writing. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's just easier for me because part of my brain always wanted to pronounce yuan like "yuwan" instead of "yen," and all the shop owners saying "kuai" reinforced that. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

My first Chinese teacher explained that "kuai" was used orally, and "yuan" in writing. I prefer Renminbi. DOR (HK) (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I've heard that theory, and I don't think it's quite accurate. "Kuai" is heard almost universally in informal settings, e.g. when haggling in a shop, but in formal contexts it would still be "yuan" even orally. Anyway, I've led this thread astray... apologies. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Renminbi is the name of the currency, not the name of the unit, and is uncountable in English. An exact parallel is the pound sterling: you can say "five pounds" (or, informally, "five quid"), but you can't use "five sterling(s)". You can say "I need to buy RMB/sterling for the widget deal." Matt's talk 13:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Steve Bannon's whiteboard

I don't understand American politicalspeak, so please can someone translate this for someone not fluent in USEng:

"Sunset visa laws so congress is forced to revisit/revise them"

I'm going to ask for people to just tell me what it means, hopefully with a useful link or two that make sense to a Limey and hang off from political diatribes, speculation and debate, but no doubt this part of my post will be ignored. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

In legislation a "sunset clause" means that the powers expire automatically unless renewed. 79.79.138.16 (talk) 09:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

So he's suggesting a new law that makes an old law expire, so that the old law is revisited? If it's easy to pass the new law, why not just revisit the old law straightaway instead? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

What it sounds like he's saying is he wants all visa laws - present and future - to include sunset clauses. This is done with some security laws, for instance the Patriot Act, most parts of which expire after 4 or so years unless renewed by Congress (this was done in 2006, 2011 and sort of in 2015) - the idea being that this stops the executive clinging on to irrelevant powers. Bannon probably sees two advantages here - one, visa quotas will be regularly changed to meet current conditions, and two, having to constantly defend them will exhaust pro-immigration politicians and make it more likely they'll compromise. Smurrayinchester 12:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. So one law could be passed that retroactively imposed "sunset" rules on all legislation relating to visas? Got it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, exactly right. The US precedent would be the United States debt ceiling, which is intended to force Congress to make decisions about a growing deficit. There are also British examples. The Prevention of Terrorism Acts had to be renewed annually until at least 1989. As the Bill of Rights 1689 forbids a standing army, there was an annual Army Act until about 1955, when the British Army was permanently authorized. Matt's talk 13:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I doubt if it means that. More likely it means that any new visa related laws should have sunset clause in them. Congress probably wouldn't have much interest in passing a law just to add a sunset clause. StuRat (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It is easier to let old laws become desuetude and let the lawyers fight it out when someone decides to enforce an old law. That lies in the Executive branch though since the Legislative branch doesn't enforce laws (at least they aren't supposed to - try to explain that to the never-ending special counsels). 209.149.113.5 (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Try to explain that ("desuetude"? "special counsels"?) to a Limey. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

"Desuetude" means "we don't enforce it anymore and pretend it doesn't exist to the point that if someone does enforce it, they are wrong in doing so." In US Congress, "special counsels" are groups of congressmen who get together to investigate something so they can find someone guilty of breaking some law or regulation and punish them. Recent examples: A special counsel to punish Trump based on the theory that he hired Russia to hack the election and a special counsel to punish Clinton based on the theory that she hired someone to kill a US ambassador in Benghazi. It should be obvious that I don't think that Congress should be doing their own criminal investigations. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

We have a desuetude article. As for special counsels, I'm afraid you are mistaken. What you're thinking of is a select committee. The Benghazi stuff involved a select committee, as well as some ordinary Congressional committees. A special counsel is an executive branch official appointed to investigate a particular thing. Robert Mueller is currently serving as one. Special counsels were, for a time, "independent" officials appointed by Congress. This was instituted after Watergate, in which Nixon famously had the counsel investigating him fired, but this arrangement was allowed to end in 1999 after some felt Kenneth Starr committed abuses in his investigation of President Clinton. --47.138.161.183 (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I never really noticed the distinction between special counsel and select committee. In my opinion, Nixon's entire ordeal worked. The executive branch did the investigation. Nixon messed with it. The judicial branch ruled that what Nixon did was wrong. Congress began the process to impeach Nixon. Of course, Nixon resigned before he was impeached, but it worked. Everyone did what they were supposed to do. It also made me pay attention to politics. I didn't vote in 68 or 72 because I felt Nixon was going to win, so it didn't matter (and I was in Vietnam in 68 anyway, so it wasn't convenient). By 76, I cared enough to vote and I've been voting ever since. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

In the case of the President, Congress is really all that can investigate, since anyone in the Executive Branch who would otherwise do such an investigation can just be fired by the President, as has just happened. Also, the Congress needs to run such investigations in order to know when to impeach the President. And, the allegation against Trump isn't that he hired Russia to hack the Democrats, but rather that Russia did it on their own, then shared the data with the Trump campaign to help elect Trump. Trump's public statement that the Russians should hack and release Hillary's emails, which may have contained national security info, certainly didn't help his case. StuRat (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

[Major sarcasm alert] That would be so practical. Look at the current administration's mountain of passed legislation. [/alert] Clarityfiend (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a bit if the laws requiring visitors and immigrants to have visas were to sunset! —Tamfang (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Egg only diet

If a person ate only eggs every day, what vitamins and minerals would they become deficient in? 38.96.9.162 (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Any mineral and vitamin not listed on This label. --Jayron32 13:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but this is a very poor answer. You are saying that every single vitamin and mineral in existence that is not listed on that label is essential for human health (ie humans become deficient in them if not consumed). That's obviously not true. For example humans do not need silicate minerals and probably do not need the vast majority of minerals listed here. 38.96.9.162 (talk) 14:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

No, but in the context of human nutrition, there are a known list of vitamins and essential minerals. You're as capable of comparing those lists as I am, and don't need me to insult you by reading both lists and subtracting those present in eggs. You can do that without anyone else's help. --Jayron32 16:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like you have enough information to figure out the answer, and without further badgering of other users. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's a more complete list of egg nutrition: [1]. Vitamin C is entirely absent and niacin nearly so, so I suspect those would be the worst problems, leading to scurvy and pellagra. The lack of dietary fiber would also be a problem, along with other nutrients available only in low amounts, like copper. StuRat (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Which is exactly why chickens on board ships did not help with scurvy. The crew had to supplement their diet with a citrus fruit that would last a long time (limes were very common). 209.149.113.5 (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• This is really a question for a dietician, who are licensed health providers. My vague, OR, unprofessional memory is that you can get by for a very long time on eggs, spinach, black beans, and etwas sonst. But ich bin kein physikant. μηδείς (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• This looks like a good overview of nutrition, with a "consumer version" and a "professional version". Eggs are mentioned in both versions. Bus stop (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

According to the UK National Health Service website here [[2]], the required vitamins and minerals that eggs don't give you are: vitamin C, vitamin E, vitamin K, folic acid, calcium, iron, beta-carotene, chromium, cobalt, copper and magnesium. Eggs however are a good source of vitamin A, thiamin B1, riboflavin B2, niacin B3, pantothenic acid, vitamin B6, vitamin B12, vitamin D and Selenium, although how many eggs you need to eat to get your recommended daily intake of those things, I don't know. Interestingly some of those things aren't on the ingredients label provided by Jayron.--Ykraps (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the link I gave above is more comprehensive, but you do need to scroll past the ads to get to the good stuff. StuRat (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Headlight turns off when turn signal blinks

I have noted, on some modern cars, the headlight on one side turns off when the turn signal to that direction is activated. What's the point with that? It can't be traffic safety reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.64.88 (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any specific examples? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Think to OP means daytime running lights rather than headlights. This feature has been around now for along time (especial in Sweden) so it surprising that he has just noticed. This link give a source to modern lighting regulations and the reason why daytime running lights.Aspro (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The page you link says 'If your daytime running lights are very close to your indicators, the DRL will turn off while the adjacent indicator flashes', but gives no reason why. 77.218.255.248 (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Here in Canada I've seen this quite a bit. The headlights are also used as daytime running lights. With incandescent bulbs they were lit at lower intensity in this function, but now that some case have LEDs, the lower intensity is obtained by lighting only part of the LED array. And the bright white LEDs adjacent to the turn signal would distract from it, and therefore when the lights are in DRL mode, one headlight is deactivated when signaling a turn. This was just my personal observation and deduction until Aspro posted that, though. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Think you might notice that the 'whole' array can also dim via the switched-mode power supply control. Rather than switching off some LED's. Aspro (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't surprise me that some designers might do that, but it's not obvious when they have, unless you see it changing modes. When some LEDs are off, it's obvious, so that case I've noticed. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't the obvious answer be to make the blinkers more notifiable during the day? That's a "traffic safety" issue. Since the daytime running lights are mostly just to make your car visible to oncoming cars, I don't see how making some of them blink would make them any less safe. ApLundell (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

If this phenomenon is only connected with running lights, it makes a lot more sense. Having the actual headlights blink on and off while driving at night would be bad. But during the day, you're more likely to see the blinker if the headlight is blinking too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The headlight doesn't blink, it just goes off so you can see the light that is blinking. At least, that's how the ones I've seen work. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the one I saw yesterday (A Telsa from what I recall. Maybe an Audi.) turned the day time headlight off and the signal blinked. The headlight didn't blink as well. †dismas†|^(talk) 17:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Was that model the Telsa Oklahoma? μηδείς (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)