changing pickups of an electric guitar

Question: I have an old Stratocaster shaped electric guitar without any brand. I really love the color of this guitar but it does not sound as I wish. I try to have a good sound for playing blues.
Would it be good to change all 3 pickups to original USA Fender pickups? Or do you think that would be a total waste?
Comment: By the way, there are a large number of options out there for replacement pickups besides Fender. Fralin's are very popular but there's plenty of good brands out there. That being said, my favorites are Fender Custom Shop.
Comment: Please clarify what sound you are looking for a better answer. Rock, country , or blues?
Comment: While you are doing this, you might look into a humbucker "coil tap." I wound up with an HSS Strat and I added a coil tap toggle switch in less than 5 mins so that I can toggle the humbucker to a single-coil. I can go from Page to hendrix at the flip of a switch.
Answer: I'm quite confident that changing pickups (PU's) will make a big difference.
It would only be a total waste if it already had original USA fender PU's in it and you just didn't know.  If it doesn't, it will not be a total waste, the sound WILL change with different PU's.
However, will it give you what you want? That's a different question.  What do you want?  I'm assuming you want it to sound as much like a real strat as possible.
Changing the pickups will get you very far in the effort to make this guitar sound like a strat.  The best advice I can give is start with one pickup (I suggest the bridge PU) and see if it makes a big difference.  That way you don't waste a bunch of money.  Then, if the difference is night-and-day, you can buy the other two (middle and neck) and be confident it will help.
Keep in mind that PU's need a set up, too.  They need to be the right distance from the strings and balanced, so make sure that is dialed in before you declare the effort a "total waste".
Answer: I have to disagree with Wilbur Whateley: Yes, this would most likely be a total waste.
Pickups do make a big contribution to the guitar sound, sure. However, they do not generate any sound as such, they just – well – pick up what the body and strings can offer. If this is garbage to begin with, the best thing a pickup can do is cut away much of the signal and boost the least problematic parts, so you can get lots of distortion to make up for the insufficient clean sound. But this is quite the opposite to what you'd expect from a good strat sound, which should be bright, open, and also sound good clean!
So, there are two possibilities:

The guitar itself behaves mechanically much like a good strat (unlikely for a no-name brand), but the pickups cut away too much. In this case, Fender pickups could be an improvement.
Way more likely, the pickups are in fact already quite close to the original (really, that's not rocket science nor very difficult craft – you just have to wrap the right number of windings around some ≈ $2 magnets), but the guitar sucks (perhaps an unstable neck with nasty resonances). In this case, you might get some usable sound out of the guitar, e.g. with hot EMG pickups; but it would never be a good strat sound.

If really the first point applies, you can find out by comparing the guitar to a real strat acoustically. That's right, take the two guitars in a quiet room and play them with no amplification at all. If they feel & sound similar, you might give the pickup replacement a shot.
But I'd be willing bet if you played a bit on the Fender and then grab your guitar, you'll immediately feel how inferior it is mechanically. So, better search for a decent guitar and re-paint it, rather than wasting money and time on pickup replacement for a hopeless case.
Comment: Have you ever changed pickups before? How you determine it would be a total waste is bizarre.
Comment: @rlo no, it's bizarre how people worship the simple difference between pieces of wire wrapped around some magnets, rather than recognising the much more subtle details of guitar building. I have changed pickups before, and in particular I have changed guitar circuits (which can pretty much generate any pickup-sound from any different pickup, only by clever capacitive&resistive loading). OTOH What is not possible is to simulate a particular _guitar response_ by changing the pickups: the sound will be _different_, perhaps it will even be _good_, but it will (most likely) not be a strat sound.
Comment: @rlo yeah, but then a $5 investment of a simple preamp with 1 nF capacitive load would also do the trick.
Comment: @leftaroundabout  I agree with you that the guitar's body also has an effect, and your "garbage in, garbage out" outlook.  But, my answer can be summed up in "it will make a big difference", which you agreed with in your second line.  So, I'm not sure where we disagree, except for the "total waste" aspect which is, without further specification from OP, purely speculation and subjective.  I'm editing my answer to highlight that I am not making the **quality** call in my answer.
Comment: The OP has not specified if they want strat sound or not.  But the pickups will make a big difference to most people. You are extremely particular about sound more than most. Most people with a cheap guitar are not concerned as much. I still disagree with a pickup change being a waste of time because a $90 investment may be worth changing to sound to something more suitable.
Comment: This answer would have a lot more weight to me if the guitar in question were a Les Paul, but a Strat has the least "body" sound of any guitar I've played. I have personally changed out the pickups of my super cheap starter strat clone with Fender Custom Shop pickups and the difference was definitely amazing. Yes it got even better when I switched out the neck, but my pickup change made a huge difference and was worth the money. None of the other electronics or hardware were changed.
Answer: It really depends on what sound you're looking for. I changed pickups in my Tele and made a huge difference in sound. Gone from country to rock with the pickup. The pickups make a huge difference in sound. Why do you think there are so many on the market and types.
Choose one pickup to change and get a feel for the sound of it.  Look at Dimarzio website for options.
Comment: Because I wanted a rock sound in my Tele. That's why we have an option to change pickups. Love the Tele body and neck but need more powerful sound for modern country.
Comment: "Gone from country to rock" aha. So that's evidently exactly what I was talking about: you switched to pickups with higher inductance, as a result you get a less twangy, more powerful sound, and it'll sound decent even if that Tele does not really have a good Tele response. But heck, _why don't you start with a rock guitar right away_ if you don't want a Tele sound?

changing pickups of an electric guitar


What are good ways to reduce oxygen after racking a beer?

Question: I haven't had any problems with homebrews going stale, but I'm curious about what people do to minimize introducing oxygen in later steps of the brewing process.  If you have a closed brewing system, then that's obviously ideal.  But is it possible to pump an inert gas into a secondary carboy before racking?  Are there other steps or tips for reducing oxygen in the process?
Answer: If you have a kegging setup, you can use it to pump CO2 into your secondary.  Or just skip your secondary, which is what most experts recommend these days.  No chance of O2 if you just leave it in primary.  Purge your kegs with CO2 before and after filling them, too.
Answer: What Denny said.  CO2 is heavier than oxygen, so if you can pump some into your secondary it will push out the O2.
That said, you may be unnecessarily concerned in some ways. When you transfer to secondary the yeast gets stirred up enough that CO2 will be produced in secondary shortly after racking, and this CO2 will push out any small amounts of O2 that was introduced.
Purging before and after kegging, as Denny already said, is a must though (the keg is closed after transfer and the O2 would be trapped).


Where can I find social connection events in a city or town while solo traveling?

Question: Sometimes I don't like staying in hostels (which is a great way to meet people and be social) but then I struggle finding places to meet people. What are alternative ways to find social events or gatherings.
Comment: You have posted what seems to be a non-sequitur. Are you asking how to find a social event where you can then get offered a place to stay? Or are you asking how to stay in a non-hostel and meet people?
Comment: what kind of social events ?
Comment: Sorry, my question was not very clear. I should maybe have included the word "önline" and my question relates to  "how to stay in a non-hostel and meet people?" - made edits now
Comment: I have retracted my close vote.  I suggest changing your title to "Where can I find social connections..." or something similar, but it's a suggestion only.
Comment: Good suggestion, have included it. I'm just worried people will suggest Tinder like apps or platforms which I'm not exactly looking for. This community is tough but its a good thing.
Answer: Couchsurfing, though not as alive as it once was, is still a reasonably good source for local meetups etc. Meetup.com is another, though tends to be for interest-specific groups.
The other approach I have had some luck with is searching Facebook groups for the name of the place/region I am going, and joining some that look interesting then posting to see if anyone wants to meet up, or if there are already some events planned. Eg I have done this with Burner groups in Colombia and Brazil.
Comment: I'd like to second this answer - on my long backpacking trip, CouchSurfing and Meetup were my primary online tools for meeting people. Of course, it depends on the place though - some sites will be much more actively used in some countries/cities than others.
Answer: It depends what your interests are, and your locations.
Meetup.com - this is a friendly social networking site that covers everything from hiking to knitting to pub-crawling to socializing: whatever.  While it's usually for regular members, you can join, attend, and get to know those people - even if it's just for one day.  They are already putting themselves out there, so they'll be happy to help you.
Local rags - Almost all cities have a WhatsOn magazine, or like here, portlandmercury.com, where events are held.  These almost always include networking or social events in addition to the usual concerts, etc.
Couchsurfing.com - As mentioned already, this is/was a great site that, in addition to staying places, has social events for travelers.
AirBnB.com - Consider using an AirBnB instead of a hotel or hostel.  Almost every one I've stayed in has been nicer than a hotel, the same price, and I got to chat with the owners over a glass of wine.  They recommended the secret places to go to, and would I like to join them and their friends at a neighborhood potluck tomorrow?
Hash House Harriers - This is a very social and welcoming group that does a casual run/walk followed by some beers and a few traditions.  There is one in virtually every reasonably-sized city on Earth.  Be sure to ask their contact on the website first what their walk entails.  A few are intense with pretty raunchy beer-guzzling, etc., but most are tame, with a few kids ("brats") and people walking their dogs.  ALL, however, are welcoming in my experience, 25 countries and counting.
Religious Institutions - At least in the city I live in, if you're at all religious, there are mosques, churches and others that have community events, just browse the websites and resources.
Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer! - This I found to be the most productive and fulfilling way to meet locals and actually some life-long-distance friends.  I've spent an evening at a homeless shelter just scooping food, a tree-survey, a turtle rescue, etc. Be polite and sociable, and not too in-your-face about asking what to do, and you'll likely get invited to hang out later or be shown around town.
Answer: Go the town/city websites (either official or affiliated), most of them have activity calendars.
Look at local newspapers, billboards in supermarkets/coffee house.
If there are museums or theaters or music halls, have a look at them (on site or web) for activity calendars.
Comment: Good suggestions, I normally rely on Google and don't really look for the websites of the town/region. I'm in Chiang Mai and its not the best place to do that here but will try it in my next country that has better english.

I have had a lot of luck with billboards and posters actually, thanks for reminding me (sometimes old school ads are the best) - when i was in Phuket there was a drum circle that i went to and had a lot of fun, I should perhaps keep my eyes peeled for things like this more often.
Answer: What I have done several times when traveling alone is going on a day trip.
The smaller the group, the more likely you will meet people while on the trip, as you are more likely to really meet people in a small group.
It does of course depend on where you are and whom else will be on that tour.


Why is there so much worry about France potentially leaving the EU?

Question: I've kept reading and listening on information and opinions about the upcoming French election and one of the main issues that keep coming up is the future of France in the EU. I know that many of the candidates are pro-EU to varying extents with a notable exception of Marine LePen. She's a polarizing figure and her sentiments are highly anti-EU. If she gets elected and enact her plans for leaving, how will that be so devastating to the EU that many people said it would be the end of it? Also, if France's departure would be that bad to it, will it just affirm the weakness and inequality of the EU since so few countries have such disproportionate power and influence in it?
Comment: Please don't answer the question with comments. If you would like to answer, please write a proper answer which adheres to our quality standards.
Answer: With Britain exiting, France and Germany are the most powerful countries in the EU. If France exits, the EU will in practice be dominated by Germany, and thus cease to be a truly multipolar institution. As such, it will have failed in its mission of permanently constraining major power rivalry in Western Europe through economic and political integration.
Comment: This is succinct and accurate.
Comment: Lol. Sorry, but the moment someone write, about a 28 nations union, that "If France exits, the EU will in practice be dominated by Germany, and thus cease to be a truly multipolar institution", it means EU has long ago failed.
Comment: The EU has served it's purpose perfectly.  To prevent war.
Comment: Without France and the UK, Germany would have ~30% of EU GDP and almost twice the GDP of the next largest member. Note that during the "unipolar moment" of 1990-2010, US GDP never exceeded 30% of the world total.
Answer: There are a few causes for concern about France leaving the European Union. This is especially since France is one of the core members of the bloc and also has the 3rd largest economy in the EU. The concerns are mainly economic-related.
Snowball effect
The United Kingdom is already leaving the European Union. If France leaves, then Netherlands may start leaving, Greece may consider leaving too.
Currently, the major countries in the EU are Germany, France, Italy and the UK. The EU would be left with only Germany and Italy should France leave too, thus it would defeat its original purposes which is to have cooperation within the European area.
Problems with Eurozone
Should France exit the European Union, it would cause a sovereign default as described in this article by CNBC.

A few days ago, David Rachline of the far-right National Front party in France said that "the debt of France is about 2 trillion euros ($2.1 trillion), about 1.7 (trillion euros) are issued under French law, which means that it can be re-denominated."
The economic program of the National Front specifically calls for the exit of the euro and the creation of a new currency, the French franc, which would be "closely" linked to the euro while allowing the government to undertake "competitive devaluations" making the transition in an "orderly way".
There is only one problem. It does not work. There is no "orderly exit" from the euro. It is an oxymoron.
This would be the largest credit event in history and would create a massive contagion effect throughout the euro zone. The euro, obviously, would suffer from the break-up risk, so the fallacy of the "closely linked" second currency is simply a joke. Both would collapse in tandem.
(emphasis mine)

Other consequences
Uncertainty in the EU
This will also result in uncertainty in the EU if its core members leave the EU. That would leave Germany as one of the key players left. Negotiations with the UK would also be more difficult.

It's beginning to dawn that the result in France affects Britain as well as France itself. The next president will have a big bearing on the UK's withdrawal from the EU, a significant impact on UK foreign and defence policy thinking, and may even be an important off-stage factor in the general election here in June. Plus, of course, it matters rather a lot to the European continent to which, in spite of Brexit, Britain remains tied by geography, history, trade, culture and sympathy.
(emphasis mine)
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/20/election-britain-france-emmanuel-macron-brexit

Conclusion
That being said, it's still too early to tell the consequences. Firstly, there aren't many articles around that describes the consequence of France leaving the EU as different candidates have different ideas of what role will France play in the EU if they are elected. Furthermore, candidates' rhetoric may change after they're elected.
Lastly, it's an upheaval task for the country to leave the bloc as France's participation in the EU is written in the country's constitution.

But unlike Britain, France has a written constitution, which states that "the Republic is part of the European Union". So a "Frexit" would require a constitutional change which experts say is difficult, but not impossible.
(emphasis mine)
Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/r-french-eu-exit-would-be-tricky-for-a-le-pen-presidency-2016-12?IR=T&r=US&IR=T
Comment: Hi Panda, it is also worth adding that France and Germany were the key members of the forerunner to the EU named the European Coal and Steel Community which is designed specifically to link their economies in a way to prevent war.  France leaving the EU would be a direct signal of military posturing that Germany would be forced to match.  That might appear alarmist but only because the last generation to remember World War 2 have now died. The primary weakness in both France and Germany's national boundaries is the European Plain which has been the avenue of attack in both World Wars.
Comment: @Where does the quote under the "Immigration" heading? What about the Algerian war? The Republic was also "tested" at the time (and France switched from the fourth to the fifth Republic).
Answer: The United Kingdom is not physically connected to any European Union country except France and Ireland.  Ireland is only connected to part of the UK.  France is only connected by a tunnel.  So there's currently no EU country that the UK separates from the rest of the EU.  Goods to and from Ireland already travel by boat.
France lies between Spain and Portugal and the rest of the EU.  So if France closes its borders, it effectively closes Spain and Portugal as well.  Sure, they can still transport by sea, but they'll be cut off by land if France closes its borders.
Switzerland is a land-based country that is not in the EU but shares borders, but it doesn't block anyone.  And because of the Alps, it's probably not the best shortcut anyway.  France is a natural path for goods traveling between Italy and Belgium, Netherlands, or Luxembourg--even parts of Germany.
Financially, France is also one of the subsidizing countries.  It pays more per capita to the EU than it gets back in services.  The UK paid its way, but its special deals kept it from subsidizing the other countries as much.  Frexit would be a more significant departure from a budgetary perspective.  Either spending would need to be cut or other countries would have to step forward to make up the difference.
The UK was already only partially in the EU.  It never gave up its currency.  France is all in, much better integrated.
Comment: You are massively confusing multiple aspects including the European Union, the Schengen Agreement and the Euro currency.  Spain would not be cut off from the EU at all, they would simply have two customs posts to negotiate (if at all).  Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Ireland, Romania are not in Schengen but are in the EU.   Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein have joined the Schengen Area and are *not* in the EU.
Comment: Also, France would never "close it's borders" but simply re-introduce controls. They already did so since 1.5 years with emergency state, and that while being in both the EU and Schengen zone.


IOS5 Is it possible to change the text of Double-high status bar?

Question: In IOS SDK, is it possible to change the heading of the Top red status bar(Double high status bar) as referred in the following link.
We are implementing a Voip app and we would like to make that more meaningful than just say "Recording"...
Answer: Unfortunately, it's not possible to do this. The double-height status bar is only used for VoIP and audio recording, as well as Personal Hotspot connections.
However, it you're interested in putting custom text in the status bar, then there are many great solutions (the one that I use is https://github.com/myell0w/MTStatusBarOverlay). And the best part is, it's not in violation if Apple's policies! Many apps, including the Gmail app, use this and have been on the App Store for a long time.


Mosaico template editing not loading consistently

Question: I am using CiviCRM 4.6.28 and Joomla 3.7.2 with Mosaico 1.0 enabled. I have created a new template and edited it but am finding that the editing page only loads about 50% or less of the time. When it does not load I get a red screen (the Mosaico background colour) and the template blocks do not load. There seems to be not predictable reason for this. The site is hosted by Siteground and they have checked the server for problems. has anyone else had loading problems?
Answer: After using Mosaico from some time, I've noted that you need to make sure you've correctly installed this extension as per the steps mentioned in the doc, i.e,

Doc mentions you need to install shoreditch theme, flexmailer and then Mosaico in order.
Make sure you've downloaded all the dependencies it needs to be included by executing <code>./bin/setup.sh -D</code> from your terminal.

After these steps, it worked fine for me on around 4-5 sites.


Can opinion based questions be posted on the meta?

Question: I was just wondering, can opinion based questions be posted on the meta? Or is it discouraged here like it is in regular world building?
Answer: Some meta questions are inherently opinion-based.  Yes the close reason is available, but the same base set is present on every site, main and meta, on the network, so I wouldn't read too much into that.
Questions about our scope, about what our policy should be on some point, or for that matter about what to name our robot will evoke opinions.  That doesn't make them wrong.  Answers should still support those opinions in some way; just saying "unicorns should be off-topic" doesn't help anybody.  And questions still need to be about the site (or the SE platform in general); don't use meta to ask people what their favorite movie-worlds are.
See what is meta? in the Help Center for more about the purpose and use of meta.
Comment: If you really want to talk about peoples' favorite movie-worlds, try [chat]. :-)
Comment: This is a difference in definition I think. If you're supporting "those opinions in some way" then it's not **primarily** opinion based. It will be an opinionated answer *based on reasoning* (which is why the reasoning must be included). All answers will contain one portion or another that is opinion based, but if the question solicits answers that are **primarily** opinion based, then it's not appropriate.
Answer: Nope.
Questions about the Worldbuilding main site that are primarily opinion based are not on-topic here on Meta. We still have an option to close questions here as "primarily opinion based". Though I think we're far more lenient here.
If you mean Worldbuilding questions (but would be off-topic on the main site) that are not about the Worldbuilding main site, the answer is still no. Those would both be off-topic and primarily opinion based.
Comment: A lot of [tag:discussion] questions are entirely opinion-based but on-topic.
Comment: @HDE226868 Yes, as long as they are *about the site itself* or the software that runs it. Note that on [meta], the top "off-topic" close reason is *This question does not appear to be about Worldbuilding Stack Exchange or the software that powers the Stack Exchange network, within the scope defined in the help center.*
Comment: @HDE226868 No, not entirely. They may be opinionated, but are (or should be) *based on reasoning*, not primarily opinions.


Why do we need the async keyword?

Question: I just started playing around with async/await in .Net 4.5. One thing I'm initially curious about, why is the async keyword necessary? The explanation I read was that it is a marker so the compiler knows a method awaits something. But it seems like the compiler should be able to figure this out without a keyword. So what else does it do?
Answer: There are several answers here, and all of them talk about what async methods do, but none of them answer the question, which is why async is needed as a keyword that goes in the function declaration.
It's not "to direct the compiler to transform the function in a special way"; await alone could do that.  Why?  Because C# already has another mechanism where the presence of a special keyword in the method body causes the compiler to perform extreme (and very similar to async/await) transformations on the method body: yield.
Except that yield isn't its own keyword in C#, and understanding why will explain async as well.  Unlike in most languages that support this mechanism, in C# you can't say yield value; You have to say yield return value; instead.  Why?  Because it was added in to the language after C# already existed, and it was quite reasonable to assume that someone, somewhere, might have used yield as the name of a variable.  But because there was no pre-existing scenario in which <variable name> return was syntactically correct, yield return got added to the language to make it possible to introduce generators while maintaining 100% backwards compatibility with existing code.
And this is why async was added as a function modifier: to avoid breaking existing code that used await as a variable name.  Since no async methods already existed, no old code is invalidated, and in new code, the compiler can use the presence of the async tag to know that await should be treated as a keyword and not an identifier.
Comment: Doesn't that mean that in some future version, the requirement to specify the `async` keyword can be dropped? Obviously it would be a BC break but it could be thought to affect very few projects and be a straight-forward requirement to upgrade (i.e. changing a variable name).
Comment: The article in question, as far as I can tell, can now be found here https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/archive/blogs/ericlippert/asynchrony-in-c-5-part-six-whither-async
Comment: Ton of thanks Mason! This has buged me for a while, and thank you for explaining it so crystal clear.
Answer: it changes the method from a normal method to a object with callback which requires a totally different approach for code generation
and when something drastic like that happens it is customary to signify it clearly (we learned that lesson from C++)
Comment: I guess I'm curious why the compiler needs it. Couldn't it just parse the method and see that await is somewhere in the method body?
Comment: @Justin984: Not every method returning `Task` actually has the characteristics of an `async` method - for example, you might just run through some business/factory logic and then delegate to some *other* method returning `Task`. `async` methods have a return type of `Task` in the *signature* but don't *actually* return a `Task`, they just return a `T`. In order to figure all of this out without the `async` keyword, the C# compiler would have to do all sorts of deep inspection of the method, which would probably slow it down quite a bit, and lead to all manner of ambiguities.
Comment: So this is really something for the reader/programmer, and not so much for the compiler?
Comment: @Justin984 it definitely helps to signal to the compiler something special needs to happen
Comment: it helps when you want to schedule multiple `async`s at the same time so they don't run one after another but concurrently (if threads are available at least)
Answer: The whole idea with keywords like "async" or "unsafe" is to remove ambiguity as to how the code they modify should be treated. In the case of the async keyword, it tells the compiler to treat the method modified as something that does not need to return immediately. This allows for the thread where this method is used to continue without having to wait on the results of that method. It's effectively a code optimization.
Comment: I'm tempted to downvote because while the first paragraph is correct, the comparison to interrupts is incorrect (in my informed opinion).
Comment: I see them as somewhat analogous in terms of purpose but I'll remove it for the sake of clarity.
Comment: Interrupts are more like events than async code in my mind -- they cause a context switch and run to completion before normal code is resumed (and the normal code might be completely ignorant of it running, too), whereas with async code the method might not have completed before the calling thread is resumed. I see what you were trying to say w.r.t. different mechanisms requiring different implementations under the hood, but interrupts just didn't jibe with me to illustrate this point. (+1 for the remainder, btw.)
Answer: OK, here is my take on it.
There is something called coroutines that has been known for decades. ("Knuth and Hopper"-class "for decades") They are generalizations of subroutines, in such as not only do they get and release control at function start and return statement, but they also do it at specific points (suspension points). A subroutine is a coroutine with no suspension points.
They are PLAIN EASY to implement with C macros, as shown in the following paper about "protothreads". (http://dunkels.com/adam/dunkels06protothreads.pdf) Read it. I'll wait...
The bottom line of this is that the macros create a big switch, and a case label at each suspension point. At each suspension point, the function stores the value of the immediately following case label, so that it knows where to resume execution next time it is called. And it returns control to the caller.
This is done without modifying the apparent flow of control of the code described in the "protothread".
Imagine now that you have a big loop calling all these "protothreads" in turn, and you get concurrently executing "protothreads" on a single thread.
This approach has two drawbacks:

You cannot keep state in local variables between resumptions.
You cannot suspend the "protothread" from an arbitrary call depth. (all suspension points must be at level 0)

There are workarounds for both:

All local variables must be pulled up to the context of the protothread (context which is already needed by the fact the protothread must store its next resumption point)
If you feel you really need to call another protothread from a protothread, "spawn" a child protothread and suspend until completion of the child.

And if you had compiler support to do the rewrite work that the macros and workaround do, well, you could just write your protothread code just as you intend and insert suspension points with a keyword.
And this is what async and await are all about: creating (stackless) coroutines.
The coroutines in C# are reified as objects of (generic or non-generic) class Task.
I find these keywords very misleading. My mental reading is:

async as "suspensible"
await as "suspend until completion of"
Task as "future …"

Now. Do we really need to mark the function async? Apart from saying that it should trigger the code rewrite mechanisms to make the function a coroutine, it resolves some ambiguities. Consider this code.
public Task<object> AmIACoroutine() {
    var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<object>();
    return tcs.Task;
}

Assuming that async is not mandatory, is this a coroutine or a normal function? Should the compiler rewrite it as a coroutine or not? Both could be possible with different eventual semantics.

Why do we need the async keyword?


How can I identify the FAF on this Jeppesen chart?

Question: According to this Jeppesen ILS Approach Chart:

How can the FAF be identified?
Would it be the point at which the G/S is intercepted?
What is the difference between FAF and FAP?
Comment: Possible duplicate of [Where does the final approach segment begin on an ILS approach?](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/25587/where-does-the-final-approach-segment-begin-on-an-ils-approach)
Comment: The proposed duplicate question is generic, this one is specific to one chart. The other answers point to the lightning and Maltese cross symbols, this chart doesn't show these symbols. Therefore it is not a duplicate in my eyes.
Answer: The terminology is different between ICAO and the US.
The following definitions are being used by Jeppesen (Introduction to Jeppesen Navigation Charts):

FINAL APPROACH FIX (FAF) — The fix from
  which the final approach (IFR) to an airport is executed and which identifies the beginning of the final
  approach segment. It is designated in the profile
  view of Jeppesen Terminal charts by the Maltese
  Cross symbol for non-precision approaches and
  by the glide slope/path intercept point on precision
  approaches. The glide slope/path symbol starts at
  the FAF. When ATC directs a lower-than-published
  Glide Slope/Path Intercept Altitude, it is the resultant
  actual point of the glide slope/path intercept.
FINAL APPROACH FIX (FAF) OR POINT (FAP)
  (ICAO) — That fix or point of an instrument approach
  procedure where the final approach segment commences.
FINAL APPROACH POINT (FAP) (USA) — The
  point, applicable only to a non-precision approach
  with no depicted FAF (such as an on-airport VOR),
  where the aircraft is established inbound on the final
  approach course from the procedure turn and where
  the final approach descent may be commenced. The
  FAP serves as the FAF and identifies the beginning
  of the final approach segment.

So the FAF looks like this for non-precision approaches:

And for an ILS approach the FAP is number 8 in the following image:
Answer: No. You intercept the GS long before FAP.
The FAF/FAP mark the beginning of the last segment. FAF is used for non-precision (non-glideslope) approaches, and FAP for ILS approaches.
The FAP is usually indicated by a Maltese Cross symbol. In the absence of that, the best clue that a fix on an ILS is the FAP is the GS crossing altitude indication.


Travel across Iran by train

Question: I decided to travel to Iran and use the train for going to different cities there.
For booking tickets, would you recommend local websites or international ones?
Answer: As usual the man in Seat 61 has some useful advice on his page for Iran
https://www.seat61.com/Iran.htm
Specific advice about buying tickets for travel within Iran is contained further down the page.
https://www.seat61.com/Iran.htm#Train%20travel%20within%20Iran
The best option seems to be to buy from alocal travel agency in Iran as the online sources have had mixed reviews. buying at the station is possible but you may need to buy several days in advance.
If you make the trip I am sure he would welcome feedback as it is still a difficult destination for many travellers outside organised tours.
Comment: All the useful information is behind links now. Would you mind adding excerpts to your answer?
Comment: @Mast Added some more info about the specific question.
Answer: Local person here.
In here we prefer to buy tickets from our local websites because you can get huge discounts from them.
Websites we trust with PROS/CONS is:
https://www.alibaba.ir  ( Lack of English site but they have good support )
https://www.raja.ir/ ( its the official website to buy ticket but still lack of English website )
If your looking for Charter (discounted) trains go to https://www.tcharter.ir/en#!all, they have English website too.
There is a lot of websites in here for selling those tickets but not trust-able.
Comment: @AaronF Ah yes, so it does. Much more useful, of course – this way you know what it is you don't understand. Known unknowns > unknown unknowns.
Comment: I love how raja.ir has a link at the top that says "English", but when you click on it, it just reloads the Farsi version with no change. Brilliant strategy. :-D
Comment: @JanusBahsJacquet if you look carefully, after clicking "English", the language of the *site navigation* changes to English. But it's the only thing that does :-)
Comment: (+1) do you want to send a link to this to the Man in Seat 61 in case he wants to add it to his page? I can do it if you prefer.
Answer: You're providing very little context for your trip, so, I'm making the assumption that you're reasonably flexible and don't have a specific itinerary in mind.
If that's correct, in your position, I would buy tickets locally, in-country. It's easy, as cheap as it gets, and allows you to change your plans as you see fit.
Answer: First of all it is advised to buy tickets before you travel.
From Trip Advisor:

I suggest you booking train ticket by some travel agencies!

Even though it is unofficial, this site has been recommended by quite a few users.
Answer: Thanks for all your information. I have recently found that website http://iranrails.com a very useful and reliable site for buying train tickets of Iran railways.
Comment: it's not usable for global transfer. it works just in iran if you want to go from one city to another.

Travel across Iran by train


Hydrogen as a fuel really worth it?

Question: Is hydrogen good to be used in cars? How much of traveling can a car do with medium sized balloon filled with hydrogen? Is it worth it?
Answer: The energy density of hydrogen at atmospheric pressure (which it roughly is inside a balloon) per unit volume is a mere 0.01005 MJ/L, which is roughly a factor 3600 less then that of gasoline (at 36 MJ/L).
A typical car does 15 km/L so where a gasoline filled balloon (say 3 L) does 45 km for you, a hydrogen filled balloon will get you only 12.5 meters, i.e. just out of the parking lot.
Therefore, any realistic application of hydrogen is to store it either at high pressure (e.g. 70 bar, where the energy density is about 6 MJ/L) or in so called metal hydrides which allow much higher energy densities. Another option which to me seems to most viable, is to use the Fischer-Tropsch process to make methane or even higher alkanes out of hydrogen and $\ce{CO}$. The big advantage of this route is that our current infrastructure of gas stations can still be used
Comment: @user7063: That becomes more of a physics question, but in short hydrogen is a small molecule (second only to Helium, and the smallest diatomic molecule). That unfortunately means it leaks, badly. At 70 bar the problem is much worse. And because it leaks so easily through many materials, it also has the annoying property of embrittling them.
Comment: Storing it under higher pressure would mean more energy and I guess that does not really make it a good alternative or could it?
Comment: @MSalters Do you have any reference about the leaking? I know that hydrogen molecules are tiny and will leak through many materials that other gas will not penetrate, but I also know that many chemical labs have steel containers with hydrogen at 200 bar and I have never heard of any leakage issues of those. Curious to know how safe those 200 bar steel containers are!
Comment: @Michiel: For lab use, the weight of the container is not a major concern, but for cars it is. Even so, leakage is still taken seriously in stationary situations. I know the physics building at my alma mater had a "shed" for the hydrogen storage, which was designed to direct any explosions away from the main building.
Answer: Hydrogen escapes from vessels more readily than just about any other gas.   All of the schemes to store hydrogen seem unwieldy.  High pressure, low temperature, or hydrides.  I've seen NH3-BH3 proposed as a way to store hydrogen.  A good way to store hydrogen might be methanol.
Generating the hydrogen takes energy in the first place which factors in to the question of whether or not it is worth it.
Comment: TBH one of the best ways to store hydrogen is just CH4. That's 4 hydrogen atoms per molecule with just one extra non-toxic atom.
Comment: But methane is pretty powerful greenhouse gas, and you can't pretend it would never escape. Methanol is at least liquid and liquids are generally easier to handle and contain than gases. Not sure about Methanol's greenhouse gas properties. It is toxic, but we've put worse into the environment and it probably has a short half-life in the wild. If there were some way to electrolytically combine CO2 and H2 to make methanol, that would be cool. Could make fuel in a central location with clean energy and then ship it for use as fuel while stying carbon neutral.
Answer: Hydrogen is very easy to leak. Any amount of hydrogen leak is dangerous. It's highly flammable, so if there's fire, naked light or electric spark nearby, it'll cause explosion and of course be dangerous for traffic.
By the way, hydrogen leak will eventually float up and deplete ozone layer.
Based on these facts, hydrogen isn't a promising fuel to be used in daily life.
Comment: Hydrogen destroys the ozone layer? And lasts long enough in the atmosphere to do so?
Comment: This is assuming that you are going to use hydrogen in the gaseous form. A lot of research is focused on metal hydrides which don't have the leakage problem. Granted, they have other issues, but using leakage as the sole reason to say hydrogen is not a promising fuel is a little bit jumping to conclusions

Hydrogen as a fuel really worth it?


War deployment vs dir deployment in tomcat?

Question: What is the recommended procedure for deployment of Java Web App in tomcat?
Drop the uncompressed directory or just drop the war?
Im asking because the war is compressed, doesnt it have a performance cost?
Answer: Deployment performance cost should not be a thing to worry about.
The only way to answer your questions is to make a real test, 'cause it depends on your application size, number of files in it, server parameters and many other things.
Answer: By default, Tomcat will uncompress your WAR during deployment, so the only penalty you will pay is for the time to decompress the WAR file at that time (which shouldn't be much).
I find WAR files to be more convenient for deployment because you just copy a single file instead of doing a recursive-scp or something like that.
Comment: I feel better knowing that.
Answer: It didn't have any noticeable performance as far as I remember but also have in mind that you need to construct and redeploy the whole WAR file each time you want to push an update (even for just one .class)


Problem with membership import

Question: I completed a membership import. Online screen messages indicate that the import was successful, but none of the members appear on reports and contacts do not have membership relationship.  What could be wrong?
Answer: I solved this problem.
When I did the initial import, I used a dummy start date value of 01/01/1961 for members that had a null value for start date. I believe this date caused the problem.  I changed the date to 01/01/1995 and the import worked, plus I can see the data.

Problem with membership import


Determining the date a specific badge was awarded

Question: What is the easiest way to determine the date on which I received a specific badge?
Comment: Trying to work out how many more days to Fanatic, eh?
Comment: I see you, you see me ;)
Answer: Use the "recent activity" data, accessed with the little orange (or grey) envelope at the top of the page, then switch to the "badges" tab. It lists the day you received each badge.  (You can adjust the exact date range by tweaking the URL, so as to hone in on a specific time period you are interested in.)
Comment: That's a nice solution! Thanks.
Comment: This used to be correct, but became obsolete months ago with the death of the envelope.
Answer: What voyager said, and then the data dump if you really want to know.
Excerpt from "anatomy of a data dump":
<code>+--- badges.xml
|     - Id
|     - UserId, e.g.: "420"
|     - Name, e.g.: "Teacher"
|     - Date, e.g.: "2008-09-15T08:55:03.923"
</code>
Answer: The new interface makes it a lot easier, just go to your Profile -> Recent Activity -> Badges.
Check: http://screencast.com/t/R0X9oFwjI
Answer: If it was recently awarded, and depending on your activity, you can see them at your profile. Otherwise I guess you are out of luck.


Why did garou get orange hair?

Question: In the last episode Garou gets orange hair.
 My question is why did Garou his hair color change to orange?
Answer: (mostly copying this from an answer I gave to a similar question)
This is just part of how Garou gets progressively more and more jacked up as the arc progresses, but yet he keeps on trucking and getting stronger.  It's really hard not to understate the sheer level of worked-over this guy achieves.  The following happens to him  in chapter 68 of the webcomic, for example, and this is after already having suffered numerous injuries in preceding battles:

 His entire ribcage is fractured by Darkshine, who initially assumes Garou dies from the injuries.

The orange/red you refer to is just blood.  A blood vessel has popped in his eye and he's bled so much that it's staining his hair.  More clearly, you'll notice that immediately before the reveal of his red hair and eye that he still has white hair, and then rapidly wipes his hands in his hair.  He's had a lot of blood on his hands and arms, bleeding notably out of them at least since deflecting Death Gatling's attack; we also see he's still rupturing blood all along his arms when he squares up against Bang.

The animation is slightly misleading after this, as you still see a far shot of him with white hair after this before the close-up reveal, nor does it show any color changes while he's doing it.  I think this was all done for the purpose of the dramatic reveal being a dramatic reveal.  There's no other reason for wiping his hands on his hair other than to transfer blood to his hair, either strictly for a makeshift cleaning of his hands or, more likely, because he knows it serves to make him seem more monstrous.
In the webcomic, by chapter 82 he ends up a full-on horror freak show from the battle damage alone.

 And before he's even resolved his battles with the S-class or started fighting Saitama.

He does later on achieve what appear to be legitimate monster-like transformations, but at this point in the story, if the manga/anime aren't going to seriously alter the nature of his progression, then all you are seeing is the accumulation of (severe) battle damage.
Answer: In his path of becoming a monster, his appearance changes. First, one of his eyes turn red and also his hair, later his clothes merge with his body, later he gets horns, finally he gets bigger and an even more monster-like appearance. According to a Youtuber with over 2 million suscribers which covers mainly One Punch Man and Dragon Ball, Garou has 6 forms (detailed in the video)
God Slayer Garou All Forms
Also, (spoiler)

 Gyoro Gyoro (one of the leaders of the monster association) says near-dead experiences help humans turn into monsters, and that was her plan for making Garou even stronger than the monster king Orochi.

Why did garou get orange hair?


Placing limit order and stop loss on same stock at same time

Question: Can I place an order so that my account will buy 100 shares of stock xyz if it opens below my limit order but also place a stop loss on the same order so that I can contain my losses if the stock tanks after I buy?
Comment: Depends on your broker. You might have to ask them.
Answer: Although this is possible with many brokers, it's not advisable. In many cases you may end up with both trades executed at the same time. This is because during the opening, the stock might spike up or down heavily, bid/ask spread widens, and both of your orders would get picked up, resulting in an instant loss. Your best bet is to place the stop manually sometime after you get filled.
Answer:
if it opens below my limit order

What exactly are you trying to achieve here? If your limit order is for 100 and the stock opens "below" your limit order, say 99, then it is obviously going to buy it automatically.

also place a stop loss on the same order

Most brokers allow limit + stop loss order at the same time on same order.
What I conclude from your question is that you're with a broker that is using obscure technology. Get a better broker or maybe, retry phrasing your question correctly.
Answer: I don't mind taking a loss of a few hundred dollars but using the example of a certain stock that I bought at 2.64 per share on 8/14/18. On the next day it dropped to 2.41. At that point if I could have put in a stop order of lets say 2.30 I could handle that loss.  I put in a limit order to sell at 2.74.  The next day it made a drop to 1.76.  This was a big loss for me. So I am very interested in not letting that ever happen again. I learned that the stop order should have been used in addition to my limit order to sell at 2.74.
Comment: A stop loss order is a good idea but it doesn't guarantee that you get a fill at your price and possibly nowhere near your price if the stock gaps down hard.
Answer: From your question, I am guessing that you are intending to have stoploss buy order. is the stoploss order is also a buy order ?
As you also said, you seems to limit your losses, I am again guessing that you have short position of the stock, to which you are intending to place a buy limit order and buy stoploss order (stoploss helps when when the price tanks). And also I sense that you intend to place buy limit order at the price below the market price. is that the situation?
If you place two independent orders (one limit buy and one stoploss buy). Please remember that there will be situation where two orders also get executed due to market movements. Add more details to the questions. it helps to understand the situation and others can provide a strategic solution.
Comment: It appears that the OP is not referring to having a short position on a stock, but rather, wanting to have a stop-limit set up immediately when the stock is purchased with a limit buy order.


Can you triple-boot safely?

Question: I would love to triple-boot Windows XP Pro, Ubuntu 12.10, and Backtrack 5 R3, but is this safe for my hard drive/other OSs on the computer?
Answer: This is perfectly safe, but you want to know what you're doing. Keep in mind that you may only have four primary partitions on each disk. With one partition for XP, and three total for your Linux partitions (two regular partitions for the system and one swap partition), you have four partitions and won't be able to safely add any more. If you do wind up deciding to add more partitions, you may consider keeping a few or all of your partitions in an extended partition. An extended partition is only a primary partition that can be divided up into (or "contain") several partitions, up to 64 of them. You can create one with GParted, make your system partitions, and install your operating systems to there.
If you definitely do not want to ever add any more partitions to your hard disk (you only mentioned one) other than what you will have, then you don't want to mess with extended partitions. Keep in mind that if you move the Windows partition to any other position, for example making it be the second partition on your hard disk rather than the first, then you will need to edit your C:\NTLDR file to reflect the change.
I recommend installing Windows first, or keeping it on the disk if it is already installed. This will probably save you some trouble, because one often has to deal with difficulties with partitioning in Windows. Then, from Ubuntu or Backtrack live media, resize the Windows partition so you have enough room for both Backtrack and Ubuntu. I would allow 7-10 GB for Backtrack, depending on what you want to do with it, and at least 25 to 50 GB for Ubuntu. Leave additional space in your Windows partition, too, of course. Now you want to actually create an empty partition on the end of your hard disk for Backtrack, optionally inserting your extended partition beforehand, and then install Backtrack to it. The install Ubuntu, which will recognize your unallocated space during the installation and give you the option to use it, creating a swap partition and an EXT4 system partition within it. If you already have Ubuntu installed, then simply shorten the EXT4 partition and move the swap partition to the left, and then create you Backtrack partition on the end and install it.
Once finished, if you already had Ubuntu installed and only wanted to add Backtrack, you will probably want to run boot-repair. In Ubuntu, you will be updating your kernel frequently, or at least more frequently than you will be in Backtrack, and you want Ubuntu to handle the updating of the Grub menu and Grub software package. If you installed Backtrack first and then Ubuntu, then Grub will already be handled by Ubuntu and you will have no need to run boot-repair. In the end, you will have the option to boot any of the three operating systems you have installed, as well as memtest, upon PC startup.
I hope these suggestions and info helped (:
Answer: Yes!  It's no harder than dual-booting.  Of course, just like with dual-booting, you'll need to decide the partitioning and which bootloader you want to use, but that's all nothing new.
So do you already have it set up to dual-boot?  If so, you just need to carve out some free space (from the Ubuntu installation, I'm guessing) to make room for Backtrack, and then go about the installation just as you normally would.  I'd suggest that when you get to the screen asking where to install it, you select "Something else" and choose the empty space you created.

Can you triple-boot safely?


cabbage - volume to weight conversion?

Question: I am making sauerkraut, and don't have a handy kitchen scale. What is the approximate volume of 1 lb of cabbage?  Also, any advice on saurkraut making would be appreciated. This is my second batch. The first one turned out very good, but I had to throw away that last of what was in the crock as it had mold on top.  I am using a Harsch Crock.
Answer: A medium-sized cabbage weighs around 2 to 2.5 pounds. (Assuming we all mean the same thing by "medium"...) I think you'll probably be better off guessing based on fraction of your whole cabbage than volume, since once you shred the cabbage, the volume's going to vary wildly depending on how fine you shred it and how fluffed up it is when you measure it. My best guess for volume would be 10-12 cups.
Of course, you can always go to the fallback and find something else in your kitchen that weighs a pound (I tend to have pasta) and try and lop off a hunk of your cabbage that weighs the same.
Edit: I did find something on about.com suggesting that a medium cabbage is two pounds. Unfortunately it claims that a two-pound head of cabbage makes 10 cups shredded, but that a medium head makes four cups. I think the ten cups is way, way closer to correct, based on experience. If you do want a volume, that would probably be a good estimate.
Answer: 3 pounds of cabbage should net you approximately (source) 1 pint of canned sauerkraut. Otherwise, 1 lb. = 2 cups cooked; 1 lb. = 4 cups shredded. I would recommend you just weigh the cabbage when you buy it so you can have an idea of how much it will yield.
Comment: I did find my little scale, I think I need a bigger one, maybe a five or ten lb. model.  I didn't buy the cabbage - grew it.  Thanks for the conversions!
Answer: I'd say a scale is the only reasonable option here - In desperation I suppose you could fill a container to the brim, float the cabbage, and measure the water that overflowed (you'd be building a crude scale, really), but a scale is far more convenient, and allows getting the salt content right (2% or 2.5% weight of salt are typical aiming points, relative to the weight of the cabbage or cabbage and other stuff.)
In the course of an hour making sauerkraut the volume of the cabbage is all over the map from the original head, to the fluffy shreds (huge volume), to the salted and wilted shreds (most compact form, when compacted.) The weight is invariant unless you throw some (a bad spot) away.
If your available scale is too small for the job, measure within its capacity, multiple times.
Answer: Very important to get the salt content right or you end uo with spoiled cabbage (yep not sauerkraut).  According to my google search the avg Cabbage 1 pound = 4–½ cups shredded. I'm assuming that's a medium?

cabbage - volume to weight conversion?


Match projected RGB to printed CMYK

Question: We produce projected slides (RGB) and printed posters (CMYK) that sometimes appear adjacent to each other. We find that the same graphics looks very different in the two mediums. How can we adjust the RGB values to match or come close to the CMYK appearance?
Comment: Hi parboy, Welcome to Graphic Design.StackExchange. We hope you enjoy your stay and sharing here.
Answer: You need to calibrate your printer and your projector using specialized hardware like Colormunki photo.
One primitive way to do it is to use your graphics card's software and tweak it a bit to get closer to the print.
You also need to use some standardized lights to view the print. In modern led lights there is a unit called CRI (Color rendition index), the closer the number to 100 the better.
Fluorescent lamps have a CRI very low, so normal office lamps will do a bad job.
Answer: You will have to create similar viewing conditions for both of the images if not industry standard ones.
The colour matching is the subject of "Colour Management." Within that is what is called "Standard Viewing Conditions." It involves characterizing and calibrating your "display monitors" to match. The degree to which they match is an issue
To begin, the slide and the print should have the same "White Point" and be illuminated at sufficient intensity that the "whites" in both appear to match. This alone is going to get you very close to your goal without modifying the file to compensate for display differences.
In normal press-check situations, a calibrated RGB monitor displays the correct "slide" physically located beside the "print" inside a viewing booth with the correctly illumination inside——all this in a consistently lit neutrally coloured room.
Comment: I had hoped for some basic technique to get the colors close - I don't expect to get a calibrated match, but if you look at the attached sample, you can see how dramatic the color difference is. Since I don't have control over the print or the projection, is there a technique to get the colors in the ballpark?
Comment: @parboy The problem is the mismatch between the projector and the poster illumination colour temperature. The easiest way is to match the colour temperature of the print by "warming-up" the projector white point from 6500°K to something nearer the illumination used for the print (3400°K? to start) using the display preferences controls. That will put you in the infield. Let your eyes adjust then compare. If you know how the print is illuminated, you can dial-back the colour temperature of the projection.

Match projected RGB to printed CMYK


What are the advantages of being a hunter gatherer?

Question: After a war, people got to hard work rebuilding their homes. They set up houses, started farming food, and etc..But some groups of people chose to hunt and gather their food instead of making it. These "Tribesmen" as they are often called, are looked down upon by other more powerful nations, including the Midwestern Empire,Western Federation, and the Florida Republic, who see these tribesmen as primitive savages. But I wondered if these tribesmen's lifestyle could have any advantages. So my question is, is there any advantage of being a hunter gatherer instead of agriculture? What are the pros and cons of both?
Comment: Hunter-gatherers tended to have lower rates of obesity and --when food is available-- tended to eat a somewhat healthier diet than comparable early agricultural societies. The lifestyle generally wasn't worth those meager benefits -- there are *good reasons* our ancestors took up agriculture and never looked back.
Comment: I just wanted you to like compare the benefits and cons of both
Comment: Advantage for whom? For the individual, possibly; it depends on where one tries to hunt and gather -- Siberia is one thing, and Amazonia is quite another. For the society, the major disadvantages of hunting and gathering are the abysmal population density, and the impossibility of developing any kind of advanced technology, science, art and so on.
Comment: Depends - does the "Hunter Gatherer" job description include "Poacher" ? In other words, if they were to hunt & gather from farmers' land then it could be very advantageous, there would be plenty of food available without requiring the work that goes into farming.
Comment: Florida Republic: If you have ever spent a summer in Florida without air conditioning, you'll know why those folks are going to migrate out of Florida as fast as they can trudge.
Comment: I just edited my question
Comment: The nuclear war changed the earths axis so now the Eqautor area is more temperate
Comment: I know that isn't realistic but don't judge
Comment: I'm grossly skeptical that there's enough game animals left for the hunters to hunt.
Comment: User535733 people have survived in hot climates with no air conditioning before. Heck, the Spanish colonies in Florida has no electricity, and they were find.
Comment: I can't think of anything unique to hunter-gathers, keep in mind basically any advantage that can be applied to them can be applied to nomadic herders as well.
Answer: There are very few advantages to being a hunter gatherer, even less if you are surrounded by agricultural communities.
Hunter gatherers have smaller, weaker groups, few assets, no industry, no land as such and little cohesiveness in defense or anything else beyond the extended family group. So they are easy targets for belligerents looking for slaves or sacrificial victims.
The advantages would be the ability to live off the land, general health and fitness and strong family ties. Most of their skills are not particularly useful outside of their lifestyle though.
This has been proven many times, hunter gatherers in prime land are marginalised and forced out into less desirable habitats and in most places either exist on the fringes or have assimilated or perished altogether.
Farmers are tied to the land, if encroached upon they have to fight, so they're prepared for war, and they steadily expand their demographic. Hunter gatherers won't fight much, they'll just move on, fine if there are places to move to and pressure lets up, but meanwhile the farmers keep expanding, eventually only the fringe areas where farmers don't want to go is left. If later an important resource is found to exist in the fringe area, the hunter gatherers will be forced out even of that eventually.
The whole of Europe was hunter gatherers, none left now. The American West would be a great example because it shows how the expansion into hunter gatherer territory can happen. Some farmers died, but they eventually took over.
Comment: Even the places you can't farm get taken over by herders instead.
Comment: I note that a number of tribes in the American West were already farmers or part farmers/part hunter gatherers.  The famous warrior tribes were mostly hunter gatherers.
Comment: @M.A.Golding famous because they fought battles over large areas when they ran out of places to go. Any farmers would stay and fight and lose all in one battle, big difference. But I wouldn't call any of them farmers. Good point though, one advantage of hunter gatherers is that living off the terrain they can avoid enemies easier. Farmers are tied down so it's all or nothing for their individual communities.
Answer: Longer life and better health
Hunter gatherers in prime territories, such as places that became cradles of civilization, lived a long time. While infant mortality was high due to various reasons, if you survived to adulthood, the hunter gatherer could be expected to live 70 years. Overall life expectacy was around 40 years.
In a study of the life expectancy of skeletal remains over thousands of years, 19 of 21 societies undergoing the transition to agriculture had significant losses in life expectancy, height, and dental health as measured by enamel on teeth.
Compare the hunter-gatherer's life expectancy of 40 years with Sub-saharan Africa in 1960. Certain regions, like Mali, though agricultural and somewhat exposed to modern medicine, still had life expectacies under 30.
Comment: @RonJohn That is a tense error. I meant that Mali had a life expectancy under 30 in 1960. Occam's razor, buddy, instead of using capital bold, you should probably just assume a typo...
Comment: "*if you survived to adulthood ... Overall life expectacy was around 40 years.*" Who says that agriculturalists didn't live to 70 if they survived childhood?  (Many of my "pre-sanitation" ancestors lived into their 70s.)
Comment: "*you should probably just assume a typo.*"  It's the internet; therefore I assume very little.
Answer: Less work
In a hunter/gatherer society people have to hunt and gather just until they find food.  Once they find food, they can stop and do something else.
An agricultural society has to spend all its time tending the fields and animals.  It has to weed the crops regularly and protect the animals from predation.  It has to grow enough crops to provide food and seeds even if the harvest is small.  It has to maintain larger herds than currently needed so that next year it adds to the herd.  When put together, an agricultural society is more work.
Of course, in return for this additional work, the agricultural society has more control over its food supply.  In the worst case, it can eat its seeds and slaughter its herds and become a hunter/gatherer society next year.  In the best case, it can plant extra crops and trade them to early industrial artisans like blacksmiths.  Shifting from an agricultural society to an industrial society provides more leisure time than the hunter gatherer society.  But the actual agricultural society prior to the industrial society is more work.
If a hunter/gatherer society runs out of food, its options are basically to move somewhere where there's food or take food from someone else, like the local agricultural society.
Comment: No, some agriculture is labour intensive for long periods but most are not, you plant, you harvest, in between there is little heavy maintenance. My breadfruit tree gives fruit without me doing anything. My avacado and mango trees have never been pruned after their first 2 years. Bananas I plant once a year or so and then just leave them until ready to eat. Root crops the same. I didn't even plant my pumpkin patch, it just appeared, probably grew from discarded seeds.
Comment: For much of the year, sheep just need to be watched, in countries with no large predators they're often just left on the hills to fend for themselves. Grain fields also just need to be watched. There's very little work to be done much of the time, when there is work to do there's a lot of work to do, but it's highly seasonal.
Comment: What takes up a lot of time for agriculturists is breaking new ground: clearing trees and rocks, prepping the fields, and so on. If you aren't pushing into the frontier, working established fields and pastures, then you have a lot more free time.
Comment: Hunter gatherer is not less work.  If food isn't plentiful, you spend almost all of the day looking for food.  If food is plentiful, increased population over a couple of generations will take care of that.  Farming and ranching puts food where it can be easily and quickly gathered.
Comment: @ShadoCat "Farming and raching puts food where it can be easily and quickly gathered." ... until the increase population over a couple of generations takes care of that as well =)  The age old problem doesn't go away.  We just try to move it again, and hope that *this* is the magic time where it goes away!
Comment: @CortAmmon  Except that it is a longer game.  Farming provides leverage.  Another farmer is more acreage of farming.  Another hunter is, maybe, another rabbit.  Also, farming allows you to produce enough food to last through bad weather (snow or drought).   Hunter gatherers' populations are affected by bad conditions more than a farmers (farmers have to face bad conditions longer than hunters).
Comment: @CortAmmon, yep but farming lets us spend the time it takes to keep moving that bar.  A good war or plague here and there helps too.
Comment: @ShadoCat Which is exactly the same game the hunter gathers play, just without the farming =)
Comment: @ShadoCat There are definitely advantages to farming, but none of them fundamentally change the game.  It's the difference between opening a chess game with 1. e4 or  1. Nf3.  The game is the same, even if it plays out different.
Comment: @Cort, if the game isn't fundamentally changed, why is it that hunter-gatherers have never won?
Comment: @KeithMorrison Have we ended world hunger yet?  Are we free of the confines of exponential growth, such that nobody goes hungry anymore?  Do we no longer have famines?
Comment: @Cort, that's an entirely different issue: we easily produce enough food to feed everyone on the planet without any problem. Famines are political and social problems these days, not due to insufficient food production.
Comment: @KeithMorrison We still ballooned up to 7 billion people, and are stopped when the things that stopped hunter-gatherers, like food and disease, caught up to us.  We haven't escaped the circle of life.  Sometimes we like to think so, because it makes us special, but we haven't escaped.
Answer: Hunter-gatherers!
These groups of people would have not have any assets to defend! So if they are attack they could flee. Villagers would have to defend their village.
They would have to migrate, to where the food is, and so they would actually form connections with all the traders of the villages on their route.
They could gather knowledge from all the places they visit.
The connections they form in this group might be stronger.
However they would not advance very much as a group. The hierarchy would be fix in time! Not open to change.
They would be prone to steal, cheat and kill. They would have a law system of might makes right! And that is what would make them hated. And therefore more isolated from other cultures...
They are a target for brigands, when they set up camps, or even when going somewhere. Because although they migrate the routes are more or less the same. Some might take note of their routes...
Farmers!
Having crops and livestock allows them to obtain wealth!
Living in one place allows them to build fortification to defend themselves from attackers!
They would evolve a social and law structure, and overall just evolve! They would develop new techniques and professions and so much more. Because this is the model formed societies the way we see them.
The only disadvantage I see is that they WILL be a target, because wealth draws attention!
Comment: *"They would be prone to steal, cheat and kill."* How so? That doesn't seem like a good way to maintain any form of group cohesivity. *"although they migrate the routes are more or less the same"* Citation needed. It'd seem more natural for a hunter-gatherer group to follow their prey as it moves about, than to follow fixed migration routes. **In general**, you make some interesting points, but you might want to expand on the reasoning behind the assumptions you make which are the ones that lead to your conclusions (e.g., "more isolated from other cultures").
Comment: @MichaelKjörling they have a different idea of ownership, little discipline in terms of keeping promises with outsiders, no strong ties outside their little groups and also tend to xenophobia, so from their neighbours viewpoint, they steal, kill and cheat.
Comment: @MichaelKjörling They are prone to steal, cheat and kill, because the concept of  property wouldn't exist for them in the same way. They have little more then the clothes on their back so the concept that you own the crops you plant might escape them. And if it happens that some might object to them taking what grows in the earth they might be aggressive.
People have been socialized into obeying rules however a migrating people lacks that pressure! In my opinion.
And it looks like Kilisi had the same perspective as I did!
Comment: @MichaelKjörling Part 2
I based the assumption that they have clear routes on the animal kingdom. Animals that migrate have routes. And it stands to reason that they would move depending on the seasons. So at the same times in the year. And the places they move to should be the same each year. Because they would need to fill the same requirements!
Comment: @Cbm.cbm Much of what you've written in your two comments is good clarification that could improve the answer. I really encourage you to [Edit] your answer to incorporate it, then consider deleting the comments (as they will then hopefully be obsolete).
Answer: Climate.
Not all climates will support farming... poor soil, harsh weather, and a variety of other factors could make settlements unfeasible until a certain technology level is reached.  Sometimes the only route of survival is hunting migratory animals and moving with the animals is required.
Answer: Adaptability (and the benefits that come from it)

Will make the most out of the available resources.
Sense of survival will be greater than anyone else.
Will have to be intelligent to not only survive in the wild,
but also to be able to co-exist along side powerful nations.
Otherwise, they will just get absorbed into the "system" of the
powerful nations, and you know, have less freedoms.
Knowledge of the natural world far more superior then a common "city" dweller.
Not dependant on government hand outs or welfare systems.
If there's another war, and civilization is destroyed as an outcome, these people will most likely be the last survivors on earth.
Also, there is a very good chance they will know how to cultivate their own food, even if it's on a small scale.  They have to be conscious enough not to deplete any resources, so as to give it time to replenish and grow again (or give an animal population some time to reproduce more).
Answer: There are really no advantages to being a hunter-gatherer over a more organized society that farms crops or raises animals for food.
The hunter-gatherer leads a nomadic and risky life. Because they don't cultivate food or domesticate animals, they must continually move to find more food. They may find it. Or... they may not. If they don't, it's lights out.
Because they don't store food in any great quantity, they can't implement plans for problems, such as a long period of bad weather, or disease wiping out their staple foods. The hunter-gatherer is at the mercy of the weather... if it gets really bad, they can't gather or hunt, while the more organized societies have cached their crops and can draw on that stored food when conditions aren't optimal.
Because hunter-gatherers roam about, they don't tend to build homes of any substance, that they'd just end up leaving when the nearby food ran out. Consequently, they are exposed more to the elements. A minor illness turns into a major problem. They are also limited in where they can live, and will compete with other hunter-gatherers and other organisms in an area that's rich in food. The cultivators can live anywhere that plants can grow.
In the hunter-gatherer society, everyone is engaged in finding more food. There are few resources to expend on more specialized functions, like improving their knowledge of healing, or maybe drawing maps so that they can navigate better.
This leaves them at a disadvantage when coming up against a more advanced and specialized society, that has the food reserves to ride out an extended conflict, plus dedicated soldiers whose main job isn't to gather food, but engage in conflict.
When humans first learned to cultivate crops, they could do something hunter-gatherers never do... plan for the future. They knew where their food would be... their fields... and they knew how much they could get, so they knew they could survive beyond the current season. Because they cultivated crops, one person could produce enough food to feed many, so some members of the society could pursue advancement instead of just survival. And because they stored the crops they raised, they could ride out tough periods.
Save a few isolated tribes in resource rich areas, hunter-gatherers are all but unknown today. They simply can't compete with the more advanced and specialized societies.
Answer: In certain ways the stationary cultures have the advantages of a more stable food supply and the allowance for specialization.  They are going to be more populous than the hunter gatherers, and will develop faster than small roving bands.  Lots of other answers detail this better than I could.
So shy would some be Hunter/Gatherers in your proposed post apocalyptic world?
IN a word, philosophy.  They may want absolute freedom, or maybe just wish to be entirely self sufficient.
An agricultural society is going to have rules, codified or not, that will govern behavior within that society.  Those rules are going to form the foundations of your established colonies. I see your proposed nomads as being rebellious sorts.
Your hunter gatherers are probably going to come from the same kinds of folks that we consider to be Doomsday Preppers.  Preppers come in different types.  You have the ones that stockpile what they can and plan to hunker down, then you have the "live off the land types".  Both can work in your scenario.  They will go to the open places on the map and either settle down in a defensible position or just go out and keep going.
Just to clarify, your Hunter Gatherers probably won't be pure hunter gatherers.  THe more prosperous will be more like a nomadic tribe of herders, maybe like the Mongols  They will keep animals, but will be tied to a range of land more than specific plots.  They might trade with established settlements, but for the most part they will be on the move with the food animals.  Their diet  will probably consist more of what can be hunted or fished in the summer and be augmented by the herd animals in the winter.  Socially, they will be loose family tribes or clans with few, if any, codified laws.  They get the freedom of not being tied down, with reduced risk of food supply problems based on their herds.
You may also get pure hunter gatherers.  These will be the loners or maybe small family groups.  This will be highly risky, but they will also have maximum freedom.  Simple disease or whims of weather will wipe out a small group.
So for some of your roamers, maybe you could look at the histories of the Mongols.  For the individualists, think storybook prospector or fur trapper types.
Answer: The key to answering this question lies in its premise - that the hunter-gatherers are (some of) the survivors of a war; they are the product of the society/ies that waged the war, not a marginalised group that has already been pushed into marginal habitats by agricultural people.
Thus consider who would most likely adopt such a lifestyle - presumably those already most suited to living off the land. It would seem logical that these 'new' hunter-gatherers would be drawn disproportionately from the military, and even from special forces (and even if not disproportionately initially, a few seasons of unsuccessful foraging by the less experienced would result in this distinction).
So, for these people, a hunter-gather lifestyle offers the advantage of near continuous training in the abilities necessary to operate as a guerrilla army/armies. High levels of physical fitness (at least in terms of endurance/stamina), passing undetected through various habitats (or they don't get to eat - they'll need some level of animal protein), stalking and ambush skills (depending on the nature of the available weaponry).
If this persists for multiple generations, the initial ex-military composition and outlook could generate a culture that reinforced resilience, stealth, self-sufficiency and mutual support - essentially the skills valued in small teams of real-world special forces.
They would still be subject to the constraint faced by all hunter-gatherers, that their numbers are limited by the availability of food within their hunting grounds, and so would rapidly come to be outnumbered by the food-rich urbanite agriculturalists (although the hunter-gatherers would likely enjoy better health: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/17/tsimane-of-the-bolivian-amazon-have-worlds-healthiest-hearts-says-study). Of course, these hunter-gatherers would also be the most skilled at raiding the supplies of the agriculturalists!
If this scenario played out over generations, one could envisage a situation where these hunter-gathers would be valued as scouts, or special forces operatives, by the agriculturalists - agriculture-based civilisations typically end up going to war with one another. Or perhaps the hunter-gatherers offer such services in exchange for non-incursion into hunting grounds, and might be able to influence balance of power between their neighbours.
One thing that is unlikely to happen in this post-apocalyptic scenario is the pushing of hunter-gatherers into increasing marginal habitats: they start with the military advantage, and will likely maintain it unless or until the urban societies develop more advanced technology (assuming, of course, the hunter-gathers can't just steal it...)
Answer: Sustainability.
Hunter-gatherer societies survived for thousands of years (millions of years perhaps, depending on how you describe early humanoid groups). Civilization, if you define it as agriculture, is inherently destructive of it's environment and quickly outgrows the carrying capacity of the area, necessitating constant expansion. Civilization is also much more fragile to large scale events, particularly to each other, as they have networked support systems that are necessary for maintaining their technology. H-G tribes can contract significantly without losing their "culture" because it is designed to be maintained at the lowest possible level (i.e. each individual can replicate most, if not all, of the technology and lore necessary for survival). Contrast this with an advanced civilization, where no one individual could possible know enough to reproduce even a small fraction of the technology and mythology of that society.
So a decision to stay at the H-G level could be a long term survival choice, designed to allow the organism to survive on the planet for tens of thousands, even millions, of years in an ecological balance. Versus the climate change and resource depletion we are witnessing right now due to our civilization which may see an end or at least significant reduction in our standard of living, a H-G society may have more long term sustainability. This would be appealing to folks that can see the ruins of the previous civilization all around them.
The amish/menonites are sort of like this. They exist within a more technologically advanced civilization but deliberately adhere to less advanced goals. Of course they enjoy the protection/tolerance of the greater society, while most H-G cultures get quickly wiped out once they encounter a more advanced civilization (one that is usually desperate to exploit the resources of the land the H-G tribe is roaming around on). So a H-G society is unlikely to exist adjacent to more advanced civilizations unless they inhabit a really undesirable plot of land.
Answer: Some people simply like living a simple life (think Henry David Thoreau).  Other than that, the cons vastly outweigh the pros.  When people are constantly on the move, spending all of their waking hours tending to their own needs, it's difficult to develop specialization of labor.  That is, Person A is good at butchering animals, tanning hides, etc., while Person B is good at metalworking, so each does what he is good at, and then they trade, which mutually benefits both.  That kind of labor specialization and trade is what makes a modern economy possible, which in turn enriches everyone.  I'm not saying a nomadic lifestyle makes this impossible, but eventually the people with certain trade skills will need to settle down somewhere that they can open a work shop, preferably with access to raw materials and a place to turn a water wheel.
Certainly there are examples of nomads who have developed a high culture complete with art and learning, but city life makes all of that a lot easier.
Comment: "Nomad" and "hunter-gatherer" are different concepts.
Comment: OK, noted.  I think my point applies to both though - probably even moreso for hunter-gatherers, because that implies a subsistence level of living.
Comment: "Some people simply like living a simple life" - Anyone who thinks *either* traditional farming or hunter-gathering is "a simple life" is delusional. It's similar to the way a modern high-tech worker might look at a tradesperson or heavy equipment operator and daydream about having a "simple job" instead of endless volumes of paperwork.


What the name of this fish?

Question: Well saw this on a fish group on facebook. Noone can give a decent answer so I came to you guys hoping you can help us? The one who posted lives in the Philippines and he said he caught it in the river that is somewhat connected to sea.
Answer: This fish called neon velvet damsel fish (Neoglyphidodon oxyodon)
Check wikipedia
Comment: I don't think this is right. The asker's fish has a brown tail, no golden spot/stripe on its back and very different "fluoro" markings. The asker's fish was caught in a river but yours lives in the sea.
Comment: There's only one photo available and it already shows significant differences from your suggestion. Having more photographs of the unknown fish can't make it look more like a neon velvet damselfish.
Comment: @DavidRicherby maybe if the asker added many pictures from different sides, I can see the blue color under the fish eyes which says everything ..

What the name of this fish?


Is there a measurable benefit to replacing spark plug wires?

Question: My 92 Civic has very old spark plug wires, probably original, but their resistance is in-spec (under 20k ohms), they have no external damage, and the vehicle has no misfire or other symptoms associated with bad wires, aside from having worse gas mileage than it used to. Is there any reason to replace them? Would doing so perhaps get a more optimal spark timing or stronger spark, more-complete combustion, etc.? Or are those claims just made up to sell wires?
Comment: I +1'd Brian's answer for preventative maintenance. My car made it through an unusually cold winter in MI, USA. It got down to -6°F that year, my car started on the first key turn. A few months later, the first real rainy day of spring, it just turned over and wouldn't start. Wet wires were likely the culprit, I'm about 90% sure. I wound up doing a  semi-major tune up so I can't be 100%.
Answer: Mostly replacement is preventative maintenance.  Eventually they'll get cracks that moisture can get into, etc.  If they test good, they're probably fine for the moment, however, at their age they could develop problems any time.
On my '91 Toyota, I've been through several sets now, and have to say that in my case, OEM is the best.  I've tried other brands (including "performance" brands) and have never seen any measurable improvement in performance.  I have, however, had a lot of early failures with those supposedly better (and dramatically more expensive) performance wires.
Answer: If it ain't broke don't fix it. If your wires already check out and you don't have misfires it is probably not worth replacing them just yet.
You could possibly get better performance out of better coils and plugs but even those numbers are pretty minimal. Best thing I can recommend for fuel economy is to use seafoam in the engine and fuel and then change the spark plugs soon afterwards.
Comment: I already used seafoam spray in the intake system and especially the IAC valve and it helped a lot.
Comment: Oh, and the spark plugs are new -- I changed them along with replacing the head gasket since I figured the old ones might have corrosion from coolant. :-/
Comment: By the way I like your answer and +1'd it but I'm accepting the other one because Brian's characterization of replacement as "preventative maintenance" and personal experience going through "several sets" of replacement wires is probably the most convincing evidence that I'm best off making use of the (probably much better) factory wires as long as they work.


How to make the Raspberry Pi consume less power

Question: What methods can be used to reduce the amount of power a Raspberry Pi uses?
Answer: Unplug it from mains power :)
But seriously: the Pi has a "base" power usage when run headless, without anything plugged in (no monitor, no usb devices, just the power supply). Use a Kill-A-Watt meter to measure the powerusage of this setup. Then do the following:
If you want to further reduce this power usage, you can look into disabling a few things.

According to this article, if you have an rPi2, you can reduce
the number of cores by adding the following lines into
/boot/cmdline.txt:
# replace N with the number of cores you want to keep using
maxcpus=N
You could look into disabling power to the USB bus by issuing the
following (from this post on this forum):
echo 0x0 > /sys/devices/platform/bcm2708_usb/buspower
NOTE OF WARNING: This might also disable your network port, so don't
use this in a headless setup until you have made sure you can recover
from it.

Use the Kill-A-Watt meter to check the impact these changes have to power usage.
If you need to use additional devices, such as an HDMI monitor, USB devices including WiFi dongles etc., keep the Kill-A-Watt meter hooked up to your Pi and look at the impact of adding each device in (shut down Pi, add 1 device, reboot Pi, make sure device is in use (E.g. WiFi dongle is connected/connecting to network) and observe the output of the Kill-A-Watt meter.
Comment: will a low `arm_freq_min` reduce power usage? my meter isn't sensitive enough to tell me :)
Comment: It probably will, but ever-so-slightly. That's why your meter can't tell you
Comment: It won't unless you reduce to voltage.
Comment: @MaxRied Actually, it would! the power used by a CPU can be determined by P = CV^(2)f, and so if you lower frequency, you're proportionally lowering power.
Comment: maxcpus=1 makes my rpi 3 model b not able to boot properly SOMETIMES
Answer: Other things you may want to search for include disabling the LEDs, disabling HDMI out and 'nohz' kernel option to alter the tick interrupts from periodic clocks.
Articles I've seen also suggest that Kill A Watt measurements are pretty inaccurate at low current levels, use a bench meter if you have one available.
This article has a good few handy links in it:
http://www.midwesternmac.com/blogs/jeff-geerling/raspberry-pi-zero-conserve-energy


No sound in my HP 2000-2116tu laptop

Question: I am using HP 2000-2116TU laptop and I have installed Ubuntu 10.04 in it (I'm dual booting it along with windows 7). The problem is that there is no audio(no audio in speakers as well as headphone). The sound card in my lap is Realtek HD audio. I guess Ubuntu is not recognising my sound card. Maybe  it is the lack of proper drivers. So please help me to fix this problem. The sound card is fine since it works perfectly in windows 7.
Answer: ubuntu provides its own sound driver,to listen sound you have to install proper plug-ins from ubuntu side.So you simply open any media file and then search for plug-ins in net via that media player.

No sound in my HP 2000-2116tu laptop