Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 January 27

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

January 27

Google Trends

I've been looking at Google Trends data on various programming languages for fun and noticed that China is by far ahead in the number one spot for each term. [1][2][3][4] [5] What's going on here? Are Google Trends data not normalized against population? OR Am I mis-interpreting the results somehow? Or is the IT field really that strong in China? Mũeller (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Note that per the name and description, these seem to be relative rankings i.e. how popular those search terms are compared to other search terms in those regions. As mentioned in Google China, Google is very unpopular there and also tends to be quite restricted or difficult to use. It's quite likely that many using Google in China have specific reasons and it may be that other alternatives e.g. Baidu don't work so well for programming language related queries or people looking for programming language related queries have been taught, read or otherwise believe it's best to use Google. Also I'm not sure if the Great Firewall always functions the same or is sometimes relaxed e.g. in places etc that teach programming languages. Nil Einne (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Western society is probably to focused on itself to notice that China spends 4% of its GDP on education and thus 7.5 million new graduates entered the job market in 2015 according our article Higher education in China and its sources. More important even is that 40% of Chinese students are studying for a "STEM" degree (science, technology, engineering and mathematics). To put that in perspective: (cite)"China had 4.7 million recent STEM graduates in 2016. India, another academic powerhouse, had 2.6 million new STEM graduates last year while the U.S. had 568,000." [6]. The United States actually spends even more (6.3% of its GDP) on education but the cost of living is also much higher and additionally a professor in the States earns roughly 100 000 $/year while a Chinese professor earns 6000 $/year. So "Oktember, Septober, Nowonder"(Stan Laurel) is the most fitting answer to your question i think. --Kharon (talk) 06:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

But for Python at least, India has the same ranking as Canada, US, Australia at 4. The UK, France, Germany are only on level below at 3. China is the highest possible, at 100 so while this could be a factor, I think it's clear it's far from the only thing and the results are still a wonder if we only consider that. I maybe should have made this clearer but I'm not saying the specific reasons I mentioned are necessarily correct or the only factor but I think it's resonable to say if a search engine only has about 1% of the market and government actions make it very hard to use, you shouldn't expect searches will necessarily be that representative of what the average population is searching for compared to other places where Google is so popular that Googling is a common verb and the rarity of people not using Google is a very common joke. You should expect that's there's a possibility the search patterns will vary since there's a fair chance you're only seeing a specific subset of the population. Nil Einne (talk) 08:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Access to Google in the People's Republic is heavily restricted by the Great Firewall; most Chinese use Baidu. As a result, I would put basically zero stock in these data. They're as likely to be a result of Google's analysis code screwing up as anything else. Another possibility: apparently some PRC hotels catering to foreigners have unfiltered Internet, so this could be a lot of foreign programmers/IT employees/etc. visiting the country and looking up job-related information on Google, which, because most of China doesn't use Google, makes up a huge proportion of mainland Chinese queries that Google receives, causing the skew. --47.157.122.192 (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Google China is the #3 searchengine in china with a search market share of roughly 35% and reported 3000 Websites blocked in mainland China does not fit the term "heavily restricted" to well. Besides censorship is actually common worldwide. Compare for example Censorship in Malaysia, Censorship in the United States or have a look at Internet censorship and surveillance by country. Additionally purely educational links are usually not censored anywhere unless the content touches medicine(nudity), history or politics/religion. So i do not see the relevance for Google Trends statistics on terms regarding programming languages. --Kharon (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Where are you getting your statistics from? Please provide a source I already provided our article which has links to sources which support my claim that Google is about 1% in China as of 2013. It was roughly 35% in 2009, but it's not 2009. Also censorship being common worldwide is beside the point. This isn't a debate over censorship. Both me and 47 have already explained why the controls the Chinese government places over Google are relevant. But to repeat again, the fact that Google has a tiny market share in China and therefore these statistics are only coming from a tiny percent of searches in China is relevant. Nearly everyone agrees the primary reason for this is due to the limits on Google use but frankly that part is largely separate from the point. Censorship or not, in many other countries Google dominates to such an extent that not using Google is a common joke and Googling is a verb in English and when used as a verb it actually almost always refers to actually using Google. And censorship or not, in nearly all countries barring a few, you can visit Google in your browser and search and provided there's nothing wrong with your internet connection this will only take seconds. I can tell you this is the case in Malaysia and while not from personal experience (well discounting US VPNs and Tor), I also know it's the case in US. This is not generally the case in China although again, this point is somewhat separate anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Meaning of stated in relation/context to document passage

Hi, What does this mean? Le Zouave du pont d'alma a dit,

Specfically is relates to the article of Otto Buggisch. The statement is in TICOM I-58 p.3, which can be referenced from the Buggisch article. scope_creep (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

We have articles on Zouave and Pont de l'Alma and google translate will do the rest. Please do your homework first, then ask for help if you need it. μηδείς (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi μηδείς, yip I saw them. Do you not think I didn't look everywhere for a solution. I can't determine if they are related to the statement, the document or Otto Buggisch or in what manner, or even if they are connected to Otto Buggisch in some why. scope_creep (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I suggest, then, that you post the paragraph from the source here for us, rather than telling us we can find it if we do the work. The French is clear as day. But I am disinclined to go looking for refs at articles then finding some uncertain text somewhere on line when you already have the material at your disposal. Just post it, and a lot of people will eagerly explain it. μηδείς (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

For context, at the pont de l'Alma in Paris, there is a huge sculpture of a zouave serving as one of the bridge's pillars. His feet are underwater and his head reaches to the height of the bridge itself. It is a popular way to measure the height of the Seine's waters by stating what part of the zouave's body the waterline reaches (i.e. the knees, the belt, etc). So, when "le zouave du pont de l'Alma a dit", it means litteraly "The zouave frnm the Alma Bridge has stated", but since the zouave is an inanimate object that does not speak, it usually refers to this particular context of the Seine River flooding and the zouave indicating by how much (and the Seine is flooding this weekend, according to various news stories). --Xuxl (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I saw that in the news the day before yesterday, curious how it turns up here, in relation to this. Proper synchronicity. μηδείς I ×will. I'll post the details, exactly as they are written. It is a measure, or an indication of depth, but not the official depth indicator, which is not used. Possibly some kind of indication they looking for depth. I'll post it today. scope_creep (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

At this point the context has been made clear. It's just good form for the future to give the broader context, especially a link to the relevant URL if possible. You already know what you are talking about but theory of mind should make it clear that giving your interlocutor a hint will speed communication. It used to be a part of our guidelines to ask OP's to link to what they had already read, but some shortsighted admin removed that on the rationalization that IP's don't read the guidelines anyway. μηδείς (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

A better translation into English would be, "The Zouave of the Alma Bridge has spoken." Wymspen (talk) 11:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Or perhaps: “According to the Zouave of the Alma Bridge, ...” (Question: do we have an article or section about this statue, explaining how it is used to measure the water level on the Seine? If so, a link to that article or section would help English language readers better understand the French language idiom.) Blueboar (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

See Pont de l'Alma#''The Zouave'' statue and flooding. Alansplodge (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

No. I checked the original document, and there is nothing after "....a dit." Using "according to" or "stated" (as above) rather implies that there is something to follow, while "... has spoken." is final and requires no object. As to what the fellow was talking about, it has something to do with breaking a complex code - so perhaps that phrase was the key to the code in some way. The interrogation report doesn't make it very clear. Wymspen (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I have found another document which describes the C36 mechanism. It is document I-92. It says. About the same time in 1944, the French had adopted a system of sending internal settings by means of an ordinary sentence for each wheel. It mention's who used it, specifically the de Gaulle party in Corsica, but it was a code which was never broken. It was considered academic interest only. So it is related to that. New knowledge for me. There is enough in chapter 3, I-92 to describe the mechanism. I think I can close this now. It has been weird. I thought we had it above, with the translation, but no. Really wide of the mark.

Thanks Wymspen, Blueboar, μηδείς, Xuxl. The information if anybody wants to read it, including the two documents TICOM I-58 and I-92 will be available from Otto Buggisch, and the C36 device is described in C36 cipher device, that the de Gaulle delegation to Corsica was using in 1943/44, and will be updated accordingly.

Tohono O’odham Nation

A CBS News story yesterday said that this Arizona Native American nation resides on land split by the US-Mexico border, and that a wall would cut the nation in half and divide families. The Wikipedia article says all their reservation land is in the US and that the border is its southern limit. First, does the nation have an official presence on the map in Mexico, or in land documents, or do individual tribe members own small holdings on the Mexico side? Second, are there cases elsewhere in the world where two countries have a fenced border but make an exception and leave unfenced the border which goes through the land of some tribe whose lands are on both sides, so they do not have to use some official border crossing point to go back and forth? This is distinct from cases where borders are open and unpatrolled and unfenced. Edison (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I googled the subject, and one item that came up was this map.[7] The reservation is entirely within the US while the "traditional lands" are in both US and Mexico. Mexico doesn't do reservations. Interestingly, it was all in Mexico until the Gadsden Purchase was made, which split the traditional land. You'd have to dig further and see how border crossings are currently being handled. This is one of many issues that will arise if the wall ever becomes reality. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The Akwesasne reserve at the border of Ontario, Quebec and New York state straddles all three jurisdictions. Of course, the border between Canada and the United States is not fenced, and is formed by the St. Lawrence River at this particular point, but there are some special arrangements for residents to cross from one part to the other that are not open to regular folks. --Xuxl (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

It wouldn't "split the nation in half", it would "strand" 2,000 out of 28,000 Pima (Tohono O'odham people) residents who already live in Mexico in Mexico--if requiring people to use a legal border crossing counts as stranding. The issue of a wall has nothing to do with making arrangements for travel. That can be addressed already through legal means. It would simply prevent unregulated crossing, which the Pima themselves find onerous, as they bear the cost of many non-Pima illegals who use their tribal resources (needing rescue and medical treatment while trekking through the desert), while the state and federal government currently refuse to reimburse them, for which issue, read the article I have linked to. μηδείς (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

What it would split in half is the land, even if over 90 percent of them live in Arizona. The obvious solution would be to build the wall around the northern half of the land. But I'd like to know who's compelling the tribe to pay for policing the border? By what authority? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The article says that the tribal police and medical facilities are eating the cost of all illegals (not Pima themselves) crossing the border who need rescue, etc. They aren't being billed by the state or feds, and the state and the feds are not standing there saying, yo, Pima EMT, you have to save these people dying of dehydration. The obvious solution would be to prevent Pima land from being used as a conduit, which the wall would do.

Yes, it would be an inconvenience to have to go to a checkpoint to cross. But it's also an inconvenience to have coyotes and drug runners smuggling people and violent crime through the land in the first place. It's not a problem that can be wished away, if it were, the Pima wouldn't be suing the state and the feds for aid in the first place. The question of the Pima has interested me since I studied their language and culture in the 90's. The fact that Pima north of the border have the highest diabetes rate in the US, while those in Mexico have normal weight is another interesting real-time social science experiment. μηδείς (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

If they're doing it voluntarily, that's a somewhat different story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure what the duties of police and other patrols are to actually bring patients to an emergency room by AZ or tribal law, but Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act applies to people who are presented as needing emergency assitence at a hospital. Note the law obligates such care, but does not fund it. μηδείς (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

That's typical. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I have spent some time looking at this on google, and although I cannot find anything specific to people arrested crossing the border, many websites say that a medical examination and minimum treatment regardless of nationality are required by Supreme Court decisions, and we do have Prisoner rights in the United States which applies to all detainees, not just convicted people in actual prison, rather than jail. So it seems if you are in medical distress, they have to at least examine you professionally, which then brings Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act into play, one would assume.

This site mentions various relevant federal laws. This site specific to NYC says No matter the nature or severity of your condition, you will not be allowed to keep your medication on you after you are arrested. However, if you anticipate that you will be arrested and want to take your medication while you are in custody, it is still a good idea to bring a one or two-day supply of your medication in its pharmacy-issued prescription bottle. Here's a link to this google search: us law medical rights of arrested persons. μηδείς (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

If they have to absorb the cost, then other patients' costs will go up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

That's not really "absorbing the cost", though, is it? I call that "passing the costs on to other patients". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)