Random Questions Thread

hey, what would an economy be like if communism was mixed together with capitalism.

Soviet Union still had cash and trading in it, FYI.

Otherwise, this is a very much not a quickie question.

This looks realistic enough to me. From what I have heard, people in time of crisis tend to either panic, remain calm and collected enough to order things around, or fall into a stupor, so this looks like one possible reaction, and correctly described. Then again, I have never been in a situation of crisis, so I can't really judge (I do know of one person who, in a catastrophic event, found himself wandering around in a dazed state).

Thanks. It's just that another person took a look at the same excerpt, (well, one paragraph of it anyway,) and basically said the only way they could realistically react is to panic, so I figured I should get a second opinion before moving forward. So yeah, I'm keeping it the way it is. (Well, aside from various details and descriptions touched up of course.)

The reaction also seems realistic to me. It seems like it's the kind of event that's so big that you basically shut down as you try to process what's happening. I was in a car crash once, and I was panicking the half-second before the crash, but right after it, I just sat there for a few moments, thinking, "Huh?" Then I sat there for another few moments, thinking various obscenities. Then I got out and started doing stuff like exchanging insurance information and calling the police. So, to me, at least, her response feels good.

re: ewolf: that's a fantastically imprecise question that can't really be answered without details on the political structure and economic system. China today, for instance, is theoretically communist in its political structure, even as its marketplace is openly capitalistic. Venezuela as well, in a different way. USSR was a lot less so, especially in the Brezhnev years (a gas station masquerading as a country, in the words of one analyst). All had significant differences.

so what might happen if you mix jungle with a temperate forest.

Does not compute. What interests you about doing this? What about them are you trying to combine?

Also, I have a problem that's kind of been preventing me from starting a story. The protagonist is a well-respected research fellow working at a major UK university (I don't plan on specifying which one) in late 1989, and he finds a major clue in some old records from the 1500s hidden in the depths of the school's archives, related to his area of study, that kickstarts his story. He'd want to preserve an image of these records for himself (to make it easy, I'll make it so that everything he really needs an image of is on one page), but I'm blanking on how he might accomplish this in late 1989 UK without damaging the original. Careful photocopying? A camera? Something else?

Might it be worth looking up the microfiche process? I'm not sure if the student would have access to the right kind of camera (unless they know someone), but it seems like a standard format.

They had mini film cameras in 1989. I remember them.

Maybe I used the wrong term- he's at least uni faculty (an immortal who stopped aging at 48) and it'd be in-character for him to seek research work as an excuse to get paid to pore over the school archives, but the rest of your point still stands. He is well-connected, and having him print off a copy or two from a microfiche image sounds sensible.

But was the image quality any good? He'd need to read the thing, too.

An expensive one would have been. An archivist would have known where to get one.

As long as he can get an easily readable print he can take with him of the part of the records he wants, it doesn't really matter which specific method he goes with, since the story is probably going to start with him poring over his notes and the print sometime after he gets it.

I mostly wanted to see if getting a good image of a fragile document in this situation would be feasible, or incur a significant time or monetary expense to him- I don't have any expertise in consumer imaging or university archiving technology of the era at all. Thanks for the help.

He should have no problem. Just take the picture, and then have it blown up to an 8 x 10 or something.

Depends on "easily readable". If he has access to a microfiche or microfilm reader it'll be easy.

Alright, thanks.

I read on Wikipedia that there are devices that can blow up an image on a microfiche and print it on paper. Which I imagine is a service a university library/archive that stocks microfiches could reasonably have. Again, thanks- both for helping me out, and for introducing me to an entire medium that I didn't even know existed.

Finally got the pilot of my web serial novel to a more or less satisfactory state. Now having some difficulties translating it to English. Two things:

1. I'm looking for a word or a phrase that can be interpreted as "having any kind of interpersonal relationship except a professional one" but carries strong implications that it means specifically a "sexual or romantic relationship". For the context: it is used in a document that illustrates the ethical code of a profession. I used "fraternize", but I'm having doubts that it conveys the necessary meaning.
2. Is there a slang term for "a lie, nonsense" that sounds more obscene than "bullshit"? Preferably, having or carrying the implication of Country Matters in it? For the context: the character who uses it is a Sir Swears-a-Lot, but the narrator of the story is a Lemony one who has the need to clean up the language a little, and the word "shit" was already used in its literal sense.

edited 4th Nov '16 10:15:57 AM by Millership

@Millership:

1) "Fraternize" actually works (as in, "co-workers shall not fraternize during work hours"), but if you want more sexual suggestiveness, then "intimate" might do it.

2) This is heavily dependent on the local culture of the speaker. Where I am from (the American Midwest) "bullshit" is the world we would use upon encountering a statement or situation that appears based on a confusing deception ("That [statement he just made] is bullshit!"). "Fucked-up" might be used if it appears that the statement or situation is based on a self-deception, or when the true cause isn't clear ("This is one fucked-up presidential campaign"). There is no association between such situations and female genitalia that I am aware of.

DeMarquis, thank you very much for your answer. But, concerning the second question, is there a strong cultural diversity of the words that are used in the first situation you suggested? If I'll just keep it "Your 'arguments' are bullshit", will it work?

why is it that this wiki has beef with kids lately? no offense but it seems to be a thing.

Would you mind elaborating? I don't really know what you mean.

i mean the forum members, few of them seem to not like idea kids doing anything important. like the more i see it, the more i feel literally horrible having most of protagonist being kids (well most of them are teenagers). heck, one of them owns a billion dollar corporation after their mom died. sorry if this comes off as well, how can put this...

edited 4th Nov '16 12:14:05 PM by ewolf2015

TBH, you're taking that way too seriously. It's okay to have kid heroes - you just need to accept that it's fundamentally unrealistic and not spend too much time trying to make it believable.

Short answer? That's your problem, not ours.

Someone had asked about the feasibility of the whole Kid Hero trope, and that produced a fairly fruitful conversation where the consensus was "if you're aiming for realism, don't". How you react to that consensus is your business, not anyone else's.

"Realism" is technically a spectrum of sorts; it's not a binary question where the only possible answers are "realistic" and "unrealistic". You have a "line" where its two ends are labelled "completely realistic" and "completely unrealistic", with a practically infinite number of possible positions between them.