Random Questions Thread

Long explanation behind my question, so have a link.

Imagine this scenario: A museum has been broken into, and there is good reason to believe the culprits had inside help. There's a reporter who needs to interview this person to get on-the-record confirmation of something another source had said Off the Record. How could she figure out who The Mole is? I considered having her pull a You Just Told Me or I Never Said It Was Poison, since she knows enough about the organization that did it to pull it off, but I'm not sure if that'd be an ethical way to go about it.

Frankly, your scenario doesn't make a lot of sense. A professional journalist who uncovers evidence of a crime is pretty much required to turn that over to the police, provided she protects the identity of her sources.

No real journalist would approach a potential criminal and ask for a confession. Not only would that be dangerous, but what kind of fool would admit it to a journalist?

Unless its a public official, but in that case she doesn't need the guilty party to admit anything. Standard procedure is to line up enough sources to make a public accusation against someone, then give the accused an opportunity to make a counter statement if they wish. The accused one is expected to deny it, but the news agency will want to be fair to them by giving them a chance to defend themselves.

This isn't for my writing, but I'm trying to find a word that I seem to have lost, and that doesn't seem to be coming up in dictionary, thesaurus, and reverse-dictionary searches. Thus I'm hoping that someone here will be able to help!

I'm looking for a word that means "applicable or useful in only limited cases".

For example, let's say that you're playing an RPG, you've just levelled up, and you're perusing the list of newly-available skills. One of these skills inflicts some status effect that's quite powerful—but that only a handful of enemies are prone to; most others are highly resistant to it. Thus, while the skill is effective, it will likely see use only in very specific cases. Thus you might say that this skill is rather <insert missing word here>.

(I'm tempted to think that the word is "conditional", which does pretty much fit—but I'm not seeing quite the intended usage in dictionaries, and it doesn't seem quite right to my memory. Still, it's possible that I've been using it in this way, and that my memory is being unreliable on the matter...)

Situational? Niche?

x 3 - Dang, I can't properly express how frustrated I am with myself for failing to think that through. In that case, I'm just going to re-think this whole thing. No one else except the perps themselves would even have this particular piece of information.

Edited by AgentKirin on Jan 19th 2020 at 12:39:54 PM

"Situational"! That was it, I do believe—ah, thank you! :D

Yay! You’re welcome!

For one of my work, I need to do research on orphanages in UK and Great Britain in 1990. Can someone suggest relevant articles or resources on the Internet?

Etymology question:

In the sequel short story to The Amida, there is a supernatural entity whose role is a protector to the Josaphat and a defender of the Ugama Cathay (Cathaic Religion). The titular supernatural being is based on Dharmapala, a type of Buddhist deity who protects Buddhists from threats and dangers.

I'm trying to create the Basa Amarelo (Amarelo language, pidgin) name for the supernatural entity. The etymology for the entity is based on Sanskrit Dharmapala in which is loaned to Chinese to Malay to Spanish/Portuguese, in which scribal errors occurred during the transmission of the word in different languages.

Does this make sense? From semi-scientifical angle? How do you think the existence and mundanity of such things would mesh with religions in general and monotheistic religions in particular?

In the world my other story is set in, 50% of the human species has super powers and the other 50% has the genetic potential but no powers. Kinda like people in real life have a gene for red hair but their hair isn't red but their descendant's can be. It generally looks/functions as Randomly Gifted, but this is because there have been superpowered "bloodlines" (with specific powers) since the missing link between man and ape millions of years ago, and people have had biological children with each other, and sometimes adopted other people's kids into their families, and in modern day donated sperm and egg cells to random people. This has resulted in the bloodlines getting so mixed with each other and normal people that literally everybody has some bloodline's genes (even if not active), and a very large amount of people has genes from several different bloodlines (but if they have powers, they'll only have one). This in turn results in the possibility of literally anybody being born with superpowers even if the family hasn't had superpowered members for centuries or the children of the same couple all having different powers, or a kid in a family with specific shared powerset having some other ancestor's powers as a some kind of genetic throwback. The vast majority of the powers are generally weak/useless (like secreting paint-like substance from fingertips or having gills or glowing in the dark) and actually dangerous powers (lightning, fire, Make Them Rot, and magnetism by the virtue of being one of things holding universe together) being extremely rare, so it doesn't change history at large much if at all. It's considered the natural state of things and there isn't any big stigma attached to superpowered people except that weirder powers might get laughed at and people with powers classified as dangerous (see above) are feared, registered and legally required to wear protective equiptment to protect people around them and prevent collateral damage (like one protagonist's father who has a rotting touch in one hand and wears a glove), but aren't arrested unless they are criminals or terrorists. Superhuman Trafficking, though, is a very real threat to shapeshifters and the dangerously powered for obvious reasons.

Edited by Nukeli on Jul 12th 2020 at 11:50:37 AM

Before I start, let me note that I'm no expert in this; the following are just my layman's thoughts. Thus please take the following with more than a pinch of salt.

On the religious side, given that superpowers go back that far, and are so ubiquitous, I'd expect little impact on religion; such abilities would be seen as normal human traits, I would imagine. (I could see the more-powerful abilities being viewed as divine gifts, however.)

One issue that might arise is the distinguishing of the superpowered from the truly miraculous; accounts of miracles might make a point of noting whether the people involved had previously evinced powers that might explain the events, or whether the variety of effects perhaps seems unlikely for ordinary superpowers.

(I wouldn't be surprised if there were some cases of people asserting that "<insert religious figure here> was just superpowered!". But given that superpowers have been around for so long, I'd expect that to have been addressed long before—perhaps even in the time of the figure in question.)

On the scientific side, my grasp of genetics is fairly limited, I fear, but I'm dubious of disparate powers turning up quite so frequently: I would expect, given that genes code for powers, that more often than not a person's superpowers would resemble those of their parents.

Compare, after all, with other atavistic traits: while throwbacks to distant genes might occur, more often children resemble their parents.

When there's a marriage resulting in kids, there's two parents with (hopefully) different genes, and their parents with different genes and so on, so i didn't think family members having different powers would be that impropable. It isn't very common though. I forgot to mention, the throwbacks are very rare and the only cases within the storyline are the protagonist (from his grandfather) and one of the minor villains (from some pretty distant ancestor).

Edited by Nukeli on Jan 22nd 2020 at 7:01:22 PM

I wouldn't expect atavistic superpowers to be significantly more common than normal atavistic traits; the same logic about their parents' genes applies in either case, I would think. As a result, I would expect that superpowers wouldn't appear to be Randomly Gifted, any more than comparable mundane genetics appear random.

As far as I know, many traits are not defined by a single gene, but rather as a combination of multiple different genes. And based on that, a child can have different powers than his parents, depending on how the genetic dice were rolled upon the child's conception.

Something like (roughly speaking) genes A B and C define the person's superpowers in pairs.

The father has Flight powers and AB genotype. The mother has Super-Strength and has BC genotype. Their child ends up with AC genotype which stands for Super-Speed powers.

Edited by Millership on Jan 22nd 2020 at 11:41:54 PM

I'll confess that my knowledge there is limited. Are there known traits that could appear random enough to fit into "Randomly Gifted" due to complex genetics?

I have 0 idea how real-life genetics work either. In the story most people are in some way connected to several bloodlines or at least one of them and the bloodlines have had millions of years to interbreed with humans and other bloodlines. That's why half the mankind has the powers and everybody has the potential, i thought it would be enough of a timeframe for the "everybody has superpowers/potential" concept to feel believable. So somebody manifesting a random bloodline's power could fall within limited possibility if they had the ancestry (it would appear random to people who don't know the guy's ancestors had the power, or even the character themselves if they didn't and nobody in the known family had it)... or at least readers would propably ignore the impropability because it's sci-fi. I still want things to seem like they could actually be possible

Edited by Nukeli on Jan 22nd 2020 at 10:39:47 PM

"Does this make sense?" I can answer this question.

And the answer is... sort of.

It is possible for a species to retain genetic material that does not often manifest physically (did you know that chickens retain the genes for producing teeth?). The reason that the latent genetic potential does not manifest is usually because there is another set of genes that are suppressing it. For this to occur, the first set of genes must come with a biological vulnerability of some kind, which cancels the benefit, while the second set of genes, the ones doing the suppressing, confers a benefit that is greater than the first one. Thereafter, the first, supressed set of genes might appear randomly due to natural mutation (which would make them much rarer than in your scenario), or is being preserved for other reasons (such as sexual selection).

Red hair is a good example among humans. Red hair is bio-chemically associated with certain other traits (pale skin) that delivers a vulnerability to an element of the environment (UV radiation). However, the vulnerability is relatively minor (we have been able to cover our skin with clothing for tens of thousands of years), so the trait doesn't entirely die out. Populations residing in northern latitudes are less exposed to high levels of UV radiation than other populations, so it is no surprise that red hair and pale skin corresponds to a strong regional variation (it is preserved in northern regions of the Euro-Asian landmass). Also, reportedly many people find red hair and pale skin sexually alluring, so sexual selection may also have a preserving effect. Nevertheless, it remains rare because it is a recessive gene (for reasons that we do not need to go into here), and that is ultimately a result of the fact that in most regions, darker hair and skin confer a survival advantage.

It's relatively easy to see how this might affect a gene complex for super-powers. Super powers obviously confer a survival advantage (duh), but maybe they also confer a vulnerability that outweighs the advantage over the course of a natural lifespan (a weakness in the immune system perhaps). In addition, there must also be a second set of genes that confers an advantage while suppressing powers (in this example, protection from disease). So, it remains rare in the general population. However, it doesn't go away, because in certain circumstances the advantages outweigh the cost (high rates of inter-group violence?), or because in certain regions the disadvantage is reduced (for example, certain continents like North America gave rise to a reduced diversity of pathogens than others), or because some people found them sexually attractive (not hard to imagine).

So it's possible for this scenario to be presented in a semi-plausible form, although working out the exact ecological mechanics might be a bit tricky. I would hand wave it, and get on with the story.

As for the effect on religion and popular culture, I would imagine that people would have a variety of reactions toward the super-powered, ranging from "admiring them from a distance" ("Ah, the candle that burns brightest burns out the quickest!"), to the judgmental ("God shows he hates the powered by reducing their lifespans!"). I would also imagine that the belief system that found a way to productively include them within the community would have an advantage over the others ("God judges you not by the power of your body, but by the power of your spirit!"). Have fun with it.

Edited by DeMarquis on Jan 22nd 2020 at 3:51:53 PM

I figure that your superpowers might require more than one protein to work, and both proteins need to be in a working state.

I wouldn't say that I have 0 idea—just not as much as, say, De Marquis up there seems to have.

What I'm saying is that we have other genes that have been with us for similarly long periods, and I imagine that some of those have variations. And yet—as far as I'm aware—atavistic randomness isn't common. More often than not, children resemble their parents.

So while I would expect occasional throwbacks to other lines, I would expect that it would be more common that a child would throw back only a few generations (see: red hair popping up in parents who both had a relatively-recent red-headed ancestor), and more common still that children would inherit powers resembling those of their parents.

To put it another way: it's true that sometimes chickens develop teeth; but it's pretty rare, too, if I'm not much mistaken. More often, like their parents, they have toothless beaks.

Now, if Millership's scenario holds, that might work. As I said there, I'm interested to know if there is precedent for a genetic set that results in outcomes essentially drawn from a pool (largely) at seeming-random.

One thing that I'll note is that, if 50% of humanity has powers, and if this has been so since before the rise of civilisation, I would expect powers to be pretty normalised in most cultures and religions. A few might take negative views of them, but I would imagine that such would be in the minority.

It might be argued that the case of misogyny is a counter-argument—but I suspect that the motivations and pressures there would be different.

What would the Basa Amarelo name for Dharmapala, Buddhist deities that protect Buddhists from danger and threats?

@Adept G: There is no way to know that without knowing how Basa Amarelo derives words from its' precursor languages. There are patterns to that sort of thing.

"Now, if Millership's scenario holds, that might work. As I said there, I'm interested to know if there is precedent for a genetic set that results in outcomes essentially drawn from a pool (largely) at seeming-random."

No, I'm not aware of any. Genetics doesn't really work like that. Gene complexes are extremely context dependent (I mean that they depend for their manifestation upon the action of other genes). "Mix and match" isn't the way it happens—new genetic variations build upon previous genetic variations, and everything in your body works together like giant jigsaw puzzle. Gene complex "A" was selected (or suppressed) because it had a specific effect on the ability of the organism to adapt to the environment—any gene or gene combination that produced random effects probably could not spread systematically throughout the population. There could be exceptions, where two previously unassociated gene complexes interact to produce a new effect, but that would be as rare as chicken teeth.

"One thing that I'll note is that, if 50% of humanity has powers, and if this has been so since before the rise of civilisation, I would expect powers to be pretty normalised in most cultures and religions."

I'm not so sure—I can think of at least one genetic phenotype that occurred at a rate of 50% of the general population for as long as humans have existed, and yet only became "normalized" very recently: being female. Sometimes the more common something is, the more threatening it seems.

@DeMarquis: The Basa Amarelo word for Dharmapala is based on the language change starting from Sanskrit all the way to Spanish and Portuguese.

The language change goes like this along with phonetic and spelling changes according to the etymological flow chart: Sanskrit dharmapala -> Chinese ? -> Malay ? -> Spanish/Portuguese ?

Edited by AdeptGaderius on Jan 22nd 2020 at 8:35:26 AM

I mentioned that briefly in my previous post—I'm not sure that the pressures would be quite the same.

That said, you do make a point about threat: superpowers could be seen as dangerous, and thus to be suppressed or controlled. That said, conversely, while men are on average likely to be stronger than women, and thus more capable of oppressing, I would expect non-supers to on average be less powerful than supers, and thus less capable of oppressing.

I'd thus see it as more likely that non-supers would be the underclass in this situation.

That seems likely to me too.

@Adept: I'm sorry, but I'm not sure anyone can really help you with something that complex. You need the advice of an actual linguist.