Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Wikipedia Reference Desk covering the topic of miscellaneous.

Welcome to the miscellaneous reference desk.
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

  • Provide a short header that gives the general topic of the question.
  • Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Post your question to only one desk.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. All answers will be provided here.
  • Specific questions, that are likely to produce reliable sources, will tend to get clearer answers,
  • Note:
    • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
    • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
    • We don't do your homework for you, though we’ll help you past the stuck point.
    • We are not a substitute for actually doing any original research required, or as a free source of ideas.

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

  • The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
Choose a topic:
See also:
Help desk
Village pump
Help manual

August 12

Can a wood-burning kit be used on LOM parts ?

The version of Laminated Object Manufacturing, that is, which creates wood-like parts by gluing layers of paper together, cut to specs. For example, could a person's name be burned into it ? StuRat (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

You should be able to do pyrography on it as the paper would be burnable or able to be blackened. However the glue may melt, or emit noxious fumes, or if you are not careful you might burn the whole lot up if you make it too hot! But what is your kit? Is it something like a soldering iron? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, like that. StuRat (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
That means that you can wipe off the tip by hand on a cellulose sponge when it gets covered in melted glue. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Science Fiction/Horror Short Story Title

I'm trying to find a short story for my girlfriend: she read it several years ago, but can't remember the title. It was about a cardboard box by the side of the road that a man driving noticed was moving like something that was alive. He staked it out and learned that it would crawl into the road at night and eat any roadkill that was there. It frightened him so much that the next day, he tried to drive over it and kill it, but instead the monster's teeth cut his brake line, and he drove off the road and died. This, at least, is the description my girlfriend gave me. Googling just gives pictures of boxes or roadkill (yuck). Any help is appreciated.OldTimeNESter (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The only Sci-fi I know of featuring an evil entity in a little box is Don't Open Till Doomsday, an original Outer Limits episode. StuRat (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • There is a novel (it may have been a short story at first) called Into the Out Of by Alan Dean Foster which features ravenous demons that may appear as roadside garbage. Even if this is not the same story, she may enjoy the novel (see the Amazon reviews). I only read about 1/3 of it, but my tastes in fiction have gotten much narrower, and I found the fantasy elements not worth struggling with the small print at my age. μηδείς (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe it is "Roadkill" by Mercedes Lackey.
Here is its entry in the SF Database.
I recommend checking out that page and seeing if your girlfriend recognizes the cover of any of the books that story has been published in. (Or if she subscribed to 'Fantasy' magazine in 1990.)
I notice Amazon has the story available on its own, for Kindle.
Hope this helps. ApLundell (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Here response was "That's IT! I love you SO much!" So yeah, it helped: thanks a million; you rock! OldTimeNESter (talk) 03:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

August 13

Emailing the IOC Executive Board

Hello everyone, I am looking into sending emails to the members of the IOC Executive Board. Would anyone happen to know their email addresses or where I could find them? There is a list of members here (then click on the "Composition" tab) and it has links to their IOC biographies. However, none of the bios have contact information. I would greatly appreciate any help. Thank you, Jith12 (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

You haven’t said why you wish to contact them so try [email protected] for your first initial contact. Aspro (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

August 15


When I open up an old radio I see a thing that appears to be coils of copper into which mains volts AC power goes in and DC volts power comes out. What is this device called? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

A Rectifier. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
The transformer would be the chunk of iroon with coils of wire around it, the rectifier would be some diodes on the output of the transformer. Dmcq (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
All those wires and stuff are why it's called a wireless. Obviously.  :) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Richard Armour described the wireless as, "Although it has a great many wires, there are less than there might be." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I'd have preferred it if he'd said "fewer than there might be", but we have what we have.  :) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 02:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I think what you are describing is the radio's power transformer, but you are mistaken in assuming that DC comes out of it. A transformer "transforms" AC voltage on its input to AC voltage on its output, usually at a different voltage but not necessarily so (see Isolation transformer). In a radio, the output of the transformer is connected to a rectifier (a radio tube or solid state semiconductor device) which changes the AC to DC. There may appear to be DC at your transformer's output, shown by a DC test meter, because of the action of the rectifier diodes, misleading you into thinking that the output from the transformer is DC. It's not. Akld guy (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
A journalist offered the position of "television and wireless correspondent" at the Daily Telegraph declined, although she pointed out that she was happy to take on the position of "television and radio correspondent", (which she did). Calling a domestic radio receiver a "wireless" or a "wireless set" dates the speaker - "wireless receiver" is a generic term referring to the technology of transmitting a message without sending it down a wire (wireless telegraphy). (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Please identify Chevy Avalanche transmission part


I only drive my 2003 Chevy Avalanche in winter, since it has lousy mileage but does have 4 wheel drive. I periodically move it in summer, so the tires won't get flats on them. The last time I tried this, it wouldn't switch gears. I looked under the truck, and found this part. Presumably, it fell off the transmission and this is the problem. I'd like to know the name of it, so I can call around and ask for prices to replace it. I's 2 7/8 inch long, from 3/4 inch to 1 inch wide, the projection is 1/2 tall and from 1/8 to 3/8 inch wide. The slot is 1/2 inch long and 5/16 inch wide. The semicircular notch has a 5/16 inch diameter. Thanks in advance ! StuRat (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it's Item 8 here and here. May want to check someone else though. --Jayron32 18:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. The item in the 2nd link looks similar, but lacks the semicircular notch and seems to have a circular hole rather than an elongated slot. The name "Automatic Transmission: Manual Control Lever" may be a good search term to use, and hints at the function. Maybe it toggles between 4WD and 2WD modes ? (This model doesn't require going under the truck to switch modes, but may still have that feature as a backup.) StuRat (talk) 20:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@Alison: knows the insides of cars pretty well. She's not as active as she used to be in Wikipedia, but perhaps she has some insight.--Jayron32 20:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Man, I have no idea what that is. The slot in it indicates that it rotates around a shaft; in other words, it's a lever. No idea other than that (ask me about VWs :) ) - Alison 04:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks. StuRat (talk) 05:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
The next place I would try, perhaps, is the Car Talk website. Their community forums continue to be pretty active, even though the show is no longer in production: [1]. --Jayron32 10:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
The reason that the part Jayron32 linked looks different is because it is for a 2016-17 Chevy. You stated that yours is 2003. What you have looks like any cable-pulled lever. You said you cannot shift, so it is most likely the lever between the transmission cable and the transmission control on the transmission itself. Yours should be on the driver's side of the transmission. Right now, you should see a cable dangling on that side, not connected to anything. It goes in and out when you shift gears. It should connect to the pointy end of the part you have and that part should be secured by a nut onto the transmission. It looks like you lost the nut and, eventually, the lever fell off. From memory, I believe you are in NZ, so I can't be certain that Chevy parts there are the same as in the US. I know that a Dodge Charger that I looked at in Spain had a completely different transmission than the same year model in the US. So, it is possible that the cable attaches on the top (like my Mercedes transmission does) or on the passenger side. Regardless, trace the transmission cable to the transmission and ensure that it is attached to a lever. If not, you have the lever and need to get a replacement nut. (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I am in Detroit. Is there no more specific name for it ? StuRat (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I get the most hits using "shift control lever." It really could be a lever for something else, but that wouldn't explain why you couldn't shift gears. If you can, look for the shift control cable. It should be connected to the shift control lever. If it isn't, then you know where your lever goes. The trick is, still, getting a nut to put it back in place. If your shift control cable is connected to a lever, then you have a lever for something else and you have to start over with diagnosing the shifting problem. Hopefully you have a way to jack up your vehicle nicely. I like rental mechanic bays myself, especially when they have tools you can use. I just did a smoke test on my evac system and I was very happy to borrow the tools instead of purchasing them for one stupid test. Luckily, I did find the evac leak and I don't have to deal with everyone telling me over and over "It's the gas cap, man." (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
One nice thing about the Chevy Avalanche is that it has plenty of ground clearance, so there's no need to jack it up to work under it, unless you are morbidly obese. StuRat (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

New look

Where can I read about the new look to Wikipædia? Stanstaple (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:News has a few good sources for news about Wikipedia (WP), including new features. What "new look" are you talking about? The site has changed a bit since 2001. Also, you can customize how WP looks using your browser settings, as well as your user preferences. See Wikipedia:Customization and Wikipedia:Skin. Anyway, if you tell us more about what you mean by the new look, we might be able to steer you in the right direction.
(N.B. Encyclopædia is an accepted variant of Encyclopedia, but Wikipedia is always spelt with a simple 'e'). SemanticMantis (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Unless they're talking about the Old English Wikipedia, but I don't know if that has a new look recently. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

August 16

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

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

Hmm, maybe 1973 oil crisis#Automotive industry can point you towards some info? Sorry, I'm not a gearhead. -- (talk) 04:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Heavy hoods had springs to assist lifting them, and still do. The cut-off would have more to do with "When do we go with another type of vehicle ?". Station wagons, for example, tended to serve the same role as mini-vans do now. Then there were pick-up trucks and cargo vans, but those were strictly for hauling cargo then, and not considered luxury vehicles. I would argue that handling was an issue, with sports cars rarely being very big, because they wouldn't handle well if they were. One thing I do recall being problematic was the size of doors on large coupes, making it a challenge to open the door in a parking lot unless there was an empty space next to you. If you wanted an extra large luxury car, there was always a stretch limo, then as now. StuRat (talk) 04:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
There were cars that were hitting limits in the early 70s. The Plymouth Road Runner, for example, put a lot of horse power in a cheap (and light) car. The end result was that the frame couldn't handle the engine and it would bend. At the same time, the Chevrolet Corvette was getting lighter and faster. I personally know of two guys who raced Corvettes at the time and they had their cars lift off the ground and flip over. One died. The other was paralyzed. After 1969, the Corvette was a little heavier and remained basically the same through the 70s. Large cars got larger and larger. By 1972, the Buick Electra was huge. My 72 Electra 225 was longer than a Cadillac (a very large car) and weighed a ton. It was 19 feet long and 5,000 pounds. Yes, that is as long as heavy as a modern Cadillac Escalade - but in a 4-door car. I got a whopping 6 miles to the gallon if I was light on the pedal. The gas shortages of the 70s killed off muscle cars. By 1980, the Mustang, Charger, and Camaro were just names, not muscle cars. I had a 1980 Mustang. A tiny engine in a light compact hatch-back. In my opinion, the auto industry pretty much gave up in the 70s, put out the same junk in the 80s as Japan took over a large chunk of the market, then pushed everyone to SUVs in the 90s. It isn't until very recent that they've attempted to rejuvenate the muscle cars. I personally trace it to the Dodge Magnum. Would anyone actually purchase a station wagon with a V8 Hemi? Yes. They all sold quickly. So, if people want a station wagon with 400 horsepower, they must want a sports car with at least that much. So, the Mustang, Charger, and Camaro are back. What I love about the cars right now is that we are greatly exceeding the horsepower of the late 60s with much higher gas mileage. My V8 Hemi with a CAI has over 500 horsepower and gets over 20 miles per gallon. I know that 20 mpg is low, but compared to the 6 I was getting in 72, it is great. My conclusion is that they found limits in the 70s and quit because of the gas shortage and then the influx of Japanese cars. Now, they are revisiting those limits and making larger cars and faster cars with much better gas mileage. (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Chinese jiao?

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

That's 8 jiao, which comes out to 8/10's of a kuai (i.e. 10 jiao = 1 RMB). You'll have to make a serious effort (or seriously get ripped off) to find any of the 1/100 RMB currency markers. The yellow coin should have a 5 on the other side (or at least the ones I handled did, though I did see some regional variation... And bills). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh yeah! Sorry. Yes, it does have a 5 on the other side. I forgot to mention that. So, how much is this in US currency? †dismas†|(talk) 02:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
0.8 RMB currently comes out to 12 cents (0.12 USD). The exchange rate usually hangs around 7 RMB = 1 USD,(oh, now that I've left it's back down to 6.6 RMB to 1 USD) though I found that treating 100 RMB bills like $20 bills (except when buying food) made more sense (it's what you get at ATMs, and something that'd cost $20 in the US usually goes for 100 RMB in China). When it comes to food, it's not hard to eat well for 15-25 RMB ($2 or $3). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! That's what I figured and that's what I exchanged it for when counting money in donation boxes for my local animal shelter. And I'll try to get better photos of these for upload to Commons. †dismas†|(talk) 02:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
We ain't got photos of those? I've got 1 and 5 jiao coins but also a 1 jiao bill, a 1 kuai coin (yuan, 1 RMB), as well as 10 and 20 RMB bills. (Also a bunch of JPY coins since I passed though Japan on the way out). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Not that I've seen. I'm adding mine now... †dismas†|(talk) 02:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
That's cool, I'd need to clean my coins off first anyway. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Btw, "kuai" is a slang term for "yuan", like "buck" for "dollar" or "quid" for "pound". I always find it a bit funny when people us it in otherwise non-slang writing. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, it's just easier for me because part of my brain always wanted to pronounce yuan like "yuwan" instead of "yen," and all the shop owners saying "kuai" reinforced that. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
My first Chinese teacher explained that "kuai" was used orally, and "yuan" in writing. I prefer Renminbi. DOR (HK) (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Steve Bannon's whiteboard

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

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

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

In legislation a "sunset clause" means that the powers expire automatically unless renewed. (talk) 09:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
So he's suggesting a new law that makes an old law expire, so that the old law is revisited? If it's easy to pass the new law, why not just revisit the old law straightaway instead? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
What it sounds like he's saying is he wants all visa laws - present and future - to include sunset clauses. This is done with some security laws, for instance the Patriot Act, most parts of which expire after 4 or so years unless renewed by Congress (this was done in 2006, 2011 and sort of in 2015) - the idea being that this stops the executive clinging on to irrelevant powers. Bannon probably sees two advantages here - one, visa quotas will be regularly changed to meet current conditions, and two, having to constantly defend them will exhaust pro-immigration politicians and make it more likely they'll compromise. Smurrayinchester 12:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. So one law could be passed that retroactively imposed "sunset" rules on all legislation relating to visas? Got it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I doubt if it means that. More likely it means that any new visa related laws should have sunset clause in them. Congress probably wouldn't have much interest in passing a law just to add a sunset clause. StuRat (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
It is easier to let old laws become desuetude and let the lawyers fight it out when someone decides to enforce an old law. That lies in the Executive branch though since the Legislative branch doesn't enforce laws (at least they aren't supposed to - try to explain that to the never-ending special counsels). (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Try to explain that ("desuetude"? "special counsels"?) to a Limey. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
"Desuetude" means "we don't enforce it anymore and pretend it doesn't exist to the point that if someone does enforce it, they are wrong in doing so." In US Congress, "special counsels" are groups of congressmen who get together to investigate something so they can find someone guilty of breaking some law or regulation and punish them. Recent examples: A special counsel to punish Trump based on the theory that he hired Russia to hack the election and a special counsel to punish Clinton based on the theory that she hired someone to kill a US ambassador in Benghazi. It should be obvious that I don't think that Congress should be doing their own criminal investigations. (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
We have a desuetude article. As for special counsels, I'm afraid you are mistaken. What you're thinking of is a select committee. The Benghazi stuff involved a select committee, as well as some ordinary Congressional committees. A special counsel is an executive branch official appointed to investigate a particular thing. Robert Mueller is currently serving as one. Special counsels were, for a time, "independent" officials appointed by Congress. This was instituted after Watergate, in which Nixon famously had the counsel investigating him fired, but this arrangement was allowed to end in 1999 after some felt Kenneth Starr committed abuses in his investigation of President Clinton. -- (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
In the case of the President, Congress is really all that can investigate, since anyone in the Executive Branch who would otherwise do such an investigation can just be fired by the President, as has just happened. Also, the Congress needs to run such investigations in order to know when to impeach the President. And, the allegation against Trump isn't that he hired Russia to hack the Democrats, but rather that Russia did it on their own, then shared the data with the Trump campaign to help elect Trump. Trump's public statement that the Russians should hack and release Hillary's emails, which may have contained national security info, certainly didn't help his case. StuRat (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
[Major sarcasm alert] That would be so practical. Look at the current administration's mountain of passed legislation. [/alert] Clarityfiend (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Egg only diet

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

Any mineral and vitamin not listed on This label. --Jayron32 13:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry but this is a very poor answer. You are saying that every single vitamin and mineral in existence that is not listed on that label is essential for human health (ie humans become deficient in them if not consumed). That's obviously not true. For example humans do not need silicate minerals and probably do not need the vast majority of minerals listed here. (talk) 14:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
No, but in the context of human nutrition, there are a known list of vitamins and essential minerals. You're as capable of comparing those lists as I am, and don't need me to insult you by reading both lists and subtracting those present in eggs. You can do that without anyone else's help. --Jayron32 16:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
It sounds like you have enough information to figure out the answer, and without further badgering of other users. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Here's a more complete list of egg nutrition: [2]. Vitamin C is entirely absent and niacin nearly so, so I suspect those would be the worst problems, leading to scurvy and pellagra. The lack of dietary fiber would also be a problem, along with other nutrients available only in low amounts, like copper. StuRat (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Which is exactly why chickens on board ships did not help with scurvy. The crew had to supplement their diet with a citrus fruit that would last a long time (limes were very common). (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • This is really a question for a dietician, who are licensed health providers. My vague, OR, unprofessional memory is that you can get by for a very long time on eggs, spinach, black beans, and etwas sonst. But ich bin kein physikant. μηδείς (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • This looks like a good overview of nutrition, with a "consumer version" and a "professional version". Eggs are mentioned in both versions. Bus stop (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
According to the UK National Health Service website here [[3]], the required vitamins and minerals that eggs don't give you are: vitamin C, vitamin E, vitamin K, folic acid, calcium, iron, beta-carotene, chromium, cobalt, copper and magnesium. Eggs however are a good source of vitamin A, thiamin B1, riboflavin B2, niacin B3, pantothenic acid, vitamin B6, vitamin B12, vitamin D and Selenium, although how many eggs you need to eat to get your recommended daily intake of those things, I don't know. Interestingly some of those things aren't on the ingredients label provided by Jayron.--Ykraps (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the link I gave above is more comprehensive, but you do need to scroll past the ads to get to the good stuff. StuRat (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Headlight turns off when turn signal blinks

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

Do you have any specific examples? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Think to OP means daytime running lights rather than headlights. This feature has been around now for along time (especial in Sweden) so it surprising that he has just noticed. This link give a source to modern lighting regulations and the reason why daytime running lights.Aspro (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Here in Canada I've seen this quite a bit. The headlights are also used as daytime running lights. With incandescent bulbs they were lit at lower intensity in this function, but now that some case have LEDs, the lower intensity is obtained by lighting only part of the LED array. And the bright white LEDs adjacent to the turn signal would distract from it, and therefore when the lights are in DRL mode, one headlight is deactivated when signaling a turn. This was just my personal observation and deduction until Aspro posted that, though. -- (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Think you might notice that the 'whole' array can also dim via the switched-mode power supply control. Rather than switching off some LED's. Aspro (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't surprise me that some designers might do that, but it's not obvious when they have, unless you see it changing modes. When some LEDs are off, it's obvious, so that case I've noticed. -- (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

August 17

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA