Which is correct, criterion- or criteria- in a compound adjective?

Question: Which is correct "criterion-based analysis" or "criteria-based analysis?" I have seen "criterion-referenced testing" and also "criteria-based assessment."  I understand "criteria" is the plural and I think this is a compound adjective.  So, as an adjective shouldn't "criterion" be invariable? I've seen academic writers use "criteria-based assessment" in scholarly research articles.  Thank you for your replies.
Comment: Would you say *a **child**-based analysis* or would you say  *a **children**-based analysis*?
Comment: Well, it would be correct if you're basing  your analysis on a single criterion. Is that the case?
Comment: I'm ready, willing and able to concede this as a lost cause in the US. Google Scholar seems to show about  3:1 in favor of "criteria-based" when I attempt to remove the most common collocations associated with the hyphenless forms. That results in about half with hyphens, and many of the non-hyphenated hits are still relevant. Try {"criteria-based" -on} for instance. You run the distinct risk of being a page into reading the paper and having people still puzzling over your title.
Answer: I would prefer "criterion-based" (just as I prefer "rule-based" to "rules-based"). To me, there doesn't seem to be any good reason to prefer "criteria-based": I think the context makes it fairly obvious that "criterion-based" could refer to something based on more than one criterion. But other people might have different opinions. I'm talking about "preferences" and "opinions" because if "criteria-based" is used by good writers in the relevant field, it seems pedantic to call it "incorrect".
"Criterion-based" seems to be more common than "criteria-based" in American English
I searched the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) and found "criterion-based" to have a frequency of 41, vs. "criteria-based" which only had a frequency of 7. All 41 examples of "criterion-based" came from an academic context, so it's not just a colloquialism.
I took a look at the collocates, and the only one where criteria-based was more common than criterion-based in the COCA corpus was with the word "selection", and that was only based on four examples of criteria-based used with "selection" vs. no examples of criterion-based used with "selection". (Google Books provides a number of examples of "criterion-based selection", so it isn't actually nonexistent.) With all other common collocates (such as "was", "strategies", "content", "assessment", "development", "performance", "test"), criterion-based was more common. My overall intepretation of this data would be that, in American English, criterion-based is more common than criteria-based in academic contexts; there are no clear differences in meaning and no contexts where the latter is clearly preferred.
(I haven't been able to get data that I trust from the Google Ngram Viewer because I'm somewhat uncertain about when it's interpreting the character <code>-</code> as a hyphen vs. as a minus sign. Regardless, none of the charts I saw when I was fiddling around with it showed "criteria-based" as being more frequent than "criterion-based" in either American or British English.)
Plural forms can be used in compound words; it's uncommon but not always incorrect
As you observe, nouns used as the first element of compounds in English are often invariant for grammatical number, taking the form of the singular. This is evident not only in the formation of compound adjectives, but also in the formation of compound nouns, or the use of the "attributive noun" construction (a noun placed before and used to modify the meaning of another noun).
However, it is not absolutely impossible for an attributive noun, or for a noun serving as the first element of a compound adjective, to be in the plural form.
The most uncontroversial examples are probably certain pluralia tantum where singularizing the word would give another word with a different meaning. Clothes are hung on a "clothes line", not on a "cloth line"; glasses are stored in a "glasses case" (or "eyeglass case"), not in a "glass case".
There is also a tendency, although not as strong, to use plural forms attributively for some other pluralia tantum. The singular form of "scissors" has no other meaning, and we do see "scissor" used as an attributive form or in compound adjectives, but some people use "scissors" in these contexts. So, there is variation between "scissors kick" and "scissor kick". Likewise, there is some variation between "pant leg" and "pants leg".
Shosht, in the comments, brought up another example that seems particularly relevant: "results-based" ("result-based" also exists, but seems to be less common).
Speakers sometimes allow things with irregular plurals that aren't normally allowed with regular plurals
There is apparently also an effect whereby irregular plural forms are more tolerated than regular plural forms as attributive nouns, although it doesn't seem overwhelmingly strong to me (see the examples "teeth-marks" and "mice-infested" in the following question: Irregular plurals in noun adjuncts, and the references to the literature discussing these examples).
A similar question, Grammatical number of Latin nouns used attributively before other nouns, provides the examples of multistrata cakes and multimedia ___.
I also think it's relevant to mention that, from a certain pedantic point of view, it could be considered "incorrect" to use any of the following words as singular nouns, since they are plural in Latin: agenda, data, stamina, media, insignia. People often disregard this and use them as singular anyway. (The specific patterns and histories of singular usage are different for each word, but my point is that rules can only tell you so much about matters of "correctness" for this kind of thing.) It seems likely to me that this is a large part of the explanation for the use of "data set" instead of "datum set", but that could also possibly be compared to the compound that you asked about. The use of "criteria" as a singular noun is currently not very common and not generally accepted, but it is apparently common enough at least for some sources to warn against this usage (see "criteria / criterion", Common Errors in English Usage), so there might be some small connection, at least for some people, between the nonstandard use of "criteria" as a singular noun and the use of "criteria-based". (For more on the grammatical number of "criteria", see "Criteria" versus "criterion")
Answer: You said it yourself:

I understand "criteria" is plural.

If the assessment of which you speak is considering (or factoring in) multiple criteria, "criteria-based" is correct. If the assessment is using only one criterion, then "criterion-based" is correct.
The question you should be asking, therefore, is "How many criteria are the basis of the assessment?" If the answer is one, use criterion-based; if two or more, use criteria-based.
Comment: Look up the relative number of Google  hits  for 'families-oriented' as opposed to 'family-oriented'. This answer is far too simplistic. And lacking in research.
Comment: @EdwinAshworth: My answer may be simplistic, but sometimes that's what is needed. I answered the OP's question in the most direct, succinct and, situationally speaking, correct way. Given the OP's reputation score, I think I made the right call. Sorry you disagree. Don
Comment: @EdwinAshworth, why is "family-oriented" the relevant standard here? How about "rule-based" vs "rules-based"? Google ngram indicates "rules-based" is far more common. An ngram search for "criteria-based" vs "criterion-based" 1980-2008 shows that "criteria-based" is widely used, especially in British books.
Comment: @sumelic, I would happily, if someone would point me to an explanation of how to do it. My attempt using [] () failed. (Google inserts spaces before & after the hyphen for you, to comply with its formatting requirements, when you enter a hyphenated term.) EDIT: I meant "results-based," not "rules-based."
Comment: @Shosht I didn't say that ' "family-oriented" [is] the relevant standard here'. I pointed out by using a counterexample that 'If the assessment of which you speak is considering (or factoring in) multiple criteria, "criteria-based" is correct. If the assessment is using only one criterion, then "criterion-based" is correct.', which seems to suggest that both forms are equally idiomatic, needs supporting evidence. I'm not saying that the huge preference for 'family-oriented' when obviously many families are being referenced demands that 'criteria-based' is unidiomatic. I'm asking for evidence.
Comment: @Shosht: can you link to the Ngram Viewer chart that shows rules-based vs. rule-based? I don't know how to accurately search the Google ngram database for hyphenated terms; my naive attempt shows "rule-based" as being more common: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=rules-based%2Crule-based&year_start=1940&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Crules%20-%20based%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Crule%20-%20based%3B%2Cc0
Comment: @Shosht: Oh, "results-based" being more common than "result-based" makes a lot more sense to me than "rules-based" being more common than "rule-based". I'm not confused any more :)
Comment: ... sumelic's answer is far less simplistic and mentions the fact that 'nouns used as the first element of compounds in English are often invariant for grammatical number, taking the form of the singular'. It's a far more detailed answer, but I can't upvote as it too lacks actual examples / usage data.
Comment: Thank you, everybody, for your thorough and thoughtful replies. While I might prefer criterion-, personally, I can see how criteria-based could be acceptable as a commonly used term in our field.


Simple proof for horizontal zero density estimate for the Riemann-Zeta-function

Question: Let $N_c(T)$ denote the cardinality of the set $\{\rho | \zeta(\rho)=0 \text{ and } \Re \rho > c \text{ and } 0 \leq \Im \rho \leq T\}$.
I am trying to find a prove for the fact
$$N_c(T) = o(T)$$
whenever $c > \tfrac 12$. This result follows from any (good) horizontal zero-density estimate. For example the bound $N_c(T) \ll T^{\frac {3(1-\sigma)}{2-\sigma}}\log(T)^{15},$ which is due to Ingham, readily implies the above. However most of these results are rather hard to prove, and a lot stronger than the above. So I am wondering: Is it possible to show this with simple methods?
Answer: Counting zeros of $L$-functions is generally a problem that requires some machinery to tackle. To my knowledge, the proofs of estimates like the one you wrote all require a form of Montgomery's zero detection method. Chapter 10 of Iwaniec and Kowalski's Analytic Number Theory begins with a three page proof of the estimate
$$
N(\sigma,T) \ll T^{4(1-\sigma)}(\log T)^{13}.
$$
The proof is relatively easy to follow, but it still relies on producing "zero-detecting" Dirichlet polynomials, i.e. functions
$$
D(s) = \sum_{n} \frac{a_n}{n^s}
$$
that attain unusually large values at zeros of $\zeta(s)$. Estimates for $N(\sigma,T)$ have implications for the distribution of primes in short intervals, so you should expect any result of the form $N(\sigma,T) = o(T)$ to be of comparable difficulty. For instance, the estimate I wrote in the first display implies that every interval of the form $[x,x+x^{3/4+\epsilon}]$ contains a prime. Even to prove that the (much longer) intervals $[x,x+x/\log x]$ always contain a prime requires the Prime Number Theorem.
With all that being said, I doubt that one can prove $N(\sigma,T) = o(T)$ using methods that most would consider "simple."


Improving My Range

Question: I am a 15-year-old female, and I am currently a high soprano. I can currently sing from a low C4 to a high F above the bar. Is there a way I could get higher and become a coloratura soprano or gain an octave?
Comment: C4 to F6 is a very very good range. Try not too hard to increase your range, as it might damage your voice. At 15 your voice might still change due to biological reasons, so take it slowly and steady.
Answer: You already have a full soprano range: C4 to F6. Coloratura is a vocal quality, not a range. Coloratura voices generally have a light quality to them, as opposed to the more powerful voice of a dramatic soprano. Coloraturas specialize in highly decorative passages with lots of runs, trills, and other ornaments.
So coloratura is a skill to develop if you have a lighter-sounding voice. At 15 your vocal color may still be changing, but you'll have to wait and see.

Also of interest...

Lyrical Contralto vs Dramatic Mezzo-soprano
Will my voice get any higher?
Answer: You dont just simply add a octave. Most singers range is between an octave and maybe a 10th. Even then a 10th is extraordinary.
Singing around middle C is hard for soprano and very few ever get to the fabled nessum dorma high B.
Your range will gravitate between the E above middle C to the G a tenth above it. That is fine. You will have to become pretty great before any more is required.
Colatura as a style is not dependant on any particular range for the soprano at least. It is more to do with a style that is rich in ornamentation. This makes it very demanding to the singer and only the really great female singers ever excel at it.
Dame June Sutherland probably being the greatest singer of this type in 20th century.

Improving My Range


Separable sigma-algebra: equivalence of two definitions

Question: The two definitions alluded to in the title can be found in the relevant Wikipedia entry (one is that the $\sigma$-algebra is countably generated, the other is pretty much the standard usage of the word separable wrt the semi-metric given by the measure). Why are they equivalent?
Comment: For convenience, I copied the Wikipedia article in a community wiki answer.
Comment: I'm too lazy to try to prove this right now, but where does your proof get stuck?
Comment: Say the $\sigma$-algebra is countably generated. How do I pick the countable dense subset in the semi-metric given by $\mu(A\Delta B)$?
Comment: Kestutis, I explain how to do this in my updated answer. You can use the finite Boolean combinations of the generating set.
Comment: As this is an important question I just want to summarise the key points from the different answers below: $(X,\mathcal{S},\mu)$ is a measure space. **(I)** The semi-metric $\mu(A \triangle B)$ is separable **if and only if** $\exists$ countable set $\mathcal{S}_0 \subset \mathcal{S}$ s.t. $\mathcal{S} \subset \sigma(\mathcal{S}_0 \cup \mathcal{N}_\mu)$. **(II)** It is possible that the semi-metric $\mu(A \triangle B)$ is separable but there is no countable set $\mathcal{S}_0 \subset \mathcal{S}$ s.t. $\mathcal{S} \subset \sigma(\mathcal{S}_0 \cup \mathcal{N}_{\mu|_{\sigma(\mathcal{S}_0})})$.
Answer: The two notions are not equivalent. Indeed, they are not
equivalent even when one considers completing the measure
by adding all null sets with respect to any countably
generated $\sigma$-algebra. Nevertheless, the forward
implication holds.
First, let me explain the forward implication. Suppose that
$S$ is a $\sigma$-algebra generated by a countable
subfamily $S_0$ and $\mu$ is a finite measure defined on
$S$. The semi-metric on $S$ is defined by
$d(A,B)=\mu(A\triangle B)$. Let $S_1$ be the collection of
finite Boolean combinations of sets in $S_0$. This is a
countable family, and I claim it is dense in the
semi-metric. To see this, let $S_2$ be the closure of $S_1$
in the semi-metric, that is, the sets $A\in S$ that are
approximable by sets in $S_1$, in the sense that for any
$r\gt 0$ there is $B\in S_1$ such that $d(A,B)\lt r$. Note
that $S_2$ contains $S_1$ and is closed under complement
since the measure was finite. I claim it is also closed
under countable unions: if each $A_n$ is approximable by
$B_n$ to within $r/2^n$, then $\cup_n A_n$ is approximated
by $\cup_n B_n$ to within $r$, and so one may find an
approximating finite union. So $S_2$ is actually a
$\sigma$-algebra, and since it contains $S_0$, it follows
that $S_2=S$. That is, every set in $S$ is approximable by
sets in $S_1$, and so $S_1$ is a countable dense set in the
semi-metric, as desired.
Let's turn now to the reverse implication, which is not
generally true. The easiest counterexample for this in the
strict sense of the question is to let $X$ be a set of size
continuum and $S=P(X)$, the full power set of $X$. This is
a $\sigma$-algebra, but it is easily seen not to be
countably generated on cardinality grounds. Fix any $p\in
X$ and let $\mu$ be the measure placing mass $1$ at $p$ and
0 mass outside {p}. In this case, the family {emptyset, X}
is dense in the semi-metric, since every subset is
essentially empty or all of $X$, depending on whether it
contains $p$. So the semi-metric is separable, but the
$\sigma$-algebra is not countably generated.
Note that in this counterexample, the $\sigma$ algebra is
obtained from the counting measure on {p} by adding a large
cardinality set of measure $0$ and taking the completion.
Similar counterexamples can be obtained by adding such
large cardinality set of measure $0$ to any space and
taking the completion.
At first, I thought incorrectly that one could address the
issue by considering the completion of the measure, and
showing that the $\sigma$-algebra would be contained within
the completion of a countably generated $\sigma$-algebra.
But I now realize that this is incorrect, and I can provide
a counterexample even to this form of the equivalence.
To see this, consider the filter $F$ of all sets $A\subset
\omega_1$ that contain a closed unbounded set of countable
ordinals. This is known as the club filter, and it is
closed under countable intersection. The corresponding
ideal $NS$ consists of the non-stationary sets, those
that omit a club, and these are closed under countable
union. It follows that the collection $S=F\cup NS$, which
are the sets measured by a club set, forms a
$\sigma$-algebra. The natural measure $\mu$ on $S$ gives
every set in $F$ measure $1$ and every set in $NS$ measure
$0$. This is a countably additive 2-valued measure on $S$.
Note that every set in $S$ has measure $0$ or $1$; in
particular, there are no disjoint positive measure sets. It
follows that the family {emptyset,$\omega_1$} is dense in
the semi-metric, since every set in $S$ either contains or
omits a club set, and hence either agrees with emptyset or
with the whole set on a club. Thus, the semi-metric is
separable. But for any countable subfamily $S_0\subset S$,
we may intersect the clubs used to decide the members of
$S_0$, and find a single club set $C\subset\omega_1$ that
decides every member of $S_0$, in the sense that every
member of $S_0$ either contains or omits $C$. This feature
is preserved under complements, countable unions and
intersections, and therefore $C$ decides every member of
the $\sigma$-algebra generated by $S_0$. The completion of
the measure on the $\sigma$-algebra generated by $S_0$ is
therefore contained within the principal filter generated
by $C$ together with its dual ideal. This is not all of
$S$, since there are club sets properly contained within
$C$, such as the set of limit points of $C$. Thus, this is
a measure space that has a separable semi-metric, but the
$\sigma$-algebra is not contained in the completion of any
countably generated $\sigma$-algebra.
Comment: Why is every $A\in S$ obtained by a union of the form you're claiming?
Comment: Indeed, the Borel $\sigma$-field on $\mathbb{R}$ is generated by the countable family of intervals with rational endpoints, but certainly not every Borel set is a countable union of such sets and their complements!  (Any closed bounded set is already a counterexample.)
Comment: Nate, of course you are right, since the closure process generally proceeds in an $\omega_1$ hierarchy, so this part of my argument is wrong. But I've realized that the equivalence is not correct even when one considers the completion, and I'll update my answer shortly to explain.
Comment: I updated my argument. The example shows that from separability in  the semi-metric space, one cannot necessarily find the $\sigma$-algebra in the completion of a countably generated $\sigma$-algebra.
Comment: I have now added a proof of the forward implication.
Comment: The $\sigma$-algebra $S$ above is the collection of sets $A$ such that either $A$ or its complement contains a club. This is precisely the Borel $\sigma$-algebra of $\omega_1$.  See a review of these matters in "A classification of ordinals up to Borel isomorphism", Gao-Jackson-Kieftenbeld, Fund. Math. 198 (2008), 61--76.
Answer: The wikipedia article is misleading. These two definitions are not equivalent.
The first definition makes sense for the $\sigma$-algebra of Borel sets on a topological space. If the space is Borel standard (that is, a Borel subset of a complete separable metric space), then it is countably generated. Note that a countably generated $\sigma$-algebra in the sense of the first definition has the cardinal of the continuum, this is proven just as for the $\sigma$-algebra of Borel set in [0,1], by a transfinite induction.
The second definition makes sense up to null sets. It is equivalent to saying that the algebra is generated by a countable collection of subsets, together with the null sets, and it is in my opinion a better definition. The collection of null sets (and their complementary sets) usually have a cardinality greater than the continuum if the $\sigma$-algebra is complete w.r.t the measure, hence it is cannot be countably generated. Here again, you may think of the Lebesgue measurable sets in [0,1]. This is not countably separated in the sense of the first definition, for cardinality reasons, but this is countably generated in the sense of the second definition.
Now let me add a few words to explain what is going on with the second definition. Putting the metric $d(A,B)=\mu(A\Delta B)$
on the $\sigma$-algebra amounts to embedding the $\sigma$-algebra in $L^1$ with the map $A\rightarrow {\bf 1}_A$ and recovering the distance from the $L^1$ norm: $d(A,B)=||{\bf 1}_A-{\bf 1}_B||$. This should explain why the $\sigma$-algebra is separable in the sense of the second definition if and only if $L^1$ itself is separable, and also prove that the  collection of Lebesgue measurable sets is a separable $\sigma$-algebra.
Comment: Why does the first definition only makes sense for $\sigma$-algebra of Borel sets?

Why is the second definition \emph{equivalent} to saying that the algebra is generated by a countable collection of subsets, together with the null sets?
Comment: @Kestutis. I should have said: the first definition is useful when studying Borel sets, but is too restrictive when studying e.g. Lebesgue measurable sets. Now for the equivalence, this comes from the fact that any subset (in our case {1_A, A measurable}) of a separable metric space (in our case L^1)  is separable. And from the fact that 1_{A_n} converges to 1_A in L1 norm iff A=limsup A_n=liminf A_n up to a negligible set. See e.g. the book of Dudley, "Real analysis and probability".
Answer: [Edited 10/22/15: there were embarrassing errors in my original answer, which were pointed out in another question; I've corrected these, and I've written up further details in a blog post.]

I'm late to the party, but here's my two cents.  References in what follows are to

[Ha] P.R. Halmos, Measure Theory, Springer, 1950.
[Ro] V.A. Rokhlin, On the fundamental ideas of measure theory, Transl. AMS, Series 1, No. 10 (1952), 1-54.  (The original Russian article is from 1949.  A pdf of the English translation is presently available here.)
[JDH] will denote the answer already given to this question by Joel David Hamkins.

Consider a measured $\sigma$-algebra $(S,\mu)$.  Assume that $\mu$ is normalised to have total weight 1, and that $S$ is complete (contains all subsets of null sets).
In [Ha], $(S,\mu)$ is said to be separable if it has a countable subset that is dense w.r.t. the metric $\rho(A,B) = \mu(A\bigtriangleup B)$.  We denote this property by (S).
In [Ro], $(S,\mu)$ is said to be separable if it has a countable subset $\Gamma$ such that for every $A\in S$, there exists $B\in \sigma(\Gamma)$ such that $A\subset B$ and $\mu(B\setminus A) = 0$.  Here $\sigma(\Gamma)$ is the $\sigma$-algebra generated by $\Gamma$.  (In fact, Rokhlin's definition is given for a measure space, not just a measured $\sigma$-algebra, and requires that $\Gamma$ separate points of the space.)  Since we're already using the word "separable" for (S), let's say that in this case $(S,\mu)$ is one-sided countably generated mod zero, and denote this property by (CG0+).
So that's two conditions.  Another natural condition would be that $S$ itself is countably generated, that is, that $S = \sigma(\Gamma)$ for some countable $\Gamma$; call this (CG), and not that it applies to the Borel $\sigma$-algebra on $[0,1]$, but not the Lebesgue $\sigma$-algebra.  The latter satisfies the weaker condition (CG0+), and hence is also countably generated mod zero, meaning that there is a countable $\Gamma \subset S$ such that for every $A\in S$, there exists $B\in \sigma(\Gamma)$ such that $\mu(A \bigtriangleup B) = 0$.
(In the previous version of this answer I got carried away and also defined (S1), one-sided separability, to be the property that every $A\in S$ and $\epsilon>0$ there exists $B\in \Gamma$ such that $A\subset B$ and $\mu(B\setminus A) < \epsilon$.  As was correctly pointed out by Rina Shora and Nik Weaver on another question, this fails to hold for even the most standard examples.)
It is immediate that (CG) $\Rightarrow$ (CG0+) $\Rightarrow$ (CG0), and [JDH] shows that (CG0) $\Rightarrow$ (S) (it is written with (CG) in mind, but works just as well for (CG0)).  In fact one can also show that (S) $\Rightarrow$ (CG0) (details are in this blog post) -- that is, separability is equivalent to being countably generated mod zero -- and that the first two implications above are strict (the Lebesgue $\sigma$-algebra satisfies (CG0+) but not (CG), and the $\sigma$-algebra of Lebesgue subsets of $[0,1]$ with measure 0 or 1 satisfies (CG0) but not (CG0+)).
Finally, another related condition would be that $S$ is contained in the completion of a countably generated $\sigma$-algebra; this property lies somewhere between (CG) and (CG0), but its relation to (CG0+) is not clear to me.
The example in [JDH] involving the club filter shows that (S) (and hence (CG0)) is not enough to imply this condition.
Answer: Here is the Wikipedia text in question.

In mathematics, σ-algebras are usually studied in the context of measure theory. A separable σ-algebra (or separable σ-field) is a sigma algebra that can be generated by a countable collection of sets. To learn what is meant by the σ-algebra generated by a collection of sets, refer to the article on sigma algebras.
A separable measure space has a natural metric that renders it separable as a metric space. The distance between two sets is defined as the measure of the symmetric difference of the two sets. Note that the symmetric difference of two distinct sets can have measure zero; hence the metric as defined above is not a true metric. However, if sets whose symmetric difference has measure zero are identified into a single equivalence class, the resulting quotient set can be properly metrized by the above metric. If the measure space is separable, it can be shown that the corresponding metric space is, too.


Wiggle Path Effect in Geometry Nodes

Question: Hi would love some geometry nodes help. I'm trying to recreate this effect in geometry nodes. Wiggling noise along a path. This was done with the wiggle paths layer effect in After Effects. Any advice is appreciated.
Video Effect Example Here
Comment: Hello and welcome. While files, images, and external videos or links may be helpful additions they should not be the only way to obtain information about your issue. Don't make understanding your question rely on downloading a file, watching a video or visiting an external site. Use the builtin tools to upload [images](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/75491) or [gifs](https://blender.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/963), along with thoroughly explaining the problem in written form so it can be indexed and searched for thus helping future visitors with similar issues.
Answer: with this node tree

you will get this:

As you can see i even added a multiply node before the scale so you can change the "height" of the noise as well.
Of course you could do the same after the scene time node to influence the speed of the animation.
Playing with the scale and other parameters of the noise texture should give you the animation you want.

Wiggle Path Effect in Geometry Nodes


Weighted Wilcoxon ranksum test

Question: I am using Stata for a survival analysis project involving inverse probability weighting (IPW). The question has arisen as to how to analyze weighted continuous data between two groups with a Wilcoxon rank sum test? Is this easily implemented in any other package?
Comment: What about a jonckheere-terpstra test weighted by the inverse probability density weight?
Comment: Why not just convert the values to ranks, then use a weighted T-Test?
Answer: There may be an easy way to do this, but it's not obvious to me what that would be. The Wilcoxon test sort of implicitly gives equal weight to each of the observations because it relies on the randomization distribution for the null hypothesis.
One possibility may be to do a bootstrapping sample from your data with the new probability weights rather than the uniform distribution and calculate the Wilcoxon statistic on that, but you would have to do the math on what the large sample variance of that statistic is. That might be something you could work out in an afternoon, but I don't think it's trivial.
Another option is that you could use a difference in means test instead of the Wilcoxon, though the variance of that with the new weights is not trivial either and it may be intractable for survival data.
This is a tough problem.

Weighted Wilcoxon ranksum test


What is the most appropriate way to cite a tweet or social media post?

Question: I was writing an essay discussing the history of a particular concept in recent times. Because a lot of social interaction, even amongst academics, is on social media like Twitter nowadays, I was wondering what is the most appropriate way to cite a tweet, Youtube video, or other social media post? I wanted to cite the original tweet or post rather than referencing second-hand news articles that may report the original with some slant to allow researching readers to come to their own conclusions. I'm especially wondering because news articles reporting hot-takes are more likely to stay around, whereas the original tweets often get deleted by the original authors or moderation teams.
Answer: If your essay will live on a rich platform, the most appropriate way of referencing a tweet or YouTube video is by embedding them into your article with a caption that includes a link to the person's channel or Twitter profile. Let the tweet or video speak for themselves.
Otherwise, a link should suffice.
If your article will be printed, you might want to include a full link to the tweet.
I should point out the fact that tweets are somewhat ephemeral. YouTube videos live forever. It's not the case with tweets. Unless the account is gov or org related, or at least verified, I wouldn't consider a tweet as a reliable citation. The reason is two-fold:

Everybody can delete their tweets whenever they so choose.
A reliable Twitter account is at least verified by Twitter. Otherwise you have no way to verify that the person is who they claim to be.

Your citation standard should incorporate these facts when citing resources from the internet.


How to upgrade from elementary OS Freya 0.3.1?

Question: I am currently running elementary OS Freya 0.3.1 and am looking for an upgrade.Which would be most suitable to upgrade too and how would I do this.I have seen some talking about clean installs,which version should I use and how would I do this.
Thanks
Answer: Currently, development is working towards elementaryOS 6 which should come out sometime this year, 2021.
At this time, elementaryOS 5.1 Hera, the latest release, is recommended.
You can grab the ISO from elementary's website and follow their installation instructions to perform a clean install.
This will overwrite all the data on your disk so first backup all your necessary data to the cloud, another computer, and/or an external drive.
Make sure to test your backup so you're certain all of your important data is accessible and valid.


What is your preferred size and number of monitors?

Question: Do you like to have a single giant monitor, a couple mid-sized monitors or some other configuration? Specifically, I'm interested in your home general purpose computer system.  (No media centers or netbooks)
Comment: Switched this topic to CW because it is inviting more open-ended discussion.
Comment: Thanks.  I'll try to remember that for appropriate questions in the future.
Answer: 3x 21 inches. It gives you a clear "primary" monitor to work on with a couple of secondary monitors to integrate with. Too much more than 21" and it is hard to fit it on a desk.
Comment: I assume these are 4:3 monitors which you can't find any more.
Answer: At home I have two 22" widescreen LCDs.
At work I have three (perhaps a little overkill).
Answer: I have one 22'' monitor with Full HD - 1920x1080. Most 22'' do not offer such resolution, but some manufactures create such. At work I have two 1280x1024 monitors, but I found one big monitor more useful.
Answer: I'd love to have three 1280x1024s, but for space and pocketbook reasons I have one 1280x1024 and one 1024 x 768 at home at the moment.
I'm probably in the minority in that I'm not a huge fan of going larger than 1280x1024. Any larger than that and I start having to do desktop window management instead of just maximizing everything. Kind of a pain.
All widescreen desktop monitors need to die in a fire.
Answer:
at least 3 monitors
no smaller than 19" diagonal
no smaller resolution than 1280x1024

This leaves quite a bit of possibilities out there.  Widescreen is a plus, if you can get a desk to accommodate the additional space needed.  It's also a setup that is within reasonable reach of mom-and-pop, i.e. it's a realistic goal that can be achieved by them if they want it.  Spending thousands for ultra-high-end monitors is nice but frankly not everyone can plunk down that kind of money, especially if they have a house, kids, cars, cards, etc.
Answer: Recent videos:
 - Stretched video
 - Stretched game
My rig:

Still looking. Current plan is six 22" widescreens side by side in portrait mode.
Answer: I have this fantasy of having a 30" (2650x1600) flanked by a pair of 20" 4:3 (1600x1200) rotated into portrait mode.
At work I have a 20" 16:9 1680x1050 + 17" 4:3 1280x1024, and it's not nearly enough pixels.
Comment: I've had that configuration for a few years now.  Outside of gaming, it's great 99% of the time: the remainder I wish had had 2nd 30" to put 2 big windows side by side.  Gaming is a minor disappointment since none of the multimonitor tools place nicely with a PLP layout.  http://orthogonaltonormal.com/midden/NewYearsResolution_4960x1600.jpg
Comment: @DanNeely: Jealous!  :-D
Answer: It's a matter of personal taste, however one thing I have found extremely useful over the years is to set aside a single monitor (preferably widescreen) rotated into portrait mode exclusively to read ebooks and pdf documents from.
It comes in especially handy if you are a developer and are reading a computer ebook on one monitor and trying out the examples in your IDE on the other.
Answer: x2 at 24". Oh, and 1920x1200 minimum or bust. No point having them that large unless they support a good resolution.
Having them both height adjustable is also nice. We have one developer here at work that has dual-24"s but are sitting on two cooking pots to so they are higher.
Answer: It depends on what I am doing.  At home for email and web surfing a MacBook Pro with a 15" screen is plenty. At work a 23" Cinema display (1650X1080) and a 24"(1900X1200) Dell are adequate for writing software all day.  For work I don't think I could go back to a single monitor.
Answer: I should add in my own thoughts on this.
Number: 4
Size: 20"- 22" (going for 22" in the future)
Layout: Upside down T (3 on bottom row, one above)
Answer: My preferences are, in order:
1) Multiple large monitors (2-3) (for example, any size apple cinema display)
2) multiple smallish identical (2-4) high contrast 1600x1200 or better monitors
3) a single large monitor (cinema display size)
I like multiple screens for gaming, or be able to dedicate different screens to different things (like VMWare sessions or video)
Answer: I have three monitors side by side, don't know the exact measurements and I'm too lazy to do that.
They are the same height and only the one in the middle is wide. Sometimes, I will arrange that same screen vertically when I'm leading with large chunks of code.


How can I edit a shape-key mid-range without drivers?

Question: For example, the model I am working on will need shape keys for blinking, adding a shape key is simple enough but turns out when I set the key to 0.8 the eyelid is clipping through the eyeball before falling into place on 1.0 where it looks normal, so how can I edit the shape key at 0.8 so it doesn't clip? every time I try to go back on the range slider and edit all changes are added up to the maximum range and so it would affect how the shape key looks at 1.0, since the model has to be exported to work on a game engine it needs to have single shape keys to assign on certain functions.
Comment: i have same problem with round eye extruded, you can also make the eye close in the 'middle' for this case. so top lid closing half and the bottom lid closing half
Answer: Shape keys can be used to change a mesh shape with a certain amount of vertices into an other shape with more (or less) vertices. But for the sake of (my) argument lets assume it is the same amount of vertices for the start and end shape. The same way i think you are using shape keys.
In that case i believe a shape key can be seen as a recording of two location coordinates for every vertex in the mesh. (a recording like an animation keyframe). One for the start shape and one for the end shape.
I think (when the shapekey Value is changed from 0 to 1) an individual vertex moves from its starting position to its end position traveling the shortest possible distance. In other words, it moves in a straight line.
If i understand (or imagine your problem) correctly, you are essentially asking if a vertex (part of a single shapekey) can have a third coordinate location (like an animation keyframe) along the way. A third location it would be at if the Value is somewhere between 0 and 1, and that is not somewhere on the strait line between the start and end location. I'm pretty sure at the moment it can't.
Probably there is some other solution to your problem, but i think you would have to approach your problem (and possibly phrase your (new) question) differently.
Hope that gives some insight : )
Comment: Yep, that's exactly my problem here.


When 'lapped cars may overtake', can you unlap yourself more than once?

Question: With Latifi being 5 laps down at the end of the 2020 Hungarian Grand Prix, I wonder... if a safety car were to be deployed, and at some point lapped cars were allowed to overtake, could Latifi have gotten all 5 laps back, or would he only have been allowed to unlap himself once, therefore staying 4 laps down?
Comment: I don't think so, but the rules are surprisingly unclear on this.  I'll wait for someone more well versed in F1 to post, before I answer if nobody does in a day or so.
Comment: The rules are really unclear, but @Joe is right. You can unlap *once* during SC. I can't back it up, so only via comments.
Answer: TL;DR: the main purpose of that rule is getting the lapped cars out of the way of the leaders during the restart by sending them to the back of the pack, it's not a rule allowing them to unlap themselves several times.

No, Latifi (or any other car in his situation) could not benefit from that in the way you described.
As the FIA's sporting regulation explains in article 39.12:

If the clerk of the course considers it safe to do so, and the message "LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" has been sent to all teams via the official messaging system, any cars that have been lapped by the leader will be required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car. This will only apply to cars that were lapped at the time they crossed the Line at the end of the lap during which they crossed the first Safety Car line for the second time after the safety car was deployed.

The main reason for that article is to get the lapped cars out of the way of the leaders. For instance, imagine a potentially thrilling restart having Hamilton in first place, Bottas in second but, between them, a slow backmarker Williams. That would ruin any chance of Bottas challenging Hamilton during the restart. That's the only reasoning for that rule, which was re-implemented in 2012 (article 40.12 back then) after being dropped in 2009.
You could argue that the situation you described is not specifically and explicitly mentioned in the rule, but since the very objective of that article is clear to FIA and all drivers/teams this very specific detail is not exactly necessary. On top of that it's worth saying that if your scenario were possible the article should mention it, indicating that cars several laps down could overtake the leader several times. Finally, to make your scenario even more impossible, the rule clearly says Latifi can "pass the cars on the lead lap", so if there is another car 1 or more laps down in front of him Latifi could not overtake it (not even once).
Therefore, in that situation, the Williams would overtake and rejoin at the back of the field, thus not getting in the way of the leaders anymore (again, the whole objective of that article), but it would be able to unlap itself only once.
Answer: I'm sure there must be a precedent for this situation, but I haven't been able to find one yet. However, my expectation is that dly is right: cars that are multiple laps behind can only unlap themselves once.
Allowing lapped cars to overtake generally causes a safety car period to get extended for at least one more lap, while they wait for the lapped cars to catch up to the back of the pack (or at least, get sufficiently far down the track from the leaders). Waiting for a driver who's five laps down to unlap themselves five times would make the safety car period last far too long, and would cause the other drivers' tyres to lose too much temperature in the meantime, which would cause problems once they got going again.
Comment: *"Allowing lapped cars to overtake generally causes a safety car period to get extended for a lap or so beyond the point where the track is actually safe again"*... that brings an interesting question: what's the speed they can go after they overtake the Safety Car until they reach the pack again? If it's not the regular speed and I believe it's not (I never really paid attention to that), then the time to unlap himself 5 times would be ridiculously long, not to mention overtaking the whole pack again...
Answer: The simple answer to this question is yes. A lapped car has to unlap itself completely - otherwise it would still be regarded as an lapped car.
The reason why lapped cars have to unlap themselves when a safety car has been deployed is one of basic sporting fairness - a principle that underlies the rules and regulations of all sporting competitions.
Put simply: once a safety car has been deployed the field bunches up behind it. Any time advantage a competitor has gained over a rival is negated. For example, the lead car may have had a 20 second advantage over the second car before the safety car was deployed which is then reduced to zero behind the safety car. If lapped cars were not allowed to unlap themselves behind the safety car, they would still be at a time disadvantage once the race restarted - i.e. the time it takes to make up the lap, or laps, they have lost. Such a scenario would mean that lapped cars were being unfairly discriminated against simply because they were further behind the leader than cars which had not been lapped. Since the deployment of a safety car only benefits cars that find themselves behind the leader - who is the only car at a net disadvantage since he can only lose (and not gain) time  vis à vis other competitors - it would be unfair not to treat all such cars equally.
Misunderstanding of this application of the rules stems from attempts to interpret the minutiae of the rules rather than trying to understand the reason why such rules were created in the first place. Where there is lack of clarity the "spirit of the law" is the guiding principle.
Addendum: it was pointed out in a previous post that it would take forever for a car that had been unlapped 5 times to unlap itself. Of course  it would,  but that in itself is not a reason for the rules not to be respected. After all, those 5 laps represent the time advantage over the lapped car gained by the leader. Allowing the lapped car to completely unlap itself is the only way of addressing the fundamental disadvantage caused to the leading car when a safety car is deployed, and is the reason why the rules stipulate that that the safety car is to be brought in at the end of the following lap once lapped cars have unlapped themselves. This aspect of the rules  enables the lead car to make an informed decision as to its strategy options for the remainder of a race. Thus, in the event  of a car having been lapped  5 times and a safety car being deployed towards the end of a race, the lead car can calculate the likelihood of the race finishing behind the safety car and base its strategy upon that calculation. Without the  security of that knowledge the lead car is at a further disadvantage compared to the  following cars which are able to make their strategic decisions based on the actions taken by the cars in front of them. In such a scenario the lead car would not only have lost any time advantage it had gained up to that point,  but would also be driving blind from a strategic point of view.
To my knowledge there are no rules or regulations of ANY sport that are conceived to place ANY participant at a fundamental competitive disadvantage.  This would contradict the very notion of what sport is. In most cases the rules and regulations of a given sport focus on how that sport is to be "played." And, of course,  those regulations are founded on the social construct of what constitutes a fair competition.
Comment: I can think of at least a dozen sports whose rules deliberately put one player or team at a fundamental competitive disadvantage.  This is usually called a penalty.
Comment: You still haven't provided any evidence, beyond what you believe should be the overriding concern for how rules are formed. As it happens, the rules in F1 (as with many sports) focus as much as safety as on fairness, if not more. Allowing a car to continually overtake and unlap would create significantly higher risk and therefore reduce safety, defeating the purpose of the safety car/VSC. It also ignores what *being lapped* means: someone drove so badly that other vehicles are so far ahead they've overtaken again.
Comment: Welcome to Sports Stack Exchange. I have downvoted your answer here as it seems to directly conflict with the statement of the rules provided by existing answers, and the principles they outline. Can you supply any evidence suggesting a car may totally unlap themselves, rather than only unlap once?
Comment: As I said in my post, rules are created for a reason. Once you understand that  reason,  the detailed letter of the law or regulation is interpreted in that context.  As it is unimaginable that rules could be applied differently to different competitors in the same competition, all lapped cars must be treated equally.  In F1 article 39.12 determines which cars are considered as being lapped when a safety car is deployed. It does not mention when a car is considered to have unlapped itself  because that is clear from the context  i.e. when it is on the same lap as all other cars.
Comment: We also have to consider that when the rules of sporting disciplines  are drawn up they are designed to lead to a  sporting competition. Thus they assume that all participants are relatively competitive with regard to each other. Thus, to participate in an Olympic event a minimum standard is required of the competitor.
Comment: The FIA probably did not  envisage a scenario where  a car was so uncompetitive (or unlucky during a race) that they deemed it necessary to regulate specifically for that eventuality. In any case, the FIA rules do not clearly regulate for  this eventuality.  If they had, somebody could have pointed to the specific regulation  that governs the scenario outlined in the OP's question and there would be no further need for debate.
Comment: F1 rules clearly state what constitutes a lapped car at the moment when a safety car is deployed.  The rules state that lapped cars are to unlap themselves but do not stipulate at what point a car is no longer regarded as being lapped. Under normal racing conditions a car which has been lapped 5 times  cannot unlap itself by overtaking the cars in front of it only once. It is absurd to think that such a car could unlap itself completely behind a safety car by regaining only 1 lap. Therefore,  it would not have unlapped itself and the SC could not be brought back in. The rules are the evidence.
Comment: As quoted by an existing answer, they are not told they may unlap: they are told they may overtake. And, unless you have evidence from an actual race to show a lapped car making multiple overtakes of the leader to unlap themselves multiple times, it would seem clear that FIA themselves consider the "unlap once only" interpretation to be correct. I would be very happy to see that evidence and would award a bounty for such an answer. But I will be leaving the discussion there otherwise.
Comment: As regards the rules: the rules of every sporting discipline are based on the principle of fairness. That is not opinion it is fact.  F1 rules also promote safely (e.g. "halo"), technical innovation (e.g. KERS) and competition between the teams(e.g. budget cap). Given the efforts of the FIA in recent years to reduce the dominance of the leading teams (e.g. budget cap, more choice of starting tyres for slower qualifiers) it is unlikely that they would seek to undermine their own policy by deliberately placing the slower cars at a disadvantage. Thus, the absence of a specific rule to that end.
Comment: Nij, the fact that the FIA has announced its own  inquiry following the Abu Dhabi debacle shows that the rules and how the rules are interpreted are not the same. My answer is based on what the rules say (constitutional approach) others are based on interpretation (case law approach). Both are valid approaches, but where an interpretation is unclear and leads to conflict the constitution i.e. written rules need to be revisited in order to create clarity and provide consensus. This is where F1 currently finds itself with regard to safety car procedure.


How can I find the inverse of this infinite triangular matrix?

Question: I want to find the inverse of the following matrix
\begin{bmatrix}
1&0&0&0&0&\cdots&0&0&\cdots\\
0&1&0&0&0&\cdots&0&0&\cdots\\
\binom{2}{0}&0&1&0&0&\cdots&0&0&\cdots\\
\binom{4}{1}&\binom{2}{0}&0&1&0&\cdots&0&0&\cdots\\
\binom{6}{2}&\binom{4}{1}&\binom{2}{0}&0&1&\cdots&0&0&\cdots\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots\\
\binom{2(n-1)-2}{(n-1)-2}&\binom{2(n-1)-4}{(n-1)-3}&\binom{2(n-1)-6}{(n-1)-4}&\binom{2(n-1)-8}{(n-1)-5}&\binom{2(n-1)-10}{(n-1)-6}&\cdots&1&0&\cdots\\
\binom{2n-2}{n-2}&\binom{2n-4}{n-3}&\binom{2n-6}{n-4}&\binom{2n-8}{n-5}&\binom{2n-10}{n-6}&\cdots&0&1&\cdots\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&
\end{bmatrix}
in order to get a different approach to the question
How can I find the general term of this recursive sequence?
Answer: Did you try to find it for the first terms such that you can justify that for 3x3 matrix or 4x4 matrix ?
If you try to do that i thought that you will find same matrix with minus forms of binomial coefficents.
If you reduce it to augmented matrix [A/I], then row reduced echelon form of A will be inverse of A such that [I/A^-1].
Comment: I'm sorry, but I don't understand what your strategy is. Why are you considering finite-dimensional matrices?
Answer: Hmm, I'm not sure where your problem is.
Let's consider $L$ as the empty-matrix with all entries in the first principal subdiagonal set to $1$.
Then your matrix $M$ can be written as evaluation of the power series
$$ f(x)= x^0 + 0 \cdot x + \sum_{k=2}^\infty \binom{2k-2}{k-2}x^k \tag {1.1}$$
writing
$$ M= f(L) \tag {1.2} $$
The reciprocal of $f(x)$ can be found by
$$g(x)={1\over f(x)}= 1- (1 x^2+4 x^3 + 14 x^4 + 48 x^5 + 165 x^6 + 572 x^7 + ... +c_k x^k + ...)  \tag {2.1}
$$
By this the inverse of $M$ should be definable by $g(x)$ leading to
$$ M^{-1}= g(L) = L^0 - (1 L^2 + 4 L^3 + 14 L^4 + 48 L^5 + 165 L^6 + 572 L^7 + ... +c_k L^k + ...) \tag {2.2}
$$
and I think the coefficients $c_k$ have been discussed already in your earlier question.
Comment: I don't want to find the reciprocal $\frac{1}{M}$ of $M$, but the inverse $M^{-1}$ of it (indeed your $c_k$'s are not the coefficients of my previous question). The problem is that I don't know how to deal with infinite-dimensional matrices


Cookie can NOT be set anymore and site unavailable

Question: I can't access the frontend of my site
http://magento.p292682.webspaceconfig.de/
anymore.
However, I was able to access the site from a machine that had a cookie saved from that site (10 hours earlier). Deleting cookies from that machine made the site unavailable again so I'm 100% sure that it is a cookie problem.
I don't know what happened but cookies are not set anymore (I think that this is the problem) and therefore the site is not available anymore.
Answer: if you have a cookie problem issue u can  System menu>Configuration>Web button in the General section on the left>Session Cookie Management panel on the right. When you expand the panel you'll see an option Cookie Lifetime. Change the number to whatever you want (it's in seconds) and click on the Save Config button
Comment: This is already set to 3600
Comment: Did you set a cookie domain? And did you check your Magento logs in `var/log/`?
Comment: no I didnt. What should I check it for and which domain should I set it to?
Comment: If you didn't set it, then that won't be the problem. Check if there is anything related in your exception.log or system.log. It might be an idea to rename the old files, try to login or something and check if a new file is created and check the contents.
Comment: please increase 3600 to 9600


How to access funds from selling NFT on OpenSea.io when paid via internal transaction sent to my MetaMask Wallet?

Question: I sold an NFT on OpenSea.io but don't see the proceeds reflected in my MetaMask wallet. Upon review, OpenSea sent the proceeds of the sale via internal transaction to my MetaMask wallet. How do I access these proceeds?
Answer: Is this from an NFT you minted and then sold - or just sold?
If you sold the NFT by accepting an offer, it would be in wETH so make sure you look on the Polygon/MATIC side of your wallet (https://wallet.matic.network/)
If you minted and then sold, double check in your creator tools what address you linked to send it to. It would also be cool to post the TX here :)


How to use NHibernate with asp.net 3.5

Question: I want to use NHibernate with Asp.net 3.5 but i don't know how to use it.I search on
Google but couldn't find the complete explanation about why to use NHibernate,Advantages of using it and integration with Asp.net projects.
Answer: I would suggest checking out Castle and NHibernate. I recently started using it and was blown away with what it can do. Castle manages all your sessions for you. Also it is easy to use LINQ with it.
Check out
http://davidhayden.com/blog/dave/archive/2008/04/28/NHibernateCastleActiveRecordTutorialUninitiated.aspx
Another great tool to use (Should work with ASP.Net) is the Nhibernate Profiler
http://nhprof.com/   It shows you what queries are being generated and the time its taking to run.
Also if you already have your database created you can download this tool http://www.agilityfororms.com/Home/Products/AfoCastleActiveRecordModelCodeGenerator/ It will create your models based on your database. Its works great for the most part. Although you have to register to download the free version still worth checking out.
Fluent NHibernate is supposed to be good as well although I have no experience with it. Might be worth checking out. http://fluentnhibernate.org/
Answer: You could have a look at this :

http://www.codegod.de/WebAppCodeGod/nhibernate-tutorial-1---and-aspnet-AID25.aspx

And this :

http://www.codeproject.com/KB/architecture/NHibernateBestPractices.aspx
Answer: I'm nearing completion of my first project with it, and I've had mixed results.  For basic data persistence, and assuming you already knew how to use it, it's much faster to build an application with it.  You don't really have to worry about building stored procs and differentiating between new objects and updated objects.
On the other hand, until you're quite comfortable with it, it can take a long time to do something that would have been simple before.  I've had a couple of problems, and it has been difficult and time consuming finding solutions to them.
To be fair, I've only written small applications with it and it has made the development process more difficult than I would consider required.  The pain of using it is fairly similar from one app to the next, the benefits scale...
Answer: The best place to look is at NHibernate Forge. There's Blogs, wikis and groups that will help you out.
As for advantages of using it that is something you need to workout for yourself. Is it more advantageous than LinqToSql or Entity Framework? It depends on the project size and what you are actually looking for.

How to use NHibernate with asp.net 3.5


Racial connotations of the word "uppity"

Question: I was told that the word uppity has some racial connotations originating from the times of segregation in the South.  I never thought of it as such.  I kind of like the sound of the word but was wondering if it should be avoided in the presence of black people.
Comment: I know you are asking this question in order not to cause offence, but perhaps one should avoid using racially offensive language in all contexts, not just around black people?
Comment: @donothingsuccessfully: this question is valuable precisely because *uppity* is not offensive language (racially or otherwise) but nonetheless will offend some people for historical reasons.
Comment: @TimLymington: Yes, it's a good question and I appreciate your distinction between offensive language and language people could be offended by.
Comment: While uppity might be described as a acting outside your class or caste, for basically all of US History there has only been one real social 'lower class' - African Slaves. African-Americans naturally dislike it, and the rest of the US dislikes any aspersion that one citizen is by fiat better than another.
Comment: It may be worth noting that in British English, "uppity" is rare and has no racial connotations. As an aside, "Mr Uppity" was a character in the children's "Mr Men" series of books. In all editions, his name was changed to "Mr Snooty" but this was done for the  American market.
Comment: "... there has only been one real social 'lower class' " - hardly. I grew up hearing about uppity kids and uppity women. But the taint of racist colocations remains strong - https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=uppity+*_NOUN&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=true
Comment: You have to copy the whole thing after the autolink. It got broken by markup. The search is "uppity *_NOUN"
Answer: The first recorded use of uppity, according to the Online Etymological Dictionary, was in an Uncle Remus story about 7 years after Reconstruction ended (1873): "uppity (adj.) 1880, from up + -ity; originally used by blacks of other blacks felt to be too self-assertive (first recorded use is in "Uncle Remus"). The parallel British variant uppish (1670s) originally meant "lavish;" the sense of "conceited, arrogant" being first recorded 1734."
The standard collocation is "uppity [N-word]". This unfortunate history notwithstanding, it's an interesting and useful word, I think, to describe people who are too presumptuous and who exude the unjustified self-importance usually associated with the absurd contemporary notions some folks have about their social and intellectual equality in a spate of societies that falsely advertise their egalitarianism and commitment to "diversity".
The world is replete with pecking orders, at least one of which everyone belongs to and in which everyone has a place. Try to peck the hens above your station and you're uppity to them, no question about it. Your peers and others beneath your level in the pecking order might consider you a "pecking order hero" or a "freedom fighter" for daring to contravene convention, but most uppity folks are just like Bobby Riggs when push comes to shove: they're less than they thought they were and should not have acted as if they were better.
Given the history of the word, it is wise not to use it when it is more than likely to be considered racist and offensive, even if it's qualified to make clear that there's no racist or sexist connotation in your usage: those connotations can't be avoided. Use a synonym like presumptuous, audacious, cheeky, pretentious, or snobbish and you won't get into trouble for being politically incorrect, only for being critical.
Comment: @ MετάEd: I can't disagree more. Language is inherently political. If it weren't, then no one would ask a question like this & anyone could say anything they want to say without having to consider consequences other than being misunderstood. That just isn't the way the world works. Prescription is necessary for discussions of usage. How else can one say that if you call your neighbor "ShitForBrains" because you think he's stupid, you might get shot or punched out? If you think that's not prescription, you're looking through rose-colored glasses. [To be continued]
Comment: While I agree with the political commentary, it is out of place here. Answers should stay away from opinion and prescription.
Comment: @MετάEd  OP *requests* a prescription, as do most of the questions here; and opinion, grounded in observation and experience, is what most of our answers supply. Even citing an outside source constitutes an opinion respecting that source's reliability and authority.
Comment: @StoneyB I think that MετάEd's main contention was that the answer went *off-topic* and strayed on to broader social commentary.
Comment: +1 For the sentence: "This unfortunate history ... and commitment to 'diversity'."
Comment: @ MετάEd: My words on the pecking order & Bobby Riggs are zoology & social history. Your complaint is out of place, I'm afraid. If I offend your sensibilities, you've taken offense--unless you're Bobby Riggs behind that moniker. But he's 18 years dead. It's just not possible to meet the expectations of everyone who frequents this website, nor is it possible to share all their values. A mod wiped "Bob's your uncle" from an answer of mine because it's "unsavory language"! Tell that to a Brit. I don't preach to you or anyone else, & I won't be preached to or at.
Comment: @donothingsuccessfully, but a broader social context is *exactly* what this answer needed to be complete!
Comment: @BenLee I said *commentary*  not *context*. Whether "contemporary notions of social equality" are absurd or not is irrelevant to the question at hand.
Comment: @donothingsuccessfully, sorry, misread that. So now at least I understand the objection. I disagree with that objection though. I think it's perfectly fine that the OP included that in the post because whether or not you agree with that analysis, it does a good job of showing an example of what "uppity" might apply to.
Answer: Dictionaries do not note any derogatory connotations while etymonline states that uppity was first used by blacks of other blacks. But apparently, it is considered to be a racist term—at least by some—in the US.
The adjective's history has come into focus a couple of times in the last few years. According to an article in the Chicago Tribune,

The word has popped up before in the Obamas' life. During the presidential campaign in September 2008, Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, a Georgia Republican, touched off a firestorm by saying the Obamas looked to him as though "they're a member of an elitist class ... that thinks that they're uppity." Westmoreland later defended himself in a revealing public statement. He had "never heard that term used in a racially derogatory sense," he said, in the mill town where he grew up. For a Georgia native of his years, a lot of folks found that hard to believe.

In November 2011, it was Rush Limbaugh's comment which stirred things up once again:

But this time it was reports of the first lady traveling occasionally on a separate plane from her husband that lit Limbaugh's fuse. "NASCAR people understand that's a little bit of a waste," he said. "They understand it is a little bit of uppity-ism."
There's the word. Dictionaries define the word as "arrogant," "presumptuous" and "putting on airs of superiority." But it also has strong connotations in this country's cultural history as a description for blacks who, in the view of white society, don't know their place.

A language blog over at The Baltimore Sun covers the racist connotations of uppity in great detail. The author cites the following excerpt from the OED:

"1952 F. L. ALLEN Big Change II. viii. 130 The effect of the automobile revolution was especially noticeable in the South, where one began to hear whites complaining about 'uppity [you know which epithet I've deleted]' on the highways, where there was no Jim Crow."

He also does not believe that the racist overtones are dated and notes its relatively recent employment by a member of the US supreme court.

And, perhaps most notably, you may recall this passage from Clarence Thomas's confirmation hearing:
"And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you."
If you still think that uppity carries no racial charge, perhaps you could ask Mr. Justice Thomas what he thinks.

I guess that this should be enough reason to avoid using uppity in the presence of African Americans and specifically, to avoid using it to describe them.
Comment: I just asked my African American friend from Texas (he also lives here in Taiwan) for his opinion about this, & he confirms that if someone uses that term to describe African Americans, it's racist, no matter who or what the user is.
Comment: +1 for your research & excellent selection of commentary, but please remember that sentences like your last one constitute **prescription**, which some folks think is verboten around here. And perhaps your penultimate sentence is **political commentary**, another no-no for some. Not for me, however. I think this kind of information's necessary to understand the whys and wherefores of usage.
Answer: It was quite common, and not only in the South, for white people to characterize as uppity black people who were simply asking to be treated as equals. It has also been used that way to describe women in similar circumstances. Indeed, I suppose some people still use it so. I would not avoid the word entirely on that account, but I would never use it of a person of color or of a woman, even if it were strictly accurate to do so, lest my meaning be misunderstood or lest, even if my meaning were not misunderstood, painful associations should be gratuitously dredged up.
Answer: 'Uppity' in glossaries and dictionaries
James Harrison, "Negro English," in Anglia: Journal of English Philology, volume 7 (1884) includes "uppity" as one of seven expressions in contemporaneous Black U.S. speech that relate to forms of impudence or presumptuousness:

To kick up shines = to be proud, to put on airs.
To sling sassy words at = to be impertinent to [with related phrases "To look sassy," "To flip yo' sass at," and "To sling yo' jaw at"].
Hifalutin' fokes = 'toploftical' people
To be stuck up = to take on airs.
Uppity = pert;
To git de swell-hededniss = to put on airs.
To tech de fancy fling (in dancing) = to try to put on airs.

Harrison lived in Lexington, Virginia, and the region that his study covered ranged from east to west from the Eastern Seaboard to the Mississippi River, and north to south from the 39th parallel (the Mason-Dixon line) tot he Gulf of Mexico.
According to the 1886 edition of Merriam-Webster's An American Dictionary of the English Language (first published in 1864), pert as an adjective had two obsolete meanings ("Lively; brisk; smart" and "Open; evident; plain; apert [defined as "Open, evident, undisguised"]") and one current meaning ("Indecorously free, or presuming; forward; saucy; bold; impertinent; impudent").
The same dictionary has entries for uppish ("Proud, arrogant; assuming; putting on airs of superiority," labeled as a colloquial expression) and uppishness ("The quality of being uppish; pride or arrogance of manner"), but not for uppity. In fact, Merriam-Webster doesn't include an entry for uppity until the Seventh Collegiate Dictionary (1963):

uppity adj {prob. fr. up + -ity (as in persnickity, var. of persnickety)} : ARROGANT, PRESUMPTUOUS — uppitiness n

The fact that uppish made the cut as a colloquial form for decades before uppity received an entry suggests that MW viewed uppity as a dialect word rather than as a colloquialism.

Early occurrences of 'uppity' in the wild
A number of instances of uppity appear in published writings of the late 1870s and the 1880s.
From Bill Arp, "What Feltonites Are Made Of," in the Dublin [Georgia] Post (October 23, 1878), reprinted from the Atlanta [Georgia] Constitution:

Well there's another class of people that's supportin the parson [Dr. Felton]—the dissatisfied complainin sort—them what's bigoty and uppity and finiky; who think they know more about everything than anybody else and won't work except in lead and won't pull a pound even there. but want to prance along and blow off and make a big show, and if you don't humor 'em they sorter pout and go off on somwe other shoot.

From Mrs. Arp, "The Madame Pays Her Respects to 'That Husband of Hers',"(https://gahistoricnewspapers.galileo.usg.edu/lccn/sn89053704/1879-04-29/ed-1/seq-2/#sort=date_asc&index=3&rows=12&proxtext=upity&sequence=0&words=upity&page=7)," in the Atlanta [Georgia] Constitution (April 29, 1879):

Mr. Arp is jest a little too upity for his raisin. He's gettin purnickity cause away from home everybody thinks he's perfecshun perfectorfied, but they am mighty mistaken about that.

From Bill Arp, "Things in General," in the Eastman [Georgia] Times (January 19, 1880), reprinted from the Atlanta [Georgia] Constitution:

I've got no use for these pompous military men[.] They are too bigoty. They are too uppity. They have had their own way so long they have no restraints or respect for the law. I dont want any of em for president. I am willing to take Judge Lochrane; but I wont take General Grant if I can help it.

From Joel Chandler Harris, "The Fate of a Tattling Birrd," in the Atlanta  [Georgia] Constitution (March 16, 1880):

"... You 'member w'at 'come er de bird w'at went tattlin' 'roun' 'bout Brer Rabbit?"
The little boy didn't remember, but he was very anxious to know, and he also wanted to know what kind of a bird it was that so disgraced itself.
"Hit wuz wunner deze yer uppity little sparrers, I speck," said the old man; "dey wuz allus bodder'n' longer udder fokes's bizness, en dey keeps at it down ter dis day—peckin' yer, and pickin' dar, en scratchin' over yander. ..."

From Joel Chandler Harris, "Brother Rabbit and His Famous Foot," in Nights with Uncle Remus (1881):

"Dar, now!" exclaimed the old man, indignantly, "'Tildy dis en 'Tildy dat I dunner w'at yo' mammy dreamin' 'bout fewr ter let dat [Black] gal be a-holl'in' en a-bawlin' atter you all 'roun' dish yer plan'ation. She de mos' uppity [Black person] on de hill, en de fus' news you know dey ull all hatter make der bows en call 'er Mistiss. ..."

From Joel Chandler Harris, "The Fire-Test," in Nights with Uncle Remus (1881):

W'en de fier 'gun ter blaze up, Brer Tarrypin' 'low dat de creeturs mus' jump 'cross dat, en de man w'at 'stroy Brer Rabbit chilluns will drap in en git bu'nt up. Brer Wolf bin so uppity 'bout diggin', en fillin', en kindlin', dat dey all 'spected 'im fer ter make de fus' trial ; but, bless yo' soul en body! Brer Wolf look lak he got some yuther business fer ter ten' ter.

From Bill Arp, "In Which He Dilates upon Florida and Her People," in the Atlanta [Georgia] Constitution (February 8, 1881):

The steamboat trip up the St Johns is worth all the money. The boats are comfortable and the officers kind and you soon get acquainted with the passengers, except the stuck-ups, or as Mrs. Arp would say, the uppity and bigoty, and you can enjoy yourself all the day long.

From Bill Arp, "He Turns His Attention to Politics and Preachers," in the Atlanta [Georgia] Constitution (October 28, 1884):

I heard of a clerk once in a dry goods store who was smart and quick and a splendid manager, and all that, but he got uppity and biggoty, and put on consequential airs until he was very disagreeable, and he took occasion to say to his associates that the concern couldn't get along without him.

From "Uncle Ish: Under Heroic Treatment," in the Hartwell [Georgia] Sun (February 14, 1885):

"Sum uv dese uppity clerks 's gwinter gi da heads broke if da don't quit prankin wid me, jes' sho'.

From "She Wanted to Smoke," in the Wrightsville [Georgia] Recorder (March 18, 1886):

Presently Conductor Matthews came rushing through the [train] car exclaiming: "Who pulled that bell-line?"
"I did," impatiently replied the old lady.
"Well why did you do it, and what do you want?" snapped Tobe fretfully.
"Well, you can bring me a match, I want to light my pipe, and you needn't git so uppity 'bout me pullin' ther rope, nuther!"

From Bill Arp, "In Which He Gives the Farmers Some Good Advice," in the Eastman [Georgia] Times (July 29, 1886):

The children's crops are doing fine—the watermelons, and goobbers and popcorn. These children are getting uppity and bigoty and monopolize my attention and keep Mrs. Arp busy. She is making some homespun bathing suits for them now.

From Mrs. Schuyler Crowninshield, The Ignoramuses: A Travel Story (1887):

"Why Rosie unpacked such a thing [indelible ink], or even brought it among my medicines, is a mystery to me. Pooe boy! I am so, so sorry."
"De bes' t'ing fer you, Mass'r Cortland." Rosie's black head with its neat white turban protruded through the door. "Teach ye not to be so uppity. Anybody who'd go and tie—"
"Take Master Tom down to the wharf, Rosie," said Mrs. Gordon, cutting short this monotonous complaint.

From Jessie Glasier, "Ole Mammy Prissy," in St. Nicholas, volume 14 (October 1887):

"...Chile, I'se fru workin' my ole bones stiff gedd'rin' pussimmons an' chink-pins, an diggin' fer sass'fras. Ain' goin' t' set out dah no mo', now I tell ye, mohnin' in an' mohnin' out, an' 'Wat'll ye buy, Lady?'—er, 'Yer's yer fine fresh vi'lets, Lady'—er it mighrt be aigs, er blaclbe'ys, in season—an den see um march by lookin' so uppity, makin' out dey don' nubber year de ole woman, no mo 'n ef she's bohn 'dout a tongue!"

From "A Bad Place for Store Clothes" in *Clothier and Furnisher* (April 1888):

The penalty of wearing store clothes in Rabun county, Ga., is death. Some time ago the murder of William Thomas in that county was first reported. One of the murderers tells a curious story as to why the murder was committed.
"Thomas came cavorting up to the church," said he, "a wearin' store clothes. Us boys did not like to see him taking the shine off us. Sp we concluded to have a little fun. We axed him to take a drink, but he was too uppity to do it. My brother then threw a stone at him to see how he would run, and he run, sure enough. Then we both ran after him, throwing stones after him, thinking it was fun, when suddenly he dropped down dead. If we had not been drinking we would not have done what we did. My brother is to be hung on the 11th of may and I am now going to the coal mines for life. I reckon I will get used to it. I will try anyhow. But I never did like a man what wore store clothes."

Rabun County is at the northeast tip of Georgia, bordered to the north and the east by South Carolina. Although race is never mentioned in this brief account, the circumstances indicate that both the killers and the victim were White. First, contemporaneous newspapers considered race a significant framing element in any such story unless all of the people involved were White, in which case their race was assumed sub silencio. Moreover, if either the victim or the attackers (or both) had been Black, it seems quite likely that the penalty meted out at trial would have been different (death for both, assuming that they received a formal trial at all, in the Black-on-White scenario; limited prison terms, at most, in the White-on-Black scenario; and life imprisonment, at most, in the Black-on-Black scenario).

Discussion
The two authors who dominate the early occurrences of uppity are Bill Arp (the pen name of Charles Henry Smith) and Joel Chandler Harris. Smith was born in Lawrenceville, Georgia, and Harris in Eatonton, Georgia. Both towns are in north central Georgia and are separated by just two counties.
Smith, who uses the word in print as early as 1878, consistently pairs uppity with biggoty, indicating that acting higher-class than one actually is pairs naturally with acting like a bigger (more important) person than one actually is. The object's of Smith's condemnation for being uppity are (in chronological order) supporters of Dr. Felton, a political opponent; "Mr. Arp" himself, as asserted by "Mrs. Arp"; pompous military men (including Ulysses Grant); stuck-up passengers on steamboat excursions; a dry goods store clerk; and his children. Additional instances in Smith's columns from later in the 1880s attribute uppitineess to "my young friends" (December 28, 1886); "Mr. Arp" again, as asserted by his father when Bill was a young man (September 3, 1887), successful town merchants (November 29, 1887); U.S. states to the west of the Eastern Seaboard Southern states (February 14, 1888); Judge Thurman, another political opponent (June 12, 1888); and "college boys" (July 20, 1889). None of these instances involves anyone who is obviously (or even likely) Black. It follows that, at least at in the early days of its published use, the expression was probably racially neutral.
The first published instance where uppity is used to describe a Black person is in the lead-in to Harris's 1881 tale "Brother Rabbit and His Famous Foot." The character who offers that description is Uncle Remus, who also uses the word elswhere to characterize sparrows (in 188o), and Brer Wolf (again in 1881).
Other early instances of uppity in the wild use the term to describe clerks (in the voice of a Black character), a train conductor (attributed to an old White woman from the countryside), a White child (in the voice of a Black maid), shoppers and other passers-by (in the voice of a Black vendor), and a young White man wearing store-bought clothes (attributed to a White assailant).
It is interesting that a study of "Negro English" published in 1884 identifies uppity as a term used in contemporaneous Black speech, but it is not clear from the earliest recorded instances of the term whether it originated among Black Georgians or among rural White Georgians. The distinction may be artificial in any case, since both Black and White people in northern Georgia appear to have been using the term from a very early date in its recorded existence; but the extreme bias in favor of White sources during the period in question means that the word might have been in use in Black households for years or even decades before White speakers picked it up or White writers bothered to write it down.
The earliest Google Books match for "uppity [Black person]" as a category or type, rather than as a personal characterization (as in Harris's use of it) is from 1922—and already the expression is treated as an accepted set phrase or trope. From George Harrington, The Plebian Pestilence: A Small-pox Interlude (1922):

Phil, the driver of the motor-car by which their meals, mail and express parcels were brought, was mildly irritating. It is doubtful if he intended to be so, but he was an "uppity [Black person]," to use a Southern phrase: he had spent two or three seasons in the North, and been upset thereby. He felt important: he was "familiar": he over-indulged an unfortunate tendency to talk—and his talk was rather obnoxious.

And from Ian Cameron, "Negro Songs," in The Musical Times & Singing-class Circular (June 1, 1922), a British periodical:

These songs may be heard to-day all over the southern part of the United States. When they pass (may the day be distant!) and a new 'uppity' negro supplants the old, I am firmly convinced that he will be less happy, less prosperous, and far less educated in the good manners of the heart.

It thus appears that, by 1922, "uppity [Black person]" was a stock phrase in some parts of the U.S. South to describe a Black person who didn't behave in accordance with the submissiveness and circumspection that White Southerners expected.
More than a century of invidious, categorical use by White speakers and writers of "uppity [Black person]" has poisoned uppity as a defensibly nonracial term as applied to anyone who happens to be Black; it is also, although perhaps to a lesser degree, a loaded term when applied across—or even within—racial lines, whether categorically or not. I wouldn't use it in conversation ever.
Answer: During that acrimonious period during the divorce process my now ex-husband called me uppity. We are both white but my outrage came from my understanding of the origin of the word and how that meaning would apply to the husband/wife relationship.  To me it clearly meant that he considered himself my superior and my inferior status entitled me to nothing unless he deigned to give it.  He was totally surprised at my outraged reaction.  I have no idea what he thought it meant but his words and actions clearly showed I was right on the nose. It is difficult for me to imagine a benign or neutral meaning for the word.
Answer: Can anyone see the irony in this? By the very nature of using this word with someone, the user implies they are "better" than the person they are talking to. I find this hilarious.
I am a black American who is a Canadian resident. A police Constable called me "uppity" because I had the unmitigated gall to tell her that I did not want my child left at a home where someone was emotionally abusive towards him. Her response, "I'm sick of your uppity attitude."
I was disgusted.  So, I am stepping outside of my station how?  I was being arrogant how?
BTW - The party line tends to be Canadians are not racist. While most Canadians I have met have not been racist towards me...this officer was.
When stating that "uppity" is a term "blacks" used to refer to other "blacks", it is incredulous that the word is taken as canon since J.C. Harris is a fiction writer and folklorist. Was Harris truly an authority on slave language?  Regardless, in the 1800s, blacks tended to borrow vocabulary from their owners. Ultimately, "uppity" is a term invented by J.C. Harris to depict language he believed was used by blacks in his story to describe other blacks.
Uppity is a degrading word to anyone it is directed towards.
Comment: The incident you report is not really authoritative in answering the question. It seems to merely a bald statement that "uppity" does have offensive racial connotations.
Answer: Uppity is an attributive modifier or noun adjunct as the essential meaning of the word is inherently linked to the object described. Beyond connotation, the denotative logic of the derogative makes it unique in how it specifically references Blacks and other individuals with black adjacency--often, women.
A quick Google Ngram search is an objective large sample, longitudinal approach to measuring the progression of racist and sexist attitudes across U.S. American history. Inputting the word "uppity" measures the frequency and contexts of the lexical item across the corpus of English book publications. The usage of uppity is a modifier for any aspect of Blackness that understands itself as on the same par with whiteness, which is seen as an absurd notion according to the racialogics of white supremacist global hegemony.

As the visualizations show, historical upticks in usage reflect general white racial attitudes as to whether or not black people are staying in their ostensible place at any given time. The word increased in popularity during Reconstruction, proliferated during Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Movement, waned through the golden years of Hip-Hop, and exploded in the Obama era leading into the Trump years.
Additionally, the graphs below trace how uppity is conjoined with the lexical items "black" + "bitch" to identify the sudden and conspicuous surge of Black women entering the industrial workforce en masse during WWII. Several decades later, a semantic inversion of "uppity" is combined with "white," coinciding with sentiments associated with the post-racial ironic sentiments as characteristic of the Obama years (slightly dropping at the start of Trump's administrative succession), although with far less frequency than its original counterpart phrase.  counterpart phrase.

So, the answer to your question is no. It is not okay to use the expression, neither "in the presence of black people," nor away from their presence because you know, like... racism.
Uhh duh.
Comment: As it's currently written, your answer is unclear. Please [edit] to add additional details that will help others understand how this addresses the question asked. You can find more information on how to write good answers [in the help center](/help/how-to-answer).
Comment: Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please [edit] to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers [in the help center](/help/how-to-answer).
Answer: "Uppity" suggests that someone is acting as if they have rights that the speaker doesn't think that they in fact have. It implies that the speaker considers themselves to be of a higher social status than the object of discussion, and is criticizing the object of discussion for failing to acknowledge that. This is distinct from "arrogant", which implies that the speaker believes that the object of discussion believes themselves to be above other people. "Arrogant" is about someone thinking they should be treated better than others, while "uppity" is about someone thinking they should be treated the same as others.
Black people are of course one of the primary candidates to be considered to be lacking rights, but even without the racial component, implying that some people have less rights than others is not a good thing to be doing.


XmlPullParserException when androidHttpTransport.call(SOAP_ACTION, envelope); is called

Question: Basically I am using kSoap2 classes for Android. The client app is consuming a web service. If required I can post the code.
I surfed around to figure this out. I get following error message
expected: START_TAG{http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/envelope/}Envelope(posiiton:START_TAG@1:6 in java.io.InputStreamReader@437b40f0) when androidHttpTransport.call(SOAP_ACTION, envelope); is called.
What I gathered so far is "The xml is not parsed correctly or there was no response from the webservice server." Any suggestions?
Also, When I tried other external webservice: http://www.deeptraining.com/webservices/GetWeather, I received: IOException on androidHttpTransport.call(SOAP_ACTION, envelope);
IOException message: Host is unresolved, any idea how to solve this, here I didn't get the XmlPullParserException (may be it will show up once this is fixed).
Thanks and I appreciate your insight and time.
Anjana.
Answer: i had the same problem and i resolved it. I only wrote a wrong URL.
I have a php web service using NUSOAP.
Wrong address:
private static final String URL = "http://www.mywebsite.com/service/myservice.php?wsld";
Right address:
private static final String URL = "http://www.mywebsite.com/service/myservice.php";
I advise you to check the parameters you are passing to ksoap2, because it works fine.
Bye bye.


Word for words expressing utterances

Question: Is there a term for the sort of words that sometimes precede dialogue or quotations, like say, ask, write, answer, cry, and reply?
Comment: I think it's usually called a "tag", but someone might correct me. I'm pretty sure there is a word for it, at any rate.
Comment: Are you speaking of verbs, or are you talking about, say, interjections? If the latter, I have to say that _say_ is the only interjection in the list; all the rest are verbs of speech with special grammar.
Answer: I think they are called "dialogue tags." Have a look here:
https://www.visualthesaurus.com/wordlists/9457
Comment: Perfect. That's what I'm looking for.
Comment: Well that is my first answer on this site. Thank you. :)
Answer: In Latin grammars the term verba dicendi (verbs of saying) is used in the meaning of all verbs that can be used before direct or indirect speech.
Comment: And Cobuild, I think it is, distinguishes _quote verbs_ or _quotative verbs_ from _reporting verbs_.
Answer: I'm having trouble finding any definitive sources that back me up here, and I am aware that Wikipedia is not an academically-acceptable source, but its page on Dialogue in Writing seems to indicate they are called identifiers (because they identify the person who is currently speaking in a dialogue).
TV Tropes identifies the use of words other than 'said' as a 'Said-Bookism', but that's more referring to the concept of using those words than a name for the words themselves. I'm afraid that's all the information I have at present.
Comment: "Said-bookism" is a great term for the bad-writing examples like shriek, exclaim, and lament--thanks for a new term! But the word I'm looking for would be more general and descriptive, less judgmental.
Comment: I'm glad I was able to help in that regard - you're welcome.

Word for words expressing utterances


Using a Ebike controller for a hobby BLDC

Question: I am looking for a BLDC controller around 750W-1000W. I have yet to build the motor itself but am thinking it will fall within the operating range of 48-60v @ 10-15amps. When I look online I notice their are a lot of fairly cheap controllers for E-bikes. Can I just pick one of these up and use one of these with a SMPS? Furthermore - do these e-bike controllers only operate at specific voltages/amps? Or will they work within a range inside of whats advertised (generally speaking)?
Comment: `1000s of e bike and scooter controllers` ... ignore any that have no datasheet available
Comment: why are you asking us? ... ask the seller for datasheets ... ask them to guarantee operational parameters, with an understanding of a full refund if not met
Comment: I agree with you jsotola....I ask because I am hoping someone else already has experience with this. Not if they can tell me if a specific product from a specific vendor works. For that I would ask the vendor as you stated. But When I searched for 750w+ controllers - I got spammed with 1000s of e bike and scooter controllers. Just wondering if any people are using them - for hobby motors 750W+
Answer:
Can I just pick one of these up and use one of these with a SMPS?

Probably, provided you build the motor correctly.
Bear in mind that a SMPS generally can't handle current being forced back into it, which happens when the motor is being slowed down by regenerative braking. You may need to put an active clamp across the power supply to stop the voltage from rising.

will they work within a range inside of whats advertised (generally
speaking)?

Generally speaking a controller will work within its specified voltage range. If single voltages are specified they usually refer to the nominal battery voltage, eg. a 48 V Lithium-ion battery may consist of 13 cells of 3.7 V each nominal, and 4.2 V fully charged for a maximum voltage of 54.6 V. A controller designed for this battery would have to handle at least 54.6 V.
Comment: So far only a few bikes support regenerative braking (none of the center-drive ones, and only some hub-drive ones.) So if you restrict your choices to center-drive then regen isn't an issue.