The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
It is highly unlikely that there is a useful answer to this question. It would require knowing the size of the USSR economy, defining those parts that are strictly part of the budget (as different from, say, survival consumption), and then defining those parts that were strictly reserved for the military (which may / may not include non-military security forces). The key issue is why do you want to know, and what might be a reasonable substitute for this particular answer? DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just did find the exchange rate -- 5.3 rubles to a dollar (this was the official figure, but it squares pretty well with the figures from later years that I know with certainty), which makes the percentage -- WHAT?! Only 3.7 percent?! Are my own calculations off by one zero somewhere, or is the exchange rate way off??? 2601:646:8082:BA0:90B6:D6C1:A446:513E (talk) 05:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in an economy not based on trade, there's no need to express everything in money. There was quite a lot of trade going on in the Soviet Union (it was certainly not a fully communist economy), but still, things like budgets and GDP could to some extend be arbitrary. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The transfer of industrially manufactured commodities in the economy of USSR was also based on trade. Barter played a minor role in the whole economy. A reasonably accurate way of describing the economic system of the USSR is as state capitalism: like capitalism, but with one difference with Western capitalism: the enterprises are not privately owned but owned by the state. The consequence is that there is a single all-encompassing monopoly; domestic market competition is ruled out. For the rest, it is business as usual. In particular, the separate enterprises were required to make a profit, otherwise their management would be replaced. --Lambiam11:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[un-indent] As for why I want to know this: I'm trying to find out the approximate maximum for military spending as a % of GDP which can be sustained without causing widespread starvation, and given the USSR's experience during World War 2, the percentage they had would be close to it! But the percentage I calculated based on the 5.3 rubles per dollar exchange ratio is obviously wrong (it's simply not conceivable that the Soviet population would suffer so much with their military budget being a mere 3.7% of their GDP, while we Americans spent forty percent of our GDP on our military with much less hardship, even taking into account the obvious inefficiency of the Soviet economy, and in fact it's inconceivable even that they would spend so little of their budget on their military while literally fighting for their very survival), so I guess the exchange ratio was way off! (Of course, if someone here knows of another example of a nation which had to suffer severe hardship due to being forced to spend most of their GDP on war, you're welcome to share it here as well -- but it would have to be from the last 2 centuries or so, because total war is a fairly recent phenomenon!) 2601:646:8082:BA0:CD5E:73B7:6DF6:2CF6 (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The USA entered the industrial age about a century before Russia. The US spent the entire 19th century developing coal mines, ore mines, steel mills, railways, education centres, modern farming methods, oil refineries etc. Russia had not much of that until the communists rose to power, so the industrial base that could be repurposed to the war effort was much weaker; a far larger fraction of their economy was just producing food.
Actually, they closed the gap rather quickly, going from a mostly agrarian country to a space-faring nuclear-armed superpower in just 40 years. And so did China. Something about copying western technology, avoiding the errors western countries made, a bit of good planning.
As for countries spending a lot of their economy on the military, consider North Korea. I remember reading something like 20% some years ago. Maybe it would be better to look at the number of people working in defense, as this is harder to manipulate the the amount of money involved. PiusImpavidus (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What data is available on the breakdown by ethnicity of people in the USA taking commercial flights in the 1960s? I'm mostly interested in long-haul flights, but domestic flights could be useful too. Thanks, --Viennese Waltz08:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When booking a flight, one's ethnicity is not recorded, so it would be surprising if any remotely reliable data exists. --Lambiam10:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's this, which relates to 2015. The source of that data seems to be a survey, not information recorded at the time of booking. It would be good to know if any similar survey was carried out in the 1960s. --Viennese Waltz15:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1960s is long before deregulation. Flight costs were very high. If you could afford a ticket, regardless of ethnicity, you could purchase one and fly. Most people could not afford tickets at the time. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there's also the question of what would actually happen. Civil rights activists from the time could give some insight into that. At least, those that weren't killed for doing things that were actually legal (or for helping others do them). --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Regardless of skin color, passengers could fly if they could afford a ticket. In the 1960s, it was not profitable for airlines to turn customers away. I feel that the point that airlines were regulated in the 1960s is being overlooked or there is a lack of understanding about how expensive tickets were during regulation. It was nothing at all like modern air travel. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you keep bringing up regulation and pricing. You say that "if you could afford a ticket, regardless of ethnicity, you could purchase one and fly", which is undoubtedly true. But that still holds true today, and it doesn't get us anywhere closer to answering my question of what percentage of air passengers in the 1960s were white, black, Asian etc. I think Lambiam is right that there is no reliable data on this. --Viennese Waltz06:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I keep bringing it up because I do not believe it is understood. In the 1960s, being able to fly was based on money, not race, ethnicity, religion, gender, etc... All minorities that were mostly middle-class or below were unable to afford tickets. It is not accurate to claim that there was a wide-spread policy to refuse airline tickets based on skin color. It is accurate to claim that there was a wide-spread policy to refuse to sell tickets to people who didn't have enough money to purchase them. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Airline booking ploys describes the odd practice of airlines making it cheaper to buy a ticket from A to C with a stopover at B, than to buy a ticket from A to B. If the passenger just doesn't get back on the plane or the connecting flight from B to C, he saves money and the airline gets angry and wants to punish him. The article does not explain why prices are set that way. or what harm there is to the airline, if the skip lagger doesn't leave checked luggage on the plane. I'm pretty sure they never incur many delays waiting for him to reboard. Family emergencies, business crises, getting lost in an airport, or medical issues might cause an innocent passenger not to rebound. I can't find evidence of such a pricing or punishment practice in, say Greyhound buses or Amtrak trains.
The CAB apparently regulated US airline prices before 1978. Did they price multipart trips this way under regulation? Did they or airlines seek to punish passengers before 1978 who did not complete a multistage trip? Is the word "skiplag" of long standing in this usage, or just a pun from "skip a leg" of a trip? I got no help with Google book search or asking LLMs Edison (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why does skiplagging exist? Assume you are an airline. You have a flight from A to C with a layover in B. You have no problem selling tickets from A to B, so you can charge a premium for those. However, you have trouble selling from A to C (or even B to C). There is enough to keep the flight going, but not enough to keep a good profit going. So, you discount A to C to get more people to take that flight. You might even add an extra flight from A to B at an even higher premium. As this continues, there will be a point at which the A to C is discounted to a price less than A to B.
Did this happen before deregulation? Most likely not because the government set routes and prices. They would set the route from A to B. They would set the route from A to C which may be direct and not allow a layover in B. They would set the price. They don't care about profit or popularity. They just regulate. Keep in mind that a hidden agenda of airline regulation was to keep trains and busses a viable alternative for transportation. So, they don't want planes to be cheap or routes sensible.
Now, you have A to C (with a B layover) cheaper at your airline than A to B. So, Joe the Skiplagger buys a ticket for A to C and back. He hops off at B and doesn't get back on the flight. Then, on the return flight, he tries to get back on at B even though he wasn't on the plane from C to B. What could possibly be a problem?
His luggage will go to C, not B. He will complain that his luggage is lost. It will be lost. Nobody will pick it up at C. Now, you, as the airline, have to hunt down his bags and get them to him.
FAA reporting will be wrong. You, as the airline, must report exactly who is in each seat. If you report incorrectly, you can be fined. Add up all the fines for every skiplagger. Do you want to take on that cost?
You want to turn a profit. You know that if you sell 100 tickets, only about 80 people will show up for the flight. So, you sell 120 tickets and you have people on standby to keep the plane full. On the return flight from C to B, Joe the Skiplagger didn't show up. You put someone in his seat. Then, at B, Joe shows up and tries to board. There is no seat. He has a tantrum. Social media trends that your airline refuses to seat paying customers. No point in trying to explain it because everyone knows that skiplagging isn't a problem and airlines should be happy to have as many skiplaggers as possible. Perhaps it was a bad idea to start your airline.
Back to the return flight. Joe the Skiplagger has to check in to be able to get on at B. The flight has to keep calling him at C. Joe? Where are you Joe? Your seat is here Joe? We're going to give it away if you don't show up Joe. The plane sits and waits. Joe never shows up because he is in B, not C. Finally, the gate people let someone take his seat. That means that have to "uncheck" Joe and check in another passenger. Everyone has to wait for that passenger to get on the plane, hunt for a place to put baggage, and find a seat when the plane should be pulling away from the gate. And, just because it is your airline, you get the fine from the airport for spending too many minutes at the gate. Why did you get into the airline business in the first place?
What if Joe bought a ticket for A to B instead of A to C and didn't skiplag? You'd know that the seat from B to C was empty. You could sell it. But, what is more important? Should Joe save %10 by skiplagging or should you be able to sell a $100 seat?
This list is not complete. I am only covering the main points that you need to know so you realize you don't want to run an airline.
If you look at it from the skiplagger's point of view, they are not doing anything illegal and it is the airline's fault for making the process available. If you look at it from the airline's point of view, they are losing money, increasing hassle, and dealing with FAA regulations. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further to this, in relation to ticketing on National Rail (the British railway system): it is permissible to do this (i.e. skiplagging) with "walk-up" (non-Advance) tickets, but it is explicitly prohibited if using an Advance ticket. Attempting to do this with an Advance ticket makes the passenger liable to a penalty fare or, potentially, prosecution. Advance tickets are quota-controlled and are issued for a specific service, and usually have a specific seat allocated (although some train operating companies do not offer reservable seating), whereas "walk-up" tickets such as Off-Peak Returns and Anytime Day Returns can be used on any service, sometimes subject to time restrictions. Anomalies in the fare system such that an A–C via B ticket is cheaper than A–B are not particularly common, but there are a few. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!)12:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And its even possible to claim delay repay on this (compensation when passengers arrive to their destination at least 30 mins late, or 15 for specific operators). The relevant operator will ask whether you hold multiple tickets to make a claim. Additionally, its possible to claim compensation even outside the operators' control, unlike EU261. Using Trainline and possible ScotRail will give you the option of using split tickets, as well as Trainsplit.
That's true, with the slightly obscure exception that if one of the tickets held is a season ticket between A and B (or B and C), the A–C train doesn't have to stop at B as long as at least one train operated by that train operating company does stop at B. (I think that's right!) Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!)22:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem like the airline loses anything if you assume the alternatives are 1) "passenger pays for flight A->B->C and flies A->B->C" or 2) "passenger pays for flight A->B->C and flies A->B". Then the price is fixed and the destination is negotiable. But that isn't how passengers work: they need to get to a particular place, and they want to pay the least possible fare. So the passenger wants to choose between 2) "passenger pays less for flight A->B->C and flies A->B" or 3) "passenger pays more for flight A->B and flies A->B". The passenger would like to pay the lower fare, but the airline would like to collect the higher fare. The airline wants the passenger to choose between 3) "passenger pays more for flight A->B and flies A->B" and 4) "passenger doesn't fly", because they believe that sufficient passengers on this route will pay the higher price if their alternative is to stay home. So the cost to the airline of skiplagging is that they lose the ability to collect the higher fare. It's then a form of price discrimination, which generally requires some mechanism to segment consumers by ability to pay rather than by the cost of providing the goods or services. --Amble (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an equivalent to boba liberals who are a) South Asian, b) African-immigrant, c) Hispanic, d) Middle Eastern or West Asian, e) Central Asian? Donmust90 (talk) 23:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of WP:N, and I most definitely won't write an article about myself and violate WP:AB. Therefore, what accomplishments could I try to achieve to have myself covered enough in WP:RS sources, thus making myself eligible to pass WP:N? I know this is a very open-ended question, but I think having a Wikipedia article about myself would be a fun accomplishment in my life, and I would like to do it the "correct"/"proper" way by actually making a notable accomplishment in my life, instead of the hundreds of new editors rushing onto WP:AFC to write an WP:AB about themselves. Please help suggest some ideas of accomplishments (e.g. sports, programming, careers, digital content/media) I could attempt that WP:RS would pick up on, thus making myself notable enough for editors to write an article about myself. Thanks! Félix An (talk) 11:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to do anything at all. You need people, unrelated to you, to publish notable things about you. How often have you shown up in newspaper articles, magazine articles, television news programs? Has a movie been made about you? Have books been written about you? It isn't about what you have done. It is about what all those authors have done. The point of Wikipedia is to say "This guy has been discussed in media. This is a summary of what it all said. Here are the links to the original media sources."
I have wondered why nobody has started a "Get me a Wikipedia article" campaign. Hit up every news organization asking them to interview you about your campaign to get a Wikipedia article. Then, eventually, you will be notable in the fact that you are trying to be notable, except there are many resources published to show your notability (or lack of notability, which makes you notable for being well published as not notable). 68.187.174.155 (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of 68's suggestion, how could we possibly do that? We don't know anything about you, your strengths or background (and don't post any of that stuff here). Besides, if we had a good idea, why would we share it with you rather than do it ourselves? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of the things you enjoy doing, which one do you predictably enjoy most? Or do you have a dream, like tackling some really tough problem? Concentrate on that one thing, putting all your energy and enthousiasm into getting very good at it. Better yet, do this because you enjoy it, not for possible recognition. --Lambiam04:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that in any case WP:NOLYMPICS no longer presumes notability for mere participants in the olympics. You need to be a medalist, or at least perform very well (depending on the sport); or otherwise get significant coverage. See Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 43#Formal proposal: Olympic athletes. I think we still have quite a few articles on mere participants created before the change, but I'm fairly sure new articles are likely to be deleted quickly if they don't provide more evidence of notability. Of course it's possible that the story of an athlete performing very poorly because there was no one better in this new sport and the athlete only took up the sport just over a year ago with the sole desire to get a Wikipedia article might be enough to get significant coverage so perhaps this would still work but this wouldn't come simply from participation. Nil Einne (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read that essay, and it seems to be targeted towards people who would perform WP:COI or WP:AB writing. I don't mind, since I know people are going to write very embarrassing things about me, but as the old quote goes, I think "there's no such thing as bad publicity", and I definitely wouldn't violate WP:COI or WP:AB. Félix An (talk) 06:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a regular at WP:BLP/N I can say many people have come to disagree your "no such thing as bad publicity" take. In fact many people want the article on them deleted once it's clear the section on some scandal isn't likely to be removed. This is particularly ironic when the history of the article strongly suggests there was a time when this person definitely wanted an article on them; but of course it happens even when that wasn't the case. Nil Einne (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the future, could we have another planet that is very similar to Earth, except progress is not allowed, so the population are required to remain at Neolithic levels of technology? (The population are not informed about the outside world.)
For one thing, we are not supposed to offer predictions. Anything could happen in the future unless impossible by the laws of reason or by the laws of nature. So we can only discuss whether scenarios exist leading to this outcome while not violating known laws.
It is unclear who, in the sketched dystopia (or eutopia, depending on one's views), is enforcing the proscription of progress. Is this a culturally accepted restriction, in which the traditional way of life is revered so much that even the act of suggesting innovations is considered an abomination? In that case it is irrelevant whether they know about technologically advanced societies. Or are they ignorant about science, with an outside force eliminating people with an sharp mind who might discover and develop new technologies improving the way of life? --Lambiam23:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Peter J. Bowler wrote a book called The invention of progress, and Robert Nisbet wrote A history of the idea of progress. I haven't read either of these, but would like to. Clearly Progress#Philosophyis an idea, which a culture can become aware of and mythologize. Prior to this awareness, the culture may believe itself to be static, to exist in eternal golden stability as a static society, and may mythologize that. As Lambiam indicated, if progress is considered sufficiently sinful, it may be successfully prevented indefinitely, even in the face of other cultures that embrace innovations. The Amish provide a kind of example, although they're more conservative about innovation than completely opposed to it. I've heard the interesting suggestion that the reason for the apparent excruciatingly slow rate of progress throughout the paleolithic era and to some extent the neolithic was that a lot of creative effort went into preventing innovation from taking place, because creativity is not identical to innovation.
@ApricotPine: This was the subject of multiple Star Trek episodes throughout the history of the franchise. It never turned out well. Ironically, (and take this with a grain of salt, please) there is amusing speculation among enthusiasts of the Fermi paradox (as a thought experiment), that one of these solutions, the Zoo hypothesis, however unlikely, implies that we, humans on Earth, are the species where "progress" (see the Kardashev scale) is not "allowed". While most people will dismiss this as total nonsense, something weird is going on with these numbers: our species has been around for 6 million years, modern humans evolved 200k years ago, and civilization is only 6k years old. From one POV, we've had plenty of time to adapt and overcome our limitations and progress as a species, and we've basically done nothing. We are still, pretty much the same hairless apes with the same biases and preferences and weird hopes and dreams. So in a way, we are the people you describe, Zoo hypothesis or not. Our values have not changed in 6000 years. Viriditas (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it correct that the integrated LUFS is based on the momentary loudness rather than individual samples? BTW, I've have already implemented an option to select a source (either individual samples, momentary, or even short-term) to use for the integrated LUFS calculation on the loudness (LUFS) meter part of my own peakmeter so this can be tested. 2001:448A:3070:DF97:6CA1:FCBB:A642:E2B2 (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The response of a moving-coil VU meter (black line) compared to an electronic PPM indicator (grey area) of a drum beat. Level is in dB and time is in seconds Audio samples have pressure amplitudes but do not individually exhibit Loudness that must be calculated by summation of energy in critical bands. See the EBU reference LOUDNESS NORMALISATION AND PERMITTED MAXIMUM LEVEL OF AUDIO SIGNALS. An estimate of momentarily perceived peak loudness in broadcasting is meaningful only if it integrates over long enough time to properly resolve the critical band containing the lowest audio frequency component that may be 20 Hz. Note that many broadcasting sound engineers prefer the ballistic response of VU meters with which they are familiar, see illustration. Philvoids (talk) 11:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In arctic cities where there is no sun to melt snow for weeks and it can snow multiple inches each day, where do they put the snow? Is it just pushed to the edge of town as a massive snow wall? Do they truck it to a temporary snow fill? Do they snow melting facilities? 68.187.174.155 (talk) 01:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And in some they include, in and between the buildings, walkways and retail outlets, etc. one floor level above the ground, from which snow can be swept, so they don't need to use the outdoor snow-buried ground. [Ob pers: Helsinki.] {The poster formerly known as 87.812.230.195} 94.1.211.243 (talk) 07:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a video of snow removal in Tromsø, the third largest city in the Arctic Circle: [5]. You can see a few options including "spray it into the trees", but most of the snow in the video is collected into large dump trucks and then unloaded into the water of the straits surrounding the city. --Amble (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
During the snow season end of November to end of March Reykyavik, Iceland has a contingency plan for snow clearing whose priorities are 1: Main roads, important connecting roads for emergency services, busy collecting roads, and bus routes; 2: Other collecting roads and access to preschools and primary schools and 3: Residential streets. Roads are cleared by snow-removing machines that clear ice using salt or preferably brine to ensure safety with as little salt as possible. The city provides depots where residents can collect sand and salt for use in their neighborhoods and driveways. The reference gives service details and maps in English. National snow forecasts are shown here with past climate data in the first rerferenced article. Philvoids (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Moscow and St. Petersburg snow is transported by lorries to snow-melting machines. In ordinary Russian cities they transport piles of snow to huge snow dumps in the countryside. This transportation is a rather costly enterprise, so smaller towns and neighbourhoods just leave a pile of snow in each yard to wait until the sun melts it in late April. Ghirla-трёп-22:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "dotted" area looks to me as if someone scattered road salt over that part of the snow, either by hand or machine. Especially at the bottom of the top photo, you can see some of the individual pieces of salt in each "dot". In the second photo, the snowless area could have been a strip cleared by use of a larger amount of salt and maybe it was not scattered evenly and spread into the "dotted" area. --142.112.149.206 (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reading about the California Impressionists circa 1914, and I can't get over the photos of these artists painting en plein air in full, three-piece suits. To my eyes in 2024, it seems absolutely ridiculous, but I am curious about the social conventions behind this. Was it considered improper for a "gentleman" to paint outside in a shirt and shorts? Why? And who was behind enforcing this? The whole thing makes no sense to me. Viriditas (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appearing in your shirt without a jacket was definitely the mark of a labourer in the 19th-century. A saying was "From shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations" which meant that the wealth accumulated by one generation was likely to be squandered by their grandchildren. [6] This formality was a long time in passing; in the City of London office where I started work in the 1970s, a business suit was required for males and you were expected to put on your jacket if you were meeting a customer or even a manager (there was no air conditioning). Alansplodge (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This photo was taken in 1874. He's sitting in the full Hawaiian sun with a suit on. You can't really tell, but it looks like a wool suit to me. All of this forced discomfort because they don't want to appear working class? It's really hard to believe and wrap my mind around. "Let's be as uncomfortable as possible because other people might think we work for a living." Makes no sense, sorry. I get that these strange ideas are passed along from generation to generation, but at some point you have to just say, "this is crazy, I don't care what people think". So why didn't people do that? Viriditas (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cultural expectations are very powerful, much more so than mere laws. Not only does one feel pressure from one's peers to conform, and expect their disapproval if one were to break a cultural norm, one absorbs them at a subconscious level and feels internally uncomfortable at breaking them.
I (born in the 1950s) was brought up in a culture (the UK) which expected male office workers at all levels to wear a suit (waistcoat optional) at work, and personally felt uncomfortable not doing so up until the mid 1980s, after which I transitioned to wearing (usually) a sports jacket given the choice, but several subsequent employers required me to wear a suit until around 2010, and expectation of a suit at, for example, job interviews are still widespread.
One of the reasons one sees men of the pre-WW2 era wearing suits outdoors is (I suggest) that most of them probably didn't even possess any less 'formal' (by modern standards) wear designed specifically for wearing outdoors/in public. If one is acclimatised to always wearing a particular type of clothes, their feel becomes the norm rather than 'uncomfortable', and it might never even occur to one that another, unfamiliar style might be 'more comfortable.' One of the reasons that Lawrence of Arabia won the trust of the Arabs he worked with was that he, very unusually, adopted their (climate-appropriate) dress rather than sticking to English style clothing as almost all others did.
L. P. Hartley wrote "The past is a different country, they do things differently there." I wonder how many things you, Viriditas, do today unthinkingly that people in the 22nd century will find ridiculous or inexplicable? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.211.243 (talk) 05:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I was getting at has more to do with the sense of Victorian morality and its influence on fashion. But you raise a good point about climate-appropriate dress. Why does it seem that form wins out over function until about the 1960s? Viriditas (talk) 09:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the newly discovered X-ray was used to treat leukemia. Doctors found that radiation therapy worked best against chronic leukemias, but it was useless against acute types. X-rays could provide months or even years of remission for people with chronic leukemia, but the disease would always return.
The first medications for leukemia grew out of the horrors of World War I, when it was discovered that the chemical weapon mustard gas suppressed the production of blood cells.
