Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2024 June 9

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 9

Re: Do the IBM Watson videos with the different robots still exist, or are they gone?

Over a decade ago, I once saw some videos that featured several fictional robots that were each interested in doing something that Watson could already do. In each video, one of the robots was interviewed. For example, one video showed a robot talking about how it wants to help improve air quality in Beijing, to which the interviewer responds that Beijing's smog problem is "a bit more complicated than that". In another video, another robot talks about how "Back in my day, vacuum tubes were" and I forget the rest of what it said, but I hope you get the idea. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've seen this done with RfD discussions, so I don't see why I shouldn't try to do a similar thing with my unanswered Reference Desk question. (though I can see how this would be annoying if someone were to continuously repeat questions that have already received plenty of responses)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~

If no one can answer my question at the moment, then I need to know that. Total silence isn't always a helpful way to get that point across.

My best guess is that nobody else scrolling through this page was familiar with the particular videos I was trying to describe. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

That would be an excellent guess. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It is, however, not more than a guess. I guess that nobody who saw this question knows for certain that nobody who saw this question can answer it, so no one of us can reply, "No one here can answer your question." One might reply, "Perhaps nobody seeing this question can answer it." This might be added to any question that has gone unanswered. A bot might even automatically add this to any question when it is posted, so we don't need to do this.  --Lambiam 07:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I thought the question was odd. I don't recall ever seeing these videos, and for the most part, I keep on top of some of this stuff (I take a few months off from popular culture and media every year for my own health, so I do end up missing some things). Was this video only seen in China? Viriditas (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how any RefDesk editor can be expected to know that other editors don't know the answer to a question. Alansplodge (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

We are discouraged from guessing, speculating, and other forms of shooting the breeze. Even an editor stating that they do not know the answer is of no value to an OP, who is interested only in hearing from those who do know the answer. So if nobody who's seen the question knows the answer, silence is what the OP is going to get. Another possibility is that someone who's seen the question does have the answer or at least some pertinent information, but has neither the time nor the interest in providing same, and is either assuming that some other editor will come along soon and help the OP out, or perhaps doesn't care either way. In no case are they going to actually type: "I have the answer/some relevant information but do not have the time or interest in providing them", because if they could type that, they could just as easily have provided the answer itself. So, again, silence is what the OP is going to be getting. So, an assumption that silence always means that nobody who's seen the question knows the answer, is not justified. A bot might usefully say: "Your question has not attracted any answers so far. This may be for a range of reasons, including but not limited to: Nobody who has seen the question knows the answer." -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Small detail

Hi. I'll come straight to the point. Could the watch worn by referee Nicolae Rainea (centre) during the 1983 European Cup final between Hamburg Juventus have been a digital watch? Although you can't actually see very well from the picture. Thank you. https://www.google.it/search?q=nicolae+rainea1983&client=safari&sca_esv=df90e1279361e6f3&channel=iphone_bm&udm=2&biw=2133&bih=1021&sxsrf=ADLYWIKaUvinrW_lzo6DvF6Oc_RJL66vRA%3A1717975888430&ei=UDtmZrXyGbv67_UPgqaeiAM&ved=0ahUKEwi12r_01s-GAxU7_bsIHQKTBzEQ4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=nicolae+rainea1983&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiEm5pY29sYWUgcmFpbmVhMTk4M0jcJFAAWJ4ecAB4AJABAJgBT6ABsweqAQIxNLgBA8gBAPgBAZgCBqACugPCAgYQABgHGB7CAggQABgHGAgYHpgDAJIHATagB8wW&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#vhid=4sFduiXQ7Yh2IM&vssid=mosaic 93.148.11.229 (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It could have been. Digital displays were common by then. I doubt you'll find a reference for such a trivial question. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

By 1980, digital watches were cheap enough that anyone could buy one. I got my first one in 1979. By 1983, they were so common and cheap that they began coming out with digital watches that also had games on them like PacMan. So, not only could he have had a digital watch, he could have had a digital watch with a soccer game built into it. 75.136.148.8 (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Zooming in on some of the better images, it looks a bit like a Swatch, which was launched in the spring of that year, but it's hard to be certain. Alansplodge (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

It looks like an analog watch to me. If I were a referee I would not like a digital display without seconds pointer that rounds off to the nearest whole minute and I get too much real soccer to need more pretend soccer game.Philvoids (talk) 10:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree it's analogue. It is much quicker and easier to read an analogue watch. It's difficult enough to keep an eye on the action at the same time as timekeeping. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

"It is much quicker and easier to read an analogue watch" Wouldn't that vary from person to person? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Why do you assume that a digital watch wouldn't indicate seconds? I had a digital watch back then that could show hours, minutes, and seconds. And could also display the date or function as a stopwatch. (Not to mention that it could also transform into a toy robot.) --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I made no such categorical assumption and like not the provocative Straw man questioning. As a referee watching the conduct of 22 soccer players I would be merely irritated by a watch that keeps flashing ..53 54 55 56 57 58.. seconds, that threatens to turn into a toy robot or that shows phases of the Moon, whether you could buy such watches in 1983 or not. Philvoids (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)