This week's book giveaway is in the OO, Patterns, UML and Refactoring forum. We're giving away four copies of Refactoring for Software Design Smells: Managing Technical Debt and have Girish Suryanarayana, Ganesh Samarthyam & Tushar Sharma on-line! See this thread for details.
We have a pool going at work on the timing of the first snow fall that actually sticks. While we've come to basic agreement of the necessary amount of snow to qualify, we've found that we have widely varying definitions of what counts as "sticking".
The top contenders:
2. At least a week.
3. Until the last snow of the season.
I've tried googling for some sort of generally-accepted definition of how long snow has to last to count as "sticking" but have come up empty. (Maybe I just haven't stumbled on the correct combination of words to search on.) Therefore I'm turning to my colleagues here. What constitutes a snowfall that "sticks".
Bear Bibeault wrote:Seriously, I'd personally consider "sticking" snow to be any that does not immediately melt upon hitting unpaved ground.
That was my first idea too. But since you've come up with a minimum value for the "amount" of snow which you require -- would that mean the depth of the snow? -- I guess that wasn't what you meant by "sticking". Our idea doesn't require any minimum amount -- a layer one snowflake deep would be sufficient.
sometimes, the snow can 'sick' if it is on unpaved ground in a shadow, but in direct sunlight it melts.
Snow that lasts until the next snowstorm doesn't work. If there is one snowstorm this year that dumps 12 inches, which takes a week or two to melt, but then no more snow comes, by this definition it wasn't sticking.
Doesn't the national weather service provide an "accumulation" amount? Perhaps if they say you accumulated more than 1/4" or something...
There are only two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors
Around here, we use Bear's definition of sticking. It's sticking if it's accumulating on the road (and then all hell breaks loose on the roads). If it melts as soon as it hits the pavement, it's like rain as far as the cars are concerned.
Well, Bear's definition was for unpaved ground. Jayesh is suggesting it needs to stick on paved ground, which is harder to achieve, and certainly much more significant in its effect on drivers. Personally I'd agree with Bear's definition.
Mike Simmons wrote:Well, Bear's definition was for unpaved ground. Jayesh is suggesting it needs to stick on paved ground, which is harder to achieve, and certainly much more significant in its effect on drivers. Personally I'd agree with Bear's definition.
I also think that where the ground is matters too. For example, in NYC, Manhattan could be about 10 degrees warmer than the outer boroughs -- likely caused by the steam pipes and the power lines feeding the buildings, and also the underground trains.
If more than a full day has passed since the end of the snowfall, and the snow still covers the ground, it has stuck. If the snowfall ended during the night, start counting from 8am.
Joined: Feb 18, 2005
Paul Clapham wrote:I think that most of us are discussing whether snow sticks to the ground ("adheres"). But I suspect that Ryan and his co-workers are discussing whether the snow sticks around ("persists").
Exactly. How persistent does the snow have to be to count as persistent?
Joined: Mar 05, 2008
Dennis' rule seems a good way to measure persistence, then, for purposes of a bet. Combine with my stick-in-the-ground approach so you're not arguing about what it it sticks in one area but not another.