Datasets:

9wimu9

/

eli5_mult_answers_en_no_answer_in_context

like 0

[ "You just paint over them with transparent paint. That's basically it.\n\nPrograms like Photoshop have special functions which help you select very specific area and add colour to parts based on their luminosity.\n\nEDIT: To clarify, you still have to choose which colour goes where. It's pretty straightforward for skin and plants, but things like clothes involve some guessing.", "Its like a digital coloring book, but for adults.", "You paint it in. What most likely happens is that people set the original photo to \"multiply\", which basically means that the light and dark tones will affect the color on the layer directly below it. They then paint under the image with whatever color they want." ]

[ "It's an addiction. The anxiety you're fixing, is your withdrawal symptoms, that's it. It raises blood pressure, raises heart rate... it's not \"calming\" anyone, physically.", "Thanks for the answers guys, another reason to quit smoking I guess", "Could the principles of addiction as described by the commentors apply to just about every other addictive substance or activity? \nSay I'm a meth addict. I'm feelin the need for a fix. I take a hit. I am relaxed. (For the time being)\nSay I have a stressed out day. Come home to wife. Have sex. I am calm.\n\nWhat I'm getting at, is the calming property of nicotine solely the quench of thirst, so to speak? \nAnd if so, then does this property NOT apply SOLELY to other such stress relievers as meth or sex? Where these activities provide an inherent pleasure or joy, as opposed to cigarettes which don't.", "Nicotine causes the release of dopamine, and I thought one other chem. This is how meds work to curb smoking, they block the dopamine release. When that happens the positive association with smoking goes away.", "The tobacco smoke from cigarettes contains chemicals called beta-carbolines which work really well as *monoamine oxidase inhibitors* (MAOIs). \nMAOIs stop your brain from breaking down **serotonin** and **dopamine**, as well as some other chemicals. \n\nHaving more of serotonin and dopamine unbroken inside your brain makes people feel **good and calm**. That's why MAOIs have actually been used as medicine for people who are really anxious about things when they shouldn't be and also for people who feel really sad too much.", "I haven't seen this mentioned here and I don't have a source, but I've read that deep breathing can be relaxing, which is exactly what you do when dragging the cigarette.\n\nEdit: here's a link with some relevant stuff: _URL_0_" ]

[ "Follow up question regarding the picture : is the haze between the landing craft and the bluffs overlooking the beach a natural phenomenon, dust from shelling, or a deliberate smokescreen to protect the landing craft from fire?", "It is also worth looking up the life and photographers taken by war correspondent [Marie Colvin](_URL_0_). She had a remarkable life and career, tragically cut short when the Syrian forces attacked her and other journalists in 2012. \n\n[_URL_1_](_URL_1_)\n\n[_URL_2_](_URL_2_)" ]

[ "On /r/skincareaddiction, I read that the skin absorbs some of the sunscreen over time, so it's no longer a barrier on the surface of the skin. Apparently that's why some powder SPFs are recommended instead.", "Chemical sunscreens react with UV light and become ineffective after they are broken down. They can also wash /wear off. Most sunscreens are chemical. " ]

[ "Well given that Erastosthenes around 240BC already calculated an approximate circumference of the earth, you really need to go in early antiquity and even prehistory to find any beliefs about flat earth and moon.\n\nAt least for ancient Greeks I can say, that at that time, they thought Moon was a goddess. And this was probably true for other cultures who saw earth as flat, to think similarly.\n\nAnd mind you, this is as modern as it gets in flat Earth theory, at least in \"west\". [Wikipedia](_URL_0_) claims, that Chinese believed until 17th century. But I'm not a specialist for Chinese history.\n\nI just wanted to point out, that belief in \"dark ages\" when people believed in flat earth, or even were force to believe it, because of the church, was created during the enlightenment era. The point of creating the myth of \"dark ages\" was to make enlightened ideas of humanism, secularism and science newer and more special then they actually were.", "I heard Anna Badkhen on NPR talking about her book [The World is a Carpet](_URL_0_). \n\nIn her time spent in an Afghanistan Village the question was posed on how long it would take to ride from the village to the USA on a donkey. She explain that it was impossible because of the sea. The villagers then asked her what direction should they travel. She explain that east or west would okay, because the world is round. They told her that she is wrong, and that the World is flat. \n\nTLDR - some people today, actually believe the world is flat.", "Aristotlean philosophy (the base of the dominant pre-modern astronomical approach in Europe) saw the Moon, the Sun, and other \"heavenly bodies\" as perfect spheres. This would have been the case irrespective of his view of the Earth, because the Earth was not a heavenly body. The more interesting question is, when did people realize the Moon was something different from the other planets (in that it truly rotates around the Earth with a tidal lock), and that the Sun was not a planet, but a star? I don't recall exactly when this approach came into vogue but it was later than the Ancients. That the Moon was in fact a rocky, mountainous body, and not a perfect sphere, was one of Galileo's telescopic discoveries." ]

[ "Theoretically if you only replace that one chromosome with an X but that chromosome carries genetic information as well, not just sex characteristics. And one of the X chromosomes becomes inactive, called a Barr body, but there is no way to choose which one. So you would be changing more then just the sex of the person.", "Of course, this would not be a clone of the man, as the active genes from the Y chromosome would be missing.", "As others have said there is a whole bunch of genetic material on the Y that is not present on the X (hence the man/woman thing in the first place) but essentially If you took a man's cell. Removed his Y and added another copy of the X he already had that would be as close as you could get to cloning a female version of himself.\n\nYou would be much much more closely related than a brother and sister since the other 45 chromosomes are identical. And only ever so slightly less identical than identical twins since the only difference would come from the Y chromosome. \n\nBut due to all the interactions at play ( hormonal differences etc ) its hard to say whether the 2 would even look any more similar than a standard brother sister pair.", "There may be other reasons why this would not work the way you are thinking, but the first I can think of is that it would fail to produce a healthy individual because of genomic imprinting. Each of the chromosomes in a zygote is marked by epigenetic modifications that indicate whether the chromosome comes from the mother or the father. By duplicating the X chromosome in a male zygote (and removing Y), you would have two maternal X chromosomes. Imprinting is related to gene inactivation and abnormalities in imprinting cause syndromes such as Prader-Willi, Angelman and Beckwith-Wiedemann.\n\nEdited to add some more after I read the other comments: even if you disregard the difference cause by the absence of the Y chromosome genes (which aren't too many anyway) it would not be possible because of what I just said. Of course that the two would have to be a bit genetically different, they have different genders*. What you could do is take a male zygote, remove the Y and add a paternal X to it, which has to come from a male's sperm cell. You could get an paternally-marked X chromosome from the maternal grandfather of male to do that, and then make sure you get an egg that has the same X. That may give you what you want, but could also give you a female with some recessive X-linked diseases. I'm sorry if it is too confusing, what you are trying to do is more complicated than it sounds.\n\n*ok, this is a small lie. Sexual differentiation in humans is way more complex than XX vs XY. The gonads differentiate according to presence or absence of a protein called Testis-determining factor which is coded by a Y chromosome gene. Phenotypic sex, which is all the other physical differences, is determined by hormone secretion by the gonads, and hormone secretion is determined by both sexual and autosomal genes. Any of these steps can go a little bit wrong and give you XY females (which is close to what you want but not totally \"healthy\" _URL_0_), hermaphrodites, infertility and different syndromes.", "Please excuse my ignorance, but do we, as a species, have the capability right now, in place, to actually clone a human at all?", "It wouldn't produce a viable embryo, due to the process of genomic imprinting. For most genes, it doesn't matter whether you got that gene from your mother or father, all that matters is that it's somewhere on one of your chromosomes. However, some genes are differently expressed if they're on a paternal chromosome or a maternal chromosome. In an XX, one of the X's is maternal and one is paternal, and there are some genes that are only expressed from maternal X's or paternal X's. In an XY, the X is always maternal. If you were to take the one X and duplicate it, you would get 2 maternal X's, and no paternal X's. Because of this, you'd get a double expression of some genes, and no expression of other genes, which would likely mess things up enough to not allow normal development.", "Med student studying genetics and genetic diseases here - in addition to what everyone has said regarding it being a sister, there would also be a high risk of genetic disease in the sister with a duplicated x. This is because recessive mutations (which we all have a lot of and don't know - we actually have on average 4.8 lethal mutations alone in our genome) on the x chromosome (with a lot of important genes) would manifest in the phenotype. You could do this, but you would be taking a big risk that the girl would be healthy.", "Scientists have tried this, but it doesn't work. They don't know why, it just doesn't. I remember my genetics teacher Dr. Henry Chang told us this. He has done loads of research on drosophila melanogaster, and said he tried to do this with flies, but it didn't work. Then, out of curiosity, he asked one of his colleagues on the other side of the planet if he could try it with human cells. He simply combined the genetic material of two male cells by putting them into a sperm and egg, respectively, and letting them come together naturally; it didn't work. Then, he tried doing that manually; it still didn't work. He tried for many years, but was never able to get to even **1 cell division.** Ultimately, he attributed it to a number of possibilities -- the only one I can remember is there must be something altered between male and female X chromosomes, or something altered within male and female X chromosomes during growth or life.\n\nTL;DR - Teacher's friend tried for many years, through many ways to do this, but couldn't even get 1 cell division. ", "In addition to issues with recessive alleles, there is also evidence that paternal and maternal X chromosomes carry epigenetic imprints which seem to lead to differential silencing of the paternal X chromosome in various tissues during development (at least in mouse studies). If true in this context, two paternal X chromosomes may not be sufficient for normal embryonic development. ", "In fact, you don't even need to get rid of the Y and give the sister a copy of the X. You can just inactivate the *SRY* gene, which means that during development the baby would go on as if it were a girl. \n\nSo no need to double, you could just use gene knockout. \n\nEdit: needed to fix tenses.", "More answers here, when the same question was asked 5 days ago. \n\n[Could the X chromosome from a male be doubled to create a female?](_URL_0_)", "There are a whole host diseases the female clone could suffer from (such as Prader-Willi or Happy Pupppet syndrome). X chromosomes from males are epigentically different to female X chromosomes, even if the genetic code is the same. This is known as imprinting (_URL_0_). \n\n", "Yes, but there could be numerous unpredictable consequences from using two of the same X chromosome. ", "Did this question come from X-23 being Wolverine's female clone?", "_URL_0_\n\nKlinefleter's is a syndrome where a male has XXY genotype. " ]

[ "Another question: Wasn't Jesus very poor, and was it said that being poor was equal to walking in the footsteps of Jesus?", "Though I cannot answer the question about the origins of this idea, I can point out a particularly useful example in American history. The minister Russell Conwell (the founder of Temple University) gave an extremely influential sermon called Acres of Diamonds to thousands of audiences that essentially proclaimed that the rich were rewarded by God for being rich while the poor were punished for their shortcomings. It was delivered to numerous audiences during the Gilded Age and told people their worldly salvation was dependent on their own willingness to reform themselves to be more godly. Once people became more virtuous, then God would give them wealth as a reward. \n\nMax Weber wrote in his influential book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism that a certain work ethic associated with Protestantism specifically led to Protestant success in worldly, money-making endeavors, pointing out that mercantile professions were pursued by Calvinists who believed in predestination and looked for some sort of sign to indicate whether they were saved.", "Side question. Is this mentality tied to the Prosperity Gospel?", "Just wanted to point out that this idea predates Christianity, and I assumed it was a main theme in human history that the rich must be divinely blessed. A good example of this ancient idea is the Book of Job. Job's three friends are pretty much beating this dead horse: you must have sinned, because God stole away all your wealth and children. This thought of worldly blessing as an evidence of spiritual righteousness is also the idea Jesus confronts concerning the Tower of Siloam (sp?). So prosperity gospel Christians have a long legacy of this idea to draw upon.", "As the Moderator pointed out (also read his post to improve your good manners while on reddit), \"Protestant\" would be a more suiting term. In fact, who actually believe in \"ascension\" through work are Lutherans and Calvinists.\n\nSince believers offer something to God in order to honor it, be it money (for the church to use it to help people in need) or others (emotions or even the withstanding of pain in the name of God). Lutherans were offering money, profit of their work, and such meant more people could be helped. From there started the belief that God would compensate those who helped by giving them more money than what they donated, and obviously that would come through their work. The more you are succesfull the more money you can give the more God compensates you. Also, they would be offering the pain and efforts of their hard-work to God, and the profit would be its way to tell them it appreciated their act.\n\nOn the other hand, there are Calvinists who believed everything was decided by God from the day you were born. Of course if you were in God's favor, your life would be good and without troubles; whereas if God didn't love you, your life would be terrible and full of obstacles. Therefore, succesfull people would be those in favor of God: why did God choose them? Because they would never sin and would be models for society. The others are abandoned by God because they would sin so much in life that God just gave up on them and gave them nothing", "About 100 years ago the German sociologist Max Weber theorized that one of the causes for the rise of Capitalism was Protestantism (specifically ascetic Protestantism). It's not so widely accepted today (although much debated), but I think it can offer a possible explanation to OP's question.\n\nTo understand the Weber Thesis, we need first to recall medieval Catholicism. So, for more than a 1000 years, this is basically (but not completely) the only time of Christianity in western Europe. most people were secular Christian (they were not called Catholic, as there was no other type to speak of), and a large minority were clergy (monks, friars or priests). \nAccording to Catholic theology of the time (and I believe today as well), A believer spends his life gaining or loosing \"points\" - by doing righteous of pious deeds (of committing sins) - and upon his death, he is judged and accordingly sent to heaven (\"salvation\") or to hell (\"damnation\") (or the purgatory). A believer can also redeem himself by committing pious acts (pilgrimage, penance) that counter act his sins (for a time, mostly in the 14-15th century a believer could **buy** some \"points\" for himself or others. in part, this might have helped stir the genesis of the Reformation).\n\nNow, Protestants, and mostly Calvinists (the branch of early Protestantism founded by the Frenchman Jean Calvin, and out of which a great extent of modern American Protestant churches rose) had a different theology. Calvin was an adherent of *Predestination*. This is the belief that your whole life have been per-determained by God in the beginning of time. All your righteous and evil deeds are not your choice, but you destiny. And thus, God has already decided of you are to be saved or doomed when you die. Theologically, the Calvinist can only observe and try to assess his destiny. He can only guess if God has chosen him. However, Calvin said that the believer might have some clue. For example, if he is chosen by God for salvation, he is more likely to be kind, righteous and successful. In practice, this gave a huge motivation for Calvinists to be righteous and successful, so they could reassure themselves of their salvation. \n\nNow, Weber argued, that Protestants and Calvinists in particular, tended to strive for business success, while on the other hand, to maintain a modest (=pious) lifestyle. this lead to an increase in capital that could be invested to gain more \"success\" (while a successful catholic might just spend this money, lest say), and *voilà*: Capitalism. Now, we can argue on the same lines, that modern Protestants might identify economic success with spiritual virtue for the same reason: It stems from the teaching of Calvin. This success is an evidence to the \"election\" (this is the theological term) of the wealthy person, and therefore attests to his spiritual value in the eyes of God.\n\n\nWeber, Max. *The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism*\n_URL_0_\n\n\n*Edit*: Totally missed to opportunity to use \"karma\" instead of \"points\". " ]

[ "There are companies making that, or at least enabling you to do it. There are safety reasons the Lambo has to be made of those very expensive materials. Cars with that kind of look can be built as [Kit Cars](_URL_0_ ) without all the crash testing.", "what makes a car \"good looking\".\n\nFor example, the crysler 300C was widely seen as a copy of a bentley. Ford has shown significant influence from aston martin.\n\nIts hard to definitively say what makes something attractive, but part of the perception is the brand that is attached to these exotic cars, if the exact thing was put under a toyota badge, it wouldnt have the same reception.\n\nSome part of it is that angular lines are difficult to stamp in a high production press. Mind you, the exotic cars are made from carbon fiber panels, so its not an issue for them.", "A sporty/performance car with a underpowered engine would still be expensive because of the name brand. Not to mention all the fancy carbon fibre and aero bits are not cheap. Plus replacement parts for these cars would most likely be only OEM. \nBesides not many people would want to pay say $90,000 for a downgrade Lamborghini that has a v6 that has maybe like 250-280hp tops. When they would buy a GTR for 20k more. \n\nIn the end most people don't want to spend big cash for a underpowered car that looks fast. ", "As you try to make it nicer and nicer, manufacturing costs will increase. The other reason is start up cost: you're looking at hundreds of millions to billions. VW, which owns Lamborghini, could theoretically make a new sports car to look like a Lambo but at 10% of the cost, but it would only serve to dilute the brand's cache.\n\nBottom line: if you want a poor mans sports car, Americans have a lot to offer.", "I agree this is an interesting phenomenon, or lack of one. Think of all the other products where looks are a factor. For every top brand that look great and perform well, there's a copycat that goes for the look without the performance.", "It's called a Porsche Boxter, and the reason no one buys them is because it's like wearing a shirt that says \"Shit didn't really pan out the way I'd hoped\"", "See [these many previous threads](_URL_0_) about why we don't see more cheap but good-looking cars.", "I actually see this trend happening already. Nobody is going balls out and making copies of Lamborghinis but companies like Hyundai are taking queues from luxury sedans like those made by Mercedes and making affordable cars look not all that dissimilar to $100,000+ ones. \n\nI mean [this](_URL_0_) is a Hyundai. A couple years ago I would never have believed that. ", "Forget reality for a moment, let's say you could actually manufacture a car that looked like an Aventador for the price of a Dart.\n\nSuper exotic cars like Lamborghinis are designed to be eye catching because they're absurdly expensive. The point of driving them is rarely performance because your average Lamborghini owner probably can't drive for shit at those speeds which is why their usual home is the street and not the track. The point of driving them is to scream to the world \"LOOK AT ME! I'VE GOT A TON OF MONEY!\"\n\nSo let's say you buy the budget Lambo. It still screams out to the world, but now it screams out \"LOOK AT ME! I'M FUCKING BROKE!\" It's the same thing as buying a gigantic shiny watch that says ROLL-ECKS on it in huge letters. It doesn't matter that it looks big and shiny, you're loudly advertising the fact that you can't afford the real thing. " ]

[ "With very, very few exceptions, stars in photographs, including this one, are not resolved, and just appear as what we call \"point sources\" - what we call sources of light which, to the limits of our ability to measure, are indistinguishable from infinitesimally small points of light.\n\nBecause our telescopes don't have infinite resolution, even point sources will appear a bit \"smeared\" - their light appearing spread out around the star itself.\n\nThe reason why the stars appear to have discs here, is that the area surrounding the stars is \"saturated\" in the image. Imagine each pixel records the brightness of a given patch of sky, on a scale from 1-100. In any patch of sky bright enough to max out the scale, the pixel will read 100 - which will get displayed as a fully white pixel. And because of the smearing I described above, you will find a whole *bunch* of pixels maxed out around particularly bright stars. Which is which is what happened here.", "Let's do some napkin math.\n\nWolframAlpha has a nice feature in which you can simply specify various quantities in English. What's [Alpha Centauri's radius/Alpha Centauri's distance](_URL_2_)? It's about 1.7E-8. Or, if you use the values posted on Wikipedia, [2.06E-8](_URL_4_). That's our angle, roughly, in radians.\n\nCan a telescope possibly zoom in far enough? The usual angular resolution limit is the [Rayleigh criterion](_URL_0_), based on diffraction. D = 1.22 wavelength/angle. It turns out, that calculation demands a diameter of [35 meters](_URL_1_). That's almost reasonable for the largest telescopes on Earth, which are about 10 meters wide. This question isn't quite settled then.\n\nOk, let's try again. The orbital separation is roughly 17AU. Dividing that by the radius of the larger star, we find a factor of about [3000](_URL_3_). Does it look like the separation is roughly 3000 times wider than the dot? No, maybe a few dozen. The true radius of the stars should be much smaller, but it's bloomed much wider by optical fuzziness limits." ]

[ "I would guess the reason is because the light from stars is more obvious as opposed to a planet that doesn't generate light itself and we have to rely on light bouncing off of it from the sun and that can be tricky if it's really far away and we can either in the wrong position angle wise or we might assume it is another planet when we see it. It does seem odd to me too but that's the only explanation I can think of. ", "Because galaxies are just more photogenic. They are bigger, brighter, and sit still better than Pluto and other distant solar system object, and that makes for better pictures.\n\nObviously, galaxies are bigger, but they are also bigger in the sky. Pluto takes up a minuscule 1/30,000th of a degree, which is near the limit of detail that the largest telescopes can resolve. A typical galaxy is 1000 times larger in the sky, and some are even bigger than the sun or the moon.\n\nGalaxies are also brighter. Objects in the night sky are measured on a scale called magnitude, where every 5 steps represents a hundredfold increase in brightness. The brighter stars have magnitudes of 1 or less, the naked eye can see down to a magnitude of 6, 100 times dimmer. A brighter galaxy might have a magnitude of 8, while Pluto is about 250 times dimmer at 14.\n\nFinally, galaxies are so far away, they are essentially stationary. That means you can point a telescope at it for hours, or days if you are in space, and take very long exposures that bring out faint details. Pluto, on the other hand, rotates on its axis every 6 days. After just one hour, it will have turned about 3°, which is enough to make the details get all smeary.\n\nCombine these factors together, and it isn't terribly surprising why we have to send a space probe out Pluto to get it to pose for the camera.", "A quick comparison:\n\nHold up a piece of pencil lead against the sun at arm's length. The relative distance between the pencil lead and the sun is about the same between Pluto and the Andromeda Galaxy. However, the relative size is off: the pencil lead is about 1000 times too big across. Also, Pluto is in a place where there's no light.\n\nThis \"new planet\" (if it exists) is bigger than Pluto; but it's not a lot bigger (not 1000 times bigger across); and it's farther away. And it's even more dark.\n\nBasically, finding a distant star is like looking for a candle in the night. Finding a distant galaxy is like finding the sun (or looking at the stars in the night). But finding a planet is like finding a bit of ash or a small screw in the middle of the night, with no lights on." ]

[ "Mahabharata for India. Can also be read as the earliest science fiction. :) ", "Sundiata an Epic of old Mali is a semi-historical epic from the 12th century in Mali. It is transcribed from oral tradition and tells the founding of the Mali empire. ", "in Japan _the_ classic work is [The Tale of Genji](_URL_0_).\n\nIt is more a novel than an epic.", "Turkey's versions are the Bozkurt (Grey Wolf) epics around [Asena](_URL_1_) and [Ergenekon](_URL_0_). It's unclear to me just how much of the tradition is fabricated, and I've never seen any primary source translation in English (or any other Indo-European language). However there totally might be and if you're just watching on YouTube decent chance there's a shitty movie from the 70s about it (and as someone on the Internet you hopefully know the value of shitty Turkish movies from the 70s as in \"Turkish Star Wars\"). ", "There's always the Nibelungenlied for Germanic folklore.", "A convenient list: _URL_0_", "Looks like it hasn't been mentioned yet, but my absolute favorite is the Epic of Gilgamesh. I have a really great free translation/paraphrased (not sure if that's the right term - it's a version that was written by a professional author, basically a more readable, entertaining version) by Stephen Mitchell.", "China's Journey to the West is a strong candidate. While not dealing with war, it is written along the lines of a classic hero quest, where the hero must set off for a purpose, and returns changed and enlightened.\n\nIt's considered one of the 4 canons of chinese literature. ", "Related question: Has an English translation of any of the Slavic poems that Parry recorded been done?", "Jews don't really have good examples. The closest in content is probably the Deuteronomic History of the bible, but that's not written in poetic form. However, one interesting example is [Dukus Horant](_URL_0_). It's one of the earliest examples we have of written Yiddish. Of course, it's not exactly non-European, since it's written in a Germanic language in Europe. But it's interesting nonetheless.", "[The Epic of Gilgamesh](_URL_0_) from Ancient Sumeria (Mesopotamia), probably one of the greatest influences on ancient literature that hasn't been mentioned yet." ]

[ "I'm not sure if it's related, but the reason people rub their neck when they are really anxious is that the Vagus nerve runs right through there. Stimulating your Vagus nerve gives a pretty large response of the Parasympathetic nervous system which calms you (slows heart rate, slows respiratory rate, drops blood pressure, etc...). ", "It's also letting people know that you don't want them to talk to you. \n\n\"I'm thinking.\"\n\"Well think me up a cup of coffee and a donut with some of them sprinkles on it!\"", "I'm no expert, but we learned this from our Ethology class:\n_URL_0_\n\nBasicially if you have 2 conflicting behaviours (so thinking about which of the 2 pizzas you are about to order) it can lead you to express a third one that is unrelated to them(Scratching head).\n\nThis can be seen in a lot of other animals.\n\nBuuut there may be other reasons, like having physical stimulation increase the stimulation of your brain whilst thinking about an answer.\n\nMaybe someone else here has a cited resource on chin scratching :D", "I think it must be a kind of \"pause\" indicator. If you are in a conversation and need some time to think before responding, you might put a hand or finger up to your mouth to signal the pause. You hold on to your chin as if to say, \"hold on, lemme think\" so the person whom you're talking to doesn't wonder why you've inexplicably gone silent and staring. ", "In conversation it is a social gesture. When your arm is on a desk, supporting your head can help you relax and focus on a tough problem. There is something about taking the strain off your neck muscles that helps to take the edge off of the stress.", "In \"Seeing Through Clothes,\" a book by Anne Hollander, she talks about generations and their learned gestures. The touching of the chin is sort of a gestural convention that has been with us for a while. I can't say if there's a sort of a predisposition for the pose, but there's definitely a learned component. That's why it's so amusing to look at little kids because they learn these gestures so quickly, like the indignant downward tilting of the head and folding of the arms to show when they're upset. ", "I would go for learned behavior. We saw the classical philosophical beard stroking of wise men, and just imitate it from an early age.", "It's a lot easier to think when body is in relaxed state and the more upward blood flow goes to brain. Resting chin on head reduces supporting neck muscles using up the blood flowing upwards, hence more blood for brain; additionally by sitting down more blood is available for upper body as the lower body is not as active. So generally [the thinking man](_URL_0_) pose is optimal for active brain.\n\nWe subconsciously do this when thinking deeply, and has become an evolutionary trait. There are [other ways](_URL_1_) to increase blood flow to brain, but that benefit maybe countered by discomfort.\n\nEdit: Minor word correction as I was not resting my chin on hand\nUpdate: Speaking from experience, not research based\n\nUpdate2: Queries on source? Peer reviewed research will be hard to come by given the topic (medically mundane/commercially not valuable)..but it is evident from experience that thinking capacity is diminished after heavy food or we feel light headed when getting up suddenly–both corresponding to redirection of blood supply while heart rate has not caught up. Once the heart rate has caught-up, there's more overall circulation, so mild activity works. Heavy activity, however, counters the benefit of circulation with lower blood oxygen level. Easy way for focused thinking—sit down after drinking ginkgo tea followed by a brisk walk.", "I don't think it has any particular biological significance. Many cultures do it differently. I have seen people rub their forehead, gently tap their forehead, rub the hair right above forehead, rub the back of the skull, tap temples and so on.", "I was pretty sure only emoji's, cartoon characters and bad actors in tv shows/movie did that. \n\nReading the comments here seem to claim otherwise. ", "I don't know, but I'm pretty sure this is where the phrase \"hold that thought...\" came from tho.", "I have never in real life seen anyone actually touch or rub their chin while thinking about something. ", "When I'm thinking heavily, I often start touching my lips. So it's not just the chin. In other words, it probably has nothing to do with \"protecting the neck\". Neither does it have to do with cultural inheritance probably. \n\nThere is evidence though that people with ADHD can concentrate better if they are doing something with their hands in the meanwhile, so this could be a possible factor.", "Am i only exception who doesnt do this?" ]

[ "Many shots are directed into large muscles in order to be slowly absorbed by the body. Such placements also are easier for the administer because the exact positioning isn't as important as trying to enter a vein, and it does not present as much risk of bleeding.\n\nArm muscles are large and convenient to access. Conceptually they could use the legs but many people wear long pants which would obstruct injection.", "Yes and no. Yes in that certain shots need to go into certain types of tissue. This means some shots need to go into your muscle, some need to go below your skin and actually go in your skin (the test for tuberculosis).\n\nThe muscle ones are the most common and those are really decided by the size of your muscles. The big, easy to get to muscles are your butt, your thighs and your upper arms. In general they limit how much volume (milliliters) per muscle. So smaller injections can go in your arm (very easy to get to), larger ones need to go in your legs and the biggest ones tend to go into the butt.\n\nYou've got muscles all over but trying to inject the same amount of medicine into your rib muscle would be difficult and painful compared to your relatively large bicep. For the most part muscle is muscle (exceptions like heart muscle and muscle that moves your intestines around) so size is the most important factor, followed by convenience like ease of access." ]

[ "I'm going to assume you know how a 4 stroke engine works in this post,if not there's thousands of youtube videos that explain it\n\nBecause you don't want a car that redlines at 14,000 RPMs. Motorcycles are lightweight and don't require much power to accelerate; cars on the other hand have lots of inertia and are meant to be driven around in stop and go traffic so you need to be able to make enough power to safely accelerate from low RPMs.\n\nComponents on a motorcycle engine are much smaller and therefore have much less inertia so you can go from 2,500 RPMs to 10,000 RPMs with a blip of the throttle. The valvetrain of a motorcycle is also designed to withstand high RPMs. If you overspeed a car's engine (drop it into too low of a gear at too high of a speed and release the clutch) the biggest danger is something called valve float. This occurs when the valve springs don't shut the valves quick enough and the pistons strike the open valves damaging them. Motorcycles, which have to cope with much higher RPMs have stiffer valve springs. Since the valve springs are stiffer it makes it harder to turn, you increase parasitic loss from the valvetrain and increase wear and tear. That's why you don't necessarily want stiffer valve springs on a car.\n\nHowever, if you did for whatever reason decide to upgrade your valve springs to stiffer ones, the other problem you run into is volumetric efficiency. When engineers design an engine for a street driven car, they want an engine with a flat torque curve. That is, when you floor it at 3,000 RPMs you accelerate roughly the same as you would when you hold it at 5,000 RPMs. This makes the car driveable on normal road conditions since you don't want to constantly be shifting gears. If valve float were not an issue, volumetric efficiency becomes one. At too high of an engine speed the airflow into the cylinders gets less and less efficient. That is, when you floor it at 3,000 RPMs when the piston moves down during the intake stroke it draws in more air than it would at 7,500 RPMs. Cars rely on something called the scavenging effect to maximize the air drawn in during each stroke; when exhaust gasses leave the cylinder they leave in 3 pulses:\n\n1. The first pulse occurs when the valve begins to open and the cylinder pressure equalizes with the pressure in the exhaust manifold\n2. The majority of the gasses come out in this pulse when the piston rises to expel the gasses out the cylinders\n3. This is where that extra umf comes in, scavenging. The exhaust valve stays open while the piston moves down during the intake stroke and while the intake valve is slightly open. The exhaust gasses inside the exhaust system have inertia and want to move towards the muffler, while both valves are still open the exhaust gasses scavenge some of the air inside the cylinder out that would otherwise remain trapped if the exhaust valve closed the instant the intake valve opens\n\nThe amount of time both the intake valve and exhaust valve remain open is called overlap, the more overlap you have the harder it is for the engine to operate at low RPMs but the more power you make at high RPMs. This is what gives old muscle cars the distinctive rumbling sound at idle. Motorcycles tend to have slightly more overlap than street cars. Motorcycles also tend to have shorter intake runners which also contribute to a higher revving engine.", "Try this - hold something - say, an orange - in your hand. Swing it back and forth through about 12 inches, as fast as you can. You can definitely feel the resistance to changing direction. OK. A piston in an engine running at 6,000 rpm is reversing direction 100 times PER SECOND! It really, really doesn't \"want\" to do that. It's yanking and pushing on that connecting rod with all the \"First Law of Motion\" it can muster. Those \"forces\" increase with mass (size?) and increase exponentially with speed. So, given that they are made of similar materials, smaller parts can do it faster than bigger parts, before they destroy themselves.", "Long stroke engines generate more torque, torque being raw twisting power. In order for the piston to move up and down really far (stroke), the crank pins need to be further away from the center of the crank shaft (crank pins are where the connecting rods connect to the crank shaft, then the other end of the connecting rods connect to the piston). The crank arms offset the crank pins from the center of the crankshaft. So ultimately, the longer the crank arms the are the longer the stroke is. \n\nOkay, now that that's out of the way, I shall use a little analogy. Imagine you are working on your car and have to remove a few bolts. One of them has corroded and rusted and you're having a really hard time removing it, no matter how hard you push on the wrench. You decide to grab a way longer wrench and with that you're finally able to break it loose and remove the bolt. This is because of leverage, you were able to apply way more twisting power on the bolt with a longer wrench. So just imagine instead of a longer wrench you have longer crank arms, and when the piston is forced down from the gas exploding it applies more twisting power on the crank shaft. This means more torque is generated.\n\nThis has turned out to be rather long winded, I hope you're following me so far! Cars are pretty heavy compared to motorcycles and need a lot more torque to get them to start moving. So car engines need to have longer strokes compared to motorcycle engines. Unfortunately this means the pistons need to travel a lot faster in order to complete the stroke, and faster moving parts mean more friction, and more friction means more heat and wear. This is bad and is why long stroke engines can't rev up as high as a motorcycle engines can.\n\nHigh revving motorcycle engines have very short strokes. Those bikes only weigh 400 pounds, so they don't need much torque to get them to start moving. But if you were to take that same engine and put it in a heavy car you would have a hard time just getting off the line, there's just not much power at low RPM. But because these engines can rev up super high they are able to generate a crap ton of horsepower at high RPM, especially for their small size, which makes them awesome for racing. The draw back here is that they are dog slow until you hit the 9,000 mark. \n\nDoes this help at all?", "Short version:\n\nAn engine contains parts which need to change the direction they are moving in frequently. A small engine (such as an MC) has smaller parts. Smaller parts can change direction quicker without the forces becoming too large. If the forces becomes too large, you'll get vibrations and possibly failure.", "Jesus...I googled this, and the first response was this same fucking question asked and answered over a year ago on this very same shitty site. _URL_0_\n\nHere you go you lazy liberal fuck." ]

[ "There are two reasons. The first reason is that credit card companies do not like anything that might dissuade people from using their card to buy something, and people are not going to like having to provide a DNA sample or do a retinal scan to buy a pack of cigarettes. The second and more important one is, credit card companies rarely lose any money on fraudulent transactions. Unless the physical card is stolen and used by someone impersonating you, the merchant is the one on the hook for the charges, not the credit card company. The credit card company has no incentive to make it any more difficult to steal a credit card number. If someone steals your credit card number and buys a bunch of stuff on Amazon, it's Amazon that's out that money, not Visa or Mastercard.", "I install pos systems and develop payment gateways.\n\nTwo giant issues....merchant processing companies decide what equipment they sell to clients.... either the company or the client has to foot the bill for upgrades to the new standard.... so any implementation is slow.... other countries have NFC, chip based cards for decades now. Apple pay is giving the final kick in the ads for major overhauls.\n\nSecond, better standards and pin pads passwords exist and are being rolled out now. Mobile pay fits your criteria.... installs of new units are occurring everyday.\n\nThird, credit cards will revoke fraud charges or call you up for suspicious transactions.... if you dump $1080 in a day, you'll get a call. You can have text notifications for every purchase made....maes it really easy to identify fraud." ]

[ "It sounds to me like you are talking about a judgment. As an example, someone breaks a lease and the landlord then gets a judgment against the tenant for $3,000. In my state, they normally add 8 and 3/4% interest to the judgment, simple interest (it doesn't compound - no interest on interest). \n\nIt is the landlord's job to collect the judgment. First, you record the judgment in the county where the debtor resides. By recording the judgment a lien is created on all the tenant/debtor's real estate in the county. If the debtor tries to sell any real estate, it is sold subject to the lien of the creditor/landlord. So, the bank will not loan money to the buyer of the property unless the lien is paid off. So, at closing the creditor is issued a check for the value of the property.\n\nSecond, the landlord/creditor can foreclose on the \"real\" property themselves. Sue the debtor again to force the sale of the property.\n\nThird, the creditor can send the Sheriff to the debtor's home to \"execute\" on the judgment. This is where the Sheriff shows up with the judgment and then takes stuff to be sold to pay off the judgment. \n\nFourth, if the debtor has no property to execute against, then, in my state the creditor can garnish the debtor's wages (garnishing is where the a third-party is sued because they hold property that should/will be given to the debtor). The creditor can also garnish a bank account or other debtor property that is held by another.\n\nIANAL, and especially not your lawyer. If there is a debt out there you cannot pay, and you are in the US, then you should talk to a bankruptcy lawyer ASAP. Good luck and good night.\n", "A lot of people in the criminal justice system are trying to get rid of LFOs (legal financial obligations) for poor people. We shouldn't be funding our courts on the back of people who are already struggling just to survive and placing huge LFOs on criminal defendants may make it impossible for them to solve a lot of the issues that led to them committing crimes in the first place.\n\nThere is a pretty big movement to try to get courts to find a better solution but it is slow going.\n\nHere is a good breakdown of the issue: _URL_0_", "A lot of fines brought down by municipalities and other governmental organizations that are a result of laws being broken can easily result in a person ending up in prison due to nonpayment of that fine.\n\nWhich is fucked up six ways to Sunday for two main reasons:\n\n 1. How is a person supposed to make money in prison? In many cases the prison term costs the state more than the fine in the first place, and a prison term disenfranchises the person, making it even harder for them to find work and pay off the fine, causing a negative feedback loop that results in increased incarceration, systemic poverty and a higher likelihood of further illegal actions (theft, etc.) just to make ends meet. It's punishing people for being poor by making them more poor; a classic Regressive Right tactic to keep the 99% in their place.\n 2. Debtor's prisons are illegal in America, from the Federal level on down. Because this is Federal law, no state can run a debtor's prison or send someone to jail for failure to pay a debt. And yet, they still do. Problem is, so few people know that they cannot be sent to jail for failure to pay a debt that few challenge it." ]

[ "Go for something that you can get passionate about. If you're pissed off about how there were no WMDs in Iraq after all, then learn about the Spanish-American War. If you hate Fox, learn about Muckrakers and and the corrupted yellow journalism of the time. \n\nThe important point is to connect what you're learning to something you actually care about, so that talking about it is a joy, not a chore.", "One that would be topical to the current political climate would be the Square Deal and how it reigned in the robber barons, established fair business doctrines, broke many monopolies, established consumer protections, and protected the environment.", "It's always going to be relative to what you think is interesting. Since history often repeats itself, just decide what you think the most important political issue is today. For example, I am mostly concerned about the warmongering over Iran and the trigger-happy attitude of neoconservatives. Because of that, I'd probably do my report on the Spanish-American War. You might find something else more important/interesting.", "Professor is a civil war buff who gives the dates of 1877-1917? Why not the evolution of the civil war militia system into the modern national guard between those very years?\n\n_URL_1_\n\n\"The Elementary School of the Army: The Pennsylvania National Guard, 1877-1917\" - the title says it all. \n\n_URL_0_ - a PA investigation of the 1877 labor riots that started the 40-year evolution. \n\nOther sources should be easy to find to illustrate that it was a national transformation. Perhaps congressional records of the legislation passed to match state funds?" ]

[ " > Nice - I ask a question and the title alone gets down-voted.\n\nIt's not that, it's just... your question boils down to \"They were so bad at asking for money, they only made vague claims without references. Can you guys do their work for them, so I know whether they deserve money?\" \n\n... I can't further pinpoint why, exactly, but it just sort of hurts.\n\n.\n\nNow, with that out of the way, let's get to our question:\n\n > Is obesity not always due to excessive food consumption and/or poor dietary habits and failure to exercise?\n\n[We've had a thread on this before.](_URL_1_) Please read, and post any followup questions you have.\n\nFor almost any case you're thinking about, obesity is caused by consuming more calories than are used. **That's it**. So, I guess the answer is \"no\" (with the very silly caveat that, if you use body mass index to determine whether someone is obese, it is possible for that person to be *soooooo* muscular for their height that they weigh enough to be obese... I believe Mike Tyson fell into this category at his peak).\n\n.\n\nA much more interesting set of questions might be something like, \"If two adult men start off at the same age, weight, and height, eat the same amount of food, and exercise the same amount, will both be the same weight years later? If not, might one but not the other be obese? Why?\"\n\nThe answers are \"not necessarily; yes; several possible reasons\"\n\nI don't have the expertise to list those \"several possible reasons\". Sorry. The main issue will be inter-individual differences in basal metabolic rate. Hypothyroidism is a good example, though it's not an especially common influence on obesity. Also, people have different appetites (both in direction and magnitude) and this will influence calorie intake.\n\n > leaky lymphatics and other mutations\n\nSecond part first: Obesity prevalence has increased *dramatically* within the last 25 yrs. ([see this CDC map of obesity rates by year and state](_URL_0_)). This is *wayy* too fast to be explained by any direct genetic (mutations, be they at the mitochondria or nucleus) influence. So, what about lymphatics? I was able to [dig up this article](_URL_2_) which includes an up-to-date summary of the known links between obesity and lymphatics. For what it's worth (not much, I'm no expert) there isn't yet good reason to think lymphatics have a major influence on obesity. They say things like:\n\n > Failures in lymphatic transport can result in marked lipid accumulation throughout the body. Lymphedema is a pathology of deficient lymphatic transport, either inherited or acquired through some inflammatory or surgical intervention, that results in significant accumulation of fluid, matrix remodeling, and adipose expansion in the affected limb\n\nWell, obesity is really obviously different from [lymphedema.](_URL_3_) ... I mean, it's possible that there are common biochemical pathways involved, and studying one will help you understand the other...\n\n > Collected lymph has also been demonstrated to induce adipocyte differentiation, further supporting this hypothesis \n\nOK. Sure, this might be a worthwhile research avenue. But when the 501(c) says\n\n > Problems with [...] leaky lymphatics [...] can drive and maintain fat growth\n\nThey're probably just talking about lymphedema. That, or they're being *way, super over-confident* in the hypothesis that lymphatic dysfunction leads to obesity. Either way, they're making a strong (somewhat surprising/extraordinary) claim about the causes of obesity, and it's **their** responsibility to cite relevant research.\n\n\n\n", "Here's the deal...there is no such thing as a \"fat disorder,\" as in, if you have so and so mutation you're going to be much more obese than if you didn't have so and so mutation. That being said, there are lots of genetic screens that would seem to suggest that there are certain single nucleotide polymorphisms that might have a significant effect on body mass. This research is burgeoning, because American's like to pay money to have someone tell them that their obesity is genetic (when most often, it isn't).\n\nThat being said, the research is legitimate. However, I would not suggest donating to this group. If you want to donate to science, please choose a cause that has nothing to do with a first-world problem. Imho, this sort of research, while it maybe interesting, is much less noble than research into, say, malaria or TB or something like that. Personal preference, however." ]

[ "They're designed for a special bulb that offers 3 levels of brightness plus Off. If you don't have the special bulb you get this weird behavior.\n\n_URL_0_", "Usually you can take a look at the fixture and it will tell you the wattages that it is rated for, say a 50W/100W/150W bulb. You can go to a local hardware store and pick up a 3-way Bulb for them and the CFL and LED 3-way bulbs are getting decently cheap nowadays. The four clicks offer 3 levels of brightness, as others have stated here.\n\nSource: I work in a hardware store. Finally a little relevant.", "ELI5: What is OP referring to? I don't recognize this as a Swede.", "Because your lamp is a tri light which has three brightness settings.\n\nLow, normal, bright and off. \n\nYou need to use the correct bulb to use this feature.\n", "Do they make 3-way LED bulbs or are these lamps now just artifacts of the incandescent era?", "That means it's a 3-switch lamp. (Three different levels of light, and the off position, totalling in four clicks.)\nHowever, because of what you described you don't have the correct lightbulbs in the lamp. They make special multi-filament bulbs for those types of lamps.", "The other top level explanations are correct, but I wanted to share this animation that I've found helpful when explaining it to others...\n\n[Pic](_URL_0_)\n\nNote that there are two different parts involved:\n\n* The bulb has two different filaments, with four different possibilities: No filaments lit, filament A lit, filament B lit, filaments A & B both lit.\n* The wiring in the switch is such that different positions of the switch produce the four different lighting conditions of the bulb.", "It's not an advantage or disadvantage. The issue is not having a proper 3way bulb in the lamp to make use of that switch. With the proper bulb you would have low, medium, high and off." ]

[ " > 1) What is the definition of airplane when someone says the \"first airplane was invented by...\" Conversely, what is the definition of a glider.\n\nI can't provide a complete answer but controlled gliders flights were performed as early as 1891 by Otto Lilienthal in Germany. We even [have pictures of it](_URL_0_). He was able to stay stationary in updrafts and glide for about 250m. He is credited for a lot of advances in early aerodynamics.\n\nAs for the term airplanes it is kind of fuzzy since the terminology was still getting defined at the time.\nThe FAI rule for the Archdeacon Cup and the Aero Club of France prize was an unassisted powered flight more than a 100m long by an heavier than air (ie not relying on buoyancy like dirigible). The flight had to be performed in front of the officials.\n\nSantos-Dumont was fairly famous in France after his multiple [dirigible flights over Paris between 1900 and 1904(?)](_URL_2_) with is models number 4, 5 and 6. He was also a regular of the Aero-Club, won several international prizes and was even made \"Chevalier de la Legion d'honneur\" in 1905 for his aeronautic adventures. That's probably why he got a lot more attention at the time than 2 relatively unknown Americans.\n\nEdit: also as /u/JanitorJasper said there was at some point some claims that Clement Ader was the first make and fly an airplane. His demonstration in front of some French officers was not very conclusive. The testimonies are contradictory on whether is was just a series of bounces or a real controlled flight and IIRC some of the witnesses changed their story several year after the attempt. There is no doubt that [his machine](_URL_1_) was in nearly every aspect but the style, inferior to the Flyer or the 14-bis.", " > Many regard the Wright Brothers as being the inventors of the airplane.\n\nThe Wright Brothers didn't invent, and never claimed to have invented, the airplane. What they invented was means for controlling an airplane in flight (roll, pitch and yaw). I know you may have just been writing loosely, and that this may seem like a pedantic point, but it's a common misunderstanding about what the Wrights accomplished, and parallels many other misunderstandings about the history of technology.\n\nThe Wrights did an impressive job of developing their own wing shapes, propellor and motor, especially considering their lack of formal education and their shoestring budget, but none of these things, or their use on an airplane, or the idea of an airplane, was anything new. [Here](_URL_0_) is a list of the Wright Bros. patents. Five of the seven are clearly about ways of controling an airplane, one is for a toy, and the brief description of the first one is deceptive - it's also primarily about controlling an airplane. From the patent:\n\n > The objects of our invention are to provide means for maintaining or restoring the equilibrium or lateral balance of the apparatus, to provide means for guiding the machine both vertically and horizontally ...\n\nSince wings, motors and propellors had already been developed, the important thing the Wright Bros. did was to add the last piece of the puzzle for building a workable airplane.\n\nAs for the question of who had the first successful heavier-than-air flight, as you noted, much of the controversy revolves around things like whether the Wrights were cheating by using a launch rail, strong headwinds, etc. There were no previously defined criteria for winning a prize or anything, and the FAI was only founded two years after the Wrights' 1903 flight, so the debate may continue forever. I think it's somewhat arbitrary and is only about bragging rights. It has little to do with the development of aircraft technology.\n" ]

[ "It would do absolutely nothing worth noting to the sun (or the solar system).\n\nYou could toss the whole earth into the sun without the sun getting fussed about it.\n\nThe sun is really, really big. 99.8% of the mass of the whole solar system is present in the sun. \n\nAll of our nukes are seriously small peanuts in comparison.\n\nEDIT to add: Even the explosion would be small on a stellar scale. Solar flares are often much bigger than the entire earth (or many earths). Here's a [video](_URL_0_) which shows a comparison. Again, all the nukes in the world come nowhere remotely close. \n", "Not to mention that our sun produces its energy through nuclear fusion at a rate of 620 million metric tons of hydrogen each second. That would be equivalent to a 620 million metric ton or 1,366,480,000,000 lb hydrogen bomb going off every second. So yeah the sun has no fucks to give about our \"weapons of mass destruction\"\n\n_URL_0_\n\n1 metric ton = approx 2,204 lbs\n620,000,000 x 2,204 = 1,366,480,000,000" ]

[ "Silver cards don't display dirt/dust nearly as bad as other colored cars. Due to this a lot of people prefer them because they are easier to care for in terms of appearance. Also most of the cheaper cars in at dealerships (less features that are closer to the base model) are normally a silver/white color so it could be that they are buying those.", "[This article](_URL_0_) seems to just be making this stuff up, but here's what Fox Business has to say on the subject:\n\n**Brown/Beige**\n\nLike the solidity of a mountain range or reserve of a monk's robe, brown exudes a quiet peace.\n\nA preference for brown or beige also may speak volumes about your penny-pinching ways. \"Someone who prefers brown doesn't really want to buy anything new,\" Cooperman says. \"He just wants to live his life. He doesn't care about style and might keep a car until it drops.\"\n\nA brown-car buyer wants value and a long life in his or her purchases and doesn't care about trends or fads.\n\n**Silver**\n\nThe metallic gleam of silver shines bright with innovation. Think stainless steel appliances and silver technology. It's the color of security and style, Cooperman says.\n\nA silver car color indicates that you're a high-class lady or gentleman with an eye on the upscale, Augustin says. Your status is higher in the world, and you're not afraid to show it.\n\n\"As a fallback color, it's nice,\" Cooperman says, because it doesn't get as dirty as a white car or as hot as a black car. It seems most Americans would agree with that assessment, as it's the third most popular car color.\n\n\"Overall, neutral colors (white, silver, black and gray) have dominated the market the past few years,\" Lockhart says.\n", "Cheaper models of vehicles, intended for fleets, have a paint colour that is easiest to paint over. Certain sedans and pickups are bought in huge numbers for fleets and they are generally pretty bare-bones, nothing fancy, powerful, strong suspension and they are a colour that is easy to change to company colours or have decals added. These fleet vehicles can be purchased by regular folk off the lot but are not the fancier models with options and slick paint jobs so only 'savvy, deal hunters' buy them. Old folks who don't give a fuck about a bumpin sound system, pearl in paint, leather trim or sunroofs but do like sedans and saving a buck love these vehicles. " ]

[ "In the United States, we use a Schedule system based on properties of the drug. Drugs will be categorized as Schedule 1, Schedule 2, etc based on a combination of how addictive it is, its potential for medical use, and its physical side-effects. So e.g. cocaine is schedule 2 because it's highly addictive but has medical applications, while MDMA is schedule 1 because it's highly abusable and has no medical applications.\n\nFor some reason, pot is schedule 1 (highly addictive, no medical applications) even though it's totally not. This is a political determination, based on what research the US is willing to accept. As it turns out, because pot is schedule 1, you can't do the research necessary to prove that it shouldn't be schedule 1. Catch-22!\n\nHallucinogens are inherently dangerous. Someone who is hallucinating while operating a car or other heavy machinery, or with access to firearms or whatever, is a danger to those around them. They can also be a danger to themselves if they are near cliffs, bridges, or tall buildings, depending on the nature of the hallucination.\n\nNote that the scheduling process makes drugs \"controlled,\" not necessarily illegal. E.g. cocaine is schedule 2, which means that it's legal for a doctor to prescribe it, and for a pharmacy to fill that prescription, and for the patient to take it. As long as you act within the controls placed around the substance (which includes a lot of documentation and inventory tracking and monitoring trends), it's legal. It's illegal to use the drug in a non-controlled fashion, but technically the drug itself is not illegal. Something like valium or ocycontin is also legal and less controlled, although you can get arrested for selling it on the side. You could argue that schedule 1 drugs are outright illegal, because there's no way to use them in a legal manner.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not a lawyer or law enforcement officer, don't take any of this as legal advice. This is just the understanding of a layman who got curious what the heck \"schedule 2 controlled substance\" meant one time.\n\nMore reading: _URL_0_", "Once in a while, a legal drug will be seen getting people addicted, like amphetamine, and so it will be made illegal. However, the vast majority of the time, the reasons for making drugs illegal are political. Sometimes the reason has to do with race: cannabis was made illegal because of its association with immigrants from Mexico moving into the US. Opiates were made illegal because of their association with Asian immigrants. Cocaine/crack laws were written specifically to target black people living in ghettos. Sometimes drug laws target opposing political groups: psychedelic hallucinogens (LSD, psilocybin) were made illegal because of the hippies' opposition to the Vietnam War. And, \"club drugs\" (MDMA, GHB, ketamine) were made illegal because they were perceived as popular within the LGBT community. More recently, \"research chemicals\" like synthetic cannabinoids (Spice Gold), substituted cathinones (bath salts), and 25-x-NBOMe are made illegal for actual health reasons, because of teens who die from overdoses or other adverse reactions. Drugs that lawmakers would like to make illegal have to be studied by the FDA and given a schedule by the DEA. However, sometimes lawmakers ignore suggestions from the FDA. MDMA was recommended to be placed as a Schedule 3 drug, but was made Schedule 1 anyway." ]

[ "It would be nice if there was someway to block these signals.", "When you have a romantic interest in someone, that not only takes in their personality, but their scent always plays a part. You see the person as a possible mate; therefore, neurologically you are alert for anyone trying to take them away and you are reading signs for interest. This is why you feel your heart beat faster and you get sweaty. Your body is going into overtime" ]

[ "I think it has to do with our hunter gatherer past. Things like mood altering substances, high calorie meals, and slouching made our early ancestors feel good, which lowered the long term effects of the stress of their daily lives of hiking miles for food and water on a daily basis. But now that shit is easy to get so we have very little of the stress but full access to the stress reducers. Plus, those guys were likely to die by 30 from mammoth gorings or routine infections so these pastimes had little effect on their overall health. Now, with the average age of death in the late 70's, these things are a concern. I doubt many caveman died of colon cancer or cirrhosis back then. ", "Well a lot of the things that are bad for us really have an impact later in life. Most people didn't live that long until very recently, last few centuries.\n\nEven then, if it doesn't stop us reproducing, it won't be evolved out." ]

[ "Ostensibly because then they can rotate things out. Do an Egyptian themed display one month, something Greek next month and then ancient China at the end of the year.\n\nEdit: museums are also a good place e to store things, where they will be cared for and studied by people actually willing to take the time to do those things.", "The two primary purposes of museums are to display objects, and to store and care for them. A good chunk of objects in any museum's collection are there to be taken care of, not to be displayed to the public. In many cases it's because the objects are too fragile to be displayed (either they're not structurally sound, or because displaying them will cause significant damage to them). Maintaining the condition of these objects is an important function of many museum professionals such as conservators and collections managers, and to that end museums work to preserve culturally and historically significant objects so that they aren't destroyed or lost regardless of whether they're in good enough condition to display.", "Most of it is for preservatory purposes. For example, if you were someone who lived in Syria and had a minor collection of local artifacts, and you wanted to hide those artifacts from the conflict in the region, you would probably hand them over to a famous and trustworthy museum, such as the Smithsonian." ]

[ "Because if you like republicans, you would vote for the democrat you think would have the worst chance and vice versa. Then put in the republican you like later, sort of stacking the cards.", "The primaries aren't government elections, they are internal to the political party and only decide who will run on that party's ticket for the actual election. ", "This varies state to state. Vermont for example does not have you register for a party, just to vote. For each election you are given three ballots (Dem, Rep, and Indep) and you fill out one and return the others.", "Primary elections are not normal elections. They are related to the party system which is currently dominated by the Democrats and the GOP. \n\nThe party system does not come from the Constitution. The first President, George Washington was not a member of a party and actually thought they were damaging to democracy. But over his time, parties formed around controversial issues to match something like the democracy in Britian. \n\nToday, for better or worse, parties are central to the US political system and active voter participation is seen as important. In other places like the UK, the choosing of a parties leader varies from party to party and is often very closed off from the general electorate, as to some extent, it is a internal party matter. You can still vote to keep a particular party out of power if you dislike there choices. \n\nMany states do have open primaries, and rules are set by the states. This means rules on who can vote, whether you need to be a party member or not and if you can vote in one or more of the parties primaries are set by the state so expect variation between where you live and other states. \n\nTLDR: political parties are not part of the Constitution so are run by themselves and rules vary from state to state." ]

[ "As I understand it your brains activity is measured in brainwaves. Sleeping brainwaves are much less active than alert brainwaves. It takes a little to bring your brain up to full function out of sleep which is why you feel groggy in the morning and fine later. When you are woken up for a little bit of time and fall back asleep immediately, your brain is still \"technically\" semi-asleep (not fully alert).\nI'm no expert and this part may not be true, but based on my knowledge this makes sense. The hippocampus is where memories are stored. At low brainwave activity I believe the hippocampus doesn't function well or at all", "To put it simply, while you are sleeping you don't convert short term memories to long term memories. Short term memories don't stick around long enough to still be available when you wake up and you couldn't convert what happened right before you went to sleep into long term memory. As a result you never remember what happened right before you fell asleep. The same basic idea applies to the situation described here. You're forgetting what happened during that brief spell of being awake, because you were asleep right afterward and didn't convert it to long term memory." ]

[ "This is what happens to blood from a single drop of venom. _URL_0_\nThe human body is not nearly fast enough to remove the coagulated blood before its starts causing damage.\n\nAlso, when people say that a drop can kill 100 people, they don't mean near instantaneously. It would would probably take a while for a one hundredth of a drop to kill a person. The reason why snake venom is so potent, is because the snake needs to make the kill as fast as possible.", "It depends on the venom we are talking about.\n\nThe two major types of venoms that exist function on two different playing fields.\n\n1) neurotoxins : these venoms in one way or another take sledge hammers to the way your brain works. A few CCs (mL) will be enough to screw with your brains capacity to communicate with itself. (ELI5 sentence) These venoms often block cell reception so while your brain is screaming \"BREATHE YOU FUCKING DOLT YOU ARE GOING TO DIE IF YOU DONT\" your muscles are watching your brain speaking in Sanskrit and your muscles just speak emoji. (/end eli5) So your brain keeps you alive and its autonomous actions like breathing and heart beating happen like background programs on a computer. But once it's cut off from the body that's it you're going to die unless you get antivenin that will aid in breaking down the neurotoxins or a machine does all the muscle work for your dumb body until you cycle out the enzymes yourself.\n\n\n2) cytotoxins : these assholes screw with your heart and blood. Just like the neurotoxins these are enzymes with s specific function but theirs are based around muscles and blood instead of your brain. Some target heart muscles paralyzingly them by blocking cell reception so your heart isn't getting the memo to pump blood. Then there are the venoms that function as coagulants. Coagulating is generally a good thing. It lets our bodies clot blood when exposed to air and that stops the bleeding by forming scabs. When your blood coagulates in your body you end up dead because now your heart is trying to pump sludge and it's not built for that.\n\n\nThere is s third venom type but it's kind of like cheating, the Komodo dragon employs a cocktail of bacterium to do its dirty work. It's mouth is teeming with this mess of bacteria when introduced to the bloodstream causes you to go into shock. But it also is an anticoagulant, the opposite of what snakes have. When it bites and the bacteria get in there your blood keeps pouring out of the holes. Your blood pressure drops and you pass out / go into shock and get eaten.\n\nBut to really answer your question the venoms can do so much with so little because over the hundreds of thousands of years the most effective genomes have survived. And they became that way by being the most targeted most specific and deadly.\n\nSo that was fun to write. But if you skipped it all the teal deer is...\n\nNeurotoxins: halt communication between your brain and body. You become paralyze and suffocate because you can't breathe.\n\nCytotoxins: attack your heart and blood and those are important for living.\n\nBacteria based venom: introduced by biting and then you bleed out like a broken tap on a beer keg. Blood is important and should remain in your body.\n\nBut the true answer to your question \"how do they kill with such little venom?\" Evolution. That's how.\n" ]

[ "Most likely nothing at all. I had an Acura that required 93, I put in 89 all the time and it was fine. Only putting in 89 may be not be good due to the extra wear on the valves from pre-explosion as stated before. ", "There are some semi-accurate answers here, but in reality any modern engine has sensors to detect the knock and the ECU will pull timing to prevent any damage. Basically, you will lose power and get worse gas mileage. You probably won't notice anything aside from possibly the reduced power. " ]

[ "There's Amtrak, but otherwise it comes down to money and politics, much like many systems in the U.S.\n\nIn order to upkeep a nationwide high speed rail system, you'd have to raise taxes, because in the current state of public transportation, no sane private company is going to undertake a transportation system of that magnitude. Even Amtrak is partially government funded. But no politician wants to raise taxes, therefore projects like improved transportation can't be approved due to budget constraints.", "Enough of our cities do not have self-contained public transportation so HSR between cities will not be convenient enough to deter people from driving. This is because once you get to a city, you still need to get around. Although you can Uber, the combined cost of HSR ticket and Uber make the convenience of driving yourself the \"best\" option.\n\nBefore we invest in HSR BETWEEN cities, IMO, we should invest in building public transportation WITHIN cities.", "I believe it's about size/density of the U.S. \n\nIn Big European countries (France, Germany, Spain etc...) the maximum distance between 2 cities is around 1000 km, so 3-4h by train (Against 1h by plane + Time to check in + Time go go the airport). So with less than 1000 km or railroad you can cross the country and link 2-3 big cities. With 1000km of railroad in the U.S. you might go from Dallas to Atlanta and have no significant city in our way so there is no economic advantage in offering stops in the way. \n\nIn European cities, the center is quite important people live and work their so if the train drops you from center to center and save you a 1h drive from/to the airport. While in the U.S. cities are acentral \n", "The only place in the country where train travel is currently popular is in the Northeast Corridor (roughly, the Atlantic coast between DC and Boston). Pretty much everywhere else is too spread out.\n\nThere are some in the works, though. California is trying to link LA and SF with high-speed rail.\n\nThere's also a proposal in the works for a bullet train between Dallas and Houston", "Population density. The population density of France is about 300 people per square mile, and that's one of the lower values for Europe. Germany is 600, Italy is 500, Netherlands are 1000, UK is 700.\n\nThere are only 8 US states with a population density above 300/sq mi, and except for Florida, all of them are in the Northeast, where the US does have [something resembling high speed rail](_URL_0_). \n\n35/50 states have a population density less than 200/sq mi and 24/50 are less than 100/sq mi. \n\nSo it's just too few big cities too far apart. You could maybe extend the existing Northeast system south to Charlotte, NC and west to Detroit or Chicago, but after that, the number of big cities starts dropping off pretty fast. ", "There are a couple of reasons, all of which are covered very well in this [video by wendover](_URL_0_).\n\nPopulation density is partly to be blamed but there are certain routes (eg DC to Boston via Philly and NY) that would be perfect for a high speed train. There is an existing rail system and in fact it has been doing very well.\nAmtrak is a company that was created with the aim to make \"train travel great again\" and to build high speed trains in the future. Unfortunately ~~it is fairly new and other~~ *freight* companies already own the train tracks and Amtrak has to rent it. Comparatively, the SNCF in France owns all the tracks in France. So now, if BNSF has a train on the tracks and there is an Amtrak train coming, the latter will have to wait for the slower train to finish first. You end up with a cyclic problem of the train suck and with people thinking that it sucks, less income to improve it. Building new tracks is extremely costly and is not really a project that any sane person would like to undertake. \n\nEdit: BNSF not BNCF and strikethrough/italic\n\n\nHopefully we get the hyperloop though and that will be amazing. ", "All good answers, but the real answer in my opinion is what they call Technology Leapfrogging. We're too late for high speed trains, so we're going to just head straight for hyperloops and stuff....", "Not enough people to justify it by space. In places with lots of people (the northeast) they have many trains. In cities, we have trains and transit. Get outside of those areas (for the most part) and population density is too small.\n\nThere's no point in it. Too much space with no reward. It's why we fly or drive.", "Land use. We have had basically no land use policy and so all of the land around major cities has been developed, making it very expensive so buy it up in a straight path to make a new train line. Compare this to European countries that don't have as much automobile suburbs. They are able to build them much more cheaply.", "Becuase generally, one has to drive at one point of the trip.\n\nMuch of the non subway passenger rail is city to suburbs which are not walkable. \n\nIt lowers demand since you can't effectively rely on the system completely.", "A big part of this actually stems from oil, auto (General Motors), and tire companies forming cartels and buying rail tracks then destroying them. Since a lot of these transnational companies that had a ton of power were based in the US they were able to stall the rail systems in America, which is why America drives more cars than most other countries today. ", "The existing rail system is owned and maintained by a small amount of companies and they have all they power with respect to their rail road lines. They give their trains priority. Nobody wants to pays billions upon billions in infrastructure for a new system. ", "My take: Because the idiots who have run Amtrak in the past have soured the public on rail travel.\n\nFor example, when we lived in Orlando around 1983, my wife checked into taking Amtrak to Houston. She would have had to travel from Orlando to Washington, D.C., West to Chicago, and then South to Houston. It would take 3 days and cost twice as much as a plane ticket!\n\nThis despite a large system of rails across the south.\n\nOn the brighter side, a HSR system is being seriously considered to connect San Antonio-Austin-Dallas/Fort Worth.", "The US is enormous and that has a lot to do with it but, there is no way in hell that the oil and automotive industries would let that happen. ", "Nobody can afford to pay to create the required infrastructure. Existing track can't just be used for a high speed system. New tracks would have to be created with appropriate inclines (slopes), curves, banking, etc. and that would all have to take place presumedly where there are high populations of people who would be the riders. Well, the cost of acquiring the required land in urban areas would be immense. Meanwhile, most major metropolitan areas are struggling financially to keep their services going, cover their employees' benefits and maintain existing infrastructure.", "There's two answers, nationwide and regional.\n\nRegionally, we don't have high speed rail because of lack of interest. Amtrak has few corridors of normal speed rail that are profitable and nice (like SoCal and the NorthEast) but are prohibited from purchasing track and taking priority routes. So they can't grow. We spent the 50s and 60s massively investing in car infrastructure, to the point that building a high speed rail AND getting people to ride for it to be profitable would be difficult. In Europe after WW2, people were poor and lived in high density areas, so rail was a common option to get from city to city. In the US, we had relatively high levels of wealth coupled with white people moving to suburbs, and suburbs don't lend themselves to trains.\n\nNationally, it simply comes down to population density. We have huge tracts of unsettled areas. In terms of cost per mile, air travel is actually a better option. The biggest limit to air travel is security and other \"on the ground\" stuff that slows me down. Wheels up to wheels down I can get from Denver to Los Angles in 90 minutes on a good flight, and cheap airelines can operate that flight for $45. There's no way rail can compete with that.", "I wish they would build a HSR from Chicago to Detroit, maybe one or two stops between. Somewhere around Kalamazoo (for one) or Jackson and South bend (for two). At 200mph, you could commute from Kalamazoo to Chicago or Detroit faster than you can drive commute from Gary to Chicago or Jackson to Detroit.\n\nThe real problem is anyone wanting to invest that much money into such a project and the state/local governments willing to help plan/permit/provide tax incentives such a project.", "In addition to what other people are posting about land and how the US is highly car-centric, many places are super far away and while people mention this, they don't really show why this is a factor. The Fastest high speed train in the world has a top speed of around 430 km/h, which is a snails pace compared to a regular old passenger plane which flies at 900km/h in a dead straight line to the destination. ", "Lobbyists and old money from old companies not willing to invest $$ into R & D.\n\nEven China has high speed rail. They also lead in renewable energy. Oil and coal lobbyists hired by big oil and Koch bros keep America from properly planning for the future.\n\nWe also have this system of gov't where you elect people who receive bribes instead of actually representing you.\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_\n\nAmericans love to diss China \"en masse\" but they are far more advanced than us in more ways than we think.", "Rail's downfall is that last leg from the station to home/destination. Ultimately you have to get a car so you may as well just drive. Then when you are there how are you getting around? You need that car in America or your life is over. ", "I live in a coastal California city, the rail connects all the nearby cities. Commuter trains don't exist still and the excuse remains \"the last mile\". ", "American culture is the reason why we don't have a high speed rail system, or much of any public transportation systems for that matter. American culture has throughout history favored individual property/values over communal property/values. This includes transportation. Part of the \"American dream\" is owning your own car and having the freedom to drive wherever you want to go. ", "Because it's focused all its money on a high speed *JAIL* system, am I right????", "Rail is best for connecting densely populated neighboring cities. US is large and sparsely populated. ", "I think one huge reason I've yet to see posited in this thread is the lack of schedule cars and the interstate system provide people. \n\n\n\nAmericans like to go from A- > B at whatever time they should choose too, without regard to someone else's preplanned routing. It's 3am, and you would like to be in Memphis by noon, not a problem for me by car, HUGE problem by rail. While rail can certainly transport people/cargo more efficiently, the need of long pre-determined, confined to the rail, routes is not what most Americans enjoy. \n\n\nI can't find the quote I'm paraphrasing; \"Americans like to go hither and yon, without a schedule, without being confined to a predetermined route.\" We also like being able to make the proverbial accidental left in Albuquerque, because it leads us to new places, we didn't *plan* on being. ", "The US and Europe are about equal in land mass. However when it comes to population density, it's a much different story. The total cost per person for the same amount of lines built would be drastically higher in the US. Also the amount of people it serves per square mile would be reduced. Realistically for the US's population density, it doesn't make sense....yet. \n\nAmerican culture also favors owning your own things and doing things the way you want on your own time. If I want to right now I can pack whatever I need and travel wherever I want in the continental US and not have to fight anything or go through anyone to do it. \n\nSolution that solves both problems. Tesla is testing out hyperspeed tubes for travel that can take individual vehicles (much like a tow boat.). This can solve both problems. ", "Nobody here has mentioned that California is currently building a [high speed rail](_URL_0_).", "Acela is a (relatively) high speed train that goes along the Northeast corrider but the trains don't actually go as fast as they are able to because of a combination of old tracks on very curvey routes, and a very small engineering flaw that resulted from bureaucratic/political meddling. \n\nWhen the Acela trains were first being tested, there was a political decision made that being high speed trains they needed to be extra safe in the case of an accident, so they were changed to be a quarter inch thicker. (Edit: it's actually 4 inches) This made the trains safer but the increase in width was just enough to make it so that when the trains took turns at high speed and lean a little, they would collide against each other. Whereas they had originally been designed to take yaw into account and the original width allowed them to pass each other. \n\nSo thanks to political meddling and safety theater, trains that are actually capable of going at much higher speeds can't actually do so because the extra thickness added for safety would cause them to collide. \n\nLol", "ELI5 - with the population map America has, high density in cities and Big space between them it doesn’t become feasible because railways are a lot to maintain. They require labour and money. \n\nThat being said currently under development is the California HS rail link planning to go from LA-SF if I’m correct?", "Probably why Russia and Canada don't have them. Huge distance and costly compared to Japan or other European nations.", "The primary answer is that European cities are old and US cities are not. And newer European cities adapted to their dominant model, while US cities didn't have to.\n\nThe key element is the car. Pre-auto city hubs are different than US cities, and anticipate travelers not needing a car. US cities, other than the oldest, depend in their geographical logic on everybody being independently mobile inside the city. \n\nSince you need a car when you get to a US city, you bring a car to a US city.", "The answer to a lot of \"why isn't the US more like Europe\" questions (not all, but a lot) is because a lot of things are easier when you have a smaller, more compact country. Generally everything to do with infrastructure, like giving everyone high speed internet, transport, services.", "I don't know about the USA but Canada doesn't have one largely due to the airline lobby influencing government to stamp out potential competition.", "At least in Wisconsin our governors keep shooting it down. We want one from chicago to Milwaukee and Madison but the politicians don't. ", "Here are a few other ELI5s that might also help:\n\n* _URL_0_\n\n* _URL_5_\n\n* _URL_3_\n\n* _URL_1_\n\n* _URL_2_\n\n* _URL_4_", "Basically, HSR works best for trips that are ~150-500 miles. Anything less and people will drive. Anything more and most will fly. Consequently, there are only a few spots in the country that fit this distance. Boston-DC is one. I could see one being placed in the midwest with Chicago as the hub going to Milwaukee-Minneapolis, St. Louis-Memphis, Grand Rapids-Detroit-Cleveland and Indianapolis-Cincinnati. And the west coast going from San Diego up to Seattle or Vancouver.\n\nAnother thing that has prevented it from occurring in the past is the fact that ever since the interstate came to be, cities have sprawled out make true intercity rail unusable. You could ride the train into Dallas, for instance, but you would most likely need a car when you got there. Whereas in Europe and other similar places, the train stops in the city center and there is enough density and transit that the car is unnecessary for most people let alone visitors to a city.\n\nThe last thing I would say is that the US is so spread out that a true national high speed rail system wouldn’t work for the vast majority of the country just because of the sheer distance between places like Kansas City and Denver, for instance. The cost of building new rail wouldn’t make financial sense for most of the country.\n\nThe only way I see it happening is if a private company does it all by themselves or there is some sort of public-private partnership.", "Lots of comments here. One I haven't seen mentioned:\n\nThe US has the most efficient and heavily used **freight** rail system in the world. [Economist](_URL_0_)\n\nWe have a lot of rail, we use it for moving stuff rather than people. The transcon mainlines move a crazy amount of cargo. Hundreds of trains a day like [this](_URL_1_) going across the country on them.\n\nMoving stuff efficiently and moving people efficiently are largely incompatible. Freight efficiency means huge, slow (comparatively) trains. Moving people efficiently means high speeds. You basically can't mix a lot of both on the same tracks and get anything useful out of it. Europe opts using it's rail primarily for people, we use it primarily for stuff.", "A big issue is that high speed rail would, in many instances, require building new rail lines, separate from freight and other lines. The land acquisition for the lines is really difficult. Federal, local, and state governments would often have to rely on eminent domain, which is the taking of private property for public use. Although governments are required to pay \"just compensation,\" the principle is both necessary for large-scale public projects and deeply unpopular with most Americans. Resulting lawsuits and other costs often make the land acquisition prohibitively expensive for these types of projects. ", "Because it's a lot easier to come up with reasons it can't than to come up with ways it can.", "OP's never heard of Brockway, Ogdenville, or North Haverbrook? \n\nHigh speed monorails put them on the map. ", "The republicans vote against it every time, therefore preventing the funding from going through. This is the real answer.\n\nThey do this because they want to provide an unfair market advantage to big oil.", "The US is closer in size to the entire continent of Europe than it is any one country. It'd be like having a rail system connecting Ireland to Turkey. \n\n[US/Europe Size Comparison](_URL_1_)\n\n\n[Texas/Europe Size Comparison](_URL_0_)", "Part of it is that conservatives are ideologically opposed to public transportation.\n\nIn Wisconsin, about 7 years ago, the federal government gave our state about $900 million to build a high speed rail line going from Minneapolis, Minnesota through Madison and Milwaukee, on down to the Chicago, Illinois. But when our newly elected Republican governor took office, he promised to \"kill the train\". \n\nHe told his rural constituents that the train was wasteful \"big government\" designed to benefit only big city liberals. He said that he would do the same thing that Sarah Palin had done when she said \"thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere\", and strong-arm the federal government into giving the state the same $900 million for spending on roads. He exploited the notion that public transportation is socialist and that cars are more in line with personal freedoms. His additional rationale was that he would save the state about $7 million a year on upkeep costs to keep the train running.\n\nWell, after he killed the train, the federal government took their $900 billion back and did not return it. Additionally, instead of saving the state money on maintenance costs, Wisconsin actually has to pay something like $60 million to various contractors in order to back out of construction deals that had already been made to build the train. Since then our state has lagged far behind its neighbors in job growth. ", "Because our country ia massive compared to anywhere who does have one and its not really practical....", "Car companies bought all the railroads and shut them down so as to sell more cars. I don't have a source, just look it up. All other answers are selling something. ", "They did put one in. Only it was just after the Civil War.\n\nOne of the trains was immortalized in \"The wreck of the Old '97\"\njust after the turn of the last century.\n\n", "Everyone wants a highspeed railway system lIke Japan, right? Well, The entire country of Japan fits snugly inside the state of California. Which is one of 50 states, some of them larger still.\n\nWhy can't the US have a bullet train system like Japan? Because that country is so tiny compared to us that it's not even funny, and the cost of building something simillar here would be so large that we might as well purchase Japan and get it over with.", "There are some good answers here and there are some poor answers here. \n\nThe main reasons there is no high speed rail (hsr) are:\n-you keep electing bad politicians into positions that could say yes to high speed rail.\n-most Americans dont understand what hsr is and what the benefits are, or understand the costs in context.\n-us law sends lots of money to any small or large new build Interstate program regardless if the return on investment is actually negative, yet getting funds for new hsr requires lots of politicians to sign off on it and most veto it as they see that as being in there best political interest.\n\nYes the population density is low in some places but there are lots of big cities that are less than 3 hours away at 150-200miles apart, and if there is little inbetween you can build hsr relatively easily.", "We used to have a decent rail system (in the 1800s)\n\nHowever, those trains ran on coal, and when the automobile was invented, it ran on oil. Oil companies lobbied the government to invest in highways instead of railways.", "It costs a million dollars to put down a mile of track and America is about 3000 miles long. It would cost an enormous amount of money and take a lot of time when flying is usually cheaper. As awesome as it would be to have high speed rail.\n\n(Source: buddy-guy I know works on the railroad.)", "The answer to this question is the same answer to \"why doesn't Los Angeles have better public transportation?\" Auto industry. They spend lots of lobby money to make sure they stay in control and make sure people rely on cars and gas instead of alternative transportation options. If you could hop on a high speed rail and get from Chicago to St. Louis in 2 hours, then you wouldn't be driving or spending money on gas. People in this thread point to population density and the large distances between cities. Yeah, the reason for a high speed rail is to travel large distances quickly so why would that be a deterrent. High speed rail could've happened but auto industries (bailed out by the government) and oil industries (have shaped political agenda for years, see Koch brothers) have too much control to let something like that happen. If you were to propose high speed rail today, they'd pay politicians to shoot it down and pay for ads and propaganda to give it a negative image to the public. ", "Because the US is a big fucking country with a much more widespread population compared to the countries that do have high speed rail.", "The Economist magazine did an article on this several years ago, and their conclusion was that the US and Canada have the best railway systems in the world for transporting goods and are designed for shipping stuff and not people. But passenger rail and shipping rail goals weren't the same so you can do one or the other but not both well on the same set of tracks. And when you think about it, it makes sense that it's either goods or people, but not both on the same tracks. People want to get there fast, goods want to get there cheap and yet they would need to share the same set of tracks - or else build new tracks but that's crazy expensive. The US has optimized their system for transportation of goods and left passengers for air and vehicles. \n\nHere's the article - it's not an explain-like-five, but it's a great article and this argument that the US is the world leader in rail transport of goods (on a purchasing-power-parity scale) and you have to pick goods or people but not both isn't something that gets discussed very often.\n_URL_0_", "dont ask why is it the way it is. ask how did this become the way it is.\n\nshort answer \"[the great american street car scandal](_URL_0_)\" happened. car companies bought up and destroyed public transport. afterwords everyone used cars and once that ball got rolling, in most places no one ever put the time and effort into changing the status quo. \n\nlong answer isnt really something you tell a 5 year old", "Cause we still have the same rail infrastructure thats been here since 1900. Here right outside of NYC, in NJ, that is. \n\nActually we currently have a fraction of the rail lines that we used to have. They went out of business and houses and businesses were built over the abandoned lines. \n\nNJ transit, for example, is always playing catch-up fixing old infrastructure and there's no money to improve the system. Amtrack/NY Penn is just trying to stop trains from derailing and are barely meeting the minimum safety standards. \n\nThen building new, faster lines means knocking down houses and that's very expensive and litigious. \n\nSo between cutting through populated areas, being very expensive to build and maintain, and being funded by the government that has no money... That's why we don't have new modern rail. ", "Two reasons:\n\n1 - Speed:\n\nA passenger airplane travels at 600mph, and has no requirements for land use, bridges, etc. \n\nA high-speed bullet train travels at 200mph, and has extensive requirements for land use, bridges, etc.\n\n2 - Size:\n\nJapan is approximately the size of California. Western Europe is approximately the size of the US east of the Mississippi. Americans routinely travel distances for work and pleasure that would count as rare trips in either of those locations.\n\nLong story short:\n\nTrains are better for distances of about 200 miles or less. More than that, and planes are a lot faster, more flexible, and ultimately cheaper. For distances under 200 miles, cars are frequently faster and easier, unless the travel is between very dense urban settings with robust public transit once you're there. Since the US is primarily travel between surburbs, cars and planes won out.\n\n", "There have been preliminary talks of a high speed rail between Las Vegas and Southern California. \n\nFor those who have tried to drive from California to Vegas on a Friday afternoon, I'm sure you can understand why. \n\nI think a lot of Europeans still don't fathom just how huge the continental US is. The state of Texas alone covers about 75% of Western Europe. \n\nA high speed rail system connecting every major city in the US would take decades to build, and cost trillions of dollars. ", "Remember reading it was because of nightmare mode lobbying from the car industries and affiliated (tires...) at the beginning of the XXth century.\n\nFord was that powerful.", "The auto industry has had a very strong lobby for the last 75 years. So had the oil industry.", "There are a few reasons why the United States does not have a high speed rail system. \n\n**1. The Untied States has the world's largest controlled access highway system (built under the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956)** \n2. The United States had a well developed rail road network earlier than most industrialized countries, with most routes planned out zig-zaging from small town to small town in an indirect fashion.\n**3. The United States has not had 2 world wars destroy most of our infrastructure and many homes, as such we have not had to rebuild it from scratch. And we have also not lost such a large portion of our population as to be able to bulldoze whole sections of towns to build rail lines**\n4. Even the most densely populated areas of the United States are not dense enough to make the construction, maintenance, and ticket price of such a route profitable. (Many countries that are not the United States heavily subsidize their rail prices to make them affordable, we do not)\n**5. The government does not own the track, freight companies do. And I would say that our freight rail system is excellent except when it has to slow down to let a passenger train through.** \n6. We love our cars and driving in the U.S.A. \n\n\nMost important reasons in bold. \n", "One reason I haven’t seen; the US is just too damned big. \n\nI live in Switzerland, and the classic proposition is going to Paris. The flight-or-rail options break down like this (and cost about the same):\n\nFlight: arrive at the airport 90minutes early, fly a little over an hour to Charles de Gaulle or Orly airport, get your luggage, then take the RER or a taxi 45 minutes into town. \n\nTrain: arrive at the train 4-5 minutes before your departure, take a 3 hour ride into town, terminating at Gare d’Lyon in the City. \n\nSo, you are about 3 hours in either way, with less drama on the train, and much more comfort, and they cost the same. In this case, the train is a pretty attractive option. Driving is 6+ hours (not counting the pure hell of Parisian traffic) plus tolls. Given the choices, a LOT of people take the TGV.\n\nThe problem in the US is that this describes a small regional flight - Rochester to New York, Atlanta to Savannah, Chicago to St. Louis, LA to San Francisco. Anything longer and the plane’s MUCH greater speed starts to dominate. \n\nSo a train would need to be roughly double the speed of the fastest regular rail in the world to be “interesting” in the US, which is a HUGE technical undertaking. \n\nThe raw economics of HSR versus air travel in the USA is simply too great an issue to surmount to make beating the other issues (correctly) named here worth it. ", "Main reason. Big Oil probably would lose money if we had it. So they line Washington's pockets with a little coin to prevent this. ", "In addition, there is a reason why HSR is difficult to implement even in the BosWash corridor: continuous settlement. In Europe, and to a lesser extent China, cities are mostly separated by farmland or unsettled land, so putting down a new set of rails is pretty straight forward. The BosWash corridor, on the other hand, is one continuous settlement, so if you put down new rails you're not buying a strip of farmland; you're tearing down peoples homes, stores, offices and factories, which is orders of magnitude more expensive and complicated. ", "In short: it wouldn't be profitable. \n\nHigh speed rail is not profitable anyway, anywhere in the world, if you count infrastructure construction cost and land acquisition. To build high speed rail, you need to accept to throw in a lot of public money to build the infrastructure. In the USA, spending public money in infrastructure can happen for cars (and metros in some cities). I don't think the interstate system being public is questionned. But you'll never get support for spending thousands of billions of dollars in rail tracks.\n\nPlus, the USA is not a very dense country, which means more length of rail track to build for less passengers = even less profitable.\n\nHigh speed train wouldn't allow cross country travel, anyway, only same region would be on a reasonable time. 1000 kilometers is the maximum where high speed train can reasonably be favored to planes by most passengers.\n\nThe structure of cities is not helping either. They are more spread than in Europe, less compact around a center. So you can't just get out of a central station and be close to your final destination in public transportation or walking, you probably need a car.\n\nFinally, high speed trains developped in countries where there was already a dense network of normal speed passenger trains, connecting secondary cities and villages. This brings passengers to the high speed trains. The USA doesn't have this network. The question is then rather why the USA doesn't have more passenger trains. One of the answers is that it developped rather freight trains, and freight trains are not easy to combine with passenger trains on the same tracks." ]

[ "According to classical E and M, no. Maxwells equations in vacuum are linear. This means that given 2 valid configurations of the field, I'm free to dial up or down their relative strengths, add them together, and get a 3rd valid configuration. For all intents and purposes, this means photons are blind to eachother. If I have two photons in a box, I'm free to treat each one separately, as if the other was not currently there. However, there is a very interesting high energy limit in QED called the Schwinger Limit, where the electric field has so much strength that it may pair produce electrons and positrons from the vacuum. Thus, although our photons are blind to eachother, they can mutually exchange information and interact through pair production. The Schwinger Limit denotes the energy scale at which the linear approximation of classical E and M to QED breaks down, and one is forced to start calculating according to the rules of quantized Electromagnetism.", "The short answer is yes, but its a delicate window. Roughly speaking you need to put enough energy into the system that box-diagrams \n\n_URL_0_\n\nyield a significant contribution. \n\nThis gives a 2-photon cross section as \\alpha^4 E^4/ m_e^4 where E would be the energy in the electric/magnetic field. \n\nIf you make E too large, however, then the photons can pair produce. So the answer is is plausible, but almost impossible to engineer. " ]

[ "Alternately, shark week is a euphemism for a woman's period. ", "Back in the early days of basic cable, The Discovery Channel was the only science/nature channel out there, and unlike today, you didn't big budgets and have 5 other channels that did the same thing. So there weren't all that many shark documentaries out there, and they weren't aired all that often. That made Shark Week kind of a big deal.\n\nThese days, it is almost a parody of itself. We get excited about Shark Week because we remember getting excited about it as kids and it is fun to make a big deal out of it.", "Shark Week is something that Discovery has been doing for over 20 years. It was pretty badass back in the day, back when they were still running Wings (my favorite TV show EVER).", "I don't watch shark week at all, but love that it happens every year and get excited when they advertise it.\n\nvery weird" ]

[ "It's kinda like drinking straight cordial concentrate with little to no water. Except in this case, your urethra is ' tasting' this highly concentrated urine and as such it burns.", "You don't have an STD. It's just that your body is extremely dehydrated. Others probably haven't experienced this before, but it's painful. The pain will linger for a couple days, but take that pain as a reminder to drink enough water.", "Pee is your body getting rid of toxins that dissolve in water.\n\nIf there isn't enough water to dissolve them all, these toxins interact with your urinary tract more than your tract was designed to take; which hurts.", "Well I can see from a lot of these answers that these people dont play sports and have never been this kind of dehydrated. As someone who does and has been dehydrated to the point of slightly painful urination an uncountable amount of times, I would have to say its because of the elevated percentage of amonia and other chemicals in your urine as compared to water. Hydrated pee is a much higher percentage water, so you dont feel burning like when you are super dehydrated", "I believe what causes it to burn is urea and uric acid, which cannot be kept in the blood stream and must be expelled in the urine. The fact that there is a lack of water to dissolve those chemicals makes it painful to pee. \nIn case of infection, the pain comes from the bacterial action over the urine, that transformed it in ammonia. Ammonia is irritating to the skin (as you might know from using certain detergents) and so it causes pain during miction. " ]

[ "I know of one instance - 18 August 1966 during the Battle of Long Tan. D Company 6 Battalion Royal Australian Regiment effectively walked into an ambush by NVA and VC forces attempting to sneak up on the Australian Task Force base at Nui Dat. During the battle, 11 Platoon was cut off and in danger of being overrun, the platoon sergeant called in an artillery strike on his position which was refused by fire controllers. Instead, artillery was walked in from further out, finally dropping being 50 to 100 metres from the platoon position. \n\nIt's perhaps not exactly what you're after, but in this particular instance, and most similar situations, the artillery dropped in will typically be fused for airburst to maximise enemy casualties from shrapnel, and shrapnel doesn't care if you're a target or not.", "The Korean War Battle of Kapyong in 1951. Canadian and Australian forces called down artillery on their own positions to avoid being overrun. It worked, the defenders lost around 100 killed and wounded but held while the attacking Chinese lost around 1000 killed and probably many more wounded.\n\n[Here's](_URL_0_) a pretty good doco on it, makes you appreciate how insane all these battles barely anyone knows of were. \n\n" ]

[ "Your parent sound like they are the kind of people who have been aligned with the conservative party their entire lives, and as such will be against anything that might give labour a shot at government. \n\nI don't mean any offense by that, but traditionally older generations have been very much sucked into party politics, don't let that happen to you.", "Labour were in office when you were aged 5-18, and this was generally \"New Labour\", led by first Tony Blair, then Gordon Brown (though Brown was rather less 'new' than Blair). The big shift from Labour to New Labour was an economic move to the right, focusing more on market-driven than state-provided solutions to problems & events. The totemic moment was \"clause 4\", which was an item in the old Labour party constitution committed to public ownership of the means of production. Blair was elected leader, won the argument to get rid of it, and his government included people like Lord Mandelson, who said their government was \"intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich\" - a statement anathema to traditional Labour views. Corbyn is much more from these traditional views, wanting to see higher taxes, more state spending, less filthy-rich, etc. If your parents are affluent, and settled, they may find the prospect of a Corbyn-led Labour party to threaten their stability, security (financial and safety), and way of life.", "It's difficult to respond without sounding politically motivated but some of the concerns your parents may be referring to events that happened during the last non 'New Labour' Labour government (i.e. ignoring the Blair and Brown years [1997-2010]), rather than the last labour government.\n\n\nThe [Winter of discontent](_URL_0_) refers to a time when there was a huge amount of public sector unions going out on strike from gravediggers to lorry drivers to waste-collectors. Household waste had been being stored in parks, dead bodies piling up in stores, inability to get petrol, delays and problems at ports, inflation running at its highest level for 60 years ([up to 25%](_URL_2_)), being bailed out by the international monetary fund and generally having a sentiment for some of the country being held to ransom by the unions (the government had demanded that public sector pay rises be capped at 5% to try address inflation, some lorry drivers were on strike asking for up to 40% pay-rises). \n\n\nBasically it was a very difficult time for the country and not only were the Labour party were in power when it happened and for most of their history having been the party of the trade unions (up until 1995 when [clause 4](_URL_1_) was removed). A lot of people who lived through the time blamed the unions for the problems and therefore, indirectly if not directly, the Labour party.\n\n\nJust to say the above may not be an entirely *fair* reflection of the circumstances but it is certainly things like the above that are cited as reasons for why some people may be concerned about a more left-wing party being in power.", "As you mention, your parents are more traditionalist than yourself - as are mine (also 23 y.o).\n\nI think the best explantion is from Dr Vesuvious, but I also want to add a point. The Tories are currently and always have been well connected with the media, and get saatchi & saatchi to do their political advertising. It is through powerful advertising that they manage to convey thier message - really powerfully. The left wing media on the other hand is always far more critical of Labour than the right wing media is of the conservatives; and thats because of the left wings culture of social criticism (marx, feminism, anti-racism) and not accepting things at face value (like religion, race and their own leaders). The problem with this is that it actually really weakens the left - especially since Blair came along and basically admitted that 'old' labour was economically dangerous. Unfortunitly this narrative - which isn't even true in my opinion - has been dominant because of both the left's culture of criticism and the right's dominance of the media. That's why its happening now - if you actually look into Corbyns economic plans you will find that they are supported by a lot of people. His quantative easing for infrastructure is welcomed by a lot of important groups and his anti-austerity approach is well backed by the academic field. TLDR another reason on top of the history is that the right have much more control over the media so people tend to accept their narrative. " ]

[ "Torque and power are completely dependent upon the engine and how it is built not how it is placed.\n\nMost cars are front engined and front wheel drive, this is just simple and avoids having components run the length of the vehicle. It allows for a large cabin space and trunk and puts a lot of weight on the front wheels providing good traction to the drive wheels\n\nVery very few cars are rear engined, pretty much only the Porsche 911. A rear engine car puts a lot of weight on the rear wheels giving you good traction for accelerating, but is prone to oversteering in corners since a lot of the weight is in the back.\n\nMid engined cars are significantly more common than rear engine cars. A mid engine car has the engine in front of or over the rear axle. This helps keep the weight distributed a bit better, reduces the tendency to oversteer, but significantly cuts into the cabin space since the engine is in front of the axle. Almost all mid engine cars will have rear or all wheel drive\n\nFront engined rear wheel drive is probably the second most common and a hold over from older designs. It has the downside of a hump running down the floor to make room for the drive shaft to drive the rear wheels and limited weight on the rear wheels which can make it tricky to get moving in low traction situations compared to a front engined front wheel drive car. Pickup trucks are generally Front-Rear and are notoriously bad in slippery situations due to the lack of weight on the rear wheel when unloaded", "Next time you’re at the grocery store, grab a large bag of sidewalk salt or something heavy and stick it at the very front of your cart.\n\nNow try pushing the cart around. See how the back wheels slide around easily while the front casters feel strongly planted to the ground?\n\nNow move that weight to the middle/back. See how all 4 wheels seem equally planted on the ground?\n\nNow take the bag out and stand on the back of the cart. This one is harder since you won’t be able to steer - but the first two examples should help you understand- the rear wheels are firmly planted and the front casters don’t have much grip.\n\nThis is a very crude example of the differences in weight distribution, and although cars with front/mid/rear engine configurations generally balance the weight out better, you still get a vague idea of the differences in handling caused by the placement of the heaviest object in the vehicle - the engine.\n\nAs far as torque and all that, that’s a factor of engine and drivetrain design more than configuration. ", "Rear endings are super common also. How much would it suck to be the guy whose engine gets crushrd and the other guy just loses his front trunk.\n\n\nMake to expensive damage be to the car whose at fault" ]

[ "It's possible for rapid depressurization to cause structural damage to the plane. Because there is more pressure inside the plane than outside, if there were a breach of the cabin then the air inside the plane would expand and exit the plane possibly taking debris with it. This debris has the potential to enter the engines and then cause engine failure. The other issue that could arise is that passengers wouldn't be able to breath but that's why they have oxygen masks.", "There is nothing about depressurization itself that would cause a plane to crash. As another commenter noted, planes have landed safely even after violent depressurization.\n\nHowever, there is the possibility that depressurization will cause the plane to crash for a couple reasons. \n\nFirst, if the pilots do not get on supplemental oxygen before losing consciousness, there will be no one to fly the plane and it will eventually crash. See [Helios Flight 522](_URL_1_).\n\nSecond, very fast depressurization can be a violent event - it is often called \"explosive decompression\" for a reason. The forces from explosive decompression can damage the plane enough to make it crash. For example, in 1954 this brought down two [de Havilland Comets](_URL_0_), which had flawed windows.", "Prior aviator here. Rapid decompression will usually not effect the aircraft. However, it could screw passengers up physiologically. \n\nIn movies, it's usually an explosion that brings the airplane down.", "Movies do exaggerate the effects, however they are real. The air inside the cabin is at a greater pressure than the air outside, the higher the altitude the greater the difference. If the cabin is depressurised (holed in some way) the air exits the cabin until the pressure inside and the pressure outside is equalled, so you get the equivalent of a gale force wind occurring. Once it is equalled the air rush stops however it may be difficult to breathe, cold etc. For more on air pressure - _URL_0_" ]

[ "fyi, you may find something useful in the FAQ (link on sidebar) \n\n[Holocaust denial](_URL_0_) ", "I'm afraid I don't have any sources to contribute, mostly because attempting to \"convince\" Holocaust deniers is largely a fruitless labor, though arguably a necessary one. I've studied both Holocaust histories and conspiracy theories fairly extensively, and the problem lies in irreconcilable differences in how conspiracy theorists and Holocaust deniers define a \"reputable source.\" If you show them extensive scholarship published in peer reviewed journals in multiple languages, hundreds of primary sources, and even contemporary news sources, which to anyone on this subreddit would check out as legitimate and convincing, to conspiracy theorists reputable sources are PART OF THE CONSPIRACY. They've been forged, corroborated by the government or other interested factions, circulated by the mainstream media, perpetuated by elite groups of scholars who are all conspiring to \"hide the truth.\" Anything that you show a conspiracy theorist or Holocaust denier will become part of the conspiracy, and they will use it to aid their own argument instead of yours.\n\nIt's a completely different paradigm about what is reputable and legitimate. To someone like that, the most underground, unconfirmed, and shoddily written blog posts on a conspiracy theorist website would be more legitimate than the most well-researched scholarly monograph with hundreds of closely analyzed primary sources. Their views can only be confirmed by people like them, with the sources THEY choose, and any sources you present to contradict them will only be turned against you.\n\nWhen it comes down to it, they don't want to be convinced. I've unfortunately had quite a lot of experience with Holocaust deniers, but I wish you the best of luck. ", "From my comparitively brief time arguing with Holocaust deniers - there isn't going to be any one piece of evidence or source that will defeat Holocaust deniers. In practical terms this isn't because there isn't one good piece to use (there is stacks of excellent scholarship) - its because the denier will shift the argument to something else if you 'catch' them on any one point. Tell them their science is junk and they'll want to dispute the meaning of terms used by officials. Get them on the word game and they'll want to talk about discrepancies and hearsay in survivour accounts. It can go around and around forever.\n\nDeniers will often try to 'refute' several facts relating to the history of the Holocaust (or at least what they claim that history is... strawmen are easier targets and require research) in a sitting, rather than stick to one key point. So straight off you'll have many things to respond to, not one simple weak point. The denier hopes to shore up their arguments through volume and the assumption that something this 'detailed' must be well thought out. Similarly denying several 'points' at once makes arguing with a denier more time consuming for anyone that might want to engage, which serves as a deterent to debate.\n\nIf I had to point to one common flaw in denialist arguments, it is that generally all they do is dispute. Most of the denial literature is about specific topics (a particular aspect of the Holocaust, a specific bit of evidence etc.) - a 'full' counter narrative is very rare. David Irving's \"Hitler's War\" is probably an example of trying to build a counter narrative I guess? What I'm trying to get at is the deniers don't really prove their arguments, only attempt to disprove other people's work. If you could somehow force deniers to actually build a narrative (speaking hypothetically here) it would be simple to point out the lack of actual support for their counter-narrative, logical flaws etc. Going back to Irving again, his work was savaged subsequently for misleading use of sources, presumably because Irving couldn't actually find enough evidence to satisfy his own claims. It would also preclude the tactic of changing the argument - basically switching the roles normally played in these arguments." ]

[ "Plus let's not forget just how messed up our criminal justice system is. We are addicted to incarceration, and are struggling with state budgets as is. I doubt much effort will go to mental health with everything else money isn't going to", "There's a stigma against because people have a hard time understanding what they can't see. For instance someone with ocd might be unable to grab a door handle with their bare hand because they fear it's dirty and will cause them to get deathly ill. Someone without ocd sees this and thinks the person is weird and writes them off as such. They don't understand the true fear and anguish the person is being forced to go through. The person with ocd doesn't want to be gripped by such debilitating fear, but the way their brain works makes thoughts get stuck. It's not as easy as saying get over it, and many people with ocd understand that their thoughts are irrational but that doesn't always help. I also think the chronic nature of it can scare people. If someone has ocd they will always have it, even if they get better at dealing with it. It generally goes through periods where it gets much worse and that can be hard for many people to understand. ", "Because a health care system like here in europe ( where everybody pays some amount into and everybody gets something out) is often stigmatized as socialistic. And Socialism was the great enemy in the cold war", "JFK had a sister who was lobotomized and institutionalized in the 1940's , he played a large role in dismantling the system. ", "From what I understand it's probably a fallacy to believe the US attaches a greater stigma to mental health issues than the rest of the world.", "I'll throw out a few things others have not said. First off, most people want to help others, so do not listen to the people here saying American hate mentally ill people. People do hate when it is used as a criminal defense when it is obviously not the case; ie a drug dealer running a semi large distribution system but his lawyer claims his IQ is low he would not be able to button up his own shirt (I have seen that). \nLocal government health centers will help mentally ill, give then medication, but the patient will feel better and decide to stop taking their medicine (from friend who does this as a job). Also, the mentally ill do not always ask for help. So here is the problem, should the government be able to forcible medicate someone. Can the government pick someone off the street and medicate them etc. I don't know and and I feel this is a slippery slope that goes against all the US stands for. \n\nAlso I think there will be an increase in mental health spending from the mass shootings we have had. I just wish the government would tell us if these shooters were on any medications and what signs where missed.", "the common american ignores that \"mental health\" issues even exist, since the concept that your brain can become physically or chemically sick and change essentially who you are is inherently awful and scary.", "Everything is basically a business in the United States.\n\nUntil they can figure out how to monetize mental health care, it will continue to be under funded and under staffed.", "im not sure why we look down on people who are attempting to get help, but the bigger issue is that people can't afford the help. Because we can not afford the help we need, people get worse and end up committing crimes or are sent to a mental health institute. \n\n", "Why is the care system weak? Because it's not there to actually help people with mental illnesses. It exists because it's profitable. There's no other industry where you can literally force people to buy your services.\n\nI was put in the psych ward against my will for a week. They pretty much lock you in a room with a bed and nothing else, and you're for the most part completely deprived of human interaction, except the rare 5 minutes the doctor will come in and ask a few questions. I'll tell you, if you have depression, being isolated and having nothing to do doesn't help, and, if you have anxiety, being detained against your will, forced to neglect your responsibilities, and given no idea when you might get out doesn't help, either. But you have to try to convince them that you're happy in this horrible setting for them to consider letting you out. And then, when they think you're alright to leave, they force you to sign a paper that says you were there of your own free will, and they won't let you out unless you sign it. Then they send a bill for tens of thousands of dollars.\n\nThe first step we need to take to make mental health care better for the patients is to have some respect for them. It needs to be less like a prison. And we need to eliminate involuntary hospitalization because that's no different than kidnapping. Let people who suffer from mental illness live as normal of a life as possible. As long as they have not committed a crime, the mentally ill should have the same rights as any other person. No one else should get to determine what's in someone's best interest. \n\nWhy is there a stigma around mental illness? There's only two real possibilities for someone with mental illness, either they try to blend in as best they can, or they get shoved in a hospital. If they're blending in, people think it's not so serious because they don't know what's going on in their head. If they're in the hospital, it's easy to dismiss them as crazy and dangerous because that justifies locking them up. There's no middle ground. ", "It's not a United States thing, it's a global thing. The attitude is no different to any other western nation. And with the US being the current global leader in medical innovation, the lack of research into mental health ends up stagnating the whole field and thus the whole world." ]

[ "Honestly, it's because they're just THAT big.\n\nYou don't see the huge amount of ship that extends below the water, providing the displacement and buoyancy that keeps the rest of the ship afloat. \n\nJust for example, the Nimitz-class has a maximum draft of 12.5 meters (41 feet) under water. With a waterline length of 317m and a waterline beam of 40.8m, that's a whopping 161,670m^(3) of displacement (not really since the hull isn't a cube, but it'll do for theory purposes). \n\nAnd since seawater weighs \\~1025kg/m^(3), that works out to 165,711,750kg or 182,703 tons - far more than necessary to float the entire 106,300 ton ship (again, we grossly overestimated the size of the submerged hull, which is why this number is way too high).", "Because they're not *that* massive. Although large, aircraft carriers are relatively light for their size, meaning they sit comparatively high in the water. For example for a Nimitz class, the flight deck is about 55-60 feet above the water line, while the draft (how far below the waterline the bottom of the ship is) is only around 40 feet. The displacement - the weight of the ship and everything in it - is around 100,000 tonnes.\n\nThis is because much of what they're carrying is crew space which is mostly empty, and aircraft which are bulky and light.\n\nThis graphic compares some large ships. The red parts sit below the waterline, the grey above it. You can see how the cruise ship with its large spaces for crew cabins, restaurants, cinemas, and so on sits very shallow. The oil tanker and bulk freighter, with holds filled with coal or oil or whatever, sit much deeper. And the aircraft carrier along with the container ship are somewhere in between.\n\n_URL_0_" ]

[ " > But what if you absolutely need higher clock rate\n\nThis is why CPU manufacturers release a wide variety of processor models. From what I could find, Intel's Broadwell architecture (which I assume is what you're referring to) offers models with base clock speeds ranging from 1.6 GHz to 3.1 GHz, capable of \"turbo boost\" speeds up to 2.7 and 3.4 GHz, respectively. [Source](_URL_2_) [Source](_URL_0_) You'll notice that there's a series of 28W processors where the higher clock speeds are offered. Intel did focus more on reducing power consumption than performance with Broadwell, but they still made quite a few improvements to the CPU core that are discussed [here](_URL_1_).\n\nThe simple fact is that most consumers don't need high performance CPUs, and are more interested in longer battery life and reducing the heat and noise produced by their laptop/tablet. I'm typing this on a desktop with a very powerful processor (Core i7-4790k, 4 GHz), however, that CPU spends the overwhelming majority of its time idling at its minimum clock speed of 760 MHz - which is perfectly sufficient for browsing the internet or typing up a document in Word.", "In addition to what everyone else is saying, please remember that clock speed is not the only way to determine processor performance, and same with the number of cores. There are many other factors to include. \n\nI always liked it when people told me their $100 cheaper 8 core AMD was faster than my 4 core i7, simply because it had more cores. ", "Surprised no one mentioned it already but a common measurement used is IPC, Instructions Per Clock.\n\nIf IPC goes up 20% from generation to generation, you need ~20% less clock speed to do the same work.\n\n\nBut you also need to be specific with which CPUs you are comparing.\n\nBroadwell CPUs are only out now for very low power ultra mobile versions because of some fabrication issues Intel had with the larger models. \nIn some cases, like 4 core desktop/laptop parts (i5/i7) you will only see a few models of Broadwell released to cover contractual obligations and instead most consumer facing parts will jump to Skylake (The 'Tock' after the Broadwell 'Tick').\n\nThis is all to say that you might not be comparing apples to apples here because of some release schedule issues Intel had.", "The low clock speeds are to save power. Intel's flagship high performance workstation processor is still the i7 5960x, which is 3 ghz, 8 cores with hyperthreading, and 256 bit memory interface, and a ton of cache.", "i'm going to be too lazy to give you a longer more complete explanation, plus there are already good ones here. although none have mentioned an FPGA - these run in the speed of MHz not GHz - same as my 486 and 386 used to back in the day. yet go look at how they perform given a certain task - crushing bitcoin for example. _URL_0_ the clock rate is less important than what is being accomplished every time the clock ticks.", "There seems to be a 4 ghz ceiling that can't be overcome with current technology unless liquid cooling is used. Intel found this out with the Pentium 4.\n\nSince multi-threading is used more often today than it was in the Pentium 4 days, a higher clock speed isn't required today like it was back in the day when most programs were single-threaded.\n\nAnd my theory on why Intel is more concerned with power consumption than performance is that most people just use their computer to web surf, Powerpoints, some MS Word and Porn and since the performance of the current CPUs could handle these tasks with ease, Intel has shifted towards better power consumption.\n\nAs far as games, the fastest Core i7 and even Core i5 are more than capable of handling the most demanding games and most games are more GPU dependent than CPU dependent. \n\n > But what if you absolutely need higher clock rate?\n\nThe fastest desktop Core i7 is 4 ghz with a 4.4 ghz Turbo speed. If this doesn't suit your needs, then Intel has an 8-core Core i7 which should shred through any CAD, Photoshop, Premiere or any other CPU heavy program. ", "Intel's next gen processors are the same speeds if not a little faster than their last generation models, (see the 5200U vs 4200U for an example off the top of my head). \n\nHowever, you are not mistaken that Intel has released next gen processors with lower speeds and power consumption, known as Core M lineup (instead of Core i3, i5, or i7). These are super low power processors meant to be competitive with chips from a few years ago, but without the need to have a fan, which certain manufacturers like Apple have taken advantage of in for instance, their new Macbook.", "Most other commenters have already covered this pretty well, but an important recent problem in computer architecture has been the necessity for on-chip power management, resulting in the concept of *dark silicon*. Because modern transistors are so small and dense, dark silicon is silicon area which *must* be turned off for thermal reasons (if too much of the chip is on, it will literally melt itself), and even with power improvements and clock speeds slowing down, [dark silicon will dominate chip area ( > 50% of the chip must be off when it is running) by 2020](ftp://_URL_0_).\n\nThe processor makes up for the clock speed loss by including more functional units to use the silicon it has more efficiently. In future processors, you will see more specialized functional units to accomplish certain tasks, like 4k video compression/decompression (H.265 and HEVC CODECs), and cryptography. The next core architecture change will likely also see some instruction/clock improvements (5-10%).\n\nYou should also remember that cores can still use a \"turbo boost\" where the core raises its voltage to run at a higher frequency for a short period of time (increasing power by a lot). When the CPU uses the turbo boost, it will turn off cores and functional units near the core in \"turbo mode\" to prevent the core from melting. Also, CPUs have gotten so powerful that the main performance limiter, even in many high-performance computing tasks, is memory and I/O bandwidth.\n\nIf you absolutely need a fast processor clock for some reason, (IBM's 5 GHz POWER8 has you covered)[_URL_1_]." ]

[ "Organs are very complicated instruments. Larger ones have hundreds of different sets of pipes. Each set is keyed to one of the keyboards (there's probably a technical term, but I don't know it) so when you pull out the stop that opens the valve, you can trigger the pipes associated with a particular note across several different sets of pipes. Some organs have semi-programmable buttons where you can engage a group of stops mid-song. This is how you can get such complicated sounds from a single performer. [This](_URL_0_) video gives a nice tour of a large organ. It's really spectacular the effort that goes into such a massive instrument.", "The reason why you can get such a variable sound by changing the stops is that an organ is quite literally a physical synthesizer.\n\nThe sound that an instrument makes (its timbre) can be decomposed into multiple tones: a fundamental frequency that determines the note that is being played, and a bunch of harmonics at multiples of it (e.g. 2×, 3×, etc). The volume of these parts relative to each other is what makes an instrument sound one way or another. For example, you might have a 500Hz tone, a 1000Hz tone, a 1500Hz tone, etc, at different volumes. Computer synthesizers often work by mixing together tones like this to produce a given sound. Changing which note you play changes the base note and all the harmonics along with it, but the pattern remains roughly the same for a given sound/instrument.\n\nThe stops of an organ literally correspond to these harmonics (or combinations of them). So by configuring them differently you can make it sound closer to a flute, to a violin, etc." ]

[ "The drought is indeed huge, the biggest one they've seen in years, but to be honest not much will change. The immediate effects would be increasing water prices, but they will never get so outlandishly high as to really change California. To address your question: it varies _URL_0_", "Let's say you need 1 gallon of water a month to live, and you have a 20 gallon jug of water that you can't refill (ground water). You also have a 1 gallon cup that you can fill up by putting it outside and collecting rain, which would normally satisfy your thirst. What would happen to your 20 gallon jug when you only get enough water to fill up a portion of your rain collecting cup?", "Agriculture and industry use the vast majority of water in California, so you're unlikely to see the effects of a drought in the cities. The biggest thing you'll probably notice in cities is the contrast between the underwater, dead grass and the bright green grass kept alive by reclaimed water.", "Something to think about that many don't, is that water in California isn't just used by people. Between the Sacramento, Salinas, Central and Imperial Valleys, California grows a large portion of specialty produce that is consumed by the entire world. Crops need water to grow! \n\nThe water shortage in California isn't just a problem for Californians. ", "Cities in california only account for about 10% of the state's water usage. The rest is used for agriculture. \n\nCities have cut back water usage. There are more restrictions on watering lawns, for example. Also, there is a greater emphasis on using recycled water. Golf courses in Los Angeles (for example) are able to stay green by using recycled water.\n\nHonestly, though, agriculture will need to cut its water usage because that's where most water is used. Even if you forced cities to use only desalinated ocean water, the state would still be using 90% as much water as was using before." ]

[ "That's a really broad question and it's tough to boil down to a simple yes or no answer, in part because there are so many different types of Vitamin Water each containing a different formulation and quantity/concentration of \"vitamins\". With that said, in general the benefits are likely not significantly different from the benefits you would get from taking an oral pill formulation of the same quantity/concentrations of vitamins (whether or not that is beneficial is hotly debated here on AskScience, you can search Vitamins and read pages upon pages of discussion on whether vitamins are beneficial or not). However, the one thought I had is that unless Vitamin Water is consumed with some regularity (i.e., daily, which I imagine it rarely is) it's less likely to have an effect than would a daily multivitamin. The last thing to remember is that a lot of them contain a fair amount of sugar, which if consumed with regularity could have negative health effects. \n\nI am a psychiatrist though, so I suppose you could make the argument for a placebo effect and/or simple satisfaction from a pleasantly tasting beverage. ", "Coca-Cola got sued (not sure if they won or lost) because the name \"Vitamin Water\" misleads customers into thinking it's actually healthy for you, whereas it has pretty much the same nutritional value as sugar dissolved in water. They had to hold a press release where they stated, as iheartvintage says, \"no consumer could reasonably be misled into thinking vitaminwater was a healthy beverage.\"\n\nAspects of VitaminWater that should be pointed out:\n\nIt has NO juice in it.\n\nIt has more calories and sugar than the average 12-ounce bottle of soda.\n\n\"Crystalline Fructose\" is a fancy way of saying \"sugar.\"\n\nSource: I'm drinking one right now - I like the taste.", "i'm by no means an expert, but we did just discuss this in my nutrition class today. vitamin water contains roughly 10% of the DV of vitamins per serving, along with a lot of sugar. since one bottle is usually 2 servings, someone would be getting about 20% of their DV of whatever vitamins are listed in that particular variety, and about 24g of SUGAR. additionally, the only vitamins that can realistically be absorbed by drinking this are the water soluble vitamins. fat soluble vitamins (A, D, E, K) will only be absorbed by the body if you eat something containing fat while drinking the vitamin water. one multi-vitamin contains 100% DV of most of the vitamins needed for normal body functions. one more thing-anything over 100% DV of water soluble vitamins gets expelled by your body. meaning you're just going to have expensive pee :P\nTL;DR - NOT REALLY", " > \"no consumer could reasonably be misled into thinking vitaminwater was a healthy beverage.\" -**Coca Cola**\n\n_URL_0_", "That's a really broad question and it's tough to boil down to a simple yes or no answer, in part because there are so many different types of Vitamin Water each containing a different formulation and quantity/concentration of \"vitamins\". With that said, in general the benefits are likely not significantly different from the benefits you would get from taking an oral pill formulation of the same quantity/concentrations of vitamins (whether or not that is beneficial is hotly debated here on AskScience, you can search Vitamins and read pages upon pages of discussion on whether vitamins are beneficial or not). However, the one thought I had is that unless Vitamin Water is consumed with some regularity (i.e., daily, which I imagine it rarely is) it's less likely to have an effect than would a daily multivitamin. The last thing to remember is that a lot of them contain a fair amount of sugar, which if consumed with regularity could have negative health effects. \n\nI am a psychiatrist though, so I suppose you could make the argument for a placebo effect and/or simple satisfaction from a pleasantly tasting beverage. ", "Coca-Cola got sued (not sure if they won or lost) because the name \"Vitamin Water\" misleads customers into thinking it's actually healthy for you, whereas it has pretty much the same nutritional value as sugar dissolved in water. They had to hold a press release where they stated, as iheartvintage says, \"no consumer could reasonably be misled into thinking vitaminwater was a healthy beverage.\"\n\nAspects of VitaminWater that should be pointed out:\n\nIt has NO juice in it.\n\nIt has more calories and sugar than the average 12-ounce bottle of soda.\n\n\"Crystalline Fructose\" is a fancy way of saying \"sugar.\"\n\nSource: I'm drinking one right now - I like the taste.", "i'm by no means an expert, but we did just discuss this in my nutrition class today. vitamin water contains roughly 10% of the DV of vitamins per serving, along with a lot of sugar. since one bottle is usually 2 servings, someone would be getting about 20% of their DV of whatever vitamins are listed in that particular variety, and about 24g of SUGAR. additionally, the only vitamins that can realistically be absorbed by drinking this are the water soluble vitamins. fat soluble vitamins (A, D, E, K) will only be absorbed by the body if you eat something containing fat while drinking the vitamin water. one multi-vitamin contains 100% DV of most of the vitamins needed for normal body functions. one more thing-anything over 100% DV of water soluble vitamins gets expelled by your body. meaning you're just going to have expensive pee :P\nTL;DR - NOT REALLY" ]

[ "well, it is not everything about the density. you will want to read about crystalline networks and covalent bounds :)\nthat will explain the structure of the material. lead have high density but it not so “hard” or “though” instead look at diamonds: low density but high toughness and a very hard material.", "The other comments nail it well with the atomic structure playing the key role but I would like to add an example myself. Lead is super dense but extremely \"soft\" given both its density and its position as a metal." ]

[ "simple answer: yes it does. \nI remember as a kid the guys at school would drink milk and then a glass of orange juice making the milk curdle and them throw up so there clearly is more to the story but since our stomachs contain strong acid it is 100% guaranteed that milk curdles down there.", "Ever seen a baby throw up milk? (They do that occasionally). It comes out all curdled" ]

[ "As long as gravity were maintained, there'd be some level of friction (unless \"perfection\" implies a complete lack of friction inherently). If there is friction, the two surfaces will transmit energy to each other, which should cause some vibration, which could be measured as sound as that vibration was then transferred to the surrounding medium. \n\nIf this was a zero-friction situation, the rolling wouldn't necessarily create sound because of the interaction between the surfaces, but the movement of the ball through the medium would cause pressure changes from medium displacement, which is also sound.", "The ball would not roll because of a zero contact area with undefined pressure.\n\nI read this somewhere in an old question\n\n\n**edit, found it:**\n\n[If a perfectly spherical ball is sitting on a perfectly flat surface, what is the size of the contact area? Would it not be infinitely small?](_URL_0_)\n\n > Perfect sphere and perfect plane would be perfectly smooth at all levels of magnification, thus there will be a single point of contact, resulting in zero area and undefined pressure.\n\n\n > With zero contact area, this ideal sphere is not rubbing against any surface it is placed on. Electromagnetic and possibly other forces might resist the motion, but friction will not.\n\n > This also means that if you push on the ball perfectly towards the center of mass, it will not start rolling, because the bottom of the sphere (against the surface) can move just as freely as any other point on the sphere, so it will only cause translational motion.\n\n", "No, but the ball would not be rolling. It would slide down the plain because the very act of rolling is caused by friction. " ]

[ "I am not a neurologist, but I think this is jamming our facial recognition software. We are really good at recognizing faces. Absurdly good. We've been trying to make computers that can do it for decades and our results so far are rudimentary at best, just to give some insight into how ludicrously difficult this is from a programing perspective. What I think is happening here is your brain is overlaying face shape onto the wrong image, as it expects both images to be of the same face. When you focus on the dot, each eye is effectively seeing only one of the faces, and your brain sorts this out by trying to mash all of the information together into a face soup in the post-processing phase because it both isn't used to dealing with this exact problem and because it doesn't have the processing capacity to deal with it either.", "Now I ain't no neuro-shmuro doctor either, but I did poke my nose real hard once. Anyway, notice that the eye placement of all the pictures is at the exact same spot. ", "also most of the pictures are somewhat distorted anyway, the side vision is exaggerating the existing distortions", "I would add that most of the pictures shown are very non-symmetrical. A lot of non-direct pictures and interesting facial and mouth expressions. The brain appreciates facial symmetry, so I'm guessing that the lack of it in these pictures doesn't help.", "It has nothing to do with peripheral vision. You can cover one of the images up and look directly at the other and it'll still happen. In fact, if you download that image, keep one face up for a bit and then flip to the next, it'll still look weird for a bit, until your brain adjusts. \n\nYour brain \"holds on\" to facial features, and since it's very, very irregular for a face to just *completely* change like that, it takes your brain a while to catch up with your eyes. These guys are flipping too fast for your brain to adjust. ", "Apparently, we haven't yet figured out why that phenomenon occurs:\n\n[Wikipedia page on the \"Flashed Face Distortion Effect\"](_URL_0_)" ]

[ "Technically, it appears as if we already have, its just still in the testing phases and is very costly and time consuming to manufacture. So far its 100% effective on all the humans it has been tested on (only 2 people) but that expended the US's entire supply of it. \n \nOf course 2 people doesnt justify it being a 100% cure, but as far as we've seen it is effective. There are still hundreds of questions that need to be answered and way more clinical trials that need to be conducted before it is ready for the general public. \n \n[Here is a good SA article about it and about the treatment of the two patients who were flown into Atlanta](_URL_0_)", "And how big is the chance for ebola to evolve into a virus that transmits through air like a flu?" ]

[ "I'm not sure if this should be a new topic - but what if Greece doesn't do these austerity measures? I know they passed them, but what if they continue to spend too much and collect too little? What can the other Euro countries do?", "Greece could default on the debt, which is basically what Iceland did. Iceland is recovering fairly well. Argentina defaulted on their debt 20 years ago, and while they aren't doing great they recovered faster than Greece is projected to. \n\nThe protesters are mad because the government screwed up, and instead of using the \"we can't pay our loans, sorry\" method (which would screw the bankers), they are using the \"cut jobs, pensions, and salaries\" method (which screws the common citizen that had nothing to do with getting into this mess).\n\nIt's like if you worked on a team project, with you, Bob, and Jim. You work really hard on the project for weeks. When you go to turn it in, you find that Bob and Jim didn't do anything. But Bob and Jim tell the teacher it's your fault, so you get an F on the project while Bob and Jim get a B. You would be pissed too." ]

[ "You will get notice before you're fired. It comes in a series of write ups and suspensions. Unless you have done something grossly negligent to be termed immediately, there has to be escalating discipline first.", "As long as it is not laid out in your employment contract, giving 2 weeks notice is a courtesy not required. Its to give the employer time to start looking for a replacement. You can absolutely quit and just walk out, but you won't get a great recommendation for future employers that way. Most places in the US are at-will employment, meaning you can be fired (or quit) at any time for any reason as long as it is not discriminatory.\n\nETA: when you are being let go in terms of a layoff etc. you will have notice, for disciplinary issues you usually have warnings and probation before firing, if you are just fired on a dime you USALLY have done something really far and away past company policy", "Look up severance pay or severance package. \n\nIt varies by location and government bodies in charge of employment laws. But where I live, the law is that after you have worked for an employer full time for 90 days, they cannot let you go without severance. I believe the rule is two weeks notice or they can choose to pay you out for those two weeks. \n\nTypically, companies choose to pay out the two weeks so that they don't have a disgruntled employee working for two weeks before being forced out. \n\nThere are situations where this may not apply. Part time work, seasonal work etc, ", "Some companies will terminate an employee without notice because if they know they will be fired in advance, there is opportunity to take various forms of \"revenge\" before they leave. Especially if they are higher up and have access to important aspects of the company.", "The primary reason is that it is a good idea to leave a job in good standing, that way you get good recommendations and ending reviews. Leaving without notice puts an employer in a hard spot which in turn means they are lot likely to say anything good if they are asked about you. \n\nAlso it is rare for people to be let go out of the blue. Normally the cutting of positions is known months in advance and those who are at risk are normally informed either directly or indirectly. Those who are fired tend to be written up multiple times prior to being fired so you know when you are at risk here too. ", "Basically, you have a lot more to lose by quitting without notice than a company has by firing you without notice. If you leave a company without giving two weeks, you run the risk of losing that company as a good reference and possibly burning bridges with key professional contacts at the company. On the other hand, if the company fires you without notice, the worst they can really expect is an angry review on Glassdoor (provided they weren't violating some employment contract or violating anti-discrimination laws). If they do it often enough, it could reduce employee morale and damage their reputation among future applicants, but as you can see, the risk is quite a bit lower for them than it is for you." ]

[ "This is a great question, and your specifics are well enough defined to prompt the earlier, accurate, discussion about the relationship between density and hydrodynamics.\n\nI figured I would add a bit about the real-world experience when we actually send devices and vehicles to the bottom of the ocean. The objective is to deploy your instrument/vehicle ballasted such that when it reaches your target operational depth is is near neutral buoyancy. This is also complicated by the fact you may wish to collect samples. There are real-world and significant effects of great pressure on fixed buoyancy (often syntactic foam). For example, the foam used on the Deepsea Challenger (the James Cameron submersible) compressed by about 1% on descent. Therefore, as you approach your target depth, you actually accelerate (you have less volume, and therefore buoyancy). It is very important to anticipate this effect, and drop your descent weights accordingly.", "Just to keep us in nice hydrodynamics, let's assume your steel ball has a diameter of 2 cm. For these conditions (S.G. ~8) the drag coefficient is a constant ~0.44, so the terminal velocity is really only a function of fluid density and not viscosity. In this, \"Newtonian\" regime we have\n\n u^2 = 4/3 * (dens_S - dens_W)/dens_W * g * x / C_D\n\nwhere u is the terminal velocity, dens_S is the steel density, dens_W is the water density, g is the gravitational acceleration, and C_D is the drag coefficient.\n\nAt the bottom of the trench the pater density increases by [4.96%](_URL_0_). The bulk modulus of steel is 160 GPa and 2.2 GPa for water. Means the steel will increase in density by 2.2/160*4.96% = 0.07%. Basically, in comparison to the water the steel doesn't change density at all.\n\nBecause the square of the terminal velocity is roughly inversely proportional to the water density, we then have a 4.96/2% = **2.48% change in terminal velocity from top to bottom based on fluid density change**. For all practical purposes I would call that a 2ish percent change in terminal velocity.\n\n" ]

[ "Atheism is non-belief in god, secular humanism is a belief in the inherent dignity of human beings. It's essentially religious moral principles sans religion.\n\nI had a friend who died who was too much of an atheist for it to make sense to have a religious preacher at his funeral. His family got a humanist speaker instead who did speeches about coming to terms with mortality but without the \"god\" or \"heaven\" part.", "I personally define one as labeling what I don't believe in, and the other as what I do believe in. Ideally, in a world long without gods the label \"Atheist\" would no longer exist. \n\nAs for the \"what humanists believe\", for me personally I choose to believe that it accredits humanity for things like morality, achievement, and the courage to withstand hardship and tragedy. I think a significant part of Humanism is that the ideals of right & wrong come from people. Good and evil come from the good and evil choices people make, not from a god of any kind.\n\n\nIf you are interested in learning what company Humanists keep I recommend reading \"Who's Who in Hell\". It is a collection of well known people that were Humanist or otherwise free thinkers not subscribed to religion. It is a refreshingly thick book." ]

[ "(1) a \"pitch\" is just a frequency of a sound wave. But, two waves with the same pitch will have very different shapes. The piano and violin generate waves of different shapes.\n(2) The waves have different rates of decay. A piano makes a tone when a hammer hits a string. The string starts to vibrate, but the vibrations decay away. In contrast, the violin passes a bow over the string, causing the vibrations not to decay away. \n(3) Each instrument has different acoustic properties that cause harmonics and reverberations to add to (or subtract from) the initial wave form.\n(4) The piano typically hits more than one string at the same time. While the strings technically supposed to be identical, they are not precisely, and that produces wave forms that are slightly off from the original pitch.\n", "/u/tellahthesage is right on the money: timbre is what defines it all, and there's a lot that goes into it.\n\nLet's start with a pure tone (i.e. a sine wave) at 1000 Hz, or 1kHz. (For reference, that's close to the C two octaves above middle C.) **Harmonics** are multiples of the frequency at lower levels, e.g. 2kHz, 4kHz, 8kHz, and so forth. Adding different harmonics in different mathematical patterns will result in different wave shapes and different sounds. [Wikipedia has some good links on the subject](_URL_0_), including sample clips of the main wave forms.\nIncidentally, a given instrument may 'voice' two (or more) notes simultaneously, with a harmonic series for each note, which adds complexity and in some cases (like percussion), perhaps noise.\n\nNow that we have a wave form, we can vary the pitch of it by a little bit. This is **vibrato**, and is described by a width (how much it varies - maybe a quarter tone for example) and frequency (how fast it varies). A similar (but not identical) effect can be got by varying the *volume* by a small amount, which is called **tremolo**.\n\nNow, you can change how fast the note gets up to 'full' volume (**attack**), and how fast it fades away afterwards (**decay**). A flute has a relatively slow attack. A hammered piano note has a much faster attack, and a glockenspiel (with metal bars and hard mallets) is faster still. A violin note doesn't actually decay as long as the musician is bowing it continuously, whereas a damped xylophone will fall off very quickly.\n\nAnd that's...most of it. Except for all of the other parts. :-)\n", "In a single word: overtones. \n\n_URL_0_\n\nWhile yes, others have already mentioned characteristics of a given sound, the one thing that differentiates different instruments are the array of overtones produced when the instrument is played.\n\nLots of factors can influence the overtones (which include \"harmonics\") and it has even been theorized that in some cases, instrument components or construction techniques have influenced the distribution of overtones (one example being a Stradivarius violin). \n\nEven more cool are \"sum\" or \"difference\" tones - [which exist only in the mind of the listener](_URL_1_). ", "Sound is air moving back and forth. The faster it moves back and forth, the higher the note sounds. Picture this as your arm moving up and down in front of your face.\n\nTo produce the same note but with a different \"sound\", small sub-vibrations occur simultaneously along with the \"main\" vibration. Picture this as your hand waving up and down as your arm also moves up and down in front of your face.\n\nTwo notes from different instruments have the same \"main\" vibration (your arm in the above description), but different sub-vibrations (your hand in the above description).", "Everything mentioned here is great! Superb answers, all. One thing is missing tho: noise, and its colours. \n\nIn addition to the basic tone and its various overtones, there is always some level of [noise](_URL_8_) in any given [timbre.](_URL_0_) Noise can mean many things, but in this context, it means sound that is not recognizable as one focussed frequency, but is spread out across the spectrum; [white noise](_URL_7_) being probably the most well-known variety. \n\nWhite noise was given the name because, like white light, it was once thought to be sound spread evenly across the spectrum, AKA all frequencies at once, evenly distributed. This has since been disproven, but among [the other colours of noise](_URL_2_), [pink noise](_URL_3_) has been found to truly give an equal loudness to all audible frequencies.\n\nThat's just a fun tangent tho; no physical instrument consistently produces any one colour of noise perfectly, but they all do produce different colours of noise, changing along with the other elements of timbre. \n\nElements of noise like the breath of a flautist may increase or decrease with loudness, or the flautist may deliberately make their sound *more breathy* (more noisy) by varying the shape of their mouth, AKA their [embrouchure.](_URL_4_)\n\nThe bowed instruments are a classic example; the bow produces a [fairly noisy and complex timbre,](_URL_5_) as the sound is produced by friction, an action we all have experienced as being \"noisy\".\n\nOnce you get into electronic instruments, noise becomes a fully malleable thing; you can increase it, modulate it, make it reactive to loudness/pitch/time in new ways, or just completely neglect to add it, for a decidedly unnatural yet pure sound.\n\nIncidentally, noise is a vital component of modern emergency vehicle sirens; [it helps our ears detect where the sound is coming from,](_URL_6_) an incredibly useful thing in busy traffic.\n\nHope this was as fun to read as it was to write!\n\nEdit: Whoops! Turns out I was wrong, and pink noise isn't equally loud across the spectrum; [gray noise](_URL_1_) is the correct answer, I just like pink noise better, and my desires hijacked my memory.", "pitch is from how many times a sound wave goes from up to down in a second, it's *frequency*. tone comes from how smooth the lines of the curve are. a perfectly smooth and curved sound wave is called a 'sine wave' and sounds like a beep or computer tone. different instruments can produce sound waves which have the same basic frequency, but the shape of the actual sound wave is much different due to different ways of generating the tone. Over-generally but not completely wrong is the smoother the waveform, the more like a beep, the rougher the waveform, the more like a buzz. edit: in other comments OP described using an oscilloscope to see these waveforms. ", "According to Daniel Levitin, known obsessor over sound and how we hear it, it was mentioned once briefly, the attack, or the very first instant we hear a note on any instrument (or in nature) is the key factor to identifying it's source. Running a bow across a string sounds different than picking a string, sounds different than the same note coming out of a brass or wind instrument, etc. Our brains pick up on this subtlety, good composers make the most of our ability to distinguish instruments, and without the attack, our brains are unable to detect the source of a note. Dr. Levitin said if you could cut out the attack, ie. the first tenth of a second of a given sound, we would be unable to know exactly the source and it would just sound like the note.\n\nAs far as vibrato goes that's a back and forth tweak on a string to give it a little extra something, it changes the frequency of the note a little sharp and a little flat repeatedly, very fast and gives the note a lot more character.", "There are three elements of sound: pitch, amplitude, and timbre. \n\nPitch refers to the rate at which the sound is vibrating, measured by frequency over a second. A440 refers to a sound vibrating at 440 times a second, for example. This is measured in hertz (hz).\n\nAmplitude refers to attack, peak, and decay of a sound. So essentially how fast and loud does the sound peak to its max volume, and likewise how does it decay back into silence (or the next note). \n\nFinally, and most importantly, is timbre, which refers to the harmonic qualities of a sound. This is what determines the unique quality of any instrument or voice. \n\nEssentially, every sound made by a physical source (hitting a cymbal, striking a piano note, attacking a string on a guitar, etc.) is composed not just of the “principle” or “fundamental” note — what we might call “middle C” — but of lots of other notes or pitches that aren’t as prominent as the fundamental. These other notes that compose the entire sound of a given pitch on an instrument are called “harmonics” or “overtones.” (Technically there are some minor differences between these two words, but for the purposes of this explanation, don’t worry). \n\nThe best way to illustrate how this works this is to google “sine wave,” and you’ll hear an electronic generated sound wave that is only composed of a single note, such as just a 440hz. It sounds really odd and unnatural. This is because there aren’t any other \n\nThe reason every instrument sounds different is because the amplitude of these overtones are varied. For example, the fundamental pitch of the note is twice as loud as the first overtone, which is an octave higher than the fundamental. The first overtone is four times as loud as the second overtone, which is a fifth higher than the first overtone (and an octave and an a fifth higher than the fundamental). This continues on a loose logarithmic scale, with the amplitude of each successive overtone decreasing at a given rate. \n\nWhat this rate is for each instrument and the “harmonic” composition of each pitch is different for each instrument (and each person’s voice, or any physical sound). You can, interestingly, map the composition of an instrument visually or mathematically. \n\nThis is how electronic instruments attempt to “sample” or “synthesize” real physical instruments through electronic means. There is software out there that, for example, has spent thousands of hours sampling real string instruments to such a precise degree that it’s nearly impossible to tell the difference between the electronic and real versions of, say, a violin. You can adjust for all three elements of sounds. And there’s a reason that this particular plugin costs somewhere around $5,000. \n\nHope that helps. ", "Oooooo!!! Somebody asked about the best electives we took in college, and I unwittingly answered this exact question in my excitement (with bonus radio info, because that's what I do for a living now)!\n\n > Physics of musical acoustics, what I remember of it, mostly went extremely in depth on what makes audio audio.\n\n > For instance, the timbre, or the *kind* of sound, is determined by the type of waveform. A guitar, for instance, has a sine wave, as [can be easily seen in slow motion](_URL_2_). A violin, on the other hand, has a sawtooth wave, due to the [string constantly catching the bow as it vibrates](_URL_1_). Percussion has a scattered waveform that doesn't resonate well, hence why most people don't think of it having \"pitch\" in the same way other instruments do. What we think of as electronic sounds are usually [a square waveform](_URL_0_).\n\n > The pitch of the sound is determined by the frequency of the wave, or how many times the wave \"cycles\" in a given time period. The slow motion guitar video I posted above does a great job of showing this, actually. The thicker strings do not vibrate as quickly as the thinner ones do, which is why they are lower in pitch. You can change the amount of cycles these strings will emit by tightening and loosening the strings. The same thing is done with the air pockets in instruments like the oboe or the trumpet--by changing the size of the vibrating space, you change the pitch.\n\n > Lastly, there is the amplitude. Going back to the slow motion guitar, you might think that the cycles would be affected by how hard you plucked the strings. But if you've ever played a guitar, you know that only the volume is affected by how hard you pluck the strings, not the pitch. This is because they vibrate further up and down, not faster or slower. So, simply put, the amplitude of a waveform is your volume. The higher up and down the wave goes, the more powerful it will be.\n\n > Now where it gets tricky is when you get radio involved... Amplitude modulation (AM), for instance, changes the amplitude of a radio signal that is of a much higher frequency than we can hear, and, then your radio when it receives that Very High Frequency (VHF) signal, then knows what frequency to strip off of it (the frequency you tuned your radio to), and leaves only those minor variations that were inserted in the signal. Those minor variations in amplitude? They're the audio that was originally inserted into the signal, called the \"intelligence\".\n\n > Frequency Modulation (FM) does the same thing, only it inserts minor variations in the frequency of the signal, then strips off that frequency in the same way and takes the difference, leaving just the original audio frequency.\n\n > Anyway... physics is awesome.", "Think of it like waves on the ocean. The note or pitch values come from how often a wave breaks/how far they are apart from one another. The instrument sound comes from the general shape of the waves and the changes between each wave.", "Timbre and pitch are fundamentally two different aspects of sound. Like color and shape in visual arts. Just completely different aspects.\n\nI'm sure a lot of others have gotten it but I'll add my two cents as a staff pianist and composer for a fairly large organization, who's thought about this stuff for a long time, at least on an artistic level.\n\nTimbre (pronounced tam-burr), is the quality of a sound. There are theories about where this comes from: for example, there are different balances within the overtone series, for different instruments. If you haven't heard of the overtone series (or harmonic series) the basic idea is this: every single note that you hear, there are actually about 8 notes above that note that are sounding above that note (produced by divisions of the fundamental note). They are tough to hear, but they are there. And it's not really 8 notes above, it's more like infinite notes above, but the human ear is limited in how many it perceives.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nFrom the article \"The relative amplitudes (strengths) of the various harmonics primarily determine the timbre of different instruments and sounds, though onset transients, formants, noises, and inharmonicities also play a role. For example, the clarinet and saxophone have similar mouthpieces and reeds, and both produce sound through resonance of air inside a chamber whose mouthpiece end is considered closed. Because the clarinet's resonator is cylindrical, the even-numbered harmonics are less present. The saxophone's resonator is conical, which allows the even-numbered harmonics to sound more strongly and thus produces a more complex tone. The inharmonic ringing of the instrument's metal resonator is even more prominent in the sounds of brass instruments.\"\n\nSo basically, the physical aspects of each instrument will effect how loud or soft those invisible notes above the actual note are (the fundamental), which produces differences in the character of the sound.\n\nAs an extra thing, there's a great story in the composer John Adams' memoir _URL_1_\n\nwhere he talks about experimenting in the 70's with tape recordings of different instruments. Long story short, if they took tape recordings of different instruments playing a C note, for example, and they cut off the beginning of the note (the attack), it became MUCH more difficult to distinguish between the different instruments.\n\nIn other words, a big part of the difference in timbre comes from the attack of a note, while the sustained part is harder to differentiate.\n", "True ELI5: The specific sound of an instrument (timbre) is like the flavour of a piece of candy. Pitch is just how fast you can eat the candy. It does not change the flavour of the candy.", "A lot of these answers come from music theory, and they discuss things like timbre, texture, noise, attack etc. While that's all true, and indeed necessary to characterize the sound, the fundamental reason is this: \n \nWhen we say that two sounds are the same pitch, we do not mean that they have the same frequency. A sound has many frequencies at once, and those frequencies may change as the sound changes over time (e.g. a bending of a note, vibrato, or as it fades away). The pitch of a sound is a subjective perception of its frequencies, usually based on the most prevalent (loudest) frequency. The wikipedia article (_URL_1_) has a good discussion of this. \n \nSo, when we say that two sounds are the same pitch, we usually mean that the loudest frequency of each sound are the same. This means that many things can be different:\n\n- How loud is the loudest frequency compared to the others?\n- What other frequencies are there? How loud are they?\n- How does all of the above change over time?\n\nIt's in these aspects that two sounds of the same pitch can sound different! For example, according to google images, the violin waveform looks like [this](_URL_0_), however a pure tone would look like a clean wave (with the same separation of peaks and troughs). \n \nWhat's amazing is that our ears can \"see\" all of that chaos in the waveform and get harmonies, timbre, vibrato, etc. out of it.", "A real musical tone isn't just made up of a single smoothly repeating sine wave. In the real world, instruments that make music produce incredibly complex sound waves. Even two sound samples recorded from the same instrument, played exactly the same way, have noticeable differences, due to imperceptible differences in the movement of the musician's body, or air pressure, or temperature, or name a thing.", "Sound is made when something vibrates at a certain speed - in the case of both a violin and a piano what vibrates is strings (with the body of the instrument adding extra \"flavouring\", but we can ignore that). If you draw that vibration on a piece of paper, you get a _wave_ - they look [something like this](_URL_0_). The waves generated by each instrument have different shape - that's how we can recognise them. That shape is called the _timbre_.\n\nWhat give those sounds their shape?\n\nIt turns out a sound is not just one vibration - it's a lot of independent vibrations going on the same time, which add up to create the single sound we hear. These vibrations are in a sequence - if the base ones vibrates 200 times per second, the next one will vibrate 400 times, then the one after 600 times, and so on. They are called \"harmonics\", and the sequence of vibrations (x, 2x, 3x, ...) is called _harmonic sequence_. All instruments have harmonics in that sequence - what changes is that in some instrument the some harmonics are louder and other softer. You don't hear the individual sounds, they just add up to make a single sound. That combination of harmonics is what changes the _timbre_ of a sound, and makes the instrument recognisable. There is a mathematical technique called \"fourier analysis\" which allow you to show all the harmonics for a given sound - the [graphs look like this](_URL_1_)\n\nBut the harmonics are only the \"pure\" components of sound - you can hear them well in old synthesizers from the 70s. In the real world there are also other vibrations which are outside the sequence - typically they are considered \"noise\", but they exist, typically for percussion instruments, but also at the very beginning of other sounds, particularly wind instruments (they tend to die off quickly and leave mostly harmonics)\n\nSo a combination of all these vibrations, harmonics and inharmonics, each one with its own loudness, each one becoming louder or softer in time independently from the other, is what gives the timbre of a sound.\n\nWhat controls which harmonics are softer / louder in a sound wave?\n\nIt depends from every instrument. Typically when an object vibrates, the sound comes to our ear because the air between the object and the object vibrates. The air tends to \"fall in line\" with the vibrating object, and vibrate at the same speed. As do any other object in the vicinity which have the ability of vibrate at the same speed (that's why windows vibrate when there is bus engine in the area but not when you have a drill - the frequency of the bus engine matches the \"natural\" frequency of the window, but that of the drill doesn't). So the instrument builders use that and work with the shape of the body of the instrument to give them pockets of air or parts of the body that emphasise certain harmonic and dampen others.\n", "I know this has already been answered, but I wanted to simplify it a bit. An easy way to think of it is: pitch is how quickly the the sound wave is repeating, whereas, the *way* it sounds is determined by the *shape* of the sound wave. \n\nYes there are a lot of other factors that play into the timbre of a sound, but the most important element of what makes a violin sound like a violin, etc. is its unique sound wave. ", "There are a lot of good answers here so I wont bother repeating all that juicy information. Once you're comfortable with the answer, I did want to leave you with a new, but related question. \n \nPick a random note and sing the vowel sounds: A E I O U. How can you sing/speak the same pitch but tell different vowel sounds apart? It turn out to be almost the same thing as piano vs violin playing the same note: The mixture of harmonics/overtones (and a few lesser elements of the timbre in the vocal instrument). \n \nYou mention in another comment that you record music on your computer. If you have a spectrogram plugin for the recording software, trying recoding yourself singing \"A E I O U\" and see how it looks. I think its pretty cool, myself. Here's a spectrogram of someone saying [\"I can see you\"](_URL_0_). Notice how all of the vowel sounds have those (less dark) overtones above the fundamental pitch being spoken. Those are what gives the different vowels each its own timbre. \n \nA bit of a tangent but hopefully you found that interesting :)", "Sound is made of a bunch of wobbles. Some wobble fast and some wobble slow. When you have a string, or a drum head, or a tube that's doing the wobbling, only some lengths of wobble are allowed to happen. \n\nImagine a piece of string, held tight, and you pluck it in the middle. You can see the middle goes up and down a lot, but the ends don't move at all. Now, imagine geeeeently pinching the middle. The pattern that happens now is you get two halves that wobble up and down, in sync but in opposite directions. This means the \"wave\" on the string has half the distance between crests. Because maths, this makes the rate at which it wobbles twice as high; when the \"wavelength\" is halved, the \"frequency\" is doubled. You can do the same thing but pinching in two places (as long as the places are evenly spread out), three, four, five and on to infinity places. The collection of these pitches that are allowed to happen is called the \"Overtone Series\".\n\nFor anything that wobbles like the string (drum head, air in a tube etc.), the lowest allowed pitch is called the \"Fundamental\". This is almost always the loudest wobble that happens, and is the pitch that you hear when comparing the sound of a violin and piano playing the same note. The thing that makes the sound different is how strong each overtone is. Every instrument, every human and animal voice, anything that makes sound like this, has a unique pattern in the strengths of its overtones. For example, if you listen to something called a \"Square Wave\" as you get higher and higher up the overtone series, each one gets half as strong. Real instruments, and especially human voices, have very complicated patterns in their overtones. In fact, it is these patterns that allow us to tell vowels apart!\n\nTry this: start with your mouth wide open and say Ah. Now slowly close your lips, while making the ah sound with your voice box. What you'll hear is the vowel turning from an Ah into an Ooh, without changing pitch! This is because when your mouth closes, some of the very highest overtones get completely stopped, leaving only the lowest few to make it out of your mouth. Now try this: start off with an Ooh. Now make the sound really nasal, like you're pushing the sound through your nose. Move your lips around to make the shape of an Ee sound. If you do it slowly and carefully, and play around with if, you should hear a note that you aren't singing, that sounds quite a lot higher than the sound of your throat. Congratulations, you've found an overtone in your own voice!\n\nOvertones and the \"harmonic series\", which is all the notes that make up the overtone series, have been studied since Pythagoras first started thinking about why music sounded pleasant. Since then we've got very very got at choosing what kind of overtones we want our instruments to play. Even singers can do it; if you listen to good Barbershop quartets you can often hear very high notes that no one is singing, where the overtones of everyone's voices line up and ring really loudly. Train horns have been chosen to have two notes that don't share any overtones, so they really grab your attention by sounding really unpleasant. Overtones are all around us, and at the very least, you can make some cool mouth noises now.\n\nI hope this helps!", "You mentioned that you have a daw. Open up a basic oscillator and play any note. You'll notice that the wave is a perfectly curve sine wave. Change it to a saw wave, and it sounds different. This is timbre: same wavelength and amplitude, but just different shapes. Now, open up an acoustic instrument and look at the wave. It resembles a sine wave, but it's more jagged. Another example of timbre", "Omg thank you for asking this. I've been wondering about this in the back of my mind for a long long time. Glad to see it got some traction and some good answers! Thanks!", "I was once told by my music teacher in high school that the attack (the beginning of the sound) is the most important part. In fact he said that if you took out the attack and heard a note after it had already begun it would be very difficult to distinguish what thing is making that sound. If you ever are switching stations on the radio occasionally you'll experience this by accident. \n ", "If I'm not mistaken, I heard in a class once that if you take away the attack and decay of 2 sound waves produced by 2 different instruments, but maintained the same pitch and loudness, it would be difficult to determine whic instrument was producing the sound. Can anyone confirm? (This was mentioned in a studio music recording class)", "If you were actually 5, I would tell you that the different shapes and materials instruments are made out of make different types of sounds called timbres. The sound could be the same high or low pitch, but things made of wood and metal are going to have different timbres. It's like how your voice is a little bit different than your friend's because your body is a different shape and size.\n\nAs an adult, I would explain to you how harmonics work, but many others here have done a good job of that.", "Here's a fun experiment - if you have audio editing software cut the attack off of a bunch of different instruments playing the same pitch. Without the attack it becomes much more difficult to identify an instrument. There are many other factors like timbre which is essentially harmonic content produced by each instrument but the attack is perhaps the biggest one and one that few people realize. ", "I am late to post, but I made [a video](_URL_0_) that deals with your question. The intro may throw you off, but just watch.", "Harmonics. Those sounds are not made of a single note, they just have a root note, but have hundreds of overtone harmonics that make up the timbre of the sound. That single note will also have 3rds, 5ths, 7ths, etc mixed in with it that give it that timbre. Otherwise you would only have a simple sine wave and everything would sound identical.\n\nThis is also not taking into account how the sound waves bounce and refract off of surfaces and the . return back to your ear at different times. ", "When you hear a piano play a note, you think of it as a single frequency. In reality, that note you hear is the base frequency, but you're also hearing hundreds of higher notes as well, called 'harmonics.' The harmonics differ depending on the instrument. So if a violin plays the same base note, you hear the same base, but the harmonics are different, which is why they sound different. (This is also why chords sound muddy in the low piano register - you can hear much more of the harmonics interacting together).", "Well I'm not seeing any that a 5 year old could understand, so I'll take a crack at it.\n\nSound is made up of waves in the air, just like you see waves in the water. \n\nWhen there's no sound, the line is flat. No waves. Like this ______\n\nWhen there is sound, the air is all wavy, like this ~~~~\n\nWhen the sound gets higher, that means there's more waves per second. So 200~ is twice as high as 100~. 400~ is twice as high as 200~ and so on. We call these octaves. \n\nWhen two different instruments play the same note; they are playing the same amount of waves (200~) but the waves just look different and have a different shape. Some even have more waves stacked on top of them (usually double or triple the amount, just at a lower volume so you can't hear them as distinctly)\n\nHope this helped someone! This is how I explained to my daughter.\n\nSource: audio engineer and father to a seven year old.", "Let's ELI5 this! I see some nice answers that are WAY above ELI5, so let's make this simple here.\n\nYou know what a pitch is -- it's a frequency. Basically, the air is vibrating so many times per second. For example, if it vibrates 440 times a second, we name that note A4. Just what we call it. It's the A above middle C on the piano, and it's the second highest string on the violin. If a sound wave is vibrating at 440 Hz, that is, 440 times per second, it's an A4.\n\nSo OK, can you draw a wave on a piece of paper? It waves up and down like a snake, right? Well, one time going up and one time going down is one cycle. That's the bit that repeats. The main thing that makes different sounds sound different is that these waves have different shapes. Maybe instead of being like a snake, it goes straight up, over, straight down, over, straight up, over, etc. That's a square wave. Or maybe it goes in triangles, making a triangle wave. Each shape of wave makes a different sound. For example, if you sing \"ah\" or \"eh\" or \"ee\" or \"oh\" or \"oo\" or \"aw\" or \"uh\" or whatever, on the same note, each of those vowels will make a wave of a different shape. It'll still have the same number of cycles per second, but the cycle of the \"eh\" will look different from the cycle of the \"oo\". They'll probably be kind of weird curvy thingies, but they'll be *different* kind of weird curvy thingies. That's what makes the sound different...\n\n...when you're holding it. Because there's other stuff too. When you *start* a sound or *end* a sound, different things can happen. For example, you can start the sound really hard, hitting it very loud for a very short time and then quickly going away to a normal volume. For example, if you say \"Dah\", with a hard D, you'll have a different start from if you say \"nah\" with a light n. These features at the start are called attack and decay; the attack is how long it takes to get to the loudest bit, then the decay is how long it takes to get to the regular volume. Then comes the end of the sound. The violin can just keep holding a note at constant volume for a long time, but you can't do that on piano; once you strike a key, the sound starts dying away slowly while you're holding the key down (you can make it stop quickly if you want by releasing the key). This behavior is called sustain. When you finally release the key, or when you stop bowing the note, there's a little bit of echo or some sort of sound when you stop; this is called the release. These four parameters, attack, decay, sustain, and release, are collectively known as the envelope of the sound. Different sounds have different envelopes too.\n\nBut sounds don't have to be pure. There can be many different sounds that together make up one sound. For example, when you say \"Dah\", there's a \"D\" and there's an \"ah\". If you say \"Tah\" or \"nah\" or \"sah\", you'll have a different initial sound -- the consonant -- but the same vowel sound. The shape of the wave is in the vowel; the consonant is just what happens right at the beginning. In those cases, it's not usually a wave at a particular frequency; it's just a burst of energy, and that burst can have any shape at all and it doesn't have to repeat 440 times a second. Each shape makes a different sound.\n\nSound is one thing and one thing only: air vibrating. The type of sound we hear is based entirely on the shape of the sound wave. Different sounds come from different shapes.", "I'm only writing in because I've seen mostly true but not entirely true responses. The top response as I write this is mostly correct but then cliff dives while describing AM radio frequencies as higher than we can hear - those aren't even the same waves, bro.\n\nAnyway, the answer most correct is timbre and to a much smaller extent, attack.\n\nTimbre can be described as the relationship in amplitude (volume) between the fundamental (the assigned pitch as you put it) and its overtones or harmonics. Harmonics/overtones are usually multiples of the fundamental. Interestingly, due to the way pianos are played, its harmonics are slightly sharper than the multiples of its fundamentals, so much so that the middle of the piano is tuned to the same pitch as accompanying instruments, but the lows are tuned almost a quarter tone below where it should be relative to the middle notes, and the highs nearly a quarter note tuned higher.\n\nThe attack is the second most important distinction between instruments. The attack is simply how the sound is initiated. The bowed violin, for example, is nearly a sine wave after the initial attack. ", "Interesting additional fact to all the previous comments: A lot of instruments sound a lot more similar than you may think. A university in my hometown once did a study about that, where a bunch of single instruments were recorded. They all played the same note quite long. The attack of every note was then cut off, so people could only hear the note, but not it's start where for example a piano's hammer hit the string, the bow of a violin touching the string, and so on.\nThe majority of people listening to these sounds couldn't tell the difference between a violin and a trumpet.", "Fourrier tells us that any sound can be described as the sum of pure frequencies. If one axis is frequency, one is amplitude, and a third is time, then you can create a three dimensional representation of an actual sound (technically you need phase also but that's less prominent). This includes everything from timbre to vibrato to the beginning and end of notes to breath noise. \n\nThe pitch we recognize is the fundamental, or base frequency of a sound. Three aspects of timbre I want to touch on are harmonics, evolution over time, and musical noise. \n\nHarmonics are multiples of the base frequency that we hear as part of it. /u/Darth_Ra did a pretty good job making understanding those accessible as wave forms. \nI think that's only a third of the story though. \n\nSome others have mentioned attack, but I think it's more than that. A guitar pluck for instance starts out with many strong harmonics and fades to just a few as the strings fundamental takes over. A wind instrument on the other hand can become brighter (more harmonics) or more reserved at any time, just based on the breath and mouth control of the player. A paino played backwards doesn't quite sound like a piano, because it's we associate the instrument with a pattern of change in timbre over time. A fast scale on the piano is a series of short bright (many rich harmonics) transients whereas that scale on a wind instrument could be a steady smooth waveform changing only in pitch. \n\nFinally musical noise is an important part of what cues our ears in. Some flutes are almost pure sine waves, but the players breath gives the sound context. In a piano the keys make a thud when theyre pressed down and hit the keybed. It has nothing to do with the strings it's just a piece of wood hitting felt. A guitar string plucked hard has some 'twang' which is basically non-harmonic content. \nThe noise gives context and clues the ears into what they're hearing. \n\nEven though \"harmonics\" or \"timbre\" is probably good enough for a ELI5, I wanted to add what was missing to create a full spectrum over time picture of the sound. ", "Welp, looks like I'm throwing my hat in the ring:\n\nA note can be defined by three things: its pitch, its loudness, and its timbre. I'm not going to go into the physics of these, but I'll explain it as best I can. \n\nThe pitch remains consistent among all instruments. It defines how high or low a note is. For instance, a middle F is a higher note than a middle C, therefore it has a higher pitch. No matter what instrument you're playing, this rule holds true.\n\nLoudness also is consistent among instruments. It can be defined by a couple of things: how easy it is to hear, and how far away from the source you can move and still hear it. As these increase, the sound can be said to get louder.\n\nThe timbre is what differs between instruments, and is what makes the various instruments sound different. Differing timbres are created by the different methods each instrument uses to produce music. A violin sounds different from a trombone, or a piano, because all three produce music differently.\n\nAgain, none of this goes into the physics, so it can't explain why it happens, only that it does.\n\nAannnddddd....\n\nThat's my explanation!", "ELI5-style: Each note consists of a bunch of frequencies laid on top of each other. Whenever you play an \"A\" or \"C-sharp\" or whatever, you're playing a sound that has the same frequencies relatively \"louder\" than the other frequencies in the note and it creates sort of a \"finger print\" which lets us say, \"Oh, that's an A.\" The reason a piano and violin sound different (the \"timbre\") is because they're playing different frequencies in addition to the \"louder\" frequencies.\n\nWhenever anyone in this thread talks about a Fourier analysis, they mean something [like this](_URL_0_). Those big peaks are the \"louder\" frequencies I was talking about, and the non-zero squiggles are the other frequencies.", "Imagine the same note played by a piano and a violin, for the sake of easy comparison.\n\nIn a piano, a hammer strikes the string which makes the string vibrate.\nThe pitch of the note is determined by how often in a second the string vibrates up and down. This is the lowest so-called “mode” of the string, the “slowest” vibration, causing a big bulge:\n\n • •\n ••• •••\n ••••• •••••\n •••••••••\n \n\n But, at the same time, the string can also vibrate in higher modes: the first half can wiggle up while the second half wiggles down, and vice versa:\n\n ••••\n ••• •••\n • • •\n ••• •••\n ••••\n\nThis vibration has a pitch that’s twice as high as the lowest vibration mode. But it is not as strong.\nThe next mode has 3 bulges, the next mode has 4 bulges, and so on... each of these modes being usually weaker than the other modes, sometimes with certain exceptions.\n\nIn a violin for example, the combinations of these modes can make the string appear to vibrate in an interesting pattern, looking rather like a triangle changing its shape, the pointy bit moving from one end to the other, than round bulges wiggling up and down. This is because the bow constantly scratches the string, which creates a lot of higher modes:\n\n •••• ••\n •••• ••\n •••• ••\n •••• ••\n ••••\n\n\nThe combination of these modes makes the timbre of the sound generated by this string. If the higher modes are very weak then the sound is very “sterile” and muffled. if the higher modes are stronger then the sound is brighter.\n\nAs an example, imagine a flute and a violin playing the same note. The air column in a flute produces mainly the lowest mode, which makes a flute sound very “simple”. The same note, played with a violin, sounds much more “complex”, brighter. The reason is that the bow scratches the string over and over again, producing lots of higher modes which make the sound appear much more vivid.\n\nEach instrument produces different strengths for each of these modes, and that variation of combinations of modes makes every instrument sound different. And this is valid no matter if the sound is produced by a string or a column of air or by even other means like a vibrating metal plate or the head of a drum. Plates or bells (instead of strings or air columns) just add one additional direction in which they can generate more vibrational modes, which makes them sound even more complex, as everyone knows who has heard xylophones, marimbas or church bells before.\n\nEdit: grammar" ]

[ "When you click the button, the key doesn't just transmit a single signal, it transmits a series of signals that encode a specific code. Each car has its own code.", "As far as I know it works similarly to how wifi works. One wifi hub (car) has a code that can access it known as a password (key). Many wifis (cars) can exist but only a person (key) with the right password can communicate with (open) it. \n\nThere are millions of possible wifi keys. The minimum number of characters for most wifi keys is 8 so the number of possible combinations of keys is the number of characters that can be used to the power 8. So if it's just the numbers 1 to 10, the number of possible keys is 10^8. There are many more characters available for passwords and so the possible number of potential passwords is huge. " ]

[ "Ice is less dense than liquid water, so even if it was freezing at the bottom of the ocean the ice would float to the surface. That being said, the only place that water is exposed to temperatures cold enough to freeze it is at/near the surface.", "it doesnt get that cold really. even at the bottom of the Marianas trench, the temps are above freezing.\n\nyou get colder in arctic regions, but not cold enough to freeze, especially when you factor in that its super salty and under a lot of pressure (water doesnt like to freeze under pressure). you might get just under zero in these areas, but the pressure and salt lower the freezing point.", "First of all, it's cold at the bottom of the ocean, but not that cold, between 0 to 3 degrees Celcius (32-37F). Part of the reason why it's not that cold at the bottom of the ocean is because of earth's internal heating.\n\nSecond of all, water freezes from top to bottom, and most of the salt leaves the water as it freezes, which makes the water around the ice saltier. This has two effects: first, it lowers the freezing point, and second, it makes the water denser, such that it sinks to the bottom of the ocean. \n\nNow, since the temperature at the bottom of the ocean is only 0-3C and not colder, this very briny water simply does not freeze because 0-3C is well above its freezing point.", "When water turns to ice, it needs space for its molecules to arrange themselves in a less dense space. The immense pressure at the bottom of an ocean compresses the water enough to counteract the force of the water expanding. \n\nA practical example of pressure melting ice is when you go ice skating. The pressure generated by the skates melts the ice, and hence when ice skating you're actually skating on a very thin film of water.", "Chem engineer here.\n\n[Take a look at this **ILLUSTRATION **and see if you can understand it for yourself](_URL_0_).\n\nWell, in most substances a raise of pressure may provoke a passage from the liquid state to the Solid state (Solidification). This happens because the pressure forces the molecules to be closer.\n\nHowever the Water molecules are further apart when they are in the Solid state compared to the liquid state. It has to do with the geometry of the H2O molecule. That's why at 0ºC Ice as a density of 0.9 (Water is 1).\n\nSo when you increase the pressure and force the water / ice molecules to be even closer they pass to a state where they can be even closer: liquid.\n\n**EDIT**: I know this is not a proper graphic. It's an illustration. Even if it had a scale it would be useless: engineers use Equations of state because we need to know partial pressure at different points of pressure and temperature (It's like knowing how much of the water goes to moisture / humidity. There is no 100% liquid water with air around it with 0% humidity ). ", "Your assumption that water is colder at depth is inaccurate. Depending on the depth of the body of water in question the water temperature can be layered due to external energy sources. Solar radiation warms the top, thermal energy from the earth's crust warms the bottom. Rivers and springs add different temperature water to the lake/ocean of your question. As ice forms in salt water the salt molecules are squeezed out creating less salty ice which floats and a salty slurry that sinks. The top freezes first because that's where the cold air is sucking the energy out of the water. ", "pressure and salinity are what prevent the freezing of water. A phase diagram of pure water will show you the conditions necessary for freezing and will allow you to compare conditions in the ocean depths with those on the diagram. Salt is just icing on the freeze prevention cake", "What other substances are less dense at solid state than at liquid state?", "There are a lot of factors... But one that is easy to ELI5 is to ask you if you have ever stuck a bottle of pop in the freezer, took it out and it was liquid but when you opened it if froze?\n\n_URL_0_\n\nPressure lowers the freezing point of liquids. The deeper you are in the water, the more pressure there is due to the weight of all the water above it. Carbonated liquids like coke shown in the video above are under pressure in the bottle due to the carbon dioxide gas that tries to escape the liquid. this lowers the freezing point until you release that pressure with the satisfying \"TSHHHHHT\" you hear when opening a bottle or can. This causes the freezing point to raise and it freezes before your eyes. \n\nFun fact, the reason why ice is more slippery the warmer it is is purely because the pressure of you walking on it melts the ice a little bit. If it is colder out, you don't melt as much ice by stepping on it. \n\nIt's also how ice skates work. That blade is pressing down on the ice, melting it ever so slightly and making it slippery. ", "Water is densest at 4°C.\n\nSo the bottom of oceans is always 4°C and thus above freezing temperature.", "Water is less dense when its frozen. That's why ice floats. If bodies of water froze from the bottom up then plant life would die leaving the food chain without a cog in the wheel. Theoretically if that were true, human evolution (or any life for that matter) would not have taken place. So the fact that water floats when frozen is just another reminder of how freaking lucky as a species to even be here. ", "It's actually due to the pressure that exists that those depths. You know how water expands as it freezes into ice? The pressure on the water at the bottom of the ocean prevents it from being able to expand. Therefore, it can't freeze.", "This is probably wrong but I know that ice is less dense than water, so I would assume that whenever water freezes it floats to the top of the body of water it's on instead of staying at the bottom of the body of water because things less dense than water float..? Just a guess though ", "Ice floats, all the water that's close to being ice get's pushed to the top and cools water warmer than it. \n\nWarm water also \"floats\" on colder water so that also gets pushed to the top to warm the ice and water colder than it.\n\nAt the bottom of the ocean is the water that's cold enough to push all the water warmer that it up to the top and also all the water colder than it to the top. That water is something that's 4° celsius or 39° fahrenheit. Look for James Cameron there.", "The water at the bottom of the oceans not only tends to be more dense but also more saline than the water at the top. This decreases the freezing point of the water at the bottom of the column effectivly making the molecules more resistant to forming ice crystals than the warmer yet less saline water closer to the surface. ", "Because it's♪under pressure do do do dah dah do do ♪\n\nIce requires water molecules to move apart in order to assume their crystallized position. Under that sort of pressure of gagillions of tons of water, you simply can't move them apart because the forces involved (particularly hydrogen bonds) are weaker than gravity and its affect on the scenario. Had to add this bit because my first line got deleted by the bot. Elon Musk is right, AI is gonna kill us.", "As pressure increases, the freezing/condensing point decreases. Think of LPG (liquified propane has); it's kept in a liquid form inside a pressurized tank. If you expose the liquid, by opening the valve, it immediately becomes gaseous, but while inside the tank, under pressure, it is still liquid. The water at the bottom of the ocean is under ENORMOUS pressure; therefore, the temperature would have to decrease far below the normal freezing point of salt water (which is below the freezing point of fresh water) to cause it to freeze.\n\nI'll be honest; this is from the view of an engineer, but I believe it to be correct. A chemist might be able to shed a little more light on this, and may already have. Hope this helps!", "Water gets dense until about 4 degrees C.\n\nAt 0 degrees C, water becomes ice and the bonds that form to make ice (making it hard and solid) cause it to expand and be less dense than the water around it, which is why ice cubes float (like in your drink.)", "Others have answered your question well.\n\nBut, you can get water at the bottom of the ocean freezing by what are called brinicles. Basically a lot of concentrated very cold brine can descend in the oceans do to its higher density freeze surrounding water as it falls.\n\n_URL_0_", "Hydrogen bonding between the molecules makes them oppose the surrounding water molecules. Water actually becomes less dense as it gets colder... essential for life. ", "If ice froze at the bottom of the ocean, it would just cause the entire ocean to become ice. And ice is less dense than water, so it will float up to the surface", "Probably incorrect but doesnt the salt content have something to do with it?", "Where's the simple answer that states it's just under to much pressure to freeze? " ]

[ "\"false fruit\" is an old term not really used any more. The term accessory fruit is used instead.\r\rThese terms are used to outline how the fruit is formed. A cucumber is a true fruit as it is formed from the swelling of the ovary. Strawberries and apples are accessory fruits, which means they are formed from the swelling of other parts of the flower that is not the ovary.\r\rHowever, I don't think this really answers why the terms are confusing... :S ", " > why is the categorization so confusing?\n\nBecause:\n\nA. Scientists are not perfect so while they generally strive to explain their ideas as clearly and simply as they can, they can sometimes fail at that.\n\nB. Not all scientists agree on all subjects so some can use a different terminology to others.\n\nC. Nature is complicated and extremely variable in its manifestations so it's sometimes impossible to give simple and clearcut descriptions of it.\n\nD. Common parlance adds to the confusion by using scientific terms for things they were not intended for by scientists in the first place\n\nThat said, the definition of what is a fruit and what is not given by /u/littlewoodenpuppet is spot on. Go by that and no botanist will ever have anything to complain about it." ]

[ "The main reason you would need to see a doctor for contacts is because of the base curve and diameter of the contact lenses. The wrong base curve or diameter can either irritate or damage your eyes.", "you can\n\njust make up some numbers that match a prescription then send them in\n\nbut it makes no sense. a prescription for glasses is a precise measurement of what you need to accomplish the end result. \n\nyou don't need an eye doctor. an eyeglass place will do the test and make the glasses accordingly. frequently this is a doctor but doesn't have to be\n\n\n" ]

[ "During liftoff the shuttle travels through the thicker part of the atmosphere where friction is greater at a much slower speed than it does on re-entry.", "On the way out, the shuttle is moving forwards where it is relatively aerodynamic. During reentry the shuttle is pitched up so that it's flat bottom impacts the atmosphere. This is done in order It's basically the difference between diving into a swimming pool and doing a belly flop.\n\nYou can easily test this for yourself. Get a toy plane, those die-cast metal ones (do they still make those) are perfect. Take your plane and get in a car. Accelerate up to highway speeds, around 65-70 mph if possible. Take plane and extend it out at arm's length pointed into the wind (like it's flying). Notice the extra air resistance is fairly minimal. Now pitch the nose up about 40 degrees and notice how much the air resistance increases. This is what the shuttle does to bleed off speed and it's called aerobraking.\n\nI would also like to point out here that the heating of objects entering the atmosphere comes not so much from friction but from compression of the air ahead of the object.", "It has almost nothing to do with \"friction of the shuttle against the air particles\". The heat comes from compression of the gas because the reentering object is hitting it at hypersonic velocity.\n\nSince the temperature of a gas is essentially just how fast the particles are moving, running into a gas at high speed (or stopping a stream of high velocity gas) creates a lot of heat.The ambient temperature may be -100, but the stagnation temperature will be thousands of degrees.\n\nThe Earth also doesn't express any preference in the matter.\n\nThe reason there is more heating on the way down than on the way up is because the shuttle was going faster in the atmosphere on the way down. The orbiter is out of the functional atmosphere well before it reaches orbital velocity.\n\nStagnation temperature rises with the square of the velocity, so even being 40% faster in atmo on the way down will mean twice the temperature.\n\nThere is heating on the way up, by the way. Even non-orbital rockets can bake their paint off." ]

[ "Umm people with dark skin are looked down upon in the USA too.... All around the world light skin is favored and in places like SE Asia it is blatantly favored. Google whitening cream. In much of Mexico and South America there are plenty of plenty of people proud of their heritage. Racism exists in all countries.", "The reason people claim it in the United States is because of the legacy of affirmative action. Being of Native American heritage helps one claim all kinds of benefits from college scholarships to workplace positions all for the sake of diversity. In general white skin is favored worldwide, but in the United States, you get benefits for being Native American, meaning more people will come forward", "So nobody knows the actual answer? ", "Like Tom Selleck's mustache and Member's Only jackets, if you wait long enough, everything becomes cool again.", "Brazilian here, and nobody here uses ancestry as a source of pride or shame. If anything, it's a plus because of how awesome we view indigenous as.", "ELI5: Americans play with everyone at recess while at the Latin American playground, the cool rich kids hang out by themselves.\n\nElaborated:\nAmerica has much more of a melting pot culture than Latin America. Through history, it was much more common for Americans (of Irish, German, British, etc.) descent to have kids with people of Native American descent. This is what makes the cultural identity of an \"American.\"\n\nIn Latin America, Europeans showed up and exploited the shit out of the native population (don't get me wrong, so did the Americans); it wasn't acceptable for the Europeans to have kids with those of native descent unless they had managed to be of the lucky few who become wealthy & powerful.\n\nSource: Mom was born in Guatemala to two Spanish Doctors. " ]

[ "People tend to get hungry every 5 hours but I think when we were hunter gatherers we tended to eat whenever we ran into food.", "The concept of the three meals arise from our former agrarian society. If you spend all day working on the fields, you want everyone to be eating at the same times.", "My cat asks for food every morning. Does that count?", "I fasted for some time and found that I got hungry 4 times a day. I also found that the hunger went away in a half hour to 45 minutes. This pattern maintained itself for 10 days. I didnt stop getting hungry. I didnt get more hungry.\n\nI was in my 30's then. I think it foolish now but during that time I drank less than a cup of water a day, in the summer." ]

[ " > Sometimes this is even the official policy, such as at various universities, where you're supposed to first assume the victim is lying.\n\nYou have things slightly backwards. You're supposed to assume that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. That's how the law works. This isn't quite the same as assuming that the accuser is lying.\n\nThis is extremely important in rape cases, because even the mere *accusation* of rape, **even if the accused is later proven innocent**, can completely ruin their life. ", "Is it assuming the \"victim\" is lying or is it a policy of assuming the accused is \"innocent\" until proven guilty?", "Because accusing a person of rape is tantamount to essentially doing the act. For an example, there's that Lacrosse case back in 2006 which got dragged through the national media circus and ended up not only completely false but ended up basically destroying the accused. \n\nI've never seen it as official policy, though." ]

[ "Let me try and explain it a different way. Remember when Mom and Dad bought a house that cost three times their allowance? Well Mom and Dad (as voters) complained and many plans were created to help them out of the mess they go into. They claimed that the banks lied to them, used deceptive practices, and therefore the people who took out bought houses they couldn't afford were not responsible.\n\nFlash forward to \"student loans.\" Many of the same banks use the same deceptive practices to sell loans to kids that they can't afford. These kids become adults and realize that when they were 17 (too young to vote, too young to buy a house, too young to even have a credit card) they were sold something which they could not afford. \n\nIf you sold a house to a 17 year old, would you be surprised if they regretted it when they were 27? If you were a bank selling houses to 17 year-olds would you take advantage of the situation in order to make more money for yourself?\n\nBut I think the real problem isn't that everyone wants their student loans forgiven. They would simply settle for a middle class job. 30 years ago, there wasn't this same notion of \"paying your dues\" in an unpaid internship. Unpaid internships of 2012 were once called-entry level jobs. These difficult barriers result in students taking on even more loans, and with an ever-increasing amount of kids looking for opportunities at any cost- they're taking the unpaid internships, leaving no incentive for companies to once again hire entry-level employees. \n\nSo you have a generation with huge amount of debt. Highly limited job prospects, no promise of pensions, very little health insurance- they see the deck as stacked against them. So this is why they're asking for student loan forgiveness. Unemployment (and underemployment) among people 30 and under is becoming epidemic.\n\nand I find it confusing that the same people that felt that that government owed them something for taking out their sub-prime mortgage are so confused why young people think that their loans are an unjust burden.\n\n//okay, started LI5, ended on a soap box. But there's an explanation that's a bit different than the other top level comment. ", "It's a combination of a few factors:\n\n* A college education is viewed as compulsory by many people\n* A college education is very expensive, and loans are easy to obtain\n* Student loans are NOT forgiven in the event of bankruptcy\n* Most 18-year-olds are not sufficiently financially savvy to realize the consequences of massive amounts of debt (and overestimate the ease of paying them back)", "Because it's the biggest drag on the housing market right now (huge amount of kids who graduated in the past 5-10 years are living with parents, and not buying homes, mostly because of their student loan debt). Some would argue that means it's the biggest drag on the economy", "While the government did not trick students into taking out loans, when the government gave out loans so every student would have a chance, every school raised their tuition by the exact amount as the loans", "The same government is providing relief to others like homeowners. Semi-same situation applies: investment in a home vs an investment in your future. Things didn't work out and now you are underwater with no realistic way out. Difference is: homeowners can get government assistance, and worst case, can jump ship and file bankruptcy and start fresh. You can't escape student loans.\n\nMind you, I think it should be impossible to get completely off the hook in either situation, but I do think relief of some kind should be available.", "Because many folks believe (with corroborating studies) that it's harder to get a job good enough to pay off your loans now, because of the economy.", "I feel like making the situation more reasonable for students is the right thing to do, but I would be kind of annoyed if there was a mass amnesty of all student debt. I worked hard in high school and college at shitty jobs while saving nearly every penny, went to a public school (it was the best school I got into, but if I had got into Stanford I probably still would have opted to go to my alma mater to save money), accepted crappy living situations and took handouts from my awesome parents and other wealthy family members + 10k in loans. I hustled my ass off to get a good job (that shit doesn't happen automatically with a political science degree) and now I've got everything paid off, and I fee accomplished. I know I started off with a lot of big advantages, but I had a lot of friends in school who were spending loan money on cars and Iphones and concerts and did poorly in school, turned down extra work shifts out of laziness... They shouldn't have to be broke for the rest of their 20's but its not fair to just erase their debt.", "From what I understand there's a combination of things going on that make student loan forgiveness very attractive to freshly graduated, and previously graduated students. First, student loans cannot be dispersed through bankruptcy. That means that when you no longer have any money and are going deeper into debt, owing more and more, you can't get rid of it at all. There are very few things in America that have this kind of protection. \n\nNow let's put this into perspective. Teachers make relatively little money compared to say, engineers, but they fulfill a mandatory part of modern society, in that they educate our youth. The basic skills that they need are taught regularly by people that in many states have to have at least a bacholars or masters level degree to become certified. Then they have to substitute for several years before they can get into a full time position. They are choosing to become teachers. It's a choice, I get that. However, punishing them for fulfilling a necessary role in society doesn't seem appropriate to me. That's why the loan forgiveness programs are important. Without them, people that fulfill a necessarily societal role would not be able to survive under their loan debt. If they can only pay their loans, rent, and utilities, then rely on the community for food, then they're creating, arguably a net loss for the community. \n\nThere's also a mentality of sorts that comes to mind regarding this issue. The \"I got mine\" style of thinking. This can be characterized by looking at the people behind the counter at starbucks. A good friend of mine has passed the bar exam, but is still working as a barista because no one is hiring lawyers. No one can afford to sue. The economy has taken a nose dive and accordingly, the money people would spend on litigating is pretty much gone. Sure lawyer is a high power profession, but you have to work in it to be able to do anything. We could also look at doctors and see the same results. These are people that have several hundred thousand dollars in student loan debt. They're working to save lives, but are forced to carry malpractice insurance in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, pay their student loans, work shit hours, and continue their education. The American dream is viable for them, in maybe twenty years. Yet, as soon as they graduate they're fulfilling a societal necessity. They're helping keep this country running and people working. If even a fifth of their loans are forgiven that's a huge amount of money and potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars that would go back into the community rather than into the hands of a corporate giant somewhere.\n\nAnother part of this is that society right now is more service based than production based. Skilled labor jobs are disappearing. Though, there is some suggestion that manufacturing may be coming back to the US. Without some kind of higher education, technical school, what have you, most people will not be hired for anything more than a minimum wage job. Minimum wage is not enough money to sustain a household on. People that go on public assistance then cost the country a lot more than they would otherwise. This leads to another cycle. People that go on public assistance get propped up, then once they're almost ready to stand on their own the props are removed prematurely. That extra few hundred that would have gone to paying the housing costs is gone leaving the person behind on their rent again. Then once their credit tanks and they lose their job they're back on public assistance. This happens to people with degrees and to those without them. However, if you can remove a portion of the debt through forgiveness it alleviates a lot of the strains. This doesn't necessarily mean that people will be able to get off public assistance, but with a little more help it might be more viable. \n\nBasically, what I'm trying to point out is that these student loans, even when they're paid for and the person has a good job, are bad for the communities as a whole. Money that would have, otherwise, gone to businesses in the local area is being diverted to large corporations that then take the money and invest it in other big corporations. It limits the growth of the community.\n\ntl;dr: It costs more in the long run, both in growth in the community, and to the economy to not forgive the loans.", "Let's think of it this way, I don't have loans from undergrad (I am grateful to the foresight of my family putting away money from my birth to put me in this position) *however* I do have loans for my masters which was necessary to put me on a career track, everyone talks about 100k for a degree in English which is ridiculous, if you are poor enough to need that much aid you will get grants if you are rich enough to not be able to get it you can probably afford it, plus schools that cost that much (USC, Harvard, etc) have huge endowments which allow them to give out their own private grants \n\nI personally owe about 45k for a masters in social work and am making about 53k a year\nCan I make my loan payments? Sure\nCan I pay my rent? Sure\nBut I'm 28 and the prospect of buying a house where I live is not even fathomable to me\nIf I didn't have to pay 500 dollars a month to the government it might be a slightly more realistic dream, but because I work in a particular field, for a county contracted agency, in a low income area of town, and work bilingually so I can apply each year to have 10k forgiven \nI know I signed up for the debt and am paying it dutifully back but they're also willing to look at certain careers (ie social work teaching and some others) and look at the need being fulfilled and help us out a bit", "Bob the banker likes cookies. Bob likes cookies sooo much that he spent his entire allowance on cookie dough! But, Bob has a problem. You see, Bob doesn't know how to make cookies. Do you like cookies?\n\nBob is friends with Betty the Baker. Betty knows how to cook the best cookies in the whole school. But, Betty has a problem too! You see, Betty doesn't have an allowance to buy dough with which to make cookies. Do you have an allowance?\n\nBob and Betty work out a deal with each other. Bob will give Betty enough cookie dough so that she can make ten cookies! In return, he asks for one cookie a day for eleven days. Do you think Betty made a good deal?\n\nThe next day Betty comes to school with ten cookies. She gives Bob a cookie like she promised. She eats one for herself. Because everyone knows Betty is the best baker in school, her friends buy the remaining eight cookies from her. She makes enough money selling her eight cookies to buy dough for ten more cookies. Betty now has a successful business!\n\nNow Bob has one cookie a day, but he wants more. The only other person in school who knows how to bake is Scumbag Steve. Bob doesn't know Steve very well and hasn't tried Steve's cookies before. Betty tells Bob that Steve shouldn't be trusted. Bob is kinda scared, but he really likes cookies and Steve promises that everything will be alright. Bob trusts him and gives him enough dough to make ten cookies. Did Bob make a good deal?\n\nThe next day at school Betty gives Bob a cookie like yesterday but Steve says that he lost the dough and can't give Bob anything. Is Steve a bad person?\n\nBob is angry, and demands his cookie from Steve. Bob tells his Uncle Sam and his uncle also gets mad. Together they go to Steve's house. When Steve opens the door, Sam punches Steve, goes inside, and takes all of the food Steve has. Did Steve deserve to be attacked over a broken promise? ", "No cuts, no fees, education must be free!\n\nIt's down to a difference in beliefs. Education is a human right, just like food, housing, and healthcare. Things like that should all be provided for on the basis of need.\n\nThe reason why we can't do that is because a small number of people are being very selfish. You know how you hate it when the big kids gang up and bully the little ones? That's what a small number of grown-ups do too. Everything is nicer when we work together and share, so when you grow up be nice and don't be selfish!", "Studying music business know and this surprisingly adapts very well. A big concept we learn is \"But Where Do I Sign\", meaning, most artists skip reading the 30+ page contract that looks like gibberish to them. This applies to students. \n\nMost students know alot about what they are signing, yes they can read 12.5%, that's a number and yes they can read they are taking out $40,000...but they don't understand it. Or maybe they don't want to. Maybe it's that hmm well when I graduate I will be able to pay all that off easy since I'll be making way more money than that!\n\nBut uhoh! that small % they didn't realize was monthly...and now they are stuck paying interest on a balance that keeps rising! And what's this? Their position isn't starting at 60k/year or 80k/year....they are starting entry level which was a bitch to get hired to in the first place for anywhere from $10-20/hr. \nNo, noone tricked the students into anything. They just really abuse a situation, but who can blame them. How many graduates are still kids that don't take on the responsibility of paying these off? Someone got fucked. \n\nMaybe a highschool course on HOW TO DEAL WITH THE REAL FUCKING WORLD would be something greatly recommended. \n\nAnd so here is my parting advice:\n\n**TL;DR: Save money for a year or two, get financial aid and grants, and keep loans to a minimum. This will save you a LOT of money, and not fuck over everybody(yourself, the loaner, other people that will take on the burden of supporting you) just because you didn't want to do the maths and just signed for the money.**", "Just a related PSA: \n\nThe Student Loan Forgiveness Act *is not forgiveness of loans as you think of it*. \n\nIf you get federal student loans, there are several plans to pay it back over time. One such plan involves working in the public sector, such as a teaching job, for a minimum number of years and making payments for 10 years, based on your income. After those 10 years, if you've met the requirements the entire time, the remainder of the loan is forgiven. \n\nWhat the law they are trying to pass does is increase the eligibility. You'd *still* have to make payments for 10 years, but more people who have to take a plan that is less per month will qualify. \n\nIn this sense, forgiveness is a bit of a misnomer. People will still have to pay a ton of money towards the loan, and it's 10 years of very little extra money. Some people argue that there's a big chance for fraud, but that'd be true whether the law passed or not. ", "Because my $20k in student loans isn't shit compared to a $600,000 patriot missile. Either way I'm paying mine back and don't expect anything, but it would be nice if they re-prioritized our spending.", "The economic side of things (which has nothing to do with whether or not loans are a good or bad idea) is that forgiving some student loans would immediately inject cash into the economy. Pay 20% of your take home pay towards student loans? If you didn't have to, you'd see 20 and 30 somethings buying more houses and starting families sooner. More house ownership equals more local government revenue. \n\nI'm not sure I'm in favor of a middle-class bailout (which is what this would amount to), but it's not just about the individual who took out loans. The benefit to the larger economy is what would actually make this happen.", "I don't want my loans forgiven, I just want my interest rates to not exist and to not have a minimum payment be $345. At the end of me paying loans off I will have paid almost double what I took out to begin with.\n\nLike most people are saying here, as 17 year old kids I don't think we realized that with interest that 35k loan would almost double by the time we paid it off. After x amount of years of deferment, forbearances, phone calls, mailing in pay stubs, proof of employment and struggling to pay the \"minimum payment\" of $320 a month having that forgiven would be a burden of so many peoples backs. \n\n", "I love how instead of trying to come up with solutions we just go \"well the problem shouldn't have happened and it's not my fault so, uh yeah\"\nas if the problem will somehow go away just because it isn't our fault. \n\n\n\"oh the teens were just irresponsible with taking out loans. Maybe they should have been more responsible. I was responsible. Why weren't they?\". Yeah, OK, we still have a lost generation of underemployeds with thousands of dollars in debt that's just going to get larger and have hurt the economy more if we don't do something about it. People who want student loans forgiven are at least offering a solution.", "The real problem, I think, is the preposterously high interest rates. Right now I have loans that are upwards of 7% - and that is ridiculous. \n\nAlso, having an educated society is good for that society. Education breeds innovation which drives new economies. If we are the only country doing something (like going to space) then we have jobs that CANNOT be outsourced, because no one else can do it. Same thing for when the internet started. So, basically, we want to encourage people to be forward thinkers, and skyrocketing school costs and loan troubles are distinctives, and that's not good for us as a whole.\n\nI say the answer is providing super-low interest rate loans so that recent students can get out from under their debt and contribute to the economy more fully. ", "Lots of good answers here. You seem to be asking whether student loans are the students' fault. Well, I just want to tell a quick story about incentives. Like a Vonnegut there are no villains in this story, just people.\n\n* **Companies.** Companies want to hire the best workers they can. If you have the choice between someone with a degree and someone without, you don't *know* who will be better. But if you have to pick, you might as well play it safe and pick the one with the degree.\n* **Government.** The government wants to have lots of college grads, because then it has an \"educated workforce\" and is \"competitive\" with other countries. But it's expensive to fund education, and politicians who overspend aren't popular nowadays. So states and feds offer loans even as they cut funding to schools drastically.\n* **Banks.** A college loan historically is a great investment. People generally (used to) graduate, get a job, and pay it back. Banks are (or were) very happy to give out these loans, and they're big loans that get milked out over many years after graduation.\n* **Colleges.** Their #1 priority is to be \"competitive\" and move up the rankings. This means expensive projects, high-profile sports and campus construction and programs; it means adding activities, building student centers, doing anything you can to differentiate yourself. But these things cost. And in a tight economy, state and federal governments aren't funding schools as much as they used to. The result is that you have to keep raising and raising your tuition. And you'll be fine, because there's still lots and lots of kids who need to go to college. So as prices go up, demand doesn't drop. So you have to keep raising those prices.\n* **Parents.** You want to see your kid be successful and get a well-paying, not too strenuous, prestigious white-collar job. That means college, no questions asked. You raise them to go to college as a given.\n* **Kids.** It's simple: do you want a job or not? It doesn't matter how much college costs are increasing or how ridiculous the loans are. There are only so many jobs out there, and for most people, you're still better off with the huge loans and the degree than without either. So what are you going to do? You don't have much of a choice. You'll pay the ridiculous costs and take the loans, cause it's still better than the alternative.\n\nI don't see anyone to particularly \"blame\" in this situation, but I do see the end result: a generation in huge debt and low on jobs. That won't be good for anyone in the next 20ish years. People seem to want to talk about who \"deserves\" what and what's \"fair\". I don't see any villains here, just a bunch of people trying to make the best of a bad situation and an end result where everyone loses, no matter who you blame.\n\nBut the question is, what do we do about this situation?\n\nAnswer: I don't know.", "I'm sure this has been touched on, but for me personally I feel like government has pushed to cut funding on education which forces schools to charge more. Then you have the government more than willing to give as much in student loans as possible which in turn leads schools to raise tuition because they know the students will just take out more loans. Then even if you do manage to get out with lower student loans than most you're still not graduating and moving into a stable job market. Also it just blows my mind that someone could work part time and a minimum wage job, and graduate debt free only about 30-40 years ago.", "Let's look at this from a macro point of view.\n\nCollege graduates are getting more and more underemployed. Tuition costs are rising. This is a dangerous combination.\n\nDo we want the future kids of our society to start choosing not to go to college? That's bad for the future, that's bad for our economy.\n\nThe fact that we're profiting of off the youth's NEED for education is a terrible thing. No, I don't believe all student loans should be forgiven. However, I do believe that student loan interest should be subsidized by government funding. \n\nIf I borrow $50K to get an education to be a more effective contributor to society, then I should be responsible for paying every cent of it back. However, telling me I need to pay $30K on top of that in interest with a 50% chance that my degree won't land me a job - that's a risk that many kids/families won't be willing to make. We don't want our future kids choosing to be under-educated.", "I don't know if this idea has been put forward by any of the other comments but there is another aspect to this issue that I think may be worth discussing.\n\nWhile many young adults do go to college to get a degree in order to try and secure a job in the future, there are also those who go to college basically for the experience. These are students who undertake studies in communications, anthropology, history or english simply because it's the easiest way for them to BS their way through college.\n\nThese students rack up thousands of dollars to earn a degree in a field that really has nothing to offer them and end up being cycled into lower-income jobs. They may be college educated, but in severe debt for a degree they probably could have done without and for those, I have little sympathy.", "Well when youre 2 years from graduating with a degree and tuition is increasing 20% each year you aren't exactly going to quit. ", "forgiving student loans gives an unfair advantage to people who didnt pay for school, people who didn't sacrifice to pay off their own loan. lots of smart kids didn't go to school because they couldnt afford it, making it free after the fact severely fucks those people over. there are a lot more job opportunities for people with degrees, just cause the economy is shit now doesn't mean it always will be, those degrees will be plenty lucrative when the economy bounces back. There are countries where college is free for the qualified the determined and the willing. Italy has a merit based university system i admire, perhaps we should implement that. But to retroactively forgive debt is a big fuckyou to the responsible hardworking people who payed off what they borrowed. It sets a bad precedence and encourages fiscal ridiculousness. Roll back the tuitions to where they were 20 years ago if you want to help students.", "LOL reddit thinks college kids are too immature to handle their finances but thinks the drinking age is absurdly high.\n\nNews flash people: you are an adult and you must deal with the consequences of your actions!", "Because people always, always, always want something for free.", "Thanks a lot for the cliffs OP, appreciated.", "Many people are saying that the individuals taking out the loans knew the risks and should therefore be responsible everything they borrowed. This is very true. However, it should be noted that many individuals signed onto something with different expectations. I am a great example of this. I attend a professional/graduate school in Pennsylvania. During my application process we were told numerous times that the PA government provides credits to students that attend professional schools within their home state. $8000/year to be exact. Many state governments offer these to students who attend professional school in their home state. If a state doesn't have that professional school they often give hefty amounts of money for students to travel to other states as long as they come back to their home state and practice for a given period of time. Anyway, that's $32,000 over 4 years, which my degree is. Right after being accepted, we find out that legislation has changed and professional school students will only be receiving $800 dollars for the first year and $0 for every year after that. Meanwhile, students from North Carolina attending the same school are given $12,500/year as long as they go back to NC to practice for I believe 5 years post graduation. \n\nI went into school expecting $32,000 with interest less debt because I attended a school in my home state. Now I pay more than many students coming from out of the state. \n\nI'm fully aware that I'd be paying off loans until I'm in my 50's, but just not the amount it has become. And with tuition rising every year since I have started, the amount of money seems almost insurmountable. I'll take any form of government forgiveness that comes if it means not having to write a check every month for schooling I completed 30+ years ago.", "I had to pay all mine back and it substantially limited the other things i could have done with that money for a long time. I think its absurd that people think they can wiggle out of it and make everybody else eat their irresponsibility and inconvenience. Everybody knows what borrowing means. Gotta pay it back. Don't play the dumb weakling who can't do hard things. ", "While I'm all for forgiveness, I really believe they should make Student Loans like other debts, so if you do declare bankruptcy because of the job market and your six figure students debt, the loans go away the same way they forgave billions in dept from the housing crisis." ]

[ "Antiviral drugs do exist. Just that they don't have virucidal activity (i.e. they don't directly kill the virus). You see, viruses are simply protein and genetic material, and coming up with a drug that selectively destroys these structures in the virus while maintaining all other proteic structures in our body intact is currently beyond the reach of our technology.\n\nSo, how do antiviral drugs act? There are basically two approaches: interfering with their reproductive cycle or stimulating our immune system to destroy the viruses.\n\nThe first method is the basis of HIV treatment, in which the patient usually takes three drugs that interfere with the reproductory cycle of the virus in two or three different ways. By doing this you stop the production of new virus copies and allow the immune system to destroy the ones that are left. Only that some HIV copies are still stored inside some immune cells such as macrophages and Langerhans cells and thus are \"out of reach\" and can escape being destroyed, so we can't completely eradicate the virus copies. Besides the drugs used in HIV treatment, this approach is also the mechanism of action of Aciclovir (used in herpes treatment), Oseltamivir (used to treat flu) and Ribavirin (used to treat viral hepatitis), among others.\n\nThe second way is more recent and much more expensive. Interferons are proteins that are a natural part of our immune system modulation. By applying injections of \"cloned\" interferon molecules to some patients we can now cure chronic hepatits C. Besides the cost, interferon therapy also has [a LOT of potential side effects](_URL_0_), so don't expect to use it to treat minor viral infections anytime soon. Another possible way to treat viral infection is to use monoclonal or polyclonal antibodies that identify the virus and bind to it to prevent them from attacking other cells and allow immune system cells to capture the viruses and destroy them. It's currently used to prevent some serious acute viral infections and has been recently introduced as a [therapy for respiratory syncytial virus infections](_URL_1_) in children.\n\nSo yeah, basically we *can* treat viral infections with drugs, but we can't directly kill them and it's not very safe or cost effective to use some of these drugs in minor viral infections.", "This was asked a few weeks ago; rather than copy my response [I'll link to that thread](_URL_0_) as another panelist, thecrusha, added an awesome elaboration.\n\n", "Why can our bodies destroy viruses then? Can't we somehow copy that mechanism?", "we can \"effectively fight off bacteria\"...[Really?](_URL_0_)", "The reason bacteria are typically easier to treat than viruses is simply that they are much more complex. This is sort of like the whole \"that's just one more thing that can break\" thing when buying a car with a bajillion motors and gadgets in it as opposed to the one with crank windows. The size and complexity of bacteria means they need more parts to work (they have organelles, which are like microscopic versions of the organs in a larger beast like us), and that ends up meaning that the same part shows up in more than one species. One result is when you hear about \"Gram-negative\" or \"Gram-positive\" bacteria. \"Gram-positive\" means that the species in question has a thick bacterial cell well made of peptidoglycan. Drugs that work against Gram-positive bacteria work by breaking the chemical bonds in those cell walls and destroy the rigid structure that give the cell support, which ends up killing the cell. This is why you hear many drugs referred to as \"broad-spectrum\" antibiotics. They work against many, many different species of infectious bacteria because multiple species of bacteria, due to their complexity, end up sharing some parts that we can specifically target.\n\nViruses are a different deal. Your body's immune system takes care of millions and millions of viral particles each day just fine. When your body's cells get invaded by a pathogen, your cells grab some of the stuff from whatever is in them and display it on your surface. This is a type of antigen presentation, and it lets your white blood cells know something is up so they can come kill the infected cells (and develop immunological memory). Think of it like a drowning swimmer that flails their arms and screams to get the attention of a lifeguard. The viruses that make you sick, are typically difficult to treat, and can sometimes stay with you for life are able to do so because they're that small percentage that have some sort of mechanism(s) to evade your immune system. This is how essentially any mammalian virus works. Example:\n\nHerpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1) is what causes most cold sores in people. It is much, much more simple than a bacterial cell. Essentially, it's almost just a membrane (called the envelope), a region with some proteins (the tegument), and a container of DNA in the middle (the capsid). When the HSV-1 virus encounters the cell it infects, the viral envelope fuses with the cell membrane. The tegument and capsid are now inside the cell. The tegument includes some proteins that stop the host cell from displaying the viral antigens on its surface, so once a cell is infected, your white blood cells are clueless (immunoevasive method). The when the capsid comes in contact with the host nucleus, it detonates with the force of 18 atmospheres (yep!) to fire the viral like a bullet into said nucleus. The viral DNA mixes with the host DNA and hijacks the cell to make more viruses. The host cell dies.\n\nFurthermore, since your body is only able to detect the virus while it is free, HSV-1 makes a run for it after it's been spotted. When you get a cold sore, it's not from the herpes virus directly. It's your body's immune response trying to kick the virus out. When the virus is under attack, it actually migrates into your nervous system, travels through your neurons, and goes latent in a structure at the base of your brain called the trigeminal ganglion. Since it needs to hijack your cells' reproductive machinery to make more copies of itself, and neurons don't regenerate, it doesn't reproduce in those cells or destroy them. Also, a normal immune system absolutely does not want to attack nervous tissue, so it's the perfect hiding place. But when your body is under stress, those stress hormones cause the virus to migrate back down the same nerve. This is why cold sores return to the same spot on the mouth, and also the reason behind why oral herpes doesn't spontaneously become genital herpes.\n\n**TL;DR - Bacteria share many common biochemical structures that can be targeted by medicines. Viruses, due to their simplicity, don't share many, and also are typically better than bacteria at outsmarting your immune system.**\n\nSource: I am almost finished with my BS in biochemistry, I work as a laboratory technician in a medical school research lab that specializes in HSV-1 ocular disease, and I read PhD-level immunobiology textbooks for fun." ]

[ "\"Alone with the Hairy Ainu\" by AH Savage Landor. Landor travels to Hokkaido and the Kuril islands in exploration. It was written during the Meji era by a European so buckle up for some Euro-centrism. Some parts of it arent believable such as a tryst between him and a native hottie. But it's an Interesting tale none the less. Very informative because it is a primary source of a European experiencing non-Yamato Japan. There's lots of detailed sketches (Landor is quite the artist). Lots of background and hypothesixing of earlier inhabitants that tickle my curiosity (questions we still haven't answered). Enough historic context to make it known why the Ainu of the Kuril suffered and are virtually extinct. While he thinks himself more civilized, his clothes eventually get destroyed by the elements and he offers a detailed portrait of Ainu life. I read it for a class on ethnographic by foreigners on Japan.\n", "_Ancient Jomon of Japan_ (Junko Habu, 2004) covers the archaeology of pre-agricultural Japan in great detail. The book mainly focuses on Tohoku, but includes some information on Hokkaido as well. As Jomon culture would influence later culture around the Sea of Okhotsk (including the Ainu), and very little other English language literature is available on the subject, I'd strongly strongly recommend picking up this book if you have the chance.\n\n_The Conquest of Ainu Lands_ (Brett Walker, 2001) primarily covers over two centuries of Ainu history (1590-1800), reflecting on how Early-Modern northward Japanese expansion transformed and diminished Ainu culture, as well as going into great depth on the economics of Ainu society at this time. While primarily focused on Hokkaido, two chapters are also devoted to Sakhalin and the Kurils respectively. It does give an overview of Ainu culture, but this is a secondary focus.\n\n_Steller's History of Kamchatka_ (Georg Steller & Marvin Falk, 2003) is an English language translation of Georg Steller's famous historical and anthropological work in Kamchatka in the 1740s. Steller was a biologist by profession, and devotes most of the work to the climate and environment of Kamchatka. He does describe Kamchatkan history up to Russian contact, and offers a rich description of Itelmen culture. He also documents interaction between the Itelmen and the Ainu--the later of which were highly involved in oceanic trade.\n\nI would like to emphasize that while of great worth as an unusually old primary source, this book is outdated. Steller makes some suggestions which are now known to be inaccurate. He also held a noticeably racist attitude against the Itelmen, conferring hefty bias upon his descriptions of their culture.\n\n_Race, Resistance, and the Ainu of Japan_ (Richard Siddle, 1996) is just as much a work of modern sociology as it is one of modern history, concerning the evolution of race relations between the Ainu and Japanese. With the colossal impact of Japanese colonialism, genocide, and racial discrimination on Ainu culture, it does a fantastic job at discussing 'their status today.'\n\n_The Ainu of Japan_ (John Batchelor, 1892) was written as Japanese Industrialization was underway, and Hokkaido was in the processed of being thoroughly Japonized. A comprehensive view of Ainu culture as it evolved at breakneck pace in the late 1800s, it's straight up fun to read.\n\nLastly, I'd like to mention one book which I haven't read. 'Ainu: Spirit of a Northern People' has received fantastic reviews for its coverage of Ainu culture and abundant illustrations, and I hope to be able to read it soon, but as I do not have access to the book I can't comment on it personally." ]

[ "This is somewhat of a loaded/false premise question... the thing is, babies **always** cry. That's their sole method of communication. They don't \"make drama\" as they have no *concept* of that nor the facilities to understand, well, much of anything.\n\nBabies cry. It's one of their primary functions until they become children. ", "Emotional outbursts are physically draining (just think about the last time you cried until you couldn’t any more). This may be an unintended effect of reacting to uncomfortable stimulus (being tired). Babies haven’t been around long enough to just “deal” with unpleasant sensations, hence the reaction. Plus at that point an infant’s prefrontal cortex is too underdeveloped to even try to be reasonable. " ]

[ "For a currency to be backed by gold (or any other commodity) means that the government issuing the currency promises, on request , to exchange it for the commodity.\n\nMost modern currencies are not commodity backed. They are backed by faith in the financial system that issues the currency. The US Dollar for example holds value because people have faith that they can trade a dollar in currency for a dollar worth of goods or services. The US economy and monetary system are *very* stable. So there is no fear that a dollar you get today will be worthless tomorrow.\n\nThe reason modern states don't back their currencies with precious metals any more is because faith is a lot more stable than the commodity market. It puts a country in a very dangerous position if its currency can change wildly in value based on outside factors like a gold strike, a mine collapse, or trade dispute.", "For the record, I found this question and its responses interesting because Venezuela is trying to peg their currency the petro to be worth one barrel of oil (crude?). " ]

[ "I guess this is a difficult question to answer, in the sense that there are many Aboriginal nations/groups [[this map is probably the most comprehensive example](_URL_0_)] with their own customs and Language. \n\nAlso, information on traditional Aboriginal culture can be difficult due to several factors such as: oral tradition and disruption due to colonialisation including the forced removal of children in an attempt to assimilate Aboriginal people into white society [particularly those with paler skin], so information might not be complete or comprehensive. \n\nI'll try to offer some information with a focus on the Noongar [people of South-West Australia]:\n\nBroadly speaking, Aboriginal cultural beliefs are strongly tied to land [or Country]. For Aboriginal people, to have \"ownership\" of Country means they have a responsibility to care and protect the land, and also to preserve places of spiritual and familial significance. In a sense, they belong to Country, not the other way around. \n\nThe name and identity of a place in traditional Noongar culture is more dynamic than Western concepts. As described in Collard, Harben and van den Berg's study of Noongar culture in 2004:\n\n > Western cartographic conventions reflect the importance of making boundaries to function as markers to exclude others and demonstrate individual ownership and control. For Nyungar, talking about one place as if it exists in isolation is akin to talking about people as if they exist in isolation from their community. The same place may have many names according to who is using it, for what purpose and at what time of the year. Women and men may have different uses for the same place, or several events may have occurred in a place, resulting in it having several names.\n\nTraditional Noongar beliefs centre around creation stories, otherwise known as *Nyitting* [ancestral times], or the Dreaming. According to these stories, the Dreaming was a period when spirits emerged from both the Earth and sky to create land forms and the living things that we see today. An example of one of these stories:\n\n > At York you can see where the Warkarl (Rainbow Serpent) left a track when he came over the hill. The Warkarl made the rivers, swamps, lakes and waterholes. He came over the hills at York, and his tracks can still be seen. He came down the Avon river to the nanuk (neck) of the river at Guildford, where there is a bend.\n > \n > When he finished he went to a great underground cave in the river. He did not go on because the water further on was salty. The Warkarl is very important to us Noongar because we believe in the Dreaming.\n\n*[Elder Ralph Winmar](_URL_2_)*\n\nIn Aboriginal communities, the Elders are seen as custodians of knowledge - about Country, custom [*katitjin*, which includes knowledge of Dreaming stories] and family ties, particularly about kinship groups. All these aspects combined are the basis of laws that govern behaviour and movement within Country - for instance, only certain people/groups of people may allowed to visit certain areas, some may be granted access to places after being granted permission, what resources were to be used at certain times, etc. \n\nAnother Noongar Elder, Dorothy Winmar elaborates on this in an oral interview with Collard, Harben and van den Berg [2004], which also further highlights Noongar views of protecting and preserving Country:\n\n > They believe in the Waakal very dearly. They reckon without the Waakal around they would have no water. They would not let the kids go and torment the Waakal. They (Nyungar) would drive them away. There is a Waakal in the Swan River and he very rarely shows himself. If the water was muddy, the old grannies used to say don’t swim in there, because he is having a feed. Don’t swim (warra wirrin or bad spirit); wait until the water is clear then you can go and jump in (quop wirrin or good spirit). He was very important to their lives, because they believed in having fresh water. They wanted the water, so they wanted the snake to stay alive.\n\nFor additional reading about the Noongar: \n\nCollard, Harben and van den Berg, ‘Nidja Beeliar Boodjar Noonookurt Nyininy,’ Project Report for Murdoch University, 2004, _URL_1_\n\n", "I will probably be Tasmanian-centric in my answer, and given how quickly politics moves, some terms have probably changed, but here goes.\n\nBefore European settlement, Indigenous Australia was divided into tribes (there is the trend now towards calling them first nations, as in other western countries- but this is dismissed by some Aboriginals). There were around 600 tribes; Tasmania had/has only 9 of these. There were around 300 languages. There is a tendency to associate Aboriginal Australians with the outback, but the largest numbers were in coastal and river areas. Standard of living was certainly higher in coastal areas.\n\nTribes numbered as high as 2000, and as low as 100. Groups were small even by contemporary standards- Blainey notes that 'the aboriginal languages ceased to use a distinctive word when they reached the number three' (*Triumph of the Nomads*). Social structure was familial in nature, with Aboriginal, male, elders at the head. As you would expect with nomadic groups, when members of the tribe were too ill or old to travel, they'd be left behind. Disease was attributed to spells, and usually left to run its course.\n \nTheir economy was motivated by hunting and searching for food, with some trade for items with utility but also decorative shells and rocks- some items traveled from what is now Darwin, as far down as Melbourne- there was also trade with Asia, and items from these traders have been found far down south (but there was no contact with Tasmanian Aborigines for around 5 000 years). Tribes did not settle permanently but could spend whole seasons in areas were food was abundant. \n\nWomen played a large part in collecting food- diving, hunting, etc. But in Tasmanian tribes, men would eat first. Women carried a lot of the tribes goods when traveling, and fire sticks, and infants on top of this- infanticide was common for a variety of reasons.\n \nFarming was limited largely to things like building catchments for eels; but this is not to say that the Indigenous didn't understand the usefulness of burning large tracts of land to draw out animals, and encourage growth of desirable areas- there was a definite effort to control the environment. Blainey writes that;\n \n > Tasmanian hunters, quietly approaching a grassy patch where kangaroos were grazing sometimes tried to surround the kangaroo with a horseshoe of fire, leaving a small gap through which the animals would attempt to escape; at the gap several kangaroos would be easy targets for the weapons of the hunters.\n\nThey also understood they could plant seeds, and it is believed they spread yams on mainland Australia.\n\nFood was mostly what the seasons provided, and 'the environment itself was a storehouse' (Lyndall Ryan, *The Aboriginal Tasmanians*).\n\nAs for cosmology I have a limited understanding here, other than they used the stars for story telling, navigation, and as a calendar- sometimes these were connected. " ]

[ "And then there are some that are rotten but still eaten.. [like this cheese for example..](_URL_0_)", "Because of \"bacteria\" (which can sometimes be mushroom or whatever)\nWine is rotten grape juice, Cheese is rotten milk, same for ... \nThe main difference is that you controll the rotting process so you add the right type of bacteria/yeast to the product (thousands of year of history and tradition taught us the right way to do it). And select the product you use (historically you use what your local crop produce). The \"good bacteria\" will take all the available space, letting only few space available for bad bacterias. And transform sugar into alcohol (for wine) or lactose into (that's a good question). \n\nThe set of bacteria and original product used will affect the final taste of the product and that's why a wine or cheese taste differently depending where they are produced and from which grape/cows comes the product (It's a little bit less true for industrial products) \n", "I can speak to wine and beer.\n\nWhen things ferment with yeast there is an increase in acidity and an increase in alcohol. Both the acidity and alcohol prevent harmful bacteria (e coli, botulism etc...) from being able to survive and reproduce. There is also a strong lack of food (carbohydrates) since the yeast already consumed most or all of it. The end effect is you have a beer/wine that is a fairly toxic environment for other bacteria to survive. High abv, low levels of nutrients, acidic, and also usually devoid of oxygen and instead filled with carbon dioxide. All of those add up to an environment that is bad for bacteria.\n\nYou can theoretically age a beer or wine indefinitely. It probably wont taste like it did when it was fresh, nor will it probably taste good at all, but it wont kill you. I've heard of people drinking beers from the 80s (thomas hardy's, some lambics, some belgian stuff) that was cellared properly and tasted wonderful. I have also drank wine from the early 2000s that was not cellared properly and tasted horrible.", "I recall seeing Alton Brown explaining about the process of aging beef (as opposed to letting it go bad). To age the beef, he put it in the fridge in a container that allowed some air circulation. This allowed the beef to dry out some, concentrating the flavor, while the cold kept bacterial growth in check. There were still some nasty bits on the surface that had to be trimmed off before roasting, it I recall. That same beef, if left sitting out a room temp for that period would be dried, but also smelly and rotten due to uncontrolled bacterial action.\n\nWith whisky, it is a different process. The fermentation has already happened, and after distillation the product has such a high alcohol content that no bacteria or yeast is going to live in it. The aging is a process of letting the product interact with the wooden barrel and the environment around it to add flavors and make it less harsh. This is why it has to be done in wooden barrels that breathe and allow some interaction. A certain percentage of alcohol is lost to evaporation in this (called \"the angel's share\" in Scotland).", "Found out recently there are some people that eat purposely rotted meat. \n\n[High Meat](_URL_0_)\n\nNo thanks. " ]

[ "If you're asking about direct wealth (income to the government) then it's tolls and fines. There are also programs like Adopt-a-Highway (where an organization sponsors a stretch of road and cleans it up in return for advertising space on the shoulder).\n\nIf you're asking about the wealth of the people, then it's because highways allow faster access to the suburbs, which shortens commutes for people in the corporate world (executives and otherwise) and distributes the wealth from the cities out to their surroundings. As richer people move outside of the cities and grow their families, they start buying houses and spending their money, which increases property values in general and makes the area wealthier.", "It generates wealth by opening up economic opportunities and facilitating commerce. Before there was a highway system, if you were a business man selling widgets, you'd be confined to either selling them in a small regional area and/or paying significantly more in shipping costs to move things by freight or on slow, unpaved country roads. With modern highways however you can haul a semi truck from Key West to Seattle in under three days, whereas such a trip would have taken probably well over a week, maybe even two weeks, before the advent of the highway system.\n\nSo when a business is able to make more money as a result of this public infrastructure, that means they are generally going to be paying more in taxes. ", "Revenue and wealth are not the same thing. What is your actual question?" ]

[ "In some special cases (certain stages of certain liver tumors) this can happen, but organ transplantation is poorer choice than other modalities - it's much more prone to fail and carries more risks to the patient, including life-long immunosuppresing therapy.", "Because cancer does not affect only one organ. It has microscopic extensions all around it and some types of cancer can even cause cancerous cells to appear in another part of the body. If someone isn't cured of cancer it usually means that the treatment didn't kill all the cancerous cells. " ]

[ " > surrounded by infinite universes\n\nnot quite, more like dimensionally shifted (i.e. not using the same three dimensions). This is really stupid to explain without paper though. ", "We don't know, we are a long way away from ever knowing and we may never even know. We've seen less than 0.00000000000000001% of something that we don't even know the size of." ]

[ "All those genres are distinctive in their own way, but Country is distinctive in a way that many people don't find appealing, I for one don't like most of it, but some (Beer For My Horses) is great. The social association between country and rednecks/cowboys might be a thing too.", "Because country music is like Marmite. You either love it or you think it's the worst shit ever invented.", "I hear \"everything but rap\" as a preference every now and then. It's not unique to country.\n\nCertain genres have a distinct sound to them that carries across the vast majority of their sub-genres and artists. This distinctive sound can lead someone to a snap judgment about a song within the first few seconds of them hearing it, long before they can make a judgment on whether the song is actually good or not.\n\nThink about death metal. There are good death metal bands and bad death metal bands. There are death metal songs that have completely different song structure and musical influences from other death metal songs. But nearly all of them have growled vocals. If you try to play a death metal song for someone, they may hear the growled vocals and immediately say \"sorry, I don't like death metal.\"\n\nIt's the same thing with country. Slide guitars and twangy vocals turn a lot of people away before they even sit down to listen to the songs.", "I will tell you why I hate country. I do not like the twang. I despise southern accents (which is funny because my parents are from Texas.) I can't take the songs seriously. That also explains why I'm okay with the silly songs - Red Solo Cup, She Thinks my Tractor's Sexy, etc. - but serious songs make me cringe. I don't like most rap either. Again, it's the fun songs I like. Gimme some 80s, classic rock, oldies, or classical music and I'm happy.", "Because, among other reasons rap and country are more stereotypically about the image and the lifestyle than the music and contain a more spoken word than melodic style that exacerbates the issue.", "Just as often I hear \"I like everything except country or rap\", which is interesting because if it were a purely racial thing, it's like saying \"I like everything except music that's really really white or really really black.\" and you'd think people with such strong preferences would at least fall on one side or the other.\n\nI think these are just mentioned by people who pretty much just like a mix of generic, familiar pop and rock, and they target Country or Rap specifically because they are the most common distinct crossover genres that end up getting on pop/rock top-40 charts. When you get a little techno or punk in your pop/rock, it's influence is not nearly as noticeable or jarring as twangy guitars or the obligatory rap breakdown. Rap/Country are just \"The things that annoy me most often.\"\n\nIt's really more an issue of perception because these people that like \"Everything but rap or country\" would probably be very confused if you were like \"All right then, let's blast some Polka!\". \n\nI mean really? Literally, EVERYTHING but Rap/Country? So Baroque? Jazz? Post-Folkcore Viking Metal?", "You also hear \"everything but rap\" quite often.\n\nWhat do rap & country have in common? They're the music of marginalized young men. Rap is urban blacks, country is ~~urban~~rural whites, but they both romanticize the conditions they portray. The music focuses on how 'authentic' the musician is & listening to the music ties the listener to the culture.\n\nRejecting country is like saying \"I'm not white trash\".", "I'm one of these people, so allow me to give my point of view.\n\nThe subject matter is sickening, songs are generally glorifying doing the trashiest things possible. Half of them are about getting drunk on cheap alcohol, the rest are about cheating on your spouse, fighting, being broke, being dumped, or being run of the mill white trash. \n\nNo other genre glorifies being pathetic, let alone, encourages it.", "Partly because Country music has strong regional associations. If you didn't grow up in a place where you were exposed to a lot of it, you probably won't develop a taste for it.\n\nHowever, the more important reason is that people who describe their preferences as \"everything but country\" are typically so musically ignorant that Country is the only genre that they're *aware* of that they don't happen to like. These people think Country, Rap, Rock, Indie and EDM are the totality of the musical world. Ask them their opinion on major subgenres, like ambient music, or metal, or prog rock, or neoclassical, or whatever.", "I think it's typically taken to mean \"everything but popular country\", which I would extend to \"everything but popular music in general\".\n\nI am not a big hip-hop guy, but have certainly heard acts that I like quite a bit. I can't say any rap on the radio fits that bill though.\n\nI love metal. But everything on \"hard rock\" radio is just godawful. \n\nIt's not some sort of hipster-boner for obscurism, either. It's just that a lot of things on the radio sound like most other things on the radio, so... it's boring.", "Because country is the only genre whose worst music is the only music that gets popular exposure. The stuff they play on the radio is contrived and monolithic. This latter point is true about pop too, but people like its because it's catchy and they can dance to it, so it doesn't matter as much.\n\nIn reality country is a broad and diverse genre, but since most people don't realize this, they're comparing the worst of country to what's at least average for other genres.\n\nEdit: typo", "Because most people don't want to listen to a person whining about losing their dog, about how their truck broke down and how much they love beer, Jesus and America.", "I love country. What I do hate is Everything I hear on r & b stations, \"alternative\" stations. Oldies, classic rock, KUT, classic rap and most country is alright", "For me personally I enjoy music with a lot of passion. It's not that country music doesn't have passion, it's a type of passion I can't quite comprehend. It's unrelatedable to me so I don't feel the passion of it. It all sounds like the same low tone, slow to mid pace songs. Some stands out I like Johnny Cash. I really enjoy rock, alternative, blues, grunge, ska, metal, rap. I dislike country as a whole but I assume that I'm not really in touch with whatever emotion or situation they are trying to convey. ", "I suspect it's largely due to social position and classism. The same with rap.", "I've heard that too. I'm someone who has a wide taste of music. Put my music on shuffle and you could go from Metallica to Ray Charles to Skrillex. I think a lot of \"Everything but x\" is popular because people can't relate to it. I admit I don't listen to country that much because it *seems* like its always about: breakups, trucks, and drinking. But I have noticed I don't mind upbeat songs as much - some are even catchy. Personally I'm willing to give a genre a chance rather than just shutting it out altogether. ", "Here in Holland the most common answer is 'everything but (heavy)Metal/screaming'...", "I think modern hip hop can be classified as awful as well. No one popular tells universal stories. They just talk about Lambos, mansions, and bling. It's no longer a celebration of life but rather an ego driven spiel about how much they have. It isn't about how they got there, it's about what I have now that I'm here. It's sad and pathetic. ", "Because country music is the most homogenous, mainstream, and unchanging genre of popular music in America. This is not just an opinion, look at the sheet music. It does suck (mostly).", "The thing that truly cemented my hatred of country music was \"I Drive Your Truck.\"\n\nIt's about the father of a dead soldier who drives around in his pickup truck. At first I thought it was just standard issue war death porn, but they through in a line about a \"dirty Braves cap on the dash.\" \n\nThe song was inspired by an NPR piece about Jared C. Monti, who posthumously awarded the medal of honor. Jared C. Monti was from Raynham Massachusetts. There is a 0% chance that he had a fucking Braves hat on his dash.\n\nBut country music isn't prepared to admit that New Englanders are Americans too, so they moved the story down south. I have no patience for the people who pretend that the only rural southerners are true Americans. ", "I used to be in this boat too, but I like it a lot now. The new stuff, the stuff that sounds the same, all of it. This transition happened a year ago when I was driving to Denver in the middle of the night in my truck. I was working construction, and still am, and for the first time I could really relate to the words and sentiments. Sentiments of hardwork, family and pride in doing a good job or doing the right thing; yeah these pop out more to me than other stereotypical themes. \n\nMaybe, like /u/Br0metheus states, it's a regional thing. As for the scientific explanation, hopefully someone else can give a good response which captures social nuance and musical theory, for me I just never related to it when I was fascinated by techno as a teen.", "Let me tell you about me. I'm a young adult living in the city, raised in the country. The difference is bigger than music. \n\nGrowing up all I listened to was country music. this was not my choice. the only music my parents listens to was country music. I don't know when I listened to my first non country song- I'm sure that I heard don't stop believing or eye of the Tiger or something in a Disney movie but the first song I remember turning on the radio and listening to with my friends was Boulevard of broken dreams by Green Day. it quickly became my favorite song. within about a year I was obsessed with Linkin Park and Green Day. Metallica was next followed by Dream Theater. in my early teens, country music just wasn't cool. Linkin Park introduced me to rap and Greenday introduced me into all sorts of rock, and I found a few songs in just about every genre that I like, and every song I found made me dislike country a little bit more. Maybe it was a rebellion thing. now that I'm older I find that I enjoy some country music. mostly this is the older stuff I would almost call folk music or southern rock. country music today seems to have become something I like to call self aware - they talk about how country they are, and sing about things exclusive to rural life. While a metalhead can appreciate a protest rap song, and hip hop heads are constantly sampling EDM, country seems to have chosen to isolate themselves (occasionally going pop). ", "It's because most people vastly underestimate how many genres of music there are.\n\nMost people only know a few of the huge genres, and think that means they like all music. The truth is most people (even music lovers) only enjoy a very small fraction of music, at least enough to seek it out. People just say country because they are unaware of all the other genres they don't like.\n\nAlso country is a horrifying bastardization of folk so... that too.", "I used to say that. \"Everything but country.\" Then rap came along. Then hip-hop. I'm not a fan of those, either. Then I started coming across more and more country songs that I actually liked.\n\nBack when I said that, though, what I was talking about was all the songs that are just soooooooo \"unhappy\". The ones that are mocked with the joke, \"what do you get when you play a country song backwards? ... You get your house back, your dog back, your wife back ...\" Those are the ones I can't stand. \"I lost everything, and life sucks.\"\n\nI DO like fun, upbeat country. Johnny Cash's \"One Piece at a Time\" is a classic. I also like his version of \"The Highwayman\" ... better than the original, actually.\n\nI've also heard songs where I liked the music, but then they started up with those whiny \"life sucks\" lyrics, and I've thought, \"why'd you have to ruin a perfectly good song?\"\n\nSide note: I have Martina McBride's Christmas album, and it's superb.", "As a cashier at a small resale shop that plays a country radio station all day, I have had the chance to cultivate my distaste for the genre. Usually, the lyrics are quite mind-numbing... I find myself often rolling my eyes or sighing in disgust. I live in Texas, so the southern drawl doesn't bother me as much as the content of the songs. You just can't always sing about whiskey... ", "Come to Canada where every girl and her dog suddenly thinks they are country. The entire age group of 17-25 year olds honestly believe they are cut out to have their arm elbow deep in a cows ass and drive a big Ford truck. They all live in cities, all listen to strictly pop country, and have never even been tp a farm. It's god damned irritating how it isn't even an interest much less a fashion choice to them now.", "The thing is, most people who hate country have never heard it, or wouldn't necessarily know it if they did. For example, my sister is a huge, long-term fan of Taylor Swift, but allegedly hates country. She even denies that she is country. Despite her CMA wins.\n\nI had an ex that hated country, too, but loved Shania Twain, Dolly Parton and Johnny Cash.\n\nPeople just don't understand that just because you might hate Willie Nelson or, say, Eminem, that it doesn't mean that you hate the entire genre. I can't stand the post-2000 era of rappers for the most part, but it doesn't mean I hate rap. It just means that I don't like people rapping about pointless shit.\n\nSo, yeah... ignorance is 99% of the problem.", "It use to be \"everything except rap and country\". I guess it depends on who you speak to.", "Modern popular country is basically a copy-of-a-copy-of-a-copy of \"Friends In Low Places\". It hasn't evolved in any meaningful way in over a quarter of a century. This is evidenced by the fact that old Garth Brooks songs still fit seamlessly in modern country radio rotations, and the only thing that betrays their age is the utterly sterile production and greasy mastering of newer cuts. It's more of a fossilized radio format like \"classic rock\" than a real genre, except at least classic rock radio doesn't pretend that it has anything new for you.\n\nPretty much anyone who flirts with originality gets labeled a \"crossover\" success and shuffled off to the (comparatively) greener pastures of modern pop. Taylor Swift and Shania Twain are the two most obvious examples, but even the inventor of the genre, Garth Brooks, had to adopt a hokey alter-ego when he wanted to crawl out from beneath the execrable demon monolith he birthed all those years ago. \n\nSimilarly, when even the shallow waters of modern rock prove too competitive and creatively demanding for today's songwriters, they beach themselves on the muck-strewn shores of country radio, where there is no shame in cranking out album after platinum selling album of homogeneous slop (think Hootie, the Staind guy, Kid Rock) and no pressure to pretend you're doing otherwise. It's an immaculately tended graveyard for completely unremarkable careers.\n\nI won't get into a discussion about \"real\" country, which can include everyone from country & western singers like Gene Autry to outlaw country like Johnny Cash. That stuff is probably better categorized as singer/songwriter or rock 'n' roll (or even indie rock if you count alt-country as country, which you shouldn't). To the modern listener, \"country\" has pretty unbreakable connotations with glassy-eyed mouth-breathers hooting vacuously over Nutraloaf production about trucks and church and girls in Daisy Dukes.\n\ntl;dr: people hate it because it can't be defended without admitting that you have shitty taste.", "I find country voices annoying and they all have that country accent which I dislike ", "I'll give you an answer that a lot of people won't like. It's because they want to feel superior. Country seems like the lowest of the low in terms of musical quality to many people (which in some ways it is currently), and it's associated with a subculture which is viewed negatively by most people. So by saying that they don't like country, they get to distance themselves from the rednecks and feel like they automatically have better taste in music. Country and rap are the most common genes like this because they are the most widespread and negatively viewed stereotypes (thugs/gangsters and rednecks).\n\nAdditionally, the accents are a big turn off for many people which span most of the genre. There are plenty of exaggerated accents which are obnoxious and ruin otherwise decent songs even for me (live in Georgia, have my whole life).\n\nFinally, it is the most stale. It's older than any other currently popular genre (i.e. rock, electronic, rap/hip-hop, etc.), and there is less variation in terms of what gets radio play, so to your average listener, most country they hear will sound the same.\n\nAnyone who uses song structure, bad lyrics, etc. as a reason are full of shit, because those things are the same for most catchy/popular music regardless of genre.", "Everything but rap and country. \n\nI like yodeling, classic rock, techno, tuvan throat singing, pop, classical, and on and on. I mean that like I enjoy some of it and will give it a chance.\n\nRap. Is. Not. Music. All the hoodrat shit, one pitch or two, near rhymes, different meter and cadence... It's more like crappy poetry with a beat behind it. Instant station change.\n\nCountry is musical and lively and makes a little sense, but to be country you have to sing like a hillbilly, have back up posessed harmonica, and twangy ass guitar. I'm from Indiana and I guess I'm a minority, but unless it's about something ridiculous I feel like every second of country I hear drops my IQ 2 points. Country seems to be pitched to a narrow audience demographic and if it were to disappear I wouldn't cry a single tear about it. That being said, I have found one or two songs I like, but as soon as I can tell it's country I'm gonna change the station. I was subjected to that junk my whole childhood and I'm never ever going back. \n\nAlso everybody who answered this question honestly can have my upvote. Apparently a lot of country lovers in the audience.", "\"Everything but rap\" is an even more common statement. \"Everything but heavy metal\" is also a common one (and often includes all off-shoot styles). \n\nEveryone has preferences and it is generally easier to communicate what you dislike than the various degrees of tolerate, do not have an opinion, like, and love. ", "Country is heavily reliant on tradition. A hundred years ago this music may have been new and interesting, but Hank Williams III tries really hard to sound like Hank Williams Jr. who tried really hard to sound like Hank Williams Sr., etc. There isn't much variation in tempo, chords, or instrumentation. There's also the occasional yodeling which sounds like voice-cracking which is frowned upon in most other genres. There's a cultural aspect too: people who are proud to be uneducated, often racist. Other genres tend to be more inclusive. There are exceptions, of course.", "I think when most people say they don't like country, they are talking about what they hear on your usual \"top 10\" country radio station, which is often not the best sampling of what country music is.\n\nHonestly, if I only had to judge by what gets played on the radio, I probably wouldn't like most genres of music.\n\n", "Musical taste is a way of signifying which groups you belong to an what your class and values are (whether we mean to or not). People typically try to distance themselves from music perceived as lower-class or belonging to groups they don't respect. Metal, rap, country, music that lower-middle class women like, music that teenage girls like, etc. Weirdly, most people don't actually like classical music, but nobody bothers to say it. \n\nSome people are saying that it's because modern country sucks, but people have been distancing themselves from country for decades. And these same people who dislike modern country often enjoy Matchbox 20, which sounds exactly like modern country. \n\nIt's usually attempt to define yourself and your taste, and not a totally accurate representation of your taste. ", "When I was young, most people my age said \"anything but opera\". I even did that myself.\n\nI guess the difference is that we were exposed to opera from our parents, rap from our friends. I had no idea what country was.\n\nBTW, I actually like opera-music now, as long as nobody sings. I can tolerate the singing, if they are good. It's the weird voices. It's the same with Bee Gees and boy bands." ]

[ "In a very simple summary, it's waiting for something. There are a LOT of things it could be waiting for, but the most common in my experience are either IO of some kind, like waiting for a response over a network or to read something from a disk, or a long running computation. \n\nThe reasons for the thing it's waiting on to be taking so long can be numerous. Favorites include:\n\n * network failure (internet is broken)\n * hard drive failure\n * out of memory so attempting to use (very slow) hard drive to supplement it\n * program is badly written and has entered an inconsistent state, infinitely looping for example\n * waiting for user input, possibly from a source that the user can not currently access\n\nWith the exception of hardware failure (which is more common than you might think) it really is down to some program being poorly written and not handling errors properly. This is either laziness or oversight. It's difficult to get it right in every imaginable crazy situation you might end up in. ", "I would just like to add that the program does not need to be stuck for it to appear frozen. Usually, you only need for the monitor to stop creating new images for a program to appear to freeze. So some error/loop in the graphics/shaders/gui is enough.\n\nI've seen a game freeze quite often where the music would continue to play as a good example. I guess it depends a bit on what you call freezing, exactly.", "I assume you mean when your entire operating system stops responding to any input you may try to give it. The most common cause of this is something we call '~~jabbering~~ thrashing'. This is caused when your computer doesn't have sufficient memory to run all the programs that you are trying to run. \n\nWhen a program runs it stores all the information it needs to do it's job in your RAM. So let's say you have 2GB of RAM and your program is using 1.5 of that. Now you open up another program that uses 1GB of RAM (please note this is for explanation purposes, if you have a program using that much RAM that isn't a AAA game there's probably something wrong).\n\nNow something happens called swapping. You have a file on your hard drive called a swap or page file. When you switch to the program that needs 1GB from the one that needs 1.5 then program A will temporarily store it's information in the swap file to make room in RAM for program B. \n\nWhen you have multiple programs open and not enough RAM to support them then sometimes you can get stuck in a cycle of swapping. Where your resources are being used to do nothing but swap information to and from RAM for the running programs. Typically you will have to do a hard shutdown to get this to stop.\n\nThe best solution is obviously to upgrade the amount of RAM in your system.", "This question needs clarification. Is the OP talking about a temporary freeze, where the computer stops responding for some length of time but then returns to interactivity, or an unrecoverable freeze, where the computer must be reset?", "There are a few different things that could cause a freeze. There are also different 'levels' of freezing. Freezing isn't a scientific term, after all.\n\nFor instance, if your mouse is still able to move around, but your applications all stop responding, the cause is likely to be different from a machine who can't move the mouse at all, which is likely to be different from a machine that has jerky mouse movements.\n\n**If everything freezes**-- the mouse doesn't move, any sound being played keeps playing the last little half-second, and ctrl-alt-delete does nothing, **it's usually because the computer arrived at a failure condition it doesn't have any programming logic to recover from. This usually is caused by hardware failure or bugs with the software used to communicate with hardware.**\n\nIn a computer, 1s and 0s can be interpreted either as instructions or data. All computing comes down to is clever arrangement of these ones and zeroes so that the computer will jump from instruction to instruction, completing tasks and reading data needed to complete these tasks.\n\nHowever, let's say that your memory is going bad, and the computer reads a bit of memory that is supposed to be an instruction, but instead is some random garbage 1s and 0s that have managed to flip because of the damaged hardware. The microprocessor might find the instruction nonsensical, and then it will try to recover by stepping backward according to previously defined instructions for handling errors.\n\nBut what if /those/ instructions are broken too? Then the computer will try to step back in execution once more, and find there's nowhere to go. The microprocessor will then stop processing instructions altogether. This is just one scenario-- any other unrecoverable situation that keeps the microprocessor from being able to execute normal code can cause this.\n\n**Let's say you have a gentler freeze-- your mouse still moves, but your applications aren't responding. This usually means that your applications are fighting over some resource.**\n\nComputers don't actually do several tasks at once-- well, they can do this if they have multiple processors (which is why some of the worst lockdowns don't happen as often anymore-- newer machines have multiple cores, so at least some programs can keep running if a holdup occurs for programs on another core). What they /really/ do is just switch between tasks so fast that you can't tell things aren't happening simultaneously.\n\nIf you have a USB mouse, for instance, your operating system has to check your mouse's information about how much its position has changed several times every second. Between the times it checks this, it crunches a few numbers in Excell, figures out the next position a zombie should move to in Left 4 Dead, or whatever other small section of other tasks it has been given to do.\n\nIn the full freeze, it's not able to continue running instructions to check the mouse. In a gentler freeze, this task is still running, but your personal programs are stuck, usually fighting over some resource. If you have two programs that each have a file open, and they both try to access the other's file as well, they may lock up, since neither one will give up its own file, and so they'll both be stuck waiting for the other to drop that file.\n\n**In a more jerky freeze, you usually have some input/output problems-- the usual cause is that your hard drive is responding slowly.** This could be because your hard drive is bad, but it could also be that you're accessing a great deal of data which is taking a long time to load in.\n\nWhen your computer accesses information on the hard drive, it makes a request to the hard drive, saying 'give me this data'. It then sits there and waits until the data is returned. If the data never returns, this can cause a full freeze, since even if you have multiple processors, it usually means no requests for the hard drive will complete from this point forward, and all the other cores will make a request to the hard drive eventually, getting stuck in a queue that will never complete.\n\nBut if your hard drive is having trouble, or is just grabbing a whole ton of data, it can end up waiting for long enough that you notice it. On a single-core system, this can make everything appear to temporarily freeze. On a multi-core system, it can make a random sets of programs become unresponsive, or stop almost everything. Other hard drive requests must wait in line for that one. Your hard drive can only read one file at a time, after all, so even if you have several cores, they can't get around the fact that getting information from the hard drive is a one-at-a-time deal.\n\n**If a single program freezes, and nothing else seems to freeze, it usually means the program has entered a state where it is waiting for something that will never happen, or it's entered an infinite loop.** These might seem the same, but they're actually a little different-- If the program is asking for a file that is locked by the operating system, it might enter a sleep state, letting all other programs run, but freezing itself while it waits. If that file is never going to be released, it could stay that way forever, frozen.\n\nAlternatively, it could be stuck in an infinite loop. Here's a snippet of code that could end up causing an infinite loop-- it's actually rather easy to make bugs like this one:\n\n counter = some_value\n while counter != 5:\n result = do_something()\n counter += 1\n \nIn the above code, the program creates a container for information called 'counter'. The technical term for this container is a 'variable'. This stores a number that was determined earlier in the program, and was stored in another variable named some_value.\n\nThe loop them begins running, and does a task until the counter makes its way up to 5. The programmer in this instance is assuming that some_value was less than five to begin with, or that adding a 1 to the number each time will eventually result in the number 5. But if some_value is 7, or 3.2, adding 1 each time will never make it equal to exactly five, meaning the program will run forever and never be able to escape.", "A freeze is invariably due to a critical component of the system (software or hardware) that is supposed to take input commands and produce an output but has stopped doing its job (either a hardware fault or a software fault has occurred). The component may have entered an infinite loop (spinning around doing nothing productive), may have gotten its input queue damaged (can no longer receive commands), may have lost its output queue (responses are never delivered) or the whole component may have been damaged or overwritten (never processes the input, even if it is received).\n\nIf the component is critical, every program on the system will eventually wait for this \"critical component\" to respond to a command (which it never will) so every computer will eventually be blocked waiting in the response queue. This is the \"freeze\" (everything waiting without possibility of response).\n\nUser applications generally can't freeze the whole system because other programs don't wait on the user application. Usually a freeze is due to one of the hardware components or one of the pieces of software that talks to a hardware component (display, hard disk drive, memory) stopping responding. The kernel (the most critical software component) usually won't cause a freeze if something goes wrong -- it will cause a \"Blue screen of death\" or \"Kernel Panic\".\n\nMost common causes of complete system freezes in modern computers and operating systems:\n\n**1) Graphics card stops responding.**\n\nThe graphics card stops sending updates to the display. This results in the screen updates stopping. Theoretically, the computer may continue to run with the screen frozen but most user programs will eventually block, waiting for the graphics card to respond (which it won't)\n\n**2) The window server stops responding.**\n\nThe window server is the program that coordinates windows and updates to the screen. This used to be common on the Mac and would completely prevent the current user's session from responding.\n\n**3) Windows Explorer or the Dock stops responding.**\n\nSince these programs control the task bar and the desktop, it can make the computer look like it is entirely locked up even though some things will respond and you can't often relaunch the problem program.\n\n**4) Memory thrashing**\n\nModern computers use hard disk space to extend memory past the built-in amount of RAM. This works okay but hard disks can be hundreds or thousands of times slower than RAM so there is a speed cost in using the disk. Most temporary pauses on a computer are waiting for the hard disk and multiple programs all wanting the disk at once can make your computer pause for a 30 seconds or more. If a program on your computer requests memory in a loop, this can take a mild performance problem to a new level as suddenly the disk is overloaded with requests, slowing the computer until it appears frozen as an unending stream of tiny disk accesses may be made, preventing anything useful from getting done.", "If you're referring to a complete system freeze, there are a number of good explanations here which cover that already. If, however, you are referring to a specific application freezing then, once you discount the possibility of a hardware problem, it generally boils down to poor design.\n\nSome background: Most complex applications are written to be multi-threaded; that is, they can run more than one thread of execution concurrently, each of which might be performing a specific task which is key to the application's functionality. Spotify, as an extremely simple example, might have one thread to manage network I/O, one to manage audio playback and another to manage the user's interaction with the software.\n\nThis last thread, often referred to as the UI thread, is commonly the one at fault whenever you see an application hang. Since its sole job is to manage what the user can see and do with the application, if a long-running or complex task is run on that same thread then the application will appear to freeze, as that thread is now too busy executing whatever task it was assigned to update the UI or respond to any input from the user. In time this task may complete and the application will appear to unfreeze and begin responding again, however if it has got into a deadlock or infinite loop then the problem is more serious.\n\nOnce an application gets into this state, the OS will usually step in with a warning message and offer to force-close the process.\n\nHowever, as others have said, this is only one possibility and there are a multitude of other reasons for why you would see this sort of behaviour.", "One case presented by analogy. Imagine you have an extremely talented idiot-savant musician that can play any music absolutely flawlessly but has no ability to improvise or create music of their own and no ability to talk beyond playing music.\n\nDuring a recital of some complex piece music, they're unexpectedly interrupted and knock the stand holding the music they're playing over. The idiot savant will stop playing and stare at you blankly until you right the stand and put the music back up. At this point the idiot-savant will start over from the top.\n\n\nGoing with the idiot savant analogy above, another case of a system freezing is when you have another idiot-savant that can write amazing music but only when listening to music by the musically gifted idiot-savant. Together they make a great team with one exception. As the musician is playing, the writer is busy making new music and setting the next page down in front of the music. For whatever reason, the writer gets interrupted and doesn't deliver the next sheet of music on time. Suddenly both come to a screeching halt and require restarting from the top.\n \n\nIn summary is that the musician(CPU) isn't so good at handling unexpected interruptions. Along this theme, if the writer(disk drive, network card, input ) has promised to deliver music(data) and fails, the CPU might wait for an infinite amount of time for it to deliver. \n\nThese are only two cases, there's about 1-2 dozen more scenario's that kernel engineers have so far identified and try their best to work around by adding additional layers of abstraction alongside separating the operating system logic from the application logic. In my analogy, it would be like adding more idiot-savants around the musician and writer that are specialized towards specific scenarios ( One might be amazing and catch music stands before they fall over, another might trick the musician into believing he's getting new music but instead give him pages from a pool of collected music sheets ). For fail-safe systems, their might be two or more musicians and two or more writers all writing and playing the exact same music, the minute a writer or musician falls out of step they'd be pulled out of the show so that the rest can continue playing ).\n\nedit: spelling", "A simple explanation could be nothing has really broken, but a process is churning through a heavy amount of computation. You can write a simple program that increments a variable from 0 to (64'H0 - 1) or 0xFFFFFF..FFFF unsigned long long. This would ice down your system until it finished. \n\n**Comp Sci pop quiz:**\nAssuming increment code was running one a single process with a IPC of 1.0 on a 3.5GHz CPU, approximately how long would it take to finish? \n\nI would update with an answer if no one else offers a solution.", "One possible (and very simplified) answer, through a metaphor: Imagine 2 gentlemen walking through a door. \n\nGentleman A: \"After you my good sir!\"\n\nGentleman B: \"No, after you!\"\n\nSince both are so well raised to always let someone else pass before them, they reach a stalemate, neither will pass through the door since both of them refuses to go first. They \"freeze\".\n\nNow imagine the gentlemen being replaced by two different tasks (processes) in a computer. The first task waits for the other to finish and vice versa. \nThe result: Nothing happens = Computer freezes.", "What happens when a car refuses to start? The answer is that there are so many different things that could cause a car to refuse to start that saying \"it doesn't start\" won't tell you anything other than the obvious. You're still going to have to check each system responsible for starting and and maintaining a running state until you find the problem. So you can see why someone would find the question \"what is happening when my car doesn't start\" as being too broad on its own.\n\nIt's the same with a computer. The question has no easy answer because there are so many things which can cause the problem. Any answer given without more information about the specific machine that is \"frozen\" is just pointless guessing and conjecture.", "Depends largely on the device. But in general, it's stuck in some code or process(es) somewhere. Could be stuck in an infinite loop of code, or be failing to recover from severe (often critical or \"kernel\" type code) problems. " ]

[ "The US doesn't have a national citizen registry. It's entirely possible for people to exist that the government doesn't know about. Further, you're technically required by law to register for selective service even if you're an undocumented immigrant.", "Some places do; at least, I was automatically signed up. I didn't know it was even possible, but I got a letter in the mail saying I was registered without doing anything. There was just an \"aknowledgment of registration\" card you're supposed to sign and keep.", "The worst thing about this is getting a letter a couple weeks later saying thanks for volunteering...", "Great part of having a physical disability is I'll never be drafted, cons: everything else.", "Explain to me this as well. Feminists are fighting for women's rights, which I totally support, but should they not also be signing up for the draft? " ]

[ "Tariffs make imported goods more expensive. That means that consumers have less money to spend after they buy these imports. Certainly they buy fewer imports, which is bad for your store if you sell imports, but when they still buy some imports they have less money to buy other goods, which is bad for your store if you sell local goods. In general, when money goes to the government it doesn't go to somebody else, and that slows the economy.\n\n", "Tariffs are taxing goods manufactured elsewhere and imported into your economy. The idea is to keep more money within your borders, which encourages more local manufacturing. \n\nWe need manufacturing to be done *somewhere* so we can all have widgets to buy. If widget manufacturing is done in your local economy, then you can theoretically sell those widgets to other economies, which brings cash within your borders. That means pay raises for everyone, since there's more money to go around! \n\nEventually though, it will be cheaper to manufacture widgets outside your borders so the folks currently manufacturing widgets in your economy can do even MORE productive things like designing doodads. Sure you're sending $10/widget out of your economy, but thanks to enhanced doodad production you're making an extra $30/doodad. All told, your economy is making a $20 more! \n\nHowever, we still NEED widgets. If we suddenly increase Tariffs, those that are manufacturing widgets aren't going to just drop that billions of investment. Instead they'll raise the price of Widgets to cover the Tariff costs. Now the cost of living in your economy goes up because everyone HAS to pay the extra Tariff for the Widget manufacturers. Sure they *were* making more money manufacturing doodads, all those profits are now just going into that tax. \n\nEventually things will even out when someone rebuilds the local Widget factory, but that may never happen if people think the new Tariffs will be gone in 4-8 years, because then it's cheaper to buy imported widgets again. \n\nTL;DR: Tariffs can be bad in the short-term for an economy that imports the bulk of it's goods (like America) because it will raise the cost of living without bringing any extra money into the economy. Over enough time it should be a net gain, but that's debatable as well. ", "The idea of globalization is that certain regions have different resources and are better at producing certain things. The US has huge amounts of farmland and is amazing at producing food. The Middle East has lots of easily accessible oil. China is good at producing electronics because of cheap labor and an optimized supply chain. Germany is great at producing high-precision machines and instruments because they have a highly educated workforce. \n^these ^are ^all ^examples ^and ^vastly ^simplified\n\nA tariff is a tax on bringing stuff made in one country into another. So, for example, any electronics brought into the US from Asia would be taxed and more expensive. The US*can* make electronics themselves, but because their labor is more expensive and they don't have the supply chain, electronics are more expensive to make thjere, too. \n\nAlso, when one country starts putting tariffs on stuff, their trading partners put tariffs on their stuff. So, China might put a tax on US food. China can produce food themselves, but they're not as good at it and it will be more expensive. Also, American farmers won't sell as much food, so they'll make less money.\n\nBasically, tariffs are trying to stop countries from doing what they're best at." ]

[ "It is actually made up of several different components. The first, and largest being your skin. It serves the obvious purpose of keeping out foreign material. It also gives potential pathogens a barrier where they can sometimes be trapped and dealt with our washed off. \n\nFrom there, your body has specialized T-cells that act as \"recognizers\". When you successfully fight something off your body creates these to act as markers. If your body \"sees\" something it has fought before the T-cells react and call in the cavalry. This is also how most vaccines work, by giving your body a weakened strain so it can develop the proper anti-bodies.\n\nAs for the \"cavalry\" part, your body has white blood cells that act as the fighters by attacking the foreign bodies identified by the T-cells and destroying them. ", "The immune system protects the body from various agents, such as bacteria, viruses, other pathogens and foreign bodies.\n\nYou can differentiate the immune system between the innate immune system (which recognizes and neutralizes pathogens without having contact with it before) and\n\nthe adaptive immune system (which \"adapt\" after contact with the pathogen and neutrailizes it).\n\nFor each immune system (innate and adaptive) you can also differentiate the humoral (for innate: complement system; for adaptive: antibodies) and cellular barriers (for innate: leukocytes eg. macrophages and granulocytes; for adaptive: B-lymphocytes, T-lymphocytes).\n\nIt is too much to explain everything detailed, so i try to explain it in short:\n\nWhen a pathogen first enter the body, the innate immunosystem is the 1st to recognize them. Macrophages (they look abit like amoeba) \"eat\" them, the panthogen get processed and neutralized or the complement system detects the pathogen's membrane, perforates it so it get neutralized.\n\nIf it wasn't successive, the adaptive immune system comes:\n\nT- and B-lymphocytes detect the pathogens, B-lymphocytes develop to plasmacells which produces antibodies specially made to \"attack\" this pathogen.\n\nIf you are interested in more detailed explaination of the immunosystem, try to ask in askscience. They do know a lot, I also like to look there...very interesting." ]

[ "You go to a restaurant every Friday because you like the lamb, but it’s a hiding place for ISIS. Now your on a list.\n\nOr today it’s cool to go to the church of what’s happening now but some group feels those guys are on the edge of crazy. It may not be cool tomorrow.\n\nPersonally I don’t think it’s anyone’s business where I am or what I’m doing. ", "Depending on your cell phone, location data can be exact GPS coordinates correlated against time. It can be enough to tell where you live, where you work, shop, eat, where you go for entertainment, where you go to church, if you've been to a doctor's office recently, etc. \n\nCombine that with your browsing history, and it gets even creepier. \n\nIt would also not surprise me if phones are used to eavesdrop on nearby conversations and mine them for advertising keywords.", "Also I think they can use the data to create convincing fake profiles of people, for whatever use they need.", "how is your data analytical skills? Take a look at Google Takeout - it contains everything ( or at least a lot) that Google has on you. I promise, you will be impressed and a bit scared. I typically keep my location tracking off but even for those times when it was on it was enough to \" locate\" me with a good probability and precision to organize, for example, effective surveyance, determine which shops you frequent and so on. From my tracking it was obvious for example, that i prefer one pharmacy chain over its competitors ( because it is located near a certain road which i travel on foot between 9 and 9:20 am every weekday)." ]

[ "Assuming the universe doing the simulating is using classical computers, it makes it much, much harder. There's probably better sources for the, but from the Wikipedia page on [quantum simulators](_URL_0_):\n\n > A quantum system of many particles is described by a Hilbert space whose dimension is exponentially large in the number of particles. Therefore, the obvious approach to simulate such a system requires exponential time on a classical computer.\n\nIf they have different physics from us, then it's possible that they'd have an easier time simulating quantum physics. In principle you could do it with a quantum computer. But those are really hard to build. Their universe might have physics that make it easier to build something equivalent, but it seems hard to believe that it would be easier than building a classical computer.", "This is a really profound question! \n\nWhen you think about it, what do you mean by 'simulate'? Up until the 80s, the commonly accepted hypothesis was the 'so-called' *strong* Church-Turing thesis that stated that any 'realistic' model of computation could be efficiently simulated by a Turing Machine (e.g. a computer).\n\n\nThere isn't a proof that simulating quantum systems is *hard* for Turing Machines, but there are some results in complexity theory that show that if QM was easy to simulate (with a TM), then something really unlikely would happen. (In technical terms, the [polynomial hierarchy](_URL_0_) would collapse.)\n\n\nBut what if you change your definition of 'simulate' and let quantum systems simulate *other* quantum systems? First off, the simulation should be stable against some small error it could produce at some point. That's solved in principle (and to a certain extent in practice) by the theory of quantum error correction. Then there's a question, can some quantum system simulate another quantum system? It turns out that it can ( & :restrictions apply). That's what leads to the idea of a quantum computer, and one of the main applications of a quantum computer would be to simulate effectively quantum systems. So the existence of QM merely asks you to shift your paradigm of what is simulating, in order to simulate more stuff efficiently.\n\n\n & : there's some big IFs over here. First off, a lot of difficulties for practical quantum computers. To begin, how do you know that your algorithm worked? It turns out to be a hard question in general, but there are many instances which are covered by [compressed sensing techniques.](_URL_1_) Finally, the big IF: you can simulate the *time evolution* of other systems efficiently, but simulating their statistical properties at finite temperature (e.g. 'imaginary time properties') is still hard for a quantum computer." ]

[ "Most banks use the SWIFT system.This system record all transaction conducted in the _URL_0_ when They 'hackers' transfer the money to who knows where they are able to edit/delete the Swift transactions(ledger) so there is no record or wrong record of the transfers.\n ", "As someone who worked briefly in cross boarder banking, transfers are done by swift. When these transactions are lost we started a wire investigation. One time I saw one where the money was suppose to go to Canada but ended up going to Bank of America, but not in Canada. It took 30 days to investigate and find the money (wtf right). If someone had actually stolen it, I'm sure 30 days is long enough to walk away with 90K (the amount or that particular transaction). The bank got fucked though because he had a contract on the trading floor with an exchange, so they had to do it 30 days later at the same rate " ]

[ "A lot of historians' objections to GGS are high-level and abstract. Since those have been covered elsewhere, I'll point out that there are more specific reasons that point to flaws in his method. For example, for his account of the Spanish conquest of Central and South America he relies on 16th century books and treats them as if they were objective, factual historical truth. He'll even cite troop numbers from them. The reality is that these books are highly problematic primary sources with key blindspots and a propensity for making things up. For instance, they portray the conquests of Mexico and Peru as if the Spanish invaders did not have vast armies of indigenous allies on their side. This asymmetry turns out to be key for Diamond's argument but is entirely explicable by the nature of his sources.\n\nAnother factor which was not Diamond's fault but is certainly the fault of those who continue to recommend the book is that much of it has been made obsolete by subsequent research. Kenneth Pomeranz's *The Great Divergence*, for instance, debunks the myth of Chinase stagnation competing with Western European dynamism. ", "Hooray for 5IMbA and matts2!\n\nJared Diamond deserves a good defense, and you guys are doing a good job.\n\nUnfortunately, it seems that Academic Historians have generally become splitters, rather than clumpers, debunkers, rather than storytellers, nit-pickers, rather than broad brushers, specialists, rather than generalists, critics, rather than creators. \n\nThey seem to have become imbued with a dispiriting iconoclasm. (“Iconoclasm”: the deliberate destruction within a culture of the cultures own icons)\n\nThe somewhat doctrinaire dismissal of “Guns Germs and Steel” within this sub-reddit all too often seems based on ideological prejudice, rather than specific engagement or debate. Jealousy, of commercial success, popular acclaim, and global impact springs to mind as a possible motivation. Plus, of course, “Guns Germs and Steel” has become a cultural icon of sorts, so the impulses towards iconoclasm seem to apply to a desire to debunk it as well.\n\nAcademic historians should consider that “facts” and “detail”, while very interesting, are only the lesser reason for an interest in history. Empathetically recapturing the times and deeds of those who have gone before, speculating on how the lives and choices and decisions of our ancestors have shaped our own lives and times, learning from those who went before how we might make our own choices…these are some of the values of studying history.\n\nWe want to stand with Caesar as he says, “Let the dice fly high” (whether he “really” said it or not) and sends his legions across the Rubicon. As the thegns flee, but Beowulf, the old hero, accompanied only by Wiglaf, heads on into the lair of the dragon, we wonder what we would do? (And, of course we then wonder if Beowulf was based on a real person, and how the people who told the story first thought about the hero and his actions, and who were real Kings of the Geats, and what did they do, and who were the Geats anyway?)\n\nWe want more “Big History”. We like “Guns, Germs, and Steel”. It tells a big story. We are OK with discussion and debate and grounded criticism of it. Maybe the story is wrong? But that’s not really the criticism we are hearing. We hear “it does not allow for “human agency”. So what? Is “human agency” a religious truism? An indisputable doctrine? \n\nRolling out some academic jargon does not make for very constructive or instructive debate about what did Jared Diamond get right and what did he get wrong.\n" ]

[ "I knew some apserger kids growing up - they were certainly different. \n\nWhile skimming over the Wiki article, it sounds like there's a difference with the structure of the brain. You can't 'learn' how to do something that your brain can't do in much the same way you can't program a webcam into your webcamless monitor.\n\nLY5:\n\nThe brain is made up of parts. Some parts allow you to Speak your language(s), some allow you to think, some allow you to use your body... and some allow you to catch social cues. Those with Aspergers lack the latter part, so they have trouble with it.\n\n\nBut I'm not a doctor, so don't cite me on this.", "I'll give you an example from speech. Say the letters p, b, and d. They are incredibly similar in sound but those with excellent hearing can easily distinguish their subtle differences. If you look at spectrographs of the sound, the differences amount to milli-seconds. Yet our brain picks up on these things. When you learn a language with new sounds it takes time for your brain to hear the differences in vowels or pronounciation. It simply didn't have the practice before.\n\nSo the analogy to aspergers social skills would be missing these subtle social cues. About 90% of your communication is either non-verbal or outside the context of the words. You can say the same words but change the tone slightly and now it's sarcastic. Sarcasm is an odd thing for children to learn, and is understood through practicing speech and hearing it's use. It can be very contextual. Again, learning a new language you might not pick up small differences that native speakers instantly recognize. So everyone is laughing and you don't know what's going on. \n\nIt's not that they aren't intelligent overall, it's just that their ability to process complex social cues is weaker than the average person. In their own element they can be capable of many great things. There is a general tendency for them to focus in on specific details, which blinds them to these miniscule social cues. At times they can be very literal in their communication, and may focus less on the abstract meanings of words or phrases.\n\nThis is a very, very general overview because aspergers can manifest itself in many ways. It's not completely understood what causes these differences. In psychology we have to create labels in an attempt to assemble various behaviors into groups. The lines are incredibly blurry and the labeling is the best attempt at defining similarities in order to understand the root causes of the subject matter. Aspergers can be an exceptionally blurry area with a wide range of manifestations.", "I knew some apserger kids growing up - they were certainly different. \n\nWhile skimming over the Wiki article, it sounds like there's a difference with the structure of the brain. You can't 'learn' how to do something that your brain can't do in much the same way you can't program a webcam into your webcamless monitor.\n\nLY5:\n\nThe brain is made up of parts. Some parts allow you to Speak your language(s), some allow you to think, some allow you to use your body... and some allow you to catch social cues. Those with Aspergers lack the latter part, so they have trouble with it.\n\n\nBut I'm not a doctor, so don't cite me on this." ]

[ "The price of stamps is set by the Postal Regulatory Commission, which is independent of the US Postal Service. The price of a stamp is uniform nationwide and is not directly connected to the cost of delivering an individual letter.\n", "It cost us $1,000,000 a month to pay wages, maintenance, fuel and other expenses. We send 2,000,000 letter a month. \n\nThere for we should charge 50 cents a letter to cover our costs." ]

[ "For a lot of people, it is the bait and switch aspect of it.\n\nI might be willing to pay $50 to go to a concert. But it is really annoying to think I'm paying $36 to go to a concer, only to see a bunch of arbitrary fees jacking it up to $50 at the last minute.", "You don't buy a lot of concert tickets, do you?", " > where do all the fees that are tacked onto my ticket go exactly?\n\nMy paycheck... I work for them. I'm just a basic ticket girl though, so I probably wouldn't be able to answer any good questions about the fees or anything, sorry.", "I've actually purchased a ticket through Ticketmaster that was $10 for the ticket, and after the fees it was $23.", "They're portrayed as the root of all evil because they generally have a monopoly on concert tickets. In normal circumstances this wouldn't be a problem since people would simply stop paying them their excessive fees. However, hipsters can't bear to stage a boycott because they might miss their opportunity to see The Shits before the drummer overdoses.", "Relevant Linkage: _URL_0_ ", "The fact that I have to pay £5 (uk) for them to mail my £20 ticket to me, which is bad enough when the cost of a stamp is 50p for me to buy, and they'll have a huge discount on that (know there's other costs, but an envelope doesn't cost £1 each)\n\nMy other option is to pay £2.50 for *me to go to the box office at the venue and pick it up myself*\n\nwhat the fuck? I'm charged 1/8th of the cost of the ticket for them to send my ticket (and a bunch of others) to the venue?\n\nThe problem is that they have a monopoly (how they argued otherwise when Pearl Jam wanted to take them to court I've no idea)", "I build ticketing websites for theaters, zoos, etc. Every single venue you deal with on Ticketmaster is taking a bigger cut of those fees you're paying. Usually, if you're seeing a $5 fee, the venue takes $3 while TM takes $2. In a way, Ticketmaster is helping the venue/artist, so that you don't realize you're paying them *more* money for the same product.\n\nTheir 'print at home' fee is horse shit, though.", "Go ahead and downvote me for complaining or whatever, but is this really the appropriate subreddit for this? This sure doesn't seem like a complex topic that you need explained in laymans terms.", "Two words: LCD Soundsystem.", "It really disgusts me when the print at home fee is higher than the will call fee. I've had this experience with some MLB tickets. If I'm using my own electricity, computer, ink, and paper, I should pay less in ticket fees when I print at home - or at very most equal. Definitely not more. " ]

[ "This is a fascinating question. For quick reference, I found two websites [(\"Dimensions Info\")](_URL_1_) and an [_URL_2_ page](_URL_3_) stating Egyptians used locks over 4,000 years ago, and that the inventor of the lock is thought to have been [Theodorus of Samos](_URL_0_).", "The Pitt-Rivers Museum in Oxford has an excellent collection of ancient to modern keys (the idea of the museum is to compare objects with similar functions side by side rather than presenting things in chronological order). [Here's an interesting article](_URL_0_) about their collections which might help answer some of your questions. And if you are ever in Oxford, go check these out -- I believe they are on the first floor (British -- so second floor to Americans). ", "I've heard stories about the theif knot. _URL_0_\n\ndoesn't protect your stuff but is evidence of tampering which is all most locks really prevent against.", "Slate magazine did a really neat feature about the history of Keys in June, you can find it [here](_URL_0_).", "The plains Indians of North America would use a \"possession stick\" as a marker for their belongings. \n\nIt was just a decorated stick placed on a bundle on the prairie designating ownership. Simple. Not sure it would work against a thief, but it was something. ", "Disclaimer: not a historian.\n\nA couple of points:\n\n* Locks [go back a ways](_URL_1_):\n\n > ...the earliest depiction of a lock should be found on a bas-relief in an Egyptian temple at Kamak dating from 2000BC\n\n* Keys can't do all that much to protect valuables in a typical house from someone who really wants them today. Your door to your suburban house is locked? Well, I'll go break a window. Your car is locked? I've watched a skilled locksmith zip past a car lock in a few seconds. They're to help keep people honest.\n\n* Banks [took deposits since quite a while back](_URL_0_); while that doesn't entirely explain how *banks* kept valuables safe, I suspect that having many people place valuables in one trusted location makes keeping them guarded much-less-expensive.\n\n* People could no doubt hide valuables, just as they do today. Burying something would presumably work for something that doesn't need to be used on a regular basis.\n\n* If you back far enough, people didn't have quite as much *stuff* to lug around.", " > How did people protect their belongings before the invention of the key?\n\nBurying items, perhaps sealed in vases or hides, was once a very common way to keep valuables safe. It was utilized extensively by (but not limited to) nomadic peoples who would visit an area only during certain times of the year. Items could be buried and retrieved later without the worry of carrying them around for the entire season.\n\nBurying food was a bully denial technique. Stealing food was more common than we today imagine, and one of the only ways to completely hide food was to bury it in a random location. You could then tell the bully that you were completely out of food and recover it later.", "Not sure if this is alright to post as a followup question. Would door bars have been used at all? They would require someone inside, but that could be a child or an elder or someone who could work in doors. What about trained animals like dogs?", "I don't know exactly why this question is attracting so many sub-par answers. All speculation, jokes, gaming lore and unsourced top comments have been removed.", "Schuyler Towne did a great talk on the history of locks and their importance recently: _URL_0_" ]

[ "One of the main discontents of the 13 colonies was the passage of the Quebec act, which granted many new rights to the French Catholics in Canada. Because of this act, Quebec was feeling pretty good about the Crown in the mid 1770s. ", "There's a [section](_URL_0_) on this in our Popular Questions wiki." ]

[ "Your body paralyzes itself to avoid thrashing about when you are asleep. For some people the order can get mixed up and your brain wakes up while the body is still drugged to not move. Those dreams about being asleep and unable to move may well be real, although it is common to have hallucinations during such instances. There are legends of creatures that climb onto people's chests and weigh them down in bed due to this type of thing.", "When you sleep your body turns off its motors so you don't act out your dreams. But sometimes your eyes wake up before the rest of your body has restarted its motors, so you cannot move, all you can do is stare ahead. Your dreams may continue at this point, though they will warp to adhere to the environment your eyes are looking at. It is normal to experience hallucinations at this point. It can be terrifying, particularly because you can't move, can't speak, and are stuck watching what might be horrifying hallucinations. If you fall back asleep after this you may have another, and another. In my experience, the terror grows with each episode; and with each episode, you may be left feeling more drained, making you terrified to go back to sleep, but so tired that you cannot help it.\n\nSome people feel tightness in their chest like a great weight is resting upon them. You may hear what is going on around you, but those sounds may be warped in terrible ways (an alarm clock sound warped to sound like a screeching demon; music warped so that it sounds like it is underwater and out of tune).\n\nThe upside to these episodes is that they can lead to lucid dreaming, where you'll be entirely conscious of your dreams and be able to control each aspect. I had these episodes every day for a long time and during that time it taught me how to lucid dream, to where now it is just a normal part of my dreaming.\n\nIf you want to escape an episode try wiggling your toes and fingers. It can provide rapid relief. To prevent them, try sleeping on your back or covering your eyes when you sleep. You may still experience them when you eyes are covered, but they are forgettable with no visually distressing aspect.\n\nYou may find that these occur with much greater frequency during turbulent times in your life, times of great stress or trauma.", "All correct. People also tend to hallucinate that there is something terrible/ominous in the room with them as well and it can be quite terrifying, but instances such as yours happen a lot too where you are aware you have come out of sleep, but you can't move and can't yet consciously control your breathing. These feelings aren't usually dreams but can feel like it as you've just woken up. You are in fact paralyzed because your brain has cut itself off due to reasons explained above. \n\nInterestingly some people have a sleep pathology where they do not inhibit movement during REM sleep (REM behavior disorder) which causes them to physically act out their dreams. The patient isn't the one complaining, it's usually the SO getting punched in the face while their partner acts out beating Usain Bolt in the 100m dash.\n\nSource: MD who deals with this kind of shiz" ]

[ "People stop using the currency and move to a barter system (or different currency). That is the resolution as well.", "The president Mugabe is an EVIL dictator (arguably the worst on the planet) and he's printing money like crazy to fund corrupt politics in Zimbabwe.\n\nIt's not like people are having an easy time. Many are moving out of the country and but it's becoming more and more difficult as they become more poor. ", "Economic growth can come from 2 areas, supply side or demand side. Supply side growth is long term, sustainable, and deflationary; it involves pushing out the maximum you can produce, by investing and improving infrastructure. Demand side means making people spend more, and a recession is caused by a lack of demand side growth. However, demand side growth is unsustainable. It leads to inflation.\n\n Demand side growth is short term, and can be easy, but it can only move so far. You can't buy more stuff then you have. One way of increasing demand side growth is called quantitive easing (it's sounds complicated, it's literally just printing money) and the Zimbabwe Govt did this loads; causing hyperinflation that crippled their economy. \n \nTL;DR Essentially is was a government looking for quick growth, without wanting to invest, so they printed money until everyone had so much it was meaningless - hence inflation.", "My aunt and uncle live in Zimbabwe (with my cousin before he was shot). We visited them in 2004. They are white, and they own a business, so they were lucky enough to have had money before the hyperinflation started. \n\nThey got around it by using foreign currency. Basically, South African Rand and American Dollars were used in place of Zimbabwean currency by most people. The tricky part is getting hold of Rand or US Dollars when nobody will trade them for your worthless Zimbabwean paper. There are several ways to do this. \n\nOne, used by my aunt and uncle, is to store any cash you have in foreign banks. They had bank accounts in South Africa and the UK. This works pretty well, but is not an option for most people in Zimbabwe since they haven't got enough money in the first place for a foreign bank account.\n\nThe more common method is for somebody in your family to leave the country and find work elsewhere, and then send their wages back to Zimbabwe in hard currency. Millions of Zimbabweans did this, amounting to about one out of every five or six citizens. Most went to South Africa, where living in a slum and working for less than what the locals will accept in wages (which is a pittance) is still seen as a more hopeful option than living in Zimbabwe. I think that these remittances supported most people in Zimbabwe for the last decade or so. \n\nThis phenomenon also achieves part of the governments political goals: there are two large tribes in Zimbabwe, and Mugabe is from the northern one. He indirectly oppresses the southern tribe by reserving government jobs for members of his own tribe, by directing foreign aid exclusively to his own people, and by generally disenfranchising the southerners. When millions of those people left the country to find work, he is happy to see his political enemies become somebody else's problem.\n\nFinally, people learn to be savvy and get their hands on usable currency whenever the opportunity arises. When we visited, we traded US $600 to my aunt and uncle in exchange for a suitcase full of ZIM $20,000 notes, which we used while we were in the country. Every market trader we traded with was willing to accept any foreign currency from a country without hyperinflation, in one case we paid with a mix of low-denomination (ones, fives, tens) Australian, British, American, and South African currency. This was preferred by the traders to the Zimbabwean currency, presumably since it could be used as a store of value.\n\nAs far as I know, Zimbabwe is no longer experiencing hyperinflation, thanks to the policies implemented by Morgan Tsvangirai and the MDC, the opposition party who are now in coalition with Mugabes ZPF in government (the MDC actually won the election, even in the face of massive fraud, but Mugabe would not step down so this was their best option).", "I lived in Zimbabwe for a time. They use the US Dollar now, but back then we would spend our money as soon as we got it. You couldn't save it because it would be worth less the next day. As soon as you got paid, you bought all your groceries immediately. Most people survived by growing a lot of their own food. Nearly everyone has a garden.\n\nThe massive deflation on a 5 year old level: No one thought that Zimbabwe money was worth anything because the country's government was bad. As things got worse, people put even less value on the currency. ", "I was in Zim a few years back and talked to a lot of people about what they went through. Normal people didn't have much savings anyway, they lived paycheck to paycheck. So when the shit started they would get paid everyday and buy groceries every day. You couldn't hold onto anything. One guy described it as feeling like falling off a cliff all the time. He actually worked in a Bank and did during the crisis.\n\nThe richer and upper middle classes already used foreign banks and currencies. I met one guy who was studying finance, but he was in Malaysia in school when it happened.\n\nI stayed with guys in Mbare which is the poor part of Harare. They also didn't really have anything to lose. They still have suitcases of trillion dollar bills.\n\nBut the biggest problem was that there wasn't anything to buy, because things couldn't be imported and the farmers collapsed, and they couldn't market crops correctly. Then the massive brain drain happened when 30% of the population left. Its still a big issue, most of the best most educated people simply left and can't come back. Many are in South Africa working and they send money home. \n\nZim has a better education system, they speak better English then the South Africans do, and to be frank they are more honest and better employees. So the South Africans hate them, rob them and even kill them.\n\nThe root cause of the inflation was that Mugabe had a lot of debt and decided to fuck the IMF by inflating his currency to pay off the debt. His economists were idiots.\n\nLastly - Zimbabwe is a great country with really friendly people. I met rastas and computer programmers, painters, school teachers, welders, sculptors and musicians. I definitely recommend visiting. they use USD and SA Rand for the coins." ]

[ "I don't know. I'm sure it's irrational, although there are some rational reasons for it. Occasionally the person ahead of you who seems to have pushed it, but didn't push it right. Sometimes they didn't push it hard enough so I didn't push it long enough, sometimes it doesn't register. Also, although I've never seen it at stoplights, there are systems which register the number of touches in terms of thinking that there are more people.", "Not absolute sure about that, but: Aren't we just used to press it and do it because we do it always. When it wasn't pressed before we have to do it (or think we have to) if it was pressed before it does no harm to do it again. So pressing it might help and will never harm. Although thinking about whether we need to do it or not might sometimes more costly than to just do it anytime, especially when our mind is occupied by really tough stuff like: \"What am i cooking to night?\"", "with older people pushing buttons either repeatedly or harder comes from prior experience with mechanical buttons that had contacts that became worn with age. as they became worn you needed to press then harder or more times to make contact. you see it with touch-screens even though pushing harder doesn't do anything. the traffic light behaviour could be some social artefact from this example, i.e. people did it, others mimicked the behaviour and over time it lost meaning", "It's really hard for people to be in a bad situation and know that there's nothing they can do to improve things.\n\nSo we invent things for ourselves to do so that we can feel a little bit more in control. Diehard sports fans wear their special t shirts, soldiers rub some lucky object before going into battle, and you press the crosswalk button, even if someone else already has.", "The lack of feedback. I would suggest that in economies where either there is a countdown timer, or positive feedback a button on either side has been registered, the button-mashing is lower.\n", "I believe this is a method of communication done to avoid appearing to be a threat as a consideration for others. The 2nd person pushes the button to tell the \"white lie\" that your actions were not being watched or to feign incompetence, and also to clearly resolve any question as to why they may be standing next to you. The communication is non-verbal, and non-directional, which allows you to receive the message without also revealing that you are watching him/her as well. All of these things reduce the perception of threat, which might otherwise exist.\n\nFor example, imagine if you were standing on the sidewalk not near a crossing, and a person walked up right behind you, and didn't say anything. It would probably make you feel uncomfortable because you know that the person must have been watching you. Pushing the button a 2nd time helps avoid this uncomfortable situation quickly and in a non-ambiguous way.\n\nEdit: I believe there are concepts in Sociology to explain this behavior, but I don't remember what they are called, and I'm too lazy to look it up" ]

[ "Medicare is a set of plans created and overseen by a government agency that are restricted to a certain age of people and paid for via social security\n\nObamacare is a change in the rules about what can and cannot be covered under the regular insurance companies. That you pay for independently. ", "1. Basic differences are that the Affordable Care Act still uses private insurers and Medicare is run by the government. Anyone can participate in the Affordable Care Act while you have to be at retirement age or be disabled to get Medicare, see Medicare eligibility here _URL_0_.\n\n2. I imagine people hate the Affordable Care Act because healthcare insurance is now required (there are exceptions) and they're uninformed and associate it with the word Socialism (which they think is bad and think they're wasting their money paying for another's coverage, which they're doing anyway with any other type of insurance). \n\n3. Uh, people like having health insurance coverage and not having to pay the entire cost of their health costs. If you're eligible for Medicare, it can provide a better discount than traditional insurance coverage, but not everything is covered and not everything has a lower cost like with the Medicare prescription coverage. The Affordable Care Act makes it against the law for insurers to deny you based on preexisting conditions, it allows women to be charged the same as men and get things like birth control covered.\n\nOn a side note, when on Medicare, you pay for it and it costs about the same as a health plan that you would get with an employer. There are also deductibles just like regular insurance. You can get help with these costs if you qualify for extra help. There are also different coverage levels within Medicare, just like with a regular insurance plan.\n\nPersonally, I would have rather have had a single payer system put in place like the majority of other Western nations have for their citizens." ]

[ "If you made it a specific date, it might fall on a weekend. Saying it has to be a Tuesday avoids that issue.", "In the United States, voting is traditionally done on a Tuesday. In the past, when people might have to travel quite a bit to vote, this allowed them to come to where the polling place was on Monday. (Traveling on the Sabbath was, and sometimes still is, considered inappropriate.)\n\nWhen the community would like an election to be in a particular month, then, they will pick a Tuesday in that month." ]

[ "Assuming you're talking about walking in, rather than arriving by ambulance:\n\nThey take you to talk to a nurse who reviews the basics of your case, assuming there was no immediately obvious medical emergency (like bleeding all over the place).\n\nThat nurse then decides how pressing your treatment is.\n\nFor example, a broken bone or possible fall injury generally don't require immediate treatment, beyond making sure the person don't move affected areas (arm, back, etc). They can just fit you in to the X-ray machines and such as there is time.\n\nHowever, if you were there for something like suspected internal bleeding, stroke, etc the time that they spent waiting could have a serious impact on your chances of survival and recovery. So they could prioritize having the doctors see you over someone with a broken arm.\n\nThe emergency room has guidelines like these for a wide range of cases - and it generally comes down to who is likely to die or be seriously maimed for life first.\n\nWhich is also why people who arrive by ambulance generally get to skip the line waiting for a room - if you couldn't even get there under your own power, it's much more likely you need immediate treatment.", "I just went to the ER on Saturday and I was assigned a \"2\". I was asked to go sit down, but was called back 1 min later. I had a nasty gash on my forehead.\n\nCan someone explain the numbering system?", "I just want everyone to know: OP once viewed his own sperm under a microscope.", "Triage. \n\nThe more serious, life-threatening cases go before an arrow to the knee. " ]

[ "Selling and trafficking drugs is treated more harshly than possession because of nature of selling drugs includes money laundering, gun violations and violence including murders. \n\nSimple possession is sometimes treated less harshly because there has been a (mild) push to get those offenders into treatment programs instead of prisons (prop. 36).\n\nAs far as prostitution I am not sure what you are basing that assumption on. If someone is convicted under a human trafficking penal code the punishment is much more severe than a plain solicitation charge. ", "Prostitutes are treated less harshly than johns? Source?" ]

[ "This may be surprising, but humans are some of the best runners on the planet. While we may not be able to match the raw speed of something like a cheatah, but we make up for it in stamina and efficiency. Cheatahs, for example, burn so much energy so quickly during a kill that they actually have to take a nap before eating their prey. Humans can keep on running, long after the cheatah has tired out, and they can keep running until they are clear of their predators. This may be less true today thanks to our cushy position at the top of the food chain. More developed brains and opposable thumbs don't hurt either. These allowed olus to craft and use tools which made up for our shortcomings, and helped put us on top. ", "We evolved intelligence specifically to out compete those creatures who were stronger and faster. ", "Bipedalism is a big advantage. all 3 species that evolved it were immensely successful (Humans, kangaroos, and the ancestor species of all dinosaurs). A bipedal walk is energy-efficient, giving you good endurance, and potentially saving enough calories over a lifetime for an entire extra child. Humans are actually the best endurance runners on the planet. There are tribes that practice endurance hunting, where the hunters simply jog towards an antelope or whatever until it keels over of exhaustion. This is probably the earliest human hunting technique.\n\nSweating is another nearly-unique adaptation for endurance. We're also surprisingly well adapted for swimming, for a land mammal (hairless skin, buoyancy, a subcutaneous fat layer, and infants are born with the instinctual ability to hold their breath underwater).\n\nEven simple tool use is a big advantage - for instance, there's an archaeological site where ancient hominids ambushed and stoned to death a tiger. Even before we discovered sharp rocks, just the ability to think abstractly is a big advantage. Have you ever seen a documentary where a chimp is digging grubs out of a log with a twig? It's pretty clear that the chimp doesn't understand how twig+log=grub in the way that even a toddler would." ]

[ "I'm assuming that you're referring to business consulting firms. \n\nBasically one business has a problem that they don't have the experience to handle so they pay money to the consultancy firm to fix the problem for them. \n\n\n\n", "Jimmy Kimmel sums it up in 30 seconds \n_URL_0_\n" ]

[ "You probably didnt catch the cirus the day before since it takes a couple of days to start showing symptoms. I think for the most part people get sick during cold days because people tend to gather indoors increasing their exposure to viruses", "When cold outside, people tend to stay inside more. Thus, being around close proximity to more people. Therefore, you are more likely to come into contact with a virus that could affect you.\n\nAlso, add this factor into what others have said, and it's the perfect recipe.", "It's entirely possible (and more than likely) that your symptoms have nothing to do with a virus. You were exercising which can lead to sore muscles. You were exercising outdoors which, depending on the environment, can lead to exposure to airborne allergens and pollutants which can lead to nasal congestion. If sudden changes in temperature were a cause of illness then everyone in cultures where saunas are used in cold climates would probably be sick constantly.", "Your situation is just a coincidence; you contracted the illness a day or two BEFORE you exercised.\n\n\"Sudden temperature differences\" have no meaningful effect on your immune system. Extreme temperatures can weaken your immune system, but that's not relevant unless you're experiencing hypothermia or baking in an oven.\n\nThe people who pointed out that cold weather dries out mucus membranes and causes humans to congregate in larger numbers in enclosed spaces are correct, but that has nothing to do with \"sudden temperature differences.\"\n\nEverything else that everyone else wrote is complete bullshit. Changes in temperature don't weaken your immune system. Exercise does not weaken your immune system. That's not how human bodies function. If you think about it for just a second, you'll realize why this makes sense. What kind of organism would evolve the ridiculous limitation of not being able to physically move without getting sick?? And how does an external temperature difference weaken your immune system when your body maintains a constant internal temperature?? Furthermore, if temperature changes destroyed immune systems, how would cold-blooded animals survive!? Their \\*internal\\* temperature can swing tens of degrees every single day. Wouldn't their immune systems basically be non-functioning? reddit has failed you here.", "Common cold virus replicates better at low temperatures, which is why it does better in the airways. From animal studies, some scientists have concluded that it replicates better at 5ºC, so if you already have the virus, a temperature drop will be enough to kick start it. It's not just because people stay inside more.\n\n & #x200B;\n\n [_URL_0_](_URL_0_)", "Another reason for the prevalence of illness in cold conditions is that airborn pathogens travel better in cool dry air." ]

[ "Traditionally, the flag of a defeated country or organization would be flown beneath the flag of the victor. So during a time of national tragedy the flags are flown at half-mast to allow the flag of Death top position.", "As others have said, the flag is flown at half mast to give the top spot to the invisible flag of death. Canada does this too." ]

[ "Visually tracking probes seems hard unless the probe came quite close to Earth - even the [Hubble telescope can't resolve evidence of the Apollo missions](_URL_1_) on the moon - even at this close distance, the smallest features it can see are 60m across. At Earth-Jupiter distances (~2000 times the Earth-Moon distance) that's an object 120km across.\n\nNear-earth asteroid detection systems like LINEAR spot asteroids (which, against the darkness of space, some asteroids look quite bright). LINEAR detected [25143 Itokawa](_URL_2_), which is ~630m across, still gigantic for a spacecraft (Earth spacecraft, at least). [This page](_URL_2_) mentions 300m as a lower size for film-based detection of near-Earth asteroids.\n\nA technological civilization on Cassini could of course detect the transmissions from the probe (after all, we do), though I'm guessing they'd probably pick up the radar pulses first. Cassini's signals are picked up, on earth, by the [VLA](_URL_0_). I'm not sure whether a much smaller installation could do.", "It would probably depend on how stealthy the mission was intended to be.\n\nEmitted radiation, not reflected radiation is much more detectable for something far from the sun. Communication would probably be very directional, and not easy to detect.\n\nOn the other hand, an interstellar probe would require very substantial investment, so a probe that maximized abilities seems likely. It would be possible that the probe would use large amounts of power, and therefore be hot & bright in the infrared spectrum. If the probe was to enter solar orbit, it would require a lot of acceleration to insert into orbit, which would be easy to detect (as far as we know with contemporary physics).\n\nAlso, they may well design the probe to be easily detected, transmitting a \"hello\" message of some kind. Might as well meet the locals while you're traveling.", " > - Would we be able to distinguish transmissions not aimed at Earth from the background noises of space?\n\nIf aliens are as least as advanced as we are, no. \n\nOur deep space satellite communications as well as some mobile networks (3G, 4G) use turbo codes that look like background noise for anyone who don't have the codec. Since mathematical constraints are same for aliens as they are for us, they would probably use similar technology to send their interstellar transmissions trough all the noise More advanced the coding, more it resembles noise for those who don't know the coding. Even if they would accidentally direct the signal to the earth, we would just see noise without any pattern and would ignore it. If they would use both turbo coding and spread spectrum transmission, there would be almost nothing we could detect. \n", "|Hypothetically would \"marine\" life forms under the ice of Enceladus be able to detect the Cassini satellite if they had radio technology?\n\nThe part of that puzzle I struggle with is how marine life could invent processes that require fire/an atmosphere? No matter how much intelligence you ascribe to a marine life form, how do they physically make a radio telescope, or even a metal blade for that matter? I wonder if this will end up being the solution to the Fermi paradox - lots of water worlds, lots of dry dusty worlds, few earths.", "[The Fermi Paradox, Self-Replicating Probes, and the Interstellar Transportation Bandwidth](_URL_0_) contains some order of magnitude guesswork and estimates that at this very moment there are between 10^2 – 10^11 Self Replicating Probes in our solar system:\n\n > The absurdity of this result underlies the tremendous burden of the Fermi Paradox and demonstrates why many ETI-hopefuls have shied away from even the remotest consideration of SRPs." ]

[ "Heat isn't stopped by windows and doors. As the temperature outside rises, the heat energy will move through walls, doors, windows, etc and get inside the house. The reverse is also true, which is why a warm house won't stay warm forever if you turn the heater off. Insulation will slow down the movement of heat energy, but it won't ever stop it completely.", "For the same reason that the same room as you described cannot maintain its higher temperature by itself when the outside temperature is colder. Imagine if you inflated an opaque balloon with warm air and tied it off. The air inside the balloon is still going to normalize, and I THINK you are wondering about convection." ]