Datasets:

Pavithree

/

eli5_0_19710

like 0

{ "a_id": [ "cqfd1d8" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "They're used interchangeably a lot. You'll get different answers from different resources, but the general consensus seems to be that woods are smaller than forests.\n\n > A wood is an area covered in trees, larger than a grove or a copse. A forest is also an area covered in trees, but it is larger than a wood\n\n > The U.S. National Vegetation Classification system differentiates them according to their densities: 25 to 60 percent of a a wood is covered by tree canopies, while 60 to 100 percent of a forest is canopied." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fdlfvnn", "fdltn5j" ], "score": [ 11, 3 ], "text": [ "A) instinct. To protect it from further damage (if the damaging agent is ongoing) or to prevent bleeding and such.\n\nB) pain. Our brain knows that pressure sensation blocks pain sensation from experience. So we reflexively grab the injury site because it alleviates the pain.\n\nEdit: English and clarity", "So you have 2 different types of pressure sensors in your skin, superficial or closer to the surface and deep. Pressure sensors report back to the brain faster than pain sensors do so you can \"jam the signal\" ish by applying pressure. Say you put your hand on a hot burner, the spine has limited commands it can give to the body in case the brain can't give commands (see stroke victims) or to protect the body from further damage. This means that the pain signal follows tracks of nerve impulses to the spine where a quick response is sent back while a detailed report of the pain is sent to the sensory part of the brain for further analysis. The brain follows up the damage report by checking sensation, applying pressure or grabbing the area. Typically you also visually check it as well to see how the skin in the area is doing." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cwuhlgt", "cwuj29i", "cwujw7n", "cwul2kz", "cwuozp0", "cwv1d4l", "cwv3kmh", "cwv3r6b", "cwv4jya", "cwv69iz", "cwv6hj6", "cwv7e5e", "cwv8c12", "cwvb8sa", "cwvduq9" ], "score": [ 180, 58, 7, 36, 12, 5, 3, 3, 2, 2, 5, 2, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Hispanic is not a race. It's an ethnicity. There are white Hispanics, black Hispanics, Native American Hispanics, and even Asian Hispanics.\n\n", "White is an ever shifting definition. It wasn't that long ago that Irish, Italians, Eastern Europeans and Jews weren't considered white.", "Nothing about racial categories makes sense, and that's because race is a social, not biological construct.", "Latinos/Hispanics (technically different but let's stay out of the weeds for this) are a label applied to a group that look incredibly different because it's defined as being descended from a Spanish speaking country, countries that aren't necessarily near or historically like each other.\n\nPeople from the Dominican Republic and Mexico tend to look very different for instance. Cameron Diaz, Jessica Alba, Rosario Dawson and Zoe Saldana are all Latina actresses, yet look different. Diaz has pale skin with blue eyes while Zoe Saldana would be classified as black by pretty much everyone in the U.S. despite being Puerto Rican. So, technically, the \"white\" Cameron Diaz and the \"black\" Zoe Saldana are the same ethnicity.\n\nThis is because the concept of people descended fromspanish-speaking places being the same group was made up [very recently](_URL_0_). \"Hispanic\" wasn't on U.S. forms until the 70s. The 1970s. That recently in the past.\n\nBasically, \"Hispanics\" are the group that really show just how silly the idea of race/ethnicity is. It's completely made up and it happened so recently we have documents that prove it. Yet, for some reason, we forget about this when talking about other groups who happen to have a longer history of being labeled as a group.", "What if you thought of everyone from English speaking countries as a group...let's say Hugh Jackman, Bob Marley, and Narendra ModI (Prime Minister of India)...you could say that they're all Anglos...but they're not the same race.", "You'll never get the right answer for this, because apparently there isn't one. There's always conflicts between who is and who isn't Latino. Also the word Hispanic gets a lot of incorrect definitions", "You seem to be misunderstanding how the US Census Hispanic and White categories work. Have a look at [the race and ethnicity questions in the US Census](_URL_5_). You'll note that they ask two independent questions of each person that is reported in the form:\n\n* Is this person of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?\n* What is this person's race?\n\nThe first is a yes/no question, but the \"Yes\" options include choices for various Hispanic nationality groups (Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, write-in). The second is a multiple-choice question—you can pick more than one choice—and also has a write-in option. People can fill in any combination of answers to those two questions, and the statistics count all the combinations. \n\nSo you can answer \"Yes\" to the Hispanic question and \"White\" to the race question—or \"Yes\" to Hispanic and \"Black\" to race, \"Yes/Native American,\" \"Yes/Asian,\" \"Yes/White+Black,\" etc. And none of those is an unusual answer! Watch these videos to understand why:\n\n* _URL_1_\n* _URL_3_\n* _URL_6_\n* _URL_0_\n* _URL_7_\n* _URL_4_\n* _URL_2_\n", "Hispanic = from a Spanish speaking country. There are white, black, asian, and native peoples who originate from the many spanish speaking countries. ", "Can someone help me out here. So all 4 of my grandparents were born in mexico. My maternal grandmother definitely had indigenous blood in her which was evident when you saw her. Same for my grandfather. I think my paternal grandmother might have been half german. My ethnicity is hispanic, but what would be my race? I always check the \"other\" box on documents and write mexican american. I don't look white, black, or native american. I look mexican. Wtf is my race?", "Historically blacks and Hispanics follow the one-drop rule i.e if you have a drop of black blood you are black, a drop of Hispanic blood and you are Hispanic. The Hispanic race is from Spain a subset of white people, many Hispanics are mixed with Native American people. Objectively the classifications don't really make any sense.", "as a person not from the US I was initially baffled that you guys didn't consider hispanics white", "So that \"white\" can continue being the majority. Nothing like changing socially constructed definitions so you can keep oppressing people. ", "What exactly is \"Hispanic\" and do Americans consider Spanish people to be non-white?", "Former Census worker and anthropology geek here. Hispanic is NOT a race like white, black, Asian, etc.. It is a cultural definition. You can be a Hispanic and be of any race. The majority of Hispanics are mixed race anyways. Also, a large number of Hispanics consider themselves white and put that as their race on the Census.", "I live in a country where race and ethnicity isn't registered anywhere.\n\nIs there any discussion about just do away with this categorization completely in the US? It's seems to be mostly confusing." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [ "http://futureuncertain.blogspot.com/2005/09/how-richard-nixon-invented-hispanics.html" ], [], [], [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3kenaY8rlw", "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Qveo--oAZw", "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SVyuy2OqUA", "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIXNwj8biHY", "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt__QuCmBEw", "http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2009/questionnaire.aspx", "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBaPG14cdkM", "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdbEMBmzo2U" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cv9l5or" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "**NOTE**: I am not a medical doctor, and this is not a diagnosis; just the best attempt I can at explaining it.\n\nIt's likely caused by the gel inside of his eyes rubbing on or pulling at the retina. If he stood up after a car ride, it can cause a change in blood pressure as well, which would lead to less oxygen going to the brain and some experience flashes of light along with a narrowing of the field of vision." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cdrqan1", "cdrqmb0" ], "score": [ 9, 3 ], "text": [ "It depends on the severity of the accident compared to the severity of the call they're en route to. If they see a horrible car wreck, and they're on a call for a broken bone, they'll stop for the wreck and radio in to let the dispatcher know to send out a new ambulance for the initial call. However, if they were on their way to a heart attack victim, they'll likely radio in and request a new ambulance for the wreck.", "Paramedic here.\n\nWe stop, have a short look and call dispatch. Ultimately, until we reach the patient it's their call so they set the priorities in such a situation." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "chwv0xm" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Sure, if you've never experienced true binocularity (brain fusing each eye's image into one that is 3D), you might not realize you don't have it. It's possible to develop that skill so long as both eyes are physically intact and functional and so is your brain. Neuroscience ftw!\n\n A book that discusses this is \"Stereo Sue\" by Sue Barry about a lady scientist who didn't realize that very thing she was in her 50s and was able to regain it. It's an interesting story! " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e01xr6g", "e01z28r" ], "score": [ 11, 6 ], "text": [ "As far as I know there is no scientific proof that essential oils work anyway, but yes your skin can only absorb so much.", "Essential oils are worthless for everything but smelling good anyway, so adding water certainly doesn't improve anything" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "do8pkru", "do8pkuz", "do8ps5a", "do8pyoe", "do8q57e", "do8ygs7" ], "score": [ 2, 2, 2, 12, 7, 5 ], "text": [ "a nuclear device functions by joining two or more chunks of radioactive material with explosive force together attaining a critical sustainable mass. A nuke dropped on nukes would not trigger this....the grounded nukes could only, theoretically, add to the radioactive fallout as their unspent nuclear material is scattered about \n\nPs your premise is a bit flawed as MOST nukes are detonated ABOVE a target, not on impact with it. ", "Nuclear bombs need to be set off in a controlled way in order to explode in the massive yield they normally would. However they contain conventional explosives which would certainly spread radioactive material around. But if you are setting them off with a nuke that won't be a big impact.", "In any design that's actually been built the nuclear bomb can't be detonated externally, they must be triggered through a very specific and carefully timed sequence of events.\n\nBombing them would just damage them and possibly scatter radioactive material.", "Depends on a lot of things.\n\nNuclear bombs work by changing the critical mass of the nuclear fuel. \"Critical mass\" is the amount of nuclear material you need to have a sustained nuclear reaction. You can artificially make a smaller-than-critical mass into a critical mass in several ways. One way is to cover it with a material that reflects neutrons (which would cause all the neutrons that would've escaped outwards from the material to reflect back inwards, generally used in nuclear reactors and research), but another way is to change the temperature and pressure of the material (which is done in nuclear weapons by using \"explosive lenses\" which is a fancy way of saying you surround it with conventional explosives).\n\nWithout those explosives going off (and a few other things I'd guess) that nuclear weapon isn't actually fissile (able to undergo fission). A nuclear explosion above the silo where the bombs are stored is just as likely to vaporize the exposive as anything else, not to mention that unless that explosion is able to actually trigger the explosive correctly it's not going to explode. (C4 and TNT for example are completely safe to burn, and only explode with specific stimulii.)\n\n", "Detonating a nuclear bomb is a very precise process, a lot of complicated things have to happen in just the right order. Even the most primitive bombs would be unlikely to go off in a high order explosion just because of a nearby explosion, nuclear or not. Modern nuclear weapons are actually deliberately designed so this is impossible, as a safety measure.", "Nuclear weapons are conceptually simple, you smash together enough U-235 (a 'supercritical mass') and it goes boom. The hard part is making it go boom when you want it to, and NOT melt when it's sitting in a silo.\n\nThere are two kinds of 'explosions' that occur in a nuclear weapon. The most obvious one is the nuclear fission chain reaction that makes a nuke what it is, which I'll call 'nuclear detonation'. The second kind of explosion (technically the first to happen) is what I'll call a 'primary detonation', which is a bunch of high explosives rigged precisely to trigger or 'ignite' the big boom.\n\nThere are two main ways in which these parts are put together, the 'Gun' and the 'implosion' methods. In the gun device, a big slug of U-235 is shot at high speed into another mass of U-235 that fits it like a glove, bringing together a supercritical mass. This device was constructed during the Manhattan Project by essentially strapping a bunch of expensive equipment and U-235 to an artillery piece and firing it. The second method uses a hollow sphere (also known as a pit) made of Uranium. In its hollow shape, the mass is not supercritical, but when it is compressed by the primary detonation into a solid ball, the mass becomes supercritical. It's a lot like crushing a soda can, but your hands are TNT and the soda can is going to blow your block party off the map.\n\nIn both methods of detonation, the critical mass must be brought together very quickly and very precisely. Otherwise, instead of the desired nuclear ignition, a 'premature detonation' will occur, severely reducing the weapon's power (loads better for the world than premature ejaculation ;). \n\nSo, to answer the question, if a nuclear warhead were dropped on a warehouse full of nukes, it would NOT cause nuclear detonations in the other weapons. It would, however, cause lots of bad shit, including:\n\n-Big Boom from the original warhead\n\n-All of the nuclear materials in the bombs is now volatile nuclear waste that may be in various states of criticality and may or may not fissioning and creating more hazardous waste. To get an idea of what this could develop into in the worst case scenario, read up on the elephant's foot at Chernobyl. Its not exactly the same situation, but Chernobyl gives us an idea of how difficult it is to move and protect ourselves from uncontained fission materials.\n\n-Detonation of high explosives from primary detonation systems of other bombs. This is unlikely to cause any nuclear detonations because the precision of the detonation is completely overwhelmed by the initial warhead, but explosives are explosives. TBH the size of these explosions is nothing compared to the initial weapon's power, and amounts to something like a mosquito bite on an arm that a bear just tore off of you.\n\n-WWIII (Assuming some head-ass didn't bomb their own country, which almost happened once in North Carolina I think)\n\n\nTL;DR: No, it won't cause a 'Double Explosion', but it's still a nuke, and it's gonna kill the heck out of you.\n\n\nSide note: For similar reasons, nuking or crashing a plane into a nuclear power plant does not cause a nuclear detonation. Nuclear weapons are devices carefully orchestrated and calibrated to 'make the stars align' so to speak, and create the very narrow conditions that make a nuclear explosion possible. On the other hand, a power plant is designed to generate electricity in a sustained and controlled fashion, which inherently precludes the possibility of a nuclear detonation, simply because the specifications on how to trigger a nuclear detonation are so tight." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "du43702", "du44tut", "du45aky", "du47c2j", "du4c6z3" ], "score": [ 31, 11, 9, 5, 3 ], "text": [ "Its to make the plastic stronger. Without it they would have to add much more plastic to make it stable, which is more expensive. The bottle wouldn't explode, but it would cause the thinner areas to sag and deform. That would increase the chance of it bursting apart when force is applied. But with the divot, that sort of outcome is essentially impossible.", "It can be for strength, if the contents are under pressure, or it can just be so it will sit flat on a surface without rocking. You could in theory do that with a perfectly flat bottom, but that requires more precise and expensive molds(have to account for distortion as it cools too). Or it can be to make the bottle look bigger, compared to its volume. \n\n", "If you had a flat bottom it would simply bulge out. Now you would have a shitty bottle that can't stand. The dome simply distributes the forces evenly to the outside ring of the dome. It's the outside ring that has a bit more ridigity that prevents that from deforming.\n\nI suggest you look up the making and design of a soda can on YouTube. It explains the engineering behind it. Pretty cool stuff. ", "The dent and curved rim on the bottom of a can gives it the strength to be stacked on without bursting", "I can't speak much for glass bottles, but plastic bottles and aluminum cans have these features so that if they freeze, the plastic will bulge out and pop into a new position that gives the liquid more free volume to occupy. This prevents a sticky mess on the consumer's garage floor" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d9s743x", "d9s7rst", "d9scu9p" ], "score": [ 4, 14, 2 ], "text": [ "It means that Mr. Market is scared, and the future looks really bleak. \n\nThe market believes a recession or worse is coming and that for the foreseeable future, things in an economic sense look bad. \n\nRetirement funds are based heavily on the stock market (not entirely) which will go down correspondingly. However, they are also based to some degree on bonds, which generally go up when stocks go down. \n\nGenerally....\n\nThe thing is, no one really truly knows the answer. And if they did, they could use that knowledge to make money. \n\nWhat it means for you and for me is that most experts foresee bad things happening. ", "What u/Chumkil said but it is unlikely to be a long-lasting drop, the underlying economy is strong and, once the excitement has died down, the markets will return to their original state - i.e. rising.\n\nThe BBC were talking about this yesterday, apparently these flash-crashes are more to do with computer algorithm trading more than human sentiment. Their analyst's advice to investors was \"play the long game and sit tight, use any significant drop to expand your portfolio.\"", "What I don't understand is how the market is falling, when markets have been closed since 4:00pm EST and the first polls don't close until 7....I mean I can see how people will forecast the drop tonight, but wouldn't the market have to open in the morning to actually drop?" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "csx7hdh" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "Food coloring is not considered toxic by most people. From Google:\n\n > \n > \n > While red dye #2 was subsequently banned from products sold in the United States, many health-conscious consumers continue to avoid foods with other artificial colors or dyes — **even though the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) still considers them safe for human consumption**.\n\n\n\nBut that doesn't even tell the full story. \n\nRed Dye #2 might have never been particularly unsafe to humans. \n\n > \n > \n > In 1976, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) concluded that, in high doses, Red No. 2 could cause cancer in female rats. The FDA declared it an ingredient non grata in the United States because **although it had never been shown to pose health risks to humans, no one had been able to prove it safe, either**.\n\nBut the media painted a scary picture of Red Dye #2.\n\n > \n > \n > In 1971, however, Soviet scientists announced that Red No. 2 caused cancer. Public outcry in the U.S. against the dye quickly gained such fervor that the Mars candy company temporarily stopped producing red M & Ms despite the fact that they had never contained Red No. 2 in the first place.\n\n\nRed dye #2 was replaced in America by Red Dye #40, but #2 is still available and considered safe in Europe where one last bizarre fact enters the picture:\n\n > \n > \n > But in a twist of fate, the European Food Safety Authority recently recommended limiting children's intake of Red No. 40. As a result, while Red No. 2 is illegal in the U.S. but flows freely in the EU, the near-opposite is true for Red No. 40.\n\n\nYou can read more about it [here](_URL_0_)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.livescience.com/35905-red-dye-no-2-truth.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dga9l6s" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "It's related to the fight-or-flight response. Your body prioritizes your extremities and blood is drawn away from \"non-essentials\" such as the digestive system. This leads to that uneasy stomach feeling you get." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cqk75y7", "cqkbtfg", "cqkhm2r" ], "score": [ 9, 4, 3 ], "text": [ "There are Hospitals/infirmaries in prisons. They'd likely just spend their final time in there.\n\nOr they might just be put in with the general population if they don't need constant medical care.", "They still go to prison, there was a nazi war criminal/guard recently convicted about a year or so ago. At 90 they shipped him off to Germany to be incarcerated", "If they were convicted when already suffering from the disease, they would likely be held in prison as normal, and provided medical care for the rest of their natural life.\n\nThere's also a thing called compassionate release, where a prisoner that develops a terminal illness while in prison will be released, essentially to die with their family. Most states, and the federal government have some kind of program like this, though the number of people released under those programs is still pretty small." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cz2yeln", "cz2z6ig" ], "score": [ 6, 4 ], "text": [ "Well you can. Masturbate everyday, and compare it to not masturbating for a month. You do build up a tolerance if you will. It's less intense.", "I can confirm this too, from exhaustive experimenting. Then more frequent you repeat it, the smaller a kick you get." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "f1yfvlf", "f1yj96n" ], "score": [ 8, 8 ], "text": [ "Caliber is a measure of the internal diameter of a gun barrel. Inches are an SAE unit, and millimeters are a metric unit. Either can be used to describe the caliber, based on the manufacturer's preference.", "Oh boy, this one is a rabbit hole because there's no real standards and *a lot* of marketing nonsense.\n\nFirst, the basics: When a firearm is described as \"thirty caliber\" (.30) that means that the internal diameter of the barrel is .3 inches. Since the late 1800s most of the world outside of the UK and USA has used metric measurements (millimeters) for the same thing. So a gun that is \"nine millimeter\" (9mm) has a barrel with an internal diameter of 9mm.\n\nNow comes the confusing stuff, because there is another set of important measurements, cartridge length. For example, the most common 9mm cartridge is 9x19mm, and it is 9mm wide and 19mm long. It is commonly known as 9mm Parabellum or 9mm Luger. It is not interchangeable with 9x18mm (9mm Makarov), 9x20mm (9mm Browning Long), 9x17mm (9mm Kurz), etc.\n\nImperial measurements play an even dumber game, because they are often just lies. .38 Special is actually .357 inches in diameter, the same width as .357 Magnum. .45 ACP is actually .451\" and .45 Colt is .452\". It gets real silly.\n\nThen you have OLD stuff, which was often measured in caliber and charge. So you get .45-70 Government (.45 caliber, 70 grains of powder) and 30-30 (.30 caliber, 30 grains). \n\nDon't even get me started on naming conventions for artillery because they are twice as insane." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "et6stnf", "et6t8dr" ], "score": [ 18, 4 ], "text": [ "Hydrogen is highly reactive, it bonds to oxygen, forming water. Water is quite dense, even as a vapor, and is therefore quite durable in the atmosphere.\n\nHelium is a noble gas and nearly perfectly inert. Being unbound to any heavier elements, it quickly rises to the top of the atmosphere and is lost to space by various mechanisms. \n\nHydrogen is lost over time, but only slowly.", "A partial answer:\nMolecular hydrogen is both reactive and escapes easily. Helium, although not reactive, escapes more easily due to its low mass. Additionally, the only source of helium is radioactive do decay. \nHTH" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dp7qn0h", "dp7sb8o", "dp7ttcb", "dp82ln8", "dpcmf5y" ], "score": [ 5, 17, 5, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "The Greeks in antiquity did a *lot* of science, and we kept a lot of their words for things. I've said more than once in my anatomy class that “if it's not Latin, it's Greek.” To stay on topic, Greek has a lot more words in biology and physics (including those words), and Latin is more for chemical symbols and engineering.", "Most of what we consider 'Science' was developed in the European university system post-Renaissance. Since such universities were almost always affiliated with the Church, they created a common course of study that included Latin and Greek.\n\nAs a result, while scientists in different nations spoke different native languages, they *all* had familiarity with Latin (and, to a lesser extent, Greek). The Greek *letters* in particularly came to be used for many mathematical formulas because they were distinct from the standard alphabet, but still recognizable.", "Greek (and Latin, which occupies a very similar position) isn't directly used in science, but Greek and Latin words are very frequently mashed together to form technical (from Greek techn-: art, skill, craft) terms. Prior to English becoming the main language of science, Greek and Latin were used because those languages were spoken and read by nearly all highly educated Europeans regardless of their national origin. For example, Newton and Linnaeus wrote in Latin. These languages also had a reputation thanks to their connection to Classical writers whose thoughts formed the starting point for education at the time. \n\nAs people stopped writing in Latin and Greek they carried over the use of terms and even expanded it. A couple contributing factors may be at play. Less nobly, it acts as a sort of gatekeeping. You have to be educated to know the meanings. Every industry has a tendency toward jargon. But there's another more practical and probably more important reason, which is that it allows greater precision. Words in English or another language already have a meaning in that language. Roots may have multiple meanings or senses to a native speaker that may shift with time. But scientific roots in Greek or Latin have defined meanings that don't shift or change. And they can also be repurposed from their original meanings and used for specific scientific meanings. For example, haploid just comes from the Greek word for single. But scientifically Haploid doesn't mean \"single\" it means \"having a single set of chromosomes\". If we tried to call cells \"single cells\" in English it would be confusing because \"single cells\" also means \"there's just one cell\". But we can use haploid for a specific meaning of the word \"single\" that strips out the ambiguity and keeps us from having to explain what we mean exactly (as long as we know what haploid means anyway). \n\nEdit: another great example of how this works is with words surrounding \"knowledge\". The very word \"science\" comes from a Latin word scientia, which simply means \"knowledge.\" But of course we use it to mean a specific _type_ of knowledge. The _Greek_ root for knowledge is _gnos_, from which we derive things like \"Diagnosis\" and \"Cognition\"...other specific terms related to knowledge. So having another language of roots to draw on can really help you come up with specific terms for more specific versions of things your language already has a word for. ", "This is true in English and other European countries. Less so elsewhere, except to the extent that they've adopted Western scientific terminology.\n\nSo, most early Christian texts were either in Latin or certain Greek dialects.\n\nThrough most of the middle ages, the people who carried on scholarly traditions of reading and penmanship, were christian clergy, or people taught by them. So you learned the \"old languages\" by means of translating and copying old religious documents. That meant that if you were a wealthy, educated person, you knew some Greek or Latin.\n\nMoreover If you wanted to publish something in and have it understood by scholars in other countries who might not speak your language, or if you wanted people in the future to understand it......Latin or Greek. And chances are, if you wanted to quote something someone said in the past....you guessed it.\n\nMuslim scholars in the middle ages also had a role in this as well. The middle Eastern world was trading with 3 continents and collecting ideas from all of them at the time when most of Europe was constantly warring over farmland. I feel that Muslim scholarship traditionally takes accuracy in of copying religious works especially seriously. They had an advantage of dry climate where paper/parchment was a lot less likely to deteriorate.\n\nSo, middle Eastern scholars were able to preserve the writing of classical Greek philosophers. They then combined that with maths traded from India and China.\n\n Then there was a major flourishing of science in Renaissance Europe. Lots of people publishing what turned out to be pertinent and timely stuff... using Greek or Latin terms to describe things.\n\n\n\n\n", "Latin is a so called dead language and doesn't change, so does the meaning of what you express in latin.\n\nLet's use an actual example for greek. Todays leading language in IT is english. People from all over the world can talk about IT topics in english and understand each other." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dd6o1g9" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "Daylight time changes vary by latitude; in July the North pole experiences 24 hours of daylight while in December it experiences 0, so there must be a change of at least 24 hours daylight time in 180 days, which turns out to average about 8 minutes a day change. At the equator no change is perceived at all (0 minutes per day).\n\nMore than that, the *rate* of change varies through the year. At the winter and summer solstices the changes are relatively slow. At the autumn and spring equinoxes the rates of change are at their highest. This is because during winter and summer the earths pole is pointing directly away or toward the sun (depending on hemisphere and season), while at spring and autumn the earths axis is perpendicular to the sun.\n\nAs a result the daily change in daylight hours varies by how North or South you are, as well as the time of year. You can explore the range of impact here: _URL_0_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://astro.unl.edu/classaction/animations/coordsmotion/daylighthoursexplorer.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cw68iey", "cw68sd4" ], "score": [ 3, 10 ], "text": [ "Let me disect your question.\n\nWhat is a fetish? Whoever you ask, be it a psychologist, a biologist or a sociologist, you probably will in detail receive very different answers.\nHowever, they will most likely all have one thing in common:\n\nSexual behaviour outside the norm.\n\nThe differences will most likely be regarding the answer of \"what is the norm / normal\"\n\nTo answer your question we will go with what the biologist may have to say about that: \nAny sexual behaviour which does not directly produce offspring.\n\nRecreational sex is simply a waste of energy.\n\nWith this - granted - very narrow definition of what a fetish is, you will be able to observe them with animals as well. \n\nBonobos, for example, the so-called \"hippie apes,\" are known for same-sex interactions, and for interactions between mature individuals and sub-adults or juveniles.\n\nOral sex also occurs with some frequency throughout the animal kingdom. It's been observed in primates, spotted hyenas, goats and sheep. Female cheetahs and lions lick and rub the males' genitals as a part of their courtship ritual.\n\nWe humans did just take it to the extrem, just like with everything else.", "Depends on what you call a fetish.\n\nMale goats have been shown to like pee play and seeing female goats simulate sex. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dlgrcsr" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "You'll talk to an advisor who will give you a schedule based on the program you are enrolling in. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e3po414" ], "score": [ 30 ], "text": [ "The same reason you should never dry fire a bow (shooting a bow without an arrow in place). If there is no arrow to transfer the energy of the pulled bowstring, all of that energy will go into the bow itself and can damage or shatter the bow.\n\nYour arm functions the same way as a bow: transfering energy into the ball (arrow). A lighter or smaller ball doesn't require as much energy to launch. If you perform your normal throw on the lighter ball, the excess energy not transferred to the ball will travel back through your arm and can strain it especially if you don't do a full follow-through to help release the energy." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ddun6hg", "ddup8hi" ], "score": [ 2, 4 ], "text": [ "Generally speaking, they don't. The public Webcam feeds you can find online are usually there because of shit security settings on peoples' networks and computers.\n\nIf someone had the skills to rewrite or modify the webcam driver file, it would be pretty easy to change the settings to not turn on the light.", " > How do hackers hack a web cam?\n\nBugs. A lot of software is insecure. Not all. A standalone webcamera is an \"Internet of Things\" device. Oh god, there are so many poorly secured IoT devices. \n\n > And is it possible for them to record without the indicator light turning on?\n\nDepends. If the light is hardwired to the power of the camera, no. But other devices, like [logitech cameras](_URL_1_) or [macbooks](_URL_0_) don't even need the firmware flashed. So, that's a solid yes. \n\n > specifically a laptop's built-in webcam - if that makes a difference...\n\nAs a device that's part of a real laptop, with a real OS, then it's probably more secure. But on the flip side, OS's do a lot more stuff which are more vectors for an attack. \n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "https://arstechnica.com/security/2013/12/perv-utopia-light-on-macbook-webcams-can-be-bypassed/", "http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/6758/can-webcams-be-turned-on-without-the-indicator-light" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "csnnx34", "csnpw6m" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Most body frames (skeletons) are very similar, and most \"shape\" comes from fat or muscle on those bones.\n\nThe heavier you are, the more work you have to do. It's easier to move 150 pounds 100 feet than 200 pounds 100 feet.\n\nRunning results in injury to heavier people more often. Joints stand up better to 150 pounds coming down on them than 200 pounds. This is a \"[squares and cubes](_URL_0_)\" problem. Stuff gets heavier basically in a cubic function, stuff gets stronger basically in a square function. n^3 grows much faster than n^2.\n\nMarathoning and training burns a lot of calories. Compared to eating less, running isn't usually as effective for weightloss, but when you start talking 20 miles, you're talking about burning in the area of 2500 calories, which is more calories than the average person should consume per day. ", "Running long distances or doing aerobic exercise is very taxing in terms of calories burned. In short distance sprints, very tall and muscular people have the advantage due to length of stride and the power that extra muscle bulk provides, but with long distances, those muscles and that extra height becomes just extra baggage that you have to carry for 20 or so miles. Adding 50 pounds and half a foot of height can bring up the amount of calories required to complete the run by about 1000. This goes up even further if you want to be competitive." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "flzgmyb", "flzgnbl" ], "score": [ 3, 11 ], "text": [ "Without bringing current events into it:\n\nAn \"economic contagion\" or \"financial contagion\" is the idea that effects in the economy - particularly bad ones - have a way of spreading from one market to another.\n\nA \"market\" can be an industry - for instance, if the housing industry sees fewer people buying houses, then in turn the banking industry is impacted when fewer people take out loans, which in turn impacts other businesses who rely on the banks' strength.\n\nA \"market\" can also be a country - if a country's production takes a major hit, then its trade partners will be affected, any places relying on tourism or other cashflow from the country will be affected, etc.\n\nThe idea of an economic contagion is an attempt to explain real-world events. The word \"contagion\" is kind of controversial because these effects don't really have much in common with an infectious disease in any way; they are simply an effect of financial interdependence.", "Most business and currency is based on confidence and belief. \n\nBelief that things will largely be worth tomorrow, what they are today.\n\nConfidence that the systems and structures that are useful and effective today, will remain so for the indefinite future.\n\nWith these ideas, you can plan on a micro-level how to allocate your time and money. On a macro-level, economies do the same thing.\n\nProblems arise when you lose confidence and belief. Should you plant your fields? Can you sell your produce in six months? Should you build a new expansion? Where should you put your money? Stocks? Guns? Gold?\n\nNothing has actually happened, but you are starting to consider or make choices that don’t follow the usual pattern. I see you doing that and I get spooked and change my behaviour. Now you and I are both acting unusually and spending or saving money in ways that spook our suppliers and customers... Things start spiraling, even though again, nothing has changed except you got a little panic-y." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cx95nxe", "cx95o12", "cx95opb", "cx95p2n", "cx961kg", "cx9cm1q" ], "score": [ 135, 19, 4, 3, 32, 2 ], "text": [ "They can't. What they can do is copyright their portrayal of them, so if you write a story or draw cartoons about one of them which is so close as to be mistaken by the man in the street for their version, then they'll jump on you.\n\nOf course, they might well try anyway, which is enough to put many people off - which is an abuse of the copyright system, but i suspect it happens all the time.", "They don't. They lay claim to their specific versions of Thor and Loki / the specific elements they wrote into the story. You are still completely free to write a different version of them, or write a version based solely on the myths. You just can't use the stuff Marvel added to the stories.", "What they hold the copyright on is the specific imagery that they created and the stories they wrote. Their copyright doesn't extend to things they didn't create.\n\nAs a result, you can absolutely make a movie about Thor, as long as it's not based on Marvel's character. For example, there was a [mockbuster](_URL_0_) that did exactly this, captalizing on all the publicity for Marvel's Thor; The Asylum release [Almighty Thor](_URL_1_) that was based on Nordic mythology and their own writers.", "They can copyright the look/design of *their* interpretation of Thor/Loki and they can copyright their screenplay/etc. but the concepts and names of the characters are not copyrightable outside of a narrow context.", "First off, you're confusing copyright and trademark. The comics that Thor and Loki are in are copyrighted. The Marvel characters \"Thor\" and \"Loki\" are trademarked.\n\nTrademarks work a lot differently than copyright, and the two have different purposes. A copyright protects the artist from their work being sold/distributed without their permission (e.g. uploading a movie to YouTube). A trademark protects it's owner from others profiting off of that's trademark's popularity (e.g. Motorola can't put the Apple logo on their phones).\n\nMarvel's \"Thor\" and \"Loki\" and trademarked characters. Anyone else who uses Thor and Loki in a way that might make consumers think that Marvel Comics produced or endorsed those products would be trademark infringement. That doesn't stop people from using those characters (the show up in a lot of other media. The book \"American Gods\" comes to mind). But it does stop those characters (when they show up elsewhere) from looking extremely similar to their Marvel incarnations, or from talking about their last adventure with The Avengers.\n\nIn another example, T-Mobile has a trademark on the color magenta. Does that mean no one can use the color magenta? No. Does it mean that Verizon can't put up big magenta signs that say promoting a \"switch from T-Mobile and get your first month free!\" - yes.", "Short Answer - Marvel can't copyright Thor and Loki outright. They can only copyright their particular interpretation of them.\n\nCopyright protects original artistic expression for a limited amount of time. Copyright law also recognizes that very few artistic expressions are truly 100% original. So instead of only protecting those things that are 100% original, the law allows separate protection of adaptations/arrangements/reinterpretations to the degree that they provide a new expression of an existing idea. \n\nExamples - The novel *The Hobbit* was published in 1937 and is still protected by copyright. In order to use the characters and storylines from the book, one must have the rights to the book. Since the recent films are an adaptation to a new medium (and many things from the books were changed), the filmmakers can claim a copyright on things particular to the film adaptation, such as particular depictions of characters, dialogue original to the film, or new storylines. \n\nIn the case of Thor & Loki, Marvel does not own the rights to anything from Norse Mythology, but only the characters as they have created them and the stories they have written for them to the degree they are new. For example, the fact that Thor uses a hammer, Loki is a trickster, and Odin is the chief god are pulled from Norse mythology and cannot be copyrighted. But the particular visual character designs, location designs, and new storylines are protectable. Nothing can legally stop others from creating content using characters named Loki and Thor and elements of Norse mythology, but the closer those interpretations get to the Marvel interpretations, the greater chance they have of violating Marvel's copyright." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mockbuster", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almighty_Thor" ], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cga30zx" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "It's a mirage. \n\n_URL_0_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://science.howstuffworks.com/mirage2.htm" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "czg0zk7", "czg1j4d", "czg2dbv" ], "score": [ 3, 9, 3 ], "text": [ "There are several factors, the main ones that come to mind are that the animals are more advanced and therefore can understand pleasure, while more \"simple\" creatures only know mating, feeding, dying. Secondly, some organisms do not experience orgasms, so sex is not a pleasurable experience even from the start. Other factors which come in to play all sort of branch off from these.", "It has mostly to do with the mating behaviors of specific animals. If we're talking about higher vertebrates (mammals, birds), lots of animals will engage in coitus if given the opportunity, presumably because it feels good and/or they have a strong natural instinct to do so. However, not all animals have the opportunity to engage in recreational sex because they don't form stable pair-bonds like humans. Take rutting animals, like elk for example. Pretty hard to go in for a casual lay if every time you make a move, some bro-elk comes along and tries to smash his antlers into your face to c-block you.", "The simplest explanation is that pleasure is for those who can feel it. Pleasure is a motivational tool given to animals by evolution to seek out what's good for them; therefore, sex is pleasant *because* it leads to fertilization. For others mating is instinctive behavior.\n\nSome mammals like bonobos, capuchin monkeys, lions, macaques, cheetahs and dolphins were reported to perform some form of sexual activity when fertilization wasn't possible, which indicates pleasure-driven motivation for sex. The urge to seek that pleasure is believed to be **a combination of instinct and desire for reward** (e.g. orgasm). " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fa48tne" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "The short answer is that they don't because they didn't originally.\n\n*Short Message Service*-messages, as they are called in the GSM standard among other more recent standards, is a technical feature offered in the communication protocol used to communicate to and from the phones.\n\nInternet traffic relies on one or several other technical substandards that are also offered in the communication protocols.\n\nFrom the phone operators point of view, a SMS is awesome. Because they have full control.\n\nThe problem, if you wish, is that since they have full control, they also have pretty pricey business models. Or had, at least.\n\niMessage, WhatsApp, Line, Facebook Messenger, Google Hangouts, Signal, Telegram and all the others are internet services that happen to be linked to your phone number. SMS is a phone network service that is offered to your phone number. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the internet.\n\nThe idea is pretty much that if the phone plan has a pretty decent cost for data (and often there is a monthly allowance of sorts in the data plan...) it's cheaper to use the data plan for your messages than to pay for each individual message that you send out.\n\nBut. Smartphones too must follow the phone network communication standard. They *must* be able to receive SMS. Which means that they all can. No matter if your grandma has a brand new iPhone 11 (or whatever the newest one is?) or if she runs around with a Motorola from 1996, the terminal has SMS reception capabilities. And probably sending capabilities too.\n\nIt's also a pretty dumb thing if you compare an iPhone and an Android phone; Google has their text messaging app. Apple has theirs. They don't work well together. If you want to communicate with others, you have to first agree on which app to use for your communications.\n\nWith SMS, you don't. You just have to know the phone number, and that's it. Which is why your phone falls back on SMS every time it tries to communicate with someone who is not on iMessage. Because SMS always works. If you typed in the correct number, the message will be received." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cralseb", "craqje7" ], "score": [ 27, 3 ], "text": [ "Brownie center lovers are going to debate you on this, but the reason is because the brownie edges simply taste different due to a process called a [maillard reaction](_URL_0_).", "Off topic, but who would want that shriveled up crunch edge? I'd much rather have a gooey, decadent middle slice. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maillard_reaction" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cd5qr9a", "cd5re5q" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "GDP is the gross domestic product, the total output of the entire nation's industries and workers. Sometimes they list this as \"GDP per capita\" which means how much each person would contribute to that total if it were divided equally.\n\nPPP is purchasing power parity, it's a determination of how much one person could buy with their income, by comparing their currency to another country's. This is sometimes different than GDP per capita because of exchange rates, artificial price controls or tariffs, and various subsidies.", "The gross domestic product is the estimated total value of all \"final goods and services\" produced within a nations geographic borders. In this case final goods are things that are sold to consumers and are not resources that are going to be used to manufacture another product. It includes goods that are produced within a nation, but the manufacturer doesn't necessarily have to be a company of that nation. It is used as an economic indicator to basically judge if a national economy is expanding or contracting but can also be used for other purposes like comparing one nations economy to another. There are a couple of different ways to calculate it, one is based off of how much money we spend, and the other is based on how much money we earn, and the two different methods will produce two different results.\n\nThe Purchasing Power Parity is used to compare the buying power of money in different nations and compare different currencies to establish exchange rates. Basically they assume that units of currency are equivalent, for example 1 dollar equals 1 euro, and then they see how much of each it would cost to buy the same or similar goods in their respective nations. If it costs less euros to buy something in Europe than it does dollars to buy it in the US, then that shows that the euro has more purchasing power than the dollar and by how much." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ch7arcq", "ch7bfg7", "ch7bzww", "ch7cwqj" ], "score": [ 3, 3, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "i don't know about other buildings, but i know that grocery stores will play slow music because you slow down while browsing the aisles with slow music, thus giving you a higher chance to buy something.", "Have you ever been in a department store when the music is turned off? It's creepy.", "Shit gets creepy real fast when you are around people you don't know in total silence.", "Up, but I believe that it depends on the objective of the store.\n\nSo if you hear a high tempo song, you are more likely to rush through because you feel there is more spring to your step? Well the basic concept is similar for slow tempo songs, you tend to take a slower walk/ slower heart rate. Studies have supported that faster beat music makes your heart beat faster which ergo make you to take your next step faster. Slower/ calm music makes you feel more to chill. \n\nAddressing your question why government buildings/ mom and pop stores. So slow/ calm music calms down the nerves so that you will not pull a tantrum. Delta does this for their inflight boarding, so that people don't get too upset waiting in long lines to board. \n & nbsp;\n\nTL;DR \nSlow Calm music makes people less likely to cause mayhem. Hence, Airports, Airplanes, Apple stores play a bit more calming music.\n\nSource: Market Data Analyst, message if you want some articles\n\n*Note: Please help me with my grammar, I'm still trying to improve my writing.*" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d53j4b2", "d53k4oi", "d53kp2y" ], "score": [ 7, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "It actually has nothing to do with the tech. You use normal microwaves in a commercial kitchen - it's entirely up to the quality of the food. Your meal would have been prepared that day (or immediately - not everything is nuked!) by someone who knows what they're doing, with OTHER expensive tech. The reason microwave meals suck so much is because they're cheap. Just like any other cheap food, it's not made very well... I think they're starting to improve now, what with the popularity of 'hipster' food growing... But if you nuke good quality fresh food, it'll taste great. 2 day old lasagna may not be as impressive!! ", "The microwaves are normal.\n\nHowever, they often sear it with a device called a Salamander, or with a torch or broiler which makes a big difference and stuff doesn't taste as \"microwavey\". They also microwave food separately so that it is all the right temp, garnish, etc. to improve it. ", "proper equipment, things are being cooked at the proper temperatures. Home equipment is often cheaper and you aren't doing it the same as the restaurant. Like a pizza oven or things cooked on a flattop grill.\n\nIf you used the same equipment, or paid more attention to the temperatures you are cooking at it would turn out the same.\n\nThat is the difference I experience when I cook at home vs when I used to cook in a commercial kitchen. My stuff at home just couldn't handle it, my oven didn't handle temps accurately enough and the margin left things burnt or undercooked unless I watched it the entire time. I never worked at a place that microwaved stuff though, but I imagine as other said, they just nuke them separate.\n\nSchwans is a company that sells to places like that, and their stuff is a bit expensive but tastes as good as at the restaurant when nuked. They have the best ice cream too." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cplntdz" ], "score": [ 11 ], "text": [ "Because the lawyer can tell you what are and are not reasonable offers, and not having the lawyer present will never benefit the suspect. Forgoing a trial benefits both the justice system by avoiding a timely, costly, and pointless procedure (assuming there's clear evidence of guilt), while the suspect can benefit by reduced sentences etc. The lawyer ensures that the deal is reasonable and fair (at least theoretically)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "enb52np", "enb58lc", "enb5xvi" ], "score": [ 9, 5, 3 ], "text": [ "Yes you are, not because you're made of water because you have a mass in general. So if you weight yourself on a super precise scale when the moon is straight up in the sky you will be (slightly) lighter than if you weight yourself when the moon is on the opposite position. But that effect is soooo insignificant that you wont notice it on your scale.", "The tides exist because all of Earth's water is pooled around a common center of gravity. Due to the presence of the moon, this center of gravity is not the exact center of the Earth. As the moon moves around the Earth, or as the Earth spins, the center of gravity of the Earth-moon system moves along with it, which is what all of Earth's water pools around. Hence sometimes it's lower and sometimes it's higher - the tides.", "The short answer is no, the question is based on erroneous understanding of tidal forces.\n\nTidal forces affect all mass. They work because of gravity. Like, let's assume Earth and moon are both points with their masses, surrounded by massless shell we stand on. Gravity that affects you, drawing you in, is directly towards this point in the center, and its strength is determined by your distance from this point in the center.\n\nBut if you think about it, your left arm is pulled slightly inwards towards your body, assuming you stand straight. Also, your feet are closer to the Earth than your head, so they experience larger pull. This means you very slightly experience Earth pulling you inwards on directions other than up/down, and on up/down your head is kinda pulled away from your feet. On Earth, on human-sized objects, this effect is so tiny it's impossible to detect without some really fine measuring device. But near black holes, it can cause so-called spaghettification.\n\nAnyway, the thing is, this difference is amplified the bigger you are. Being bigger means the gravity affecting different sides of you have larger differences in magnitude or direction. So if you're very large, like sea, you have quite large difference in forces, trying to deform you. Sea also is very malleable. It offers no resistance whatsoever to moons tidal forces affecting it differently. So you have tides as result. But you can't see tides on small lakes or such because tidal forces are just too small.\n\nHumans are so small that the compression/stretching caused by tidal forces are completely unnoticeable, and we also are very rigid in comparison, being able to resist much stronger forces, like, you know, Earth pulling us towards Earth." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cu6klep", "cu6klq8" ], "score": [ 6, 12 ], "text": [ "If they owned land, and there was something valuable being produced on that land, then they'd get the money from said stuff being produced. It's also worth noting that not all nobility/aristocrats were rich. Some had high titles, but were relatively poor. Back in feudal and mercantile Europe, ones place in society wasn't directly tied to their wealth the way it is today.", "First off, don't trust TV. As far as the income of nobles in those days it came from 2 sources. 1)They owned a lot of land and got the profits of the production of that land. 2) They were the government back then, and taxes were paid to them.\n\n As far as what they did all day generally they held court where they heard from people asking them to do things or resolve disputes or mete justice in criminal matters. They also had to deal with management issues for their properties. They also hunted, a lot.\n\n A lot of medieval aristocrats spent 6 months a year hunting. This wasn't modern hunting, going out on weekends ambushing deer from a blind or stand. They hunted actively in packs chasing down prey and killing them in hand to hand combat. Organizing the groups, getting them in the field, locating animals, tracking them, chasing them and killing them were all a form of military training which was the other main job these people had." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cj75e5v", "cj79teo" ], "score": [ 2, 3 ], "text": [ "Oxygen! The atmosphere contained different levels of oxygen than it did millions of years ago. The more oxygen present the bigger life forms our Earth can support. Animals evolved to adapt to the levels of oxygen, along with other things, in order to be best suited for the environment. Natural selection eventually brought our current animals to where they are today size wise.", "We do have the blue whale which is the largest animal on record, but yes we are at a low point in terms of huge animals, especially land animals. If you're comparing us to the various giant dinosaurs it's worth remembering that they existed over a period of almost 200 million years and we tend to remember the highlights over that whole time, giving a skewed perspective of the average sizes. It may also be that as mammals are warm-blooded they have less energy to invest in growth than the dinosaurs did but that's a bit hand wavy and the blue whales are an obvious exception.\n\nIf we just consider the recent past, as in the past 10 million years or so, we do seem to have lost a lot of the biggest animals. Megatheria, mammoths, aurochs, elephant birds, haast eagles and many more that would be record setters if alive today were all around until very recently. There has been considerable debate as to what brought an end to all these species, the two chief candidates are climate change and human hunting activity. Humans have been confirmed as the guilty party in many cases but there is also evidence for the role of climate. When environments undergo rapid change it tends to be the largest animals that go the fastest as they require larger areas of functioning ecosystem to survive.\n\nLower oxygen levels is primarily associated with smaller insects as they absorb Oxygen through diffusion. Oxygen levels were around the same as they are now when the dinosaurs were around." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c5k602l", "c5k606d", "c5k8anu" ], "score": [ 7, 2, 7 ], "text": [ "They read the Wiki for [Poe's Law](_URL_0_), then cranked the retard full blast and created a subreddit to record the progress.\n\nThe experiment is ongoing.", "As far as I can tell it's just an endless series of in-jokes made by 'indier-than-thou' basement dwellers, mocking posts that are 'typically Reddit'.", "1. Find a boderline outrageous comment on reddit\n2. Remove any explanatory context\n3. Create a sensationalized title, post to SRS\n4. Send a horde of self righteous dumbasses into the original sub, making reasonable discussion impossible\n5. Smugly comment on what a terrible place reddit has become\n\nFor example, in a discussion on health care policy, someone might suggest now that AIDS is largely treatable, research money is better spent on other diseases. This will show up in SRS under the headline \"Reddit thinks all gays should die!\"." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d0zsunq", "d0ztf0h", "d0ztnvs" ], "score": [ 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Leicester City were promoted to the EPL in 2014. They've generally been considered a lesser team, having been relegated several times and rarely have competed with the more established teams of the EPL.\n\nAlso, the EPL has traditionally been dominated by the likes of the big spending clubs such as Manchester United, Manchester City, Chelsea and Arsenal. \n\nLeicester City are *not* a rich club, and have a squad without any superstar players (although their striker Jamie Vardy is fast becoming one), yet they currently sit top of the EPL and look to have a *strong* chance of actually winning the title this season.\n\nThey are considered massive underdogs and will be one of the only teams to break the EPL dominance without having to have spent a lot of money to do so.", "BECAUSE *LEICESTER CITY* IS AT THE TOP OF THE PREMIER LEAGUE! AND THEY LOOK LIKE THEY'RE GOING TO WIN!\n\nAhem, sorry, let me start again. \n\nThe TL;DR is: Leicester City is a small team who nobody expected would be in with a chance of winning the Premier League *especially* given that there are bigger, traditionally \"better\" teams who should be beating them.\n\nFor years, the top level of English football had been dominated by Manchester United, headed by Sir Alex Ferguson. Manchester United had huge amounts of money, was managed by a good manager, but crucially, had so much belief in themselves that they were unstoppable. This made the Premier League a bit boring, as it was a bygone conclusion that they, or if not another huge, rich team would win (consider that since the formation of the Premier League in 1992, only [5 out of 47 clubs who have competed in it actually have ever won it](_URL_0_)). Such teams include Chelsea, headed by a capricious Russian oligarch and Manchester City, whose ownership I don't know but basically they have obscene amounts of money, in a sport and league already stuffed full of money.\n\nAnyway, a few years back, Alex Ferguson retired from managing, and left Manchester United, who promptly fell apart and have not even touched their former glory. This has made English football much more interesting, but still dominated by the aforementioned obscenely rich teams (not just those two, but they are the archetypal examples). This is the context for these past few seasons, including this one, where Leicester City took an early lead at the top and seemed to hang on, firmly avoiding being dislodged from their position. Currently, they are two points clear of Tottenham with a game in hand (i.e. there is the potential for them to soon go up to five points above their nearest competitor). No other team has been able to mount a serious sustained offensive on their position, even when they patently should be able to. Without living in England, following the football, the sheer joy at the though of *Leicester* beating such teams as Tottenham, Arsenal, Man City, Man United, Chelsea etc. is a bit difficult to convey, but it is a joy that this (comparatively) small team without access to near unlimited resources might just yet be able to win the Premier League.\n\nA football fan who follows the League more devoutly will probably be better able to explain, but that is what I think and feel, and that covers more or less the gist of it.", "Football* It's LCFC, Not LCSC.\n\nThe reason they're a big deal is because they are a genuine rags to riches story. In the history of the Premier League, only five teams have ever won it. Blackburn (once, many years ago), Manchester United, Arsenal, Manchester City & Chelsea. With the exception of Blackburn, all those clubs are considered to be 'giants'. All those clubs have money. All those clubs have been either near the top or actually top for extended periods of time.\n\nA few clubs have come close, such as Liverpool, Tottenham and Newcastle United (my team), but no cigar. It's **notoriously** difficult to break into the 'Top Four' (so called as those places mean qualification to the top European competition). Nevermind win.\n\nSo consider Leicester City;\n\nA team in the middle of the Country, that haven't really done much for about 30 years. \nA team who barely had 100,000 fans (compared to a club like Aston Villa, who are bottom of the league, who have about 900,000).\nA team who have players that, for the most part, are decidedly average.\nA team with no money (comparatively).\n\n\nA team that, at the *start* of the season were being tipped by most pundits, bookmakers, fans and experts to be near the bottom of the league at by the end... Are now top of the league with just 10 games to go. And currently beating my team 1-0. It's a massive deal. I believe the Americans call this 'an underdog story'." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_League" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cltr1zj", "cltr5ae", "cltr7aj", "cltrce1", "cltrfhy", "cltrfzn", "cltrolp", "cltrw9n", "clts04q", "cltshu2", "cltsqma", "cltsset", "clttno1", "clttyj1", "cltvu9a", "cltxfbv", "clty5u5", "cltz1uy", "clu1k49", "clu1sn0", "clu1zzp", "clu3viy", "clu43vx", "clu4csk", "clu4lm8", "clu4rji", "clu4vya", "clu4zy0", "clu54i0", "clu5jme", "clu5uxk", "clu60cz", "clu63r2" ], "score": [ 5, 11, 2393, 580, 172, 26, 28, 12, 55, 44, 2, 3, 5, 5, 23, 10, 13, 4, 2, 2, 3, 2, 5, 2, 6, 6, 17, 7, 4, 3, 17, 6, 70 ], "text": [ "baby boomers' kids grew up already so they don't have to worry about them trying pot when they were younger", "It hasn't been sudden, it just hasn't been covered, really. The media would rather see Amanda Bynes' tweet than listen to news anchors try to wrap their heads around legal pot. The battle for MJ legalization has been going on since the beginning of its prohibition. Also, most people associate legal weed with CO, because of stereotypes, and CO usually 'out shines' the new states, focusing more of the attention in them and not the new states.", "I wouldn't say that it's been a \"sudden\" change in sentiment. The legalization movement had been gaining traction for quite a while.\n\nTwo big tipping points, however, are probably due to 1) the growing realization that the *War on Drugs* has been one colossal—and expensive—failure, and 2) the nuanced view the Medical establishment has taken on the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.\n\nEDIT: Several big tipping points!", "\"Suddenly\" isn't how I would put it. Forgetting the path from legality long ago to illegality, the path back to legality starts in the 70s, at least in terms of notably legal changes and/or ballot measures and bills:\n\n1. In 1970, the federal government removed mandatory penalties for weed possession, leaving them in place for \"harder\" drugs. This established a precedent of treating marijuana as \"not like the other drugs\".\n\n2. Oregon decriminalized weed in '73. 4 other states followed suit the next year, and then many others by the end of the '70s. Decriminalization has made it's way through many other states, adding states as recently as a couple of years ago.\n\n3. In 2004, Oakland CA passed laws that made tried to make it it legal, period. In the end, the actual text of the law was written to avoid being struck down and only made it a low priority, but it did setup the framework for taxation of weed - the first time that hit the books anywhere. It acknowledged that it required state-law support to actually move forward on legality.\n\nIf you were to overlay the changes that relate to the _medical_ use of marijuana you'd see a similar trend.\n\nI'd suggest that the \"suddenly\" is a false premise in your question, but...hopefully this info is useful!\n\nedit: correct details of oakland portion, thanks to /u/Sluisifer", "There's really nothing sudden about it. In the 80's Nancy Regan was everywhere telling us to Just Say No and DARE was in all the schools, with DARE bumper stickers on tons of cars and lots of kids even wearing the T-shirt. You couldn't even really admit to smoking it to your friends if you were a non-hippie adult, and SWAT teams actually visited people's houses if they were caught growing. Every day on the news there'd be a huge drug bust, although many jurisdictions would weigh the entire plants and say they found that much pot and prosecute accordingly.\n\nIn the 90's it was a little better, a celebrity could openly say pro-pot things and it was shocking, but the backlash wasn't too bad. Clinton got elected after sort-of admitting he'd tried it, but it was a huge campaign issue.\n\nThese days a politician can be openly in favor of marijuana legalization and it's just another issue. Having lived through the 80's in person, it's been a very gradual, but very pleasant change in public attitude. I expect it to continue and even accelerate into a lot more state laws now that Colorado and Washington haven't burned to the ground or ceased to function. ", "Not quite a sudden change. Alaska was the first state to decriminalize it in '74 or '75 (Note: decriminalization isn't the same as weed being legal). There is also the realization that the war on drugs started in the 70s has completely failed to achieve anything except for maybe the militarization of police force and turning neighborhoods against police.\n\nOther countries around the world have already legalized some drugs and many other are voting on it right now like the US. ", "It wasn't sudden at all.\n\nLegal medical marijuana has been in place since the 1970s, to treat glaucoma. California legalized medical marijuana in 1996, and a number of other states followed, and before the recent elections, nearly half the states had some form of legal marijuana.\n\nDespite dire predictions, there hasn't been much social downside to medical marijuana, even though it often a ruse for recreational use. People in the four legalization states have had well over a decade of medical marijuana to update their sentiments about full legalization.", "This has been happening gradually for years. Legalization measures have failed in some states recently too. I think the main changes in the past ten years are:\n\n1. A growing acknowledgement that the war on drugs is a failure.\n2. The growth in influence of the libertarian wing of the Republican party.\n3. Now there are examples of states that have legalized without the sky falling.\n\n", "Recently there have been a number of studies that have concluded that drug legalization really results in fewer problems, along with a number of former high ranking law enforcement officers coming out and stating that they don't think marijuana enforcement is a good idea, along with a smattering of current-day high ranking law enforcement officers.\n\nIn addition, I think that there's a growing feeling that throwing people in jail over marijuana is contributing substantially to high levels of people in prison (which costs us money), and that police enforcement actions around marijuana actually create more danger to the public. \n\nPut all that together, and you have a climate which is ripe for change.\n\nThe other side of the coin, resisting the change is pretty much the government itself; the 80s and 90s rise of the \"war on drugs\" was riding a wave of higher crime that politicians and law enforcement probably legitimately believed was tied to drug use. Since then, crime rates have fallen substantially.\n\nAt this point, we've got a pretty good idea of what actually caused the higher crime rates; lead poisoning. _URL_0_\n\nSo, we're dealing with a generation of politicians and law enforcement that were came through a time that believed we need(ed) to crack down on drugs in order to reduce crime, along with the issue that we've literally torn up foreign countries in the name of our \"war on drugs\", so politically there will be a lot of ill-will surrounding a reversal of policy, along with the usual folks who got their ideas set in their heads and aren't open to changing what they think. The other issue is that the Republican party is quite thoroughly in bed with the \"moral minority\", so anything which even has a scent of a moral issue, the republicans must take the side of the issue which lines up which lines up with what I'd term \"simplistic morality\".\n\n", "2 main points:\n\n1) The millenials (1980 - 1999) are roughly the same size of the Boomer generation and the vast majority are able to vote now. Younger people tend to vote more liberally.\n\n2) The Oxycotin epidemic - Oxy is legal but far more addictive than MJ, many people with chronic pain are now afraid to take Oxy and need an alternative.", "i think at least partially because people actually thought about the \"gateway drug\" idea and realized it was nonsense\n\n", "I think another strong factor is probably been seeing how much tax revenue it's bringing in in the states where it is already legal. I think Colorado's tax revenue just from Marijuana was something like 10 times higher than they had estimated.\n\nDon't quote me on that though.", "Could it also be that the next step for these states could be like Colorado, where there will be real implications on taxes to grow and distribute, helping fund programs that are state run? I'm sure if Colorado can fund Medicaid, there will be a \"weed depot\" on the corner of every street in America within three months ", "Because More Voters want to get High rather than Drunk and See Marijuana as less dangerous than alcohol.\n\nMost rhetoric revolves around \"It is for medical Purposes\"\nBut from what I really have seen as the Truth is that People want to be able to Get high without fear of arrest.\n", "While there is some gray area like medical marijuana, legality is pretty much binary. It's legal or its not. The gradual change was the % of people who supported flipping that binary switch. They were in the minority but their numbers slowly grew and grew until they were over 50% and the law was changed. \n\nUnless you're in FL, and the measure gets 58% and still loses because of the stupid fucking 60% requirement for amendments in this state despite us just electing our governor with on 48% of the vote! Gah!!!", "Three states? I'm missing something. I thought it was only recreationally legal in CO and WA, is there another state? ", "Because we've been arguing about the topic for 40 years now. And the old people that were against it are out of office now and younger politicians who grew up around it are taking over. Drug war is over, we lost, legalize it and let's move one with our lives.", "It was not sudden, we just had elections and voting day. The legalization was on the ballots in those states. ", "I think there have also been a few studies that demonstrate that marijuana use is not the \"gateway drug\" that it was thought to be as well as it not causing as many deaths as tobacco and alcohol have caused. ", "Marijuana legalization is in the plurality in the US. Also tellingly young people are in favor, while older people are not. Less old people and more young.", "Tipping points. To give you a future example, in a couple decades Texas will \"suddenly\" be very blue because the Mexican-American and Central American population will hit a tipping point of swaying elections. See also, gay marriage going from on the defense to seemingly impossible.", "For a long time ballot initiatives would never get passed the petitioning stage. Largely because of the voting population being against it and the war on drugs creating a fear based environment around the concept.\n\nNow the the war on drugs is proving to be useless, and as @goodsam2 points out, with the rising young population in favor, and declining older population against, the balance has turned.\n\nAdditionally, with states like Colorado spearheading both legal and recreational use with a (relatively) well regulated system, other states have brought back initiatives.\n\nFurthermore, Colorado is doing well financially due to the taxes generated by the industry. Other states, who are probably dealing with their own forms of financial issues, look to it as a way to raise money. Once money is on the table, it becomes a harder and harder issues to defeat. Look at alcohol.\n\nAnd finally, the current Presidential administration has become more lax about their approach to marijuana because it's seen as a drain on resources. This lax position makes it easier for states to take on the risks of engaging medical and rec. marijuana.\n\nEDIT: Grammers", "Not sure about Washington, but Colorado made a shit ton of money taxing the hell out if it. People will vote the law in because they either like pot, like the State profiting from pot, and/or people know a way to make money off the the legalized pot.\n", "Cigarettes ain't bringing in the money they used to. Soon enough, if not already, you'll have more pot smokers than cigarette smokers. Add to that the war on drugs never really working anyway, and if people throw in the towel at the local/state level - its not like the feds can do anything anyway. \n\nImagine the backlash if the feds decided to go crazy on pot and enforce federal laws in Washington and Colorado and nowhere else.", "A major catalyst was easier accesability to good internet. Back in the mid 2000s the legalization movement gained major traction with the aid of younger users and social media connectivity. The ambiguity of online persona as well as a younger user base really helped closet legalization advocates come out and join forces, as well as acquire a new staging ground for the cause. The internet also helped to gather and pin point legitimate evidence to support legalization. It's makes for a good case for researchers in mass comm to take a look at.", "I live in Oregon where we just legalized. I live in Portland. Portland has the most people so we basically make the rules for the state. Seriously, the rest of Oregon is definitely not as liberal as Portland. Anyways, medical has been legal for awhile and our neighbor Washington legalized so there was a big push this year. I saw tons of people on the street campaigning petitions just to get it on the ballot. Well they made it! Then it was up to us to vote! ", "My dad and I smoke all the time. My dad is a medical professional and an Army veteran. My brother and I are both Army Infantry veterans.\n\nSome talking points: \n\nMy brother has PTSD pretty bad. A few years ago he tried to OD on pain killers. He was drunk. Because WA legalized marijuana, he doesn't drink anymore. He smokes a bowl and chills out, and doesn't quite hit those same \"lows\" as he did when he was drinking. There is some legitimacy to the thought that marijuana has medical uses for all sorts of different conditions. For guys like my brother, marijuana has made a pretty massive psychiatric impact in that he doesn't turn to pills or alcohol that come with their own side effects because marijuana is easily available and does *just enough* to take his mind off of things. Other people have experienced success treating symptoms of terrible diseases like cancer through marijuana. That's not to say \"Marijuana cures cancer!\" but more indirectly that marijuana enables chemotherapy patients to retain their appetite, which helps their overall health while their body deals with the tremendous strain of chemo and cancer. That's just one example. \n\nAlso, age has a lot to do with it. My dad was born in 1960. He grew up smoking weed, along with the rest of his buddies. We live in a time where a generation of former potheads have grown up and are running things now. They know all the silly negative myths that have been circulated around marijuana, and through first hand experience with marijuana know that those scare tactics are largely bullshit. \n\nIt's been a long time coming.", "A lot of people are giving you a good answer that it wasn't \"sudden\". To further expand on that, Seattle is a good example.\n\nSeattle has tolerated marijuana for many years now. [Seattle's Hempfest](_URL_0_) has been around since 1991. The organizers, police, and city has largely tolerated the entire ordeal, including lots of people openly smoking. Essentially the police hired to provide security didn't enforce marijuana laws at Hempfest because it wouldn't actually provide a service to the city and it wasn't feasible. Hempfest was sort of a symbol for views toward the drug in general. Seattle just didn't find it a big enough deal to worry about if people were getting high.\n\nIt was also many years ago that Seattle officially made marijuana possession the last priority for law enforcement. This meant that cops were literally supposed to stop a jaywalker before someone smoking a joint. This was also done because it wouldn't provide a good enough public service and it wasn't feasible with the culture.\n\nThis general culture spread to the surrounding areas. The entire Puget Sound region has been very tolerant for years now and it developed a pretty stable, mature attitude towards it. Furthermore, medicinal marijuana was around for years.\n\nWhen it came time to vote a couple of years ago it passed because the majority of the voting public lived in this region, and was just the next logical step.", "If you knew your kid was smoking pot, would you want him risk facing federal charges? Or if you ever smoke pot, would you want to live with the guilt of being a felon? It's not a big deal and people have come to a consensus about the subject, a miraculous thing society does when it functions properly. ", "Generally it's not a huge change in sentiment. It's unbelievable how many people are for/smoke marijuana. This is the government finally relenting to the wishes of the people, on if in a few small ways.", "First, the legalization activists collect signatures from eligible voters to be put the onto a state wide ballot. If they gather enough signatures the question is put to voters. An elected politician can also introduce the question but very few politicians do this. So signature gathering it is. Campaign funding is vital and the more funding a campaign has, the more signatures it can gather. The bar is different for each state, but it usually falls around > 100000 people. \n\nOnce on the ballot, a majority need to approve for it to become law.\n\nAs for changing attitudes, the internet has provided new information on drugs, which is easily accessible for curious googlers. State propaganda has always cast marijuana into a negative light by making false claims about its harm but google results aren't state propaganda. \n\nOne example is the lie that \"marijuana causes brain damage\" so people see through the lies and realize that the truth is nobody has even died from cannabis overdose. \n\nA few years ago California led the way with prop 19. it failed because it only got ~45% of the vote.\n\nBut Colorado and Washington approves the laws in their states shortly after.\n\nAnd finally, yesterday two more states, and DC, also approved the question with majorities. \n\nHope this helps. If you have any more questions or my response needs clarified, let me know. ", "Because marijuana laws are bullshit and the vast majority of people have wanted decriminalization for decades? It just takes a very long time for the government to actually catch up to and listen to the will of the people.", "We have decided to lock this thread, as most of the new comments are limited to jokes and non-explanations, as well as the fact that proper explanations have already been given.\nAs always, we'd like to remind you to read the sidebar if you haven't already.\n > Direct replies to the original post (aka \"top-level comments\") are for serious responses only. Jokes, anecdotes, and low effort explanations, are not permitted and subject to removal.\n\nDon't forget that if you have any concerns, you can feel free to reach us at our modmail [here](_URL_0_).\n\nBest regards." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Hempfest" ], [], [], [], [], [ "https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ci4n4ps", "ci4n98h" ], "score": [ 5, 2 ], "text": [ "There are multiple techniques to avoid this. \n\nThe first one that comes to mind is only activating one gamete at a time. A plant may choose to do it in 6 month cycles, say 6 months of pollen release with stigma closed and then 6 months of stigma open with pollen not being released (in actual fact the time will probably be less than this but you get the point).\n\nPlants also have chemical markers on their pollen and chemical receptors on the stamen. The plant is able to recognize self from non-self and reject the self pollen. There is only a finite amount of chemical markers so plants will often reject foreign pollen because it has an identical marker. \n\nPlants do not have to avoid pollinating themselves all the time. In cases where there is fewer potential 'mates' self pollination is a great idea. There are many plant species that do not mate at all and in effect produce clones of themselves with no real genetic diversity.", "Plants don't usually pollinate themselves because they are resistant to the enzyme in their own pollen grains that would normally help it bore into the stigma.Probably the most common method to prevent self-pollinaion is self-incompatibility. The plant can recognize its own pollen because of a gene it carries. Pollen from the same plant is unable to fertilize an egg.\n\nHowever species such as rice, wheat, tomato and \npea are naturally self-pollinating.\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dwho6nx", "dwho84f", "dwhoahr" ], "score": [ 6, 3, 3 ], "text": [ "Toothpaste isn't a liquid. It's a paste. And the easiest way to dispense a thicker substance like that is in a tube you can squeeze. Also, nobody needs a 1L carton of toothpaste. ", "The paper in cartons has a plastic coating on it. It used to be wax.\n\nToothpaste tubes wouldn't be durable enough if made of the same material.", "Well, in the specific case of toothpaste, a paper container wouldn't be as convenient for getting it out. Current toothpaste containers make it easy to squeeze it out. Toothpaste in plastic containers is runnier, not as pasty as tube toothpaste, but it still squeezes out.\n\nAlso, I think we \"handle\" toothpaste more than liquids in paper cartons, so we need something more durable than paper. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fg3bx9f", "fg3cpvr", "fg3dh6r" ], "score": [ 4, 2, 7 ], "text": [ "A compound is a substance where one part gives electrons and the other part takes them (this is very simplified).\n \nMetals tend to give them up and non-metals want to take them. \n \nSo two metals both have extra electrons and they do not want to take more.\n \nThe reason is that when the electrons (- charge) and protons (+ charge) balance out to zero, the result is a stable molecule.", "They do, we just call them alloys, and they use metallic bonding, where electrons are shared in kind of a big sheet which electrons can move around at-will, rather than covalent bonding, where electrons are shared between a limited number of specific atoms.", "I can answer this and I made an account because I really wanted to answer this!\n\nI'm a metallurgists, basically a metals engineer and I work at a steel factory. Metals are unique in that they don't make up what people think of as \"normal\" compounds. But they do make substances with other metals. A lot of people think this is because of metals only taking electrons, but this is a misconception. Metals, more or less, share electrons, kind of like CO2, but it's a weaker bond. \n\nThis is how stronger steels are created. Steel is mostly iron and carbon, but in order to get things like stainless steel, you have to add elements like chrome or nickel. And to make them stronger, you add thing like titanium or aluminum. The way steels get stronger, in this case with nickel and titanium additions, is that the nickel and titanium form a compound known as an intermettalic phase (or compound) that is Ni3Ti. It happens with aluminum Niobium, Cobalt, and other elements too. Some things, like lead solder or even gold, are compounds. Lead solder is actually lead and tin and gold is typically gold and copper (the karats deal with purity I'm gold. So the higher the karats, the purer, and less alloyed, it is). All of these compounds need a lot of energy to form. Which is why it typically only happens during melting or at high temperatures of < 800F°.\n\nTL;DR. Metal does compound with other metals. It just needs the another metal that will be able to form something with it at a high enough temperature." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cmszkzg" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "It doesn't exactly \"block\" anything.\n\nWhat it does is it darkens the reflection of light off your own face into your eyes. If you're looking into sunlight, the brightness of your own cheekbones below your eyes causes glare that can be distracting. It sounds absurd, \"glare off my own face? Wtf\", until you actually try it sometime. You get a noticeable increase in visibility when looking into the sun if you have eyeblack under your eyes." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dmd7hwz" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "The heat relaxes your muscles. When you're sore your muscles are cramped, stiff and or sensitive. The heat counteracts those symptoms. Often you don't even realize that some of your muscles are cramped until you take a bath. \n\nI found this really nice article about it; [_URL_0_](_URL_0_) " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.painscience.com/articles/heating.php" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d0clu8r", "d0clws1" ], "score": [ 2, 5 ], "text": [ "Because we have determined that they are not harmful enough to bother with banning them. Those other countries are being overly paranoid and controlling of their citizens in our opinion. ", "It has not been proven that they present a serious risk or serious harm. Other countries have different standards." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c9houem" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Do you have a specific question? \n\nIf not I would direct you to the overall pretty decent wikipedia article. \n\n_URL_0_\n\nThe short version is that the federal government had a sniper shoot people who were not threatening anyone and did not even know the feds were there, including a child and an unarmed woman. The federal government investigation into the incident concluded that the use of deadly force was completely inappropriate. \n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c8wtipa", "c8wuqhv", "c8wuxl4", "c8wvswc", "c8wxiov", "c8wzwan", "c8x1f45" ], "score": [ 24, 4, 27, 6, 8, 16, 3 ], "text": [ "Oswald denied ever shooting Kennedy, so he obviously never gave an explanation. It's likely though that it could have been politically motivated, he was pretty militant about Communism. It's also possible that a major factor was him just wanting attention. He defected to the USSR at one point but got bored and came back.", "There are dozens of possible explanations and theories behind the murder of JFK. Lee Harvey Oswald could have been working for the USSR is a pretty broad one for starters. Sadly, and I say that loosely, Oswald was murdered before they could interrogate him which adds an extremely wicked variable into the mix since no information was gained from his capture. Also, the Kennedy's had some crooked ties to the mafia and it is believed that it was exacting revenge for something that occurred with Ted Kennedy. Also, there is the theory that there were two shooters, since the bullet would have had a weird flight path if it was shot from the location known to be Oswald's perch. It has not been fully explained to the public yet and so we cannot determine the true reason behind JFK's assassination.", "To put it simply, we don't know! There are a multitude of theories out there, some with more evidence than others, but there is no definitive answer to that question.", "We don't even really know who was responsible for the assassination, let alone the motive. It's pretty well accepted that Lee Harvey Oswald was involved, however there has been substantially evidence to support he didn't act alone. Oswald bounced around dealing with a number of undesirables of the time, he defected to the Soviet Union for a few years, he had contact with anti-Castro organizations (which in turn dealt directly with the CIA), but was more than anything an egotistical and idealistic young man looking to make a mark on history. He could have received help from or acted under orders from a number of individuals or organizations that would want President Kennedy killed. The United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (1976-78) found that there was a strong possibility of a conspiracy between multiple people rather than Oswald acting alone, and even accused the CIA of obstruction of justice in the initial investigations. These conclusions directly conflicted the Warren Commission (1963), the commission which investigated the assassination initially, that stated Oswald as a \"lone gunman.\" Lee Harvey Oswald was assassinated by Jack Ruby before Oswald could be seriously interrogated, as Oswald refused to be represented by anyone outside the ACLU or Communist Party USA. It remains to this day one of America's greatest mysteries.", "If this were a mystery, which it is, it is particularly confounding because there are multiple motives.\nHe wanted to end the Federal Reserve and go back to the gold standard\nHe wanted to end the CIA\nMany blamed him for the failure to overthrow Cuba\nMany anticipated him ending the incursion in Vietnam, which would hurt military defense contractors.\nHe also had pissed off the mob, which helped him rig a few districts in the presidential election and then he publicly prosecuted them.\nJohnson also wanted to be president very badly, and owned bell helicopter, which would profit greatly from the Vietnam war.\n\nSo...could of been the CIA, agents of the Federal Reserve (which could also be CIA, or other assassins), the mob, Cubans or communist sympathizers, or Johnson, which also could have used the CIA.\n\nTop culprit? The CIA. The most people had the most to gain by collaborating and using the CIA to get rid of him. The CIA gets to still exist, the military contractors get their war, the Federal Reserve keeps its monopoly on the currency, and Johnson gets to make a mint and be president. ", "It's impossible to know the mind of a man now nearly 50 years dead. On the surface of it, Oswald seems to be an unlikely antagonist for President Kennedy having an apparent admiration for Kennedy -- particularly Kennedy's progressive policies regarding race relations. \n\nCounter to that, Oswald was an avid supporter of Cuba who he saw as a more perfect Communist society (having become disillusioned with America long ago and equally disgusted with the USSR after having lived there).\n\nSix months before the assassination Oswald attempted to assassinate another man -- General Walker -- a right-wing figure who denounced Cuba in aggressive terms. In response to this, Oswald attempted to kill Walker. Kennedy was also staunchly anti-Cuba from the Bay of Pigs to the Cuban Missile Crisis to ongoing CIA efforts to assassinate Castro Kennedy clearly wanted Castro gone. Oswald may have seen this as justification enough to assassinate Kennedy given that he saw it as justification enough to shoot Walker (though in that former attempt he was unsuccessful and police never found the shooter until evidence surfaced after the Kennedy assassination).\n\nHe was man at the end of his rope, unable to hold down a job, estranged from his wife, the family fled from Dallas after the Walker attempt and went to New Orleans out of fear that Oswald would be discovered. While in New Orleans Oswald attempted to build his pro-Castro credentials through various protests but when he went to Mexico City to try and get a visa to Cuba (much like he had defected to the USSR years before) they denied him. His last dream of a better life for himself crushed he may have felt he had nothing to lose. It is telling that the evening before the assassination he attempted to reconcile with his wife but she, having been physically abused after many such earlier reconciliations, refused. It may have been the final straw.\n\nMost of the other commenters in this thread will disagree, but there is plenty of reading out there if you choose to avail yourself of it. Just make sure you read from both sides of the issue -- it's easy to draw false conclusions when working from only part of the data (no matter which side you're talking about).", "Well let's review what we do know:\n\n1. The magic bullet theory is complete nonsense\n2. There were multiple gunmen\n3. The investigation was compromised\n\nSo, while we cannot say definitively why, we *can* say that the government was involved. As such, the blame almost surely rests on the international banking cartel that has controlled our government for many years. Whether they did it because Kennedy was turning against their agenda, or some other reason, is not clear." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ej9mc93" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Because the phrase \"in season\" is used by humans to describe the time of year when we most prefer the taste of different fruits." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ddka5t3" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "It could actually! When water is boiled on a stovetop, the impurities (metal ions) that generally settle at the bottom (fall out of colloid/solution) get pushed up with the bubbles of water vapor that form at the bottom of the kettle. \n\nThat causes a remixing of the impurities and is what gives water a taste. \n\nMicrowaves on the other hand don't heat the water by causing convection as they heat all of the water evenly so convection is minimal. That means the impurities tend to stay out of solution at the bottom of the container and don't affect the taste of the water, which gives it that bland taste." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cun0m7i", "cun0swq" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Because hard set, black and white arguments are easier. They're not more right. They're just easier. It's hard to paint someone as an inhuman monster when you're forced to admit they may be right on some points...or that the issue at hand may be more gray than a lot of folks would like you to know. Also, it's easier to vilify the other party in an argument/debate when you paint them as an extreme antithesis of your viewpoint.", "Because going to the extreme makes people make a choice.\n\nEither you are FOR the horrifying thing they are talking about, or are against it.....\n\nIt makes people choose. Discussing things like reasonable adults doesn't make people angry and excited about an issue." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "exhjdp9", "exhlppa", "exhlu4v", "exhpii7", "exi4822" ], "score": [ 23, 6, 3, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Back then the regulation on corruption and advertising were much looser. Big tobacco companies would pay their own doctors to conducts their own studies and publish false claims. Any studies that exposed the risks of smoking were silenced with money or buried under the flood of false reports.\n\nEdit: Also when cigarettes first came out no one was really sure what the consequences were. It took some time for the correlation between smoking and disease to be noticed, and more time for studies to be done. \n\nIt is very much comparable to what Vaping is now, people claim its better than smoking and “healthy” but no one really knows the consequences yet as it is too soon to determine.", "Most knew that cigarettes weren't healthy. Inhaling any kind of smoke is dangerous. The tobacco companies bribed many doctors to say that cigarettes were healthy, or that they recommend a certain brand. The tobacco companies would use their wealth to try to bury real research into the negative health effects of smoking. It took a while, but eventually when tens of thousands of smokers started dying when they were just in their 50's, did everyone start to realize just how unhealthy smoking is, despite the propaganda of the tobacco industry.\n\nThe same thing happened with leaded gasoline, and now it's happening with climate change. Oil companies have been funding phony/misleading studies to try to disprove human caused climate change. In many regions, they've been breaking heat records every year. Yet very little is being done to lower green house gas emissions thanks to lobbying efforts by big oil companies, just like how tobacco companies bribed doctors.", "Doctors have been aware of the importance of evidence-based medicine for a long time. The problem is that when the lung cancer epidemic became apparent in the 1940s/50s, a lot of doctors either weren't aware of the connection between tobacco and cancer, or they smoked themselves (as a lot of people did) and had their own biases towards the risks.\n\nThis wasn't helped by the fact that tobacco was a huge industry and that medicine, like all sciences, is kept alive by funding. A lot of scientists were sponsored by tobacco companies with the essential goal of disproving anything that claimed that tobacco smoking caused cancer.\n\nAs usual it is the relationship between what scientists consider true based on evidence, and what society considers true based on perceptions and anecdotes.", "If we go back further in time than the answers you've read so far, there was a time smoke was considered [a remedy](_URL_0_) to several ailments.\n\nSo before the days of \"big tobacco\" and corporations selling packaged cigarettes, there is no doubt in my mind doctors at the time believed smoke introduction to the body to be harmless to us.", "There was one campaign urging people to reach for a cigarette instead of a cookie or candy. Healthy weight loss by smoking instead of mindless eating and growing fat.\n\nIt was mostly tobacco companies paying doctors,though." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [ "https://gizmodo.com/blowing-smoke-up-your-ass-used-to-be-literal-1578620709" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ecupfzq", "ecuqagp", "ecutiav" ], "score": [ 11, 6, 3 ], "text": [ "Short answer: no.\n\nLong answer: Yes, empty space inside of us is expanding. However, its expanding so slowly that all the forces that normally keep us together are able to counteract that expansion, meaning everything stays together at the same distance", "Nope.\n\n*Space* is expanding, but the atoms themselves are not. Think of it like this: if the space between an atom's nucleus and its electrons gets bigger, the electrons just move closer.\n\nOn the small scale, things like gravity keep us held together even as space expands around us. ", "Yes, but at the scale of the subatomic, this expansion is miniscule and more than overcome by the subatomic forces. You can think of the expansion of space as cumulative. It is practically non existent over atomic scales, but increases at an ever-increasing rate as distance increases. It basically doubles as distance doubles so think of it like counting by 2's. 2,4,8,16,32..... At first the numbers are increasing slowly but after awhile start making huge leaps. Likewise, when looking at distant galaxies, there's been a lot of doubling of distance, so to speak, between us and them, and therefore the expansion of space becomes much more noticeable." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ctbve0v" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "When light passes through a gas like the atmosphere of a planet or star, the molecules that make up the gas absorb light of very specific colors. If you take this light and split it up into a rainbow, you can see dark lines where this light was absorbed.\n\nMany molecules have had their absorption lines mapped and those can be used to figure out which molecules are present in the gas that the light passed through.\n\nIf we point our telescope at a planet and are very careful, we can measure the light which passes through any atmosphere which may be present on it and can then detect which molecules are present there, including water.\n\nObjects which are in our solar system can be observed more directly than this, but similar techniques are still useful, particularly for very distant or dim objects. For planets outside of our solar system, this is pretty much the only way we can confirm anything about what is present in their atmospheres.\n\nThere are other theories and techniques regarding habitability, however. In particular, the size of the planet, the size of its star(s), and their proximity to each other are very important in determining what is likely to exist.\n\nAnd of course, this is all limited by our ability to imagine what life might even look like. We only have one example to work with, so other systems for something we would even recognize as life are all speculative, but it is very likely that the universe will surprise us with its creativity." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "clyc3xa" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Arrest is done by a police officer based on either probable cause to believe that you are or have committed a crime, or on a warrant issued by a judge. You are detained and subjected to bail and/or other conditions of release (or held) while awaiting trial. Within a few days of arrest, a defendant is entitled to have the legality of the arrest reviewed by a judge, although it is not required to be a formal hearing.\n\n\"Charged\" and \"Indicted\" are both formal initiations of a criminal case. Indictments are handed down by grand juries, after presentation of the case by a prosecutor, while \"charges\" (called an information or complaint) are brought directly by the prosecutor without using a grand jury. It depends on the jurisdiction whether the prosecutor can choose (grand jury or information) or has to use one or the other. If a grand jury indicts, the case will be held over for trial. If an information/complaint is used, a preliminary hearing will be held so a judge can determine whether to hold the case over. \n\nA subpoena is a court order that demands the presence of a person or of documents in a person's possession. They are used to force people to show up in court, in both criminal and civil matters. They are also used to obtain information (like police records) before trial. Basically, it is a demand that carries the power of the court. \n\nHope that helps!" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cuec25y", "cuec9lq" ], "score": [ 3, 3 ], "text": [ "Software programs are nothing but text in a file (really binary) with some graphics.\n\nA movie is millions of pictures. Its immensely more data.", "Good question. software programs aren't too big because they are mostly made of text. Text is easy to shrink because it's so plain and not a lot of space is needed to store it.. Pictures And video on the other hand require a lot more information to make like where each pixel is and what color it is. Videos are even larger because they are eessentially books of pictures with sound. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e0qa2ea", "e0qa7ra", "e0qa8sa", "e0qabyn" ], "score": [ 3, 2, 2, 3 ], "text": [ "It depends on the game, or rather what type of DRM (anti-piracy software) the game is using. \n\nIn the old days, all you had to do to crack a game was figure out how CD keys were created for it and then make you own the same way. \n\nLater on, companies started connecting their singleplayer offline games to online servers, so you had to figure out what the game and servers said to each other and copy it. ", "They generally use a debugger to step through the computer instructions until they get to a logic point where the game decides whether it's running legitimately or not. Then they switch the instruction.\n\nGames with DRM have the added step that the DRM also has to be neutralized, which generally means finding that same type of logic step in the DRM and changing it.\n\nBeyond that, the actual method depends on what method was used to try and prevent piracy. It's a never-ending cat and mouse game.", "There isn't really a single answer to this, because there isn't a single way to copy protect a game.\n\nAt a high level, all \"copy protections\" are is a specific set of code that looks for / does a specific thing. If the thing that it looks for isn't there or the action is tries to take doesn't work, the code won't allow the software to function. The pirates will then write a patch that disables or changes that specific line of code to do something else, so that it either doesn't check or always passes the check, thus allowing the software to continue to run.\n\nNow, actually writing that patch is often easier said than done, but that is the basic idea.", "A few years ago this was really easy. Basically, whenever the game started there was a short check in the code whether the CD was inserted. The check (in pseudo code) looks like this: \"if CD is not inserted: stop program\". As a pirate you'd try to find out where exactly in the code this part is located (for example using a debugger) and then you replace the \"if not\" code with an \"if\". A simple analogy would be to see a mathematical term \"a - b = 3\" and adding a horizontal line in the minus to make it a plus. This changes the term completely without adding any additional symbols. This means that the game now exits when a CD is inserted instead of when it's out.\n\nNowadays it's a bit more complicated, as companies started adding additional checks, sometimes even checking whether the application has been tempered with. In the end it's just a lot of \"if\" checks, so you basically only have to find all of them and change them." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cncl4y1", "cncldiw" ], "score": [ 2, 3 ], "text": [ "Used to work at Wal-Mart. You can ask the customer service desk for shopping assistance. Past that I have no idea.", "Not a bad question. In terms of reading nutritional information I can see the benefit.\n\nIn terms of picking out food, it would still be extraordinarily difficult to shop for food and therefore pointless in that sense.\n\nA better system would be a braille kiosk that functioned like a catalogue and coincided with braille labelling along the aisle. Pick out what you want, maybe the data is transferred to an audio thing, audio things tells you where to go generally, braille aisle thing confirms you are in front of the correct product.\n\nOr just get someone to help. That works too." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dczi1qr", "dczjftl" ], "score": [ 2, 3 ], "text": [ "When working properly, the sex cells (sperm and egg) simply have one example of each pair.\n\nWhen the sex-cells are generated, there can be problems where the gamete does not recieve exactly 1 of each chromosome. If this flawed gamete combines to form a fertilized egg, it frequently triggers the female body to terminate the pregnancy, and the mother may never even realize she was pregnant if his occurs early enough.\n\nIf cases where an embryo contains extra or missing chromosomes and survives to term can result in developmental problems of varrying severity, such as Downs Syndrome. ", "Our somatic cells (the ones that form all our body) have two pairs of each chromossome. Even though they carry the same functions, they're not identical, that's what lead to variations in our characteristics. In the reproductive cells formation, there is first a specialized somatic cell. During it's division, it develops intracelular structures called spindle apparatus, that organize each chromossome with its pair and then pull them apart to each side of the cell, then it splits and each side carry one sample of each chromossome. When the male and female reproductive cells merge, they form a zigote, that have the pairs made again. Of course this system can fail during the division, pulling the whole pair to one side and leaving the other without or breaking them in parts. That is the cause of some syndroms, like Down Syndrom, that happens when they have an extra chromossome on 21st pair; Turner syndrom, when the person gets just an X instead of two X or a X and a Y, Cri-du-chat syndrom, when a part of 5th cromossome is missing, etc." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dy8dav8", "dy8f7kx" ], "score": [ 9, 6 ], "text": [ "Higher oxygen content would do two things I can think of off the top of my head.\n\nInsects size is constrained mainly by oxygen content because of how their breathing systems work. If you increased the oxygen content of the Earth, bugs would get bigger. Like, doubling their normal size.\n\nSecond, fire burns more intensely and easily with higher oxygen content. Globally, forest fires would be more common and more destructive, which would balance out the extra oxygen by releasing more CO2.\n\nBut a big problem with generating that extra oxygen in the first place would be the giant amounts of resources needed to ramp up tree planting or algae growth. Those efforts would almost certainly need industries which would pollute so much that it would be difficult to reach even 1%.", "The atmosphere is 4,200,000,000 km^3, that's 4,200,000,000,000,000 m^3 or 147,000,000,000,000,000 ft^3. It's 21% oxygen, so let's round to 10,000,000,000,000 m^3 to raise it 1%. That's a lot. We mostly make oxygen gas by pulling it out of the air. You could split some water, but you'd have a huge amount of super dangerous hydrogen just looking for an excuse to burn and pull oxygen out of the air. It would take a ginormous amount of plants/algae to pull that out of the available CO2 -- **But Wait** -- the atmosphere is only 0.04% CO2. You could only get 1/25^th of the oxygen you want if your converted **ALL** the CO2." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cd3uubp", "cd3v3b6", "cd3yg6z", "cd411bo" ], "score": [ 3, 5, 2, 3 ], "text": [ "They are not. Thats the point, Pi is a natural number where it may or may not be possible to find every finite number string.\n\nBy itself Pi is nothing special, the square root of 2 or log(2), or... have digits just as \"special\".", "Pi (The number), is not special, but the things which you can calculate from this number is very special. Without Pi we could not be able to calculate the surface area and volume of curved faced objects reliably. ", "Pi is an intrinsic property of nature. It holds true for **every** circle. It just happens to be irrational in our Universe. Can't really comprehend a situation where it isnt o.O but that's the way it is.\n\nThere isn't really anything special about the numbers itself, there are lots of other irrational numbers too!", "There are two main reasons the digits of pi are regarded as special, one is theoretical, the other is a respect based on the cultural/historical impact the number had.\n\nI consider theoretical interest to be the answer to why have we calculated out trillions of digits of pi. It remains a way to show off/test computing power. For people, in a similar manner it's a way of showing off memorization skills. All digits of pi of any significance have been known since the 1630s, when they finally calculated it to 39 digits.\n\nIf you use those 39 digits of pi, you can calculate the circumference of the observable universe [within the width of a hydrogen atom](_URL_0_). So we can see that there is no real practical purpose to calculate pi to the extreme lengths that we have, and even the amount most people might know off the top of their head is overkill for any practical application (off the top of my head I know 3.14159 which is good enough to estimate the circumference of earth and only be off by about 100 feet)\n\nIf we look at the history of math, I think it's easier to see where the interest comes from. The question of pi is simple, but the answer is very elusive. Anyone can understand the problem. If you have a circle, and the distance straight across is 1 unit long, what's the distance for a full trip around the outside? Without having pi as a starting point, how would you even start to estimate? I think it is the simple question compared with the elusiveness of the actual answer that has kept people interested for so long.\n\nThe first records that reference pi are from around 2000BC and they only had the first 2 digits right (3.1). At this time the value for pi was basically an educated guess at a number that seemed to closely match the diameter of real objects with their circumference. In 250AD, Archimedes created new math techniques that allowed him them to do more than just guess, with this they were able to get the value to 3.14, and by 480AD they had continued the work far enough to get to 3.141592. But even this wasn't actually calculating pi, it was calculating the total edge length of a shape with hundreds of sides that was slightly larger than the circle, and then calculating the total edge length of a shape that was slightly smaller than the circle. Finally, in the 1600s, Newton and calculus came along, and after more than 3500 years, mathematicians discovered a clear, straightforward way to calculate the value of pi directly. Newton himself used this new math to calculate pi to about 15 digits, he later wrote \"I am ashamed to tell you to how many figures I carried these computations, having no other business at the time.\"\n\nThis is the journey to the value of pi, it took over 2000 years to get more than 2 digits, it wasn't until 1200 AD that more than 7 digits were calculated. If you compare that to some of the numbers listed by other commenters, such as the square root of 2, the difficulty isn't even close. If you understand multiplication and simple guess and check, you can probably calculate more than 2 digits for the square root of two by yourself within a few minutes by just multiplying and adjusting repeatedly." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [ "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpyrF_Ci2TQ" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cj4sx30" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "Iraq is a (mostly) Arabic speaking country, full of people who consider themselves Arabs. Iran is not - it is neither Arabic speaking nor do the people consider themselves Arabs (though there's a minority of Arabs living there). \n\nNone of the countries whose names end with -stan contain a majority of Arabs. I can't think of a single one, anyhow. Asking why they don't consider themselves Arabs is rather like asking why the French don't consider themselves Japanese. They have very different cultures and histories, and speak languages that belong to completely different families. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cg2i250", "cg2i2e6" ], "score": [ 5, 4 ], "text": [ "Live TV broadcasts use geostationary satellites which orbit 22 thousand miles up. So a satellite feed has to go 22,000 miles from the broadcast truck to the satellite (actually it will be more as the satellite will not be directly overhead), then 22,000 miles back to the broadcast center. If the broadcast is from very far away, then it may need to go truck > satellite > satellite > tv station\n\nBy comparison a journey over internet fibre optic cables is only going to need to travel 12,500 miles, half the diameter of the earth", "Because the television networks need a high-bandwidth guaranteed bandwidth, which your Xbox doesn't. So, they will use satellites for the feeds, which accounts for the lag." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ctbc5fd", "ctbc7ky", "ctbc8av" ], "score": [ 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "We still do! My friend went to Germany recently. The majority of texts in Chemistry are all German. The US has Tech but I can't begin to list the developments in Europe. ", "In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Germany was a rising industrial power with a particular focus on the chemicals industry and later rocketry/physics. The German government strongly encouraged the burgeoning chemicals industry (especially big firms like Siemens), which led to conflicting figures like Fritz Haber who invented the process by which pretty much all synthetic fertilizer is made (and without which we could not grow enough food to feed our growing population) and used it mostly to make explosives in WWI.", "For the most part, a government form appropriate to their position in the world, that realised the importance of science to their nation and encouraged its development despite a lack of popular support. It also helped that a lot of the scientific developments had more or less direct military applications." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e5rt8y7" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "Singaporean here. We are rich because we have low corporate taxes. When it comes to high-skilled, high-salaried industries like banking, petroleum and medicine, the operating costs (skilled labour, input materials, energy costs) are the same worldwide. Even though land is expensive here, over the Long run of a company’s life it represents a minor cost at best.\n\nSo companies trying to max out their profits go for low-tax counties like Singapore, to retain as much of the profit margin as possible. It helps that Singapore is extremely business friendly, English-educated and politically stable. Many companies from neighbouring regions such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, China like to set up operations in Singapore, while international companies from the EU/USA/Australia/Middle East set up regional hubs in Singapore to coordinate their operations in Southeast Asia /Asia as a whole.\n\nEventually, the government gets the money back through individual income taxes, GST taxes (VAT or sales taxes), some smaller amounts through vehicle ownership taxes, property taxes etc. They aggressively invest the tax revenue and the returns provide even more revenue. Since we don’t have social welfare (unemployment benefits, universal healthcare, etc) the government doesn’t need to spend much and accumulates a budget surplus most years. This is again reinvested and provides more income in the future." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ckdnlr3", "ckdnnny" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Yes. Things also get heavier from dust particles. You get lighter every time you breathe, because you take in O2 and expel CO2.\n\nBut the amount is so ridiculously small that it's irrelevant.", "Ablation, erosion. Additionally, every solid and liquid has a \"vapor pressure\" where the atoms constantly escape into the atmosphere." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d71pczn", "d71rmxz", "d71vx9y" ], "score": [ 11, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "The short version is, it's subjective, and so what is \"good\" is whatever you like the flavor of. However, you can still discuss beer quality by breaking those qualities down into categories.\n\nThings that affect this: \n\n* How strong the beer's flavor is. In general, cheaper beers have less flavor (though again, you personally may like weaker beer)\n* What kind of flavor it has. Some people like the bitterness of beers made with lots of hops (IPAs, etc) while others prefer beers made with wheat (hefeweizen, etc) or something in between\n* What it's alcohol content is. Generally beers with a higher alcohol content will taste stronger, and the stronger it is, the \"boozier\" it tastes. Higher alcohol beers also tend to be more expensive\n* Whether it's filtered or not. Filtered beers will be clear in color and won't have any sediment, but may not have as much flavor as unfiltered beers (though this is not a hard and fast rule)\n* Whether it's pressurized with carbon dioxide (this is what naturally occurs) or with nitrogen (tends to give it a creamier texture)", "Personally, I wouldn't try to overanalyze beer, and as with any consumable, people have a wide variety of tastes. \n \nI'd try an narrow down the type of beer you like. Some people like thick, malty, sweet beers which are typical of many (but not all) stouts. Other people like super hoppy and bitter IPAs. Try different beers and see what you like. Your bartender will often let you try a sip before ordering a pint and many places now serve \"flights\" of beers which typically come with 4 ounce pours of 4 different beers. \n \nI think when any beer tries to sacrifice something, the overall goodness is compromised. Two examples would be low-calorie and gluten free. Also, when brewers try to push the envelope, by adding questionable ingredients or trying to maximize particular characteristic (hoppyness, ABV, etc), the results don't alway turn out great. But there are definitely exceptions where a \"weird\" sounding beer can be quite wonderful. \n \nI also wouldn't listen to some of these misconceptions floating around, such as \"guinness is so heavy, it's like a meal in itself\" or \"like motor oil\". These are uninformed people just re-stating things they've heard. Guinness is quite delicious. \n \nI wouldn't focus too much on ABV, unless you are trying to get drunk on the cheap. But beware of the ABV when you are ordering/drinking beer as some can be much strong than others. \n \nShort answer, a good beer is one you enjoy drinking.", "Whether a beer is good or not depends on several things. Obviously taste, so I'll talk most about that.\n\nAroma is important ( I want IPAs to smell like hops, piney, resiny, floral, citrusy, dank, whatever, and I want Marzens to be malty)\n\nMouthfeel, which is a made up sounding term, is also important. If you are tailgating, you want thin, crushable, watery beers. If you are washing down a good meal, you might want something a bit thicker. You dont want your PBR to be super thick, and you don't want your pliny the elder to go down like water.\n\nAppearance is also important (this is somewhat controversial to say), but if I have a wheat beer, I expect cloudiness, and if I have a pilsner, I expect clarity. \n\nSo first major component of taste is any off flavors. A beer with many off flavors is usually going to taste bad to anyone. Chlorophenols, for example, taste like rubbery medicine, and there might be some weirdos that like it, but it's universally accepted to be bad.\n\nOther compounds can be an off flavor in one style, but desirable to an extent in another style. DMS (dimethyl sulfide) is a corny tasting chemical that is acceptable in some adjunct lagers, but you definitely wouldn't want it in a stout. Kinda like how orange juice tastes good, and chocolate milk tastes good, but you wouldn't want to mix OJ and chocolate milk.\n\nThe second major component of taste is personal preference. There are so many compounds in beer, and each persons ability to taste them will be different. Diacetyl in another off flavor. Person A might drink a beer with diacetyl, and not really taste it, but think the beer is fine, while person B might think the beer tastes really buttery.\n\nNext there are beers that don't fit with the style. A brewery might call one of its beers a belgian dubbel, when really, it's a brown ale. Even if it tastes perfectly fine, you might call this a bad beer. Just like how if you tried to make waffles and ended up with pancakes, you made bad waffles. This is definitely a part of brewing that has a lot of wiggle room, though.\n\nFurther in the post you mention mass marketed beers. The reason so many are poorly rated, is because they are really only one style (adjunct lager) that is supposed to be low in flavor. I dont fault the people who brew budweiser for making flavorless beer, because they make it exactly how they are trying to make it, with ridiculous consistency. They just make what is marketable.\n\nThere are mass marketed beers of other styles, Guinness for stouts, Sierra Nevada pale ale for pale ales, Genessee cream ale for cream ales, carlsburg for pilsners, the list goes on an on." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cx4b3r8" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Referring not to westboro specifically, this problem arises in a lot of religious organizations as a consequence of human free will and gods plan often seemingly being at odds. Basically even though god has already selected these people only god knows who they are and for those people to know god and be saved perhaps someone has to save them and perhaps one of those people is convinced by the westboro folks. Essentially if the westboro folks convert someone its not that they have changed gods plan, but rather that it was gods plan all along for them to be there to change that persons path in the first place. " ] }

[]

[ "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wsx96/eli5_what_does_the_westboro_baptist_church/cf5bioc" ]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fn4xf2m" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "The casino advantage in Blackjack is about going last. To simplify a bit, the dealer will win every hand where the player goes bust - but the player loses hands where they go bust and the dealer also goes bust (because the game stops before the dealer gets a chance to go bust).\n\nWhat this means in practice is that the dealer has an advantage when the card mix remaining in the deck creates high variances while the player is better off if the card mix creates low variances. The dealer wins by you going bust, so the casino wants to see a lot of cards that are likely to make you go bust - face cards and tens.\n\nBy counting how many low cards and how many high cards you've seen from the deck, you'll get a reasonable approximation of how 'volatile' the remaining deck is - and if it's too volatile (too high an advantage for the casino), you dial down your bets." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "chulw9r", "chuo2ar" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Not really.\n\nReddit is stored on a series of servers, and you probably know how that works for the most part.\n\nWhat happens though, is that when you can't access the specific server needed, they often have one set up for \"overflow\" which is for when the site is really busy, which is dedicated to showing just that \"OW\" picture. Making it much simpler.", "\nLet's say you showed up at town hall and asked to see the mayor. Her assistant asks what you want to see her about, then comes back and tells you the mayor is too busy today. The assistant has plenty of time to shoot the breeze with you, but that doesn't make the mayor any less busy.\n\nWeb sites work the same way. They have a multi-tiered design, with different tiers doing different jobs. The top level tier just handles requests from the internet, while other tiers gather data and build web pages, doing the actual work. When they get bogged down, they web tier might not be busy...in fact, it might have enough free time to notice, and throw up a too busy to load page." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cvmn6eb" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "The IMAX 3D projector delivers 3D images of unsurpassed brightness and clarity, unlike any other 3D technology available today. IMAX 3D takes advantage of the fact that we see the world through two eyes. An IMAX 3D movie actually consists of two separate images projected onto a special silver-coated IMAX 3D screen at the same time. One image is captured from the viewpoint of the right eye, and the other shows the viewpoint of the left eye. IMAX 3D glasses separate the images, so the left and right eyes each see a different view. Your brain blends the views together to create an amazing three-dimensional image that appears to have depth beyond and in front of the screen.\n\nMore info: _URL_0_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.imax.com/about/experience/3d/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cham3pl" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Because they don't need to. They're limbs are mainly tendons that lock in place and many birds hang from trees, it's kinda like how horses sleep standing up (their knees lock)\n\nAlso if they lay down they'd just fall out of trees all the time. Some birds do lay down of course, bigger ones mainly, but they almost always are either non-flying birds or have some kind of stable nest or tree hole." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e8xdvrq", "e8xee8m" ], "score": [ 8, 3 ], "text": [ "Poppers are a type of chemical known as alkyl nitrates. They typically come in the form of a liquid contained in a small bottle; by inhaling the vapors coming off this liquid, a brief high is produced.\n\n*This is not the same as huffing*. When you huff (inhale the vapors of gasoline, glue, solvents, etc), you are simply cutting off your brain's oxygen supply. Not only is this horribly dangerous and causes long-term damage, but the \"high\" you get is basically the same you could get from holding your breath. The chemical you're inhaling is usually not having any direct effect on you, and thus is not really a drug.\n\nPoppers *do* have a direct effect on you, and when you inhale them you just sniff a little bit of the vapors. You are not denying oxygen to your brain. Alkyl nitrates are considered to be among the *safest* of drugs.\n\nAsking personal opinions & experiences is not what ELI5 is for, but regardless, here's mine. I have used poppers before at parties. They are a fun novelty, but not something I would make a habit out of. I would definitely give it a try at least once if you are curious. They can cause a rapid drop in blood pressure, so sit down when you use them. **Do not drink or touch the liquid**, when ingested it is very dangerous and perhaps deadly. When sniffed, the only real danger is falling over from light-headedness.", "The chemical amyl nitrite has a low vapor pressure, so it evaporates quickly. To distribute it to disco clubs in the 1970s, it was put into tiny glass ampules. Users crushed the ampule and the gas \"popped\" out so they could inhale it. Inhaling nitrites relaxes smooth muscles throughout the body dilating the arteries, as well the sphincter muscles of the anus and the vagina. It gives a feeling of warmth and excitement. Alas, the volume of blood is fixed and the reduced blood pressure can cause problems including death." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "crsbavk" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "Most types of disinfectants that you can purchase for your home are scented in some way.\n\nThe standard cleaning chemicals for hospitals are generally unscented. What you are smelling are the unscented cleaning agents that are applied often because hospitals have to remain clean due to the number of possibly sick people going through it." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ccowkcq", "ccowyur", "ccp2zd1" ], "score": [ 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "The inside of your car gets hot. Even in the winter, the sun is coming in through the windows. Over time, the heat and sunlight can cause chemicals in the plastic to leech out into your water. It's nothing super bad, but nothing you want to be doing often either.\n\nIf you refill your water bottles, the chemicals will eventually all be gone, and they can theoretically be refilled indefinitely", "It's perfectly safe, it's the environment that kills you .....", "If you open it, you potentially let bacteria and junk in. Leaving it in your car for a week, even sealed, gives the bad stuff a chance to reproduce and spread through the water.\n\nYou do want to drink a bottle full of bacteria poop?" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cfdbtd2", "cfdbtlm", "cfdbyc6", "cfdccux", "cfddee2", "cfddxvs" ], "score": [ 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "people are less likely to commit crimes if they know they are being recorded imho", "Insurance is cheaper with a CCTV network.", "Detterent. Cheaper insurance. And even though you may not be able to identify people, it still serves to show what happened, which is often useful for insurance and legal purposes.", "Security is never perfect -- it's all about cost-versus-benefits. A cheapo camera won't completely prevent crime, but it doesn't cost much, and it'll do a bit to dissuade casual shoplifting. As the others said, the gadget will probably pay for itself in insurance costs over a few years. Moreover, it *might* help in case of a serious robbery, accident, or liability event, and it may see some direct use in *watching the employees,* who often pilfer an awful lot of store merchandise. A grainy video might not let the management identify Hobo #19036 who smuggled a bottle of hooch out in his stink-rags and never came back, but they just might catch night-shift Steve walking out with a twelve-pack that he didn't ring up. ", "First of all: storing high quality surveilance footage is EXTREMELY expensive. \n\nSecond: The most \"humiliating\" factor about surveilance cameras are the cameras themselves. If someone see that a place has surveilance, they are most likely to cover up their faces anyway. Trying to video someone who has covered their face, doesent get \"easier\" in 1080P 60FPS, if you get what Im trying to say.\n\nLow FPS, low resolution is enough to do the job, contra the costs of it. \n\n\nQuestioning this, would be like asking \"Why isnt there a police-officer standing at the door of every shop? It would make it so much harder for criminals to do their deeds\". It simply costs too much, and the consumers wouldnt pay for it either. \n\n\nIts all about cost efficiency vs. what you actually get.\n", "First off, you won't hear anything on the news about the guy who was quickly identified, arrested, and it's all taken care of. You'll see the footage displayed and a plea for anyone who can identify the individual, and often *people will call in and correctly identify them*. You're likely getting a false idea of how futile those cameras are since you only hear about the noteworthy whodunnits.\n\nThat said, any security is better than no security. It functions as a deterrant in many cases, and even if the footage only sees an individual wearing a blue shirt, black pants, wielding a knife, that information may help identify the perpetrator who has a blue shirt, black pants, and knife sitting in the corner of his bedroom when a search is conducted." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cb90zfj", "cb911i6", "cb91efl", "cb91lp7", "cb92156", "cb92f1f", "cb936np", "cb93b03", "cb93omc", "cb93rrt", "cb93u4a", "cb941un", "cb944i5", "cb9451m", "cb94mmj", "cb950jz", "cb9573p", "cb95dh9", "cb960aq", "cb96582", "cb96kn5", "cb96xgd", "cb98bop", "cb99c16", "cb9cxyi", "cb9d2by", "cb9dw59", "cb9ecpu", "cb9f1ts", "cb9fh2s" ], "score": [ 289, 7, 57, 2, 2, 2, 32, 11, 217, 2, 4, 2, 26, 2, 5, 3, 4, 2, 2, 2, 5, 3, 2, 2, 2, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "when enough people think it is a word, it is a word. The fact people understand it without explanation just helps it along to becoming a word. You have to realize, no word ever existed until people started using it.", "My guess as to why 'conversate' (and many other 'words that people use all the time') isn't recognised as a word is because like 'converse', a word probably already exists and does the job more efficiently. That said, I don't know an existing word that covers 'misremember'. ", "When people say something like \"misremember\" is not a word, they're invoking the idea of an official, regulated language and enforcing its standards. This has some social purposes. For instance, we segregate job applicants by who is capable of speaking and writing in a professional/literate manner (which is defined by, among other things, avoiding non-words like \"ain't\"). The use of and enforcement of standardized language serves a surrogate for educational level and cultural identity.", "That's a perfectly promulent explanation", "side question: who determines what grammar is correct", "The speaker decides when and how to evolve language at whim. The only criteria is having listeners understand it without explanation.", "Our vocabulary is constantly growing and evolving, so there will always be 'new words'. But because we are busy people, with busy lives, and other things to worry about, we can't dedicate *all* our time to learning them. So - a long time ago - we agreed that we had to have certain rules to follow, to make understanding easier. Once you *break* the rules, you significantly increase the chance that comprehension will be lost.\n\nNow to your scenario: although you structured things in unfamiliar ways, you actually *were* still following certain rules, which is why your dad could understand you. \n\n**For example:** Take the word 'misremember'. The reason this makes sense is because the prefix (mis)' is following a well-known rule that means 'mistaken' or 'incorrect' (e.g.: misspell, mislead, misconduct).\n\nAlthough you've put it together in a non-standard way, you're still actually adhering to a known convention, and so people can link the prefix with the verb, and reach a logical conclusion.\n\n**Example 2:** In the word 'conversate', the suffix (ate) means 'to cause to be' (e.g.: originate, resonate, sublimate).\n\nIf you were to *really* make the word up, such as 'griep-remember', or 'converslig' suddenly the meaning is lost completely, because you're not adhering to any convention at all.\n\nAnd so while language is free to morph (and as it catches on, it will become accepted), each individual transition still has to be related to some form of protocol in order to acquire depth of meaning.", "The key here is that when people say \"That's not a word,\" what they mean is that it's considered non-standard. That would include not only neologisms but also an awful lot of words that have been in use for hundreds of years, like my personal favorite, \"ain't\".", "Editor here. If a word is *used* regularly, then it is a 'word' in the genetic sense, meaning a unit of speech with a sufficiently discrete and consistent definition to facilitate the communication of ideas. It does not matter if the word is broadly accepted, appears in books, or otherwise meets conventional standards of what most people mean when they say that something \"is a word.\"\n\nWhen people say this, what they really mean is one of several other things:\n\n1) The word is nonstandard, and inappropriate for the setting or situation.\n\n2) The word is improper, which usually means that it's a malformation of the proper form. (*E.g.,* \"irregardless\" for \"regardless\") Or, it is a standard word, but the *wrong one*. (*E.g.,* Rhode Islanders may say that they're 'agitated' when they mean irritated. Agitation is a rapid reciprocating mechanical action, and it would certainly be very unpleasant if you were being agitated -- throttling is one example of agitation -- but they mean something else when they say this.)\n\n3) The word is not widely accepted. This is the most common meaning, and if you parse it out rationally, it's similar to why men wear neckties: because other men do. People will say something is \"not a word\" if *they* feel that way, and believe that *most others* do, too. In most cases, they're correct about that, but that does not make it not a word.\n\nIn general, if a word is unique, not a malformation or misuse of some other word, and has a discrete and consistent meaning, it's a 'word' for practical considerations. However, many people may still object, and that is their right. Language is a living thing that we construct together, and that comes with plenty of push-pull, usage voting, and compromise.\n", "Yeah totally what is there deal?", "\"What are we looking for?\"\n\n\"Anything hinky.\"\n\n\"Why do you use that word?\"\n\n\"What word?\"\n\n\"Hinky. It's a made up word.\"\n\n\"All words are made up words.\"\n\n -- Abby & McGee, *NCIS*\n\n___\n\n'... There's glory for you!'\n\n'I don't know what you mean by \"glory\",' Alice said.\n\nHumpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant \"there's a nice knock-down argument for you!\"'\n\n'But \"glory\" doesn't mean \"a nice knock-down argument\",' Alice objected.\n\n'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'\n\n -- *Through the Looking Glass*, Lewis Carroll", "Eh it's a fluid concept. It depends on your opinion, but to a lot of people the dictionary is important, or the academic community at large. When you say \"people\" you really just mean the people that you are familiar with. It's entirely possible that someone would have a certain standard of how to speak, and that you and the people you know would not measure up to it. People speak differently, and in general you will be more respected if you sound like you're educated and thus only use \"real\" words.", "Student of linguistics here! (Okay, that was fun.)\n\nThere are two main categories of words (and language). Prescriptive, and descriptive. \n\nThe rule of which your father was referencing was prescriptive. Prescriptive grammar, at its simplest, is your English class. Its about shoulds and should nots, even if it says its about cans and cannots. Prescriptive rules are set by society and those in power. Sometimes these are official government bodies, but in the United States it would be academic organizations, media, and politicians. Its this idea of a standard language that must be spoken, to conform within the dialect that has prestige. To show you can follow the rules. It is very slow to adopt change to language, because of its meant to be like that. Eventually it will accept, and people will forget. (Take for example \"smog\". No prescriptivist would argue that it is a non-word, but its just a blend of smoke and fog, and fairly recently made too). \n\nDescriptive language is what linguists are concerned with! It is how language is actually used and formed. How people actually talk. Within descriptive language, we may say something is idiolectical (a.k.a. You're the only human to say it on the whole planet), but once two or more people start saying it with an agreed upon meaning, then in the descriptive mindset... Congratulations its a word! Linguists would argue there is no right or wrong way to speak or use language, because it is always moving and adapting. While misremember may not be standard now, it may become widely adopted by groups, making it no different than any other word ever. \n\n\nTLDR; Prescriptive language is English class, slow to adapt and resistant to additions for reasons of prestige and commonality. Descriptive language is Linguistics class, quicker to adapt to change in language and concerned with how language is actually used by the people who speak it. Prescriptivists are slow to adopt new words and it has to be commonplace amongst positions of power to do so. Descriptivists just want to see it used amongst people in similar situations.\n\nExtra TLDR: \"The Man\" says he decides and tells everyone that! But really, you decide! \n\nSee here (or google) for more info: _URL_0_\n\nEdit: Did some cleaning to make it more jargon friendly/free. \n\n", "I read this ELI5 in Zoolander's voice. ", "This doesn't answer your question, but you might enjoy it anyway. When I was in middle school, grades 5-8, in the 80s, we had a teacher that would make us write a poem 100 times if he heard us say the word \"ain't\". He was the History teacher, but he would make you stay after school and write the poem no matter where he heard you saying it, even at recess, lunch, or in the hallway. I wish I could remember it. I know it started with:\n\nThere once was a boy who said \"ain't\" \nHe fell in a bucket of red paint. \n", "Every \"word\" is a real word, regardless of whether or not someone agrees to their meaning and use. If every English speaker were to die, except for you, would all of the words you use not be real words anymore? \n\nWe all speak the same language a little differently. Some people don't agree on the way other's use words. When enough people agree though you get dialects. When even more people agree you get a new language.\n\nYou are either helping the language of your father to evolve or break away and form a new language.", "If you're still interested in this topic, /r/linguistics is a great place to check out.", "Conversate is not a combo of conversation and converse. It's something people say when they don't know the word converse.", "I am very much a game-keeper turned poacher on this issue.\n\nThis is precisely how I feel about language. I used to be a bit of a (i.e. an enormous) language fascist, pointing out errors in grammar and mis-use of words; but as you say, the point of language is to be understood. If your meaning is understood, what does it matter if you make up words?\n\nWhich means more to you: \"John is pauciloquent.\" or \"John is not very speaky.\"? Possibly not a brilliant example, but hopefully you get what I mean.\n\nI feel the same about 'phrases'. I have witnessed (and intervened in, with intent to pacify) discussions about whether the expression runs \"He was given free rein on the project\" or \"He was given free reign on the project\". The one that people who want to appear clever will say is 'correct' is the first one, but I'm not really sure how they define 'correctness'. A phrase is just a group of words. If the syntax is legible and the meaning of the words in the phrase is known, *what do you mean by saying \"That's not right.\"*?", "I haven't read the entire thread but so far I haven't seen this answer. In the UK for an \"non-word\" to become a \"word\" it must be submitted to the oxford English dictionary people (wherever they are) and the word must have a unique definition, pronunciation, etymology and have been used by 1000+ people in the same way. This is all then submitted to a draft of the dictionary. \"non-words\" that don't meet the criteria are still stored on card by the dictionary people for future reference. ", "Linguist here. This is probably going to get lost in here, but here goes:\n\nBasically, there is no one magical rule that makes something a word. What you consider to be a word pretty much depends on what approach you take to language in general. Some accept a word only if it is grammatically correct and is accepted by the vast majority of our society (prescriptivism). Some accept anything as a word as long as it can effectively convey the intended meaning and can serve the intended communicative purposes (descriptivism). But most importantly, these two approaches coexist in our society and both contribute to accepting new words. While we have standardized our languages to fit the patterns we have accepted as rules, a good part of what we consider to be 'correct' language comes solely from our intuition that we develop when we learn the language. And so, if the rules mess with our intuition we often simply opt out of the rule. Which means that we can utilize both our intuition and grammar knowledge to accept and create new words, however, whether those words will be understood by the rest pretty much depends entirely on whether the other party shares the same linguistic context. In other words, as an individual, you are free to decide on your own what can and can't be a word depending on the communicative circumstances you're in, however, that does not mean that society will agree with you.\n\nTL;DR Feel free to trust your linguistic intuition to decide on your own what is and isn't a word but don't expect everyone else to agree.", "Misremembering is indeed a real word, a quick Google search finds the following examples:\n\n* The death close before me was terrible, but far more terrible than death was the dread of being misremembered after death.\n\"Great Expectations\" by Charles Dickens\n\n* I misremember what occurred, but subsequint the storm A Freeman's Journal Supplemint was all my uniform.\n\"Barrack-Room Ballads\" by Rudyard Kipling\n\t\n* Shall I go back and tell him I misremembered for a moment where the creek is?\n\"A Texas Ranger\" by William MacLeod Raine\n\t\n* I may misremember indifferent circumstances, but can be right in substance.\n\"Memoir, Correspondence, And Miscellanies, From The Papers Of Thomas Jefferson\" by Thomas Jefferson\t\n\n* I misremember exactly who fired it; wos it you, Meetuck?\n\"The World of Ice\" by R.M. Ballantyne\t\n\n* Didn't I misremember that?\n\"The Floating Light of the Goodwin Sands\" by R.M. Ballantyne\t\n\n* All right, Mr. 2001, I says, I'll not misremember.\n\"A Son of Hagar\" by Sir Hall Caine\t\n\n* Judy, darlin', I misremember what I came here for.\n\"Soldier Stories\" by Rudyard Kipling\t\n\n* I do misremember it, lording: but 'tis surely of no account.\n\"Robin Hood\" by Paul Creswick\t\n\n* Only, if ever I were gay, which I misremember, I am gay no more.\n\"The Works of Robert Louis Stevenson - Swanston Edition Vol. 25 (of 25)\" by Robert Louis Stevenson\t\n\n\n > Our names are all unspoken, our regiments forgotten,\n > For some of us were pretty bad and some of us were rotten;\n > And some will misremember what once they learnt with pain\n > And hit a bloody sergeant and go to clink again.\n\n\"The Old Soldiers\" by Edward Shanks\n\n[Source](_URL_0_)", "[The Online Etymology Dictionary says \"misremember\" is attested in use back to the 1530s.](_URL_0_)\n\nRoger Clemens had a long career, but I never realized he was that old!", " > Same with a word like conversate, apparently it's a combination of conversation and converse\n\nNo, it's a [back-formation](_URL_0_) from \"conversation\", by analogy with words like \"integrate\", \"congregate\" and \"estimate\".", "They mean not a *dictionary* word.", "I took a few courses in linguistics and have studied the 20th century post modernists.\n\nLanguage is not a collection of words. Language is your life. In this way you speak a very different language than I do.\n\nWhen you use a word I don't understand, let's say (_URL_0_ Word of the Day) grammatology, I don't understand you, because you're not using a word that is relevant or needed in my life. Maybe a screen writer might really understand this word... but I don't. To me... it's not a word.\n\nIf however for some reason script writing becomes a part of my life than suddenly it enters my vocabulary as a word proper.\n\nLudwig Wittgenstein was asked by his faculty and students to solve all of the problems of philosophy. He Bertrand Russell and a group of 10 students each a dictionary, taught them how to use a dictionary and how usage of words is simply a case of confusion and no actual problems of philosophy.\n\nThe word \"boobies\" isn't actually a word, some might argue. But if I ran into a crowd and yelling \"BOOBIES BOOBIES BOOBIES\" no doubt every single woman, mother, and father might feel a need to slap me. Despite it 'not being a word\" it has a context and a real image that is understood.\n\nIf words are only the ones you are allowed to play in Scrabble... then perhaps boobies isn't a word. But if it isn't a word, then why do we understand it? Words are simply the building blocks of a language. Boobies is clearly a building block for an idea in a sentence. Under this explanation boobies is so clearly a word... but then again so is everything.\n\nA language snob might look at the word \"jiggy\" (as in gettin' jiggy with it) as not a word. All you need to do is tell them, if it's not a word then I'm going to go gettin jiggy with it with Person X mom or dad... on your couch.", "Language is a living breathing thing. Those who restrict it are dorks imo. That does not excuse bad grammar though. ", "My wife is really big on the natural progression of language. Language is not a static being but rather is a constantly changing organism.\n\nTake the word \"can\" for instance. \"Can\" is so thoroughly understood to imply \"may\" you do something that it basically has that definition now. ", "You see buddy, way back when when English was very very young, he attended The Scandinavian Private Elementary School. One year, he starred in the school production of Beowulf, and boy was he good. He was a sensation, and people still talk about this production to this day.\n\nBut then English grew older. For whatever reason, he could no longer go to private school, and he attended public school. While in public school, his speech grew rougher and he began speaking in slang. All of his friends thought he was pretty cool, so they imitated him and started shortening words and speaking in slang too.\n\nThen in high school English fell in with the wrong crowd. There was one guy named Shakespeare in his gang, and English just started going down a dark path. He and Shakespeare must have done drugs together, because they were making up nonsense words like \"addicted\" and \"swagger.\" By this time English's old elementary school chums had completely disappeared, and most of his middle school friends could barely recognize him.\n\nAfter high school, English became pretty popular, mainly due to the fact that he was friends with a lot of popular people. Because he was so popular, many people wanted to hang out with him. You know how you are a slightly different person depending on whether you are hanging out with your grandmother or your best friend? Well, English had the same problem. He had different friend groups that he didn't like to mix. And when they did mix, it could sometimes be awkward as one friend group tried to get English to do something that English would never do with the other friend group.\n\n\"Say 'lorry\" for us English!\" his British friend would cheer. \n\"'Lorry?' you must be joking!\" his American friend would sneer.\n\nThis problem was only exacerbated when English discovered technology such as television and the internet. Now English is a personal friend with everyone, and he is also growing up much faster. \n\nJust like how English's old elementary school friends wouldn't recognize the man English is today, sometimes you don't recognize him when he is acting completely different with other people. ", "[\"Authority and American Usage\" by David Foster Wallace](_URL_0_) is a review of a specialist dictionary and usage guide that actually does a rather good job of explaining the different philosophies for the ratification of words, and makes several salient points about how the language we approve of and respects reflects our culture. It's also funny as hell. It's worth a read if you're curious about this topic." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/hurley/Ling102web/mod1_popideas/mod1.8_descvsprescrip.htm" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.finedictionary.com/misremember.html" ], [ "http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=misremembering&amp;searchmode=none" ], [ "http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#back-formation" ], [], [ "dictionary.com" ], [], [], [], [ "http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/DFW_present_tense.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dl47bvo", "dl47uqg" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "The House of Representatives impeaches him and the Senate holds a trial with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding. He can't pardon himself in this case.", "It's an open question about whether a sitting president can be put on trial through the standard criminal justice system instead of the impeachment process. It simply hasn't come up because no prosecutor has ever tried to prosecute a sitting president. There are legal experts on both sides of the issue who believe that the president can only be tried through impeachment or that they can also be tried in a normal court." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cr4lgkt", "cr4rixd" ], "score": [ 9, 3 ], "text": [ "They can, it's called crosstalk and it's a big design problem. Normally the signals are small enough that the interference is minimal, and can be fixed by spacing the wires apart. When that doesn't work, foil shielding is used. And if that doesn't work, you can use balanced connections. \n\nA balanced connection is when the signal and the opposite of the signal are sent on two lines. Then at the other end they are subtracted, this doubles the strength of the signal and any shared interference is removed. Professional audio cables are an example of balanced connections, but that's done to prevent interference from the environment. ", "I'm on mobile, but look into twisted pair and common mode rejection. The answers you're looking for are there. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fj91p7d", "fj91vjq" ], "score": [ 6, 3 ], "text": [ "Barometers can be used to predict the weather or estimate your altitude. If you put your phone in a bag and submerge it underwater, you can use a bit of math to measure its depth.\n\nMost useful stuff the barometer can do, apps already do.", "Air pressure decreases as elevation increases. Air pressure increases as it becomes more saturated with moisture/cools down.\n\nSo, if you monitor the change in pressure, you can tell the elevation change if the weather stays the same, or predict weather changes if you don’t change elevation.\n\nAnd as your phone also contains a GPS which can pinpoint your elevation outside, you can easily track weather systems based on the air pressure — of course, your weather app can do that too." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]