Split (1)

train · 52.8k rows

text stringlengths 82 65.5k
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: If one of my co-workers resigns and/or is fired, and I am forced either formally or informally to do parts of their job, I should receive additional pay in proportion to what they were paid for those duties. If your place of employment loses an employee and requires you to pick up the slack in their place, they should give you more money. They should have the money available after all because they aren’t paying that person. Why is it fair to make you do something essentially for free that they were paying someone to do before? To be clear this arrangement doesn’t have to be a formal order to officially do the job of the former employee. If your daily responsibilities grow simply by nature of that person being out, then you have a pretty good case for additional pay as well. If there are two cooks in the kitchen and now there is only one it is obvious that the remaining one is doing at least some of the work of the other person especially if the output has not slipped. In the case of cost-cutting layoffs, all bets are off because obviously, the point of letting the other person go was to save money. The person doing extra work still has a legit gripe, but a different one than in the case of a vacancy because the money is not assumed to be available in that situation. If you are a manager or a person in a flexible role whose job is to pick up slack then this doesn’t apply. But many people are forced to go above and beyond their job descriptions and do tasks that companies have literally already budgeted and allocated money for. That money should be attached to the individual responsibilities in the case of a vacancy, not the person.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I can think of a few things: 1. Salaries vs Hourly makes this had to quantify. Salaried work in the US usually has very flexible role definitions and you can be asked to do things outside of your typical duties. 2. How would new hires work? If you're making $50k/yr and working your ass off and they hire someone to help and now the work is spread to two people are you OK with suddenly making $25k? After all you were doing the work all yourself, and now you only have to do half the work. 3. This could have implications on revealing the ex-worker's pay to you. What if you make $50k/yr and he makes $100k/yr, and they fire him and you take half his duties increasing your salary +$50k/yr. You would now know his salary.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is 'fitness'? As in, why is working out easier the more you work out? Let's assume you have two twins. One gets regular exercise and hits the gym every day. The other is a couch potato. Let's also assume that the fitter twin eats more calories and does only cardio, so they more or less have similar weight and muscle mass. Still, the one who gets regular exercise is able to run for longer, will break less of a sweat and have a lower heart rate. What are the physiological differences when someone is 'fit' versus 'out of shape'?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant When we do cardio, blood is more directed towards the muscles you are working out (and away from places that aren’t doing a whole lot at that time). The blood flow is increased. The volume of blood is also increased when it is returning to the heart. Over time, the left ventricle enlarges to adapt to the larger blood flow. Now this ventricle can hold more blood and eject more blood per beat (even when resting). This decreases the heart rate over time. There is also evidence that exercise stimulates the production of new blood vessels. This creates more efficient circulation. Also, there is evidence that at the same time that cardio increases the number of blood vessels, resistance training increases the size of those blood vessels. This allows for fewer blockages and more efficient blood flow. The new blood flow (with fresh oxygenated blood) helps keep your other body parts healthy (like your organs).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is "footnote-mining" okay? History grad student here. I have been wondering for a while what people make of ["footnote mining."](https://onelastsketch.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/footnote-mining-and-interdisciplinary-research/) By that I mean: When I do my reading of the secondary literature before starting to write an article/book chapter, I often try to look up and locate the sources in the footnotes/endnotes. This often is a good way to find relevant secondary literature and primary sources. Now, when I later end up citing secondary literature and (more importantly) primary sources first found in another historian's work, it is my understanding that I do not have to acknowledge where I found the source, but can simply cite the original source (for example the primary source that I first learned about in another historian's work but then located myself) and do not have to add something like "also see/also cited in....". Am I correct that this is generally seen as acceptable? A quick search on google seems to suggest so: [https://onelastsketch.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/footnote-mining-and-interdisciplinary-research/](https://onelastsketch.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/footnote-mining-and-interdisciplinary-research/) [http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/\~myl/languagelog/archives/004608.html](http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004608.html) [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAcademia/comments/dz4cnx/do\_i\_need\_to\_acknowledge\_it\_if\_a\_primary\_source\_i/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAcademia/comments/dz4cnx/do_i_need_to_acknowledge_it_if_a_primary_source_i/) &#x200B; However, I am wondering where one would draw the line? Using a few primary sources that another historian working on a similar topic has used as well is surely fine and probably unavoidable. But what if it is more than that? &#x200B; Thanks!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Like the others said: yes, "footnote mining" as a way to find references is fine. I might be stating the obvious here, but what is NOT fine, however, is to just add such references to your paper. You should only cite references that you yourself have read, i.e., don't believe other people's claims about a reference, check them by yourself. Otherwise you need to attribute the claims to the publication where you found the footnote. In other words, there IS a difference between "As discussed by Biden et al., Trump et al. make a number of claims about the voting system of the US" and "Trump et al. make a number of claims about the US voting system." , and you can use sentences like the 2nd one only if you've read (and understood...) the Trump et al. paper.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Geology (and some astronomy) question: Why do we find elements and compounds in veins and generally clumped together in the earth? Most heavier elements are formed in supernova explosions and float through space as dust until they are coalesced into planets. Does dust of the same element just generally form together and stays close together and so eventually it ends up either clumped up in a single deposit? Or do elements of the same variety have a method of attracting each other in space? Or does the earth have a method of refining these materials where plate tectonics and such make materials of similar masses clump up? Essentially I am asking how do heavy elements go from dust in space surrounded by tons of different types of dust to a lump of platinum or uranium in the ground?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are mechanisms that essentially sort them. You see this process on a normal time scale with something like Italian dressing. :) The primary mechanisms are density, and melting points. You have a big pool of mixed elements and compounds just swirling around. In general the denser liquids will settle to the bottom unless disturbed and stirred up. So if you get a pool somewhere that isn't disturbed much, you'll get layers of different liquids. As time goes on it cools. The elements with lowest melting point "freeze" and turn solid, and drift to the bottom as well (solid they are even denser than when liquid). This forms a layer on the bottom of the deposit, a sheet or "vein" if seen from the side. As the pool cools further, the next element freezes out, forming it's layer and so on. The slower the pool of compounds cools, the more time for the different materials to settle out, and more distinct the seperation and layering. If the area cools quickly you'll get grains rather than layers. The faster it cools, the smaller the grains. This is why veins tend to be underground, as the layers of rock help insulate and slow the cooling process, allowing the density sorting to occur.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is visa free traveling such an important topic for countries when they are negotiating with each other ?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Applying for a visa requires filling out paperwork before traveling, which needs to be processed by a bureaucrat and approved. This takes time. For business travel, this is extremely inconvenient. International business deals and meetings can't be easily rescheduled, might be cancelled on a moment's notice, and can't be convened in an emergency. The automatic visa for passport holders makes it much easier to conduct international business and trade.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How is a degree from a place like Harvard or Yale any different from a degree in the same subject from somewhere else? Also, is it any different in the UK with universities like Oxford and Cambridge compared to lower ranked uni's?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant For starters, many of these places have good reputations because they have cutting edge research and the best academics who are at the forefront of their respective fields. It should be noted that this doesn't always translate to the best teaching, but that might well be beside the point. Some economic theories of the value of education are that it is a signalling mechanism - that by getting a degree you can prove your competency/commitment to a potential employer (as opposed to actually making you a more valuable employee). With that in mind, a degree from a prestigious university indicates that you achieved their stringent entry requirements and put in the required work. EDIT: people pointing out the importance of making good connections - definitely should not be underestimated. But the fact is that this is both a cause and an effect of the University's prestigious status. They feed into each other.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: why are countries like Panama, Cyprus ideal for laundering money?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant To understand how countries facilitate international money laundering you have to understand a peculiarity about how EU countries treat their citizens in regards to foreign investigations. Which is to say, EU countries will not investigate their citizens at the request of foreign countries, nor will they extradite their citizens. For a long time this meant that if you were a French citizen you could cross the border into Germany and commit as many crimes as you wanted. As long as you made it back to France without being caught by the German police, you were essentially immune to prosecution for everything that you did because France would neither investigate nor extradite you since you were a French citizen. This system obviously didn't work when the EU was formed. EU countries didn't abandon their blanket refusal to investigate or extradite their citizens when the EU was formed. Instead, they just decided to treat requests for investigation and extradition from other EU nations to be "domestic" requests. So nowadays France will extradite you to Germany, regardless of whether you're a citizen of France, because Germany is in the EU and so France considers Germany to be part of France for the purposes of extradition requests. But lets say that you're a French citizen who commits a crime in Egypt. Egypt is not a member of the EU, so France considers it to be "foreign" and will not extradite you since you have French citizenship. How does this relate to Cyprus? Cyprus is a member of the EU but it considers other EU states to be "foreign" for the purposes of responding to requests for investigation or extradition. That is to say, if Germany asks a Cypriot bank to investigate money laundering involving a Cypriot citizen, the Cypriot bank will tell Germany to get an order from a Cypriot court. The Cypriot court will refuse to grant that order, because it considers Germany to be a "foreign" nation and the investigation concerns a Cypriot citizen. Both legally and philosophically the EU has had a difficult time reconciling why EU countries are allowed to refuse to investigate or extradite their citizens on behalf of some countries but not others. Because of the contradictory nature of the EU's position on this, they haven't been able to pass anything binding on Cypriot banks. They have tried to apply pressure by threatening to reduce EU funding, but every time they do so Cyprus just agrees to "do better in the future" and then does nothing. And the EU has even less of a basis to try to ask a non-EU country like Panama to comply with EU money laundering regulations, at least as to Panamanian citizens. So if this only affects Cypriot/Panamanian citizens then why is it a big deal? Both Cyprus and Panama sell citizenship. Its not unusual for a country to have a visa program that allows for someone to invest a certain amount of money in the country and to then gain permanent residency there. But that requires you to invest the money into some productive business, not just stick it in a bank. And the path from permanent residency to citizenship typically takes quite a long time and requires that there isn't any suspicion that you're an international criminal. That isn't the case in Cyprus or Panama. You become a citizen of either of those countries as soon as you stick enough money in one of their banks and they don't care who you are, what you do, or where the money came from. So if you're an international criminal who wants to launder money through one of those countries then you just stick it in one of their banks and, viola, that money is now clean as far as the EU is concerned. This leaves the US as really the only country that can enforce money laundering rules on international banks - which the US goes to great lengths to do. But the US only really goes after banks that are interfacing with the US banking system or providing services to a US citizen. Cypriot and Panamanian banks only interface with the EU banking system. This means that the money can really only be used in the EU, and even then only for very limited purposes. But if you're a European drug lord or a Russian oligarch that's probably fine for whatever you want to do with it. Cypriot and Panamanian banks are also very careful not to allow US citizens or anyone who even has US residency to bank with them. Again, if you're a European drug lord or Russian oligarch this doesn't impact you at all. Because of this, money laundering through those countries is a distinctly EU problem, and its one that it can't really resolve because of how most of the EU's member states have decided to deal with their own citizens vis a vie requests on behalf of "foreign" law enforcement.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What made Einstein so regarded as a genius? Please don't tackle me here, I'm not trying to be provocative. I'm actually really dumb in this area. I know Einstein is regarded as a genius of course, and I know he came up with the theory of relativity. But I'm horrible at science and I wanted to know why in simpler terms, Einstein is considered much smarter than all other scientists of his time? Did he solve a long lasting problem, or did he come up with something that no one else even saw? Was it one of those right place at right time things, where Einstein wasn't necessarily "smarter" per se, but he was looking for the right thing while other equally bright scientists were not? Or was Einstein really on another level from all human beings? I hope this question makes sense, it's started to sound like it doesn't. But overall, I'd just like to know what makes Einstein a genius, and if it's the theory of relativity alone, why did this do it?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In 1905, Einstein was the modern-day equivalent to a doctoral-candidate student working at the Swiss Patent Office to pay the bills while he worked on finishing the papers he needed to get his final degree. (This is to put a bit more perspective on the whole "he was a patent clerk" line. It's true, but perhaps a bit misleading. He was the equivalent to a modern-day patent examiner, so the job was much more technical than simply filing paperwork.) That year, he had four papers published in the scientific literature: 1) The first paper took an idea Planck had introduced in 1900 to make the black-body equation, namely that light energy came in discrete chunks, and applied it to a totally different phenomena, namely the photoelectric effect. While Planck regarded his result as a weird mathematical hack, Einstein expanded on it, showed it explained the photoelectric effect, and linked the two. In the process, he effectively created quantum mechanics. 2) In his second paper, Einstein showed that the then-controversial microscopic "kinetic theory of fluids" (aka, atomic theory) should produce macroscopic effects identical to that of the already observed phenomenon of "Brownian motion". His result effectively proved the physical existence of atoms, bringing a decades-long debate to a close. 3) In his third paper he reconciled the Maxwellian laws of electromagnetism with the laws of mechanics. In it, he showed that a slight modification of the laws of mechanics, nearly undetectable by scientists of the day, would account for the seemingly constant speed of light implied by Maxwell's equations, plus the inability of experiments to detect a directional difference in the speed of light. This is the "Theory of (Special) Relativity" he is well-known for. 4) In his fourth paper, he expands on the implications of Relativity, and shows that mass and energy are equivalent (aka "E=mc^2"). All four papers are revolutionary, in the sense that they drastically changed the direction of science in their field by introducing new ideas or new ties between previously disparate things. And he wrote them as a doctoral student, working alone, raising a family, with a full-time job, all in one year. He followed it up by realizing that his "Theory of Relativity" broke gravity, and spending the next 11 years fixing it (creating the "General Theory of Relativity") which in a revolutionary sense changed our entire view of the shape of the universe. Einstein's "Annus Mirabilis" (Miracle Year), plus General Relativity, are all "really big things", and firmly cemented Einstein's reputation among scientists as a really big genius. I don't know how this got parlayed to popular fame and adulation. Perhaps it's because of the publicity of the Eddington mission to test General Relativity.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How do we know things like what the inside of the earth is made up of, or what a planet like Neptune is made up of, if we haven't been able to get there and find out for sure?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Well, in the case of Earth, we have a lot of sources of info: We have extensive exposure of upper mantle in ophiolitic complexes; so there's that. Then there are several exotic magmatic intrusions such as lamprophyres and kimberlites which are derived from deep structural levels. These at times carry chunks and crystals of the stuff they cross on the way up (xenoliths and xenocrysts). For the parts we have no samples from (lower mantle and core), we have geophysical data: the magnetic field, density, wave transmission properties through seismic data.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: why is hot good for some inflammations, but for others it's better cold? For example, if I have an inflammation in my arm resulting from bumping into something, or someone kicked my balls, I would use an ice pack. But if a woman is on her period (since the uterus swells), or I have a swollen throat, it's better for the woman to use a heat pack, or for me to drink something warm or hot. Why is that? Aren't inflammations basically areas of the body with enlarged blood vessels or filled with liquid? What's the difference between inflammations that require hot or cold?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Heat opens blood vessels, bringing more oxygen and nutrients to an area. Cold shrinks blood vessels, it is used to reduce swelling and inflammation of an acute injury. For situations where muscle spasm is part of the problem like a back sprain or uterine cramps, heat relaxes muscles, helping to reduce the pain.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 Why does our hair turn grey as we get older?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Hair gets it's color from a pigment produced in the hair follicle. When the cells that produce that pigment stop working, hair grows as grey. The older you get, the more likely those cells are to stop working.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Gross topic, but curious. How does eating “bad” or greasy food result in immediate diarrhea when it takes up to 24 hours for the food to actually digest?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Think of your GI tract like a race track, and the food you eat like race cars. The finish line is a bowel movement. The fastest race cars are the ones your body has marked as waste or unwanted. So something your body doesn't like is going to win the race.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: The more equal we want our society to become, the less freedom that society will have. There is a catch-22 between equality and freedom. The more equal we want to become the less freedom we shall possess. Take for example the law that says a women is not permitted to wear a niqab in France. The reason behind this law is to create a more harmonious society in France, and concealing the face with a niqab does not allow for this. Many people would see this and say that this is a restriction on freedom of religion. Others would say that this is a necessary restriction that is needed in order for society to progress to live in the first world. Both, freedom of religion and equality are first world principles but they contradict each other. We know that certain religious freedoms need to be oppressed because they do not align with societal norms. Like stoning people or allowing for 10 year old's to wed as some examples. More then seeing these as restriction we look at them as part of societal evolution. The evolution towards first world life. That evolution has now reached the point where wearing a niqab in France is no longer considered a religious freedom worth protecting. The idea of creating a harmonious society being more important to upheld. The problem is, is that the more we try to move towards a harmonious society the more "freedoms" or differences among society will be restricted. The most extreme cases of societies that have enacted this would be communism/socialism in the U.S.S.R or Fascism/ Nazism in Germany. They believed that we are only truly equal if they are all the same. It seems like the evolutionary scale at attaining equality eventually leads us to a totalitarian system that restricts freedoms. Unless we believe that society can evolve to perceive and treat everyone equally without the need for totalitarian rule (I don't think this is possible nor likely). So what do we do? Do we protect freedoms or do we protect the desire for equality? For that I do not have an answer. But I do believe that the more we try to be equal the less freedoms we will have. Change My View. _____ > Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our *[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)* first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If you define equality as equality of outcome (like you're doing in this post), then of course it will lead to oppression. If you define equality as equality of opportunities, freedom grows instead of contracting. Ex: Universal suffrage. While it removed the "freedom" to oppress others, it granted the far greater freedom of political involvement.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV:I don't understand the need for hate crime laws Let me start by saying that I am liberal and in a protected class, so I don't feel unsympathetic to victims of hate crimes. What I don't understand (and after discussing it with a friend now realize that I have never really understood) is why a similar crime against a protected group should be punished in a different way. Maybe it is because I don't believe in the preventive nature of increased punishment, but to me it is sufficient that the crime is punished, and if the horrific nature of the crime merits increased punishment it should merit that punishment across the board, regardless of who the victim is. e: Thank you to everyone for the discourse in this thread, I'm replying as quickly as possible to people but you've all been great and given me a lot to think about!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Some crimes have an increased severity when viewed in the context of hate toward a certain group. For example, if you set a fire in someone's yard, you can be charged with destruction of property (assuming it doesn't burn the house down or something). If you instead light a cross in a black person's yard and stand across the street wearing KKK garb, then one could easily argue that you've actually done more than simply set a small fire. Something that isn't tangible. You've intimidated a family into fearing for their lives. And that's only true because of the context in which you committed a crime which was otherwise just setting a little fire to some wood.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Racism has nothing to do with power or privilege IMO, claiming that racism only applies to people who have power and privilege for the purpose of debate, judgement, or policy, makes very little sense. To define it as such would completely eliminate some things that are quite racist. For example (depending on the specifics of the definition beyond just p+p), the ethnic violence during the Rwandan revolution (not the genocide) couldn't be called racist on the basis that the Tutsi minority had power and privilege. To claim that the killings were not racist would be completely disrespectful. To change my view, I ask that you prove that this definition is firstly, beneficial for discussion and secondly, the problem with the simpler "discrimination on the basis of race" that requires changing it in the first place. To separate my view from some related posts, I'm not arguing that systemic or systematic racism does not exist. I'm also not arguing that no one(edited for clarification) has more power or privilege than others on the basis of race. Im solely arguing that power and privilege have no impact on determining if a statement is racist.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant >"discrimination on the basis of race" If this is all "racism" is, what's the ideology that makes it an "-ism"? In fact, nearly all dictionaries have a primary definition similar to this: >a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race The only "prejudice" that makes the cut is related to that ideology: >also : behavior or attitudes that reflect and foster this belief : racial discrimination or prejudice Another definition that appears in many dictionaries is similar to this: >the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another So... why is your definition better than that used by nearly all dictionaries? Answer: it isn't. Definitions aren't based on some kind of declaration from on high, logic, or etymology, they're based on usage by most people. And most people think there's more to "racism" that simple "discrimination on the basis of race". It at least must reflect a racist ideology of racial superiority. Otherwise you get nonsense like measuring average heights of the races being "racist". There are several different ways it's more than that, but if that's what you mean, just be more specific and use "racial discrimination" or "racial prejudice" and people will be more likely to know what you're talking about.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If I am standing on a beach at sea level, how far can I see into the horizon? Assume it's a clear day with perfect visibility and you're looking out to sea? Edit: I'm so bad at phrasing. I was trying to ask how far away could you see the clouds<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If you assume the Earth is a perfect sphere, the distance you can see is about sqrt(2Rh), where R is the radius of the Earth, h is the height of your eyes above the surface, and sqrt is the square root function. The radius of the Earth is about 6,371,000m. If you're 1.8m tall, then you get a distance of 4,800 metres, or about 3 miles.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [MCU] Are the Guardians of the Galaxy superhumanly strong and durable? EDIT: They appear to do some pretty fantastic things - powerful leaps, lifting apparently heavy objects, soaking massive impacts with no visible effects, etc. But is this due to them being tougher than a human or is it due to technological enhancement, being on low-gravity worlds, etc.? I seriously can't tell.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Personal shield emitters and flexible body armor is standard equipment for galactic adventurers. Starlord's average quality Ravager coat alone provides substantially better protection than you might expect, and his gear under that is designed to cushion his body on impact and retain heat within the vacuum of space. Just because it looks like he's wearing nothing more protective than a leather coat doesn't mean he's actually going out there in one. Don't underestimate Gamorra or Rocket's numerous cybernetic implants and what those can do to improve their strength and hardiness either.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user When statisticians say "distribution", do they mean a frequency distribution, a probability distribution, or a plain old list of values? I find the usage of this term very confusing. It looks like they do most often mean a frequency distribution, but almost none of the material I read or watch makes that clear at any point.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Typically probability distribution, but the context should make it clear. Note you can easily convert a frequency distribution to a probability distribution by dividing all of the frequencies by the sum.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Lovecraft] Are non-human/sentient creatures affected by the psychologically damaging effects of viewing cosmic entities? For example, if a cockroach or a rodent was shown Cthulu, would it be driven insane?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Most animals have a very narrow focus on the perception of their surroundings. They aren't particularly curious beyond whether something is an obstacle to overcome, a predator to avoid, prey/food to consume, a potential mate, a rival, or a safe place to hide. A person wants to understand what he/she is seeing, so becomes keenly aware that something is very very wrong with these eldritch entities. Assuming the animal could even perceive Cthulhu (like a cockroach isn't aware of much beyond a few feet away) he would trigger one of the other visceral responses before it got to the 'ineffable horror' stage. It would probably be fear of a predator. Then the animal would simply flee like it does for any other dangerous creature it encounters.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: The difference between socialism and communism.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are two possible answers to your question: 1) What are the differences between Communism and Socialism conceptually and 2) What are the differences between Communism and Socialism in practice 1: /u/Nothos927 is essentially right as far as this line of questioning goes; Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are owned co-operatively - this may include state ownership. Communism is a subset of socialism in which the means of production are owned by the people directly, rather than the state, in an attempt to establish economic equality among people. Socialism is simply a broad term which encompasses communism. 2: In practice, we are almost never using these terms correctly. There has been no large scale successful communist state, be definition, just as /u/Nothos927 said. The countries we so often call communist would in fact be better described as fascist socialist states, because although the state controls the means of production, that power is not shared with the people. Instead, the state exercises totalitarian control over industry, thereby becoming considerably more powerful, and directly conflicting with the core ideology of communism. The countries we call socialist in Europe are really closer to social democracies, which are like socialist/capitalist hybrid economies; they have social programs financed by the government, but the means of production is not held exclusively by the government. In short, when we're talking about communists, we're really talking about fascistic socialism, and when we're talking about socialists we're really talking about socialist/capitalist democracy. Edited for clarity/I forgot to put articles places =)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Skyrim] Why are the Forsworn such good bowyers and such bad fletchers? Me and my mates got in a scrap with some of them and ended up with a bow and some of their arrows. Both look like they were made in the Forsworn's style. The bow is a masterpiece, it's made out of the same basic stuff as any bow, no fancy elfin metals or the like, but it surpasses anything the jarl's guards carry. The arrows are pathetic. They don't fly straight, they have no penetration. Even the cheapest arrows on the market are better. What is going on here?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Bows are useful for more than just killing Nords, and are often symbols of ones skill and a hunter. Some are even heirloom items passed down through families. Care is, thus, made in constructing them. Arrows, on the other hand, are disposable ammunition often manufactured on the fly and rarely expected to last more than a single shot. More often than not, they are slapped together out of scrap. They don't need to be fired straight most of the time because they are intended to be fired close up, within a few feet, and for the most part they don't need to penetrate anything thicker than Deer-hide.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 Are milk substitutes just several plant juices that happen to be white/made to look that way or is there a reason to call them milk?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The concept is to have the salt, fat, and protein levels match the target (cow's milk). Most almond milks are very close, perhaps a little low on protein, so they work the same in some cooking operations. It's not just a drink alternative.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How we know that how kreb cycle actually happens in the cell? How do scientists study microscopic biochemical mechanism at cellular level like Na/K Pump, glycolysis, kreb cycle etc. In cycles products keep changing/converting so how do they keep a track of all of them? Considering they are so so minute and so so less in amount in comparison to average lab samples and experimentation.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant One powerful technique is isotopic labeling - a compound that is known to be part of a process is labeled with either a stable isotope or a radioactive one, then the label is tracked through the various transformations. For instance 13C or 14C labeled pyruvate could be fed into the citric acid cycle, producing labeled citrate and subsequent constituents over time. Varying the position of the label can show which parts of molecules are being transferred through the cycle. In the mid-20th century radioactive labeling was particularly useful because the compounds could be detected through simple techniques like thin layer chromatography, whereas we can observe stable isotope labels in a much more fine grained fashion now using LC-MS/MS.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star Trek] How is Starfleet able to regulate dress/grooming for officers without being discriminatory? Starfleet generally can be perceived to have fairly open minded and receptive standards, culturally sensitive to differences. However I’m not sure how they can enforce any standards at all. Starfleet dress/grooming standards in my opinion would have to be soft guidelines rather than hard rules in the interest of maintaining it’s open minded non-discriminatory approach to dress and grooming. 1. We know that at the very least Starfleet has allowances for facial hair (Worf, La Forge, Riker, Sisko etc all had beards at various points). The previous examples were mostly due to personal choice but we also know that Starfleet makes allowances for facial hair based on cultural practices or religious traditions. With so many technicalities it seems like it would be simpler to simply allow facial hair of any length for any anyone simply due to personal choice. 2. Physical restrictions to hair length or grooming seem to be in place but once again these are also given allowances to cultural or religious practices. It would also have to have bodily allowances for alien species that must physically maintain long hair or horns etc for physical health. Further still it would be difficult to have one set of rules for every distinct species because there are also species interbreeding that could combine any number of factors involving physical requirements, religious beliefs, or cultural traditions. 3. For dress regulations most Starfleet officers generally seem to wear the uniform in the same way with rare exception. Those exceptions being an available skirt option regardless of gender (as seen on an officer during Picards’ command) and cultural regalia (Worf). We also see that Counselor Troi briefly wears a unique variation of a Starfleet uniform briefly. This is all assuming the officer in question has a body type completely compatible with the humanoid silhouette of the uniform. If an officer had shoulder spikes or a head in an unusual location, additional arms or legs etc. So many exceptions would have to be made it would make the standard uniform more of a suggestion if anything Curious to hear other opinions or thoughts<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant - Grooming requirements: barring cultural/religious exemption, all hair (facial or otherwise) must be neatly groomed and caref for. - Uniform requirements: Specific uniform requirements are dictated by your ship or station's command; refer to your command regulations for specific uniform requirements. Uniforms are to be be adjusted to fit nonstandard or unusual bodyplans, should they be required. Non-regulation accessories are prohibited outside of items that are of cultural or religious significance. Uniforms are not required if it inhibits one's health or duties (such as acting as a councilor). - A ship's Captain has final say on grooming requirements, non-regulation accessories, or when a uniform must be worn (outside of health reasons). It's entirely possible to enforce standards, even after accounting for issues that might pop up in trying to apply them.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why isn't tax included in the price prior to check out?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A) Allows them to advertise lower prices B) Allows them to advertise the same prices for all stores - in the US, sales tax can vary across city, county & state borders C) Allows them to mark the price once - sales tax rates change, by small amounts, fairly often<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What judgment should I make when I encounter claims that have neither supporting evidence nor counterevidence? Suppose someone claims that a unicorn exists, and there is no evidence for or against the existence of a unicorn, what should a rational thinker do in such scenario? Should one suspend judgment? Or should one reason that the claim is more likely to be false since it is a better explanation in terms of simplicity?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A lot of the time, there is more evidence than you might think. For instance, unicorns are not small animals. If they existed, it is highly likely that zoologists would have found and documented their existence. The fact that this has not happened is evidence against the existence of unicorns. It's not an airtight proof obviously, but it is evidence. Other forms of evidence can come from our knowledge of how organisms evolve and whether a particular evolutionary outcome is likely. If there really isn't evidence either way, you should withhold judgement as someone else pointed out above. But you often have more evidence than you think.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Can You Do Research In More Than One Topic During Grad School? I am interested in two different fields: genetic engineering and tissue engineering. At the moment, I'm in my fourth year as an undergraduate engineering student, and I found two professors who do those things, respectively. However, I don't think I have time to work in both their labs. I would like to ideally focus on both of these subjects and integrate them into something I can study when I proceed to grad school, but I can only choose one of the two for now. If I were to stick with the professor who focuses on genetic engineering research, is it possible to do research in tissue engineering later on without any hindrances? Or will I be forced to stick to one of these fields and never really get to diversify?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Rather than frame this problem as genetic vs tissue engineering, frame it as Prof A vs Prof B. Think about the messy factors that have nothing to do with engineering. Your relationship with your professor and lab mates can amplify or nullify your efforts. The amount of funding a lab gets can be a huge deal and at the very least establishes a lab's prestige. What about lab alumni? Do any of them run a biotech company you'd like to work for? If all else fails, go with your gut. Being smart enough to worry about this question is a larger safety net than most people get!<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Babylon5/MassEffect] What if: The Systems Alliance had access to Shadow Tech? In the year 2150, the Systems Alliance uncovers buried in the surface of Mars a Shadow Vessel from the B5 franchise. With this discovery of a highly advanced species how will the SA adapt these new technologies? How will the rest of the series play out with the discovery of Shadow technology? How will the other races view the SA? Will they be able to survive the Reapers?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant This depends on a few things: - Is the Shadow technology well understood and can be made functional, given the lack of telepaths in the Mass Effect universe? - Assuming it can be activated, will the Shadow Battlecrab either go berserk (as it did in Messages from Earth) or summon another Battlecrab to finish freeing it and depart SA space? - Assuming it can be activated and does not flee or go berserk, can the Systems Alliance can replicate the technology involved in it in time for First Contact and/or the Reapers? If it can be made functional, but goes berserk or escapes, nothing the Systems alliance has can functionally stop it. If it stays in place and the Systems alliance can replicate its, however, the Systems Alliance is now developing tech based on a ship whose weapon that is capable of exceeding a Reaper's primary armament by over two thousand times and phasing in and out of hyperspace at will. The Systems Alliance promptly becomes untouchable in a direct confrontation, easily overrunning the entire Turian Hierarchy when the First Contact War happens (if it even does) and earning the total fear and perhaps even reverence of other Citadel races. Needless to say, if the Reapers do turn up - even if Sovereign's original plan succeeds - they're in for a very bad time.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What's actually happening in my brain when I'm confused?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Most thinking we do is based on maps of reality we build up in our heads that prepare our mind and body for expected events (e.g. Pavlov's dog). Confusion is when something happens to us that causes our minds to seriously reconsider whether the map it was using is valid, and, if not, which map is. The problem is, your current map was based on the best available information and now seems wrong - so your brain must toss through ALL the information it can to extrapolate the proper map to apply. This is overwhelming enough, but worse, it still has an investment in the map it was using so it becomes very difficult to be decisive because the brain is caught between two competing models of reality.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: what does "mastering" do to audio?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Keeping it relatively simple for ELI5, mastering audio is basically the process of preparing a mixed song or album for duplication and distribution. You can break mastering up into 2 broad sections. Aural and Technical. Aural would be the manipulation and processing of a song/songs to get the best possible listening quality on as many different devices as possible. People can listen to a song on anything from a clock radio, cheap earphones, home hifi, car stereo, on their tv etc... All of which react completely differently and a given song will sound different on every system. There are techniques such as EQ and compression that can be applied to a song that can help it to translate as well as possible between different systems. A lot of bass would sound great on a good hifi or in a recording studio but would not sound good at all on a clock radio or cheap earphones. So mastering engineers use many techniques to "smooth out" the song dynamically (called compression), and also techniques to balance the song sonically (EQ). Limiting is also applied which is a technique which basically makes a song louder. The louder the better with modern music it seems, but there are draw backs and this is an ongoing argument in the mastering industry. Limiting a song too much can cause it to distort, or can lose clarity in drum strikes etc. There's a happy middle ground here but these days most songs are over compressed and limited. On an album the mastering engineer would ensure that the transition between each song is as the artist wants. So they will do fade in or fade outs as appropriate. They would also ensure that an album has an overall "tone" or "sonic signature", which basically means that the songs sound consistent in both volume and tone. If one song was bass heavy and was followed by a song that was lacking in bass the listeners attention might be drawn to that, and we want to avoid that. Technical side to mastering would include> * Embedding ISRC codes which stands for International Standard Recording Code. These codes are embedded on a CD and simplify the collection of royalties. * Track order on an album. * Gap times between each track. How much of a gap a listener hears before the next song. * Creating hidden tracks. * Creating a disk image that complies with international CD standards (Red Book). * In recent years mastering engineers often supply tracks for online releases only and may be required to encode the song in the various versions that are required. MP3, m4a, flac etc... Another big aspect to mastering is the listening environment. Mastering engineers use extremely expensive speakers called reference monitors. Although these speakers can be loud and can have massive bass response, they are more useful because they somewhat mimic home hifi speakers (but are much much higher quality), these speakers are clinical and are comparable to using a magnifying glass. Unlike recording studio speakers which no average person has in their living room. A mastering studio would sound very very nice and would be a lovely environment to sit and listen to an album. A mastering engineer would be an expert and know exactly how a song should react/sound in their studio and know how to manipulate it to get it to translate well onto car radios/headphones/home stereo etc... Finally a mastering engineer is often a fresh pair of ears who only hears a song or album at the very last step. Everyone else involved to this point may have been listening to the songs for months and may not notice little errors. A fresh perspective can often discover the strangest mistakes and errors that need to be fixed. A mastering engineer could often send a mixed song back to the mix engineer if something needs to be addressed. It is a very important job and a role that many claim they can do but few do it well.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 Do different languages light up different neurons for the same concept ? Do clusters of neurons correspond to a certain thought?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The brain more or less has a dedicated section(s) used for processing language, regardless of where the language comes from or what order the person learned them. It’s not like, for example, Thai uses one part of the brain and French uses another. That being said, language is a lot like art. It’s not always the same from person to person, culture to culture, setting to setting. Your brain is a highly capable factory and though there is a main terminal responsible for language it might need to ask for assistance from other parts when trying to determine meaning and pragmatics.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: i was told that wider tires don't equate to more area of contact with the road. Then why are all high performance tires wider than everyday tires?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Wider does, in general, mean more contact with the road. However, there are a lot of considerations that go into the design of a tire and its traction and handling qualities. Bluntly, your "contact patch" is your traction. That's the surface area of your tire that is in contact with the road at any given moment. The width, inflation, rubber compound, tread pattern, and flexibility of the tire control the size and effectiveness of your contact patch. The setup of your vehicle's suspension is also a big factor in traction and handling. A performance or racing car on smooth, dry pavement should generally have a wide tire, a "slick" (no tread), and a rubber compound that is perfectly suited for the temperature and handling required by the course or road being used. A tire that is too wide might give exceptional traction in a straight line (i.e. drag racing), but is a poor choice for a road course. A wide tire is also a poor choice for standing water, snow, or ice. A narrower tire in this case puts more weight per tire area on the ground, helping the tire to push through the water, snow, or ice and make contact with the ground. This is what tread patterns are for, also. Those grooves channel water and other debris away from the tire and increase the weight per area. I grew up in an area that received a lot of winter weather. A Corvette, even with snow tires, is practically uncontrollable on snowy or icy roads due to the light weight of the car and the large contact patches of the tires. When foul weather is involved, a wider tire equals less contact with the road.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How to write a diversity statement as a cis, hetero, white male? I’m putting in the work to read from others online. I’m looking for any perspectives you’re willing to share. Thanks<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Doesn’t have to be about your own experience but rather how you value diversity and will foster it. Do you have experience in diverse teams? Will your research impact diverse populations? Any outreach you’ve done or plan to do? What are your values in terms of diversity?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user AskScience Panel of Scientists III Calling all scientists! The previous thread expired! If you are already on the panel - no worries - you'll stay! This thread is for new panelist recruitment! Please make a top-level comment on this thread to join our panel of scientists. The panel is an informal group of Redditors who are professional scientists (or plan on becoming one, with at least a graduate-level familiarity with the field of their choice). The purpose of the panel is to add a certain degree of reliability to AskScience answers. Anybody can answer any question, of course, but if a particular answer is posted by a member of the panel, we hope it'll be recognized as more reliable or trustworthy than the average post by an arbitrary redditor. You obviously still need to consider that any answer here is coming from the internet so check sources and apply critical thinking as per usual. You may want to join the panel if you: * Are a research scientist professionally, are working at a post-doctoral capacity, are working on your PhD, are working on a science-related MS, or have gathered a large amount of science-related experience through work. * Are willing to subscribe to /r/AskScience. * Are happy to answer questions that the ignorant masses may pose about your field. * Are able to write about your field at a layman's level as well as at a level comfortable to your colleagues and peers (depending on who's asking the question) You're still reading? Excellent! Here's what you do: * Make a top-level comment to this post. * State your general field (biology, physics, astronomy, etc.) * State your specific field (neuropathology, quantum chemistry, etc.) * List your particular research interests (carbon nanotube dielectric properties, myelin sheath degradation in Parkinsons patients, etc.) We're not going to do background checks - we're just asking for Reddit's best behavior here. The information you provide will be used to compile a list of our panel members and what subject areas they'll be "responsible" for. The reason I'm asking for top-level comments is that I'll get a little orange envelope from each of you, which will help me keep track of the whole thing. These official threads are also here for book-keeping: the other moderators and I can check what your claimed credentials are, and can take action if it becomes clear you're bullshitting us. Bonus points! Here's a good chance to discover people that share your interests! And if you're interested in something, you probably have questions about it, so you can get started with that in /r/AskScience. /r/AskScience isn't just for lay people with a passing interest to ask questions they can find answers to in Wikipedia - it's also a hub for discussing open questions in science. (No pseudo-science, though: don't argue stuff most scientists consider bunk!) I'm expecting panel members and the community as a whole to discuss difficult topics amongst themselves in a way that makes sense to them, as well as performing the general tasks of informing the masses, promoting public understanding of scientific topics, and raising awareness of misinformation. [Go here to the new thread, which is not expired!](http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/jwibi/askscience_panel_of_scientists_iv/)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant General field: Biology Specific fields: Genetics, Gene Regulation, Cell Biology, Evolutionary Biology (Former) Research interests: Bacterial gene regulation, Molecular evolution BSc Biochemistry, PhD in the field of prokaryotic genetics, 14 years post-doc experience; 8 years in research, 6 years as a science writer<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV:Some people claim to fight against racism while simultaneously holding racist views. There is a guy called NycResistance that I have looked up to for a long time. He has documented police officers harassing people in Harlem. When the stop and frisk campaign went into full effect, he was there documenting the obvious racial profiling. He claimed to want to fight racism. He really inspired me. But in the comment section of his latest video you can see him calling white people "Devils", "wicked heartless Europeans", and "Demonic Creatures". Fighting against and exposing racist police officers is not an excuse to be racist toward them or people who share their race. I wish I could say that he was the only one that was making these racist remarks in the comments... but there were many more people doing the same. [Here](http://youtu.be/spyoQzUpA5Q) is a video I did on this particular instance. _____ > Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our *[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)* first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant What view do you want changed? Yes, some people do things. There's probably very few actions that we could definitively say 'No human in the history of ever has done that thing' We're not going to change a view that is 'sometimes some people do a thing'<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is chicken soup good for you when you're sick?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant When you're sick, even though you feel awful, it's important that you get plenty of fluids and plenty of your body's normal nutritional needs - calories, protein, vitamins, sodium, etc. And if you're congested (like you would be with lots of common illnesses, say a cold or a flu), then you're not going to have much of a sense of taste or smell, so food won't be all that appetizing to you. Soup, since it's mostly hot liquid, produces steam to help open up your passageways and allow you to smell and taste your food. And chicken soup specifically has everything your body needs - plenty of sodium, fat, and protein from the chicken broth and meat itself, and then usually vitamins from the carrots, celery, and whatever else is in there. So in one bowl you have an appetite enhancer, fluids, and all of the major food requirements that your body needs.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Explain Germán Idealism to me, please What the deal with these “______ completes the system of german idealism?? What is it that’s suppossed to complete it? Why is it not complete?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant German idealism is the movement of German philosophy which roughly begins with Kant's Critique of Pure Reason in 1781, and culminates in the later works of Hegel and Schelling. Kant's work was revolutionary for how it claimed that, while the world does exist objectively and outside of us, the subject (or mind) plays a central role in determining how the world is intelligible. The 'structure' of the world, Kant argued, correlates with the structure of our mind. The triad of classic post-Kantian idealists -- Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel -- all tried to deal with the implications of Kant's system, in very different ways. A central issue for post-Kantians concerned what might be called Kant's dualism. In positing that our experience of the world is fundamentally shaped by the structure of our subjectivity, Kant thus left room for a 'thing in itself' -- an aspect or side of the world that lies beyond our subjectivity and is thus unknowable. For the post-Kantian thinkers, this was unsatisfactory: how is it acceptable to leave a whole aspect of the world completely unknown? In some sense, the major works of German Idealism attempt to overcome this problem.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [General Sci-Fi] Which singular (normal-sized) alien would cause the most problems for earth? Whether it's an alien like The Thing, a xenomorph or a 40K Ork, it doesn't matter. I suppose even Sith or Thanos (without the gems) would count in this question. But there's only one of them and it's teleported to the middle of a major city. It's only goal is, naturally, to destroy earth. Which alien would cause the world to go to hell the fastest?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Anything that is a bioweapon, or could be considered as such, including due to alien microorganisms. So, The Thing, Xenomorphs, Orks, Tyrannids and any alien diseases. Orks are probably the worst, as they cannot be gotten rid of.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is the conception of god innate in humans? If you could link me to any works on this topic, I would be highly grateful. I was recently going through Chomsky's work on Generative Linguistics... which is influenced by rationalism. Can this view of rationalism be extended to religion?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Two early modern figures that are good to look at for this are Descartes and Locke. Descartes argues in his 'meditations on first philosophy' that, since everything has a cause, and nothing can come from something less than itself (a ball cannot travel further than the ability of the thrower) we cannot generate our perception of God (something perfect cannot come from something inperfect). We also do not perceive him through our senses, so the only way that we know God is through an innate sense (this is his 'trademark argument', meditation 3). Descsrtes is especially interesting concerning rationalism extending to religion. In contrast to him, Locke argued that all our knowledge comes from experience, thus we are a tabula rasa - a blank slate. He argues this in his work 'an essay concerning human understanding' where he notably points out empirical examples of societies that have developed without the idea of God, thus it cannot be considered innate. Hope this helps!<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Action Movies General] How effective is a vet at treating human wounds? We've all seen this in multiple action movies before. Our beloved one\-liner badass action hero got into a fire fight with 50 well\-dressed henchmen of some billionaire villain, and killing them all. But not before sustaining some injury like a gunshot wound or multiple cuts from a knife. So obviously our hero ain't gonna go to the hospital or the authorities because he's badass that way, he decided to limp his way to a vet instead, scaring the shit out of the vet and warning him/her not to call the authorities, then asking the vet to remove the bullets and treat the wounds asap before he's off to another gunfight the next day. Are vets capable of doing that? Are they trained to treat human patients?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant They are not trained to treat human patients, but they are trained a lot more generally than a surgeon is. When you work on anything from a hamster to a dog to a horse and everything inbetween, they are more than capable of treating one in a pinch. Might not be as good work as a specialized surgeon, but a human is just another animal on the list of what the vet have treated that day.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How are we able to tell if something is edible without eating it?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Simple answer is that you can't... so here's how to find out if something IS edible... 1. Find a plant that is plentiful (you don't want to try this testing for something you're unlikely to find to eat). 2. Don't eat or drink anything but purified water for 8 hours. 3. Separate the plant into root, stem, and leaf (R/S/L) (sometimes only 1 is poisonous). 4. Inspect each part for any kind of worms, parasites, or insects. If found discontinue with that sample and find another. Some plants are only poisonous during certain seasons (acorns after the fall are rotten). 5. Rub R/S/L on the inside of your elbow or wrist make sure it's crushed so you get the sap on your skin. 6. If you find that there is no immediate skin reaction for 8 hours you're safe to continue. 7. Cook the plant (boil in some water or grill over coals) as some plants are only poisonous when raw or under-cooked (check out raw beans for an example). 8. THIS IS ABOUT WHERE IT GETS DANGEROUS! Hold a small cooked portion against your lips for 3 minutes. DO NOT PUT IN MOUTH. If you experience any reaction: burning, tingling, etc. IMMEDIATELY discontinue with that portion of the plant. 9. Place a small piece in your mouth. DO NOT CHEW FOR 15 MINUTES. If any reaction, discontinue. 10. Chew the piece and then hold in your mouth for 15 minutes. If any reaction, discontinue. 11. Swallow the small portion and wait 8 hours. Do not eat or drink anything but purified water during these 8 hours. If you feel sick immediately induce vomiting and if activated charcoal is available drink a glass of water mixed with the charcoal. 12. After these 8 hours have passed eat a 1/4 cup of the vegetable prepared the same way. Wait another 8 hours. Again, do not eat or drink anything else and if you feel sick induce vomiting and use activated charcoal as described in #11. 13. Rinse and repeat, you can simplify this if you do have food you know is digestible by using your 8 hours of sleep in the testing cycle. Also you can always test another plant immediately on your other arm or behind your knees if you got negative results from the touch test. However, if you get a negative result during any of the ingestion tests wait until all symptoms have disappeared before starting a new test, including a touch test. 14. Here is a list of common things to look for on a plant that COMMONLY mean it's at least mildly poisonous: White berries. Milky sap. An almond scent. Seeds, beans or bulbs inside pods. Thorns, spines or hairs. A bitter taste. Grain heads with pink or black spurs. Groups of three leaves.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Answer an ELI5 FAQ - Why do judges give very long or multiple life sentences? Help ELI5 explain these common questions so that we can redirect future posters here. * Especially given the current events regarding [James Holmes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Eagan_Holmes) who just received 12 life sentences + another 3318 years, [Why do criminals sometimes get more than one life sentence?](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/search?q=sentence&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Most crimes carry with them a minimum or maximum sentence to guide the judge/jury after the defendant is found guilty. It's not unusual for someone in a high profile case to have broken several different laws or the same law several times. When their case finally goes to trial, the defendant is put on trial for all of their crimes, and they will be found guilty or innocent of each crime individually. Likewise, the defendant will get a sentence for each crime that they are found guilty of. So lets imagine a particularly gruesome series of events that lands our defendant on trial. This takes place in Anytown, USA. Mr. White gets in an argument with his neighbor, and at one point threatens to shoot his neighbor. Later that night, Mr. White breaks into his neighbor's home, kills the husband, rapes and then kills the wife, and then for good measure steals a bunch of jewelry. Later that night, the house burns to the ground, but Mr. White actually had nothing to do with it. Now Mr. White gets caught and charged with the following: Assault (1 - 2 years) B & E (1- 5 years) Rape (5 - 10 years) 2x Murder (25 - Life) Theft (1 - 5 years) Arson (5 - 10 years) Mr. White is found guilty on all charges except for the arson, for which he was found not guilty. The Judge and Jury decide to give him the maximum penalty for all charges for his heinous crimes. He gets 2 life sentences plus 21 years. Obviously there no way he can serve all of these, but the is a practical benefit to this practice of the legal system. If any one of these charges are successfully appealed and overturned, then their punishment can just be subtracted from the total punishment, leaving the other convictions in place. The alternative would be trying to decide what fraction of his punishment gets removed in relation to his total set of crimes and the amount of time served, assuming that a life sentence was the maximum possible punishment. It would be very difficult in practice to decide how much of his remaining time should be removed if say the rape conviction were overturned.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How is Ebola able to spread the way it has during the current outbreak? I am seeing reports that multiple medical professionals have begun to contract the disease. How is this happening if it is so hard to transmit and what is preventing this from spreading further, if anything?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Ebola is transmitted through direct contact with the bodily fluids of an infected person; every droplet of a sneeze has the potential to infect, and so do other fluids as well. It also stays virulent after death, so touching the dead body during funeral rites also has the potential to infect. There is a pretty high chance you will be infected if you do come into contact with the fluids of a sick person, but if you don't then there is very little chance of catching the disease. Even with all of this; most of the problems with spreading during this epidemic have been because of extremely poor facility conditions and the medical practitioners often having little or no access to water or proper hygiene equipment. A large portion of the people getting infected are themselves health workers attempting to take care of the sick in appalling conditions, which could be solved with better equipment and education about how the disease spreads.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How is fresh water created on remote islands surrounded by the salty ocean water? In other words how did ancient societies get enough drinking water in Oceania? Do the islands just have to be big enough? I was just watching a video about the Mahjapahit(?) and they mentioned how a certain island was important for its drinking water. What does that mean? What process occurs to let some islands have fresh water?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Freshwater isn’t so much created as collected on islands. The term you are looking for is “freshwater lens”. Essentially, if conditions are right, rainwater can collect in the soil of an island and float on top of the more dense seawater far below in the soil. If this is a sustainable system, then everything is good. People can drill down and tap into the freshwater, plants can grow and rainwater will periodically replenish the lens. If the sea starts to intrude (violently or repeatedly) into the lens, then mixing occurs and problems start. The freshwater becomes brackish (or completely mixes with the sea) and everything depending on freshwater is in trouble.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why are bubbles always spherical when blown? Whenever bubbles are blown, they appear to always be in a spherical shape of different sizes. Why not cubes or other shapes?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are primarily two forces to consider: pressure and surface tension. There is an outward force due to the difference in pressure between the inside and outside of the bubble, and there is an inward force due to surface tension. The force due to the pressure gradient is trying to increase the volume but the force of surface tension is trying to decrease the surface area. These forces reach equilibrium at the shape which minimizes the surface area for a given volume: the sphere.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: There is no excuse for consistent lateness We all know that person who is always late every time. I think there is no excuse for being late to everything all the time. If you're really that busy every day- start getting ready earlier. Drop some of your non-essential obligations over time. If you get stuck in traffic that much, leave earlier or maybe even later (if the route is clear at the end of the window it may take less time to get to your destination and you may, paradoxically, arrive on time because you've traveled faster.) or take a different route. I have a very busy life and I am late to things maybe 2- 4 times a year. Being occasionally late is unavoidable. We're talking about people who are late day after day- event after event. Edit: Not replying to any more medical comments. I already awarded a conditional delta on that. Edit: I'm mostly giving up on this one. People are just tossing around the same tired points and don't seem to understand my responses including the fact I gave a delta to people with disabilities (so long as they do their best to not be late and aren't using it as an excuse to be lazy and inconsiderate). Also, I feel like I explained my points about employment as thoroughly as I could and there is nowhere left for me to go with that line of thinking,<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Cultural differences might explain the chronic lateness of some people. Social psychologists conjecture that cultures vary on the dimension of the perception of time. North American and European cultures tend to be monochronic: personal planners are a sacred tool, lateness is considered rude, schedules have to be respected. Time is seen in a linear way, and time lost is lost forever. On the other side, African, South America, and Asia tend to be more polychronic: schedules are flexible. Time is seen in a circular way, and time lost can be recovered later. These cultural differences are among the most irritable things a sojourner can experience: try to imagine a city where bus schedules are merely a global indicator of when the bus will arrive. Try to organize a business meeting when your international partners have a two-hour margin to their arrival time. When socialized in more polychronic cultures, individuals tend to view lateness as a relative thing and may have only a vague comprehension of the concept of lateness. Inside monochronic cultures, it is true that consistent lateness is hard to accept, since people are generally aware that being on time is very important in the eye of others. However, some people may be excused to be late on a daily basis, since they can be socialized in a way that they do not fully understand how being late is rude.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user I believe a lot of people with 'scientific understanding' rely on a dogma just as much, if not more-so than religious people. CMV I have responded please see update 1&2 ___ Let me just define my meaning of 'scientific understanding'. The typical view of someone who uses scientific theory and experiment as a factual representation of the universe and reality. The person with dogmatic beliefe then, has a concrete belief in an objective reliance of scientific theorem. Let me also warn you that this is a very pedantic post. Looking at the following thought process: I subjectively observe a table. I have a distorted 'picture' of that table in my mind Meaning, the picture I have of the table then.. has less information than the 'real' table So I then say that reality exists and I observe it with subjectivity However, if I am always confided to the distorted/subjective reality I can then say that to me, 'outside reality' doesn't exist As I have no tangible link to it And the only reality I can verify exists, ...is the local reality of my own experience I believe you cannot objectify reality without assumptions. And the closest we can get to objectify reality is it's structure not the content. Therefore, all information and knowledge are objective derivatives of subjective (and distorted) data/input. These peoples 'Scientific understanding' then, relies on the faith of a subtle yet hugely significant unfalseifiable set of assumptions. Such as claiming an objective reality is real outside our own mind. This faith is dogmatic as proof (in my opinion) doesn't exist. Therefore... I believe a lot of people with 'scientific understanding' rely on a dogma just as much, if not more-so than religious people. CMV Just for clarification, it's my belief that people can have scientific understanding without dogma. These people I would describe as people who are aware of the assumptions they and others may adhere to. And that they have an abstract metaphysical understanding of where their understanding sits with the current scientific theorem. (e.g. someone who accepts a new observation on the sun, yet realises the sun may be a projected input into their mind feeding into their experience not unlike the movie 'The Matrix' - so the sun might not be 'real'). ___ TLDR & ELi5: ~~Those who followed 'scientific understanding' over 'religious understanding' during the times when we believed the earth was ~~flat what the sun revolved around - held on to a belief the earth was flat just like some people also held on to the belief of religion.~~ A proper scientific understanding, is open to conflicting 'truths' and is aware of the assumptions of the current meta-scientific-theorem. Edit: Note, it is not the 'science' that provides the dogma, it is the way some people interpret it/use it in their thinking/cognitive dissonance. ___ *Update:* Firstly I was overwhelmed at the comments; in how I could have portrayed my view better as some people misinterpreted me, in how many great comments came about and in how there was a genuinely good discussion. Secondly, I must admit, I did use religion inappropriately here. I knew this type of title would get a lot of attention. Luckily it paid off, and people were able to get my meaning. My main point was that I find that science relies on a set of assumptions which a lot of people aren't aware of - or fully understanding of. [My thread here](http://www.reddit.com/r/neurophilosophy/comments/1erbfj/cognitive_relativity/) goes into more detail on the view. But my view comes with a frustration of being poorly presented and the struggle can be seen today and in the linked thread. But there's a great deal of comments here that I can sieve through and either a) change my view b) better portray my view. So for that many thanks, I regret I have tested peoples patience enough, but I cannot commit to any comments changing my view yet. Please understand it will take some time to read through, today or another day - I will try to award a delta where appropriate. Opposing points: > My use of the word 'dogmatic/dogma' wasn't completely appropriate. * I wanted to illustrate that some people 'believe' in science with faith. Specifically, that reality is exclusively objective or rational. This is complimented usually by their inability to properly identify their subjective bias and the assumptions they and science make. > My use of the phrase 'scientific understanding' was slightly confusing. * There are people who have a scientific understanding which I would (as per my view) categorize as proper scientific understanding like [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1hxgyq/i_believe_a_lot_of_people_with_scientific/cayzhj5) by user /u/rmill3r. As well as the type mentioned in the above bullet point. > Scientific 'belief' is 'better' than the religious 'belief' * This was not an intended talking point - I just used it as a comparison that would catch the eye of science-minded people. Therefore I will not address which is 'better' because a) I can't fully represent a religious person as I am not b) the terms for 'better' are subjective and differ. However I do have somewhat of an opinion on this and I think for evolution and survival, it is necessary to favor a scientific belief over a religious for the physical sake of survival only. Before I revisit the thread with the intention of dishing out any deltas that may be warranted, let me leave with some links for people interested in this topic that may be new to it. Existentialism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism Ontology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology Systems Theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory And most importantly Cognitive Dissonance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance Also be sure to look into the awesome comments I know I will read some more than once and I may message people to discuss their views further and share the love for this kind of discussion. *Update 2: Please note a lot of people are confusing 'practising'* science with 'believing' in science.** Also I have responded [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1hxgyq/i_believe_a_lot_of_people_with_scientific/cazlk5p?context=3).<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You are correct in your understanding of scientific knowledge as incomplete and approximate. The perspectives on the universe rooted in scientifc knowledge are models of understanding, NOT precise descriptions of essential truth. However, you are incorrect in thus equating it with dogma. The scientifically-based models are rigorously tested and fit observed evidence to this point. More importantly, those models are not only up for review and change, but the entire goal of scientific research is to make changes to that model, usually by filling in details. Dogma is, by definition, laid down by authority. It has no connection with observed evidence. Dogma also by definition is incontrovertible, beyond debate. To say that treating scientific knowledge as fact is a form of dogmatic thinking is unsound reasoning, treating a degree of inaccuracy implicit in an incomplete or subjectively observed scientific model of the universe as equivalent to the absolute lack of evidence or rigor characteristic of religious dogma.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Archer] Why does ISIS seem to do law enforcement jobs instead of just intelligence. For example. They investigate and search a rigid airship after a bomb threat was made. They investigate and sometimes try solving murders (Such as Antarctica) And they often provide security at events that were threatened or when a criminal is suspected to strike. ISIS often seems to do things that the local police, FBI or any other law enforcement agency should be doing instead of an intelligence agency<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant They are a private contracting company that performs intelligence missions on behalf of their employers (usually the government, at least in early seasons.). Kind of like black water in the real world, but even more specialized. They’re hired when the government doesn’t want to risk it’s own assets in a mission, either because the chance of failure is too high, or they want some level of plausible deniability about their involvement.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is intersectionality and why is it a buzzword among activists?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Intersectionality means that we have numerous and diverse aspects of our identity, not merely one. For example, you have a race but that is not the only thing which defines you. You have a gender too, a faith perhaps, a nationality, an age, a career, and many different aspects of your character. Intersectionality means that none of us are merely “one sort of thing”. Intersectionality is being promoted today not only by “activists” but by Human Resources professionals in an attempt to combat the single-minded nature of “Identity Politics” which compels us to view ourselves and others as stereotypes who have only one thing defining them.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What physically ARE radio waves and what keeps different frequencies from interfering with one another?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Radio waves are light. You can see many different colors of light, right? That's because light comes in a lot of different categories called frequencies which correspond to their colors. Now, there's a lot of light out there you can't see with your eyes! BUT, a radio receiver can still "see" this light. Just like you can see that a red flower is red even if it's really bright outside, radio receivers can see the color (frequency) of the light they're receiving even with some background noise! If you were looking exclusively for a pattern of blue text, you would be able to see it even on a page full of pink text, right? Radio waves are the same thing.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: The anti-vaccine crowd and their arguments<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Advances in the field of psychology over the past few years have meant that a lot more is understood about autism spectrum disorders, and the guidelines classifying what is classified as autism have been broadened. This means that a lot of kids that just a few years ago wouldn't have been considered as autistic are now being diagnosed. The anti-vaccine crowd saw the resulting increase in reported incidences of autism and ignorantly decided that it must have been caused by a correlating increase in rates of vaccination. They support their arguments with "research" done by people like Andrew Wakefield, who used to be a doctor but was barred from practising after it was found out that the "research" he did was basically just bullshit he was paid to make up.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Has a solution been discovered for the curvature of space-time due to the hydrogen atom? If not, could one do so if the exact locations and momenta of the electron and proton were known using current theory?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Sure, you could create a stress-energy tensor for the hydrogen atom, plug it in to the Einstein field equations, and see what you get, but the question is "are the Einstein field equations still valid on the quantum scale?" We don't really know how gravity works on really small length scales.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why do excited electrons fall to intermediate orbitals before falling to ground state? When an electron in an atom is excited it jumps up in energy levels, and then falls back down to a lower energy level and emits a photon. For the Balmer series, the visible emission spectrum of hydrogen, the wavelengths of light are produced by electrons falling to the second energy level. What causes it to stop there, if its just going to then fall to ground state immediately anyway<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Selection rules. Certain decays are suppressed relative to others because they involve drastic changes in the angular momentum of the atom. Rather than undergoing a single decay from a highly excited state to the ground state, where the two states have little matrix element between each other, the atom will undergo a cascade of decays between “more similar” states in order to eventually reach the ground state.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: when a huge skyscraper is built, how do they get the cranes and construction equipment down from the top when complete?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Each situation is different... but it's usually some version or combination of one of these basic methods: 1) The "big" crane is dismantled and brought to the ground by a smaller crane. Compared to the building parts they lift... cranes are relatively lightweight in small pieces... so they can be carried by smaller/mobile cranes. 2) Same concept but the big crane is disassembled and lowered using its own structure or the building as a support system. 3) (less common) The bulk of the crane support is designed into the guts of the building and is essentially abandoned... or there actually is no "tower" and the crane is simply lifted as the building goes up so there is very little to take down at the end of the job.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is There a Limit To How Hot Something Can Get? I know that there is and absolute zero, but is there an absolute hot? A point where something is so hot that it can't get any hotter? Also what is the hottest thing in the universe?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It depends on whether you are speaking of a small finite system or not. For a small finite system (like a handful of atoms), you can end up with negative temperatures which are hotter than any positive temperature, and so there is an 'absolute hot' which happens to be 0 (or arbitrarily close to it at least, just like absolute zero). This is because temperature is defined as the inverse ratio of the change in entropy of a system over the change in energy. If you end up in a situation where adding energy lowers entropy, as can happen in finite systems, then the system will have negative temperature and then be hotter than any positive temperature, in the sense that heat will naturally flow from the system to any other system with positive temperature. Outside of 'small' finite systems, the question is a little more difficult to answer. There is a very high (positive) temperature called the Planck temperature, after which energies are so high that we need a theory of quantum gravity just to say what is happening. This isn't an 'absolute hot' though, it is just saying that we don't know what happens when you raise the temperature beyond it. It could be possible that you can still achieve negative temperatures in a large finite system, but we don't really know what that would mean anymore.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:How do we calculate the world's population from 100s of years ago?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Countries have had Census programs since the Egyptian empire. Taking the averages of those, and applying it to other areas with assumed similar population density, allows for a fairly accurate prediction.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How SHOULD we determine a worker's worth? A lot of talk has been done about how much people should be paid. Specifically, I've seen TONS of news about Walmart and their pay, and I see lots of arguments from both sides. Some assert that Walmart should pay more to provide a wage that the employees are more likely to be able to live off of, while others point out that walmart is a still a private company and they should have the right to run their business as they see fit. One talking point that all of this swirls around is the question "How much is a walmart employee worth?" That's when I started researching, and realized that we dont really HAVE a concrete number that can be stapled to a walmart cashier. I am not aware, really, of any method to determine how much added profit Cashier A of a random Walmart location X brings to the corporation of Walmart. When they hired Cashier A to their company, they end up making $Z more than they would be making if they didnt hire him. So for the transaction to not be one-sided in some way, and for neither side to be getting screwed over in some way, he should be compensated $Z for his labor, right? Is that even true, or are there other factors worth considering? What do we have to determine that number? How close can we get? I feel like we can spend a lifetime drawing lines in the sand over what minimum wage would be hypothetically "best" for society, but I think we're entirely missing the point of the discussion, if it isn't focused on prioritizing an equal transaction of labor/compensation between employer and employee, and it's instead just focused on the emotional side of why a wage should increase Tl;dr In need of a concrete/scientific way to determine a laborer's worth (any econ nerds have any models/equations/figures/info at all would be greatly appreciated) Forgive me if this edges into the political, I know wage talks can devolve into bickering quickly. I also posted this in r/economics but got redirected here. (I already read this sub's faq on min wage)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There isn't a way, there are far too many variables that are too difficult to collect to judge such a thing externally, and what's more, value is almost entirely subjective That's the whole reason why market prices are so foundational, because they simplify and volunteer the information required to make such decisions. There really isn't a way to see how much a laborer is "actually" worth other than to see how much firms are willing to pay them. A more politically charged answer to the question of "how SHOULD" would be by bidding. If more firms are looking to employ the same workers, or the government "competes" by offering generous welfare, then you will ultimately find the maximum amount that a firm is willing to pay for a worker. If you're looking to justify minimum wages, the best you're going to be able to do is tracking down some of the empirical studies showing that a minimum wage of X% of the applicable median wage has beneficial/not harmful to the economy (this number is usually 35-50%).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does high blood pressure work in the body and why is it genetic?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It helps to imagine the body's blood vessels like plumbing, water being pumped will exert a force on the pipes itself. In the body the heart has a few ways to increase this force, namely: increasing the rate the heart is pumping, or increasing the volume of blood. The body's blood vessels itself can also change its size (vasoconstriction or dilation) to further modulate blood pressure, with vasoconstriction being used to increase BP<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If I move both my index fingers at once, am I sending one signal to both hands, or am I sending 2 individual signals? Is there a signal queue?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Lots of signals! How are you moving your index finger? Just a quick movement and then stop? Sustained goal-tracking? Sustained proximal extension? There is a swirl of signals operating between prefrontal cortex (probably both sides), supplementary motor cortex (probably both sides) and primary motor cortex (primarily contralateral to the moved finger); as well as between cortex, brainstem, cerebellum, thalamus, and back to cortex; and between cortex, basal ganglia, thalamus, and cortex. These are all for smoothing movements, planning movements, etc. The final pathway is a series of pulses down the corticospinal tracts to alpha motoneurons in your spine, which send pulses directly to muscle fibers in your forearm and hand. Depending on how much effort you need, there may be more or fewer groups of muscle fibers contracting, and at different rates. The rates are governed by the spiking rate in the alpha motoneurons and the groups are governed by the activation pattern in the cortex and the spine. With sustained effort, there will be a feedback loop set up with additional spike trains sent by intrafusal muscle cells and bag fibers both to the motoneurons and up the dorsal columns to the thalamus and the cortex to help regulate the muscle firing rate. If you're looking at your finger, that information can also be used as feedback. So now there's visual processing and flows from association visual cortex to prefrontal cortex. There's no queue. Neurons send spikes, or action potentials, at varying rates. They code for responses by the rate of spiking or sometimes by the timing of spikes. Spikes propagate from neuron to neuron by the release of neurotransmitters across small fluid gaps (the synapses). Of course spike trains can also lead to inhibition, setting a gate to interrupt spike propagation from other cells (analogous to a transistor); or they can cause changes in gene expression altering the properties of the target neuron (analogous to resetting circuit props in an FPGA). So if you're extending both index fingers, you have bilateral corticospinal tract signalling, bilateral dorsal column signalling, and bilateral intraspinal, cerebellar, basal ganglionic, thalamic, visual, and prefrontal signalling.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user So How Do you Build a Desktop Application? I see so many tutorials and guides for making websites that it's easy to see the process, but I'm at a loss for how to make desktop applications. What languages can be used? Are there frameworks for desktop apps? Are there guides online? Do you just use the same stuff for web app design now? I have no idea ....<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant For c# you can use old Windows Forms, or newer technology WPF. Framework provides you with main form to which you can add controls (there are some predefined controls but for more complex requirements you can create your own). It is actually very easy to start, you can create empty desktop app from project template, without writing single line of code.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Social Conservatism is just a manifestation of the "End of History Illusion" Qualifier 1: I am talking about social conservatism specifically, rather than conservatism as a whole, including economic policy. i.e. just the ethics and morality. Qualifier 2: Although ["End of History Illusion"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-of-history_illusion) is typically used for individuals, it can be used as a sociological perspective too (see: [Fukuyama](https://www.google.com/search?q=fukuyama+end+of+history&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab)). This is true because, just as people believe they are a finished article, the same idea can equate towards society. As conservatism is about maintaining traditional values, it implies that all history has led to the values we hold today/recently and should be maintained as such. It is a mindset which assumes there is no more progress to be made, and that any change is movement backwards. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant First, what about an issue like abortion? While it does touch on "traditional values," to a degree, it's not really framed like resistance against undesired change (a la gay marriage. Second, a lot of things are about not stopping or slowing change, but actually going back. That sounds like the end of history you are referring to actually occurred a while ago, in the conservatives' view. In that case, is it still the best description? Third, much of the "tradition" and "past" conservatives evoke is fictional or grossly misrepresented. So, the illusion is not "culture has culminated in the present moment," but "culture culminated in an imaginary world decades ago, and has been in decline since"<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Internal monologue should be more normalized in films and television. You ever see a scene in a film or a show that just makes you go, "uhhhhhhh, what were you thinking?" I find that there are many scenes in film and television that are a little too open to interpretation. Often it would be helpful for the audience to know exactly what a character is thinking, and it's a massive insight that books and comics can give that film tends to avoid at any cost. For example, in the Amazon show The Boys (FIRST SEASON SPOILERS AHEAD), the main character Hughie >!kills Translucent with an explosive planted inside his body.!< Before the act itself, and earlier within that episode, Hughie is seen looking at a poster contemplatively. The scene implies that staring at the poster made Hughie reflective, but there's never a good explanation as to what exactly that poster did to change his mind. [The scene in question.](https://youtu.be/_W7hIHnYbc8) What was it about that spaghetti-covered baby that changed Hughie's mind? Was it the phrase, "Keep your hands clean"? Is it a rebellious streak? Did he actually just do it on a whim? We don't know, but I feel like that's a great opportunity to learn. This is simply one example (I haven't finished the season, so if there's further explanation in the show, don't discount my point just on that). An example of what I'm talking about would be from David Lynch's Dune: [Gom Jobbar Scene](https://youtu.be/A54yfyi00dI). Throughout that film, several characters have an internal monologue, such as Paul's mother noticing someone else has something on their mind and is holding back information. As problematic as that film can be, I think that's the best feature. Knowing what someone feels is a huge reason why folks who see film adaptions often feel the book was better. Also, I want to leave the caveat that this does not really include narration. Narration is a 4th-Wall break, as a character is speaking directly to the audience, and is often done in the past tense. This isn't to say narration is bad (I actually quite like narrators), but that it is functionally different from a character's internal thoughts.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant “Show, don’t tell” is a common technique in storytelling for good reason. It makes scenes more vivid, dramatic, and full of action. I would put it to you that if a character’s motivation is not clear, it is because the creators or the performers did a bad job at showing why they did that thing, not a reason to have an inner monologue tell the audience what they’re thinking. If you came away from watching The Boys and it was not clear why Hughie did that, it suggests to me that the writing or acting was at fault, not that they should have included a voiceover of Hughie mulling over the decision. In other words, the actions taken by the character should demonstrate who they are, they should not be explaining that to the audience.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [TNG] What if the Borg cube of Wolf 359 that went on to be destroyed in earth orbit... wasn't? Following the battle of Wolf 359, the cube resumed course towards Earth, completely undamaged. The Enterprise, having finally completed repairs, raced to catch up to the Borg. In preparation for a Borg invasion of Earth, a state of emergency was declared on the planet. Brushing aside the last line of defense by easily destroying a flotilla of Mars Defense Perimeter sentry pods, the Borg cube took up position in Earth orbit. However, using the recaptured Locutus and his link to the collective mind of the Borg, Data manages to invoke a man-in-the-middle attack on the secure link between the local Collective aboard the Cube, and Locutus, injecting a global sleep command to all drones. The entire crew of the Cub simultaneously begins their regeneration cycles, entering a state of dormancy and leaving the cube entirely undefended. Automated counter measures detect the anomaly and are unsuccessful in reversing the hack, and thus execute a self-destruct sequence to avoid contamination further up the network topology, in addition to preventing Borg technology -- ironically -- assimilated. However, Data detects this malware defense response, and is successful in disabling it, while spoofing a command acknowledgement along the Locutus link up the network. The subspace link is then disabled -- if necessary, on the hardware level -- and the Collective loses contact with the Cube, seemingly due to successful execution of self destruct command. The Cube remains in orbit around Earth, disconnected from the Collective, and all drones offline, and completely at the mercy of Starfleet scientists. How do events from this point unfold differently along the future timeline, including the Dominion war and the Voyager incident?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Federation science is advanced by decades. By the time of the Dominion War, our weapons and regenerative tech make it a brief conflict. The DMZ probably never is established, because the Cardassian War goes much better, so no Maquis and no loss of Voyager in the Badlands. The Federation learns how to hijack the Borg transwarp network, and eventually takes a more proactive stance against future Borg incursions, dismantling or locking out the Borg, hedging them out of near space one conduit at a time. It still learns about Species 8472, the Voth, and the Hirogen. If we are lucky we just stay out of fluidic space. If not they may become a dire enemy defending against 'invasion' if first contact does not go well. The Hirogen are naturally predatory and will see Federation explorers as new and interesting prey. They might be able to be bought off with holodeck tech from the start, if it's a Galaxy or Sovereign class crew instead of an Intrepid. Voyager's poor showing was due to simple inadequate defenses. The Federation is not ready for the Voth and vice versa. It will probably devolve into a holy war against the human race. The worst threat, however, are probably the time-meddling Krenim. Without Voyager's interference who knows how far they would have screwed up Delta-Quadrant chronology before their timeship was destroyed.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Are modern medicines designed or discovered? What are the processes involved?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Modern medicines are extraordinarily diverse. These include, but are not limited to: 1. Analogues of existing medicines - Synthetic chemists are able to take existing compounds and modify them chemically to give them new potency, better half-life, less toxicity, or simply to extend patent law. 2. Rationally guided discovery - Gleevec (imatinib) is the most famous example of this. They used what they knew about the structure of BCR-ABL fusion kinase, and then rationally designed a scaffold and side chain modifications to selectively inhibit the protein. However, it still has off-target effects on other kinases. 3. Biological medicines - Antibody based therapy is becoming very popular. Scientists will raise inhibitory antibodies to protein targets, small molecules, etc, in mice, humanize them, and then use them directly as a source of treatment. Infliximab is an example that targets TNF to treat auto-immune diseases. 4. Natural sources - New classes of antibiotics are still being discovered in bacteria/fungi, although the rate of discovery is very slow nowadays. 5. Random screen, pray for luck - This is what a lot of people in academia and industry are doing right now. Chemists have created extensive chemical compound libraries. For example, a quinone group with every modification possible off of the carbon backbone. People will just screen these libraries (thousands and thousands of compounds) in an assay and look for the desired phenotype. Once they have a "hit" they will optimize it to improve solubility, toxicity, efficacy, etc.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: f-Stop and Aperture<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Aperture is one of the things that determines how much light reaches the sensor on your camera. Think of it as a hole in a box. Inside the box is a kid drawing with crayons. (Don't worry, he's being fed.) The bigger the hole (the larger the aperture), the more light that gets in, the more the kid can see his paper to draw what he sees through the hole. The size of the aperture is measured in f-stops. The smaller the f-stop, the larger the aperture, or the larger the hole in the box, or the more light that gets in. Shutter speed is also important: how long does that hole in the box stay open to let the light in? The longer the shutter speed, the longer the hole stays open, the more light that gets in. That's one reason why some pictures are blurry: the subject moves while the hole in the box is still open. Sports photographers use very quick shutter speeds (which requires smaller f-stops to let more light in) so they can capture motion without blur. If the aperture was not large enough, and the shutter speed too fast, the photo would be too dark because the settings did not let enough light in to accurately capture the image to the sensor.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What were to happen if the Panama Canal's locks were all open at the same time?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The locks are in place because the canal climbs up a hill to Gatun Lake, and then back down the other side (this was done to minimize the amount of excavation work that needed to be done). If all the locks were open, the lake would drain into the ocean a bit more quickly is all.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Public Lectures: What are some basic dos and don'ts? I'm giving my first public talk in a couple of months, but I'm nervous and want to start thinking about it now. Given my credentials (or lack, really, since I'm still in undergrad) I don't feel super confident about it all, and I want this to go really well. My supervisor/mentor is letting me have a very long rein on this one, so that I can get some practice in for organising/planning talks. How this is all received by the public matters a great deal to me, for various personal reasons that are not really relevant. The subject will be on radio astronomy in general, with a little bit on the work I have done in galaxy evolution and AGN jets. The location will be the town I grew up in (in Australia), where few people graduate high school and many more dropped out of primary school. So far, I've gathered that I should avoid all equations unless they're exceptionally simple. Given the location of the talk, even (what appear to me as) simple equations could be too confusing. I'm also acutely aware that the audience will likely span all ages and levels of education though, and I want everyone to be able to get something out of it without feeling like I spoke down to them or simplified things too much. I want people to leave feeling as though they learnt some cool stuff; maybe the kind of things they might briefly mention to a mate at work the next day or something. Do you have any other, perhaps blindingly obvious, tips for a public talk? I'm thinking that some general physics-y demonstrations could be useful as well, although I haven't made any decisions about what those would be. Apologies for the really simple question, but I suppose I have to start somewhere.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant >the audience will likely span all ages and levels of education This is key. Keep it simple. Describe the history of how the discipline developed, where it is today, and how your work fits into it. Tell a human story... not just formulas, but who developed them, how they were developed, what they allow us to understand (in simple terms). Show pictures. Do not put too much text on a slide. Practice your talk in front of an audience that will be brutally honest with you. It will help you pace your timing and curb bad public speaking habits. Have someone that knows nothing about what you're doing listen and ask questions, it will help you see your work from an outside perspective and anticipate the types of questions you might receive during the actual talk. Good luck, you will do great.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user The Bayesian vs Frequentist debate In which cases do you decide to go for one instead of the other and what are the reasons that lead you to choose a bayesian approach instead of a frequentist one?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant practicaly speaking, there are IMHO three types of situations where Bayesian approach wins over the frequentist one: 1) When the idea of repeated sampling from the same population is not tenable. This happens for example in pre-elections survey. Since voting preferences are changing significantly from day to day, it’s practically impossible to sample from the same population more than once. In situations like this, the frequentist interpretation of probability is not particularly helpful. 2) When there is a need to add outside information to the model. This happens when the sample size is too small or the model too complex to get a useful result based just on the data at hand. 3) When you someone asks for a probability of a hypothesis being correct, e.g. "what is the probability that implementing this policy will reduce unemployment?". This kind of question is natural for Bayesians, but virtually unanswerable for frequentists.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is saline the default hydration method for IVs and not just regular water?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Fluid in your body has an average concentration of 0.9% NaCl so it is most effective to hydrate a person with this type of fluid. If regular water is used it will disrupt many cells in your system. Basically it is easier for your body to take care of saline.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How is Tesla worth more than Ford? My question comes from this news article: [Tesla is worth more than Ford](http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/03/investing/tesla-ford-market-value-gm/index.html) Ford sells more vehicles in 2 days than Tesla sells in a year. Ford sold 17.55 million vehicles in 2016 while Tesla sold 76,000. The article even says that Tesla is losing money. How can Tesla be worth more than Ford?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Stock price and market cap are based on projection for growth. Ford is a mature auto maker fighting in saturated markets full of uninspiring vehicles, with 100 years of legacy costs and overhead -- older, less efficient plants, retiree pensions, etc. Tesla has a new exciting product that's revolutionary because it runs on electricity, yet doesn't suffer from the negative perception other "green" cars did/do. And they are investing billions in building state of the art factories to build their cars and -- of great importance for electric cars -- batteries. Tesla has only sold small numbers of expensive vehicles since their launch... not only did they have to win people over to electric cars, but they also had to do so with people willing and able to pay $60-100k to buy one. Once their upcoming Model 3 -- starting at $35k -- is released, and these plants are up and running to allow for greater capacity to produce cars, they will be selling many times the number of cars they do today, and their investment in building that capacity will have been made. So a company selling tens of thousands of cars could be selling a million in a few years, and the stock price anticipates that kind of growth for Tesla. Meanwhile, Ford is selling millions of vehicles but where's the growth opportunity for them? Maybe their next ___ model is more popular than Toyota's similar model and they grow that one model by 20% vs. it's previous version? That's not a lot of growth relative to the whole company...<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:Why do members of an orchestra need to read music to perform a concert yet members of a band don't read music in concerts? Does the length of the music make it difficult to remember the different nuances? I can't imagine that they practice less than a band. It seems more difficult as a band member because they would have to know many different songs. edit Thank you all for your reply's. I've been teaching myself the guitar and wondered this while I was talking things over with my wife. I had the feeling that the simplicity of rock songs versus a classical piece was the core issue here. I appreciate all your input and time! :)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Orchestras can be anything from 30-100 strong. The pieces they play, instead of 3-5 minutes of pretty repetitive music (not to be rude on pop/rock/etc in any way, but there's a structure, and it's easy to learn) are usually around half an hour to an hour long, although this varies hugely. Orchestras are tricky to coordinate and it's a risk to ask that many musicians to memorise a huge piece. On top of this, there are a lot of directions the conductor would have given the orchestra in the rehearsals that depend on performance practice as well - different time periods had different styles. All the sections have to play exactly the same, and this has to blend with all the other sections of the orchestra. Band members have probably also written their own materials, and it comes more naturally to memorise this than an hour long symphony. If it's an opera, you also have the singers to consider - they will have their own nuances that will most likely change each night and it's much easier to anticipate these if you have your music in front of you.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:Can someone explain washing machine cycles? Can someone explain the differences on my washing machine cycles? I know it seems silly to ask but I've been doing the wash since I was 15 and never really questioned what everything on the dial meant. Specifically what does the machine do differently in the "permanent press cycle" versus Cotton? What happens in wool? or silk? why have a delicate cycle when you have hand wash? Why have a dark cycle when I can just click the water temp to "cold"? Such cycles like sports gear (cold and long), hand wash (cold, gentle) make perfect sense but how do the others differ? Is there any material benefit?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Different fabrics tolerate different levels of physical stress and water temperature. If you wash something delicate on a very vigorous or hot cycle, it's more likely to come out wrinkled or with weakened seams. If something is very bulky, a fast spin cycle will probably lead to an unbalanced load. If something is very dirty, it needs harsher treatment than something that just has a little body odor. IIRC, a permanent press cycle is gentler and shorter than a cotton cycle, and it's designed to reduce wrinkling. Part of it is also that people will choose to purchase a machine that has more options, even if those options don't have a significant performance difference. Similar to how a bike with 18 speeds will sell better than one with only three, even though you probably only need three. Most of your laundry can be done in cold water. Always use a cold rinse cycle; warm or hot is completely useless (your clothes should already be clean by that point) and just wears out your clothes faster.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Schools should place more emphasis on civics than any other core class Before I get to the bulk of my argument, I want to make it clear that I don't want to attack other classes. I think that a good education is a liberal arts education -with plenty of real world, practical education thrown in. As such, English/literature, history, the sciences, mathematics, economics, etc, are all important. Still, I think Civics is probably the most important subject. Why? First, I think the most important thing that a school curriculum needs to achieve is to prepare the student to become a good citizen. Even though the 2020 US election had the highest turnout in the 21st century, the turnout was still only 66.8% of the total number of eligible voters. [https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/2020-presidential-election-voting-and-registration-tables-now-available.html](https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/2020-presidential-election-voting-and-registration-tables-now-available.html) For democracy to continue and not just die over time, we must have concerned, educated citizens who fully understand their rights, and more importantly how they can practically execute their rights. Take my own high school experience for example, I attend one semester, half a year, course in the US government, one two semester course in US government, and one half semester course in economics. I left the US government class, which I took as a sixteen year old sophomore, with a vague understanding of the judiciary, legislative, and executive systems; the ability to, temporarily, recite the preamble; and maybe some understanding of the amendments. What I didn’t learn is the particulars for how supreme court judges are nominated, how and in what way supreme court cases have been decided, how foreign policy is implemented, how grassroots organizing, protesting, writing letters and other civic actions can allow citizens to be more active in their government, the specifics in regards to protest, why, how, and when it is legal, etc. I think that every American citizen should have a deep understanding of all of these questions, and many more. Specifically, I’d love to see Civics treated just as importantly as English, math, and sciences, each of which, at least in my state, were four year long classes. Ideally, I’d like for Civics -history too, but that’s a different CMV- to be studied all throughout highschool. In freshmen year, students should take intro classes covering the origin of American government, the judiciary, legislative, and executive branch, how laws are passed, the job of the president, how voting works. All the basic stuff. Year 2 should cover all of this in more depth with some hands on material, i.e. writing mock campaign speeches. Year 3 should go even deeper by looking at government on the local and civil level. Practical applications are even more important. Students should be taught how to write letters to their representatives and be allowed to send them if they like -and the teacher allows it. Students should be taught about local issues and laws. Year 4 should return to the federal level focusing on the nitty gritty details of far reaching governmental decisions: foreign policy, climate change, relation to economics, civics. Specifics on protest should be taught so that students who have now become adults can go out and actually fight for their rights and believes. So, what do you all think? And no, I’m not stupid enough to actually think any of this would happen.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are tons of good ideas of things we could add to high school curriculum. Yours is a good idea too. Adding more classes in Personal Finance, or Sex Ed or Drivers Ed, or things like that are also good ideas. But in education, it’s going to be a trade-off. What are you dropping to add this new class? Are we going to get less Math or English or Science? Are we going to extend the school day to add this class?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do we know what colors are visible to other animals and why are the visual spectrums so diverse? I have heard the old addage that dogs are colorblind, but what do people really mean when they say that? Because of science we know that dogs have a very limited visual range, yet butterflies can see more colors, and don't even get started on Mantis shrimp. As if they were not already the most badass creature on earth, they get to have godlike perception as well? I know there must be a sciency way that people have used to figure out the visual perception of creatures... But for the life of me it does not make sense in my head. As humans we can use our imagination, technology and bad CGI to see the world as some of these creatures do... But how did we find out what they can see to begin with? I am especially interested in how we know what dogs see, and how the heck that was figured out... But I would also like to hear about other creatures eyesight capabilities and limitations and how we as humans came to those conclusions.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant We can know because vision works in a similar way in all animals (including humans). For humans, our eyes, have two kinds of vision cells. One kind is called 'cone cells'. Cone cells are in charge of detecting colour. Cones themselves are further divided into three types depending on what wavelength (colour) of light they absorb. One type absorbs red, one absorbs blue, and one green. (Technically all three absorb all colours, but peak in red, blue, and green). Every other colour we see comes from these three colours. Our eyes and brain work together to process and create the remaining colours. Since we have three colours we detect, humans are called trichromatic. Dogs are dichromatic. Which means they do not have three different types of cones. They only have two. They have vision equivalent to red-green colour blindness in humans. This means for them red and green look the same. In general, most mammals are dichromats. Cool fact: Some humans (mostly women) have four different types of cones which means they can distinguish and see colours normal humans can't.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How to submit a tv show idea to a network and what prevents them from stealing it?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant To submit ideas, you need representation, generally. You need an agent or someone who knows the legal layout of entertainment, and who has enough pull for the network to know that their time isn't being wasted. The reason for this is that so many people in the past have been burned by studios/networks/publishers from idea stealing that rather than dealing with the repercussions, all pitches, ideas, whatever, MUST be solicited. This means a meeting, representation, and all the right players in the same room. If you submit something unsolicited, they won't look at it at all. Trash/returned script that says "hey, we can't look at these. It's our policy. Don't send us these." Nothing guarantees that they can't just steal the idea and then send you the letter, but then again, you have postmarked correspondence that might be able to be used in court. Plus - networks have so many people in their, well, network, that they're not short on good ideas. They're not in the business to steal from the little guy. Even if your idea is the best they would have ever seen, there are thousands of ideas that will work just fine for them.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How exactly do brethalyzers work? How realistic are breathalyzers in determining how impaired you are? For example, if I swished around some liquor in my mouth, spit it out, and then blew- would it register that I have alcohol in my system?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant For the ones which count as evidence in a DUI, there are two mechanisms which measure the alcohol. One is infrared, the other is electrochemical. One of them falls for the liquor-swishing, the other guards against it. Some of hand-held ones are electrochemical and will be duped by mouth alcohol. But those aren't valid for a DUI trial. That's why DUIs wait 20 minutes before taking it just as an extra measure. All the alcohol will be gone by 15 minutes, unless you puke up fresh booze from the stomach. It's also why the breath sample has to be almost impossibly long, so the infrared mechanism gets the air from the longs and not stuff from the mouth.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If I leave my postdoc for a non-academic position, would I be able to re-join academia later on? I have a job offer for a science communication- outreach position. I am thinking of taking it because I want to see if that career path would make me happier. The position involves grant writing and fieldwork, but no opportunities for publishing. I am on my first postdoc. If I leave my postdoc for this position and then decide that I miss research, would I be able to get another postdoc and get back in the game? Or am I really shutting the door on the academic career track? I do have some trailing papers from my PhD so I will probably still have publications coming out for the next year or two.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The vast majority of postdocs in most fields have no realistic academic career prospects, so likely you can't actually decrease your chances very much. But yes, it will be difficult to get back into the game. When applying for jobs, you will likely be judged by people who have never known anything but the very linear career paths that academics are meant to follow and will look down on any deviation from that path. Many will think that you went into a non-academic position because you were not good enough to get a tenure track position, though many will think that if you do more than one or two postdocs anyway. Academia is very social status oriented and non-academic jobs are for many academics low-status. It is not impossible though. Ones chances are never zero.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do animal clones die prematurely but plants can be vegetatively propagated (essentially cloned) many times over with no ill effects? I've read that for animals, say, a cloned mammal the DNA of the original host is the same used for the clone, so it's already aged and degraded from time. I grow many plants, and so I regularly make clones via cuttings and divisions. So I wonder why the new individuals can have the same vigor as it's parent plant? Does DNA not degrade in plants? I've also read that inbreeding can occur in plants. On a side note, about the super massive tree structure Pando, that Aspen forest from only like 1 tree I think. It's estimated to be 80,000 years old and is technically a single individual, as every stem (tree) comes from the same roots and has the same DNA. Meaning at some point a long time ago a single seed made 1 tree which eventually became a forest occupying over 100 acres. How does DNA replicate so many times over in plants with no issues? Is it because the differences between plant and animal cells? I don't know a lot about these things, just a random thought I had. Any explanation would be appreciated :)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Plants are in general evolutionarily closer to having duplication as a legitimate reproduction strategy. Some plants straight up reproduce by sending out suckers and growing new plants from them, and those plants can be easily and simply divided. It's not impossible to fix damage caused to DNA by replication, it simply isn't done in animals, because dying off to make room for a new generation with new combinations of genes and mutations means that a species is more adaptible to changing environments and can therefore migrate faster and survive disasters better than a species that can't. Typically adaptability isn't a strong selector for species that don't move with simple environmental concerns, which means purposeful die off is a waste of resources. Importantly telemere damage doesn't occur for some types of stem cells, otherwise all species would eventually die off. The same process just happens longer in an individuals life in plants.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why is it that light with short wavelengths (x-rays) can penetrate objects, but so can light with long wavelengths (radio waves) yes visible light can't?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Different materials are capable of absorbing only certain wavelengths of light. The visible spectrum is the range of the spectrum that tends to undergo a lot of interaction with common materials--this is why it was relatively easy to evolve sensitivity to it, and it is also particularly useful for perceiving the world around us. Both higher and lower energy photons (shorter and longer wavelengths) lie outside of the typical energy ranges that electrons in atoms interact with. Therefore they tend to pass through materials without interacting as readily.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user A question on Evolution If a population of animal lives in an area where their food started to cause rapid tooth decay, would evolution sort it out in ways such as a different diet? Or maybe just generally make them stronger? Even a different means to chew and consume food? If humans stopped brushing their teeth and continued to consume sugary foods, after a LONG period of time would their teeth undergo changes (other than being severely decayed). Or is it our ability to create tools to keep them clean keep them from evolving? Would we create superior tools?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Hypothetically, if the ecosystem changed in such a way as to cause serious enough tooth decay that many individuals in a species starved to death before living long enough to rear offspring, then one of two things would happen: Either the species would die off completely and become extinct, or some subpopulation would adapt in such a way to cope with the change in the environment. It's very important to keep in mind that nature doesn't care whether the species goes extinct. Evolution isn't "looking" for an adaptation to cope with the change in environment. If such an adaptation is already in some members of the species when the environmental change is occurring, then those members are the individuals who live long enough to procreate, so the adaptation becomes more widespread.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do “take with a meal” pills get absorbed into our body properly if there is a large amount of food in our stomach?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Medicines, vitamins and other chemicals are generally either water soluble or fat soluble. Water soluble chemicals can be absorbed directly into your bloodstream and don't need to be taken with food. But fat-soluble chemicals won't dissolve in water, and thus need some fat in your stomach. Generally when a pill is suggested to take "with food" or "with a meal", it's because it's fat-soluble and almost all food has at least some fat/oil/lipids in it, so they don't bother to specify what kind of food.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How are photos colourised?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Some modern cameras store images much like these pictures. They use two channels, color and intensity. The intensity channel would be like the grayscale image. Intensity ranges from 0% (white) to 100% (black). The color is painted over this intensity, resulting in different shades of that color. To colorize old pictures like this, an artist takes a relatively small color palate and applies it to the image, using the greyscale as the intensity channel. This way, the artist doesn't have to create shades of a color, the intensity channel does it automatically. As for how accurate it is to the original color, it's often not very close. The artist may make a few educated guesses as to what color things should be (grass is green, sky is blue, etc.), but unless there is some other documentation as to what color the clothes, eyes, hair, etc., were, it's all just guesses and whatever the artist thinks looks good.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: why are churches exempt from paying taxes?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Tax exempt status is allowed for nonprofit organizations that are operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific or other charitable purpose. There are a few more rules, but those are the two big requirements: (1) nonprofit and (2) religious, education, scientific, or charitable. As you can see, churches don't get special treatment over other nonprofits. However, you might still ask why "religious" organizations are included at all. One reason is that it helps maintain separation of church and state. As the Supreme Court noted in one of its earliest decisions regarding a national bank, the power to tax is the power to destroy. By not taxing churches, the state removes itself from interfering in church business and also makes sure the state doesn't start relying on church taxes for its operation. Another reason is that historically churches were important charitable and social centers. That's still true for many churches today, but it was even more apparent when the tax laws were first being made.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Burnt out - want to quit research project (somewhat venting - mainly asking advice on how to talk to PI about burnout) \[Recent Graduate BS - 2020 - USA\] I've been with this lab for 2 yrs as an undergrad and started a research project with them for my senior dissertation. They wanted to turn the project into something publishable and I agreed thinking I could do it. We had bumps along the way with figuring out how to do our project and it somewhat changed so now it's just taking longer to complete. I've since graduated in 2020 and am still working on this with them (2yrs on this project) but after I graduated, I really just wanted to move on and have the project passed on to another undergrad to finish, though I know I've made a commitment to create this paper with them. I honestly don't care about having my name first on the publication at this point - which was something that enticed me at first being an undergrad. I'll be starting graduate school in fall and really want to cut ties with this project. I just feel like it's being dragged out and I want to focus on a project that's more my own. I'm not sure how to approach my PI about this - like it'll probably look bad since I'm going to do more research in grad school right? And if I drop out of this project it won't look good on my resume or something, or say something about me as a researcher? I'm not sure if it's a bad thing that I don't care about it would I look if I stop this project, I just want to be done with it.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In research, there is always going to be an ongoing project. You might be working on 5 at a time in various stages of publication. This is just the nature of the job. Just move on and make sure to discuss authorship and how to keep in the loop regarding publication before you leave, preferably in writing. PIs understand the nature of research and the revolving door for students.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What information does the doctor get out of hitting my knee with a tiny hammer?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant That the L2, L3, and L4 segments of your spinal cord are working. If your leg doesn't kick out, or doesn't kick out well (absent mobility issues), something is wrong (Westphal's sign) and can mean motor neuron lesions (the neurons that control muscular contractions), cerebellar diseases, and even thyroid problems. So that little tap actually tells the doctor a lot about what's going on in your braincase. There are many other reflexes that are used to measure brain function such as the plantar reflex (see Babinski's sign) which is a great way to determine if a comatose ER patient suffered damage to the central nervous system.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user UPDATE to the previous question on tackling misogyny My earlier question [Tackling misogyny as a female researcher](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAcademia/comments/ry3g5u/tackling_misogyny_as_a_female_phd_researcher/) got some serious and very helpful responses. I wanted to update on it. 1 week before the official booking of the thesis defence, I was shouted at by my sup. in essence, saying that I have not performed my activities as a PhD and hence need to work more and \postpone\ my defence. This came not as a surprise since (a) our work did not produce the results we wanted (b) other senior collaborators were handling personal issues which delayed my work, and they did not give way for me to get the work done on time either. So for my sup., accusing me seemed to be the easiest thing for their job/position. I actually stood up for myself without losing my cool and mentioned the failures that provoked their actions. I also mentioned postponing won't solve our scientific challenge. In the end, I decided to postpone because I cannot work to get the thesis done in a month in such a toxic-unsupportive work environment. I sought help from the dept rep. and it somehow helped to find a middle ground. The greatest help I got from is from another senior (female) researcher at the dept in my field. Her support is still available for me to bank on. The entire incident broke me, I became depressed and found it hard to cope with (even now). I have decided that if something like that happens again, I will take it up with the head of the department and quit my PhD, even though I have spent 5 years on this degree.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You are in Sweden, are you not? Don't you have a reference person? They should have helped you in this case - that is their role. FYI your Examinator/Examiner (examinatorn) is the one handling the defense schedule; not your supervisor. You should talk to them. You can trigger the defense at any time. You also count as staff. You should consider talking to HR and occupational healthcare (they do more than healthcare). Your university also has an ombudsman for PhD students (doktorandombudsman) and you should have also access to union representatives. Try to consult them too. I know it is hard, but there is a large support network and procedures in place to help students. In many ways, in Sweden, students have more power than supervisors (you can even switch them at any point of time). COnsider getting mental health help and consulting external people before rushing to 'quitting' or anything else.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: George Carlin was primarily a philosopher, not a stand up comedian. George Carlin is always touted as a great stand up comedian, but most of what he is known for are observations of human reality like time, stuff, losing things, government, children, how groups act. His routines go beyond saying things to get laughs, he gets people to think. He just happens to get people to think by point out certain realities in a way people find funny, but what he does and who is primarily is is a philosopher not a comedian. His comedy was distinct from other stand up comics that usually all focused on the laughs and any thinking was secondary, where as his routines all center around getting people to think, not laugh, though they usually do, the laughing isn't the point. If he were still alive to he would have had a ton of new material between 2015- now. He will truly be missed. GEORGE CARLIN 1937-2008<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant An essential element of philosophy is being able to give evidence as to why you are right. Simply pointing out inconsistencies isn't really philosophical. Being able to explain your thought process and at least give an attempt at a solution or resolution is key.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Marvel] Taskmaster can instantly and perfectly memorize and duplicate other people's fighting techniques. If he watched a few experts playing Halo or League of Legends for a bit, could he sit down and be a master of those games?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Taskmaster's skill is defined as: >Taskmaster injected himself with SS-Hauptsturmführer Horst Gorscht’s primer, an elaborate modification of the adrenal steroid cortisol designed to unlock the mind’s procedural memory potential. The Taskmaster thus gained the ability to absorb knowledge instantaneously. This ability is linked to his muscle memory, allowing the Taskmaster to instantly replicate the physical movement of peak-level humans. Using these "photographic reflexes", the Taskmaster is highly skilled in various forms of combat, as an exceptional martial artist (mimicking Elektra, Iron Fist, Shang-Chi), a skilled swordsman (Black Knight, Silver Samurai, Swordsman), a deadly accurate marksman (Captain America with a shield, Hawkeye with a bow and arrow, Punisher with firearms, and Bullseye with various projectiles) as well as displaying a strenuously honed athletic ability (Black Panther, Daredevil). Because he is able to use this person's skills as they would normally use the skill, in reaction to stimuli that trigger the response, it seems that Taskmaster could immediately become a master of any video game after watching an expert.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: People with a PhD in an unrelated field shouldn't be allowed to introduce themselves as "Dr." when presenting medical facts This comes directly from something I saw earlier about somebody complaining about COVID etc., I'm all for the vaccination so as you can imagine when I hear somebody introduced as "Dr. \[surname\]" with a different opinion to me, it could imply that he actually knows what he's talking about. No. A tiny bit of research shows that he has a PhD in theology, this was never specified, yet I see the same video circulating quite a bit around the internet (between anti-vaxxers) because he was called "Dr.", anybody that doesn't do research would therefore assume that he has some sort of medical or at least scientific background which is not the case. I don't disagree with people being allowed to introduce themselves as "Dr." because a PhD does take a long time and it is a big thing etc. but it's very immoral EDIT: When I refer to a "doctor" in this post I mean a licensed physician/MD, I've said "person with a PhD" any other time, I'm aware that they're both considered "doctors" by definition.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are synergy benefits for Dr. of biology to comment on medical issues or Dr of sociology commenting on social effects of medical issues etc. Lot of doctors (and their related scientific disciplines including theology) have lot import things to say about Covid.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:How can dogs smell cancer?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The current theory is that cancer cells produce characteristic organic compounds which get into the bloodstream and are then also present in the patient's breath - only in tiny amounts, but enough to be detected by a dog's amazingly keen sense of smell. Which compounds those are exactly is still being researched, in the hope of using the knowledge to produce test kits.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: why is it woman and children first during natural disasters I really dont understand<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant For women: Women are needed for reproduction and rebuilding of the human race. One male can impregnate a lot of females to ensure that life goes on. If there is only one female and hundreds of males, re-population isnt going anywhere fast. For children: They are the future of the human race and naturally have a longer life expectancy than older males. 10 year old will remain on earth much longer than a 50 year old on average, especially with care from all the women being saved. Basically to make sure that the human race survives.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user I am defending my master's thesis on Friday. Any tips to make sure I don't get publicly humiliated? I got my examiners' reports and they requested quite a few changes, like reorganizing the structure of my Previous Studies chapter, adding some theories, citing some articles, focusing more on one aspect that I had barely mentioned, giving more information about the experimental groups, etc. With all these comments, I am EXTREMELY nervous. Not to mention all my colleagues from the program are planning to attend the defence. Do you have any tips? And what happens if they ask a question and I have no idea how to answer?! This is the nightmare scenario for me.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It's common procedure to give a practice talk to an audience of friends or colleagues - potentially even your advisor, if that's appropriate in your field. Encourage those friendly audience members to ask tough questions, so you both (a) get some experience answering off the cuff, and (b) outsource the task of figuring out the "tough questions" beforehand. If they ask you something you don't know, then take a day to figure out the answer before your talk on Friday.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: If microwaves are tuned to the resonant frequency of water, why is it that heating up a bowl of soup results in the bowl being so hot it burns my hand while the soup itself remains tepid? Writing this as I'm nursing a sore hand and eating cold soup.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In physics there is a concept called specific heat. It is a measure of the amount of heat energy it takes to raise the temperature of a substance, specifically the amount of energy it takes to raise 1 gram 1 degree centigrade. It happens that water has easily the highest specific heat of any common substance you are likely to find in your home, including anything a bowl is likely to be made out of. The water in food may actually absorb more energy from microwaves than the container, but still heat more slowly because the container takes far less energy per gram to increase in temperature.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Professor wants to "see what I've done so far?" (x-post from /r/ApplyingToCollege) Hey, I was told people here might be able to answer this better. I'm a high schooler who did some research under a professor at a local University last summer, and when I emailed to see if I could come back to his lab this summer he arranged a meeting with me. What surprised me was that he told me to put together a short powerpoint so that he can "see what I have done." I haven't been able to achieve any progress further than where I was last summer because of my heavy school schedule and classes on weekends, and he knows this because he acknowledges it in some of his emails to me. Does he actually expect me to have done further work throughout the year or is this just a refresher to remind him what I was working on and what I was doing at the end of last summer? If it's the former, what should I do? Thanks so much.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You should probably summarize what you did last summer and then highlight your ideas for where to go next (even if you're just parroting what the professor has suggested in the past, it will show that you remember and understood where the project is going)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Given enough time could a crab, snail or anything really eventually evolve to become as intelligent as us? EDIT: Ok wow lots of responses. Its going to take a while to read through them all but I think the top comments and most others describe it well. It isn't just time, its environmental factors as well.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant As long as increased intelligence was competitively advantageous from a fitness perspective, the rest of evolution is up to random mutation. In a hypothetically infinite time scale, mutations that increase crustacean intelligence certainly could accumulate. However, it's also important to keep in mind that "intelligence" is not some sort of evolutionarily apex quality. Most living things are quite well adapted to their environments already and face a cross-section of different selective pressures than early hominids. Optimizing energy balance, disease resistance, evasion of or defense against predators, ability to attract mates and beget fit progeny, exploiting new ecological niches, etc are all extremely powerful forces that may improve with increased intelligence, but are largely unrelated. In addition, any intelligence needs to be utilizeable in order to be a benefit. If we consider "tool use" as a marker of intelligence... that would be incredibly challenging for a creature with the body pattern of a snail. Higher order brains are energetically very expensive, and they need to be worth it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What philosophers will be remembered in the future as we do now with Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell, etc ? It seems there isn't that much in the way of influential thinkers( that's my opinion), or is it and I'm just looking at the wrong places?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I expect for currently living philosophers: John Searle, Daniel Denett, Noam Chompsky, Judith Butler, Slavoj Zizek, David Chalmers, Judith Thompson, Peter Singer, Thomas Nagel and Saul Kripke. These people all have potential to be remembered(and some already have really famous arguments, see: John Searle’s The Chinese Room).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If planets were all formed from the same molecular clouds, why do some planets have different atmospheres and elemental make-ups? Title says it all.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Broadly speaking, the planets of the solar system are divided into two major groups: the terrestrial planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars), and the gas giants (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune). The terrestrial planets formed closer to the sun where temperatures are too high for appreciable amounts of volatiles (like methane and water) to condense and accumulate. Therefore, the terrestrial planets are primarily composed of metals and materials with relatively high melting points (Ni, Fe, Al, and silicates). Farther from the sun, beyond what's called the "frost line," temperatures are cool enough for solid methane and water to accumulate, providing the outer solar system with more raw material for planet formation. The outer planets were therefore able to grow much larger, causing them to gravitationally attract light gases, such as hydrogen and helium, which the smaller terrestrial planets were unable to capture. The differences between the atmospheres of Venus, Earth, and Mars are further explained by their different distances from the sun, as well as their different masses.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is it that when you're in a "dark" room and you focus on a really dark spot everything around you (even light) starts to fade away? I know I probably didn't make any sense since it's hard to explain but imagine being in a dark room with nothing but a little red LED light in the center of the room if you focus on a really dark corner, the light will start fading away into darkness. Why is that?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant ELI5 Answer: Your eyes see things by seeing changes. When nothing changes, we can't see anymore. Complicated answer: Image burn-in. Humans see light as an "excitement" of the cones and rods in our eyes. If we continue to stare at the same image without it changing, the excitement ends even though the image does not. If you stare at anything for a while, you will notice that your peripheral vision starts to fade and eventually your primary vision starts to fuck up as well.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: My boss sends me PDF through company email about a vendor he's considering. Next day, said vendor's ads are showing up in my FB newsfeed. How did they know? How can FB tell what PDF's I'm opening or email I'm reading? Our company uses Exchange and Outlook. I use Chrome and FF for browsers.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If you have your workplace listed in your Facebook profile they can target you with their ads. If they have a bid in with your company they could be trying to stealthily get their name in your subconscious by targeting employees of your company.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: It's selfish for a dead person (or their family) to not allow their body to be used for science or transplants. Normal inheritance is fine; at least, it requires a big enough change to the systems in place that I can't think it through without undoubtedly spending way too long making a new method of shuffling the necessary types of property about and redistributing wealth and stuff. However, unless in the rare case your family are going to use your body for some purpose themselves (which is a whole separate thing) then simply burying it is a waste, and dumb. The thing that started me thinking about this was an article about a family who had managed to get a grandson by harvesting sperm from their son. A lot of people were annoyed, saying it violates body autonomy, but I don't understand why you still have body autonomy when you no longer.... occupy the body. If you know what I mean. The usual reason why you can't force someone else to have kids is that the person did not choose to have to take care of those kids, but in this case, they don't have to anyway. They'll never know and it won't change anything for them. It may be cruel to bring up children knowing that they'll never have a father but that is kind of a tangential issue. Basically, you shouldn't be able to control absolutely what happens to your body after death, and only make suggestions. If the reason is good enough and the family agrees then you can do what you wanted to happen, for example for very strongly religious people, to which the body itself is important because of a belief in some kind of afterlife that depends on it. But if you just want a funeral service and then to get buried or cremated, I don't think that should hold any weight legally. The service is fine, since it doesn't necessarily need the body (as with all the soldiers who don't come back from war, but they bury a coffin in their place anyway), but cremating or burying it should only be an option if there's no other use for it (as in, a very old or ill person who wouldn't be valuable to organ transplants or science). I'm saying ~~mandatory~~ by default organ register from birth, with certain pathways to opt out when it's strictly necessary due to strong religious factors. Edit: Assuming, like in the UK, that free nationalised healthcare is a thing. For-profit single payer systems are a different unethical kettle of fish. They would have to buy the body off the government once there was determined to be no other use for the body parts remaining. edit 2: By mandatory, I meant "by default". _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Allowing organ harvesting of dead bodies creates financial incentives for less-than-stellar care of those on the verge of death, especially with how much certain blood types and organs are in demand and hospitals+ doctors are squeezed more and more to meet demands.<\|im_end\|>

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.