Split (1)

train · 52.8k rows

text stringlengths 82 65.5k
<\|im_start\|>user Why do photons behave differently in different frames of reference than classical objects? There is an observer A on the sidewalk at night. Person B is in a moving car passing by A with velocity 30 km/h and throws a ball in front (through the open window) with velocity 20 km/h in reference to the car. Ignoring air friction, A will observe the ball moving at 50 km/h. Now B does the same thing but instead of throwing a ball they project light with a flashlight. If observer A measures the speed of the light B emitted, it would be c, just like if a third person C would emit light from the ground. I know this because I've read that light always travels at the same speed through vacuum (remember we are assuming no air friction). But I don't know why. Why do photons always have the same speed in reference to any frame of reference? Why is it not the case with classical objects? What would be the speed observer A measure if the ball was thrown at 250 000 km/s and the car was travelling at 100 000 km/s? Thank you.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There is one relativistic formula for the addition of velocities that covers all cases. Given an object moving at velocity v relative to an object moving at velocity u, the net velocity of the first object to an outside observer is NOT u+v, but rather: (u+v)/[1+uv/c^(2)] At low speeds, this will be very close to u+v, and if v is the speed of light then so is that whole expression.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Professor life in the U.S. I’m an American but obtained a PhD in Europe and developed my academic career there. I’ve recently repatriated and taken on a mix of adjunct and industry work, all of which is at home. Because of a disability, I am hesitant to work in office but desperately miss teaching and daydream about securing a tenure track role. Because I’ve primarily lived in the worlds of European (UK, France) higher education, I’m nervous to work in such a role in the U.S. I cannot — physically cannot — spend long hours in the office. My previous universities were very accommodating, and I created a hybrid schedule that worked for me. Is something like this even possible in the U.S. or am I stuck being online forever? For reference, my capacity for in-office work really is limited to about 16 hours weekly. I can work from home the rest of the time with few issues because I have my home set up to help me manage my physical symptoms.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You haven't mentioned what specific field you're in. In Business/Law, typically: 8 AM - Wake up and get ready for an action filled day 9 AM - Prepare Program Work (Lectures, Program Content etc) 11 AM - Zoom Meetings and Discussions with Grad students 12 AM - Lunch w other Faculty members 1 PM - Second Lunch w Grad Students 2 PM - Collaborating w Researchers through Zoom 5 PM - Pina Coladas w Friends 6 PM - Gym 7 PM- More Pina Coladas 9 PM - Rum and Coke 11 PM - Sleep<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: It is a reasonable response for me as a white, straight, males to get defensive when a person, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation, tells them that they are “privileged.” Just to start, I am a white, straight, man. I want to make it very clear that I am NOT denying racism, sexism, homophobia, or any form of bigotry in any way. Things like that absolutely DO exist, and I think they are horrible and the people who promote those concepts are horrible people. (I’m painfully aware I’m not breaking any new ground in saying that lol). That also being said, I want to make it clear that I am aware that POC, the LGBT Community, women, and all other groups outside of straight white men that I failed to mention here have had it way tougher for YEARS and that there are absolutely inequalities in this world. I am not denying that. I am not talking about if someone says “straight white men are privileged” as a blanket statement. I’m saying if they tell me, personally, that I am privileged because I am a straight white man. My simple point is this. You do not know my life. You don’t know the shit I’ve had to go through. The pain and the hardships I’ve had to endure. The abuse, neglect, and economic struggles I have faced. I had to work my ASS off to get where I am, despite all of my struggles, and despite the countless obstacles, some of whom were people. You don’t know what I’ve been through, and I don’t know what you’ve been through. So don’t tell me I am Privileged. From where I’m standing, if this is privilege, then I don’t know why you would want it in the first place. Again I am not talking about ALL straight white men, I am talking about ME. I have had 2 occasions within the past year where I have been told I’m “privileged” in person, and I’ve seen quite a few posts online where I’ve made comments and people have responded as well telling me so. In the two instances it happened in person, I got defensive and basically started to say, “you don’t know what I’ve been through and I don’t know what you’ve been through so why don’t you back off.” And in both occasions I was cut off and basically told that “white dudes always get defensive when they’re told they’re privileged.” Well yeah. Yeah I am defensive. I don’t think here’s a single person out there, who if the roles were reversed, wouldn’t get defensive. So, change my view. Edit: spelling and grammar (I probably missed some other ones too so bear with me) NOTE: there’s a HUGE typo in the title. It’s supposed to say “tells me that I AM PRIVILEGED” not that “they are privileged” at the end. Sorry about that. Edit: Hey guys! Thanks so much for posting everybody. I walked away from my phone for about 10 minutes and had more comments and DMs then I was prepared for! I’m going to reply to them as swiftly as I can do please bear with me!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Privilege in this regard does not refer to what you have you have to deal with, but rather what you don't have to deal with. Plenty of straight, white men go through genuinely tough shit. Everyone accepts this to be true. Hardship as a general principle doesn't see color or gender or sexual orientation. Very, very, very few people actually think that being of a SWM identity prevents all hardship. That's nuts. What privilege is referring to, instead, is all of the things you never had to deal with because of those identities. Your race doesn't make your life more difficult. Your sexual orientation doesn't make your life more difficult. Your gender doesn't make your life more difficult. Like a cop might have been aggressive towards you, but they didn't act that way because you're white. You might not have gotten a job once, but it wasn't because you're a man. You might have been punched at a bar before, but it wasn't because another guy thought you were hitting on them. These are the kind of things that straight, white men are privileged to not experience, even if many other forms of hardship are nondiscriminatory.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Jump Point Search, how does it work? I have no idea how this works. Can someone please explain how jump point search can find its way? Here is an article trying to explain it: [Jump Point Search](http://harablog.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/jump-point-search/) [Here is an example where it is supposed to show how it works](http://qiao.github.io/PathFinding.js/visual/), but I can't wrap my head around it! (use the menu to the right to compare between A* and Jump Point Search) Regards, Kungarna af Island<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant 1.) From your current square, look vertically and horizontally. If you see the destination, jump to it. If you see the CORNER of a wall, mark the square adjacent to the corner as a "jump point" and add it to your list of jump points. 2.) Look diagonally. If you see the destination, jump to it. 3.) If your current square is closer to the destination than any jump point in your list, travel one square diagonally towards the destination. Else, go directly to the jump point, and move one square around the corner. 4.) Go to step 1.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What are those swarms of bugs actually doing when they seem to just be flying around in a small area?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Could be for various reasons, depends on the situation, species, etc. Usually it's somewhere with a damp breeze (downwind of a river or pond), and food. They see something you don't and are hanging around where the food is for them. Another reason is a mating swarm. At certain times of the year some bugs swarm up to make the task of finding mates a lot easier (basically like a big mixer).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are steroids bad to the body if they enhance physical capabilities and why can't we nullify those side effects?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The body works to regulate hormones by feedback. If it detects too much of X hormone, it won't produce it anymore (a problem whether one is using, or stopping use). ELI5: That's why ze balls shrink sometimes.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Stargate]The novus humans know Canadian/American English from Eli's ancient video lectures, but is that what they actually speak in day to day life?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Why wouldn't they? The colony was founded by humans who used those languages. Training videos exist that include examples of those. Outside of expected linguistic shifts that might occur over the centuries with some words that aren't otherwise explicitly demonstrated the language would be relatively resilient. For example, if no one ever heard or saw the word "buffalo" to be included in any of Eli's videos, but found it in literature, they might not know how to speak it aloud but for a dictionary pronunciation guide. And even then, their grasp of it might fail. You could end up with "boofaloo" or "byoofallah" instead of the intended "buffalloh" or something similar, but audio training is an excellent way to keep a large portion of the usable language viable. They might end up inventing their own words for certain things. Perhaps "pudding" never was documented, but they came up with "milk jello" instead.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [ASOIAF] How do the people of Westros store food stuff during particularly long winters?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The same way food has always been stored for the long term. Drying and/or heavily salting meat. Or just keeping large herds around for regular slaughter. Fishing through the ice is also a possibility. Since animals in westeros aren't extinct even through extreme winters, humans can still hunt now and then as well. (It's likely that they spend more time than in the real world drying/packaging foods and have much bigger storehouses than we do. There's probably a gigantic agricultural industry we just don't see because it's boring and has little to do with politics or wars.) For crops and plants, drying is still a possibility. As well as growing foods that take a very long time to spoil, like root vegetables and grains. Some plants can also be grown in primitive greenhouses or in manmade shelters to keep people fed some meager amounts for a very long time. And on top of it all, we know the more southern areas of Westeros are more temparate, so they probably are able to grow food even in the middle of winter. It's likely not as healthy or nutritious as summer-grown crops, but they can still grow it and transport huge quantities up north for a good profit.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: I am not a self made man. Looking back at my life I came to realize that despite successes and failures, my life is not my own. What I mean is that every step of the way someone has been there to care for me, to instruct me, to give me advice. For every person I have met that has wanted to attack, sabotage or derail my growth I have met 10 masters, teachers or compassionate souls that have given their time to make me a better human being. This experience has manifested itself through, authors of books, mentors, friends, teachers and kind strangers both offline and online. In some instances I have had the impulse to search out growth but in other instances I have searched out things that might harm me, consciously or unconsciously. I don't consider my success my own but rather a combination of timing, help from others, hard work and most importantly LUCK. I don't see my self as a self made man because though I have searched out growth, I have also made mistakes. Sometimes I have paid for them and sometimes I have gotten away with them. But I am here because I want someone to challenge my view and change my way of looking at life. I want to believe that each man is an architect of its own destiny and that I am a self made man. Thanks _____ > 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 Many people are given help and chances to succeed. What differentiates people's outcomes is what they do with that help and what they do with those chances. Sure there is Some luck involved but, Some people do not recognize the chances or help when they see it, they don't use the help or take it or listen. And some people throw away great opportunities left and right. Sure, some people are given more help and more opportunities along the way. But as you said you had multiple masters helping you and advising you. You recognized their value and took what they were offering and more importantly used it. Not everyone does that. You've been in control of multiple decisions that you have made in order to better yourself. You could have just walked away from the help offered. I will not say each individual is entirely in control of their outcome. But they can influence the spread of where they are going to land both positively and negatively. There is a reason why people who win the lottery frequently end up not to far off from where they started. A huge landfall of luck just thrown away. Opportunities like that can be used in millions of ways. What you do with each opportunity is what makes you.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: For you finance guys out there, I’m trying to wrap my head around decomposing stock returns and why it’s used. Been reading research papers on the topic, bas as usual it turns into deep mathematical proofs on how it can be decomposed. But not how why it should be decomposed<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant When you own assets of any sort, you want to forecast whether those assets are worth holding on to, compared with selling them and using the money to buy something else. None of us have a crystal ball, but there are metrics we can use to assess what kind of return a stock might give, in the short and long term. These include cash flow news, which assesses the general money flow (cash in vs cash out) of our investment, and discount rate, which looks at the percentage growth of each dollar we invest, often taking inflation into account. But which method do we use, and when? For what duration? With so many variables, it helps to break down the problem into smaller chunks. This is called decomposing, where you can split your portfolio in all sorts of ways (currencies, time periods etc) to see which combination of cuts and chunks, if sold or held, would probably yield the best returns.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user what type of therapy should be sought for trying to get in touch with suppressed emotions from childhood? To be able to understand how they manifest now in adulthood.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant This is a very explicit issue in psychodynamic and psychoanalytic psychotherapy. But insight of such links between past and present could happen in any framework of therapy where emotional experience is the focus of the work.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why are children especially vulnerable to measles? Is it because of a general lack of antibodies, or perhaps because the immune system isn't as well-developed?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In the modern world, almost all adults have been immunized against measles. In the old days, everyone caught measles as a child and either died from it or became immune, so they didn't get it as adults. In populations where adults aren't immune (like Native Americans just after Columbus), adults died from measles like crazy.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: The health insurance system of the United States is the biggest organized crime/extortion ring in history. Extortion, racketeering, preying on the weak and vulnerable. They have leaned on politicians for years for legitimacy. The business exists only to collect protection money from our population. A terrible side effect is the strain placed on the doctors and nurses that are unable to use their knowledge and skill to best treat any patient that comes under their care. My view will not be changed by any job numbers, but if anyone can explain to me how our nation is benefitted in any way or how this leech industry is not driving up our cost of care my view could be changed.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant No private healthcare system can run smoothly without health insurance. Now, that’s not to say our medical system runs smoothly — it is an expensive failure, for reasons that include the poorly run insurance system, but health insurance itself serves a vital function. In countries where healthcare is less expensive, health insurance is purchased to cover the cost of unforeseen expenses. It is not intended to cover the cost of routine medical care. There is a strong argument that ballooning medical costs came first, not the other way around — American public health collapsed (see the rise of corn syrup, the collapse of exercise, etc), and these compounded existing problems such as luxury medicine (for example, MRIs for offices that don’t really need MRIs — compare MRI machines per capita in the USA to Canada). Insurance billing practices are one factor, but hospital administrators also try like hell to overcharge insurance companies for every little thing because “why not, they have the money!” and ordinary people don’t contest it because they don’t have the expertise to tell whether what their hospital is charging them is fair or not. So, although insurance companies can engage in unethical practices, and certainly do retain lobbyists to maintain their privileged position, medical providers and the rise of “specialists” in place of general practitioners has driven the raw cost of care up just as much, and pushed people into the arms of what used to be a smaller and less powerful business. TL;DR: fixing other factors that make medicine so expensive would make people less dependent on insurance, and drive down the cost of being insured.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How does amputation affect the amount of blood contained within the body? So for example, if somebody had both their legs amputated. Would the body very quickly adjust to this and ramp down production immediately? Or would it instead change the pressure of the blood within the system in the short term, then decrease the total amount over time? I read a little about baroreceptors to try and find out, but I don't know.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Blood pressure is mostly regulated by two processes: cardiac output (how much blood the heart is pumping per minute) and mean arterial pressure (basically the average tightness of the tubes). Both of these things are regulated by certain things as well. Cardiac output is related to how much blood the heart gets in and how hard and fast it pumps. Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) is related to hormones such as adrenaline as well as chemicals like CO2 and lactic acid. When a limb is amputated, there are two options to deal with the blood vessels. One is to seal them off (most common) and the other is to connect them to each other as a shunt. If you assume minimal blood loss from the surgery, then as you mentioned there is now more blood per unit are than there was before. The immediate reaction to this is for the pressure-sensitive baroreceptors to signal for the release of hormones which loosen the arterioles. At the microscopic level, the small vessels called capillaries are not strictly pipes and can leak fluid into the tissues which leads to swelling known as edema. The heart will also be signalled by these chemicals and initially will pump less rapidly and effectively. Soon however, since the loosening of the arteries leads to more space for the blood to be in, the heart starts getting less blood coming in and it will soon resume its normal function. Regulation of blood pressure is actually quite a fascinating topic and the problems when that regulation fails lead to many different consequences that affect billions worldwide.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Did Darth Vader ever learn how to prevent people from dyeing through the dark side or did he just give up after Padme died?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant He found that he already knew how to prevent people from dyeing as long as he was right there in front of them. Or had a clear view of them. However, when he wasn't around, people were free to dye as they pleased. However, due to the knowledge that Vader himself didn't appreciate people dyeing in the Empire, especially the military, most citizens kept to their natural hair colors.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How does the body decide on when to use diarrhea or vomiting as a method of excreting hazardous food?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant First it would depend on a substances location. After it's left the stomach it doesn't have a mechanism to return. Second it would depend on it's ability to cause water to be released into the intestinal lumen. Something like an industrial solvent could alert your brain that something is wrong immediately and cause emesis. There are lots of substances that can cause irritation to the intestine, eg bacterial toxins, which in turn would cause water release as your body tries to get rid of it. Alternatively, a substance could draw out moisture by osmosis eg magnesium citrate.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is there any scientific validity to the technique of deep breathing as a cure to anxiety? Hi r/askscience, I'm a long-time sufferer of anxiety. Popular 'wisdom' has told me that slow deep 'diaphragmatic' breathing is the best cure for this. Is there any kind of scientific evidence for this?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Breathing deeply and steadily will reduce your heart rate and help relax constricted muscles in the chest and neck, reducing physical stress and helping to calm you down through lowering blood pressure. Additionally, breathing in such a way usually requires conscious effort and when a person focuses on their breathing, it also helps take the mind off of what is causing the feeling of anxiousness.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user I believe storylines in video games are not nearly as good as those seen in the majority of films and novels. CMV I love video games, but I can understand why most people do not take video games seriously as an art form. Films have their Apocalypse Now's and their Godfather's (granted, there are also stupid movies but at least there is an AFI Top 100 movies that all have fantastic storylines), graphic novels have Watchmen, The Dark Knight Returns, and the Sandman as well as others, and novels, well, it's all about storytelling, so it's explanatory. For games, it doesn't seem as necessary to tell a good story. For example, Splinter Cell: Blacklist got a 4 out of 5 by Adam Sessler although it has a piss poor story. I feel like video games get the shit end of the stick when it comes to storylines, and whenever something marginally good comes along, we hail it as brilliance, i.e. Bioshock Infinite and The Last of US (although they are great games in their own right). The only people in the business right now that seem capable of telling an excellent story is primarily Naughty Dog and Rockstar, and that's it. I'm not really aware of Japanese games, so maybe I don't know much about them. TL;DR Video games, as a whole, do not have as many great stories as everything else that tells a story.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Games are capable of producing rich and deep stories of an entirely different type. Games tell great stories about places, events or times. They allow for a depth of 'place' that novels and movies are hard pressed to replicate. Consider your average movie and its limited view and lack of structure. Think of how many lines of text it would take to encapsulate just the smallest description of the rich 3D interactive worlds of a video game. These games have dozens if not hundreds of hours to create a world around us, with sight, sound and words, something no movie or novel has. Are these games telling stories that are the same as a book? Certainly not. They are an entirely different medium, but they are telling a very potent story, and they transport us into another created realm. A land riddled with ruins and old prophecies can tell us a far richer story of loss and the decay of an empire by placing us there, letting us see the sunlight passing through old spires. We are given to understand the tale of this place. A haunted house where we are forced to hide in the shadows as monsters stalk in the dimness lets us understand fear. And we can learn the story of the horrors that stalk there all the more potently as we shift through decaying documents while wolves howl in the night. These are not better or worse stories, they are different stories. Primarily, because unlike most fiction, they are told from the second person. But we are nevertheless transported into a different time and experience something new and creative. This is an old argument that comes along every time that a new media makes itself known. The stories told by film are very different that novels - they are short, truncated, bereft of any internal dialogue, etc. But we will come to appreciate stories of video games in the same way we have come to appreciate film, not by their similarities with the older medium but in their own merits.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How to be maximally impactful as a kinda-but-not-too-smart person How would you respond to a student who says "I don't want to research \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ because there are way smarter people already working on it." ? It has certainly been my experience in CS that I get viciously outpaced by the developers who are already smarter than me, AND they put in 60+ hour weeks. Like, I'm a good developer, but if I get /that/ person on my team, then my contributions are hardly noticeable. Does this feel true to you, whatever field you're in? Side note, off the top of your head, what are some fields with too many scholars and some fields with not enough?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Some researchers are recognized solely for their ability to perform comprehensive literature reviews. You don’t always have to be the one coming up with new ideas. Merely setting the table gives you a seat sometimes. There’s also a ton of value in interdisciplinary work: Drawing together two discrete conversations, or using theoretical frameworks uncommon to the field to offer new insights. This is a harder path, though, and you are likely to encounter resistance and need to present watertight justification... but it is a way to get yourself out there.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What are the arguments against giving free things to cover basic necessities for everyone? The 7 basic things that every human being requires to prosper are Food, water, clothing, shelter, education, healthcare, and protection. What happens if we give all the 7 things for free to everyone, like basic rudimentary food like bread and butter or a liquid diet like soylent, basic ultra-cheap clothes that you can buy in Walmart like the 3.67$ Hanes shirts. We are already providing police protection, fire protection to everyone. Why can't we do it for the rest of the needs? Since this morning I have been thinking about all the free stuff that I receive in any country. The first thing that came to my mind is Police protection. Even if I was a homeless person, I could pretty much approach the police to seek protection. Even if I had absolutely no money and I was in a burning building, the fireman would still show up and save me for free. They wouldn't check my Fico score before deciding if I deserve to be pulled out of the burning building or not right? Similarly, why can't we do the same to other basic things that people need? I tried to think of a few reasons why people who say this could be bad: 1. If abuse of this free stuff is the concern, then the first thing that comes to my mind is that if you frequently call 911 without an actual emergency, they will come and arrest you. Similarly, if you frequently request free clothes or food, you could be denied these services. There are ways to prevent abuse. 2. Just because a 3.67$ basic shirt is available for free, it wouldn't prevent people from buying more expensive shirts, like a 12$ shirt. I wouldn't wear the 3.67$ shirt to the office as it makes me look cheap. But if I was homeless and that is all I had, I would happily use that. Similarly just because there is a police force available, most organizations don't exclusively rely on them. They hire private securities for their buildings and such. 3. Producing these free things cannot be such a horrendous task. We train police officers and firemen all the time and they are actually paid to receive the training. Training a human being to fight crime/fire cannot be more challenging than producing the 3.67$ Hanes shirts for the masses. 4. People won't become lazy just because they are given a free 3.67$ shirt to wear. In fact, some of us would see this as a prestige issue and work harder to buy a 12$ shirt to prove that they are successful. In fact, I think more people would be able to work harder if they are not scared of becoming homeless. If you take care of the basic needs, more people would be emboldened to go down the entrepreneurial route. I personally would quit my job and try to start a company that would benefit people, animals, and the environment if I wasn't scared of becoming homeless. The fact that I have to work to survive is what is keeping me tethered to my job. 5. Some may ask, who would manufacture these if everyone is guaranteed these basic things. Well, like I said in point 2. Some of us will not be happy with a 3.67$ shirt, eating only bread and butter every day and living in the most basic house imaginable. Some of us have the drive to excel in life and accomplish things that would differentiate us from the rest of the people. Human pride would propel a certain group of people to seek employment in warehouses where they produce these goods. 6. There will be a population explosion. Sure, we are 7.5 billion people currently, we will become a trillion people. At least 1000 of these trillion would be smart enough to figure out how to terraform Mars. The way I see it, the more the births, the more is a chance of a genetic miracle. Who knows 10,000 years from now, humans will evolve to have an extra lobe in their brains thanks to the extreme population growth! Surely I must not be the first person to have thought of these things. Can someone tell me why providing basic things for free is a bad idea? On the contrary imagine there is a guy somewhere in the world right now, whose only goal for today is to find food. Who knows this one particular guy has the potential to cure cancer or solve global warming or do something to benefit everyone. But! He is currently busy looking for food or shelter. Imagine what he would accomplish if we solve his problem!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Many countries provide a lot of these things for "free" to those that need it. They have government programs for homeless shelters, unemployment assistance, provision of food, clothing, etc. It's perfectly possible and really more a question of how a government decides to use their resources. As for why not everything and not for everyone, well that gets expensive and likely inefficient. People that are well off enough to supply their own clothing can just buy their own clothes instead of government provided ones they might not even like. You're also looking at pretty vast amounts of central planning to provide for example homes for everyone. Not only would that mean high taxes, it's also exceptionally difficult to know what people want and how to allocate resources efficiently. Generally, market forces do a pretty decent job at that, because people (in a very simplified sense) basically govern their own needs and their supply. If people want red shirts, demand for red shirts goes up, which eventually leads to a higher supply of red shirts. Doing this "by hand" efficiently is a very high hurdle and it's not very realistic that you could actually implement a system that does this as well as it happens now.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is machine learning and how does it work?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Machine learning is a discipline that develops algorithms to get computers (aka thinking machines) to learn without having to be explicitly taught. It works very similar to the way our brains work. When you are born, your brain is a blank slate, and is hard wired to detect common patterns and associations. You guess at what something is, and that guess is either validated or invalidated. For example, imagine a 1 or 2 year old learning about animals. She says "What's that" and you say "cat". Now, anything with fur and 2 ears is a cat, so when she sees a dog, she says "cat!". You say "No, that is a dog". And another piece to the pattern emerge, and the child eventually understands the concept of "animal" versus "cat" In the same way, machine learning systems are programmed to discern patterns and associations, and essentially learn through trial and error by being given tons of data, images, words, etc, and it "learns" through that process.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If virtual reality was realistic and available for everyone (so you could live out any scenario possible), would there have to be made laws for what you could and couldn't do? Sorry if this is too imaginative or if it's the wrong subreddit, by the way. If a kind of virtual reality that was just like real life existed and was available for everyone (like the Internet is now), would there have to be made laws for things you could and couldn't do in your virtual reality? Things like murder and child pornography come to mind, because obviously in real life they're huge offenses since they affect REAL people, but would the moral aspect of it make it necessary for the government to create laws against virtualizing these things? I hope it makes sense, otherwise feel free to ask me to elaborate.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I am unsure whether you are asking based on our current framework of laws or what would be the ideal. Regarding child pornography, even virtual cp is deemed illegal. That's a debate people here tend to debate.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do computer screens ripple like water when you press on them?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant LCD monitors / computer screens contain liquid crystals. These liquid crystals have properties of both a liquid (like water) and a solid (like a crystal). The reason for using liquid crystals is that (in combination with polarizing filters), by manipulating the amount of applied voltage it allows you to control the amount of light that is allowed to pass through the screen to your eyes in a given region of the screen. The backlight behind an LCD screen remains a relatively constant in brightness in most cases and it's the liquid crystals that determine whether to allow all the backlight through, only some of the backlight through, or none of the backlight through to dynamically control pixel brightness on the screen.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV:It's time to stop hyphenating words because they don't fit in one single line. Whenever I read something in perfect columns I always hate coming across a word broken up by a hyphen just for the sake of having the column of words look nice and be all even. Sometimes you can read the word easily because it's made of components like be-cause or al-ways which isn't so bad. But sometimes the words are made of phonemes that your brain only comprehends when it sees all the letters together like tro-ugh or anac-hronistic or morp-hology. It gives me needless pause when reading a text and I just encountered a problem that put the nail in the coffin for me. I was reading a journal article on PDF and I was trying to Ctrl-F a word I distinctly remember reading but it wouldn't work. Was I mistaken about the word being in the text? No! I eventually found the sentence I was looking for and to my frustration I realized that I couldn't search it because there was a Fuc-king Hyphen it he word!!! who cares of the right side of columns look a little choppy from time to time. breaking up words doesn't make sense anymore if it ever did. _____ > 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 It's not just for aesthetics, It serves a practical purpose. A newspaper needs to those columns to fit nice and evenly. Columnists have letter and word counts, and having too many large words that create new lines and push the column down into someone else's real estate. hyphenating a word or two so that it fits the space is the best solution, and isn't a problem 99% of the time.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: When an infrared non-contact thermometer is pointed at a target, how does it measure the target's temperature and not the temperature of the air column in front of the target?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I never got a satisfactory understanding of one of them. But regardless of exactly how the work; They measure temperature by capturing the infrared radiation of whatever they're looking at. How much a thing radiate infrared depends on something called 'emissivity' and i think most of tbose thermometers have a setting to correct for it; its 1 for what we call 'black body' and 0 for mirror like or white things, with most real things somewhere in between. Now your scenario; air is mostly transparent at the wavelength used by the thermometers, so it would only really see ir radiation from the object it is looking at. Meanwhile the transparency also means that the emissivity is nearly 0; it doesn't radiate much radiation, even if it were hot. More accurately, its just that there are far fewer air molecules flying around to emit anything at all, compared to a solid object; if you clump up enough gasses and heat it up, it would emit like a black body. (Stars! And thats how you tell how hot they are too). Finally, in most measurement scenario, the thing you are trying to measure will be by far the hottest thing within the column of air in the visual field of the object, so even if the air was denser and had higher emissivity, it wouldn't emit much. This would be why its not affected by the air temperarure you are looking through.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Exams should be open book/notes. As an engineering student I find this to be very crucial in learning. Memorizing the material for an exam is not a good way in learning the material whereas having an open book exam makes learning the materials much easier. All exams should be open resources. It increases note taking skills that are actually used in life and the work field and decrease exam stress. It's not fair to automatically assume that all students can retain a mass amount of information. Exams should be applicable based and not a memory test. You retain more information by actually doing research and learning the materials than cramping X amount of information then pouring it out onto a test and forget what you learned as soon as you turn it in. The whole point is to learn the materials, not just memorize information that you will forget. Not everyone can retain information well so by using resources given to you/using outside resources you gain a better understanding/different view of the material which will help you solve a problem that you don't know the answer to. Edit: for anyone wondering, I am studying electrical engineering in robotics and mechatronics.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Depends on the type of exams and subject. If a subject doesn’t give you the time to refer to a notebook when you really need to use it in real life (for a job like lawyer, for example), the exam should be more strict. But if it’s about creative thinking and the use of skills rather than just memorizing raw concepts, yes, then the student should be able to refer to notes and other resources.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How difficult would this project be? Hello, I am new to programming, currently a freshman in a C++ course. I am not sure if this is the right sub to post this is in, so please let me know if it is not. One of the projects I have always wanted to do was write a program that will automatically perform a water change on my aquariums. Essentially I want to be able to click a button or say a command for example " Hey Google, water change my aquarium". I want the program to turn on a drain pump then turn it off after a specified amount of time, then after it turns off the drain pump, turn on a refill pump and then turn it off after a specified amount of time. Here is a crappy visual: [https://imgur.com/a/6tqRCeq](https://imgur.com/a/6tqRCeq) I am very new to programming ( only been doing it for a week) so I am not sure where I would even start with this or if it is something I should even be attempting right now. Any advice is appreciated, thank you.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Definitely not hard, you can use something like an arduino (a small programamable microcontroller) to control a pump through a relay and then have it be triggered whenever you'd like to. You can find guides for arduino controlled pumps all over the place. The hardest thing might just be having connecting it to a steady water source, but the programming itself will be incredibly simple<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: If there are more colors than the human eye can see does that mean objects reflect more than one color or things we see as one color don't reflect that color but our eyes just can't see it? Would that mean there could be more skin colors? (This thought just popped in my head and I am now going crazy).<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant "Color" is sort of an overloaded term that can mean one of several different related things. There is a spectrum of light. Objects do, or don't, reflect each possible wavelength of light to different degrees. For example, an object might reflect all light below a wavelength of 500 nm, while absorbing all light above 500 nm, or maybe it reflects light close to 600 nm and absorbs more and more the further from 600 nm you get. In this sense, the "color" of an object is a curve describing how it reflects every possible wavelength of light, which takes an infinite number of numbers to describe. Human perception, on the other hand, is dictated by how that light stimulates three types of cell in our eye (so-called "L", "M", and "S" cone cells, which are most sensitive to reddish, yellowish, and bluish light respectively but have some overlap). If you know how much the light stimulates each of those cells - that is, you know three numbers, technically called tristimulus values - you know what "color" it is. The "reflect all below 500 nm and absorb all above 500 nm" object above would stimulate S cells a lot, M cells a little, and L cells almost not at all - that is, it would appear a deep blue-violet. The "mostly reflects around 600 nm" would stimulate L a lot, M moderately, and S very little, and would appear orange. Since the first definition of color (the how-much-of-each-wavelength-does-it-reflect definition) provides a much larger range of possibilities than the second one (the amount it stimulates each of our cells), there are many possible "colors" in the first sense for each "color" in the second sense. That is, there are different mixes of light that both appear the same shade of (say) blue to your eyes, because they result in the same amount of stimulation to each of your cell types. You would see a color (second sense) for every possible combination of reflected light (first sense), but you wouldn't always be able to tell the difference between those colors. Finally, not every possible combination of stimuli (color in the second sense) is actually possible. The M and L cells overlap a lot, so you can't stimulate L a lot without stimulating M a little (if you could, you'd see a color "redder than the reddest possible red"). The only way to experience these colors (second sense) is to somehow mess with the processing in your brain; people who take psychedelic drugs often report seeing new colors that are probably the result of the brain getting a scrambled "lots of L and no M" signal and trying to figure out what the hell to do with it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: I believe most people (including myself) don't know enough about the economy and politics to debate politics. My friends and I occasionally debate politics when we hang out and as much as I enjoy it, I don't believe there is always so much information out there that none of us can know enough to be able to be confident in what we're saying. For the record, I do have a basic idea of what I'm saying. I realize the Daily Show and Colbert Report aren't exactly hard news shows but I do watch both of those consistently, I listen to npr and economics podcasts, I read articles online that I can find to educate myself but I still feel like unless I'm spending hours a day researching, I have no idea what I'm talking about and shouldn't have arguing in favor of anything more complex than gay marriage (which doesn't even get debated). TL;DR - I feel like unless I spend hours a day researching politics and economics, I'm not qualified enough to have a strong political opinion and I have no right to argue for a position. Please CMV so I don't feel like an idiot. _____ > 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 just 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 So who is qualified? Only academics, as long as they're only speaking in their area of expertise? Politicians*, including the President, don't spend hours a day researching politics and economics. Neither do their staffs, who are usually focused on practical matters. Politics affects everyone, so the more people engage with it, regardless of their level of knowledge, the better off society is. Edit: spelling<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: I don't think Islam is problematic. I'm submitting this because "Islam is a problem that needs to be dealt with" is the #1 post on every "controversial opinion" thread, i.e. it's extremely popular, at least on Reddit. And a lot of smart people, like Christopher Hitchens, have said the same thing, so I don't want to completely chalk it up to Reddit being Reddit. Anyway, I got into this site through /r/atheism and lurked there for two years before making an account and realizing that there were far more fresh and interesting subs out there. Suffice to say, I'm not coming at this issue with a "we must respect religions even if their adherents do terrible things" attitude. Because . . . 1. I recognize that terrorism, as we usually think of it, is disproportionately Islam-based. 2. I recognize the phenomenon of people in a first-world, highly developed society suddenly becoming radicalized in the name of Islam and plotting terrorist activity or travelling to join al-Qaeda or ISIS. But, as I see it, this can all simply be explained by the fact that the part of the world that is most predominately Islamic, the Middle East, has been fucked with throughout the second half of the 20th century. Political, social, and economic disorder breed radicalism (see: post-WWI Germany), which found a convenient home in Islam. If Islam hadn't been there, or is removed in the future, I think radicalism would just manifest itself in the next big thing (nationalism, racism, politics, etc.). Up until the mid-20th century, Islam was widely regarded as one of the most peaceful and tolerant religions out there. And if the Middle East were traditionally a Christian-dominated area, and the West traditionally Muslim, there would probably be people right now beheading journalists in the name of Jesus. As for "satellite terrorists" in first-world countries, I see it as an inevitability, like the Americans who became Nazi-sympathizers during WWII. If an ideology is powerful enough, it might lure in a small number of idiots elsewhere. It's bad, but it's not unique to radical Islam—there's no hypnotizing verse in the Koran that turns people into terrorists. I'm not making a defense for religion—obviously it can be a vehicle for hate—but in this case, I think it's just the most convenient vehicle in a long line of them. So if you could wave a magic wand and Islam would disappear, something else would rise up to take its place. What do you think? I don't really want to dislike Islam, but I sometimes feel like I'm being overly tolerant, if that's possible.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant To summarize your view, you are essentially saying: "People who are talking about the need to excise the Crips from our country are missing the point. Yes the Crips are terrible, but there is nothing about their gang that really separates them from other gangs. Rather, it's the economic and political situation that is generating their negative influence, and if you were to magically remove them all today, tomorrow you would just have a bunch of red-shirted Bloods in their place." Is that more or less the gist?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How do carcinogens work? How do carcinogens affect the body? What compounds within food are carcinogenic? Do carcinogens affect people differently?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant 1. Carcinogens are molecules that interact with a cell's system of checks and balances. Normally, our cells read DNA as a to-do list/recipe for carrying out all the necessary functions in order to keep us alive. And they're hella good at it. However, occasional mistakes are made during that process. Lucky for us, our cells have the ability to proof-read everything they do, as well as edit/correct the mistakes. Carcinogens, at various places along this process (depending on which carcinogen) hinder a cell's ability to proof-read or fix mistakes. Where normally a cell would realize that something is awry, a cell affected by a carcinogen would remain blissfully ignorant and carry on with its business. Example: melanocytes are the cells that make you tan...they produce melanin, which helps block UVB radiation (side note: Gingers have trouble producing the proper kind of melanin, which is why they sunburn easily). UVB radiation is a carcinogen- that particular wavelength of light hits the chemical bonds in DNA molecules and causes the bonds to rearrange. Where you get into trouble is when that UV ray smashes the cell replication recipe... Normally, a cell reads the instructions and at the appropriate time, divides into two new cells. Then those cells just chill and do their job until it's their turn to divide. But sometimes when a carcinogen (such as UV radiation) messes up the instructions, those cells don't know they're supposed to chill. They just start dividing all over again. And since every cell gets it's entire DNA recipe book from its parent cell, the process continues to get passed down and it snowballs until you have a whole bunch of melanocytes that are multiplying like Duggars and don't know when to quit. We call that "Melanoma" in the biz. 2. Any molecule that has the ability to alter the structure of DNA is technically a carcinogen. You hear about "free radicals" and "antioxidants" in health food and supplement commercials... Free radicals are just molecules missing one electron/have one electron too many, and desperately want to gain/lose an electron to become stable. When free radicals run into DNA, they steal an e- or drop one off, which forces the DNA molecule to rearrange, starting that whole Bad-Recipe story over again. Antioxidants are molecules that join up with free radicals to stabilize them before they run into DNA somewhere and cause trouble. A couple other notable carcinogens in food are nitrites, found in smoked/barbecued meats, and alcohol (surprise!). 3. No, but yeah. Everyone's cells and DNA works the same way. Every cell in every person is potentially susceptible to carcinogens. However, since everyone's genes (recipes) are a little different, some people have higher tendencies for mistakes... Since Gingers struggle with melanin production, they don't can't block as much UV radiation, and are therefore more likely to get skin cancer (e.g., melanoma). TL;DR: carcinogens are mischievous little molecules that interfere with our cells' ability to regulate functions and repair defects.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why are nuclear bombs detonated while they’re still thousand of feet in the air?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant To get a bigger area of effect. If you detonate the bomb at ground level, only the part of the explosion around the horizontal circumference that will do major damage to buildings and the surroundings. You lose a lot of the force of the explosion upwards into the sky, and down into the ground directly under the explosion (which will do massively damage, but to a small area). If you detonate the bomb in the air, the force of the explosion that is directed upwards still does no damage, but all the force that would have gone directly into the ground on a surface detonation now spreads out over a much larger area.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: If light can't escape black holes, where does it go? Do chemical reactions still happen on/inside them? Can heat escape? I've heard the gravity is so great in black holes, that not even light can escape. This raises a lot of questions for me. If its swallowing stars, particles, planets, etc, then surely it would be creating incredibly high intensity chemical reactions. Those usually create heat and light (i think). So if the light doesn't escape, does the heat? Where does that light go? Does it exist under the surface of the star?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant this raises a lot of questions in a lot of people, so good work, you share something in common with leading physicists. we don't entirely know what happens in a black hole, it is impossible for us to observe it, but the current belief is that there is a "singularity" in the center that is infinitely small, infinitely dense, and infinitely hot. there's also a predicted phenomenon called hawking radiation that is generated by the black hole near the event horizon, that could be the answer to what will eventually happen to black holes, that eventually they will slowly radiate energy away and evaporate, but i dont believe this has been proven yet.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How can I support an overworked, unpaid instructor I really like? I'm an undergrad in a political science department and the amount of exploitation of these adjunct instructors is ridiculous. Underpaid, aren't given enough courses, part-time.. all while admins are making inflated salaries. So all this being said, I really learned a lot from the class I took (probably one of the best courses I took while in college) and want to do something. How much power do students have? Should I email the director of the program? Thanks for your time! edit: title should say underpaid<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Nominate them for awards regarding teaching, mentoring, or creative use of pedagogical methods. Talk to the admins that matter about the subject--the deans, VPs, the provost, even the president/chancellor. Support any efforts at graduate/adjunct Unions.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why are research databases so bad at picking up keywords in search string? Hi there, I am currently trying to conduct a literature review and I have found this (many times in the past and present) that no matter what combination of very specific keywords I use, the results still end up with random papers that have nothing to do with what I searched. Now, I know you may say this is because I am being too specific and its just finding the next closest result but when I go on and trawl page after page, I can actually pick up papers here and there that I do need! But why is pubmed/medline/google scholar bringing up so much irrelevant stuff?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Librarian here, probably because you are using a keyword search so the database shows results where those terms show up anywhere in the article, even the citations or authors’ names. There is a lot of nuance to catalog or database searching, you really have to utilize tools like Boolean operators, subject search, and wild card symbols and quote marks if you want high accuracy.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What's the difference between photoelectric effect and photovoltaic effect?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The photoelectric effect refers to emission of electrons from one material into another, typically into a vacuum, although air photoemission (into a gas) or internal photoemission (from one solid through a barrier into another solid) also exist. The defining characteristic of photoemission is that the electrons are kicked into an unbound state and they are free to leave the material. In the photovoltaic effect, electrons are excited but they remain in a bound state. These excited electrons do not leave the material but they move around in it until they find a place they can fall back into to release their energy. This can be a hole left in the electronic state of the material by the same or another elevtron after it was excited and moved away, but it can also be a contact with a lower lying energy level. In the later case, the electrons and holes piling up at the contacts generate a voltage and that's the photovoltaic effect.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: In theatre, why do so many people want to perform Shakespeare?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A lot of Shakespeare's plays are considered classics - which means that they're respected, popular, and compelling. So for an actor looking for a good role, a prominent Shakespearean part like Romeo, King Lear, Lady MacBeth, Hamlet, Viola, etc. means several things. First of all, it's often an interesting part that requires a complex range of acting skills - that's appealing to actors who want to challenge themselves or improve their acting abilities. On top of that, Shakespeare tends to attract good actors and directors - his plays aren't the easiest to understand or put together, so you can be pretty sure that the people working on it are fairly intelligent and talented, which is a good working environment and great for making connections. And of course, Shakespeare means exposure. Not that many people will make a trip to see a Brecht play, or Ibsen, or Tennessee Williams, or any number of wonderful but somewhat lesser-known playwrights... but Shakespeare is probably one of the most famous names of all time, along with the names of so many of his plays.... that means that people will pay attention and buy tickets when his plays are going on. More exposure means more money, usually, but also more recognition - if you want to get your name out there, earn bigger parts on better stages (or film/TV), it's important that many people know your name.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is there a finite amount of matter and/or energy in the universe? I know that energy cannot be created or destroyed but does the same properties go for matter as well?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Firstly, we have to make a distinction between the observable universe, and the entire universe. The observable universe is the sum of all points in the universe that are close enough to us, that light emitted from those points has had time to reach us. That is to say: those points are within our causality. Everything else is too far away for any interaction to happen. Naturally, we know very little about the "un-observable universe", so any kid of statement is a speculation. The energy within the observable universe is certainly finite, albeit conservation of energy does not hold true on cosmic scales.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:Why does restarting something usually fix the problem?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Problems can be caused by a number of things: A rare, randomly occurring error might overwrite some memory. Some unexpected combination of events can send something into an infinite loop or crash a critical part due to a programming error. A bit in memory may flip randomly due to pure chance, heat, or cosmic rays. Something stupid may have decided to consume all memory, grinding your system to a halt. Some programs reserve memory to do a certain task, but forget to release it again when they are done (or they don't realize that they are done). This is called a memory leak, and will slowly occupy your available memory. When you restart a system, it forgets it's current state and initializes a new, clean, known-good state. All services are started again - whether they were crashed before or not. The data is reloaded and rebuilt in memory, no matter whether it was valid or not. Since all memory got reinitialized, the memory taken up by memory leaks is now free again, ready to be used (or slowly filled up by more leaks until you restart again). Thus, all the effects of most random or accumulating errors are gone with a restart. Sure such an error could have broken something in a way that a restart won't fix it, but that's rare.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Child molesters and violent sexual predators should be sentenced to death. (Inb4 "What about an 18 year old in love with a 16 year old," obviously that doesn't count. I'm talking about true predators here. Nor am I talking about pedophiles who do not offend, rare though I believe them to be.) I believe that child molesters and violent sexual predators should be sentenced to death, and I include people who are caught with kiddie porn in that category. These people simply do not rehabilitate. They remain dangerous until they are dead or incapacitated. I know that some people will say that a life sentence without parole is adequate. I disagree. I don't want my tax dollars going to feed and house these people, and I don't want to run even the (admittedly) slight risk that one of them will escape. Instead of warehousing them, and struggling to find ways to render them harmless upon release (ie chemical castration, the sex offender registry, restrictions on where they can live and work, etc), we should execute them. None of the precautionary measures that I mentioned have proven 100% effective in keeping these people from re-offending, not even chemical castration. (Civil commitment is probably the most effective tool in that particular arsenal, but there are serious issues with its legality and I think that eventually the SCOTUS will rule it unconstitutional.) We know that these people will reoffend upon release. We know this. We know that they will never stop, as long as they live. Some of them will even go on to sexually assault other inmates. It is simply irresponsible to allow these individuals to go on living. A zero-tolerance policy of execution for the first offense is the only way I can see to (a) give the victim the justice they deserve, and (b) ensure that they will never harm anyone else, ever again.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The purpose of the government is to secure the rights of the innocent. That’s the only justice the innocent deserve and need to live and pursue their own happiness. The government only punishes the guilty to achieve that end. How do you know that every single one will reoffend upon release? Where’s your evidence? How many reoffend after spending 20 years in prison? You can ensure they never harm an innocent through life in prison, so your point b is completely wrong. If you kill an innocent through a mistake in trial when life in prison would have secured the rights of the innocent better, then that’s a failure for the government’s goal. If you raise the punishment for these heinous crimes to the same as murder, or worse than murder, then it’s not clear that criminals will do it less. And you’re incentivizing these monsters to also kill and silence their victims. It’s possible that this won’t reduce the number of victims, but will instead increase the severity of the crime against the innocent.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 : What happens when a country goes bankrupt? Recently I just read about Sri Lanka going bankrupt so what happens next?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant This is a very complex thing to describe in an ELI5. Each case will have their own specifics. Countries don't go bankrupt like companies or individuals because they cannot run out of their own currency since they can print as much of it as they choose. A "bankrupt" country is one where the government runs out of foreign currency. Foreign currency is needed to pay debt borrowed and to facilitate trade ie if a country wants to buy stuff from another country, they have to pay in a foreign currency. What happens next is that, for most countries, the first agency that comes to their aid is the IMF. The IMF gives emergency loans to prevent the local currency from getting out of control. (It is a Monetary Fund). The IMF will help the country renegotiate their debt in return for policy changes (ie the government should not waste the money loaned to it by the IMF). The next step is usually, but not always, the World Bank or similar. This organization might help out with longer term funding or for certain development projects undertaken by the government usually if there are poverty alleviation projects. Internally, it is more challenging. Many (democratic) governments that go bankrupt are voted out of office. The citizens don't like governments that go broke. In the best circumstances the new government undertakes economic reform etc etc. In the worst cases, even the IMF cannot do much and the country spirals into violence and civil unrest. In many cases, the IMF and World Bank (and other aid organizations) try to provide enough funding to avoid outcomes like mass hunger, complete collapse of the economy and/or rapid increases in poverty but that is sometimes only possible after some time in a pretty bad situation. The actual economic steps vary by country.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Assembly Code This may be a very general or very loaded question, but how does a computer actually convert assembly Code to binary, or more high abstraction language into assembly Code?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You should take a look at the Nand2Tetris course. A great majority of your questions would be answered doing the projects. Assembly to machine code is straightforward - they’re 1 to 1 and based on the hardware. It’s a simple translation. High level programming language to assembly is trickier, and depends on the hardware and the operating system. A compiler will convert the HL code to either byte code, or portable code, which is run by a virtual machine like the Java VM, or assembly, in the case of languages like C++ and Swift. This process requires taking high level constructs like functions and classes, and converting them into imperative memory and physical structure conscious code that can be executed line by line by a processor. This requires knowing the language you are translating from, like C++, to the language you’re trying to convert to, like x86 assembly.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user eli5 the Difference between Asset and Property Hi everyone, Can someone please explain to me the difference between these two? I thought Asset would comprise Property but then I noticed property is split into tangible and intangible properties. I was thinking property was part of tangible assets but now I'm confused. Thank you in advance!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A tangible asset is something you can see and feel. Property you own is a tangible asset. Intangible assets are something you cannot see. An example of an intangible asset would be where you helped someone and they owe you a favour, this is sometimes referred to as goodwill. Please note the definition of what is tangible or intangible can be different depending on circumstance, but owned property is always tangible.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How come modern day screens are almost impossible to see with no backlight but older consoles like the gameboy can be seen without a backlight just fine (most of the time)?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Modern LCDs use a backlight to shine through pixels of different shades/colors and display the image. Reflective LCDs like the Gameboy have a mirror backpanel to reflect ambient light through pixels instead. This is also why you can't see the screen at night without a source of light<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 Why do courts use “not guilty” instead of innocent?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The legal system is designed to determine whether someone is guilty, not whether they are innocent. When the prosecution fails to prove guilt, that in itself is not proof of innocence. Therefore the court states that they are “not guilty” instead. Innocence is presumed.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: the scope of a gun is on top of the nozzle the bullet comes out of, so wouldnt the bullet hit a bit lower than where you aimed for?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The scope is adjusted to correct for this (and for bullet drop in flight) at a specific distance. If you change distances, you need to readjust the scope. The scope is not purely parallel to the barrel, otherwise the bullet would always hit low.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What subfields of Economics is most used in Economics Consulting work? Can someone tell me which subfields in Economics are need or most used in Economics Consulting work?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I interviewed and got an offer at Compass Lexecon, one of the best economic consulting firms, and have talked to many seniors who work in the field. A lot of the work in economic consulting involves dealing with competition authorities, e.g. evaluating the impact of a proposed merger, or clearing a company accused of anti-competetive behaviour. Knowledge in econometrics, and industrial organization would be most relevant to the job. Industrial organization is normally considered it's own field if economics, but taught to undergraduates (I presume you're one) normally under a microeconomics course. It studies competition among firms in a industry, and if you've heard of Bertrand and Cournot models of competition, that's the basic models in the field. Knowledge of econometrics is also very important, because you're using real-world data to justify whatever you're arguing.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Coders of reddit, I want to start coding, what language should choose to learn and how should I approach it? Dear Reddit, I want to code stuff, I think its really cool and am prepared to give up some time. The only thing I know that's related to this is translating words to binary. I am thinking of using Ruby on rails; watching tutorials, reading articles, etc. What do you think will be the easiest and help to learn other languages? Context: I am a 12 year old boy that wants to learn coding. Now, I know most of you will stop reading this but I think I can do this and I know I wont have a game or a website in a week. I know it will take time. I am very good at learning things, for example, last year I didn't know a thing about computers, reddit or anything but I wanted something to play games on rather than my dads shitty computer which lagged like crazy. So I got into Computer components and started to get what's what and how everything works and what to look for in my budget A few months ago I gathered enough money and built a low-medium spec gaming pc (which I'm pretty proud of). This should tell you i'm serious about this. P.S I will throwaway this account if get too much hate.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Java is a great language to learn coding with. * The syntax has similarities with other major languages, like C or even Javascript or Python. This will give you options for learning other languages. * It is also quite strict on how you code, which helps you avoid learning bad habits as you start out. * It's a compiled language, which means you have to check that your code is written properly before you can run it, which is probably helpful. * it's multi platform, so you can use the same code on Linux, Windows or Mac, and other people's code will work just the same too. * there are some great tools (called IDEs) like Eclipse or Netbeans which will help a lot when coding. * it's popular so there are tons of resources when you get stuck. * it's flexible so you can try lots of different programming projects with it, and it can interact with other languages like SQL. * it's object - oriented which is a valuable concept to get your head round early on .<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do Japenese put extra words after names in sentences sometime? Examples being “kun” or “senpai”<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Those are honorifics, which most often are used to show the status of the person being spoken to. In your examples, -kun would be used for a male friend close in age, and senpai would be used for a slightly older person whom you respect and admire, though the word literally refers to older siblings.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Trying to understand Kierkegaard's Existentialism as a Christian I recently started reading more thoroughly into Existentialist philosophy - I went to university and graduated with an analytic viewpoint, and the courses/path I followed in my studies did not much lead me towards the existential thought. As such, I am a novice in this area, but I have some understanding of philosophy on the whole. In reading Sartre's thoughts on Existentialism and the misconceptions people have regarding it, he mentioned that there are two types of existentialists: christian and atheist. I have found that this divide roughly comes from those who followed on from Kierkegaard (Christian) and those who followed on from Nietzsche (Atheist). (this might be an erroneous read on it, but it appears to be true from what I have seen). I read some of Kierkegaard, particularly Fear and Trembling and Either/Or, and I have been reading criticism around him to help further my understanding, but I still have one aspect of his work that confuses me. From what I read, it seems that he had a view that stated the world is subjective, as is existence, and that we precede our essence with existence: we have choice, and he points to numerous examples in the Bible regarding this fact: Adam was given choice to eat or not eat from the tree, and, more famously, Abraham was given choice to sacrifice his son or not. Kierkegaard seems to say that our existential nature allows us to choose, but that in choosing to follow God's will, we are therefore better for it, in the case of fully having faith, we are "great" for it. So my question is: Doesn't this still suppose that there is a greater power at work in the world that thus precedes your existence? Your existence precedes your essence, and so you have the right to refuse, but you are worse for not accepting the will of this other essence (God), which seems contrary to the idea that your existence precedes your essence, since it adds value judgement to your decisions and thus brings you into an area similar to Socrates's Euthyphro. Sorry if this is a long-winded way to ask the question: I wanted to provide proper context as well as fully flesh out my question so that I am (hopefully) clear about what I am trying to understand.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Sartre's existentialist maxim of "existence precedes essence" enters the scene a good century after Kierkegaard and is likely one Kierkegaard wouldn't have shared. This is not the broader sense by which Kierkegaard is described as an existentialist or proto-existentialist philosopher.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is cancer common in organs like the prostate and breasts, but is not in other organs such as the heart or stomach?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The cells in some organs work very differently than in other places. In your heart for example, the cells stop dividing very early in your life. This is why the heart is pretty much incapable of healing any injuries it gets. The cells increase in size as you age, but new ones arent created. Since cancers come about as a result of mutations arising during cell division, it makes it extremely difficult for a tumor to form in your heart. and the majority of times it does get a tumor, its the result of a tumor somewhere else in a nearby organ spreading to it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How can a program teach itself to play a game like mario cart?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Software that learns how to play a game is usually based on a machine learning technique called 'reinforcement learning'. The problem with learning games is that you don't immediately know wheter a certain action or turn will lead to success (Imagine Go or Chess), so you lack labels for unique actions in the game. So you need a different approach - the reinforcement learning: A reinforcement learning program interacts with the game in time steps. At each time, the program receives an observation which typically includes the reward (like which rank, how many points it got) It then chooses an action from the set of available actions (randomly, or based on previous rounds or actions). At the next time, you see whether this improved, decreased or held the reward. When the programs performance is compared to that of an program that acts optimally or really good (e.g. a good human mario player), the difference in performance gives rise to the failure or 'regret'. In order to get better at the game, the program must 'reason' about the long term consequences of its actions (i.e., learn patterns that maximize the end result).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [DnD] Do the "good guy" races (elves, dwarves, hobbitses, etc) allow genocide against the "bad guy" races (goblins, orcs, etc) or is it a tribe-by-tribe question? I can see it going either way. Might be that, say, Blood Hook goblins are "just another tribe, yawn" and yeah they tend to be excitable, but whatevs. Their chieftan can bail them all out of lockup and take them home in the morning. Oh, but those Red Falcon goblins, we hates em! Or is it more like "Nits make lice. Kill 'em all, Torm will recognize his own"?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It truly depends on the specific individuals. Certain factions are perfectly happy genociding the shit out of orcs and goblins. Others think that awful. Usually elves tend to be less genocidal whereas humans are more militaristic<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Are there any buildings large enough to be affected by the curvature of the earth? How large would a building of this size be? Also, what engineering methods are used to counteract this?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It has a small impact on very long individual structures like suspension bridge spans. Compared to a flat surface the tips of two towers are approximately hL/R further apart where h is the height of the towers, L is their horizontal separation and R is the radius of the Earth (6370 km). Plugging in numbers: * Golden Gate Bridge: 1280m main span, 227 m height -> 4.7 cm * Akashi Kaikyō Bridge: 1991 m main span (world record), 283 m height -> 8.8 cm As suspension bridges are flexible anyway this is not a big effect.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why is String Theory considered to be "un-testable"?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant To test quantum gravity theories, you need a situation in which both quantum and gravitational effects are significant. We only know of two such scenarios: black holes and the big bang. All the black holes are too far away and too big to yield useful information about quantum gravitational effects. We can only see back to about 400,000 years after the big bang, so any of the initial quantum gravitational effects are currently unaccessible, although there may be clues in the cosmic microwave background soectrum, as well as any primordial neutrinos or gravitational waves if we are able to detect them. There is the other issue that string theory is not yet complete to the point where it can make unique predictions, but that can be said about any quantum gravity theory.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How are people able to understand a language but not speak it? What happens in the brain? I was just with a friend and he talks English to his mum, but she speaks Polish to him. He understands everything, but can barely string a sentence together in Polish. (It's also not a pronunciation thing, he's good on that front). Surely after listening to a language for years, you should be able to speak it yourself? Especially as you have the vocabulary seeing as you understand everything.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Imagine you have all the words of a language (and their meaning) written on paper, sorted in front of you alphabetically - Im russian, so lets say its russian words. First stack has all russian words that begin with "A", second stack all words that begin with "Б" (russian B), etc. Now lets say someone tells you the russian word "магазин". You know it starts on M, so your brain checks the M stack until it finds the word, and translates it to "Shop". But imagine you are shown a picture of a dog, and asked to translate it to russian. You still have all these sorted stacks in front of you, but that doesn't help you in any way. You could translate a word if it was given to you, but you can't just "find" the word you need to speak it. Also, when you're "understanding" the language, you're usually understanding the meaning, not the word-to-word translation. So if someone tells you "XXXXXX CLEAN ROOM XXX XXXXX NOW XXXXXX ANGRY", you can figure out that they want you to clean up your room asap. But when you try to say it yourself, you can;'t just "make up" the words or grammatic structures that you don't know, and thus you struggle to speak in that language. This is obviously a gross oversimplification, but if gives you the right idea. Its much easier to recall a word to translate it than to remember what the word is for what you're trying to say - so if you dont use a language actively, you will struggle.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user I just don't get NoSQL databases Perhaps it's just because of my years of working with relational databases, but for the life of me I can't figure out how a non-relational database works. I've read a number of tutorials and whatnot, and I understand that they are supposed to be faster and more suited for certain use-cases, but I can't really see how. The Amazon Dynamo DB tutorial, for example, is a movie database. If I wanted to store a cast list for a movie, I see no other way than an array of strings for each cast member. But then if I wanted all the movies an actor was in, I'd have to either do what I suspect is some very slow iteration through all the movies' actors, or store that information in the actor table. But now my data is doubled up and I can't see how that wouldn't create problems. You might point out that I've tried to use a non-relational database to store a relation, but I can't imagine a database where some sort of relation isn't necessary. Take Amazon, for example. There's a million relationships they must be tracking--purchase to user, review to purchase, item to manufacturer, whatever. Any insight would be appreciated!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant document based databases are really much faster at looking up individual records than relational databases. so, the primary use cases are things like caches (you're just storing blobs of data by a hash) and if your db ever gets large enough to where you're having trouble scaling your server(s) up (these no-sql dbs tend to be much better at scaling horizontally because they're not designed to store relations between multiple types of data). the second case is what kind of triggered the craze. facebook switched to using a document based no-sql database to load friends data, if i remember correctly. the data is relational, but they traded duplication of data for lookup speed. they really just needed a key subset of user data in order to populate your friends list, but using a traditional relational database, joining on their 2 billion row user table wasn't very practical. so, they basically store a document for your profile or whatever with the relevant user data duplicated in it. they can shard that data however they want into multiple db instances and just route your request to the correct one and essentially get instant lookups of the data they need to display your profile to you. however, most dbs will never get to the point where you need to do this type of thing. tons of people switched to using something like mongo because they thought it was the thing to do and ended up biting themselves in the ass because they were still trying to use it like a relational database. they would've probably saved themselves a lot of trouble if they just spun up a postgresql instance or whatever that would easily handle the load and amount of data they had. edit: there are also things like Hadoop (big table databases) which are designed to just accept as many writes of data as possible. rebuilding indexes and such can be problematic to performance if you're trying to write billions of rows of data per minute. querying these tend to be a bit slower though, so most of the time you'll just write operations to aggregate data sufficiently enough to where you can shove it into a more standard relational database to actually work with the data.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do electronics break when they get wet?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Electronics are very sensitive to the amount of electricity that each component receives. When electronics get wet, the water conducts the electricity all over the place and zaps the components with voltages they are not designed to handle. Connections melt or burn. Basically, it's like what happens when a ocean wave crashes in on top of a sand castle. It obliterates the subtle design needed to make it function.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Are the ideas of individuality and separatism taught to us, or are we born with the truth of that we are separate beings? I hope I worded this correctly. I’ve been thinking on the truths and mechanisms we are born with universally, opposed to which are taught to us socially. I assume that some truths are instinctually apart of us, regardless of social learning. Such as momentary fear as a response towards self preservation, the drive to self preserve and to avoid pain, the sexual urges to reproduction, and our recognition of water for drinking. However, I feel that individuality is greatly taught via words. If we had no words to identify ourselves as individuals, how would our lives be? Would we see each other as separate beings, or as a functioning part of a greater being or organism? I ask this question because I believe that separatism causes a lot of problems in our lives and society. We see a lot of religions and spiritual practice gravitate towards human “connection” and reform with the universal harmony of nature and all beings. We know that separatism and individuality is a foundation for comparison; and therefor discrimination. This also challenges the ideas of persona and ego. If we did not have a learned “self”, would we be driven by ego and presented with persona? Without a learned truth of “self”, would we have a need for a linear time perception if the ideas of birth and death were irrelevant?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I'd say the current prevailing thought in infant development is that we don't start out with an understanding of ourselves as separate beings, but that it's something we necessarily learn over the first year of life as we learn to distinguish between the parts of our experience that are directly responsive to our thoughts (e.g., body movement, voice) and the parts that are not not (e.g., other people). The values of communalism vs. individualism represent a different question, though. That does seem to be taught as evidenced by culture-to-culture variation in the phenomenon.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star Wars] Were there massive intelligence differences between the sapient races in Star Wars? Is there some natural cap on intelligence in the Star Wars universe preventing some aliens [droids excluded] from being super geniuses that can think circles around others? Do the super-intelligent ones just stay in academia and avoid politics and that's why we don't see them? Are all of the aliens really in the same, narrow intelligence band, or are there really huge differences in intelligence that simply never come up? I'd assume humans must be near the top if there is one, just judging by their dominance in politics and well, everywhere. But I never really get the feeling that there are some species that just can't compete intellectually, in the same sense that a child can't against an adult.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Certain species do have a higher capable intelligence than others. This is usually offset by physical limitations or artificial enhancements. In limited fashion many aliens like the Duros will find gainful employment as data analysts and such but usually xenophobia and other issues keep them from expanding further. A lot of naturally gifted races can be matched or even surpassed by droid brains or cyborg enhancements making it a moot issue in developed areas of the galaxy. And on the opposite side theres aliens with extremely low intelligence that still flourish in the galaxy. Being intelligent or unintelligent doesn't matter too much in star wars. Machines can match natural intelligence and physical abilities can make up for a lack of it. Humans are considered to be average with races like the duros and bothans at the more intelligent end and species like Gamorans and Geonosians at the lower end. In general it's safe to remember a computer can outthink you and a blaster bolt doesn't care how smart you are.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [RPGS] Why do I keep finding fragments of journals spread all around instead of one place? I can never find them in just one place or book? Why would someone tear out pages or type entries in different computers around the wasteland?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Possibilities include: 1) There are many copies of the one journal, all of which were almost completely destroyed except for a page or two. The same thing might be said of trying to recreate some old form of boat or machine, and there are very few of the parts still around. Only the diligent will assemble a fully restored stock version. 2) The journal was written by someone with "Johnny Appleseed Kinetic Assembly Sickness" (JAKAS Disease) who wants to 'seed' his manifesto about the world. Instead of copying it, he puts a page here and there. 3) Its a holy relic, and pieces of the 'One True Journal' were take by the faithful to places of worship scattered about the world. Generations later, the worship has faded away, but the relics remain. 4) Ooooh, shiny! Some animals found the pages of the journal useful for something, like nesting material. Indestructible nesting material. Now, hundreds of years later, the nesting material has been used countless times but it scattered everywhere. 5) It was a collectible. Not holy, but cherished for some other reason, like "the mad writings of that famous screwball wizard" or 'forget the words, the illustrations on the other side of the page are amazing art" or something. As such, collectors put them in their deepest safespots. Now, generations after those collectors have died off, only the vaults (and vault keepers) are left. and so on Or for the boring reason, its a scavanger hunt to test for a worthy hero, blah blah blah.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [D&D/GeneralFantasy] Can adventurers "breathe" a tamed Air Elemental? If yes, bonus questions: * How long would it take a human adventurer to consume all of the oxygen contained in a large-sized Air Elemental? * Would doing this be fatal or injurious to said Elemental? * Could this method be used for deep-sea and/or space travel? Can the Elemental hold itself together in these extremes, or would it compress or dissipate? * Rather than such extreme travel arrangements, could you store an Air Elemental in a Bag of Holding, allowing you to transport living things without them suffocating? Thank you in advance for all of your outside-the-box-of-holding thinking! =)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant depends on the lore, but I've allowed it in shadowrun for example, where our creative summoner filled a room with water via a water elemental, sealed us hermetically in rock via earth elemental and filled the chamber with air via an air elemental. He then used another air elemental to zap the water outside and kill everyone in the room. He's not allowed to play summoners anymore.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How does salt (NaCl) accentuate flavors in foods? This has come to my attention after consuming unsalted peanut butter for the first time. It felt like the flavor was dulled down. I wondered how NaCl changes the taste so drastically. So I googled around... ..and I found the following on [The Straight Dope](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2718/is-sea-salt-better-for-you-than-regular-salt): "adding NaCl to some foods can increase the volatility of certain chemical compounds, meaning the molecules are more easily released to the air, and of course aroma is an important part of the taste experience. Finally, studies have shown the sodium in salt can suppress bitter tastes." What I don't understand: 1. How does it "increase the volatility of certain chemical compounds"? 2. How does this apply to foods, say vegetables, which may not have a really distinct "aroma"? (i.e. steamed cabbage or carrots have a much more lively taste after a dash of salt on it) Are there any food scientists/chemists that can explain this to me please?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I just took a Vertebrate Sensory Systems course, and the reason that salt enhances taste is this: Each taste in the mouth uses different mechanisms to signal that particular taste, most of which involve the opening of sodium channels that cause signaling to the brain. Since salt itself (NaCl) increases the amount of sodium outside of the taste receptor cell, the gradient is stronger, and thus more sodium enters open sodium channels, causing more signaling for any particular taste.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:Why do I see articles daily practically saying we have found a cure for things like cancer, yet no cure actually exists?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Scientist here. We haven't cured cancer, but we have cured MODELS of cancer. Scientists will often use MODELS of cancer, because there are so many types of cancer. For example, we will take a biopsy of a live person's breast cancer tumor, throw it in a dish, and do crazy stuff with it to make that cancer able to live forever in said dish. This is now a "cancer line". For example, a cancer line of triple negative breast cancer. Specific cancer to find a specific cure. Nowadays how this starts is we analyse this "cancer line". We look at all of its DNA to find that it lacks "gene x" or "protein y" compared to normal healthy cells. We find a target that is very different (or totally absent) in the cancer, and a target that we like, and think, "hey, if we fix that one thing, can we fix the cancer?" So we find a drug or a genetic treatment and target it to fix this problem. Many times, this "gene x" or "protein y" that is wrong in the cancer cell is so important, that fixing that one little thing out of 100,000 other things can save the cancer. So anyways, we take this cancer line, and take an inbred mouse family with a real shitty immune system. We inject the human cancer cell line into this mouse and make sure the mouse's shitty immune system is too weak to fight off the cancer. If the mouse can 'get' the human cancer, and the cancer spreads and kills the mouse, success! Then we give the mouse this simple treatment to restore 'normal' function to our target gene or protein. And lo and behold, the mouse is cured of all cancer! This is a lousy way of curing human cancers, which are all unique and merely follow trends, however it gives us more insight into these trends, as well as understanding of how exactly the cancer is spreading and killing people. It also cements our classifications of cancers. When we find 'treatment X works in this model of brain cancer but not that one', then we can know in real life those patients need to be treated differently. tl;dr scientists do it with models<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do multi-lingual people seemingly, with no reason, switch between languages while talking to someone who is also multi-lingual? What benefit does it have over staying with the language they started the conversation with?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It's called code-switching, and it allows the speakers to draw from both languages' vocabularies to express ideas. Some words in one language don't have nice, short, or eloquent equivalents in another, so if you're speaking to someone who knows both languages, you use whichever one helps you to most easily get your ideas across.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What determines whether or not a substance has a strong scent? For example, why does an ester have such a strong smell?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In short, there are 2 main factors: 1. Volatility of the substance. In order to be detected by your olfactory system, molecules of the compound must reach your nasal cavity, and that generally means they need to be either gaseous or suspended in the air or captured in the moisture in the air. Esters smell strongly because they are volatile compounds (they have weak intermolecular forces) so they reach your nose easily. 2. Sensitivity of your nose. Your olfactory system has evolved to detect certain molecules very well, others less well, and still others not at all. The more sensitive your nose is to a substance, the less is required to get a response.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: what does it mean to overclock a CPU? what does it mean to overclock a CPU and what are the pro's and con's?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Overclocking means making your CPU to work faster by increasing the default clockrate (GHz). Increasing the clockrate makes the CPU less stable (might crash without reason) and more hot (requires better cooling). If you find the sweet-spot (stable, not too hot, maximum GHz) you're gaining tens of percents of performance increase for free. It's a lot easier than you think. Basic overclocking is basically just typing a higher number in the CPU settings (BIOS). I would compare it to tuning your car engine to make it faster. When you're going faster, you need better brakes and stuff. If you make your Fiat Punto go 500km/h, it will became unstable without modifications.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If cancer and psoriasis are both overactive cell growth, what is it that makes them different? If you were to compare skin cancer vs. psoriasis they are both described as overactive cell growth, though with different results and degrees of danger. A) how are they different, and B) what is it that makes cancer more dangerous than psoriasis?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant oncology doc - Interesting question! The short answer is that you're right, psoriasis and cancer are both due to overgrowth of cells - but different kinds of cells, and for very different reasons. Try to visualize this a pyramid. At the apex is a single cell type. On the next level, there are two cells. Then 4 cells on the level below that. That's sort of how cellular differentiation works in the body; a non-specific cell gives rise to slightly more differentiated cells, which gives rise to slightly more differentiated cells, etc, until you have mature cells of X,Y,or Z function. There are a multitude of different kinds of cancer, all of which are due to an uncontrolled proliferation of a certain cell type. Leukemia, for instance, is due to clonal overgrowth/expansion of an immature blood cell precursor. Something like, say, breast cancer, is due to an uncontrolled overgrowth of the cells that comprise certain types of breast tissue. Cancer cells have typically undergone/acquired some mutation that allows them to either proliferate without the need for external stimulus, or ignore external stimuli telling them to stop dividing, or shuts off a cellular 'self-destruct' mechanism that should make them stop once DNA damage occurs. In psoriasis, there is an overgrowth of a well differentiated type of cell - the keratinocyte. HOWEVER, and this is the key, the overgrowth is not due to a driver mutation as in cancer, but rather, the result of an inflammatory stimulus. In psoriasis, there is hyper activation of the pro-inflammatory/immune cells within the skin. That activation causes them to release cellular signals (cytokines) that encourage the keratinocytes to proliferate and divide far faster than they usually would, because those signals are meant to be released when local destruction occurs and extra cells are needed to fill in the damage. That proliferation isn't due to some mutation in the keratinocyte, but rather, overactivation of immune cells, which are telling them to do so. To take it a step further, the keratinocytes are then attacked by the immune system, release signals that cause the recruitment of immune cells (because there is localized inflammation), which continues the process. TL;DR: Cancer is an uncontrolled proliferation of cells. Psoriasis is an immune deregulation where inflammatory cytokines are causing local inflammation, which causes cells to proliferate secondarily. I hope that helps!<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: what does it mean to “sing from the diaphragm”? And is there a physical sensation that tells you you’re doing it properly?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant When you breathe, you expand your lungs either by moving your shoulders up and chest out, or by expanding downward into your abdomen which allows for a bigger breath. When you breathe and your belly expands, that’s breathing with your diaphragm. The diaphragm is a sheet of muscle just under your lungs at the top of your belly which pulls open the lung cavity helping it expand fully and then can be used to push the air out in a controlled manner. As you sing, your belly should slowly go back in as the diaphragm pushes the air through your voice box. Then breathe in again through a relaxed mouth and throat and your belly should expand out again (no shoulder movement) That’s how you know! If you are still having trouble, try laying on the ground flat on your back with a hand on your belly and then take a deep breath. Watch your belly and hand rise. Pay attention to how that felt and see if you can do it standing up. Happy singing!<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: The college 4.0 GPA scale is dysfunctional and poorly represents students. Been wanting to do one of these for a while now. &#x200B; I find that the 4.0 scale leaves a lot of the students' academic work on the cutting room floor and presents them in a weird manner. A student can have a consistent score of 89%, which equates to a B+, thus a 3.3 GPA. But a student can have a consistent score of 90%, which equates to a A-, thus a 3.7 GPA. 1% ( to \~5%) of a score in-class has the weight of about 10% on a 4.0 scale. And conversely, 88% has the same GPA value as a 89%. 90%= 3.7 1+/- 89%= 3.3 1+/- 88%= 3.3 This quantification is inconsistent, a student can increase their score by 1% and receive either a 0, 0.3, or 0.4 increase but decrease their score by 1% and receive a potentially different value change. A subject that worsens this metric is when students request their professor to round up their grade (typically 89 to 90), as not everyone can benefit from a 1% boost no less have a professor who is willing to do so. I simply think its inappropriate for a student to not be properly represented by the percentage they earned in-class. Students with a 3.7 aren't that different from those with a 3.3, but yet the scale appears to magnify their difference.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I would argue that a mitigating factor is that GPA isn't really used for individual classes, but over the whole education. In that time frame, we might assume that a student's course grades will be randomly distributed about their "true competence" in that class, so in fact an 89% student is only slightly less likely to get an A- than a 90% student. Thus, their average grade should tend to reflect that, where they'll both be hanging out around a 3.5 over the forty or so courses that constitute a degree.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why use an interface as a type? &#x200B; Working on Amazon AWS S3 with the AWS SDK. The official AWS docs show an example of creating a Client like this: `IAmazonS3 Client = new AmazonS3Client(...` Why are they using an interface as a type reference? I changed it to this, and it works exactly the same: `AmazonS3Client Client = new AmazonS3Client(...` This isn't strictly an AWS question. It's just a general OOP question (unless Amazon does this for some specific AWS reason).<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant To support other classes that inherit from the interface of course For example, you could have an EmailSender class and an SMSSender class, and you can instantiate either, but it’s much easier and more flexible to have an INotifier class that both inherit from and use the Notify method in it without caring for the details of the actual class It prevents you from building class-specific details into higher levels of your application and allows you to quickly and easily change logic. Any IDE will require you to create a Notify method from any class that inherits from the INotifier interface so its a guarantee that the method will exist in higher levels of your app<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is visible light, or any other form of light for that matter, affected by wind? Say I point a laser at a wall. If I turn a fan to face perpendicular toward the beam, would it push the light across on even an atomic scale? EDIT: Changed parallel to perpendicular<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Wind is accompanied by variations in air pressure and that variability induces variations in the refractive index of the air. Those variations will result in slight wobbles in the direction of light. It is for this reason that stars twinkle.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do rivers flow continuously? I understand the water cycle in that water is evaporated, condenses, and precipitates which puts water back into the ecosystem, but how does a river continuously flow millions of gallons of water when it eventually empties into an ocean? Where does all the water come from to keep it going nonstop?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The water in a river comes from many different sources. Let's try to think of a few. There are springs, where the water bubbles out of the ground. There is rain, where the water precipitates, or falls from the sky. There is the melting of glaciers or snow cover. The water also seeps out of wet ground, and the water we pump out of the ground for use in our homes and businesses probably gets treated and then put back into the ecosystem, where it flows into rivers. The watershed, or area in which the water will flow to a particular body of water, is quite large for most rivers. All of these sources combine over that large area, to form the river. Rivers naturally rise and fall over time, as the amount of water flowing in changes with seasons and weather.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why can't we breed with other species? Why cant we breed with species like gorillas, when close species, like tigers and lions or horses and mules, can?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The general rule of thumb for interspecies breeding is that it comes down to chromosomes, which are strands of DNA. The rest of the Great Apes (Gorillas, Chimps, Bonobos, Orangutans) have 48 chromosomes, but 2 of these chromosome have fused in Humans, leaving us with 46 chromosomes. The greater the difference in the number of chromosomes, the harder it is for species to breed. Basically, the sex cells (sperm/egg) have problems aligning and combining when the chromosome count is off. This hasn't stopped animals with different number of chromosomes from interbreeding. Mules are the best example. Horses have 64 chromosome and donkeys have 62, so this is similar to the difference between Humans and the rest of the apes. So we can see that a different number of chromosomes is a problem, but not an impossible barrier, for making hybrids. The other main biological problem comes down to the immune system. Your body automatically recognizes when things are "not-self." Any outside matter that enters into your system is immediately attacked by your immune system. For pregnancy, this concept is most important when it comes down to blood types. The "positive/negative" you hear about human blood types refers to a specific blood type. Basically, if a mother is "negative" and the fetus is "positive" than the mother's immune system will attack the blood of the fetus, which can lead to a miscarriage. Chimps and humans have equivalent systems that they share. So, a humanzee fetus would need to have a mother and father with matching blood subtypes. The biggest problem to breeding humans with other apes is not biological. The simple fact is that, while it is biologically possible (if not likely), making a human-ape hybrid is a bit too mad science-y for most people. No reputable institution would fund the research, no ape center would allow their animals to take part, and the outcry from the public and scientific community would shut down any private project pretty quickly.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Passing Another Gun Control Bill Will Make People 'Feel Better' Until the Next School Shooting, But That's About It. This is not an in-you're-face political post, so please don't bother replying with political or emotional diatribe. Here's my stance: There has not been a time in this county's history where you couldn't get your hands on a gun. Picture 1950's suburban America: Dad buys Timmy a .22 rifle for his tenth birthday, while the Boy Scouts of America are doing their darnedest to arm every other young man and to teach them how to shoot proficiently. Since that time, many federal (and ever more state) gun control laws have been passed in order to limit access to guns. Here's a (very) brief list: 1968: Gun Control Act of 1968. 1972: ATF starts requiring firearm licensee qualification to purchase a firearm. 1986: The Armed Career Criminal Act. 1990: The Crime Control Act of 1990. 1994: The Brady Law & Assault Weapon Ban. 1998: Required National Instant Criminal Background Check to purchase a firearm. 2008: The National Instant Criminal Background Check Improvement Act. So, in 1950, American Timmy has less legislative hurdles to jump over in order to get his hands on a gun than today's Timmy does. Yet, 1950 Timmy didn't internally de-humanize his fellow classmates and decide to end their lives with a gun. The guns have always been around. There has been increased gun legislation over time. Yet, school shootings continue or worsen. What has changed here? What is the core problem that has developed (that 1950's Timmy didn't have)? And, why would more gun legislation solve that problem? My general theory here is that you could pass a gun control bill tomorrow that would literally end the sale of firearms in this country, and the school shootings would continue. _____ > 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 Solving the underlying issues would be great, but if you regulate guns to the point that in 20 years a kid will be unlikely to have learned how to fire one, and having access to a gun would be the exception rather than the norm and a major red flag for anyone with any behavioral issues, the frustrated / enraged / mentally ill kids of that time would have to find another outlet - which probably won't be nice either, but at least it will be much less likely that it's a machine designed to efficiently kill people from a distance...<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user (Politics) How much do you need to know to be considered “enough knowledge” in regards to where deciding what your position is?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant another way to look at this question is to consider that you may have multiple competing positions which have different levels of justification. in other words, what you consider to be "true" of the world, politically, should be a function of what you know, what you don't know, what you've considered, and what you haven't. since what you call your knowledge is limited, and since it's probably true that some of the things you "know" may not be sufficiently justified or even ultimately true, your certainty that some political position is worth taking should be less than total (perhaps much less). you should also feel fairly confident that the future will produce new ways of understanding humankind, civilization, and political orders that have different or more explanatory power, and may map better or more completely onto reality - but you can't have them as positions now, because they don't yet exist. this is all to say that political positions should be hedged with acknowledgement of the incompleteness of your own understanding and the underdevelopment of concepts through which to understand politics. it's fine and perhaps practically necessary to take a position, but really digging your heels in the dirt is probably unjustifiable.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How is it possible that athletic results keep getting better and better; will they ever plateau? It seems like every Olympics, World Championship, etc, at least one record is broken, usually more. It's to the point now where gold-medal-winning 100m sprinters of a few decades ago would barely even rank in the top 10 today. I know some of this is down to better training and nutrition, better equipment (more so in some sports than others), but surely there must be some limit that results from the human body? Will we ever hit a point where we have seen basically the fastest a person can run, the most weight they can lift, the furthest they can throw a javelin, etc? Where the records then just stand indefinitely? EDIT: Thanks everyone, for the insightful responses (and areas to look at further)! Much appreciated and does help it make more sense to me.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Theoretically, the human body has finite limits that it cannot exceed. Bones can take only so much force without breaking, the human circulatory system has limits due to size, etc... However, there can always be outliers that are genetically better suited than the average human for certain sports. So in other words, we could plateau, but someone better could always be born to break the record.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Trying to understand which universities are the best in a specific field In my case, I am interested in nutrition/dietetics. The problem is that most of the official rankings ( shangai rankings, top universities ) do not have a ranking in specific for nutrition. There is agriculture but I dont’t know if nutrition is included in it, or food science/food technology. How do I evaluate the quality of the university in this specific field? The only one I know by reputation in the Karolinska instituet I am EU based btw so I was considering eu universities. Also, I think I have two main interests, which are sport nutrition and nutrigenomics. I know that there is some nutrigenomics applied to sport research. Should I try to find professors who do research in this field and go there, even if the University itself is not renown that much? EDIT: talking about master level studies<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant For what level of study? PhD level with intent to be a researcher - you should be making your decisions based on how specific your understanding of what you’d like to study is. If your interests are broad, you are probably better off finding a department with a diverse faculty mix. If you’re certain that you will only study the intersection of sport and nutrigenomics, you need to find an academic whose speciality that is. The department prestige matters much less in this case. You might also consider a department that is strong in one area or another, with multiple professors in that area of study. Sometimes it is not possible to work with a certain professor so you might need to be flexible in your choice of advisor and having several options is good. If your goal is to be a sports dietitian, then you should be looking at the quality of the academic programs and the rigor they offer. Prestige might factor into this.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Could someone step me through the math/deduction/reasoning that Einstein did to come to the conclusion that bodies of mass and energy distort space-time, hence macroscopically observed as gravity? Large or small, Responses all!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You need three assumptions: The laws of physics are the same for all inertial observers. The speed of light is the same observers. An observer in freefall is in an inertial frame. A corollary of the third is that acceleration is indistinguishable from a gravitational field. Imagine being in an elevator in outer space, and suddenly you feel attracted to the floor. You can't tell if the elevator is accelerating one way, or if gravity is pulling you the other way. Now, imagine that there's a hole in the side of the elevator, and someone fires a laser through it. If the elevator is accelerating, the laser will follow a curved path (it's dusty inside, so you can see it). But because acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity, it could also be a gravitational field that is causing the laser beam to curve. But if the speed of light is the same for all observers, it means the path that light takes must be the shortest path, or else you could follow a Euclidean line and get there faster than light. This means that in order to be consistent with these assumptions, the presence of a gravitational field made it so that the shortest path through spacetime, the one that light takes, is curved.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [R1/Star Wars/ESB] What purpose do these big ass glass screens with huge over lapping circles and lines on them serve?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It's a way of representing 3D space on a 2D surface. For example, you put your planet at the center of the glass. You then draw concentric circles around your planet to show distance. The closer the ship is, the closer it moves on the circles. But this only shows you the distance of the ship, not the approaching vector. So you know the ship is 10,000 kilometres away, but is it heading towards the North Pole, the South Pole or the Equator? So you draw a line to show the Z axis in oder to get the exact co-ordinates of the ship. If the line comes from the top, it's heading towards the North Pole, if it's heading left to right it's coming from the West, etc.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Reviews of restaurants by food critics are basically useless and the profession of "food critic" is similarly superfluous. A review of a restaurant is an opinion given by someone who is basically paid to give their opinion (cue the sound of half of reddit creaming their drawers). That opinion is informed by a single visit to a restaurant with little to no knowledge of how the restaurant works. Reviews are one snapshot of often one or two dishes eaten one time by one person that can have a huge impact on the success or failure of a restaurant. That's a lot of power to give to something that ultimately says nothing at all about the restaurant. The enjoyability of food is nothing if not subjective; while there is science to suggest that certain things may be more agreeable to the human palette (the old axiom of "if it tastes bad, smother it in bacon and/or cheese") than others on the whole likes and dislikes are individual. A reviewer might find something they dislike however that same dish might be quite popular or liked by many others. You're essentially giving one person's opinion much more weight than it deserves. The argument is that a critic knows something about food or has experience with other restaurants and can compare what they experience to what they know and come up with a better opinion. That still doesn't change the fact that you have one person giving their opinion of what they think is good and bad regarding a restaurant and it still stacks up to be generally useless. You have a slightly better informed someone giving their subjective view on a restaurant, and we know how well informed [random strangers](http://cdn.iwastesomuchtime.com/June-30-2012-17-51-06-f0107627edf7b5bd3a085cc32084a6e4width600x.jpeg) can be with regards to reviews. Shave off that part of the job and a "food critic" basically becomes someone who tells you that there's no roaches or severed fingers in the food (which, as we've established, reflects one experience with a restaurant). This, to me, calls into question why being a "food critic" is even a thing, much less a thing with as much power as some critics wield. Add to all that you get food critics desperately trying to justify their existence by engaging in [snobbery](http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-08-03/entertainment/ct-dining-0804-hot-dog-20110803_1_hot-dog-ketchup-vienna-beef) and general tribalism with regards to what people put on their food or where they get it from and the entire profession seems like a needless dead weight on the culinary world. So, CMV. _____ > 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 1. If you're into food, you read a bunch of food critics and try out the restaurants they recommend, over time you start to know which critics share similar tastes to you, and you start to trust their recommendations more. 2. Reviews of restaurants serve as an interesting way of discovering they exist. Reading someones opinion of a new place is much more interesting than reading a list of facts about it. Even if you don't put much weight on that opinion. 3. Well written reviews of anything can be entertaining in their own right, especially bad reviews, they can be really fun to read. 4. If a review says something is amazing, it's probably not shit, it may not be to your taste (if you read a review of an amazing new seafood place, and hate seafood, you can work it out), but it's unlikely to be awful. 5. Yes they don't try everything, and quality may vary from night to night. What one good meal really says is that the person running the show knows what they are doing, this bodes well for other dishes and other nights.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: I often hear that "in western society, breasts are sexualized but in other places [I commonly hear Africa], they are not sexualized and therefore not as big a deal." So why is it different in western society, why did they become sexualized? I am aware it has to do with media but what happened that the media decided to make breasts sexualized objects?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The Abrahamic religions stress modesty in women. These religions were central to the rise and formation of Western culture. So even though religion is becoming less important in the West, the old cultural standards are still in effect.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Eli5: How does Aloe Vera assist in reducing the symptoms and help heal sunburns?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are a lot of different things that happen in your skin when you apply aloe vera. It stimulates collagen production, helps bind moisture to the skin, it's an anti inflammatory, and it's even an antiseptic. In the case of sunburn, this all helps your body's immune response to be more effective, while protecting the skin from more irritation.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why do we have to avoid bacteria from our shit and snot once it's outside our body, but it doesn't make us sick when it's inside our body?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Certain bacteria don't do much harm when they're living where they're supposed to live, but if they go somewhere they're not supposed to be, they can cause trouble. The bacteria that live in your gut are just fine there, but if they get into your eyes or mouth, they can make you sick. There's also a lot of bacteria on your skin, all the time. They can't get into your body because they can't get through your skin. But if you get a cut, they can get inside and cause a ruckus. These are called opportunistic infections -- they're caused by organisms that normally don't do anything wrong, but if given the right opportunity (weakened immune system, injury, scrapes, etc), they can make you sick. Think of it like this: If you have a cat who's normally lives outside and doesn't come in the house much, what happens when you bring him inside for a night? He freaks out and shreds the curtains! It's kinda like that. :) Edit: In case you're not 5, the ELI-12 version continues: E. coli is a good example. It lives in our gut and doesn't get in trouble. But if it gets in your mouth, it can make you sick. ~~Whenever you hear about an E. Coli outbreak at a restaurant or from vegetables, that's usually because someone who handled the food (be it while picking it in the fields or while preparing it at a restaurant) didn't wash their hands after going to the bathroom. The bacteria that were in their colon are now in your mouth.~~ see /u/RuPaulRudd's correction<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Took a few years off to travel and take a break, how would you portray that on your resume(US)? I've been coding professionally for \~25 years and was stack before. A bunch has changed in my short break, but I did keep somewhat up to date. Personal projects where I did poc's with ang/react/vue, along with .net core. Debating how to describe it all. Dealt with many new hires/resumes over the years, but never from 1 that took a real break. Most Americans fme, basically look down on it. Would you like to see a job post for those missed years? What I did coding wise personally... Or would you prefer to see a description of what I learned from my travels? Not necessarily code. Don't get me wrong, I can get someone to vouch for me and completely ignore the break; I'm not a dishonest person tho. That may be my best option for getting an American based job tho.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Use a referral to get a foot in the interview process and be honest. You’ll probably have to “settle” for a job. Then switch in a year since it’s far easier to get hired if you’re already employed. Beat of luck.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Ben 10] Does Ben have any aliens that can heal other people? I know Ben has a lot of aliens with regeneration powers (Wildvine, Swampfire, Diamondhead, etc.), but does he have any aliens that could heal other people through their powers? Alien X I guess could, but that's more because that alien is so OP it's easier to count what it can't do. So, how many of his aliens, from either OG series or the reboot, could most likely heal people?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Let's see: Grey matter would probably be able to diagnose medical problems/injuries along with limited manipulation of nerves He mentioned using ghostfreak to help heal Max(though he was likely just brainstorming and wasn't sure) He could probably cauterize wounds as heatblast, though that's kind of graphic for a cartoon. Upgrade could probably heal mechanical beings to some extent He used swampfire's tendrils to hold highbreeds arm together so it could heal, even left a neat scar Big chill could probably cool a fever or remove foreign objects via phasing Brainstorm would have the same intelligence advantage as grey matter, with electricity to use as a defibrillator or electroshock therapy Sorry, can't remember past alien force. Hope that helps<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why dont more people in the US get illnesses from mosquitoes even though the same mosquito may extract blood from several hosts? If a mosquito extracts blood from a squirrel, and then gets blood from you, and then gets blood from some other person, and so on, wouldnt their be a prevalence of some kind of disease spreading from host to host?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant To spread via mosquitos, pathogens need to be pretty specialized. Mosquitos don't take all that much blood from one host, and transfer far less to the next host, so if the pathogen is just in the blood, it's very unlikely that there will even be a single pathogen particle in the transferred blood. Vector-borne pathogens, like yellow fever or malaria or dengue, overcome this by replicating in the mosquito and often by entering the mosquito's salivary glands. Mosquitos transfer more saliva than blood, and if the pathogen has replicated there and is present in high concentrations, it's easier to spread. But look at the challenges this presents to the pathogen. It has to be equally effective at replicating in a mammal and in an insect. In the mammal it has to spread into the blood and be there in high concentrations, and then it has to follow a completely different pattern in the mosquito. The body temperatures, the receptors, the cell types - everything is different, so the pathogen basically has to carry double sets of everything. So just generic pathogens don't do this. In the US, there are a handful of the specialized pathogens that are arthropod-born. West Nile virus is well known. There are several types of viral encephalitis (Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis, Western EE, Eastern EE). There are some tick-borne diseases like Lyme Disease and Colorado Tick Fever and so on. Some of the other diseases used to be present in the US, but were eradicated. Malaria was eliminated by the precursor of the CDC in the 1950s. The process reduced the number of the worst types of mosquitos, the ones that spread some of the worst diseases. That's helped as well. Currently of course there are some mosquito-born diseases that are trying to move back into the US, as climate change makes larger regions more attractive to the mosquitos. Zika was found in Florida. Chikunungya has been found spreading locally in Florida.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Within the next few centuries, homogenous countries will cease to exist, no matter how hard countries try to prevent this. As countries begin to prosper and as their quality of life increases, people from all over the world will have more opportunities to work and live within different countries. There are many people praising some countries for refusing refugees and being much stricter with immigrates. But I for one feel that this is a lost cause. I feel that globalization and multiculturalism will be inevitable once a country prospers. I will give you a two examples: The country of Czech Republic. The Czech Republic is arguably one of the most successful former soviet countries to this day. As the years go by, the country has been rapidly improving in many different ways. From its GDP, to Standard of Living, all they way to attitudes toward liberal ideas such as gay marriage. The country has come a long way and it is showing. Because of this, this country is becoming more and more attractive to people from all over the world. Statistics have been showing Czech Republic to a net positive population growth with the past few years. This is largely due to immigration. And yes, a large majority of that immigration is from other European countries. But, it is definitely not unusual to see Non-Europeans within larger cities such as Prague and Brno. As the Czech Republic becomes more prosperous and international, the country is continuing to attract businesses, expats, and immigrates alike. The Czech Republic’s has many minority groups and that includes many non-Europeans. For example, their is a Vietnamese minority that is in the thousands, their have been a increasing number of Indian’s applying for work visas, and from what I’ve been told it is not uncommon to see black people (africans and expats alike) studying or working within Czechia. As of now, Czech Republic’s future looks promising. Because of their success, the Czech Republic will become more multicultural. If they keep moving forward in the same direction, they will become as prosperous as many Western Europe nations. This will inevitably lead to more immigration, similar to western Europe. Now obviously Central and Eastern Europe have been pretty clear on their stance on immigration and the situation with refugees. And I don’t see that stance changing anytime soon. So before the comments come rolling in, I would like to state that those countries becoming multicultural is not going to because of refugees. It will be a more healthy type of immigration, mainly a brain gain. Another example that I feel is similar to this would be Kenya. Kenya as a whole has been prospering greatly within the last few years. There has been a large increase in infrastructure and quality of life has improved a lot in both major cities and small towns/villages. Kenya as a whole has also started to become Africa’s international hub. This has been leading to a more people immigrating their. Not just other Africans. Many immigrants and expats are starting to make a life there. For example, there are many more Chinese people living in Kenya. There are quite a few expats from Europe and the Americas living and working within Kenya because of the increase in international business is settling there. There are many more examples of countries prospering and gaining an international community because of this. But this post is already getting a little too long, so I will stick to two. All in all, I feel that in the future all countries will eventually prosper and grow. Soon enough the whole world will become much more accessible to everyone. People from all around the world will always be interested in other places. Even those who live in countries with the highest quality of life end up moving to other countries. Be it because of work, marriage, or adventure... people will always have a excuse to live somewhere new. I feel that eventually the world will reach a point where every country is multicultural to at least some extent. Now I’m not saying that every single country in the world will be similar in demographics to the United States. I am saying that I don’t think there will be countries that are like 96% X ethnicity. I feel we will have much more countries that are like 70% main ethnicity and 30% other (with a variety of people from all around the world). For example, a country like Poland could be like 76% Polish and 24% other. And that’s what will keep each country from losing its main culture. I feel that most countries will still have a majority of their own people. I’m definitely not saying that we’re all going to be multicultural hell holes with no identity whatsoever. I feel very few countries will actually end up being majority-minority. So please don’t panic or dismiss my thought. But remember everything I just said and remember that just my opinion. Feel free to try to change my view :) And please... no rude comments about being a delusional leftist or some BS like that. I just wanted to let my thoughts out and have a discussion. Thanks to anybody who read the full thing! Have a great day!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Outside of possibly nationality, that stands true already. Whether it be religion, culture, or race. Every country has a mix of at least one of those factors within it already. You use broad terms like “European” which destroys any separate cultural or racial differences between the people of Europe. Eastern European countries, as you used in your example, are already incredibly far from homogeneous. You have multiple different cultures, religions, racial groups, and nation backgrounds. Rome the father nation for Europe as it stand today wasn’t homogenous. Greeks, Italians, Arabs, Scandinavians, and many others were all apart of that father nation that eventually lead to Europe as we know it today. There are no homogeneous nations, even those that try to be fail.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How do stoplights actually work? I'm a delivery driver and just today while waiting a few miniutes at one did I actually question the science behind it. My question is what sensor is used to get a signal and what logic is behind the programming when it gets a signal?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant To detect the presence of vehicles, the common solution is to use an inductive loop detector. An electrical wire is placed in the road underneath where the first vehicle would stop. A high-frequency alternating current is run through this wire. This alternating current produces a magnetic field that can affect ferrous objects near it through a mechanism called induction. If a large enough mass of ferrous material is present, this induction effect will alter the conductive properties of the wire loop. This is then detected and transmitted as a signal to the controller that a vehicle is present. For pedestrians, the sensor is typically just a push button. For bicycles, it could be either an induction loop or a push button. As for the second part of the question, the logic behind the programming, there's no simple answer since there are many approaches. The most basic system will switch traffic lights on a fixed timer, completely independent of traffic. This requires no sensors. It's a very simple system, which works OK for intersections that have a low traffic load. More advanced systems will use sensor data to influence traffic light switching, but there's no single way to do so. An obvious way to use sensor data is to keep the lights green for a specific flow of traffic as long as there are no vehicles detected in a conflicting flow. But ultimately, in situations with multiple conflicting flows, it depends on the design goals of the developer of the system as well as the goals of the government commissioning it. Such goals could include considerations like giving priority green lights to the high throughput main road rather than the quieter side roads. Or a "green wave" that links multiple traffic lights along a road together to allow a pack of vehicles to progress uninterrupted. Or encouraging/discouraging certain modes of transportation by prioritizing bicycle or pedestrian traffic over motorized vehicles. Or allowing public transport vehicles (bus/tram) to override the active signal planning (either by shortening the current phase to reduce the stopping time of the bus/tram or by immediately switching phase to give the bus/tram unobstructed passage through the intersection).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is the difference to my body if I eat 5000 calories one day and zero the next vs 2500 for two days?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It has been suggested that the human metabolism has evolved two modes of operation, activated by calorie intake. The first is grow mode where plentiful nutrients are flung about the body and as suggested the body replenishes itself. The second is repair mode. Activated by a lack of calories, the body scavenges nutrients left behind from grow mode, such as from build-up on the walls of arteries. This may be a response to the failure of the hunt, when protein and calories are scarce but vitamins and minerals are still available from more plentiful vegetation. Modern humans in developed countries may be at risk of remaining in grow mode throughout their lives and never entering repair/scavenge mode, and then die of blockages caused by years of nutrient build up.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do most birds bob their head back and forth when they walk?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It’s either a product of the birds visual fixation or depth perception. A lot of birds’ eyes have non overlapping fields of view which makes them hard to tell how far away things are. They use motion parallax to solve this by bobbing or turning their heads.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is 3D printing becoming seemingly more viable for creating mechanical and moving items (such as prosthetic limbs) compared to whatever existed before 3D printing?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It allows for there to be specific parts made a certain size without having to make a mold to create it in. Quality prosthetic legs are created to fit a persons body part perfectly, and having a 3d printer makes it as simple as designing something with a computer program, and having a 3d printer. The materials and labor involved are almost nothing compared to what used to be done.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does a new pair of glasses temporarily distort your depth perception? What causes this?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Glasses have two effects: focus, and magnification. The focus is what you want to change. The reason you need glasses is that your eyes are miscalibrated, and they need a focus adjustment. The magnification is a side effect and generally not wanted. It's the reason that people with powerful lenses look like their eyes are either way too small (nearsighted) or way too big (farsighted) - the lens is changing the apparent size of their eyes. The reverse happens, too: your new glasses are putting objects in focus, but they're also distorting their apparent size. If you're nearsighted and you just got a more powerful prescription, objects look slightly smaller than they used to. That messes with your depth perception, because your brain thinks everything is slightly farther away than it is. The depth perception distortion will go away as your brain adjusts to the new relationship between how big something looks and how far away it is.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do hackers hack?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant On the most basic level, they find a flaw or weakness in a system and exploit it. For example, the software that runs websites communicates with other computers. Sometimes, if you send it something it didn't expect to receive, it will work in an unexpected way. You can take advantage of that.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:What is postmodern ethics?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Postmodern ethics is way of approaching ethical dilemmas by examing the context and narrative. Generally speaking postmodernists tend to have a much narrower belief in freewill and so they feel that true questions of ethics need to be adressed at a higher more contextual level. This would mean that theren is no absolute or objective right or wrong, but rather many different rightnesses or wrongnesses depending on culture, situation, and narrative understandings which can change over time. To help understand, this stands in contrast to a modernist. view of the world, which sees a continuing thread of objectivity running through the fabric of society and culture stretching back centuries. A moral story that occurs in many different situations and can be multifaceted, but is ultimately objective and unchanging. Postmodernists also are descriptivist and tend to explain the way in which choices that are made can become moral or immoral. Modernists prefer to prescribe the correct view of morality in different situations, and evaluate the correctness of choices. Postmodern ethics also spends a lot of time concerned with how powerless ppl make ethical decisions against ppl in power. Postmodern view of ethics read the novel Things Fall Apart<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is the US college tuition so high? And where is the money going? Are all colleges private?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Price discrimination. Those who can afford to pay, do so. Those who can't are given various amounts of financial aid to lower the price to a more reasonable amount. At least it works like that ideally. In actuality many people have to take out loans, although by going to state schools you can limit those loans to well under $50k. But making all college free would just help the rich more than anyone else, since they pay by far the most college tuition.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How is account ID generation handled at a massive scale? I was pondering about this question in the shower this morning. Anyways, from what I understand in general on most services when a new user joins the platform they are assigned a unique account id. Now what I was wondering is how massive services like Facebook, Tinder, Twitter, etc. which could have thousands of users trying to sign up at once, handle this account id generation? Is it just random number generation? How do they prevent duplicates from occurring if it is just random? I am struggling to comprehend how they could effectively prevent duplicates at that scale, I could understand at a small scale it could just be a simple blocking process to easily prevent duplicates, but this can't work at scale... or does it?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Depends on what you mean by "at scale". If you can build a service that is only responsible for assigning new account IDs and nothing else, then even thousands of requests per second is no big deal for an off-the-shelf database on fairly cheap hardware. Just use an auto-incrementing key and be done with it. A significant fraction of understanding how to use "big data" and distributed systems is knowing when they're overkill.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How can radiation cause burns? I wouldn't guess it transfers much heat so why does it cause skin "burns"?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Others have responded in complex terms, but here is a very simple one. Radiation kills cells by destroying their DNA. The body reacts as best it can. The results look like a burn because it's the same response. Just in this case the cells aren't physically destroyed by excess direct heating.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Neoclassical Economics on Slavery? I'm currently writing a research paper regarding the situation of slavery in Dubai, where workers from Bangladesh pay to be brought over to Dubai only to have their passports and documents stolen and be forced to work in slave like conditions. Part of this research paper involves exploring what different economic theories would say about the issue. I have a basic understand of neoclassical economic theory, but I'm unsure of what exactly they would say about this situation. Neoclassical economics argues for free markets, correct? And under this there would generally be no government rules about business', their behaviour and who can make what etc. So essentially as long as the slave labour was able to help the market reach equilibrium it would be viewed as acceptable? Can someone help me out here? EDIT: I've noticed that /u/zawamark is being down voted on a few of his comments. They seem to make sense, can anyone elaborate on why they disagree?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It is generally recognized that even a "free market" involves some kind of institutional framework - notably to enforce contracts. This particular part: > be brought over to Dubai only to have their passports and documents stolen and be forced to work in slave like conditions strikes me as fraudulent behavior, as the workers are misled as to the actual terms of their contract and are then prevented from either getting the original contract enforced or quitting their jobs. From a neoclassical perspective, they expected X (which subjectively maximizes their utility) and instead got Y (which does not).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How do scientists figure out how an extinct language sounded like? Decoding an extinct language is amazing. I wonder even if we discover the meaning of symbols, how do we know what sound was associated with that symbol?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant From /u/voikya "Lots of ways. Here are some examples: Poetry—poetry, puns, and other sorts of "language play" often directly involve the sounds of spoken language. Look at English rhyming poetry from the 16th-18th centuries, for instance, and you'll often find a bunch of rhymes that don't seem to work, such as rhyming something like "love" and "move". This sort of thing implies that the words rhymed at the time. Similarly, we can learn about things like stress from poetic meter. Misspellings—even people 2000 years ago misspelled. Someone a thousand years from now could see that "should have" is often misspelled "should of", and could reasonably conclude that both phrases are (at least in some contexts) pronounced identically. Speech/Writing Guides—on a related note, even people 2000 years ago were annoyed when other people misspelled or used "improper" grammar or pronunciation. There are several well-known pronunciation guides for Classical Latin that simply list the ways people pronounce words "incorrectly" and how they should properly be pronounced. The Comparative Method—one of the most important techniques used by historical linguistics, this essentially entails combining our knowledge of how sounds tend to change in languages with our knowledge of existing descendants of the language in question. As a simple example, we know that in Vulgar Latin (the language of the common people, as opposed to literary Classical Latin), the consonant H was frequently dropped entirely, as is evidenced by the fact that all of the Romance languages have lost Latin H (and it is far more likely that this consonant was lost back when everyone was still speaking the same language, rather than positing that the exact same change happened individually in each of the Romance languages). Borrowings—when a word in Language A is borrowed into Language B, it is now (usually) exempt from any future pronunciation changes in Language A. Both "castle" and "chateau" come from the French word, but were borrowed into English several centuries apart. The much older "castle" makes it clear that the French word originally started with a /k/ sound, even though the modern French word begins with /ʃ/ ("sh")."<\|im_end\|>

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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