Split (1)

train · 52.8k rows

text stringlengths 82 65.5k
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What exactly does "cash" mean? For example when you win the lottery in all cash. Or on flipping house shows where they buy houses all cash. When i think cash i think of real physical cash.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant >For example when you win the lottery in all cash Lotteries generally have two ways you can accept your winnings. 1. An annuity for X years. Basically, the lottery commission invests the money, and pays you a yearly amount that, when added up over X years, equals the size of the jackpot. 2. Cash. You're not getting actual, physical notes and coins. You're getting a check that you can deposit at the bank. This amount is less than the total jackpot size, because they don't actually have the full amount of the jackpot, which is calculated based on what they can pay you over X years while investing the money. >Or on flipping house shows where they buy houses all cash. They write you a check. In situations like these, "cash" means "you get all of the money right now in some form".<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 What is actually happening during acupuncture, does it actually work ?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In Acupuncture and in most of traditional Chinese medicine, there is a belief that an invisible life force (called qi) flows through our bodies using certain pathways (called meridians). Illness is generally caused by an imbalance in qi within our bodies, so acupuncturists stick needles at certain meridian points in the body to balance the flow. You can think of our body as a series of pipes, with qi being the equivalent to water, and the needles as valves. If there is something wrong with the water flow in any area of the body, then you manipulate the valves until the water flows correctly. Whether any of this works or not, is the real question. Right now, there does not seem to be any conclusive proof that acupuncture is actually effective at what it does, so it is often considered a form of quackery.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Since in nuclear fission a very small amount of matter is converted to energy, is it Theoretically possible to create matter from energy and have we done this?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Yes, creating matter from energy is perfectly doable. One example would be particle accelerators such as the LHC. In the LHC, proton beams are accelerated and thereby given a very high amount of kinetic energy. These highly energetic protons collide and produce various new particles. The combination of newly produced particles often has a higher mass than the 2 protons that collided to form them. Consider for example the production of a Higgs boson. The Higgs boson was found to have a mass of 125 GeV (giga-electronvolt), while a proton has a mass of 938 MeV (mega-electronvolt) or slightly less than 1 GeV. So the 2 protons that collided to create a Higgs boson have a combined mass far smaller than the mass of the particle that was created. And this is possible thanks to the fact that the protons had such a high amount of (kinetic) energy going into this whole mess.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Intuitive explaination on why colinearity blows up the standard errors of the regression coefficients In Linear Regression, why does colinearity (or multicolinearity) increase the standard error of the coefficients' estimators ? Mathematically it is because of the Variance Inflation Factor, I know this, but intuitively, without the maths, why ?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The job of regression is to identify the independent contributions of each predictor on the outcome variable. Correlation among predictors makes it hard to distinguish each contribution. That difficulty leads to the inflated variance of the coefficient estimates.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [WH40K] Is Ork technology, in the smaller sense (shootaz or battlewagons) possible? Let's say you were in a junkyard, scrap metal, electronics and parts from most household appliances and servicable parts from 1 of each type of car (SUV, 4-door, truck). Could you recreate Ork technology without the innate warp ability they have?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Some aspects you could create fairly easily. Lots of junkers and home survivalists can make your typical Mad Max-esque combat vehicle, which is what most Ork trukks are. And I've seen more than one gallery of someone taking an old bulldozer and turning it into a tank. Guns would be a bit harder. "Looting" weapons would be easy, but trying to build/upgrade them is mostly out of the question. Don't think you could build a tank gun for your bulldozer tank... maybe a flamer, though. Red won't make this stuff go faster.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5- why do most honour killings involve murdering the victim? Why not kill the rapist instead?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In such cultures women are viewed as property, to be bought, sold, or traded. The honor killing is in retribution for the perceived dishonor of allowing themselves to be raped, as it damages or destroys their value to their male owner. It is fucked up.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Terminator] If Skynet could just pump and endless supply of Terminators out of a factory to hunt and kill humans, how could humanity ever hope to keep up? Wouldn't the human population just have steadily declined over time until they were virtually extinct? It seems like every lost soldier is one fewer human to help fight the machines but every lost Terminator meant very little as another could replace it. So how did the humans keep pace with Skynet<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant At its most basic, making more humans mostly just takes food, water, shelter, and time. To make more Terminators, Skynet needs metal, silicon chips, power sources, vats to grow the flesh, and all kinds of other supplies. And it needs factories to put it all together. Any of that can be sabotaged by the resistance.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:Is there truly such a thing as a "fat gene"? If so, does that mean people can become obese if they eat a normal amount of calories?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are some indications that some genetics, and/or medical conditions, may contribute to some amount of increased weight gain. However, the amount is often dramatically overstated, and minor relative to diet.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do all living creatures have such wildly different life expectancies?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Basically every living creature only has to live as long as necessary to achieve maturity, find a mate, reproduce and optionally care for its offspring for a while. Reproduction has to be repeated as many times as is required to avoid population decline, taking into account the offspring mortality rate which is normally quite high. Any living time after that is just a free bonus and is not maintained by natural selection. It’s just there. So life expectancy of a species depends on how much time is required for this species (on average) to complete doing all the things above.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user When you "burn fat" how exactly do you loose mass? Do we sweat more, poo more, per more?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant the main source of sustainable weight loss is through breathing. You can of course lose mass by sweating and peeing, but that is not sustainable as most of that loss is water which needs to be replaced for proper function of organs. Weight loss (specifically of fat) follows the same formula as burning gasoline: fat molecules CnHmO6 (rough chemical formula of a component of fat) are oxidized by O2 to produce CO2 and H2O. The CO2 is expelled through breath, the H2O is, as mentioned before, added to the overall water balance of the organism. Since the majority of the mass of the fat molecule is stored in the Carbon (roughly 4-6 times more massive than hydrogen on a weighted average in fat molecules), the majority of the mass is lost through production and exhalation of CO2.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do screens smoothly scale resolutions that aren't multiples of each other? E.g. playing 1080p or 720p video on a 900p screen, or reducing my phone's resolution from 1440p to 1080p?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are complex algorithms that will combine pixels with their neighbors in certain ways. If you have a higher resolution screen being scaled down such that a pixel should be 70% one color and 30% a different color, the calculation would yield a combined color of the appropriate proportions.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Russia's close ties to arab nations<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant During the cold war, there were essentially three options for small countries: 1) Be friends with the United States 2) Be friends with the USSR (most of which is now Russia) 3) Go the "neutral" route, like India, although this wasn't always guaranteed. If a small country wanted to be neutral there was a good chance they would be invaded by either the USA or USSR, to make it be their friend before the other side could. This led to many "proxy" wars, where one side would fund rebels in a country allied with the other side, trying to get it to switch over to their side. Examples include Vietnam, Cuba, and Afghanistan. If one side supported a government or rebel group during the Cold War, and that government/group eventually lost, the people living there today tend not to be friends with whoever was involved. This factor was already discussed by u/YourResidentRussian, although obviously with a pro-Russian bias. Also, today countries basically only have two options: 1) Be friends with the USA. 2) Don't be friends with the USA (this means you need an alternate big-country friend, usually Russia or China) So many Arab countries actually took option #1 and are friends with the USA, including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Iraq and Afghanistan (those last two were not really by choice). Syria and Iran, along with a few others, went with option #2, largely because they have some historical reason to distrust the USA, and may have had Cold War ties to the USSR. Its not necessarily that they want to be great buddies with Russia, just that they are NOT friends with the USA, so Russia was one of their only alternatives.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do humans subconsciously move body parts to music?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Music is very ancient for humans. Music was developed before our language centers were fully developed. We were making flutes before we could call it a flute. Our brains are hardwired to respond to a beat. Tapping your foot is just one way your brain responds to the beat.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:How do plants generate heat, how to they stop freezing when the droplets of water that are on them are frozen, when they plants are made up, mostly of, water?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Plants generally do not generate meaningful amounts of heat. They deal with freezing temperatures by: dying, like orange trees; freezing, but in a way that doesn't cause permanent damage, like most deciduous broad-leaf trees; or pumping themselves full of antifreeze, like most conifers.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why can I pick up my little brother, who weighs around 100 lbs with no issues, but I struggle just trying to get a 50 lb weight off the ground?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A big thing to remember is that when you pick people up, they are actually helping you. When picked up, people uncounsciously shift around to get their center of balance just right so they wont fall, and it helps out the lifter. If you tried picking up an unconscious or asleep (or dead) person for example, you would have a veeerry hard time because they are no longer helping you and their center of balance shifts wildly.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Matrix] Why didn't Neo and the gang carry C4 or hand granades? That way, whenever there was a change in the Matrix (ie. a window being changed to brick wall), they could just blast their way out.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Your knowledge of the matrix is based on the rules they've told you. Free your mind. Yes, c4 could blow through a brick wall if it followed the usual rules. But they can change code. They could line the bricks with explosives and shrapnel. They could increase the strength of the materials a thousandfold. All you know is the code changed. You don't know how it changed. It's best to stick to what you can see. It was easier to run than take the chance. That being said, how often do you get deja vu? They don't change the code too often.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [BSG] If the Twelve Colonies possessed FTL jump drives that were capable of crossing significant portions of the galaxy, why didn't they expand further before the Second Cylon War? I understand that jumping long distances is dangerous, but surely they sent explorers or surveyors to new planets at some point? The colonials have been spacefaring for at least 2,000 years after all.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The Colonies were extremely unusual in that they were several habitable worlds in really close proximity to each other. In contrast, it took weeks of searching further out from Colonial space than they had ever gone for the Galactica to find ONE barely habitable planet. Calculating jump parameters is also an involved process which has some inherent risks. You can jump to nearby stars using telemetry gained from ground and orbital telescopes, but it lacks exact precision and most stellar bodies are almost impossible to detect, such as asteroids small planets, comets etc. This seems to be the type of recon Raptors were designed for, but they lack the sensitive viewing systems to extensively survey entire systems. Basically, it seems to be a measure of time... They'd have to calculate reliable jump-coordinates from telescopes, send a Raptor to do a cursory sweep and determine safe coordinates for a larger jump, then send in heavier survey equipment both to survey the system but also to collect data for further jumps. That type of work is time consuming, and rather expensive. This wasn't so much an issue for the Galactica, since they largely threw caution to the wind for the sake of survival, but the Colonies wouldn't have been so desperate. In fact, between the First and Second Wars they seem to have become increasingly arrogant and bureaucratic.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: There is a border dispute between Egypt and Sudan where there is one location which neither country is claiming. Is it possible for me to go and claim it as my own?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Conceptually you could, but you are unlikely to have your claim recognized by an international body. That would put you in the same boat as anyone else making random land claims, and you would probably get shot by some random goat herder.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 Why are camera lenses always circular?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Camera lenses are not perfect. They don't focus all light colors the same way. You get tiny rainbow effects on your photo. The further from the center light goes through, the bigger the flaws. A circle is the ~~optional~~optimal shape with no corner outlier points further away from the center. Google Chromatic Aberration and look at images to see examples of what happens at the edge of a lense.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why are humans capable of forgetting things? Why do we lose the ability to access memories? Are there any creatures that can remember everything? i.e. elephants<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Remembering everything is not practical from am evolutionary stand point. There are after all, physical and biological limitations. Which include space, time, neuron and synapse length among others. Sifting through countless useless memories requires neurons to communicate with one another in ways they wouldn't have to otherwise. This uses up time, space (more synapses), ATP and all manner of neurotransmitters, which is not cost effective. So the brain picks the useful things and stores them, all the useless crap is not retained. The more a memory is used, the more important it is, so the stronger it gets. The mechanism by which the brain does this is not fully understood yet, but it is easily observable. You have to remember that every system has limitations, and everything is a careful balance between variables. In this case, it's a simple relationship (in principle) between the cost-benefit of remembering everything vs remembering only the most important events.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is there a theoretical limit to the size of ocean vessels?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are many non-theoretical limits: Economics. (Cost to build, staff, fuel and turn a profit.) Port or passage size. (Not simply depth/width of port, but cargo handling limts. It doesn't do your passenger/cargo company much good if it takes weeks or months to load and unload. It also needs to fit under bridges or through canals or breakwaters. Include tugboat size under general port size issues.) Engine size - (which is both a subset of economics, but has its own limts as well for maximum engine size. But you can theoretically add more smaller engines.) Material strengths and choices. (This is less important than the above two issues. Google: pykrete to see how to make massive ships out of ice and sawdust.) And the final hard limit may simply be the curvature of the earth, and any assymetrical gravity loads the ship may experience due to the not-so-uniform structure of Earth and accompanying gravity field. But the theoretical upper limits for a floating, moving ship are absolutely, staggeringly huge. Look at icebergs for examples. They've documented floating icebergs that are the size of small countries or US states. They're big enough to build several cities on and are measured in dozens or hundreds of miles wide and long, with hundreds of feet of ice above water. If you made a ship out of solid pykrete that size it would likely last for a hundred years. There's also nothing really stopping someone from building a ship the size of, say, California if you can find a place big enough to float it and it weighs less than the water it displaces. Moving it around with fossil fuels would probably be too expensive. You might be able to sail it around, or use solar or nuclear for electric drives. But moving a ship the size of California around would also probably cause, uh, some minor catastrophes like tsunamis, altered ocean currents, altered wind patterns and more.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user US Presidents should serve one six year term without the ability to be re-elected. CMV As it stands, a four year presidency is a short amount of time to initiate new policies, test to see if those policies work, and foster new plans should they need re-adjusting. Thus, to make any long-lasting impact, each president strategically expends their political capital to make just enough changes as to satisfy their base, while constantly keeping an eye out for re-election threats and opportunities. It's only in one's 2nd term do we really get to see a President in their true form, without their constant pandering to the masses. I submit that a single six year term, without the possibility of re-election, gets the best of both worlds. We get single-minded leadership focused on national priorities, without ever being swayed or influenced by the temptation to curb their goals in order to foster votes. Six years is enough time to implement positive changes, but also long enough to undo mistakes from the previous presidency, should that be necessary. I also submit that amending the constitution to make this change would be relatively straightforward and few would argue against it.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant How would changing the executive power, affect the legislative? The congress is the problem when doing new policies, not the president. The president could be God almighty, and the congress would still bicker and crap on changes in the name of money.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why are things generally cheaper in poorer countries? For example I got restaurant meals in Cambodia for like $5. I thought the reason that these countries are poor is that they are less productive meaning there are fewer goods and services to go around so wouldnt that mean everything should be more expensive? Also I understand that the $5 restaurant meal is probably a higher % of the average cambodian income than a $15 meal is for an average american, but that still raises the question of why my income can go farther in a country like Cambodia than in America even though America is more productive.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant terms to look up: purchasing power parity i think you touched a bit upon it in your second paragraph, $5 for a cambodian is a higher % of their income than what $15 would be for an american. part of it is straight up currency exchange rate, and the differences in those (for floating regimes or semi-floating) are due to supply and demand for that currency. the USD will be more in demand than whatever the currency in cambodia is, simply for obvious reasons like more people travel to the US and exchange goods in that currency than they would in whatever the cambodian currency happens to be. but another difference then is purchasing power parity, which is an index to measure how much a certain basket of goods costs within any market. this basket contains non-tradeable services alongside goods, and reflects the cost of living in a particular area. with goods that you can sell across borders, you are likely to have similar prices, simply because any attempt at a lower price by one country will be met with increased demand for that country, less demand in the others with the subsequent lowering of prices (the typical supply and demand forces you see in micro environments, in a hypothetical ideal world). but then when you consider non-tradeable services and goods, these can't be traded, because by definition many of them are services provided locally by the local labor force. of course, with globalization you are starting to see more transfer of services between borders, especially with online education or tutoring. but things like haircuts, or restaurant meals, that require local labor? those are non-tradeable. a meal then in cambodia is $5 because the cost of its labor is much less than in the united states. why is it that in the united states you have to pay a worker $12 an hour, and in cambodia only a $1? this is where difference in productivity come in. because america is more productive, the opportunity cost of one hour of labor is worth more simply because you have more productive alternatives. you can work in a factory and produce more value to your employer in one hour than what a worker in cambodia could do. furthermore in america you have so many options to be productive, you can enter and exit the labor force with high liquidity. there are minimum wages as a price floor for labor. an american laborer is coveted because they have the choice in working at another chain, or do something else entirely with their hour of labor. as you said, they are more productive, so they can produce more in the same amount of time. it's not just about pure labor skills (though in this case, yes, an educated and literate work force), but also technology and capital. meanwhile in cambodia, it is less productive. they produce less in that same hour. it is not about some pure intrinsic "lesser value" but simply their work force might not have the same basic general education as the US (do they have universal K-12?) their labor might not be literate, they cant just read and follow directions to handle machinery or procedures one would use in a more advanced work force like the US. they might not have the same level of productive technologies and capital to be productive. so one cambodian worker might make much less in one hour than one in the US would. that is reflected in the wage. why would a cambodian accept $1 per hour? (and btw im just using the $1/hour as an example, i dont know the actual number) well if there are less opportunities, as there would be in a less productive society, then you might settle for that little. when there is less capital flow in that country, less opportunities arise, and with a large workforce? they will simply be paid less because overall they will be less productive. ultimately, when you think about a country being "more productive" than another, that goes for its factors of production, which include labor. and that labor is also subject to market forces, and that will differ between countries because the level of productivity differs.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Since Jews are such a tiny percentage of the population, how are they represented so well in elite groups? 13% of Nobel prize winners, 48% of US billionaires, etc. how is this?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Jewish people originated in an area where most people were not allowed by their religion to loan money and charge interest. Jews could, and this lead to them becoming bankers and becoming quite wealthy. Wealth tends to perpetuate wealth, as well as education which then perpetuates wealth. A head start means a lot, so it just compounds (like interest).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 : Why aren't we hibernating in winter like most of other mammals ?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Humans evolved in a tropical part of Africa, and are adapted for existing in that sort of environment. We can adapt ourselves to live in colder environments, but have to provide shelter and clothing to survive there. You can live naked in the jungle with very few tools--ask any of the tribes all around the world who pretty much live that way. For the same reason, we're never going to be able to hibernate, we simply did not evolve that way.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does a machine “make something cold” I understand the highschool basics of the physics behind energy and heat, so the concept of a machine turning electrical energy into heat is easy to wrap my mind around. The idea of “something making something cold” was explained to me as an energy deficit being fixed, like if you put ice into water, the ice takes the heat and energy out of the water until the ice turns into water also. How does something like a freezer do this to the air inside? How does a machine receive energy to then take that energy away?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A freezer is effectively heating up the outside air with the heat that exists in the freezer by absorbing and concentrating and moving that heat around via thermodynamics and fluids under different states and pressures. Basically, the most basic principle is that for a change of state to occur requires a lot more energy than simply raising its temperature. So as a liquid changes to a gas, it must absorb a lot more energy than simply warming up the liquid. Now, take a particular substance that changes from liquid to gas at a convenient temperature and pressure range for your application, and squeeze it (in liquid form) into a low-pressure space where it is forced to become a gas because of the pressure. Changing to a gas requires a lot of energy, so it absorbs all the heat around it to do so. Now as a hot gas it can move to a different location where it is cooled down and becomes a liquid again. This is called the refrigeration cycle. And it’s how air conditioners and freezers work.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Does Pluto have a liquid nitrogen ocean under it's frozen nitrogen surface?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The reason we find liquid water oceans under the ice of certain worlds is because solid water ice is less dense than liquid water, and so ice can float over a water ocean and both maintain its pressure and insulate it to retain some heat. If there were somehow a liquid nitrogen ocean under Pluto's surface, the solid surface would sink below it, and the liquid nitrogen exposed to vacuum would either freeze or evaporate.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Has the string theory been validated by any experimental evidence like from the LHC? Are there better contenders for the theory of everything? I know just the basics of what the string theory is, that is using vibrating strings and extra dimensions to explain all the different forces and particles. I come from a medical background, so please excuse any gross misunderstandings of the concept.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Some required aspects of string theory have been constrained by the LHC. 1. String theory requires more than the 4 dimensions of space time. The size of the proposed dimensions has been constrained as if they were larger we would have seen things that disagreed with the standard model. 2. Super String Theory requires super symmetry. Low energy or "Natural" Super-symmetry was not found. String theory is compatible with any energy of super symmetry below the plank scale however. So lots of proposed models of string theory were shown to be incorrect, but not the general model of the universe. This has caused some worry in physics as it now appears that string theory will not have any interaction with experiment for the foreseeable future. That may change with gravitation wave astronomy, but so far there is zero experimental disagreement with General Relativity.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user I learned in Biology class that proteins/enzymes unfold and lose their function when they are heated up. How do steaks stop have so much protein when cooked? Edit: wow, came back from work and got some great answers! Thanks everyone!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Protein shape ultimately gives rise to protein function. The proteins in steaks don't still need to be functional to be proteins. A denatured protein is still a protein, and if you have somehow broken it down into its constituent amino acids your body can still take those amino acids and build proteins out of them.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why are there thousands of blackbirds flying around, but colorful songbirds are such a rare sight?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The simple answer is natural selection. The traits that the "boring" birds have help them live longer in the wild in comparison to colorful songbirds. Colorful songbirds can only survive in areas where there is minimal predative pressure.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user As someone gets more obese, do their actual skin cells stretch or do they replicate fast enough to keep up with the increasing surface area? A follow up question would be: If the cells stretch more than they replicate, does this mean that there is a lower concentration of nerve endings? Would stretched skin around large fat deposits be less sensitive to touch?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Their skin cells divide to increase surface area. Individual cells have limited elasticity and if they simply stretched to cover the increased fat tissue underneath, it would be like blowing up a balloon (e.g. getting thinner). In fact, more than just the skin cells help cover the area. Blood vessels, connective tissue, the fat cells themselves all have to accommodate the increased tissue volume. As a corollary, when someone has massive weight loss, you can see the large amount of loose and excess skin. The signals from the body to make the skin cells divide to cover the larger area can't just reverse instantaneously (you also have issues with looser connective tissue, loss of elasticity of various components, etc.) so now you have large folds of skin hanging around. EDIT: Forgot to respond to your follow-up. You can have issues with less touch sensitivity but it's hard to say that it's just because of less nerve endings (your nerves can make new connections so you still have touch sensations). More often, losing feeling in really any part of your body (bodybuilders with massive skeletal muscles, areas of fat deposits) is a combination of factors like poor blood flow to the cells rather than just not enough nerve endings.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Scared about getting a job as a programmer. Hello, Working as a programmer is genuinely scaring me. I love solving problems and trying to find their best solutions, but when i think about getting a job as a programmer, i'm scared. Most of the jobs i see aren't really involve solving problems, but much more arguing with a language to make it do what you want. Take as an example Web Developers (i had an internship in a webdev company this summer, and this started my thoughts), to me it looks like they're spending most of their time writing solutions to problem they've already solved over and over. And if i think about jobs that actually involve solving problems i start to think about deadlines, having to write bad code on purpose to meet them and even to be irrepleaceable and get job stability. This is definitely what i don't want to do, and i'm pretty sure it'll bring me in depression pretty quickly. What i want to do, is spend my time solving problems, find new ideas, improve programs so they're easier to use, faster, lighter, without all the bullshit that most programs today bring with themselves. I was thinking Academia could be my thing, but i'm not even sure if i'll be able to enter University, because as much as i'd want to, i don't really have enough money, and i don't even know what working in Academia really is like. But if i think i'd like it, i'm pretty sure i'd start doing something about the money. So, what do you think that could be my possibilities?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I really think you should try to attend university if you really want to pursue a career in the CS area. There are many scholarship and loan opportunities for those in a less than great financial situation. University will help you discover the different types of careers. Research may be what you're looking for but you won't get there in academia or business without a degree and likely a masters/phd of you really want to pursue research.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Fallout] Why does pre-war money still have value with traders 200 years later? Did the US not abandon the gold standard in the Fallout universe? Or do merchants just like collecting old money for historical/sentimental value?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Money is a paper and cloth mixture, which can be useful for crafting or as firestarting material. And yes, lots of people like collecting it for sentimental value. Just look at the craze around rare bottle caps.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [MCU] Who/what decided Red Skull's penance? And why? And why only him? The only clue we have is that the Space Stone cast him out. Okay, makes sense that one stone would connect to another one. But why? Is it because he abused them for power? Lots of MCU villains have done that and been fine. It's not because he directly touched it, because he didn't. There was a cube of something surrounding it. Besides, Jane Foster did directly touch the Reality Stone and all it did was try to kill her. It's not because he wasn't strong enough, either - see Jane Foster. Is it because he tried using it for raw power when its purpose is to move through space? Did it maybe just send him through space because that's what it does, and the Soul Stone did the work? Did anybody else in all of history get judged like this? And how did Red Skull know any of this, anyway?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The Space Stone itself is said to possess some form of sentience, unique among the Stones. People who study it closely will refer to it as "she" and keep imaging the Stone purposefully trying to show people stuff. When the power was turned off on the device uses to harness its energy. the Space Stone turned it back on by itself. So, the Space Stone decided Red Skull was abusing it, and took matters into its own hands to punish him.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What features of an aircraft and the aircraft's engine allow an aircraft to supercruise at supersonic speeds?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant This mostly comes down to engine selection and inlet design. Each stage of the turbojet/low-bypass turbofan engine (low pressure compressor, high pressure compressor, burner, turbine, afterburner, nozzle) have to be designed to be efficient enough to sustain supercruise on the fuel the aircraft has. They also need to be optimized for supersonic flight. This can come down to nozzle control to make sure the exhaust is not being over or under expanded. Also, the inlet design has a massive impact on the overall efficiency of the engine. As the aircraft gets above mach 1, there have to be shock waves that slow the flow into the engine so the air entering is subsonic. If the inlet was flat like a 737 inlet, it would have a single normal shock to slow the flow down. That is inefficient and it would be better if there were multiple oblique shocks before the normal shock. This is why aircraft like the F-15, F/A-18 super hornet, etc. have angled inlets. The number of shocks and how closely those shocks align with the inlet at the supercruise speed determines the efficiency of the inlet. The inlet can be a moving piece that adjusts its angles and can therefore adjust for its speed or they can be fixed and have a set supercruise speed. There are other ways of doing this too. The SR-71 has conical inlets that effectively do the same as a ramped inlet but in a circle. It also has engines that can almost completely switch from a turbojet to a ramjet. Ramjets use the high compression from the supersonic air to compress the air instead of the compressor blades of a turbojet. They suffer from the fact they dont work at low supersonic speeds and below so they need a way to get there either by converting from a turbojet or by being carried to the necessary speeds by something else.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is happening when time appears to be passing slowly, or faster than usual? Why do we sometimes sit in class waiting ages for 5 minutes to pass, but when I sit down to study for a test and its already 2am?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant How you perceive time deals with how much information you are taking in or how involved you are in a situation. Time flies when your having fun, or in your case, studying. Your brain is busy with things that don't involve keeping track of time, so it doesn't. There is prospective time and retrospective time. Prospective time is how you perceive time when you are studying or looking at the clock waiting for time to pass. Retrospective time is looking back at how long it actually felt. While doing something interesting or involving, your brain is taking in heaps of information and not keeping track of time. But when you remember events or occurrences, the more information you have, the longer it seems. For example, prospectively, while going on an exciting trip, time seems to fly. Retrospectively, an exciting trip of two days can feel like a week.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Harry Potter] If we, wizards, can literally generate/duplicate matter/objects/energy at will, what is the point of selling/buying anything that is not information/intellectual property? The title says it all. Like, why do we even have an economic system? Most of our basic resources, like food, water, clothing, space, shelter, and everyday objects, are infinite because we can generate/duplicate them. We can even generate some magic items for god's sake! And most if not all the labour can be done with magic, especially if we integrate muggle technologies. What is the point of money them? Should we not be truly a Communist society, as pretty much all members have access to the means of production (e.g. the wands)? I mean, besides the hair of Scarlet Johanson (for, hm.... polyjuice reasons...), what other material product would I had to seek in the market during my lifetime?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Can't duplicate magical goods, and Gamps Law has some applications to what you said. But the main thing is magical goods. Not everyone can perform all the interesting item creations, broom makers charge a premium. Want a proper owl? Wizarding currency. Potions? Wizard currency. Specialty services? Same. The list goes on.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do "long exposure" pictures work? I've recently seen a lot of these and they seem so cool.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A camera-- to simplify-- takes in light to create an image (much like our eyes). A long exposure just keeps that eye (the shutter) open longer, so that more light gets processed into the final picture.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why after downloading some applications, do I need to restart but others work straight away? ^<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Because some applications use low-level resources which are already loaded into memory and used continuously by other applications and the operating system as well. Since reloading that particular resource in to memory is way too hard without crashing other applications or the OS itself, the best is to make the user reload the full operating system, hence the need to restart.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why are legendarily high failure rates acceptable in undergraduate organic chemistry courses across universities? I'm a university professor (not in Organic Chem) and I've always been irritated and perplexed by the low exam means and high failure rates for students in Organic Chem courses. This seems to be consistent among universities in the US and acceptable to the chemistry faculty. If my courses had these results I'd be asking myself:1) Am I wrong about what I'm successfully teaching these students, 2) Am I trying to cover too much material? Perhaps the course should be divided into 4 parts instead of two, 3) Is this subject too hard for an undergraduate to grasp. Personally, I see the legendary status of Orgo as a "weed out course" to be a shameful characteristic of chemistry curricula. Correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I think organic chemistry is one of the first classes that a really smart student will run into where they need to understand rather than memorize. They will run into me of these classes during their university career, but a lot of students will take organic in their first year, when they are still super confident and reliant on what worked in high school. So, the really smart students will manage, but it will drop out a lot of kids who don't realize how lost they really are until they have to apply their knowledge rather than just regurgitate it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How can I easily differentiate between Java, C++, and C#? How can I tell just by looking at them? What makes them different and what is it about these differences that makes them good for different tasks?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Look at the top of the file. Typically you'll see: * Java: `import ____;` * C/C++: `#include<____>` * C#: `using ____;` If you don't see these, look for a `main()`/`Main()` method: * Java: Takes a `String[]` or `String ...` argument * C/C++: Takes a `char[]`, `char`, or `void` argument C#: Takes a `string[]` argument The first difference you'll find in languages is where they can run. Java can run on operating systems that have the Java Virtual Machine (JVM) installed. Java compiles into "bytecode" that is interpreted during run-time by the JVM. C/C++ can run on any operating system for which there exists a C/C++ compiler. Most operating systems have a C/C++ compiler for them, but you have to compile separate binaries for each OS. C# is the same way, but C# is most often run on Windows only (there is a project called Mono that is trying to change this). Other differences include the amount of control you get (how close the language is to the hardware versus how abstract various things are). C is pretty low-level. C++ is a bit more abstract. Java and C# are even more abstract than that, probably with Java being the most abstract of the two. You might also find that speed is a determining factor, depending on the operating system and compiler. Typically, it is believed that C/C++ is fastest with Java and C# trailing behind, but you'll find others argue that Java and C# are just as fast. The different languages offer lots of different features. C# has LINQ, lambdas, async/await, etc. Java also has lambdas, but not until recently. It also has global imports. C++ has pointers. There are a ton of differences. Further, each language comes with a standard library. The standard libraries for Java and C# are more built out than the standard library for C. The standard library for C++ is much closer to that of C# or Java, but it still has a way to go.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Preventing people who aren't people of colour from portraying people of colour is also racist. Mike Henry (a white male) has stepped down from voicing Cleveland Brown on Family Guy amid a growing call from the American public that characters of colour should only be voiced by people of colour. But doesn't that just sound like racism with extra steps? It's basically saying that you and yours cannot do this particular thing because you and yours are not part of this particular ethnic group. Also, shouldn't it go both ways? Should Christopher Judge (a black-cherokee male) step down from portraying Kratos in the God of War franchise because Judge himself isn't Greek? Friends, Romans, Countrymen, change my view.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It has to be understood in context. In "the perfect world" you'd be right, but in our world the assumption here is that these roles aren't given to black people _because they are black people_ (or perhaps that the white guy has more gas in the tank in these circles because they are NOT black). So...if you arrive at the place where you think that had YOU been black you'd not have got the role that is a black person and that a black person also qualified didn't get it because they were black, then....well....that's not cool, eh?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: how do tide to-go sticks work ?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A mixture of acids and hydrogen peroxide help break down stain causing molecules, and it contains some molecules soluble in both polar and nonpolar solvents, allowing to wash away both polar and nonpolar crap.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is the reasoning behind how trains are loaded? I see trains everyday and I’ve never understood how/reason behind how rail cars are organized. I see 3x fuel cars then 2x box car, and finally more fuel cars. Why not all the fuel cars then box cars?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant They are generally arranged by how they are picked up and delivered. It's much easier to pull into a place and unhook the last five cars, then go to the next place and unhook the next 8 cars, etc., then to have to go to each place, unhook cars 1-6, and cars 7-12, then connect to cars 7-12, then move them, then disconnect them, then reconnect cars 1-6, then reconnect the rest of the cars, etc.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is there a term/concept for the way unrelated political beliefs are tied together? Like taxes/abortion. So in the US there's only two major parties so that there's a divide set up on every issue, right? So is there a term for the way that Democrats vote in a bloc like pro-choice, more social programs, gay marriage, more taxes, no death penalty? I just want to do more reading on that topic, but don't really know how to Google it.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You may want to search for cleavages (persistent divisions within a voting population), alignment (the formation of a coalition of interests behind one party), and dimensionality (the number of axes/spectra/predominant conflicts needed to explain a country's party system).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do different strains of cannabis have different effects? Isn't it all still just THC?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You know how with some vegetables or fruits there are a bunch of different varieties, like with apples or tomatoes, that are all technically the same fruit but maybe have slightly different tastes, colors and shapes from each other? Like how one type of apple tastes a lot more bitter than a different type, or how some tomatoes grow really huge and others only the size of cherries. All of them are from the same family, but have slightly different genetics from one another. That's pretty much how different strains of marijuana work as well. Slightly different genetics produces a slightly different plant that may have slightly different perceived effects - like how some strains give you a head rush and a bit of energy, and others give you more of a body high and can make you feel really lethargic like you just want to sink into a couch.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Will the perfect moral person, be happy? Let's assume someone who every decision he takes, is the net most moral decision in every moral system that exist, will that person be the happiest person? What would be his emotional reward for his moral perfection? Edit: most moral decision in every moral system = think of net moral utility, apply the same logic to the sphere of moral systems<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I don't know what you mean by morally perfect "in all moral systems that exist"... that seems totally impossible, as some moral systems (e. g. Act Utilitarianism and Kantian Deontology) are mutually exclusive - it's totally possible that you are a formidable person according to Utilitarianism, but a monster according to Kantian ethics. Could you maybe clarify?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What environmental impacts would a border wall between the United States and Mexico cause?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I think one of the biggest impacts would be the alteration of water flow. I don't think you could successfully build a wall down the middle of the Rio Grande river, which is the border, so the wall would have to be on the north side of that river, denying access to that water to all the animals north of the river. This would probably drive all the larger animals farther north in search of water and would flat out kill lots of them. For permanent waterways that flow across the border, you're going to have to either divert them or create some sort of grate system. If you divert them, again, you're denying water resources to something. In arid regions like this, there are a lot of ephemeral waterways that are dry 99% of the time, and full flood the other 1%. Altering these waterways would change the distribution of soil, sand and organic matter that is carried by these waterways.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What causes my stomach to hurt when it’s hungry but then it “un-grumbles” and the pain goes away? If I’m hungry for too long, my stomach grumbles weirdly; it hurts a lot and then releases a big grumble and it doesn’t hurt as much. What is this?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Your digestive tract moves food through it via squeezing it along, in an action called peristalsis. Gas bubbles or other blockages can build up in certain places and cause pain. If the bubbles are being squeezed and suddenly find a path to another region, the pressure is reduced and this movement can cause noise. In some cases when you are hungry and have a less full stomach a larger fraction of the space can potentially become air, though it may not always be related to hunger - rather gas production by your gut microbes.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How do Chinese Citizens actually feel about the one-child policy? I remember in 8th grade, my Social Studies teacher had an article saying something crazy like 80% of the Chinese approve of the policy because of their conditions, but I can't find any sources.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Not an answer, but some things to note: the policy is not universal, nor is it always effectively enforced where it does apply. Because the primary enforcement mechanism is a fine, wealthier families often treat it as a tax rather than a prohibition. So there are (at least) two different questions implied here: how do Chinese citizens feel about the policy? and how do Chinese citizens who are affected by the policy feel about it?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Does refraction change a ray of light's speed? In the past, refraction was explained to me as a result of the change of speed in light when light enters a new medium (glass, water, prism) with refractive properties at an angle. This is supposedly why white light gets broken down into a spectrum in certain prisms. * Does refraction change the speed of the light? * Does this speed change only occur at the point of impact with the refracting medium or is the speed of the light slowed throughout the medium? * Does the speed of light return to normal after leaving the medium? If so, how does this happen without any additional force applied to the light?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Do not confuse light with photons. They are related. Light is a classical phenomenon which has a deeper understanding explained in quantum theory by photons. Photons always always always travel at c. The speed of a beam of light, in classical optics, depends on the medium through which it travels, where that speed is always <= c. Light travels at c in a vacuum. As Das_Mime said, classical light is a wave phenomenon. If you've studied waves, it should be apparent that the speed of the wave isn't really about forces like it would be talking about particles. In classical optics, the speed is determined by the medium. As for how this is resolved with the photon model of light, it has to do with continual absorption and re-emission of photons by the constituents of the medium. If you search through /r/askscience, there's probably quite a few threads about that.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How can Supermarkets just flat-out rip off a product Why can I go in and see "Frosted flakes" next the Frosties, yet they don't get sued? EDIT- I'm not just talking about Frosties, you see it everywhere. If there's a popular product, there will also be a store-brand rip off.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant First, a large portion of store brands are made by the same companies that make the name brand items. Second, the only way kellogs could sue over frosties is if they were to emulate trademarked elements of the packaging (ie character, font etc) in a way that creates a substantial similarity which could reasonably cause issues of differentiation by prospective purchasers.....or if kellogs had patented EVERY possible process to flake corn, and coat it in frosting. EVERY possible process...because a very small alteration in equipment and procedure can be sufficient to sidestep a patent.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What makes mirrors reflective?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant For this, it’s important to understand what light is, an electric and magnetic field that changes in strength as it travels as a wave. When it hits a conductor, like a metal, the electrons in the metal move freely, riding the wave up and down like a beach ball on the ocean. But when those electrons move, that motion causes another electromagnetic field to form. The one from the electron ends up canceling the one that is the light going forward, and you’re left with only the one from the electron going backward. Hence, reflection. What’s weirder is that the electrons have a limit on how fast they can move, and if the light is too high a frequency, the electrons are getting pushed from both directions rather than riding the wave, so stay still. So they stop reflecting. The properties of the metal in question change their upper limit on how fast they can move, which causes certain metals to stop reflecting certain colors at different parts of the spectrum. Copper stops reflecting in the red, gold in the greenish-yellow, and silver or aluminum in the UV. This is why metals have different colors.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What specifically about puberty negatively impacts female gymnasts to the point that retirement occurs around age 20? I've been thinking about this and am even starting to get skeptical of whether this is true or not. So I guess my question is divided into two parts: Is the retirement of female gymnasts after puberty for social or for established physical reasons? For instance, are elite female gymnasts forced to retire after their teens due to some wierd aesthetic reasons or is it due to some established medical reason such as: after __ post-pubescent age, the body becomes less compatible with gymnastics training demands? Post some real scientific studies if you can.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It is a few factors but the biggest two are strength to weight ratio and the change in size of the person. When you train things like balance, one of the biggest components of gymnastics, you are training neuromuscular connections. When you grow, those change, performance dips. With girls their highest strength to weight + height ratio happens just before puberty, during puberty they have a lot of hip growth for instance, this will add weight but also change how they can balance. That change needs to be relearned. All sports see this dip. Runners get slower at the start of puberty then get faster again, swimmers have a dip in performance... Pretty much any sport has this dip, gymnasts just experience it to a greater extent. The small stature of gymnasts also is good to maintain, easier to rotate a shorter person.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is every single living cell adjacent to or “have access to” a capillary? Are there living cells not next to a blood/O2 source, and if so, how do they survive?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Diffusion allows for nutrients and O2 to be between adjacent cells. No need to be directly next the capillary, if your neighbor, or neighbor's neighbor is. Many forms of multicellular life have no ciculatory system, for example jelly fish. Our advanced ciculatory system allows for more efficient transfer over our large volume, but especially in less active tissue, cells may be far from a capillary.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Most advice given to women about staying safe isn't 'victim blaming', it's crime prevention [Victim blaming](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming) occurs when 'the victim of a crime is held entirely or partially at fault for the harm that befell them'. Victim blaming absolutely, 100% happens. And, of course, it primarily happens where the victim is a woman and the crime is sexual assault/harassment. I have no doubt that women are disproportionately subject to victim blaming, because there are many sick deluded people (mostly men, I'm sure) who have a disgraceful view of sex. This should end, and we should call out anyone who targets women in this way. However, I believe the extent to which this is a widespread and/or societal problem is overstated. Significant amounts of so-called 'victim blaming' is well-meaning, non-sexist, pragmatic crime prevention which individuals and institutions broadcast equally for every other crime. This might be best illustrated by an example. Police departments everywhere give advice towards preventing your home from being a target of burglary. Lock your doors at night, install alarms, leave the TV on when you go on holiday, install cameras, install a motion-activated light, get a dog, put a sign up, advise your neighbours when you're away. None of this invokes responsibility. It's so obvious that a burglar is criminally and morally responsible for a burglary, that it doesn't even need to be said. The police aren't saying that if you don't lock your doors at night you're responsible for someone coming in and taking your TV. They're saying that burglars unfortunately exist, and they look for empty houses, so leaving a light on will make your house less of a target. And the thing is, everyone understands the rationale behind burglary PSAs. We don't respond by saying 'Stop burglars burglarising, don't blame me for being burgled! I have the right to leave my door wide open at night!'. We know that the police aren't saying that we don't have the right to leave our house unsecured. We know that the police are trying to stop burglars burglarising, as well as giving advice to the public. We understand that they're giving us advice towards reducing our likelihood of being victims to the criminals who unfortunately exist. Why do we neglect this pragmatic reasoning when the crime in question is sexual assault? There's no doubt that a girl walking alone, at 3am, whilst intoxicated, looking beautiful, is more likely to be a victim of sexual assault than the sober girl who gets in a taxi with her friends. I wish so much that we lived in a world where it was equally safe to take both paths. But we know that it isn't, in the same way we know that it's less safe to leave our doors unlocked. So why, exactly, do we conclude that giving women the same crime prevention advice that we give to homeowners is sexist victim blaming? Change my view!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The difference between victim blaming and crime prevention is when the advice is given. Was the advice given before a potential crime or after the crime? Giving advice before a potential crime is crime prevention as it diminished potential crime. Giving advice after the crime is judgemental, or redundant. You are not trying to prevent a future crime, you are just making the victim feel guilty as a "lesson". Worse, if your advice is wrong, the victim now has to defend themselves. Of course both can overlap but it boils down to two statements : "how can we do better?" Versus "why did you choose to be victim?". The information might be the same but the intent of the question is not. One is a desire to help, one is a desire to judge.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:How is the Holocaust seen as the worst genocide in human history, even though Stalin killed almost 5 million more of his own people?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant After reading the other comments i try a different approach. What was different about the Holocaust and other genocides? I think a big reason for the different perception of the Holocaust is how it was done and by whom. The Nazis conducted the Holocaust in a very bureaucratic manner. It was very methodical. Very methodical done by very smart people. People who arrived at the camps were sorted and marked like cattle. The Nazis searched for jews everywhere. Everywhere! Escaping this was hard when you didn't flee early enough. They searched for them even if they posed no threat just to get all of them. They hunted them everywhere even in the occupied regions. Compared to Stalin it wasn't about silencing/killing people who were deemed a threat to him or the system, it was about exterminating an entire race. Just think about it, it was about purifying an entire continent. Killing everybody who was not regarded worthy to live. This was done not by taking every jew and shooting him on the spot, that was not efficient. The Nazis tried to find efficient almost industrial ways to kill millions of people. They were first used to build weapons. Weapons like the V2, which were revolutinary at this time. See the contrast here? Brilliant weapons developed by smart people, the "same" people trying to exterminate a race. Futuristic weapons, which would later be the basis of the apollo program, build by tortured slaves, where do you find these kind of contrasts? Iam no expert of Holocaust or other genocides but other holocaust often seem more "improvised". Also a big reason for the different perception is where it was done. Germany. Germany is now a western country, always known as a powerful industrial country. The country of the "Dichter und Denker". A country with many of the greatest poets and composers. Before the war a big part of the nobel prices went to german scientists. Germany was a respected powerful country with open minded people. But some years later.... Genocides were often "Mittel zum Zweck" getting rid of an opossing political force and their basis for example. For the Nazis and Hitler it was the "Zweck". Thats a big difference to other genocides as well. When the red army advanced in the east and the western allied in Italy and France the Nazi intensified their killing even if it wasted a lot of war ressources because if they the lose the war they at least kill as many jews as possible. Think about that.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 Why we're more likely to get ill during colder seasons Why is it that whenever winter-time comes, people suddenly start getting ill? How does cold affect our immune system?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are many compounding factors. The strength of your immune system isn't really one of them, actually. The biggest is that we tend to clump up inside in cold weather. So there are more people in less space sharing germs. Sunlight and heat are both good at killing viruses as well, so viruses live longer on surfaces indoors.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user The tensor is property of many fundamental forces in QED, but it is not explained in readily graspable terms... Does anyone here have a good way to explain what a tensor is, what the different ranks and classes of tensors in normal terms? Thanks in advance.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A tensor is basically the general term for vectors and matrices. A tensor has a rank which is the number of dimensions it has: a rank zero tensor is a scalar (number), a rank one tensor is a vector, a rank two tensor is a matrix, and higher rank tensors don't have fancy names. Generally in physics, each row or column of a tensor corresponds to a specific dimension in space. For example, the velocity gradient tensor describes how the x component of the velocity changes in the x direction, how it changes in the y direction, how the y component changes in the x direction, and how the y component changes in the y direction.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user I believe that being physically unattractive is a serious disadvantage, not unlike being born into a low income family; CMV. MY VIEW HAS ALTERED: Sorry for the long wait, but I managed to read at least 90% of the responses and have to actually admit my view has been altered somewhat. I still believe that unattractiveness is a serious limitation, but I will say that I undervalued the negatives of being physically attractive, particularly over-objectification. Based on the comments, it has confirmed that attractiveness also becomes irrelevant at some point depending on how you measure success. ------- To preface, this is not the rantings of an ugly troll who can't get a date - just so you know, yes I am below average but I've been in a wonderful relationship for five years with someone quite hot (I say that because she knows my reddit username - hi honey!), but that is not the main argument I am positing. I will be posting a lot of studies from my time in psychology, but the original reference is stored away in a pile of boxes. I will be updating with a digital link to the article over time, and if it is made available for public viewing. The main focus of my view is physical attractiveness as a social capital. Without a doubt, there is a conscious and unconscious preference towards people are physically attractive, this goes for men, women, children and even [chickens](http://cogprints.org/5272/1/ghirlanda_jansson_enquist2002.pdf), so to an extent we are all shallow, at least on first impression; but this is often a pivotal stage for the continued success of any relationship. And yes there is a general guideline for physical attractiveness, while body-types may differ based on culture and upbringing, features (especially of the face) generally have a normality for attractiveness, the less you deviate from that ratio - the better. I understand that attractive people are subject to certain prejudices, and I am aware that some of them are: * Over-objectification * Attractive people are viewed as less intelligent. There is an interesting study as well demonstrating an inverse relationship between the amount of skin shown and perceived intelligence. But these issues are easily manageable, unattractive people however are prone to the serious issue of being invisible or dismissed. Like being born into a wealthy family, attractive people will always have better opportunities, pre-established social connections and status, will initially command more respect, the potential for more exposure to culture and education and a significantly easier time achieving long term goals due to the aforementioned. * Because I have an ethnic name, I actually get a significantly reduced number of callbacks for interviews when using my legal name in my job application. I replicated this from a study that looked into the same issue, by creating two identities and using a neutral last name i.e. Smith, on the latter. I believe unattractive people face a similar problem of being able to get their foot through the door. Studies show that people will immediately notice the tallest person in a group, unless there is significant case of a person being short, e.g. dwarfism. Unattractive people are often overlooked, and people are less likely to remember them. * Unattractive will have more issues regarding self-esteem. [The detriments of being complimented on physical appearance](http://www.nerve.com/scanner/2009/09/28/study-says-calling-women-pretty-makes-them-more-likely-to-reject-you) aside, not being viewed in a favourable light, especially in adolescent to early adulthood can have long lasting ramifications - especially when people learn that appearance plays a big role in success. There are things people can do to even the playing field - wear nice clothes, consider the significance of scent to desirability, the use of wit and rhetoric - but these are things EVERYONE has to consider. Adhering to these rules does not give you an edge over anyone else observing them as well. * People are nicer to attractive people, whether they realize it or not. Studies show that we want approval from attractive people, because we implicitly believe that their opinion is of more value. Just to add a tangential point, having attractive friends, like in one study where participants were asked to rate people based on their Facebook friends, also improves people's perception of you. So being attractive actually helps those around you. * Unattractive people will always have to try harder, this goes double if you're not-good-looking and are of an ethnicity that is not of the norm of your country/region. Just to counter a likely argument I'll hear, I am aware character and virtue are more valuable traits in the long term. But my argument is the limitations set by a person's looks are much more difficult to overcome, create a massive gap in terms of social capitol assuming other variables remain constant, and is virtually permanent. Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to be thorough with my argument, and I actually had several more points - but I think you get the gist. EDIT: Wow, I did not expect this response. Thank you guys/gals. I was going to keep following the thread, but I ended up falling asleep. Firstly, I'm glad we all agree that superficiality is common, but at the same time it is depressing by it's unanimous acceptance =/ Secondly I should clarify the argument to allow for more responses: Yes I am stating facts, but there is a reason I consider unattractiveness akin to low income. Wealthy upbringing will always have the potential for a better life, so that presents an existential problem to /u/WhyNotWhatsWrong query. If you haven't heard of it before, the term for a person who is poor and becomes wealthy is called a silver-tail; the issue with them is that they are never really ever accepted within their new community. This isn't a fact, this is one part of me that actually came to this conclusion without strong empirical evidence. While not directly related to low income situation ,I also wanted to point out that I mentioned that it is a permanent problem, to which to there is no solution, well technically there is one but it requires an entire rework of the architecture of the brain. EDIT 2: I also wanted to address a common claim, that attractive people are boring, superficial or are more prone to negative quality X, this is simply not true. Too many studies have shown virtually no character difference between the population, especially after high school.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Adversity builds character? I mean, yeah, all of what you wrote is true. Unattractive people have more of an uphill battle in life, on all fronts; there's really not much to dispute there. But is that a bad thing on an existential level?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: If sweating exists to control body temperature, why do sometimes people sweat from their feet or hands even though they are frozen cold?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If you've been doing physical work, your core temperature will increase, largely regardless of the outside temperature. the natural response is to sweat to remove the excess heat. since your head and feet (and hands) tend to have alot of capillaries near the surface of the skin, they tend to be much more efficient at removing excess body heat compared to the rest of the body, where blood vessels are deeper.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user With the latest recommendations, why is it a bad idea to use OAuth2 for authentication? Why is OIDC a good idea instead? I've recently been setting up an authorisation server for a startup I'm launching. Now, we could have just used something like Auth0 and been done with it (temporarily) in an authentication sense, but knowing that we have some complex needs surrounding both authentication and authorisation we opted for creating our own "IAM" service. The obvious first step here seems to be making an OAuth2 server. We have several client applications, including a dashboard application that's a single-page application. We wanted to delegate authorisation to protected resources via that client on behalf of a user, and that is of course exactly what OAuth2 is intended to be used for. However, another requirement of that dashboard application is that it shows the current user information somewhere (i.e. their name at least) so they're aware of who they're "logged in" as, etc. Now that on its own isn't authentication - I get that, it's more like pseudo-authentication; it's just showing the entity interacting with a client application which user originally consented to that access token being used. I'm currently struggling to understand: * Why using OIDC to "authenticate" provides any more "authentication" than OAuth2? * Why using OAuth2 would be any less secure as a mechanism for authentication? My current view on the first of those questions so far is that OIDC seems to be for the benefit of a client application. As in, the client can say if it received an ID token that the user has authenticated with it because the only way it would get one is either from something like an authorization code flow initiated by a user, or a refresh token flow (which should only be possible to be initiated by the client that made that initial authorization code flow request). But what difference does that make to a client in that case when compared with receiving an access token alongside a refresh token (either via the refresh token grant, or the authorization code grant)? All of the above also applies to the that flow, i.e. the only way you get a new access token alongside a refresh token is by something like an authorization code or refresh token flow, and you can only do this if the user themselves consented to that initial authorisation code flow. The authorisation code and refresh token will still be bound to that specific client. The access token itself being a JWT is fine too, they're all unique, their authenticity can be easily verified, and depending on how you implement them they're still trivial to revoke (e.g. by storing the "jti" claim, and still verifying an access token with every request to a protected resource). What difference is there then between being able to use the token endpoint at all, and what OIDC does in terms of authenticating the user? The only argument I can think of is that OIDC standardises this approach, meaning it's easier for third-party clients to consume identities from your OIDC server, and it allows you to use off-the-shelf client libraries, etc. This point is actually one that resonates with me, because it would make developing clients a lot easier and probably more secure because those libraries will be better battle-tested. This is to say, OIDC makes it easier to consume identities from an identity provider in a standard way (e.g. for identity federation). The second of these questions, I cannot wrap my head around. Quite a few places have said that it's less secure, and gone on to give some reasons why it's insecure (and then explained how to avoid those issues with OAuth2 itself), but most of the content I've found on this topic seems to be quite old (i.e. before implicit flow was deprecated in favour of using the authorisation code flow with PKCE - which is the way I'm currently tackling it). I understand the potential loopholes in OAuth, but the spec does cover how to avoid many of these (one in particular that people seem to keep talking about is how according to the OAuth2 spec, authorization codes can be re-used in different clients as long as they're valid - but actually the spec does say ["The authorization code is bound to the client identifier and redirection URI."](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-4.1.2)). What is OIDC doing to make any of this more secure anyway? An access token is still an access token right? If you have an insecure OAuth2 implementation, it doesn't seem like layering on OIDC is going to help with that. I'm completely content with the argument that OIDC just standardises this authentication approach, but I can't tell if I'm just missing something that actually makes OAuth2 insecure, or a bad choice for authentication in some way other than the standardisation argument I've mentioned above. It is certainly entirely possible there's some kind of situation I'm not thinking of where the distinction and addition of the ID token seems more useful from a security standpoint, and would really appreciate some input from people that are more knowledgeable on the subject than I am after spending a week building an OAuth2 server...<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant OIDC gives you standardized information in the ID token. This means that you don't have to introduce an internal standard on what's contained in your token, but external and internal software can rely on the same fields<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is it easier to get a job when you already have a job? I've heard this countless times, written in articles and from recruiting professionals. Every time I've been on an interview, they ask me when I'd be able to start. When I give them a date two to four weeks away, their face always drops and I can tell they're no longer considering me because they need someone sooner than that. I know that my personal anecdote doesn't invalidate something that's known to be true but of the many interviews I've been on, I've only found that having a job already is cumbersome to whoever you're interviewing with.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It's easier to get a job when to have a job because you're in a stronger negotiating position. You don't have to have the job, you already have one. Also, if you encounter an employer that is loses interest because you can't start for two weeks, you should feel lucky. You're dodging a bullet. This is an indication that the place has high turnover and they value getting a warm body quickly more than getting the right person. Then you have to think to yourself... "there must be a reason why they have that kind of turnover." Any reason you come up with is likely to be a reason you'd want to work somewhere else. No good employer will have any problem with waiting 2-4 weeks to bring on a good employee.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How was the first operating system created if we didn't have anything to code it with?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant you can write code in binary (slowly) and make a low level programming language. With this program you can write progressively more complicated programs so on and so on until you write an operating system which is more or less a program that runs other programs.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What body system does fat belong to? If they can be part of different systems, are there other examples of tissues that are not strictly monogamous?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Endocrine system generally, but it's also important connective tissue. Fat cells derive embryologically from mesoderm (there are three basic embryologic tissues). Also, you may be interested to know that there are two types of fat (let's call it adipose)-- white adipose and brown adipose. White adipose is typically what you think of when you consider fat. It's the stuff that's under your skin, in your belly, thighs, around your heart, kidneys, and etc. Brown adipose on the other hand tends to be around only when you are an infant, and it actually actively burns carbs and fat to create heat. It's brown because they contain iron rich mitochondria, which are the cellular machinery for burning through chemical energy. People have tried to harness / reactivate this stuff over time, and it's a pretty interesting research field in itself. If you're interested in some peer reviewed lit on the subject, see: doi:10.1038/nm.3361 "Brown and beige fat: development, function and therapeutic potential" As to your question about tissues not being strictly "monogamous," there are tons of examples!-- blood, blood vessels, nerves, muscles all comprise important parts of various organs. Generally, various tissues compose an organ, and organs work together in organ systems to carry out a specific function. For example, renal tubules are a tissue but they work along side smooth muscle, blood vessels, neurons, and endocrine tissue in the kidneys (an organ), which are an important part of the renal or excretory system. The human body is a wonderful thing.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do we need to consume fat if excess carbohydrates are ultimately stored as fat? My understanding is that any carbs that aren't used for energy are converted and stored as fat. Hypothetically, could a human just survive off of protein and a lot of carbs?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Fat has two basic uses for the body: energy storage and ingredient for stuff, like hormones. The second use can't be fulfilled by stored fat, it must be dietary (eaten) fat. And no, you can't live without fat, there's even a thing caused "rabbit starvation", which is literally people starving to death because they only ate rabbit meat, which is VERY lean, for a long period of time.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do CEOs like Mark Zuckerberg get paid? Do they receive a paycheck? How often do they get money from their company? I know this question shows a lot of financial naivety in how stocks work, but that's why I am asking.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Salaries for C-level (think CEO, CFO, etc.) officers at publicly traded companies (things on the stock market) are generally publicly disclosed, as part of what is required to be a public company. You can look up the salaries of all of these people. However it will be a bit obscured, for lots of reasons. Their salaries are generally a combination of salary plus stock (and/or stock options, which is more complicated so lets not worry about that). So basically, most C-level people get paid some combination of: "base salary" + "some stock" + "some bonus or other compensation" All of that together is regarded as their official compensation. Often, most of it is in stock and/or bonuses due to how taxes work on those vs. how taxes work for salary, its all a bit of a game about how they get paid to maximize pay while minimizing taxes. OK, one more aspect. Many C-level people also get to charge expenses to the company. This is a bit of a racket, but its at the end of the day, just another way to dodge taxes and such. pretty much, many C-level people can charge some (or all) of their living expense to the company to pay. Be it their house, cars, travel, fun, dinners, etc. Again this is all known, nothing interesting, and just part of what they negotiate as their salary. It really isn't that interesting, everyone knows the score, knows the situation, and it is what it is<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user In your opinion, which is currently the best country for an economic migrant to go to?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I suggest that an important factor is how well-accepting a given nation is to immigrants. It does not matter if a country has a strong economy and job market for native-born citizens, but keep immigrants out, or treats them like second class citizens. So on this basis, I'd suggest Canada and Australia as being historically friendly to immigrants.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What does an e-sport team coach do?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Analyses and organises play and practice. Sometimes plays a minor role as a manager (including PR, travel and lodging arrangement). Basically, like any other coach, they take a birds eye view of their team, take what they see and then delegate roles and improvement strategies on that basis.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 Why is it that diabetes causes so many other health issues?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Well, first you need to know that there are two types of diabetes. Type 1, and Type 2. Type 1 is an autoimmune disorder. Basically, the immune system sees the cells in the pancreas as a foreign invader and begins attacking them. Those with autoimmune disorders are more likely to develop other autoimmune disorders like a specific type of arthritis, celiac's, hypothyroidism, etc. The next issue that occurs is from too much glucose in the blood. This can be seen in both forms of diabetes. The reason for cardiovascular effects is because too much glucose reduces the amount of the vasodilator hormone. Essentially, the blood vessels are unable to expand properly which increases blood pressure and will damage the blood vessels over time causing them to become too narrow. It's important to note, however, that diabetes doesn't necessarily cause other health issues. Besides the whole one autoimmune disorder increases likelihood of another, it's the high blood glucose that does the damage.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does it take over 600 gallons of water to make a single hamburger?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Most of the water is used to raise crops like alfalfa, which are then used to feed the cattle all their lives, which are then killed to make meat. (The cattle drink every day too.) So it's a very indirect, wasteful process.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [LOTR] During the Battle of Helmsdeep, why did they make a big deal about saying the women could fight and handle a sword, but then locked them all away in Helmsdeep and started fitting the children with armor and weapons?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You have to understand their culture. Although they may have been a fierce people they have to think about the long term affects of sending their woman out to die. As you recall in that episode there were a few scenes that set the stage for the battle and how important it was.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Religious people are often just as logical as non-religious people, they just start from different assumptions. CMV For context, I'm an atheist but I find that many of my non-religous friends seem to think that if someone is religious they have to be completely Illogical, but I don't think that's the case. They actually are logical, they just start from a different set of assumptions. For Example: A=B B=C A=C Is valid But A ≠ B B= C A≠ C Is also completely valid but you wind up with different conclusions. For Christians, they start with the assumption that say, the bible is true or at least a truthful if metaphorical guideline. And since atheists reject this premise (Even if it's they're justified in doing so) they wind up with rather different end points. But neither Christians nor atheists commit a error in reasoning here. So CMV!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Assumptions can themselves be judged on terms of rationality. Christianity assumes, as an epistemic standard, the contents of a book, with no prior principles to show why the contents of this book are necessarily true and should not be judged by their own merit. Atheism, since it denotes a lack of belief, does not depend necessarily on any particular epistemic standard, but a very commonly held epistemic standard among atheists is empiricism which states, in simple terms, that experience is the base of all knowledge. Reasoning from the available evidence, one is not able to find anything that resembles, to any surprising or convincing degree, the unusual things stated in the Bible; in particular, there is no solid evidence of God. I suppose if you want to claim that empiricism and "the contents of this specific book are true a priori" are equally rational epistemologies, we can discuss that, but if you concede that they are not, then your case falls apart.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why do some materials conduct electricity while others do not? I've heard that it is related to the energy levels of electrons or the lattice of the material among other things, but I do not have a good answer as to why some materials conduct electricity while others do not. It is quite difficult to find information relating to electricity on the atomic level.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant When you have a bulk material like rubber (insulator), silicon (semiconductor), and copper (conductor) the electrons energy levels of the individual atoms form energy bands when considering the bulk properties of the material. To move electrons through a material you must promote them from the valence band to the conduction band, in an insulator the band gap is large it takes a lot of energy to promote an electron, with a semiconductor the band gap is small taking only a little bit of energy to promote an electron, and in a conductor the valence band and conduction band are touching so only a very small amount of energy is required to promote an electron.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are Black American families on average living in poverty more so than other American Ethnicities?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It hasn't been that many years since discrimination against black people was legal in most of the nation. Those sorts of laws have a large impact. You had many black people who didn't get equal educations to white people, who weren't getting hired for well paying jobs, who didn't have hopes for the future because of racist laws and racist policies in workplaces. That has an impact. If you didn't get a good job, you raise your children in poverty. And it is difficult for people to escape the cycle of "born poor, live in a bad neighborhood, get married to another poor person, and have poor kids." It will take generations for real change to happen in this regard.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If your skin temperature is lower than usual and you stick your hand/foot in hot water, does it do actual damage? I was thinking of this as I went to take a shower last night and my feet were cold. The water wasn't hotter than it normally would be but it felt like sticking my feet in boiling water. Is it just the sensation or is there actual damage being caused? Also, what exactly causes this to happen?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Sensory or neural adaptation is a change in time in responsiveness to a constant stimulus, for example, what your clothes feel like on your skin. When your feet are cold, the neurons that transmit a feeling of warmth are not firing. When you submerge them in warm water, these warm-sensing neurons begin firing rapidly signaling heat, but you're also signaling a rapid temperature change. Because of the rapidity with which your body was sensing the rise in temperature, nociceptors, or receptors that signal pain, became activated, warning you that something may be potentially wrong. Unless you are actually using boiling water, there is likely no damage being caused.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How are permanent magnets formed? Plus why do they lose their property on heating<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Permanent magnets are created by heating a ferromagnetic material to a specific high temperature while exposing the magnet to a strong electric current which is responsible for aligning the atoms in the magnet in a single direction. As the magnet cools it will maintain this single direction, causing magnetism for the whole material. If you heat this magnet again, the high kinetic energy causes the atoms to scramble around in a looser state, causing the atoms to unalign, thus the magnetic fields cancel out, and the material is no longer magnetic. An electric current, and it’s resultant magnetic field is what causes the atoms to align in a ferromagnetic material, to make that material magnetic.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How you become eligible to be knighted and the process that follows<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The most common Order of Chivalry is The Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, which has five "ranks." From highest to lowest, these are: 1. Knight Grand Cross or Dame Grand Cross of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (GBE), limited to 300 1. Knight Commander or Dame Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (KBE or DBE), limited to 845 1. Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (CBE), limited to 8,960 1. Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (OBE) 1. Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (MBE) GBE and KBE/DBE automatically make the recipient a knight (male) or a dame (female), which allows them to use the title "Sir [Name]" or "Dame [Name]." Note that these honorifics are used only before the first name, so you would, e.g., refer to Sir Patrick Stewart or Sir Patrick, but never Sir Stewart. As part of the British honours system, membership in the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire is a means of rewarding individuals' personal bravery, achievement, or service to the United Kingdom and the British Overseas Territories. All members of the order are appointed by the current British monarch, who is Sovereign of the Order. Typically, they do this under the advice of the governments of Britain and the Commonwealth. No more than 858 Officers and 1,464 Members may be appointed per year. Other Orders of Chivalry include the Order of the Garter and the Order of the Thistle. Some Orders of Merit also come with an honorary knighthood at their highest ranks. Men may also be knighted separately from membership in one of these orders, giving them the rank of Knight Bachelor (Kt). Only citizens of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth can be full members of these orders. Foreigners are considered honorary members only, and while they may use the letters after their name, they do not take the title of "Sir" or "Dame."<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What's going on when you get that tingling feeling in your body after seeing/hearing something you feel is profound? It's kind of difficult to explain but whenever you hear some very good lyrics in a song or you see a movie trailer that absolutely hooks you this feeling starts. Almost like a kinda good tingling feeling in your head and body, also my peripheral vision will start to fade when this happens. What is my body actually doing when this happens?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Some people call it autonomous sensory meridian response (ASMR). No one is really sure why this happens, but it occurs because your senses have encountered some stimuli (visual, auditory, etc). Some psychologists support its existence and say it produces similar effects to meditation, but there is not broad agreeement about why this happens.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Dreaming for people who were born blind. How does someone who has never experienced visual stimuli their entire lives dream? Is it in sounds, feelings, textures, the shapes of things they've experienced through touch?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I work for a state school forr the Blind. All of the students that have been blind from birth say that they just dream in sound. Same goes for the deaf community. They just dream in pictures and no sound.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are some people more intelligent than others? Why don't our brains all have the same capability to absorb and use information?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The capacity to absorb and use information would be determined genetically, and different people have different genes. Furthermore, regardless of theoretical capacity, the actual growth of your brain is greatly affected by diet and nutrition (especially early on). Lastly, your capacity for absorbing and using information is useless if you aren't exposed to information in the first place. In short, your actual intelligence is a combination of internal and external factors, both of which can vary greatly from person to person.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How are surfing competitions judged if surfers don't always get the same waves as each other?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant As a surfer, you have to pick the wave that best suits the tricks you want to perform. That's part of the skill, being able to read the wave. Just like how fishing competitions rely on the fishermen picking the best fish to keep, not just catching fish.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELIF "A Theory of Justice" by John Rawls<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Lot's of people have been writing about how to set up society and divide money, but a common criticism is that the people who supported those ideas where the people who'd benefit from them. What Rawls said, was "what if we decided on what society was like, if we didn't know what our position in society would end up being?" Basically, he argued that if people don't know what their position would be, they'd all agree on at least three basic rules: firstly, that everybody would be free to do whatever he wanted, so long he didn't bother other people with it. Secondly, everybody would have an equal say in decisions, and thirdly, people only get to earn more money for their work, if earning that money is justified by being for the benefit of everybody.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: why is it fairly easy to keep track of how much time has passed while awake, but a short nap of even 5-10 minutes can make it feel like hours have passed?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant While awake you’re able to pick up on things like the brightness coming in from the outside and are participating in tasks that you’re likely familiar with and can anticipate the duration. Probably more importantly, you likely have a computer, wall clock, or cell phone showing you the time, whether you’re deliberately checking it or not. When you sleep, if you’re not a regular napper, you will probably assume you’ve been asleep for the normal amount of time, since you’ve been unconscious to the queues that normally help you track time. This is especially true if you did not decide to fall asleep and wake up to darkness with nothing to tell you what time it may be.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How did they film the atomic bomb ? I don\`t know if this is the right subreddit . But how did they film the atomic bomb explosion back in the day without ruining the footage / camera , And who was the poor soul who went and fetched them I am referring to this close up footage when you see the cars/ trees blown away by the shock wave [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gD\_TL1BqFg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gD_TL1BqFg) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztJXZjIp8OA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztJXZjIp8OA) Thank you !<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Typically through some combination of reinforced concrete, a small optical aperture, a suitably tough window material, and/or mirrors to deflect the light so that the camera can be more deeply protected. Also lead shielding to protect the film from X-rays, and/or emulsion that is less sensitive to X-rays.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Harry Potter] Why does the school bother grading assignments, when career paths are determined by OWLs and NEWTs? Even in OotP and HBP, it seemed the only determining factor in course eligibility was a student's scores on these standardized tests. If that's the case, then in theory, I could skip all assignments and still end up Head Auror with the right test scores. EDIT: I've learned form /u/MugaSofer that the UK school system (or maybe just the Irish) also similarly disregards class grades. I'm an American, and in the States, GPA is very important when considering future opportunities (either employment or higher education). That's why Hogwarts' system seems so strange to me.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant So the teachers know if you understand the material. A smart student could skip out on a lot of work. Fred and George basically did this, they went to class and obviously understood the material but just didn't give a shit.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do nails get softer after being in water or easier to cut after taking a shower?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Our nails are made of layers that make them strong and help them keep their shape. One of these layers has keratin cells, which is a special type of cell kind of like bone. These cells are very thin and let water pass through to keep the nail hydrated and healthy. If we have a shower or go swimming for a while the nails get over loaded with water and become soft until it can be absorbed.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do people and animals get comfortable? What is comfort?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Comfort is a lack of hardship, danger or stress. From an evolutionary point of view, avoiding dangerous situations is obviously beneficial to survival, so an animal that experienced negative emotions (discomfort) during these situations is going to try & avoid being in them. Feeling happy in a safe area means an animal would be more likely to stay in that safe area.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: the entire “humans weren’t meant to be monogamous” argument falls apart when you take children into account. I often come across discussions that center around the fact that now humans live such a long lifetime, monogamy is unrealistic and out-dated. But every study I have ever read on the topic of childhood seems to prove children have the best outcomes in a two parent home with parents who have a good relationship. I don’t see how this is compatible with the idea that marriage and long term commitment are passé. If, as a species, we thrive best when raised by a couple, there must be SOMETHING to the idea of marriage.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The idea of children needing a home with two parents is more of a cultural aspect of western society than something inherent. There are other arrangements. Some cultures take a more community rearing approach where the individual parents aren't so important and children will be raised as children of the whole village. Another approach is to have stable polygamous relationships. They will be similar to monogamous marriages but will have more people involved so the children have several stable parents rather than just the two.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star Trek] Why the Ferengi never had slavery? > Quark: I think I figured out why Humans don't like Ferengi. > Sisko: Not now, Quark. > Quark: The way I see it, Humans used to be a lot like Ferengi: greedy, acquisitive, interested only in profit. We're a constant reminder of a part of your past you'd like to forget. > Sisko: Quark, we don't have time for this. > Quark: You're overlooking something. Humans used to be a lot worse than the Ferengi: slavery, concentration camps, interstellar wars. We have nothing in our past that approaches that kind of barbarism. You see? We're nothing like you... we're better. Concentration camps and wars may not be good for business (other people's wars are good for busssiness), but slavery seems to be a thing that Ferengis would do.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The Ferengi have indentured servitude, and keep almost every feeeemale Ferengi in effective slavery. Quark is just arguing semantics in an effort to appear morally superior. He's like those weirdos who harp on word choice rather than subject matter. E.g. "it's not pedophilia, it's ephebophilia."<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How is our liver able to regenerate itself, when our other organs cannot?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Many other organs can regenerate. For example, skin, bones, blood vessels. But liver is the only internal (visceral) organ that can regenerate. The reason for this is that the main function of liver is to remove ingested toxins from blood before they reach main circulation, and liver cells are relatively often killed off in that process. (Because toxins are, well, toxic.) Most other organs have no strong need to replenish their cells, and as a result they are unable to recover from a significant loss. But again, organs that do have a strong need to replenish their cells (like skin) can (and do) regenerate from significant damage.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Does the Surface Tension of Water change (increase/decrease), as the surface area changes? Does the Surface Tension of Water change (increase/decrease), as the surface area changes? Does Temperature also have any factor in this. E.G. : The Surface Tension of a Graduated Cylinder compared to a Lake.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant No but the ratio of the effects of surface area can change as the volume increases. Temperature does affect surface tension. Surface tension is a result of molecules of water forming stronger bonds with other water molecules than with air. Therefore, breaking the surface of the water requires breaking some of those bonds. The bonds between water molecules are weaker when the water molecules move around really fast and spend less time bonded - as in hot water. Once water is boiling, all of the heat energy goes to breaking the water bonds and the surface tension is zero.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star Wars] In what ways did the Empire do nothing wrong?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It provide peace, prosperity, and order to the Core Regions of the Galaxy. Petitions for the betterment for the citizens of the Empire are no longer hampered by bureaucracy and corrupt senators. Military-wise, the Stormtrooper Corps and the Naval Corps are both meritocracy instead of relying on political connections and being a warrior monk of a debunked and fraudulent religion.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Warhammer 40k] Can vegans eat orcs?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Generally, veganism is built on the moral platform that you shouldn’t cause death or suffering to sentient beings for the sake of your own lifestyle. Since orks are sentient beings - even if they are sentient fungi - they would therefore be inappropriate for a vegan diet. However, since orks are also foul xenos, accursed in the Emperor’s sight, many of the more sternly orthodox leaders of the Imperium would regard recognising their sentience as heresy, and would therefore argue that eating their flesh is no more wrong than righteously slaughtering them in His name. You still shouldn’t eat them, though. They taste terrible.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Trying to understand yourself through your ancestry is meaningless Some people take a DNA test, find that they have some high percentage of an ethnicity that they know nothing about or maybe didn't even know existed, then suddenly they identify with its culture. I think that it's meaningless and just another type of horoscopes. My main point is that culture is lived and experienced, not inherited. If you find a high percentage of Italian ancestry in your DNA but have never been to Italy then you have absolutely nothing to do with the Italian culture. Your DNA test revealed absolutely nothing about who you are as a person. In this sense, giving someone the citizenship of a country just because some of his ancestors belonged to it is meaningless and arbitrary. Italy does this. I think that if your grandparent's father was Italian then that doesn't make you entitled to the Italian citizenship in any way. I'm assuming that the citizenship means more than just a document. But it seems like most countries think the same, since many will require you to know their language and maybe do a history test before being eligible for it. I'm also not saying that understanding yourself is the only reason people take DNA tests or research their genealogy, but I think that it's the main reason (especially when it comes to DNA tests).<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant For some people, it helps give them a sense of belonging, especially for people who don’t know their ancestral roots, it can help give them a direction for a culture to explore and adopt. Sure, it’s not the end all be all, but can give people some direction.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How do linguists discover the phonetics of ancient symbols?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Typically via comparison with known languages. Bilingual (or trilingual) inscriptions like the Rosetta stone provide a basis for sound when words like names are transliterated. Monolingual inscriptions in a different script can be helpful, like an Egyptian name written in Greek. You can also find words in surviving languages: Coptic is a surviving language related to that of Egyptian hieroglyphs, and even some unique words in Egyptian Arabic are found to be related to the ancient language. Clues can sometimes be found based on context inside a text, like rhyme or onomatopoeia or puns or confused homophones or whatever else a careful reader may find. The examples above are all about Egyptian, as it's the most well-known "rediscovered" script, but others will have gone through the same process, being more or less difficult depending on how related those languages are to existing ones and how much written material survives. Reconstruction of the sound of an ancient language, of course, is far from precise. Language is always changing, and especially in the pre-modern world varied from place to place. Saying something was pronounced as such can only be sort of an idealized approximation at best.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Does the wealth of the ultra wealthy actually harm normal people? When people have a bunch of wealth (on paper), but they aren't actually chewing up resources, does it even matter to poorer normal people? Are poorer people actually getting deprived of goods and services? What is the effect of people accumulating enormous amounts of wealth on paper?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Wealth can be invested in making new goods and services - e.g. building a factory, or a piece of software or it can be invested in buying existing assets. Building factories, software etc, typically results in hiring workers, paying them wages, paying other firms for parts and so forth, and thus the money circulates. Buying an existing asset for, say, $1m, means that someone must have sold said asset for $1m. Therefore the seller has $1m in money to do something with (this probably includes the seller paying costs like commission, legal fees, taxes, etc). While they might turn around and buy a new asset of their own, at some point the $1m is going to be spent on investment in new assets or on consumption. That said, the processes that produce paper wealth can be harmful - for example the restricted housing supply that drives up house prices deeply effects poorer people. The issue there is the housing shortage in and of itself. In other words, deeper details matter.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What dictates the power of passports? Do governments decide what countries could visit their country visa-free or is there a process on deciding the strength of passports? Is it based on the power of a country’s currency and economy?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Governments decide based on mutual agreements. IE, 2 countries have good relations, trade is good, people are happy. They decide to have a visa free travel for both sides to encourage growth and lessen burdens on your everyday travellers. Hope this helps.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why does a pot of water or tea pot make the most noise right before the water reaches boiling? Then it seems to get quieter once it reaches a rolling boil.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Assumed: a typical configuration, where heat is applied by conduction through the bottom of the vessel. The water near the bottom is warmed by contact with the heated surface. This warmed water rises, cooler water drops, and this convection distributes the heat energy. When the average water temperature approaches the boiling point, small parcels of water near the bottom will acquire just enough heat to be converted into small bubbles of steam. These small gas bubbles cool as they rise through the cooler water, and condense back to liquid. As the average water temperature rises further, less energy used to raise its temp, and more is available to vaporize it. The steam bubbles grow larger and the water temp grows hotter. The bubbles nearly break the surface before collapsing/condensing back to liquid. It is these percussive, collapsing bubbles of steam that you you hear. When the bubbles collapse, the water slams into itself and, being a non-compressible liquid, converts that energy into sound waves. When the bubbles of steam begin to make it all the way to the surface, the noise diminishes. When all the steam makes it to the surface, the sound stops<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Want to leave academia, how to talk to post-doc supervisor? I’ve been in this post-doc for 8 months and while it’s not going poorly, I don’t think it’s going all that well either. I’m increasingly feeling like this type of theoretical research (and chasing grants) isn’t what I want to be doing for the rest of my life. There is an internal posting at the University where I’m doing my post-doc for a director of career and professional development services for post-docs and it feels like a great fit with my experiences, but I’m not quite sure what the protocol is for telling my current supervisor and/or fellowship program manager. I want to stay in the area because my partner is here, so I’m nervous about burning bridges and sabotaging my current job/future prospects if this opportunity doesn’t work out. What’s the protocol here for informing my supervisor? Up front? If I get an interview? Thanks!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You have two options here: Be forthcoming and up front with your advisor. Tell them that you just aren’t feeling the postdoc and that continuing in the long term would probably waste both your and his/her time. Try to line up a few things if you can, but if it’s just the one thing discuss staying in lab while you try to pursue it/an alternative if that position falls through. This, of course, is risky because your PI may or may not be onboard about you leaving so soon. The second option is to apply and, if it comes to it, interview at the job without discussing it with your PI. This isn’t unheard of and it is understandable why someone would do so. If you secure the position, make sure to give your PI advanced warning. Try to hold off starting by a month or two so that you can wrap up and transition whatever your current project is. Unless your PI wants you to just leave, this should help make the exit less stressful and prevent anyone from applying fire to any bridges. Our lab just hired someone as a research associate from his postdoc. He explicitly included in his application that his, then current, PI was not to be contacted about the position or his interview. He gave his PI about a month’s notice that he was moving on after he received an offer. No one here found it weird though. It’s impossible to give you the “right” answer because only you know what you truly want and how your supervisor is/may act. Hope you figure it out.<\|im_end\|>

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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