Split (1)

train · 52.8k rows

text stringlengths 82 65.5k
<\|im_start\|>user Can light be infinitely brighter? Is there a certain point where light cannot become any more bright?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Brightness is determined by the number of photons you see. If you have enough energy to power whatever is outputting the photons, you can have as many as you want. Any limit would be practical rather than theoretical.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Books (or the written word in general) are not inherently more "intellectual" than any other form of media. CMV I saw [this](http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1dzik1/perhaps_the_kids_will_be_alright/) thread on the front page about kids on a bus reading books. I've often seen on Reddit the belief that books (automatically) = "intelligent"/"thoughtful"/"creative"/[insert other positive descriptor here], but I think it's hogwash. (I'd like to point out that there are probably many examples of people not holding this view, but, from what I've seen, the vast majority of highly-upvoted content seems to follow this trend). WHAT you read is infinitely more important than simply the act of reading, in exactly the same way that television is not all mindless dribble/smut/garbage. I'd also add that the same goes for video games, movies, etc... I think this quote from Groucho Marx exemplifies what I think is BS: >I find television very educating. Every time somebody turns on the set, I go into the other room and read a book.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The written word has a very high information density. How long would it take a television program to explain something like calculus? And how much of it would simply be reading from and showing things in a text? For entertainment or easy concepts, a book has no serious advantage, but for learning complicated things, the information density inherent in a book makes it a far more efficient venue than that of other forms of media. As a result, books are perceived as more intellectual, because there are some forms of learning that the written word is the only reasonable solution for.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user I believe completing a degree in a STEM major requires more work than completing a degree in a non-STEM major. CMV. I strongly believe that STEM majors are more difficult in both subject matter and the sheer amount of work one has to do than non-STEM majors. The only evidence I really have is anecdotal; that is, I take classes in STEM and non-STEM subjects, and the non-STEM classes are definitely much easier not only in how much effort I have to put in, but also the amount of hours I have to put in to get the same grade. Those who do not believe STEM majors are more difficult than non-STEM majors: why do you believe what you believe?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant This may have to do something with the fact that STEM knowledge is much more objective. If you're taking an exam in physics, you can't write the opposite of Newton's laws and then argue that it's correct. In some non-STEM fields you can pretty much do that and get a good grade if your reasoning is good enough. This makes it seem like you don't have to know anything, you just need to be able to build a decent argument. That's not really correct, because you have to know a lot to properly challenge something.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: there is no reason for Medicine and Dentistry to be separate fields Dentistry should be a speciality of medicine and dentists should go through medical school. Dentists already need to have a wide range of knowledge about the body to understand the effect on teeth and other medical specialities need to have knowledge about teeth as they can be important indicators of eating disorders and tooth health had been proven to have a correlation with cardiovascular health. I don't see why Dentistry needs to be an entirely different field when its relation to medicine is the same as other specialities relation to medicine<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant What is the gain vs what is the cost. Dental school is already a specialized medical school. It is a specific curriculum designed to produce doctors who are experts in the mouth. We have Podiatry - another specialized school for doctors of the foot. Optometrists who specialize on the eye. Both go to specialized schools not generic medical school. All of these provide core elements of a traditional medical school but with a core focus on the specific specialty. It is not like a dentist is not getting the core from dental school. The benefits are simple - restricted scope of practice and a higher level of expertise in that area. Why would you add 4-6 years on to the program to try to teach things that will never be used?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How do a bunch of small noises combine to make a very loud noise? So I was watching Game of Thrones last night. The soldiers started to slam their spears into the ground. One spear doesn't make much noise, but a lot of spears makes a lot of noise. Why is it that when a bunch of people do the same thing at the same time it suddenly seems like all of their noises are added to each other? I guess in my head I have the thought that it would just be the same level of noise but coming from all around, this is obviously not true. What's the science behind this? I'm not exactly sure what to tag this as but I'll put physics because it seems to be the closest.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Read up on constructive/destructive interference in waves. Basically when sounds are the same frequency and phase the peaks lines up and the troughs line up and then add making the amplitude (volume) bigger.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5- Why are there unsolved mathematical equations? Who wrote them and how do they know if they are solvable or not?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant So...you should note that mathematical problems and mathematical equations aren't inherently the same thing. An equation is basically just two sets of algebraic quantities that have an equal/greater than/less than sign between them. Some of these equations are inherently not solvable because they have self-contradictory answers. For example, let's say you have the equation; 1/(x + 3) + 1/(x - 3) = 6/(x^2 - 9) You can manipulate it (multiply both sides by "(x + 3)\(x - 3)") to get the following; x + 3 + x - 3 = 6 or; 2\x = 6 or; x = 3 But that doesn't actually work, because if you plug x = 3 back into the original equation one of the two terms on the left side of the equals sign gives you a 1/0 situation, which means that x = 3 is essentially not "allowed" to be an answer. Thus, the equation has no solution, making it unsolved. For unsolved problems; those are basically just mathematical statements that we can't quite figure out if they're true or not. For example, there's the Collatz Conjecture; pick a number, and then perform the following operations; 1) If it's even, divide it by 2. 2) If it's odd, multiply it by 3 and add 1. Then feed the resulting number back in, and again, and again. Doing this, you'll (probably) end up with a repeating sequence of 4, 2, 1, 4, 2, 1, etc. No matter what your starting number is, you always seem to end up in this pattern because eventually you wind up with some number 2^N and the whole thing collapses. The problem is that we can't figure out how to prove that it's explicitly true for all numbers; we can only observe that it hasn't been disproven yet, which is not good enough for mathematics. Thus, the problem is unsolved.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: why is it that some metals like zinc and iron are essential for our bodies while other metals like lead and Mercury are toxic?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant We have enzymes in our body called metalloenzymes that contain metals to catalyze chemical reactions or maintain the enzyme's structure. These essential metals include iron, zinc, calcium, magnesium, copper, cobalt and a few others. Most metalloenzymes work only with their original metal in it. For instance if you replace the zinc atom in the enzyme Carbonic anhydrase with another metal, it can't function anymore. Some of the toxic metals you mentioned are similar in e.g. size or charge to these native metals, which means they 'fit' in the same spaces. So when lead or mercury enters a cell, it can replace the 'natural' metals inside the enzyme. (In many cases it even binds more strongly to the enzym than the original metal, making it harder to get out of there as well.)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Actual effort and ability is rarely noticed. Perceived effort and ability gets all the attention, and it's killing productivity Person A and B are assigned a task at some company. Person A gives 100 percent effort to the task. Person B divided his time between the task and acting above his pay grade. The task gets done, and supervisors see two things: it got done, and Person B. In reality, Person A is capable of, and does regularly, complete the task by himself, and doesn't get recognized. It has been said that you should perform for the job you want, not the one you have. If everyone did that instead of being dedicated to the mission, things would take much longer than necessary, or wouldn't get done at all. If I can see when someone is doing a good job, or is struggling, then anyone with a reasonable amount of situational awareness should too. Why should one have to 'sell' himself? It takes away from the mission. Workers who are actually good have to pick up the slack for these overreachers, which decreases their own morale. They may even leave the company over it. Losing good workers makes the situation even worse. Care to change my view?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Any attempt at checking for effort and ability will only yield perceived effort and ability by definition. It would be nice if we could tell better, but that's always true no matter how well we can tell. There's only two options: reward people for perceived effort and ability or not reward them for perceived effort and ability. Do you think it would be better if pay and promotions were decided through some other method, like seniority or dice rolls?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:Why does ~x = -x - 1? I've always been confused about why the bitwise negation `~` of any number `x` equals `-x - 1`. Should the bitwise negation flip each bit from 1 to 0 and vice versa? For example, `~10 = -11`, but the binary representation of `10` is `1010` and the binary representation of `-11` is `-1011`? How come that works?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In binary math, for most systems, we use what is called Two's complement. It is a way to eliminate the possibility of a positive and negative 0. The highest bit (the left-most bit in a binary sequence) is the sign bit. If it is 1, it is a negative number. If it is 0, it is either 0 or a positive number. If you were to flip 0, and we didn't do this, you'd end up with all 1s. Instead of having to check between 2 different versions of 0 (one 'negative' and one 'positive'), it is more efficient to just check against one version. This gives an extra integer to use and still works out to correct answers when using binary math (addition and subtraction) without requiring conversion.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 why we can secure banking/investment accts online but we can't secure voting seems to me like if we can trust billions of dollars to banking websites and stock trading websites, then we should be able to create a trustworthy secure electronic voting method<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The requirements are different. Most importantly, banking information needs to be tied to the person making the transaction. If any inconsistencies come up they need to be able to make sure they have enough identification information to trace the transactions back to the person who made them. This is exactly the opposite in voting. Voting has to be anonymous. Having anonymous voting but still being able to trace the inconsistencies back is a trickier problem. It's not impossible tho. The real big issue is that an election screwing up and a country having a tyrant running it who is willing to fix an election to win is far, far worse than any loss of money a bank might suffer. Electronic elections software has way more riding on it than banking software.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 how can weed and crabgrass killer target said specific plants without damaging common types of grass?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Plants have certain processes that keep them alive and help them grow, and different types of plants can have different processes. Weed killers and herbicides can be made to target processes that happen in weeds and not in common grass. Edit: not all weed killers are like this. They can also be non specific and kind of just kill everything. If you're buying just be careful on what brand you buy and do some research before you destroy your lawn<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do producers prevent child actors in horror movies from getting extremely scared?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant First, they take the time to explain things to them, and prepare them, and they have their parents/guardians present. And kids who can't handle it probably don't survive long in the industry. Second, when filming a movie it's not nearly as scary as the finished product. Think of it with out the jump-editing, without the scary music, without the sharp, jarring angles. If anything, the kids probably get bored. On a related side-note: When filming Maleficent, Angelina Jolie had to use her own child for some scenes since the other children were afraid of her. Which relates to being able to find the right kid for the job.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What coding languages should I use to create this type of web & mobile app? Hello! I was hoping I could get some direction in which coding languages to use for an upcoming project of mine. I'll try to give some background of what I am trying to accomplish. First off, I want to start developing this application for web, but eventually want to offer a mobile app on both android and apple phones. To preface, I have little experience coding back end applications, but I have over a year to learn / development what I need. I do have some some ok experience in front end, UI/UX development, and PHP so I am familiar with how code works. The idea of this application is very similar to how crafting works in video games. Essentially the user will create a list of materials that they own, and the app will tell the user what they can make with the materials they have on hand. Eventually it will get more complex by recommending adding additional materials to show what else they can make. For example, it may say... if you add 1 of "x" material you will be able to craft all of this! So I guess there would be two main databases: the inventory of the user, and a list of crafting recipes. So, the question is really what coding languages should I start to learn/develop this type of application with? I want to make sure its future proof when I start adding more features as I become more experienced. Are there any special front end languages I should take advantage of, as I generally just code in html/css and don't use anything special for website development? What type of database should I use? Whats the best language for the backend; python since I am new to all of this? Let me know if there are any questions you need answered to help with giving advice. Thank you in advance!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The easiest approach is to create a responsive web app, with a hi framework like Bootstrap or perhaps a more mobile specific one like Ionic. You'll need to know HTML, JavaScript, (A JavaScript framework like Angular, Ready or Vue, these all work in Ionic), for the backend nodejS which is again JavaScript.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [ELI5] What does it mean to be "grounded" against electricity, and why does it keep you safe?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There is two facts that we have to establish here first in terms of safety around electricity. 1. Electricity hurts you when it flows through you. 2. Electricity prefers to flow through path with least resistance. Like water, if one pipe is small and the other is big, water would flow more through the bigger pipe. In other words, electricity is lazy. Now, according to fact 1, if there is little to no electricity flows through you, then you're fine. According to fact 2, electricity doesn't flow if you have significantly higher resistance than other path. So, usually, what we do is: 1. We provide a superbly easy way for "rogue" electricity to flow. This is usually accomplished by having the machine "grounded" (having an almost direct connection to literal ground) 2. We make ourselves as resistant as possible, via rubber-gloves and shoes, usually.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: When exercising, does the amount of effort determine calories burned or the actual work being done? Will an athlete who runs for an hour at moderate pace and is not tired at the end burn more calories than an out of shape person who runs for an hour a way shorter distance but is exhausted at the end? Assuming both have the same weight and such What I want to know basically is if your body gets stronger will it need less energy to perform the same amount of work?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In general no, it requires a set amount of energy (calories) to do the same amount of work. In fact, work and energy as physical quantities have the same measurement unit (it’s Joule). However, it is possible that training will make your body more efficient at doing work, so there may be less energy wasted (like on needless movements, or panting etc.) and thus less energy spent overall. But being exhausted does not necessarily mean you’ve done more work.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: how can electrons just be ok on their own and fly around? Where do these spare electrons come from? Do they come from atoms? If yes, how are the atoms able to just lose their electrons and it be ok? I mean like in the Maltese Cross experiment you're essentially "shooting electrons" but I just don't get where they come from. Thanks in advance :)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In certain substances, particularly metals, some of the electrons become community property, freely shared between atoms. These atoms are free to flow through the metal and are the reason metals tend to be good at conducting electricity. These electrons can be stripped away from the metal to perform the experiments you describe. The metal will have a slight positive charge and tend to grab electrons from the environment. The electrons will eventually join atoms to form negative ions, and those ions will be eager to give up their electrons. Over time, extra electrons will be lost and missing ones gain, and the overall system will reach equilibrium.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What happens to an ant colony if its Queen is artificially removed? I recently watched BBC's ["Planet Ant- Life Inside The Colony"] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n0SkIGARuo) and after watching it I wondered what happens to the biological machine (the ant colony) after its Queen is gone. * Is there a second in command who will grow to the size of a Queen via chemicals? * Do they spread out in search of a new Queen to serve? or.. * Does the colony just die out due to the lack of a Queen?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It depends on the species of ant. Harvester ants (large, red and slow) from Arizona will never raise a new queen, so the colony will die within about two years (which is the average lifespan of a worker). One quheen per colony. For reference, their queen lives for 20-25 years. Argentine ants (small, black, invasive species) have many queens, and make more as they go. They are robust to losing a few. Source: several years of undergraduate research on ants.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If I had a pressure cooker that could raise the boiling point of water above 300 degrees F, could I fry food in water? Caramelization of sugars and the maillard reaction, responsible for the browning and crisping of food, is associated with temperatures in excess of ~300 degrees F. Since water at atmospheric pressure boils at ~212 degrees, caramelization and the maillard reaction don't occur and the food gets neither brown nor crispy. But what if I had a pressure cooker that could raise the boiling point of water above the requisite temperature? Would it get brown and crispy, effectively frying it? Or would something else (likely unpleasant) happen, such as the food getting brown but waterlogged/soggy?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The Maillard reactions are affected by moisture content, so using water as a cooking medium, regardless of temperature, will prevent them from occurring. And since the pressure you're positing would prevent the water in the food from escaping as steam, you won't get a crispy texture either.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Adding /s to a statement kills the joke. Always. A sarcastic joke or remark should stand on its own merit and no additional indicator should be provided to emphasize or clarify that there is humour. In fact, the doubt that the statement creates, the "is this person serious?" plays a major part in creating a humorous payout. Poe's Law may be invoked in defense to the /s but again, a quality sarcastic statement will take Poe's Law into account and use it to its advantage! The danger is that it may sometimes lead to failed zingers when the audience takes the statement as non-sarcastic. If this happens, then so be it. Safe, fail-proof humour is worthless. The value of comedy lays in the inherent risk to flop. It is a travesty that we as a society have grown to accept this diluted brand of comedy as standard or even acceptable. I've also seen the /s being used in non-comedic context which I find equally offensive. Often in political subs, you will see people attempt to belittle or mock an opposing point of view by making grotesque statements followed by /s. Once again, adding the /s only creates an obvious "please clap now at my cleverness" which completely kills any pertinence of the words. I understand the /s originated from the loss of tone and visual cues from face-to-face interactions but it's been turned into an instant-funny or instant-clever writing shortcut and it is an embarrassment to the written language. Anyone who uses /s is automatically not funny or clever.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In face-to-face conversation there are multiple factors that mark sarcasm, body language, tone, pitch, pace. Without these markers it would often be impossible to tell if you are joking or if you are completely serious. On the Internet, these contextual clues are missing. All you see is a black text with no indication as to tone whatsoever. A lot of times without /s, many people would think you are being completely serious. Just pick your favorite joke and try telling to people in drone monotone. You will see why it does not work.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What should I read to learn about Islamic Philosophy? I own two books on the topic, The Sufi Path of Knowledge and The Teleological Ethics of Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, and really want to dig into them, but I’m afraid that I’m not prepared for the reading. I’ve read the Quran and Plato’s the Republic, but other than some Camus and Jean Paul-Sartre I’ve no real experience in philosophy. I’m mainly interested in metaphysics and ethics, and I think the Islamic tradition is the right place to start for me. Any advice on what other readings I should do would be helpful, thanks! Edit: Sorry for not responding immediately to all your great responses. I wrote this post down right before going to sleep. I truly do appreciate your help, you are so amazing and courteous.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There is Peter adamsons Philosophy without gaps which goes through Islamic Philisophers and their ideas, there are also books by syed hossein nasr which are decent. I would recommend reading the Philosophers by keeping in mind the historical and political narrative, sometimes they were responding to the greeks as well Maybe start with al kindi, al farabi, ghazali, averroes and avicenna and then there is the sufis as well, most prominent being ibn al arabi And you might find brethren of purity interesting.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why don't optometrists and dentists work in hospitals? Why don't we just centralize all medical needs?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Some hospitals do have doctors that focus on teeth and optics. But most of the time these are lumped in with bone and nervous system specialists. The simple fact is that they don't need them there. People waiting for a dentist don't want to have to navigate through a hospital, and hospitals don't want to deal with everyday stuff, hence why few hospitals have actual clinics in them, most of the time are just walk-in clinics.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: why are (public) school breakfast/lunches (k-12) typically not freshly cooked and not very healthy in america? Would it really cost so much to provide freshly cooked lunches/breakfast that it is not possible to do so? Edit: i know not all public schools in the us have crappy food (hence the word typically). A good chunk of them do, though i know that there are districts (typically in more affluent areas) for which this is not an issue.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant * Ease of preparation - most school districts have many schools, and coordinating daily deliveries of multiple fresh ingredients to all of them is tough. They focus their energy on classroom activities. * Cost. * Inertia - it's a bunch of work to change something like that, and that means someone has to stop what they are working on and manage that change process. If it means bringing in a private company, the current food services people lose their jobs. * When schools sell healthy and not healthy food side-by-side, kids almost always buy the not-healthy. Edit: formatting bullet points.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [The Matrix] if two people plugged into the matrix conceive a baby... how is the baby born in the real world? if the two people never even touched?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A conception effort that achieves success trips a program flag that selects a prospective suspended zygote of the right phenotype and genotype from the baby farm. The selected zygote is then put through its growth cycle, to be eventually plugged in to the Matrix proper once it has matured to usefulness. This process similarly triggers a procedure in the Matrix proper that links the mother's experience to the growth cycle of the child, simulating a pregnancy from beginning to end.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Warhammer 40k] How come Khorne is so popular? Look, I know that in the grim darkness of the far future there is only war, but there are quadrillions of beings in the galaxy that are hardly ever exposed to war. Suppose I'm Billy the Farmer from an agriworld who decides to join a chaos cult. What does each chaos god have to offer me? Eternal excess and pleasure. Nihilistic comfort and acceptance. Forbidden knowledge and magic powers. And...being really angry? I get why Space Marines and suchlike would fall to Khorne, but it seems to me that an average person who falls to chaos would be much more likely to seek personal comfort offered by the likes of Slaanesh or Nurgle, than roid rage. Most people aren't really inclined to violence and murder. So how come Khorne is one of the most powerful and influential chaos gods, if not the most powerful? For every Space Marine or hardass IG veteran who can't live without the thrill of violence, there are thousands of Imperial civilians who would rather do cocaine or wallow in filth than have to go fight someone.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant First of all, you have to remember the lens through which we are looking at this universe. Our focus is primarily on the armed forces of the various factions - and, in the case of Khorne, the armed forces of the Imperium of Man (Eldar are too regimented, Necrons too soulless, Tau too insignificant, and Orks too orky). Human military forces tend towards certain ideals - honour, courage, camaraderie. Khorne offers all of these, at least at first (they rapidly spiral into arrogance, anger, and elitism). This makes him very attractive to those of a martial bent. This means that Khorne's followers are going to be over-represented on the battlefield. Soldiers who are going to fall to Chaos are most likely to fall to Khorne; people who fall to Khorne are most likely to become soldiers. You'll find few Khorne worshippers in the pleasure-houses or gambling dens of a peaceful paradise world, or among the schemers and backstabbers of a corrupt court, or among the farmers and physicians who struggle to sustain life on a halfway-barren planet. You'll find a few, of course, because there is courage and honour and fury and pride to be found everywhere that humanity has put down roots, just as you will find worshippers of Slaanesh and Tzeentch and Nurgle on the battlefield. The second thing to consider is simply a matter of visibility. How do you spot the Slaanesh worshippers? They're the guys having an orgy in a secret club in a back alley. How do you spot the Tzeentch cultists? You don't, you just find their fall guys who the actual Tzeentchians (claim they) wanted you to catch anyway. How do you spot the followers of Nurgle? They're working behind the scenes in healthcare, sanitation, and food preparation. Okay, and you know how you spot the servants of Khorne? They're the ones running at you screaming incoherently and waving an axe. tl;dr Khorne seems more popular because he's naturally over-represented on the battlefield, and off the battlefield his followers are extremely easy to spot. Billy the Farmer probably isn't going to follow him, but there’s plenty of people who will.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Elders don't deserve respect just for being old Why should I respect someone for being old? I get that as a majority senior citizens are probably wiser than those younger due to their experience in life, but there’s no way that’s true in every case. When I meet someone, it doesn’t matter their age / gender / appearance, I judge and respect them based off how they act. If Asians have an average higher GPA than white people, do we treat them with more respect because they must be smarter? Also, wouldn’t giving an old person extra respect for no reason other than age be ageist?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant the reason that we do things like designate certain seats or parking spots for the elderly, disabled, pregnant, is that because one important marker of a society is how well it treats the infirm and vulnerable. same with entitlement programs like medicare and social security. it's not saying they're inherently more important. it's saying that our society is so safe and well administered that we can afford to take care of people that can't care for themselves. also the reason that people freak out more when small children get shot in school shootings<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: There is no justifiable reason for organizations to offer internships that are unpaid Unpaid internships are labor theft. There is no reason a person contributing to an organization should not be compensated for their work (and no, experience does not count as compensation). The idea of an unpaid internship is elitist and discounts tons of qualified individuals who may not have the means resources to work for free. I feel this further contributes to the diversity problems of many organizations and industrires as it sets those who can afford to go months without pay ahead of those who cannot. Organizations that cannot afford or refuse to pay interns should not offer internships.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant >There is no reason a person contributing to an organization should not be compensated for their work For an unpaid internship to be legal, the intern needs to be the "primary beneficiary" of the arrangement. There is a 7-point test to determine this: >1.The extent to which the intern and the employer clearly understand that there is no expectation of compensation. Any promise of compensation, express or implied, suggests that the intern is an employee—and vice versa. > >2. The extent to which the internship provides training that would be similar to that which would be given in an educational environment, including the clinical and other hands-on training provided by educational institutions. > >3. The extent to which the internship is tied to the intern’s formal education program by integrated coursework or the receipt of academic credit. > >4. The extent to which the internship accommodates the intern’s academic commitments by corresponding to the academic calendar. > >5. The extent to which the internship’s duration is limited to the period in which the internship provides the intern with beneficial learning. > >6. The extent to which the intern’s work complements, rather than displaces, the work of paid employees while providing significant educational benefits to the intern. > >7. The extent to which the intern and the employer understand that the internship is conducted without entitlement to a paid job at the conclusion of the internship.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user The fovea is so small compared to the size of the visual field, so why does the world not appear to be of terribly low fidelity? By fidelity I mean blurred and generally degraded.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant To add to what /u/monory said, you don't experience the world in low resolution because of generally speaking if you are actually paying attention to an object or landscape - in other words actively trying to process, understand and commit it to memory - you will point your fovea at it. Additionally, ALL of your senses are shaped by previous experience. It's called top down processing and it is basically your brain filling in gaps in sensory information. For example, generally all of the grass you've ever seen is a certain shade of green. Therefore, even though your peripheral vision lacks detail and color, your brain will experience that whole meadow as green, not just the part landing on your fovea. That's just one example of many that keeps you from being totally disoriented by objects outside of where your eyes are focused.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Harry Potter] Are there such things as wizarding universities? As in, if students would like to further their education, is there like a degree scheme for wizards or do they just have to get jobs/learn a trade etc?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It appears that on-the-job training and self-study are the rule for Hogwarts graduates seeking to advance. The top students that we know of from Potter's circle of friends didn't ever speak of university training, they talked about going directly into their field of interest.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user eli5, what happens to the dead bodies in a battlefield Humans war against each other all the time, and throughout history hundreds of millions of people have died on the battlefield. This begs the question, what happens to the bodies? Like on the beaches of Normandy, thousands of people died. But the beaches, to my knowledge, aren't filled with dead bones and stuff. So where did they go? Is there a secret service that collects bodies?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are special units in militaries whose job it is to collect/clear bodies. So best case scenario, that unit comes through and properly handled your body. Middling case scenario is that unit doesn’t find you, and whatever locals attempt to give you a proper burial. Lower case scenario is you’re just tossed in a hole and covered up like a mass grave. Worst case scenario is no one ever finds you and your body is left to rot, decay, and he picked apart by scavengers.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Can flammable liquids/gases just "combust" in high temperature environments or do they require a spark or some sort of ignition/catalyst? We touched on the combustion of organic molecules in my org chem class and I was just curious if a flammable substance is placed in a controlled environment and the temperature increases, will it eventually just ignite? What would happen to initiate this on the molecular level (like is there a mechanism)?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A diesel engine operates by this principle. A fuel-air mixture is compressed until its temperature and pressure become great enough for it to ignite. What happens on a molecular level is that in order for any reaction to proceed, there is a certain energy barrier that must be overcome, and once the temperature is high enough, the molecules have enough kinetic energy to overcome that barrier.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Where do rich people keep their money? If I wanted to rob a poor person I would have to go their house and steal their stuff, because all their money is used up to buy "stuff." But if I wanted to rob say, Alec Baldwin...where is Alec Baldwin's money?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Banks, stocks, bonds, real estate, other "stuff". Rich people store most of their money in investments, earning them more money so they can stay rich. Don't get me wrong, Mr. Baldwin probably has more than enough cash in his bank account for anything he could want, but for the most part you're not going to hit a rich guys money by robbing him physically. You'll need to hit him electronically too.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How do I understand Discrete Mathematics? Hello, I'm currently studying Software Engineering, and would like to hear some advice on what are the best methods / ways to learn and understand Discrete Mathematics? I genuenly dislike math, and am abit scared of the whole subject.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If you're struggling with it, read the relevant textbook chapters before class, then attend lectures and ask questions, and start your homework assignments early so that you have time to go to extra help sessions. If you're stuck, textbook practice problems are a great place to look, since they build up from simple to complicated. If you spend more time studying (and just thinking about the material in general), you'll understand it better. If you understand it better, you'll enjoy it more. Or at least, hate it less and feel less afraid of it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do airplane standby passengers work? I don’t understand how someone gets put on standby. Is there some sort of standby ticket? If so, how.. and do people really go through all the hassle of going to an airport while having a possibility of going home?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It's also worth noting that some airlines offer same-day-standby changes to elite customers (and/or charge for it). This might be attractive for someone who booked a late flight, but then later realizes they don't need to be at that origin city any longer that day. The airline notes there's one or more earlier flights that same day that would get them home earlier, but they're already sold out. The traveler might as well hang out at the airport with the chance of getting to go home earlier instead of the alternative of spending all day without anything productive to do<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELi5: what is that horrible painful massive 'lump' in your chest when you drink or eat something too fast?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Food and fluids get transported through your esophagus. Where the esophagus connnects to the stomach, a) it has to pass through an ligamentous opening in the diaphragm, which is a rather narrow passage and b) there is a sphincter muscle that is usually contracted to prevent stomach acid to flow back into the esophagus. When you swallow your food too quickly, the sphincter may need a few extra seconds to relax and let the food into the stomach. In these - usually - seconds, the food is stuck in the esophagus, which is unfortunately located right behind the heart. And your heart really dislikes something pressing against it, therefore causing that uncomfortable feeling.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Eli5 If bug killer can kill insects, how is it safe to spray all over your house and not be harmful to humans?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In general, modern pesticides are designed to target specific things that the insect has and mammals (like humans) don’t. Since we are pretty distant from insects genetically, there are numerous proteins in insects that either do not exist in, or are substantially different from ones, in humans.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is an O(sqrt(n)) solution really that bad? So I am researching elliptic curve cryptography and I keep getting terribly confused about what I'm reading. Let me give some very basic background: BACKGROUND: Many traditional cryptosystems are built so that to "break" the system, one has to be able to solve a problem called the "Discrete Logarithm Problem" Conversely, to break an ECC system, one has to be able to solve the "Elliptic Curve Discrete Logarithm Problem." One of the reasons ECC is useful, according to every book I read, is because there are subexponential algorithms which solve the regular Discrete Logarithm Problem, but the best current algorithm to solve the ECDLP runs in O(sqrt(n)) - this is supposedly indicating the ECC system is harder to break. Every single book I read seems to say this but this is really confusing me. What's so bad about an O(sqrt(n)) time solution? I guess I'm confused because back in my original programming class, a lot of the search algorithms and just regular algorithms we learned would be O(n^2). I remember how an O(n) linear solution always seemed like a great solution. Isn't O(sqrt(n)) even better? Also, how is O(sqrt(n)) NOT a subexponential solution? Example quote from book: Elliptic Curves in Cryptography by Blake, p.80: (talking about algorithms to "break" ECC systems): "The last two attacks listed are quite general but have complexities on the order of sqrt(n). They become infeasible when the curve order is sufficiently large." another quote: "The main reason why (ECC) is "more trusted".... is because (the discrete logarithm problem)... can be solved in subexponential time with index calculus algorithms. Until recently... the time required to solve (an ECC system) was believed to be exponential in the size of the parameters."<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The search algorithms are parameterized in terms of input length. The n is very likely a number and not the size of a number. The input length is then log(n). So if an algorithm takes O(sqrt(n)) time it will take O(2^{k/2}) if k is the bit length of n.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is stoicism and existentialism a view that can coexist? So I tend to follow stoicism as a personal philosophy but see existentialism a meta- philosophy that makes sense to me. I try to live my life by stoic virtues but also tend to view life as having no explicit or implicit meaning. Are these two views able to live in the same realm or are there some of these philosophies that are at odds with each other and thus, me holding hypocritical views?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I’m no expert in either, but historically, the Stoics seemed to have been strong believers in determinism and fate, while existentialists like Kierkegaard and Sartre emphasized freedom as an essential component of humanity. Wonder if that leads to a conflict?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: When searching for jobs online, I almost never see an amount (whether hourly or salaried) of how much a company will pay an individual who actually gets the job. Why is that so?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant they want to get away with paying the minimum amount they can, so they usually ask you for your past salary info and make a slightly better or similar offer. they don't want to start the salary listing higher than they need to.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Girls-only math and science competitions are counter-productive and do not help to encourage more girls into these fields Currently math and science tend to be much more male\-dominated than other fields, and this seems to be the case in math/science competitions as well. Competitions like the International Mathematical Olympiad $IMO$ are usually disproportionately male dominated to the extent that one or two girls on a country's team is enough to make the news. To encourage more girls to enter competitions like this, and to encourage interest in STEM, there are some competitions like the EGMO $European Girls' Mathematical Olympiad$ that are open only to girls. I find this counter\-productive because I don't see the reason why creating a competition only for girls will actually help encourage them into math and science. Separating by gender can give people the incorrect impression that girls are less able than boys in these fields and therefore require a separate competition to get anywhere at all. The only reason I can think of for why a separate competition needs to be created for different genders is when significant physical differences would make a combined competition unfair $which is why physical sports are separated by gender$ but in academic fields like math and science I don't see any biological reason why someone with XX chromosomes should be predisposed to be worse in STEM. In addition, since the population is close to half and half male and female, a competition limited to one gender would probably mean less people take part \- so the fact that there are fewer people in the female only competition will mean that standards are lower overall, just because there are fewer people in the competition. $It's like if you take the fastest person in a large city and a small village, the fastest person from the city is statistically more likely to be faster than the village person because there are more people in the city so the probability is higher$. This may mean that the girls only competition may be perceived as second\-rate or at a lower standard and wrongly stigmatise girls as being less able in math even though it isn't the case, which is counter\-productive to the original intention.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It can be very intimidating to go into an environment and have an uncontrollable trait (race, gender, etc.) that sets you apart from the vast majority of the other people in that environment. Ideally, in 100+ years, we won't need women only competitions in academics, but now it gives women an environment where they can foster their love of science without dealing with the intimidation that comes from being different from almost everyone else they're competing with. And after they gain the confidence from competing against other women and do well there, they may have better confidence when it comes to competing against anybody else. It has nothing to do with biological reasons and everything to do with social ones.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Can someone explain why most published research findings are presumed false? In his now classical paper, Why Most Research Findings Are False, Ioannidis makes a pretty strong case for why we should be more skeptical about published research. He lists six reasons for why any given research finding can be false, and most are convincing. But there is one reason I can't wrap my head around, which is: "The greater the number of tested relationships in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true." He gives an example of why this is true, where if you test to see which out of a pre-selected 100 000 gene polymorphisms are associated with schizophrenia, you'd probably only find 10 significant ones. Fair enough. But then he says that this is equal to saying that the pre-test probability of finding an effect is 10 / 100 000, and that because of this, the probability of your finding actually being a true effect (aka positive predictive value, PPV) is only slightly higher than 10 / 100 000 = 0.0001. He seems to conclude that research fields that test a massive amount of relationships are either very unreliable or even not worth doing. But if this is true, how would you ever be able to for instance test genes associated with mental illness in a satisfactory manner? If you base the probability of your finding being true (PPV) on your pre-test probability of finding an effect, how on earth can you demonstrate that your 10 genes out of 100 000 are actually significant and worth further study? How is any genetics research taken seriously, if what he says is true? I've read through the paper twice now, and while I'm by no means an expert in statistics, I thought I was well-versed enough to make sense out of this. Did I understand the paper correctly? Perhaps I've missed a few important details, or haven't quite grasped the big picture. Can anyone clarify? Link to paper: [https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article%3Fid%3D10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124](https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article%3Fid%3D10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It seems to me the problem he is describing is one of fishing for an effect rather than hypothesizing an effect and then testing for it. If you screen tens of thousands of genes for an effect, your test will at some rate return an incorrect positive. But, if you have a hypothesis that a specific gene has an effect, this error rate is likely to be considerably less. We need to fish less and properly test more. What we call testing isn’t.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does a human being stay in a coma for many (like 10 or 20) years, and what wakes them up?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant While you are in a coma, assuming that you are being kept alive and your brain has some function, your brain devotes a grear amount of enery to repairing itself. This process is difficult and energy intensive so some times it takes many years for the brain to repair itself to a level were you can remain conscious.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why is 7nm considered the limit of Moore's law? I understand that around 7nm silicon can no longer be used, but I am unsure why. I have seen that using graphite can lower the limit to 5nm, but again unsure why.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Commercial integrated circuits today are made using projection methods. This can be grossly simplified as follows. The wafer is coated with photoresist. A stencil of the circuit is projected onto the wafer; where the light hits the photoresist, it gets developed just like an old analog camera. This process is fundamentally limited by the wavelength of light. Because of diffraction, you can't really image features smaller than the wavelength of the light you are shining through the stencil. Most systems use deep UV light today to get the smallest wavelengths and smallest features. They also play tricks with double exposures and complicated stencils that are specially shaped to counteract the diffraction. But again, you can only get so small with projection. After this projection, you are left with a print of the stencil on the wafer and can remove or add or dope patterns and form a chip architecture. This process is repeated dozens of times to stack up the full circuit. Right now, we are pushing up against the limits of what is possible with UV light. It is difficult to just further shrink the wavelength because you start pushing up into x-rays which just pass through most things and cant be focused like UV. Of course, there is a whole zoo of other specialized methods that have been demonstrated in laboratory settings, but they do not work well for large scale production. For example, using something similar to an electron microscope to scan the pattern into the wafer can give very fine features but is very slow since it must move line by line rather then an entire exposure at once.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: The outcome of a crime should not matter in sentencing First of all, I realise there are differences between countries and jurisdictions so I am not bound to a specific one here. I believe that only the intent combined with previous relevant convictions and circumstances should be taken into account and not the actual outcome of a crime. In addition, I am in favour of sentencing based on rehabilitation vs punishment. I will give two examples: 1) Bob points a loaded gun at Tim and asks for money. Tim refuses to give him anything. Bob points at Tim's head and pulls the trigger but the gun fails to fire and Tim is unharmed. The above example would most likely result in an attempted murder conviction and depending on jurisdiction might be given a shorter sentence than if the gun had fired. I cannot see why the fact that Tim survived by accident changes the fact that Bob decided to bring a loaded gun and did not hesitate to use it. In this situation Bob is already a murderer as far as I'm concerned and should be sentenced accordingly and rehabilitated because he is currently a threat to society. 2) A father witnesses the murder of his daughter and the killer runs. He picks up a knife, chases after him and kills him. The father has had no previous convictions. This might result in voluntary manslaughter or even murder. Taking into account that the father is known not to be violent, what would be the point of a sentence that takes into account the killer's loss of life? How would he be "rehabilitated"? What from? What do you think? _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The justice system has a strong tradition of protecting the presumption of innocense. Intent is very hard to derive, to prove that someone would not just plan a crime but actually go through with it. Innocent until proven guilty means that as an ideal we need to prove someone would actually do the deed. If say the gun misfired how do we know they didn't purposely aim away from their head, or didn't misload the gun? So to protect the innocent we decide based on outcome, not intent, as if we decided based on intent many innocent people would be convicted and imprisoned. As another point, we want criminals to have an incentive to stop. If someone tries to shoot you in the head, and it fails, they could then try to bash in your head, or fire again. Do you really want that criminal to now know that the consequences for them will be the same regardless of what they do? Our prime goal is to stop violent crimes, not to punish the guilty. As a third point, we want to punish competent killers and such more than incompetent attempted killers. Competent killers are a greater danger to society.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Speed causes time dilation. Mass causes time dilation. What is the link between speed and mass which means that they both cause the same phenomenon? I hope the title makes sense.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant To try to make this very simple, space and time are both components of a single thing called, very logically, spacetime. Spacetime is a coordinate system consisting of three spatial directions and one temporal direction. Time dilation is a result of the way things move through spacetime. Both speed and gravity are related to the way things move through spacetime, which is why they both cause time dilation. For speed, again, in a very simplified way, you can conceive of everything moving at a combined “velocity” of c (“the speed of light”) through spacetime. Thus the faster you are traveling through space, the slower you are traveling through time, and vice versa. Gravity, by contrast, is the warping of spacetime by mass/energy. Just as it warps the path that objects take when traveling through space, this warping also affects the path they travel through time. The mechanics are different, and the end result is also different (time dilation due to velocity in special relativity is reciprocal. Gravitational time dilation in general relativity is not), but the common thread is the interaction with spacetime.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Since we're aware of the elements required to create water (H2O), are we able to do so? Are the elements scarce/abundant? If not/so, why don't we just create water and supply it to places in need? This might be a dumb question, but it seems so simple...which might be exactly why it isn't...<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The elements of H2O are Hydrogen and Oxygen, two gasses. They're not all that common in their raw form because they react with things, so they're normally in compounds, like water. You can get hold of pure hydrogen and pure oxygen quite easily though - the easiest way to do it is to use electrolysis to split water. Water is extremely common compared to almost anything else. It takes a lot of energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, and when you combine them back again to form water, you get a lot of energy out. You can power a rocket with it. None of this is more practical than just piping water to somewhere that needs it. Edit: BTW if you think "there are no stupid questions", have a read of some of the lower-rated replies to this post.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does burned food stick to glass? What's it holding onto?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The proteins and carbohydrates in food are glue. Old-fashioned methods of making glue used the long protein molecules in animal products. Long molecules help the glue stick to itself and the surfaces. Modern glue contents don't differ much from the old fashioned contents. When you cook food too well, you evaporate the water so the food glue hardens. The chemical reaction for glue to bind to a surface also increases with temperature. This caused the food to bind to metal and glass surfaces. Glassware in particular can absorb and hold more heat than it's metal equivalents (due to it's greater thickness). This means it can transfer a lot more heat and burn/glue food to it easier than metal. Nonstick surfaces do not react to form bonds with the food glue. That's what prevents the sticking.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is there a scientific basis for the concept of "fresh air"? What is the difference between "fresh air" and "stale air". Is there more oxygen? Less CO2? Fresh air seems to have a fairly profound physiological effect on some people, elevating mood, reducing nausea, etc. Is this merely a placebo effect at work or is there really something about "fresh" air that rejuvenates a person?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Air is comprised of nitrogen, oxygen, argon, water vapour, carbon dioxide and minute traces of other gases. Air entrapped within a home will tend to equalize with the outside air, but does so slowly. Simply as a result of your presence, air composition in your vicinity changes. Respiration produces carbon dioxide (increasing its volume fraction) and water vapour (increasing humidity). Your skin cells slough off to create airborne dust (particulate matter). In addition to the effects of your body, objects within your home oxidize (rust) consuming oxygen from the air in the immediate vicinity. The particulate matter load is added to by small particles breaking off from solid objects as you move them around. Dust mites and their waste add to the airborne dust load. Outside, emissions from vehicles and other machinery add nitrates, sulfides and particulate matter such as soot to the air. Volatile compounds both within and outside the home add their vapours to the air. Natural processes do remove some of these pollutants, but it takes time. Thus the air in your home, or even surrounding your city, will have increased impurity levels compared to the worldwide average, or what is "ideal" fresh air. As regards physiological effects, oxygen concentration is less important, as the hemoglobin in your blood is remarkably efficient at oxygen transport; however, carbon monoxide (naturally occurring, or from vehicle emissions etc.) binds to hemoglobin much more readily than does oxygen. As a result, CO exposure can starve the body of oxygen somewhat, and it takes some time after exposure to CO for the body to eliminate it. Carbon dioxide comprises the body's primary stimulus to breathe, and as such elevated levels of CO2 can lead to increased respiration rates, with the associated fatigue and changes in blood chemistry that that implies. Organic compounds and toxins in the air have the same effects as those poisons delivered by other means, and although the body has mechanisms to deal with such toxins, you can be asymptomatic for poisoning but your body is still allocating energy resources to eliminate the toxins. Airborne particulates, in addition to possible toxic effects, are eliminated from the body by various processes, consuming energy, and in some cases, cause damage to the lungs which reduces their efficiency. In the presence of fresh air (nitrogen, oxygen, argon, water, carbon dioxide and trace compounds), the concentration of pollutants is low, making it easier to eliminate any existing pollutants in the body since there is a concentration gradient between inspired and exhaled air. Physiologically, this is rejuvenating, and it comes as no surprise that you would become aware of this at an objective level.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Object Oriented Design Hi. I am currently studying computer science at university. I am a first year in need of some help. Please could someone explain to me the main principles behind Object Oriented Design. I am finding some of the concepts hard to get my head round. Thanks in advance! EDIT 18:04: Thanks for the answers. If any of you could explain the concepts of interface and polymorphism then that would be excellent.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It's helpful to contrast with other design philosophy. If you want to accomplish a task (especially large ones) there are many different ways of doing it. In procedural programming, you would just make a list of all the things that need to happen, and then just do them in order. This can be a mess for a larger project. Object oriented design is more structured and abstract. Typically, you break ideas up into 'objects', and then define how objects interact with each other. For example, say you're making a video game which has bad guys that can shoot at you. You could define a 'class', which is a template for objects. class BadGuy: def __init__(self, damage, health): self.weapon_damage = damage self.health = health def attack(self, other): other.health -= self.weapon_damage def get_attacked(self, other): self.health -= other.weapon_damage if self.health <= 0: self.die() def die(self): ... This helps to organize code immensely. Since objects share so many traits (health, damage, etc.), this lets you write the base object that can be extended and specialized from there. The __init__ function creates an object (referred to as self). For example: badguy1 = BadGuy(damage = 5, health = 10) boss = BadGuy(damage = 40, health = 120) badguy1.attack(boss)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user There is a strong incentive to discriminate against gays and blacks in hiring for small businesses, and in some cases women & religious. CMV * Fair hiring laws exist * These laws give legal teeth to people of protected classes * There are often equally qualified candidates that are not of protected classes * Lawsuits of these types are often hard to defend, even when firings are justified * It is orders of magnitude more difficult for people of protected classes to file a lawsuit successfully that they were not hired because of this reason * It is more likely that a person of a protected class will threaten or file a lawsuit if hired and then fired, than a lawsuit is filed for not being hired. * Protected class members are more likely to associate their firing to their protected class * I am unconvinced "diversity" is a tangible benefit when the liabilities are very real and measurable. Therefor it is logical that when a candidate of protected class presents themselves as being equally qualified to a non-protected class candidate, the logical hiring choice is to discriminate. In small companies this is easy to get away with and certainly the smarter business move. Since hiring liabilities have a disproportionate impact on the long term viability of a business when it is small.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, tasked with enforcing federal discrimination laws, charged employers with 33,512 violations based on race. There are about 42,000,000 racial minorities in the United States. Let's be conservative and say only 75% of them have jobs. 31,500,000 minority workers, divided by 33,512 complaints, equals .00106, or .1%. So, less one-tenth of 1% of racial minority hirings result in a discrimination charge. Many of those charges are probably based on valid complaints, so the percentage of frivolous complaints is even smaller. Based on these numbers, the statistical risk of hiring a minority employee are completely negligible unless you're looking for a reason to not hire minorities in bad faith. Moreover, NOT hiring an employee on the basis of race, gender, etc., is a much more significant risk in itself, since it's an actionable EEOC violation. Also, discriminatory non-hiring probably accounts for many of those 33,512 cases.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Mass Effect] Why does Shepard only ever take 2 people with her on missions? At least in 1, it's not a limitation of the Mako, since on Feros we have an extra person along for the ride. Some missions of course require some more subtlety, but some really would benefit from more firepower. Hell, in 2 they have to get all your companions off the ship on a mission so the collectors can attack.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Mission parameters dictate a small strike team would be most effective give the proximity to superior hostile forces. 3 soldiers draws less attention than a full squad would. And bringing 3 capable fighters can handle most threats long enough for reinforcements to arrive from the Normandy. Stealth and precision is the goal of Spectres not overwhelming force.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: It is morally permissible for parents to teach their values to their children Some people argue that it is wrong for parents or society at large to teach religion, moral values, or societal ideas to their children on the grounds that they are brainwashing the youth. I disagree with this assessment: I think the concept of parents and society teaching values to children is sound; the issues come in how parents do so. The core sentiment of those who argue against “parental/societal indoctrination” seems to be that each child is a blank slate that he should fill himself. Ostensibly, this allows every child to become his own individual person, unburdened by societal restraints or indoctrination. Though attractive in theory, this idealistic vision of “individual free thought” is utterly unrealistic: - By nature, humans are social animals. Children are born into a society, and a quick look into sociology reveals that this has massive and inevitable implications. It is simply impossible for someone to not be influenced by societal ideas; thus the idea of “thinking for yourself” is on some level absurd. People are shaped by society before they shape it. - Critics invariably focus on the negative aspects of societal and parental influence, ignoring the benefits of learning societal norms and values. Pretty much everything you learn comes from the teaching of parents or others society; manners, etiquette, and morals are closely linked to the religion and social structures that get so much flak. - I think critics miss a core reason people have or adopt kids: they want to raise the next generation and mold them in their own image. This paternalism is, I think, innate to humans: we desire for our tribe to grow and prosper. People don’t have kids to raise them as utopia-minded thinkers. Understanding this, the problem shifts to the fact that reproduction is not really regulated: pretty much anyone who wants to have children can, without regard to finances, beliefs, or morals. Trying to control who does and doesn’t get to be a parent though is morally problematic and basically impossible. - Religious beliefs, political views, and other beliefs can change over time. It’s common for people to question what they were taught as they discover new perspectives. In other words, teaching one doesn’t mean that other perspectives are invalid. If you don’t agree with what you were taught, you can find a new perspective. - Undoubtedly, teaching intolerance (racism, etc.) is a problem. That, however, is covered under the paradox of tolerance: society should not tolerate intolerance. In other words, there are some reasonable limits to what is permissible to teach; teaching your kids to revere Hitler or kill Muslims is not ok. - Ultimately, the way children are taught is what can cause problems. It’s perfectly possible to raise a kid in the Catholic faith without stifling their free thought or teaching them to hate gay people. Teaching is not equivalent to indoctrinating the way critics claim. It’s also true that good parents will be supportive or at least respectful of their children. A related concern is that having expectations of children is wrong because it inhibits their freedom of expression. First, there’s nothing wrong with expecting your child to become a productive member of society—parents want their children to be successful, and getting a college education and stable job is a solid way to that. That aspect is a little ridiculous to criticize. Second, some people seem to believe it’s wrong to make ANY statements about a child. This logically leads to stuff like [this](https://youtu.be/12t7PYilNQQ), where the presenter is raising her child as “gender creative” because gender labels are apparently inseparable from gender stereotypes. I think much of the same applies: exposing children to ideas and having expectations isn’t inherently bad, though how parents react if those expectations are broken can be bad. It’s a fine line, but the alternative proposal of “letting the child figure it out” is not feasible. Children are dependents of their parents because it takes a while for them to figure out who they are and what they believe. This is probably controversial so CMV away.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Teaching a child social norms in the sense of "This is what others expect of you, and if you don't conform, you will suffer a social penalty." is appropriate. Teaching morality in the sense of "This is what I, and most of society believe to be right and wrong. If people didn't agree on these moral principles, society wouldn't function very well." (and then providing reasons), is also appropriate. This teaching should have a solid, empirical foundation, and you should be able to justify it to a child if asked. Teaching a child that God created the Earth in six days and rested on the seventh, or that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and humans lived with dinosaurs, or that gays should be hated because God said that "If a man lies with another man as with a woman, they shall both surely be put to death. Their blood will be upon them." is child abuse. This is not teaching, but indoctrination. Furthermore, religion is totally unnecessary if the goal is to raise children to behave in a moral, socially appropriate manner. Exposing your child to religion is fine. Teaching it as fact, or worse, punishing your child if he rejects it, is not. If you can't justify a statement with facts and/or logic, you shouldn't teach it as absolute truth to your children, and you certainly shouldn't punish them if they don't agree with the statement. You should also be willing to admit you're wrong if the child presents a convincing counterargument to a statement you thought was true.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: how do rich people with massive net worth(Ranging from $10 million to hundreds of millions of dollars) manage their money? I am curios to see how do they manage such a large amount.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I would have to say most if not all hire professional money manager and let them handle it. It's kind of like retirement. They get an amount to live off of each month and they can tell the money manager to give them more if they want to buy a new Gulfstream.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What makes honey "non-spoilable"? Pretty much the title. Once my uncle found honey jar in the basement of his house which was stored there by my grand grandfather in early 1900's presumably, we ate it ( and didn't die).<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Osmosis mostly. Osmosis is what happens when two water solutions of different concentrations of solvents are separated by a water permeable membrane. The water moves through the membrane to equalize the concentrations in the two solutions. Honey is a solution with a very high concentration of sugars in it. Bacteria and other microbes are filled with water that contains a smaller concentration of dissolved substances. Cell membranes surrounding microbes are water permeable. so when a microbe contacts the honey, a water permeable membrane separates a high concentration solution(honey) from a lower concentration solution(microbe cytoplasm) and the water will move in such a way to equalize the difference. Out of the microbe, drying it out. Honey is also slightly acidic and contains some hydrogen peroxide but those are small factors. TL;DR: Honey is a desert for microbes that sucks them dry.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Steven Universe] How did Gems come to be? Like seriously, when and how did they come into existence?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Their means of reproduction are wholly artificial, so at one point they must have been an organic humanoid species who kept making iterative alterations and improvements to their race as their technology kept advancing. At some point they made the jump to synthetic bodies and artificially created minds, which is why now they resemble nothing organic or living while still keeping the same outward form.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is it impossible to swallow rapidly over and over with nothing in your mouth, but chugging water is easy?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Swallowing solids and liquids works slightly differently. Swallow with an empty mouth and pay attention to what you're doing: The tip of your tongue presses against the roof of your mouth just behind your teeth, then 'rolls' along the roof of your mouth backwards towards your throat. Basically, it's two actions: You open your throat and your tongue forces your food towards it. When you chug water, you don't do that. There's no need to force the liquid to the back of your mouth, because your head's tipped back and gravity takes care of that for you...basically all you're doing it rhythmically opening and closing your throat. So, swallowing with an empty mouth is a complex action, and because you're not swallowing anything but saliva and air, you have to manually 'reset' your tongue between swallows.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does software update with versions labeled as things like "Version 9.0.124.0" instead of just updating as complete numbers like "Version 4", "Version 2"? I'm kind of confused as to why it carries on as .04.02.98.165..... instead of whole numbers. Why are decimals involved? Edit: Thank you very much for all of your responses!! This helped explain it very well. Thank you for answers !<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It depends on the software developer, but for the most part: version x.y.z x = major changes to the software (like re-writing it) y = major enhancements (adding new functions) z = bug fixes edited for formatting<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What are all the different types of noises that an MRI makes when you’re getting a scan? And why is it different noises every few minutes?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant An MRI machine collects data by delivering electromagnetic energy into the body to ‘flip’ the spins of nuclei in the body. When the nuclei flip back, they emit electromagnetic signals of the same frequency that are then detected by the system. The machine is set to have as homogeneous a magnetic field as possible at the center of the tube when nothing is happening. When a scan is taking place, the system rapidly changes the magnetic field within the magnet, using gradient coils, to provide spatial information. The sounds you hear have a variety of purposes. The slow knocking sounds that precede a scan are a pulse sequence designed to tune the cool to maximize the signal returned from the body. Then, the rapid knocking is from the rapid changes in the gradient coils during the scan itself. Different scanning sequences change the gradients at different rates, so the frequency of the sound you hear differs. The gradient coils that sit on the outside of the magnet are long loops of wire that vibrate due to the current pulsing through them during the scan. What you hear is that vibration. Source: spent 10 years working for MRI vendor.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: There’s nothing wrong with being “ableist” when it comes to John Fetterman running for senate. In general, frivolously using someone’s disability(s) as a reason to not vote for someone is shitty and should be frowned upon. In the specific case where someone’s disability(s) negatively impact their ability to perform their duties compared to a non-disabled person, it is absolutely acceptable, especially for a position as important as a US Senator. This is largely in response to the Oz v Fetterman debate last night and the reactions I’ve seen on Twitter to it. I watched it live beginning to end and came away thinking “wow, how could the Fetterman campaign allow this to happen, they should’ve never accepted a debate, he’s clearly not fit for office.” I thought this of course would be the prevailing view. While I saw a lot of that, there was also a loud minority claiming that not supporting Fetterman because of his continued health issues after his stroke is “ableist”. I completely disagree with that framing. For context, John Fetterman unfortunately suffered a stroke several months ago. During the debate he repeatedly stumbled, took very long pauses, would repeat himself, and generally looked like he wasn’t always aware of what was asked. This is even with closed captioning being provided for him upon his request. In my view, someone who cannot properly process what they hear, nor properly debate and form clear coherent sentences is not fit for office. Especially as a senator, where debate is very important. Even if his actual brain function is fine and he’s just unable to properly process audio and speak, that still doesn’t make him competent to hold office. Our elected representatives should not have significant mental/oral impairments. Their mental acuity and ability to articulate themselves is of the utmost importance. If his disability wouldn’t directly impact and negatively effect his ability to perform his duties as a senator, I would not support this so called “ableism”. If his disability was something like that of Texas Republican Governor Greg Abbott (wheelchair) or former Democratic US Senator Max Cleland who was missing three limbs, I would stand against any “ableist” comments as these disabilities don’t negatively impact one’s ability to govern. Having a stroke victim with serious speech and auditory processing issues try to be in the senate would be akin to Abbott or Cleland wanting to work for a lawn care company to mow yards. They’re just not qualified based on their disabilities. I think this is an improper use of the term “ableist” and that this man is unfit to represent the people of Pennsylvania. All the best to him in his continued recovery. EDIT : Changed wording in paragraph one from “regular” to “non-disabled” as people were getting hung up on language and not substance. EDIT 2 : Dang y’all, I came back to 80ish comments and in almost getting through all of them I now have 30 more. A lot of comments now are coming across as being very partisan (people who are anti-Oz/republicans) given that my original prompt had nothing to do with this and that I have no interest in bashing one side or the other nor talking about why you hate Oz, I will just be ignoring these to save time. My point is about Fetterman, ableism, and his speech issues, not about the benefits and downsides of Oz. Comments I don’t get to tonight, I’ll get to tomorrow afternoon. EDIT 3 : Before I go to bed, I’d like to point out I’ve given 3 deltas. 2 on the subject of why it would still be reasonable for some people to vote for him based on partisanship and 1 that brought up that other congressmen are stroke survivors. Although these people made good points ancillary to the issues of Fetterman and disabled people, I’d like the conversation to stick more closely to the ableism point specifically, and so tomorrow when I come back I’ll only be awarding deltas to comments which specifically address the ableism issue. EDIT 4 : Lol thanks to whoever had the Reddit Cares thing sent to me, I’m good though my guy FINAL EDIT : Alright y’all I’ve probably responded well over a hundred times today and yesterday. Comments keep flooding in and I can’t keep up plus I have to get back to work. I’m done replying now, thanks for the explanations and conversations<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The primary role of a representative is to, well, represent people. What processes and procedures they do to do that is really secondary to that primary function in a democracy. If you disqualify people with disabilities from being in office, you are excluding those people from having equal representation. They can't have any representatives that truly and personally understands their issues, concerns and problems. You can have a thousand of the best debaters and slickest public speakers in the world in the senate, but if they don't understand your issues, they're all next to useless to you.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does ISIS still exist and stay so strong although many nations have sent so much armed forces to hunt them down?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Much of the action against ISIS has taken the form of air strikes, special forces actions, and more conventional actions. To be effective against a guerrilla force, you need to have a large number of troops constantly occupying their power base areas to prevent them from moving and resupplying, while building good will with the local populace to prevent the guerrillas from recruiting.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:What is the difference between cosmology, astrophysics and astronomy? I've been watching too many Neil deGrasse Tyson videos that are making me feel stupid. I feel like I should definitely have a better understanding of these terms. Are there any other terms similar to these that I should have a better understanding of? I'm interested in looking for a book that easily explains and covers all of these. Thanks for any help!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Astronomy is about observations, what can we detect. Astrophysics is abot the processes that might lead to what we see and explain why it changes in the way it appears to in our observations. Cosmology is about why the Universe behaves as it does. Today, that often includes things like dark matter and dark energy that we don't yet have means to observe.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Are there any economic papers that discuss the wealth(not income but wealth)gap between various white ethnic groups(ie russisn,french,Irish, etc)? Are there any economic papers that discuss the wealth gap between eastern and western European nations?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Wealth is extremely hard to measure, and would be much harder to link to nationality information (especially for ethnicity which is often a mix of things). The wid.world project has been investigating intranational wealth inequality—that is the right place to start if you’re interested although it won’t answer these specific questions.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: "What is the difference between Reason and Logic?"<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The two concepts overlap somewhat in popular use. Reason usually refers to mental processes that evaluate affairs in an unemotional way, reason being preferable in many cases. Logic is more specialized; it derives from the greek word 'logos' which means mind sometimes words - the naming and thinking process. Today, it is almost a branch of maths, dealing with the abstract rules by which we reach true conclusions when we think,<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What exactly are astronauts doing on the ISS? How does data sent down yesterday differ from data sent down today? I'm not insinuating the science aboard the ISS is pointless, but I don't understand the meaning. What are some of the massive breakthroughs that happened on the ISS? Are we expecting more breakthroughs?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant during the course of science. 90% of the time, it's monotonus running an experiment, daily or hourly monitoring and collecting data points, rerunning the experiment many times for confirmation. hypothesis. create a new experiment, run a new experiment, repeat and repeat until budget is done and hopefully you've come up with a conclusion that's worthy of getting the next grant. it's not the just astronauts on the ISS making new things. it's also the hundreds of thousands of scientists and engineers on Earth that contribute to the breakthrough's. astronauts on ISS aren't the ones making the new solar panels. they're just using them and reporting the findings. astronauts on the ISS aren't the ones making fuel cells.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user In Virtue ethics how are the virtues themselves decided? In Aristotle's Ethics he assumes from the start what his virtues are, and they seem quite relative to Athenian society. He denounces adultery, cowardice, and shame from the start but on what grounds is this the case? These virtues seem relative to what is acceptable in that society, rather than being canonical. For example, adultery was seen as somewhat normal in Sparta, and even shame/humility is an essential part of Christian ethics, so how are we to accept these virtues as real rather than relative? On what grounds does Virtue ethics assume that its virtues are good and conducive for happiness? Couldn't being intemperate make me happy in many situations?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant > On what grounds does Virtue ethics assume that its virtues are good and conducive for happiness? Couldn't being intemperate make me happy in many situations? This is a confusion about what is meant by happiness in virtue ethics - it seems like you are just imagining utilitarian happiness, but what the virtue ethicist means is something more like "flourishing" or, for Aristotle, 'a total and balanced actualization of your function.' > so how are we to accept these virtues as real rather than relative? Check out Martha Nussbaum's argument in "Non-Relative Virtues." Roughly, she argues, that some of this stuff presents itself through natural language. So, while we do find that some of Aristotle's emphases are cultural artifacts, we can still do analysis past that.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What do economists expect the effects of Joe Biden's infrastructure plan to be? Its called the American Jobs Plan. [https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/31/politics/infrastructure-proposal-biden-explainer/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/31/politics/infrastructure-proposal-biden-explainer/index.html) What effects do economists expect it to have? Do they expect the benefits to exceed the opportunity costs? Where can I find a good analyses of the plan?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Most economists are heavily in favor of government investment in human capital and physical infrastructure. There might be some nuances here and there with each line item of the plan, but economists from I've read are quite supportive overall. The economist and Bloomberg are decent enough sources for economics news, though they're paid. NPR is great too.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is food digested in the order it is consumed? Or digested like freeway traffic moves, with some food overtaking slower to digest food? And how does the body decide, if it moves like traffic? Does everyone have the same 'speed limits' or does it vary per individual?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Different organs are responsible for digesting different types of foods. The pancreas, liver and stomach produce and distribute the vast majority of chemicals required to break down the foods, and they are all broken down and absorbed into the digestive tract where they will be sent to the cells in different parts of the body to be built back up into other molecules. It is a continuous process where certain things do digest faster but the physics side of things like the amount or concentrations of foods determines the order they are digested. Basically, if you consume a ton of sugar and a little bit of fat, the higher concentration of sugar will make the amount of energy needed to break down sugars less meaning the high concentrations tend to break down first since they require less activation energy. So, depending on how much you eat combined with what it is determines what breaks down first.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why do people cry when they're overwhelmed with emotion? For example: http://www.wimp.com/puppysurprise/ Happiness, sadness, frustration, or any other strong emotion seems to elicit tears. It seems like it's often a strange, irrelevant reaction, so what's actually going on in the brain that causes this?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Tears created in response to these overwhelming situations are also different than tears created by a speck of dirt in your eye. They contain proteins and neurotransmitters that communicate distress to nearby humans. Researchers who examined women's distress tears found that the chemicals alone could induce a caring response in men. The chemicals also decreased sex drive in men, since it's an evolutionary advantage to not procreate in a stressful atmosphere.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does pushing our eye gently against a closed eye lid make us "see" things?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In order to process sensory information (light, sound, touch, taste, etc.), it must be input through a receptor. The sensory modality (type) a receptor is most sensitive to (made to interpret) is called the adequate stimulus. Photoreceptors (what ultimately turn light into an electrical/neuronal signal which can be then interpreted by the brain) in the eye have light as their adequate stimulus. However, (as you have illustrated) they can be stimulated by things other than light (touch/pressure--mechanoreception, electric current, salt concentration, etc.). But there is one problem: photoreceptors are adapted (built/"hooked up") to interpret their adequate stimulus only. This means that any stimulus provided to the photoreceptor will be interpreted as if it is light--your brain will interpret it (touch, etc.) as vision.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Can light come in anything other than a sine wave? If not, can other waves be approximated? Such as a square wave... and if so... what would it look like to us?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Mathematically, any wave can be broken down into a linear combination of sine (and cosine) waves (Google Fourier Series to see some visualizations of this) . So all electromagnetic radiation (including e.g. a square wave) is a superposition of sine waves, because all em radiation satisfies a wave equation.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:When people listen to the radio, do they all hear the song at the same time, or is there a delay when listening further away from the towers? What is the speed of radio?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Radio waves are electromagnetic radiation just like light (just a different part of the spectrum); they move at the speed of light. To answer your question, yes, there's a very, very, very, very slight delay.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Weed should be legally and socially treated in the same way as alcohol I think that if you boil it down to what people receive from weed and alcohol, most of the feelings are similar. It can be used for social purposes, to relax, or abused as an antidepressant. For legal reasons, if adults 21\+ are developed enough and responsible enough to drink, then they are responsible enough to smoke. There would still be laws that apply to both alcohol and weed equally. i.e. driving under the influence. If you've had one hit from a joint than you are capable of driving, and if you don't seem capable in a field test, it will be obvious, same as alcohol. In addition, this would allow people to not have to worry about not getting a job even if they live in a legal state. If employees are allowed to drink on their free time, people who smoke should be able to as well. If it's affecting their work, than they should be punished as someone who would go drunk to work. Only thing that won't change my view is anything that is too circumstantial. As in something that is too specific of an example that is more of a "what if" than a certainty. Change my view :\)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Both alcohol and marijuana are among the most studied and tested substances in the world. Time and time again it has become apparent that weed is far less dangerous when used on a regular basis than alcohol. It is less likely to be habit forming, less dangerous when consumed in binge fashion, and less likely to be dangerous when consumed regularly. Treating weed as on the same level as alcohol down plays the very real dangers of alcohol and over exaggerated the less substantial dangers of marijuana. It would be more appropriate to treat marijuana similar to tobacco from a legal perspective. Specifically in letting anybody over the age of 18 purchase and consume the substance.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: The U.S. spends too much on foreign assistance; this may feel compassionate but could be better spent domestically or on defense To get it out of the way, I understand that the foreign assistance budget is a small proportion of the total U.S. budget and is dwarfed by our military budget. At [$23 billion](https://www.usaid.gov/results-and-data/budget-spending) it's less than 4 percent the amount we [spend on defense](https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/652687/department-of-defense-dod-releases-fiscal-year-2017-presidents-budget-proposal) and well under 1 percent of the [total budget](https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/the-white-house-fiscal-2017-budget-proposal/1953/). That said, it's still in the tens of billions of dollars. While I understand that it's important to be compassionate and that giving this money away allows us to conduct diplomacy and negotiate from a higher moral standing, I don't believe that we get limited tangible benefits from it. In an age when we have veterans who require care and there are plenty of people outside the U.S. who wish to do us harm and who we have to defend against, I can think of many other, better functions for this money Please change my view EDIT: Thank you to everyone and to u/electronics12345 and u/McKoijion in particular. To me, the best arguments tied foreign assistance with a cost we wouldn't have to incur elsewhere. For example, providing money to organizations in W. African nations to fight Ebola means they can contain it and we don't have to fight Ebola here. Providing money to middle eastern nations means they can effectively do what U.S. service members on U.S. bases in the region would do. In each of these cases, because of many reasons including that we're assisting and not doing the whole thing ourselves, the cost can be much cheaper. EDIT2: It's important to also mention u/fstd who suggested that the premise upon which my argument was based is flawed. A big chunk of foreign assistance goes to security -- not just humanitarian aid. Thanks again and have a good evening. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant >In places of strategic national security importance, USAID works side-by-side with our counterparts in the U.S. Military and the Department of State’s diplomatic corps to confront emerging threats and other global security challenges. Our efforts to achieve development progress in countries facing conflict and crisis helps enhance global stability and fosters good will toward the United States. The President’s budget request supports this critical work, and specifically will: Foreign policy spending allows the USA to more effectively influence other nations to not cause problems that require military intervention. Military intervention is expensive, and stabilizing regions so they don't interrupt into war is useful. Also, regions sell goods and trade with the US. By engaging in foreign assistance the US can get better trade deals and ensure nations are stable enough to trade. Also, the USA is a compassionante nation, and its people and policy makers like engaging in some degree of charity to help the poor.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Applied maths in Economics I am planning on applying to Cambridge for Economics and need to beef out my personal statement, especially on the maths end. My college offers us an opportunity to present a field of mathematics that is not on the specification to our further maths class. I think this is a good opportunity to explore an area of maths which can be applied to Economics. But what do I do? I have been suggested Markoff chains and Monti Carlo methods, both of which I have never heard of before. Are these too complex for a first year A-level student and can they be directly applied to economical situations? I have also heard game theory can be very mathematical and I may do some research into that however, I find many people talk about game theory and I’m intrigued in finding something more unorthodox. Could anyone recommend and interesting side of maths that can be directly applied to economics. It would be much appreciated :)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Is constrained optimization with Lagrange multipliers on the A-level syllabus? If not, that's a foundation of a lot of economic theory - you'll use it all the time in any undergrad course, whenever you want to model an individual maximising their utility with a budget constraint or a firm maximising their profit subject to constraints - and it's not too complicated if you already know how to find unconstrained maxima and minima from calculus.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why is a philosopher's nationality denoted? I've noticed in several videos, seminars, and discussions about philosophy that people who know about philosophers always seem to denote their nationality - "The German philosopher, Immanuel Kant" for example. Is it important to a philosophical discussion to understand that Immanuel Kant was from Germany or Jeremy Bentham was from England?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It's not always important, but it can sometimes serve as shorthand connecting the philosopher to a particular historical context, or indicating that primary sources will tend to be in a particular language.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Loki] Does the Varient’s plan make sense? In episode 2, it seems that >!Sylvie’s!< plan is to >!bomb the sacred timeline!<, and although it isn’t explicitly stated why (unless I’m missing something), it seems like >!she!< is ultimately trying to >!distract the TVA so that she can reach the Time Keepers and kill them!<. But this week, it showed us that >!she can restore the minute men’s memories by enchanting them!<, so that got me thinking. Instead of >!luring a bunch of minute men into traps to kill them and take their reset charges for some elaborate plot to bomb the timeline!<, wouldn’t it make more sense to just >!lure them into those same traps and restore their memories!< instead? That way, >!she could just raise up an army to overthrow the Time Keepers!<.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant An army can be tracked a lot easier than one variant. You also saw the mental condition of the first agent we see her enchant; absolute shambles. Not everyone is ready to face that level of truth and then go on to fight back against the TVA. Sylvie's plan relies on no other factors besides Sylvie herself, which seems to fit her character. Killing them is faster, has less variables, and as you saw she did not require an army to face the Time Keepers. If MCU Variant Loki hadn't interfered, she most likely would have succeeded.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELi5: Why did eggs become such a common breakfast food?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Most food choices were based on what was easy to raise and farm in an area. Chickens are easy to raise just about anywhere and provide an ample amount of eggs. They average 1 egg a day. Eggs are good for you (except for a few years in the 1990s), are easy to cook, and can be cooked in a variety of ways quickly. They specifically became breakfast food because eggs were typically laid in the mornings. It was better to eat them at their freshest. Edit: updating due to correct comments on eggs and refrigeration. Edit 2: there are several explanations about the 90s in the comments for those that don't know or didn't exist at the time.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: how can my smoke detector not be set off by my cigarette or fireplace smoke, yet goes off the moment my toast starts burning. Not sure this has been asked yet. If it has link me to post? Reddits search function is weird...<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Smoke detectors work by having a radioactive substance and a radiation detector inside. The detector keeps getting the emissions from the substance, and this keeps a circuit open. Whenever enough particles that can block the radiation get between the emitter and the sensor, the circuit closes and the alarm goes off. Fireplaces and cigarettes actually burn pretty cleanly, meaning that the smoke they create is made up of very fine particulate matter that the radiation can get through, unless you've got enough present to be difficult to see through. Burned toast smoke, on the other hand, creates larger airborne creosote-like objects that can easily block the radiation. This is due to the oxidation reaction being much less efficient, resulting in larger particulate matter being released into the air as smoke.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 They say if your stranded at sea not to drink the salt water because it will kill you faster, however dehydrated patients are given saline drips. Why? Is it somehow different? Is it the concentrate?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant On average, seawater in the world's oceans has a salinity of about 3.5%. Sea water also has all sorts of other stuff in it. Normal saline is the commonly used phrase for a solution of 0.90%. Saline contains water and salt.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What do those massive shoulder mounted TV cameras do that a nice handheld video camera cannot?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant As an operator of one of those big cameras, here's what's going on. Enormous lenses and sensors designed to let in a lot of light, plus a mechanical aperture. This gives the camera the ability to operate in a wide range of lighting conditions. That lens assembly usually extends back into the "body" of the camera quite a ways. Glass is heavy, too. Motor-driven and by-hand zoom, focus, aperture etc - You can twist rings on the outside of the assembly to adjust all of the above by hand, which is sometimes preferable and looks "more natural." But they're also motorized, enabling you to adjust all of those settings by the controls near your hand on the back, by a remote control, or by the onboard computer. Onboard computing hardware to process uncompressed video, and to make smart decisions if set to auto. Most consumer cameras take video and immediately compress it to something like MPEG-4 with very little flexibility in options for that. These bad boys store and process uncompressed video, which can hit like a gig a minute. They also have better capability for a wider "palette" of colors to work with than consumer cameras. This footage can hit like a gig a minute easy. And then if you want to leave some or all of the camera's decisions for aperture/color balance/etc up to the hardware itself, there's an enormous expectation that a camera that expensive will have a better auto than a sony HandyCam. Large properly shaped microphones and connectors for pro level external mics. Consumer cameras usually have little mics, and they're often omnidirectional and pick up everything, which is often a bad thing. Larger "shotgun" style mics pick up in a conical pattern (think about what a shotgun blast would hit, to paint a dark metaphor) which is preferable to get just your subject. Additionally, the camera has XLR hookups and onboard 48v power for pro-level external mics so you can use both built-in and external. XLR plugs are like the size of your thumb and there's no mini version. edit: oh, and the battery is often enormous and goddamn heavy - with so much more stuff onboard than your average camera, If this thing had a relatively light battery you'd get like an hour tops. So the battery is usually pretty beefy so you can film all day. Sitting it on your shoulder is the most comfortable way to hold that weight. Oh, and metal frame, consumer cameras are plastic but these guys are usually significantly metal for durability. Not that you should be throwing a 10k camera, but just in case.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [General Fantasy] Why are werewolves most allergic to silver?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Alchemists used to associate different metals to different planetary bodies. Gold for the sun, iron for mars, copper for Venus. Guess what metal is associated with the moon? So if the full moon makes a werewolf transforms, it's possible that direct contact with the 'moon metal' breaks that connection. Then you're just a dude that's been shot and you die.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Harry Potter] What kind of magic is the the forbidden section books at Hogwarts? Furthermore, does the section contain books/spells only for adults and experienced wizards that students may not borrow or are these kept in Dumbledore's private library. Are there any adult only spell book stores<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Recipes for difficult and illegal potions. Information on the Dark Arts. Particularly difficult charms and transfigurations. It's less a "forbidden" section as it is the "upperclassmen" section. You need information in the forbidden section for NEWT classes and for deeper research into various darker areas of magic. The really "forbidden" magic is kept in the Headmaster's office. And what is considered forbidden can change from Headmaster to Headmaster.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why is bioluminescence so common at the bottom of the ocean? It seems like bioluminescence is common at the bottom of the ocean, where there is no sunlight. But if there's no sunlight, then why would anything evolve eyes to see visible light? Maybe infrared would be useful, but visible light just doesn't make sense to me.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Bioluminescence has four main advantages to organisms in the deep ocean. Camouflage (which applies to intermediate depths where lights still filters down from above) allowing organisms to eliminate their own shadows, attraction of mates, repulsion of predators (or attraction of larger predators), and communication between members of the same species.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star Wars] What are the limits to interspecies mating? In the Clone Wars cartoon, one of the Clones and a Twi'lek had children. Can all sentient races mix? Can there be a Rodian/Aqualish? A Wookie/Mon Calamari?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Well, from a biological point of view, we can already produce cross species hybrids-- ligers, mules, etc. we're kinda not doing as much as we theoretically could in this field because there's no point (and "morals" and "ethics") Now, with Star Wars's much more advanced biotech and just technology in general I'd think just about anything is possible. Since everyone seems to eat a lot of the same food, they probably share a lot of proteins, which makes reproduction easier. Throwing sufficient amounts of engineering and/or Force at it could make it work As for a pleasure view, well... The sky's the limit.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Mass Effect] So how did scale-itch get on the Normandy?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant When many species approach sexual maturity.... experimentation is often common. Grunt has been exhibiting signs common among Krogan adolescents. Hypothesis: Grunt is the most likely carrier unless... Zaeed?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why does hot water taste different than cold water?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant So cells in our taste buds express receptors that recognize different types of compounds - one receptor type per cell seems to be how it works. However, in addition to these receptors, gustatory cells also contain channels that are sensitive to heat, and they sensitize the cell to other inputs. What this means is that most flavors seem to be more intense when they're warmer (unless of course they reach the threshold of pain, in which case our brain is more preoccupied with that than communicating the taste). This is why warm coke tastes sweeter than cold coke, etc.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Ben10]What does the omnitrix require in a species? Would it accept lower life forms like a dog or a cat or a threasher maw(mass effect) or does ot need to be intelligent life<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The Omnitrix was designed as an ark of sorts to preserve sapient species against extinction as well as a diplomatic tool to help one species understand another. Everything in it is an intelligent life form without exception. There is, however, a similar device introduced at one point that works with dogs and dog-equivilants instead. Specifically, it transfroms the non-sapient alien dog who uses it into a non-sapient predator for whatever species Ben is using, so the technology works with any species at all, but the Omnitrix is designed specifically for sapients.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: The process of getting a book published<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant First, the author writes some or all of a book. The author submits the work to various publishing companies looking for one that likes it and will buy it. If a publisher likes the book, they will make an offer to the author to buy the book and pay royalties on sales of the book. Once an agreement is reached, the author must finish writing and editing the book if it's not done yet. Then, an editor who usually works for the publisher will also read through the book and suggest corrections and changes. Once the book is completely edited and finished, the publishing company will begin preparing the book to be printed and sold. This includes typesetting (arranging words, pictures, page numbers etc. on the pages), deciding on a catchy title, hiring someone to design a cover, writing the summary that goes on the back, and getting the book reviewed by critics so they can have quotes about what a great book it is. At some point, the publisher starts contacting bookstores to let them know about the new book and ask how many copies the bookstore will buy. If the book has been marketed and hyped up, or is by a famous author, bookstores might buy a LOT of copies, assuming that they'll be able to sell them all. It's possible this way for a book to be a "best seller" in the newspaper the same day it comes out, because that's based on how many copies the bookstore buys, not the customers. Finally, the books are printed and shipped to the bookstores. Sometimes this is handled by a separate printing and distribution company or multiple such companies. Now it's up to readers to notice the book and purchase it!<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How exactly does a random function work ? As far as I know it randomly picks any member present in a list but the how does the machine decide up which memeory address to pick ? I mean how does a programmer describe the random algorithm ?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Generally, there are two types of randomness: true (cryptographic) randomness and pseudorandomness (sometimes these are used in conjunction to generate large amounts of mostly cryptographically secure randomness). Most programs (where cryptographically secure randomness isn't needed) use pseudorandom algorithms, which generally take a seed and generate a seemingly random pattern using it. One of the more commonly used implementations is the mersenne twister algorithm. In these algorithms, there is usually a hidden state, which is mutated after getting every value (the value is derived from the state, but usually isn't the state itself). Cryptographically secure randomness is usually influenced by some non-easily-derivable / -influenceable source, such as electric noise.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Super strength] Do characters with enhanced strength have trouble telling apart the weight of smaller items? I was thinking of Superman. He can lift boulders, cars, ect and toss them with ease, but does that huge strength make it difficult to tell the difference between 5 and 10 pounds? How about weaker, but still strong people, like Spider Man?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The general rule of perception is that humans can notice a 2% difference in quantities (TIL...). If you can press 100 lbs you should be able to notice the addition or subtraction of 2. So a superhuman who can press 100 tons would theoretically have difficulty distinguishing those same two pounds. In practice that doesn't seem to be the case though. Superman has equally fine control over a baseball and a tank. This may be due to a lifetime of practice. Those with newly acquired powers typically go through a phase where they "don't know their own strength". In time, however, they usually adjust.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: We should not have to alter history when a transgender person comes out. I support a transgender person’s right to transition and live as the other gender and be called by their preferred pronouns and all of that. The problem is in the idea that the person’s whole past life and works must now be amended and everyone can no longer reference their previous name or gender when referencing past events. I find the insistence on this to be offensive and, quite frankly, ridiculous. Take Elliot Page for example. I distinctly remember watching a film several years ago with a female actress, playing a female character, being feminine, identifying as female, being identified by the other actors as female, and (presumably) having female sex organs to prove it. When talking about this film, being filmed in the past, I should go by the name of the actress listed in the credits, Ellen Page. I cannot honestly say I saw a man playing that role in that film. That would be lying. If Elliot decides to make films in the future, I will refer to him by his new name. It’s the same as an author using a pseudonym for many years then switching to their real name, like James Tiptree switching to her real name of Alice Sheldon. I refer to her Tiptree books as written by her pseudonym. Insisting that other people lie en-masse about the reality they experienced is no different from insisting transgender people lie and cover up their own experience. It’s backward and narcissistic in the extreme.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It’s common practice to refer to someone in the past using their current identity. For example, you’d say, “Hillary Clinton was born in Chicago” even though that wasn’t her last name at the time. It’s not lying. For Elliot you could phrase it something like “Elliot Page played the character of a pregnant girl before he transitioned.”<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why do some materials like iron, gold and other bend, while other like coal or rocks break?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It all depends on what kind of bond and structures the atoms form. when talking about metals and rocks, crystal structures become very important. The crystal structure of a compound it decides by its composition and its preparation. Some crystal structures are very rigid and won't bend easily, other materials are actually a lot of tiny crystals that can move rather easily making the material bendy. This is a very complicated topic and it is hard to not go into too much detail here. The short answer is that it depends on the way the atoms are arranged in the material.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Marvel] How does Magneto's helmet block telepathy? What sort of properties does Magneto's helmet have that blocks out telepathy? Does it have something have something to do with the material, the exact construction, both, or something else?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Human brain works by producing very small currents. That is what EEG detects when used to monitor brain activity. With most telepaths the current is strong enough that it can reach someone and effect them from a distance. Also their brain is able to detect the signal generated by people from some distance. faraday's cage can block em waves so Magneto's helmet works the same by blocking the signal produced by telepaths and keeps his brain signal from reaching telepaths. That is how juggernaut's helmet works too (don't know why the same thing doesn't happen with wolverine, he should be immune too) and that is the reason behind the conspiracy theoriest putting on a tin foil hat to avoid government's brain control and reading.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is it possible to teach ethics to an AI? If so, will philosophers become society’s biggest assets?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Sure, there's plenty of AI ethics going on right now to determine which ethical rules AIs should follow, and conversely there's quite some work going on to implement it. Regarding weak AI (the AI we already have), this is important e.g. for self-driving cars<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Do you know of any philosophers who grew to regret or disagree with their early work? I find it interesting that people can feel so certain in their beliefs earlier in life, even to the point of writing in-depth books about it, while at the same time continuing, themselves, to grow and learn with more and more experience and wisdom as they age. Surely, at some point, some of these wise men must have grown to change their beliefs? Do you know of any such people?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Wittgenstein's philosophy is generally discussed in terms of 'early Wittgenstein' or 'late Wittgenstein' to distinguish between his views in the Tractatus Logic-Philosophicus and Philosophical Investigations, respectively. Wittgenstein abandons some significant aspects of his view from the Tractatus but doesn't quite regret it as it's a valuable contrast to his later view of language.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How do Astronomers figure out what the interior of planetary bodies are made of without sending probes there? (Neptune, Uranus, Ceres, etc)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant 1. A general idea of the composition of our solar system 2. Specific measurements of the objects gravitational effects 3. Spectrographic analysis of the surface or surface clouds Taking 1 + 2 + 3 what "mix" best results in that density at that size as best we understand the physics.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: We have invented materials that don't rust, so why do bicycles still use chains that turn rusty after a little rain?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Materials selection is often balancing a set of trade-offs. A chain needs to be both durable and relatively easy to make. Using a hard material and adding lubricant helps it last a very long time, and that lubricant can also prevent rusting if properly cared for. Very few materials are as hard and durable as steel, and those materials tend to be super expensive.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How can water filters remove 99.9% of impurities but not turn salt water to fresh water?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The impurities referred to are larger particles and very large molecules. Unfortunately for us in this case, salt is an extremely tiny molecule -- not much bigger than a water molecule, and far smaller than normal filters. Only a very special filter, requiring very high water pressure, can filter out salt molecules.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why can you sit 2 hours trying to solve a programming/math problem, give up, go to bed & then when you wake up, solve the problem in 10 minutes?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant When you keep trying to solve a problem for a long time you often get stuck in some dead-end area of thought which doesn’t lead to any solutions. After you’ve rested you often can take a different approach which leads to victory. And it might be fast, because really many such problems have rather simple solutions once you know them.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 Wine pairings. How do chefs and restaurants know how to pair wines with certain foods? And, more importantly, how can I learn to appreciate good wine/food combinations? What do professionals look for?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A lot of really good restaurants have a sommelier, which is a fancy name for an adult who knows everything about wines. To do this they have to go to school, earn good grades and pass aallllll their tests regarding wine. They taste thousands of wine through a special routine, trying to find out what they taste like. Wines get their flavors from the grapes they are made of, the length they sit in the bottle and where they are grown. Wine professionals have to find out what they taste like. With all this tasting, they then can suggest to their customers in the restaurant which wines they think the adults should enjoy. Some taste sweet and are good for dessert, some are bitter and gross which adults like with steak and some are light like water and are good with fish! I went to school for culinary arts and had a few wine tastings and pairings with cheese! Not a professional wine person, but those who do know what they are talking about!<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Game of Thrones][ASOIAF] How are Kingsguard men chosen? (Minor GOT S6E3 Tower of Joy spoilers) The problem I see is trying to find the best fighters in the realm, and yet also managing to find the most loyal men who would defend the king to their last breath. Ideally whichever House was in power would only enlist the best of their own men, perhaps looking to historically allied houses for additional good fighters. But the chances of rolling out a Kingsguard line-up with men who have long worked for your House (and or in a well trusted allied House), and who are so skilled that the majority of Westeros's top fighters are in their ranks... Well, it's leaning towards extremely unlikely. During times of relative peace and comradery between the main Houses, you can have a team of Kingsguard made up of the best fighters in the realm from a variety of Houses with little to no issue. But surely someone (from the House in power or perhaps a potential usurper) would realise the problem of having so many skilled fighters from other Houses given top notch equipment and access to the home of the Royal family. Heck there are two examples of this flaw in (what I understand to be) the Kingsguard hiring checklist that I can think of off the top of my head. Firstly, Jaime Lannister, the Kingslayer. He had a valid reason, sure. But still, from the side of House Targaryen he was obviously a weakness in their Kingsguard due to his lack of loyalty to the Targaryen rule, ending with him stabbing the king in the back instead of following his orders. Of course to anyone with common sense, he did the right thing. But all it takes is for one member of the Kingsguard from a powerful House to decide they don't agree with the King's decisions before plotting (and carrying out) a take-over. Jaime was one of the top fighters in Westeros, but definitely lacked loyalty to House Targaryen or any house besides House Lannister (although it could just as easily be explained as preventing a massacre). On the other hand we have the ever-loyal Kingsguard accompanying Sir Arthur Dayne in defence of the Tower of Joy against Ned Stark, Howland Reed and their allies. This may be Sir Gerold Hightower (and or Sir Oswell Whent), but as the show leaves many of the combatants unnamed I shall be calling Dayne's fellow Kingsguard "Bob of House TBA". Now Bob TBA was certainly loyal, to the extent of accompanying Sir Arthur to the Tower of Joy and standing to fight numerous fighters (all pretty good fighters in their own right). He lacked skill though. He clearly isn't one of Westeros's legendary knights or we would have heard more about Ned facing off against Arthur Dayne and Sir Bob TBA. He's not mentioned in the show, and from what I understand is not expanded upon much in the books either. During the fight scene he survives for a while against Ned's band of fighters, but is dispatched rather easily and without pomp or glory once Team Ned gets back into formation. Of course, then they get deftly defeated by Dayne on his own (if not for Reed's backstab and Ned finishing him off), but my point stands. Bob was a paragon of loyalty, but clearly wasn't one of the realm's top fighters. So what gives? What is the process? If you were in charge of Kingsguard HR and Personnel, how would you change the system?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The official process is very simple. The king offers people the job, and they take a standardised oath that involves not marrying, not inheriting, serving the king, and not retreating. How does a king choose? It depends on the king. Some kings want mighty warriors. Arthur Dayne, Barristan Selmy, Jaime Lannister, all could eventually compete to be the greatest swordsman in the realm. Some kings want good advisors. Barristan Selmy's honour was impeachable. He would always have a proper course of action to suggest. Some kings want loyal men, willing to do whatever they want. Jorah Mormont had been with Daenerys from her wedding to Drogo. Meryn Trant had no code of honour beyond doing what his master needed. Some kings want to use appointment politically. They appoint someone as a favour, or as a curse. Jaime was the firstborn son of Tywin, appointing him deliberately slighted the man. But to appoint a third son, or someone else seeking for glory, would be a great sign of prestige and a real chance for them to influence the king. Most kings realise that you can do all of these things. You don't need every kingsguard to be a great warrior so long as some of them are: they defend a throne, not a city or even a palace. You don't want everyone to be political, since that's a valuable carrot to offer to nobles. Loyalty is admirable, but appointing on loyalty alone can make kingsguards weak. Advising's only really necessary for a couple of kingsguards: the lord commander and his heir apparent. The rest can follow good ideas. So the king thinks about who's available, listens to what his small council says, takes under consideration the advice of other noblemen, and eventually comes to a decision. They normally start with a kingsguard mostly intact, but if they don't, they pick up a few as they go along, waiting for the right men rather than doing things too rapidly. Daenerys is an excellent example of a ruler who has had to set up a kingsguard (queensguard, whatever, it's the same concept) from scratch. She starts with Jorah Mormont, a decently capable warrior who she thinks is loyal and who seems to give good advice. She adds three bloodriders, and this is mostly political: she wants some of the Dothraki Drogo led to stay with her, but they're decent fighters as well. Barristan Selmy is, if anything, overqualified (he can do everything but sway politics), so he's an obvious pick. Daario is a good example of a good non-loyal choice: it's political (she wants his mercenary company), he's an exceptional fighter (he kills the champion of mereen and the guardsmen at Yunkai), he can advise (he knows the local culture better than anyone she knows), but she knows he's not loyal (he gave her the heads of his previous commanders).<\|im_end\|>

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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