Split (1)

train · 52.8k rows

text stringlengths 82 65.5k
<\|im_start\|>user How is mental illness treated in the third world? Now when I say treated, I mean just that--treated. How is it taken care of? If we're to assume less resources are available to societies not of the developed world, how do they go about treating things like autism? Do these people just "cope," for lack of a better term? I started thinking about this the other day because I wondered if a hoarder can only exist when there's an abundance of goods. Then I wondered if hoarding is just a symptom and would display differently in a culture that doesn't have an emphasis on collecting stuff. Hopefully I didn't ramble too much.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Mental illness is treated much more at the family and community level than at the institutional level. In Europe and the US, families are quick to hospitalize, institutionalize, and provide drug-based treatments to the mentally ill. In Africa, India, and other rural regions with large populations the responsibility for care of the mentally ill lies with the family, or potentially the larger town or village that person lives in. Violent or really bad cases are referred to hospitals, where they get care (which might be drugs, confinement, or therapy in rarer cases).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:Why are asian language scripts much more complex than european scripts?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant different culture, different way of doing things. All cultures have their quirks. English for example is an odd language in that it's grammar rules are complex and have a lot of exceptions. East Asian languages (Japanese, Vietmanese, Chinese, etc) all have roots in the Chinese script (Except Korea, they're weird). This stems from China at some point owning pretty much everything around them at various points in history. They were also the cultural dominator in the region for a very long time - Think ancient times US level of cultural dominance. Written Chinese was the universal language, the English of today, back then. Everyone knew how to read and write it, even if when they spoke different languages. That said, written Chinese is pictographic. It's just how the cultures chose to write and that evolved. To those unfamiliar with it it's incredibly complex and makes no sense. To those that are familiar with it there's a system behind it. It's not as simple as an alphabet, but it has advantages. Since they are pictures, the characters represent what they actually are. For example, the character for person looks like a torso and 2 legs. Fire and water are stylized fire and water. The character for door looks like a door. One of the symbols used in the characters for student looks like a person wearing a hat. Built on this, more complex characters are usually made up of other characters. A word describing a type of person may contain a modified person character in it. Basically, the parts of the character conveys meaning about what the character is. As a result, you can often figure out what a character is based off of the parts of the character and the context of the sentence around it. There are a number of these common elements and they are used in Chinese dictionaries to look up the meaning of characters.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user In a work environment, is it always ok to use libraries? I'm just beginning my first software job. In academia, there was CONSTANTLY a focus on not stealing code. If you need to look for help online, look for inspiration or ideas on how to approach a problem, but don't copy their code completely. I always found this to be silly, because using libraries is quite literally just using other people's code. The entire bedrock of software development is re-using code and not doing everything from scratch. So now that I'm a few days into my first software job as an entry level novice programmer, I'm wondering if there's any universal "rules for the workplace" regarding when to use libraries and which ones to use. Do I need to ask my employer before using a library? Does it depend on the library? Do i need to "cite" the library somewhere? I assume the "include" or "from" or "import" statements at the top of my program were citation enough. Is it a case of "if that library is included with your programming language then you're fine but if its something you have to download or install, then you need to ask first"? I ask because I spent at least an hour yesterday trying to do something complicated before finding that there's a library you can install for python with a single pip command that did EXACTLY what I wanted in a single line of code. Should I assume its ok to do? Before the obvious "just ask your boss" response, I'm basically just asking about industry standards at this point. I've been asking my boss stupid questions all day and I'm just trying to make it one fewer dumb questions I have to ask. Thanks a bunch<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant As a senior software developer, I've learned a few "rule of thumb" kind of rules. One of the most important ones is this one: The best code is the one you don't write. Every line of code written, will be a line of code that will be read 1000 times, that will have to be maintained, that will end up costing a lot of resources. So yeah, it's almost always the best to just use existing solutions. When not to do that? * When licensing doesn't permit it. * When it's not maintained regularly enough or by a big enough team to match your project's estimated lifetime. Or when there is a suspicion that maintenance might halt due to a change in licensing due to a recent corporate acquisition or something. This plays a role mostly when choosing to depend on certain big complex software. * When it's too big for what you really need (for example installing pandas in order to get the header of a CSV file) * When you intend a very very specific usage scenario, where the library might cause more problems than it solves (ex. you need to make a huge and complicated Web API with a ton of very specific requirements, and using an existing web framework might limit you in how exact you can fulfill those requirements)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: If a disease needs a host to live, then potentially kills the host will it eventually become extinct once everyone is either immune or dead? What is the benefit of killing the host?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Most diseases keep the host alive long enough to multiply and spread. You’ll often hear of diseases that are communicable for several days before the host shows any symptoms. Continuation of the genetic material is the only pressure or driver, diseases don’t “plan” to kill or sustain the host. You’re right that if a disease kills the host very quickly, then the outbreak will “flame out” on its own. At the other end, if you think of colds, they don’t kill very many people at all and can keep cycling through a population, pretty much indefinitely. So, there is no “benefit” because earlier generations of disease are not sentient. They either spread well due to delayed host death or they spread poorly because they kill the host early.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [MCU] How does everyone understand each other. So how do asgardians, genetically modified rodents, human-alien abductees with 4th grade educations, tree people, frost giants, kree, thanks, humans and whoever else all manage to speak english perfectly? Not only that, but there have been cases of language barrier in the MCU (the russian guy in iron man 2) so this couldn't be an alternate reality with only one language.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Asgardians speak the language All-speak which allows every thing with sentience to understand them and likewise. Basically they are so advanced they figured out the root of all language. Probably that magic vs science thing Thor mentioned. Most cosmic beings like Silver Surfer/Galactus are mentally so far beyond us that all they need are a few words spoken and they can become fluent in a language. I believe Quill just uses a universal translator.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If I don't have any morning meetings and I stay at work later than others, I shouldn't be judged in the corporate world for preferring to stay up late and wake up late. CMV. I know some companies have "flex time", but they are decidedly and probably permanently in the minority. Most of the business world would judge me pretty harshly for this behavior and many places would fire me for tardiness. I think this is a holdover from the work schedules of farms, factories and the military. It has no bearing whatsoever on my job or my performance, yet most corporate types would righteously call me lazy. In trying to adapt to their schedule, I sit like a zombie through the morning hours and then feel groggy during what used to be my most productive time - late at night. I am not a corporate malcontent. I like wearing suits and working in an office. I can totally accept that office politics are inevitable. I know why I have to have 3 bosses. I went to business school. I am good at this. But this one thing just kills me. This is obviously a significant source of friction in my life and I would love it if someone could clear it up for me. CMV.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It depends on what exactly your job is. There are places where working the hours you describe is totally fine and accepted. But just because you have no morning meetings doesn't mean you aren't expected to be available to interact with coworkers, managers or customers. If you're part of a team, its important that your working hours at least mostly overlap with those of your teammates.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: if they can't afford to pay them that, they don't deserve to be in business anyways" isn't a good argument. This is an argument that I see a lot around the minimum wage topic but to me it seems like more of an emotional argument that doesn't consider real economic implications. I personally am the type to assume large minimum wage increases don't actually help people and have potential to do a lot of harm. If your argument is that companies that can afford to pay their employees more should I can at least understand that. I don't understand the argument that companies deserve to go out of business anyways if that's what a minimum wage increase causes. I don't understand the idea that going out of business and not paying anything is a better alternative to not paying what is seen as enough. You could also just as easily say "if your skills aren't capable of creating value over $15 you don't deserve to have a job." obviously that's a very different argument but it seems like the outcomes from the arguments are identical. It just seems like it's possible to still at least make a case that min wage increases are better overall, but it makes no sense to say it's totally better even in cases like this.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I like to use the robot metaphor: If you have a machine performing a valuable talk for your company, the upkeep of that machine is part of your operating cost. You have to pay to power it, to upgrade it, to fix it when it breaks. And if you can’t afford the machine, the manufacturer doesn’t have to do business with you. They’re free to take their service somewhere else where they think the price is fair and where people who can afford to pay for their services live. For humans, a living wage is the operating cost. If you can’t afford to pay your worker enough to live nearby, feed themselves, and get basic health care - all of which are things they need in order to be able to work for you - you’re failing to pay for the cost of their service. The difference is that humans have to eat, like, all the time, so they often don’t have the option of taking their business somewhere else if the price isn’t fair - even insufficient food and shelter is better then starving on the street. But that means those people are not really able to act as agents in a free market, and it’s easy to exploit them under the guise of “the market setting the price.” People can’t act like reasonable economic agents when they’re desperate. The whole point of a minimum wage, as explicitly stated by FDR, was to eliminate "starvation wages" and force employers to pay their employees a "prevailing" wage, because the majority of businesses will pay their workers as little as they can legally get away with. Alternatively: Asking people to work for less than a living wage so you can own a business is entitlement at its finest. You are asking human beings to use their lives to subsidize your desire to own a business. A living wage for your employees should be required and expected of all business-owners whether paying your employees a living wage would put you out of business or not. The argument that "practically and economically" businesses will shut down if they have to pay their workers speaks to a broader point that if businesses are using this argument, they are admitting to consciously exploiting human beings to turn a profit...in which case no, they do not deserve to be in business. If a full-time job is worth being done, it is worth being paid enough to live.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is diplomatic immunity a thing and how did it come about?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Diplomats are people who travel to other countries and act as representatives of those countries interests. This was very important before the days of telephone or the internet where communication over great distances took a very long time. Messages were slow to exchange and relationships hard to build. Instead of trying to do it from afar a special professional was chosen to build that relationship and look after foreign interests under the direction of their home country. In order for that to happen there needs to be an agreement that the diplomat won't be legally hassled by the host country. Tossing the diplomat into prison or torturing them until they agree with whatever you want isn't acceptable to the country they represent. This means that minor transgressions are generally overlooked in the interest of diplomacy; if the diplomat parks in the wrong place and would otherwise get a ticket it is just ignored. Basically the diplomat is "immune" to the normal course of legal process. If the diplomat does something the host country finds unacceptable then the host country will simply kick them out of the country, and potentially the relationship with the country they represent could be damaged. Or the immunity can be revoked with the agreement of the diplomat's home country and the diplomat prosecuted as normal. Broadly though it is a protection against trumped up charges being used as a tool of diplomatic leverage.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are Jews treated more like a race than other religions? Thanks Everyone!!! I really learned a lot today and have a new deeper appreciation for Jewish heritage. edit: we got locked, probably for the best as there was not much more that could be added. Thanks to the mods for moderating.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Jews were treated like a race because, for centuries, they behaved like a race and were treated like a race. Let me explain. The answer is genetic and has to do with the fact that most Jews originated from one and the same relatively small number of Jews who lived in Israel two-thousand years ago. For a long time this was mere conjecture but genetic testing now demonstrates this beyond a doubt: an American Jew shares a greater genetic pool with an Ethiopian Jew than they do with their non-Jewish countrymen and this common genetic pool is about two millennia old. Now, obviously, everyone on earth traces their ancestry to some group that lived somewhere 2000 years ago. The difference is that Jews, for religious reasons, remained relatively strict about intermarriage. A variety of rules (such as kosher diet or sabbath observance) kept them together as a closely-knit community, even when they were dispersed from Israel (in what Jews call "the Diaspora"). So unlike, say, Goths or Huns, who shared the same group of origin but were "mixed in" thoroughly with the surrounding population in the centuries that followed their dispersal, Jews even in exile maintained a relatively "closed" genetic circle that is still detectable. Some outsiders have joined this group (hence, blonde Jews here and dark skinned Jews there) but that number is very small and intermarriage was, until recently, very small, in part due to exclusiveness (by Jews towards outsiders) and racism (by outsiders towards Jews). Hence: Jews are treated like a race because, for centuries, they were treated like a race.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Can someone explain how brain waves work? Do all living things with brains have the same types of waves as humans? Also, is there any truth to gamma waves having a large role in consciousness? Edit: WOW. I went to bed, and woke up with all of these great answers. Thanks, r/askscience!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant "Brain waves" are also known as the electrical activity of the brain. This is caused by the millions of neurons interacting with each other and is measured by electroencephalography (EEG). The EEG measures the voltages caused by the ionic current flows in the neurons in the brain. The EEG is post-processed after acquisition and divided in to various bands or frequency ranges as certain frequency ranges have been associated to certain activities. For example, the alpha range is associated with relaxing and is visible clearly on the EEG when the subject is closing his/her eyes and relaxing. All living things have EEG and the bands are also the same. They may have a different kind of response to different stimuli as opposed to human beings. Beta waves are observed during intense concentration. Which means that when the subject is concentrating, higher percentage of brain activity is observed in the beta range. Gamma waves are observed more in cross-modal sensory perception and short term memory matching.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What happens to the material that's eaten away by acid?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It depends on what the material is and what the acid is. Most metals that get "eaten away" by acid turn into a salt form. For example, zinc reacts with hydrochloric acid to form a solution of zinc chloride. Organic materials (carbon-based) that get "eaten away" by acid might become completely oxidized to CO2. Others get converted into a carbon-rich charcoal-like substance. Again, it depends on the acid. There are some very specific reactions of some materials with some acids. Glass is attacked by hydrofluoric acid to produce silicon tetrafluoride, but no other acid reacts with glass in this manner. Aqua regia (a mixture of nitric and hydrochloric acid) reacts with gold and platinum to form complex metal salts, but these metals are completely unreactive toward less potent acids.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Can someone please explain the theory of multiple dimensions? Recently in my Astronomy class my professor talked about having more than 3 dimensions. I personally find this inconceivable, so could someone be kind enough to explain having more than three dimensions. My professor talked about there being 9, although there could maybe be a seemingly infinite number?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It's been well known since Einstein published his papers on special relativity in 1905 that there are at least 4 dimensions, with time being the fourth (in addition to the standard 3 spatial dimensions). All this means is that time needs to be treated on equal footing with the spatial components rather than as it's own thing, and that, in the laws of physics, time needs to be inseparable from the spatial dimensions. The big repercussion of this of this is that you can move, rotate, and boost objects between the spatial dimensions and time as naturally as you can move, rotate, and boost things in the 3 familiar dimensions. Theories such as string theory and M-theory contain more than 4 dimensions (9 and 10, respectively) in an attempt to make the mathematics work probably. The simple picture is this - When trying to do calculations in quantum field theory (which explains electromagnetism, the strong nuclear and weak nuclear forces), you often times end up with infinities in your answer. These are non-physical, so physicists have to use a mathematical trick called renormalization, which turns the infinities in sensible answers. This generally works fine. However, when trying to incorporate general relativity into quantum field theories to create a quantum theory of gravity, physicists have to do these same calculations on a curved manifold - and it turns out that it's impossible to renormalize to get rid of infinities in the standard 4-dimensions. However, it turns out it may be possible to do this if treated as a 9- or 10-dimensional space, and then using a process called "compactification" to reduce back to the 4-dimensions we're used to.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If there was a colony on Mars, wouldn't there be relativistic effects when the two planets communicated each other? I was looking up the different speeds of orbits and was going to plug them into the time dilation equation, then I remembered I wasn't that smart and that we already have to account slightly for the effect that relativity has with GPS satellites. So screw the numbers, someone else can do that. Wouldn't it be something that both planets would have to deal with? Especially if we are talking about a permanent colony on Mars that lasts 10, 50, 100+ years?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There would be relativistic effects just like for GPS satellites, but they would be so small that you would need a very good clock (like the ones in GPS satellites) to notice. Earth orbits the sun at ~35 km/s, while Mars orbits at ~28 km/s depending on its time of year (its orbit is more elliptical than Earth's). At most, the difference in velocities between the two is ~60 km/s, which is about 2% of 1% of the speed of light. The difference in the passage of time from special relativistic effects would only be by ~2 parts in 100 million. And most of the time the relative speed of the two planets would be much less. The effect from general relativity of being at different depths in a gravitational potential well is larger. The stretching factor for that is just sqrt(1-(v_esc/c)^2 ). For Earth, that's about 7e-10 and for Mars it's about 1e-10. That's just for the surface of the planets themselves though, and ignores the sun's gravitational potential. Again, the Earth is lower than Mars, and here we have time running slower by a factor of 1e-8 for Earth (about 30 times the effect from just being on Earth alone!) and 6e-9 for Mars. Overall, you'd need to keep clocks on Earth and Mars running for 3 and a half years to drift apart by a single second. Earth would be the one running slow.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Pokemon] Are Gym leaders not allowed to level their pokemon above a certain number? If Gyms are supposed to increase in difficulty, would that mean that Brock and Misty's gyms are not allowed to be super powerful?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Gym leaders have several teams. The team they use to fight a first-time challenger with less than 2 badges isn’t the same team they use to fight on the weekends with their friends and/or seriously train.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star Wars] How can a Jedi padawan have a different lightsaber dueling style than his master? Since the master trains him and all.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Generally, the master's role is more akin to that of a moral adviser, nanny, or thought-police, training the padawan in how to be a better slave to the Order's whims. Training in lightsaber forms is done in a more formal setting in daily communal practices both with other masters and with holocrons. That is, the master trains the padawan in how to be a Jedi in mind and spirit. Teaching more mundane things like how to tie your robe or lightsaber forms is generally not specific to one master.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Does logic exist independent of minds?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In one sense, a 'logic' is a language. It's a set of rules for manipulating formulas. If you have a certain formula on one line, then you can write another formula on a new line, etc. In the standard logic you learn in college, for example, something like this will be permitted: 1 (1) p & q (assumption) 1 (2) p (from 1, &-elimination) But of course we could perfectly permissibly create a language in which p & q doesn't allow you to write p on a new line. Why didn't we create that language instead? Because we think that that inference is special: it actually corresponds to a real-life property of the world. That is, metaphysically necessarily, in real life, whenever a conjunction is true, each of its conjuncts is true. What we say is that the language we created doesn't just have a syntax (rules for manipulating symbols); it has a semantics. We define the vocabulary of the language and we say that the symbol '&' corresponds to the real-life phenomenon of conjunction: something and something else being true. In real life, if you have a conjunction, both of its conjuncts will be true. (This fact seems to be mind-independent: before humans, when Mercury and Venus were closer to the Sun than Earth, it was also true that Mercury was closer to the Sun than Earth.) Our language of logic captures that. That's a good thing; it helps our language be complete. In addition, our language of logic doesn't allow us, from 'p or q,' to "infer" (scare-quotes because languages of logic, syntactically, don't really claim anyone infers anything) p. We didn't decide to do that because in real life, a disjunction doesn't entail each of its disjuncts. If our language had allowed us to do that, then the language would have been unsound. In sum: Languages of logic are mind-dependent, but standard, sound-and-complete languages of logic correspond to real, metaphysical rules that (apparently, arguably) do exist independently of minds. (Edit: Typos.)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why, when translating many languages to English do sentences seem to be almost backwards?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant One way of thinking about the way languages are constructed is by saying that all statements in every language have a subject (the person or thing doing an action), the object (the thing being acted upon) and the verb (the action being taken). English has what's called an "SVO" sentence order, for subject-verb-object. So in the sentence The cat eats the mouse, "The cat" is the subject, "the mouse" is the object, and "eats" is the verb. If we change that order around, we either have a totally different sentence like The mouse eats the cat (where "the mouse" is now assumed to be the subject because it comes first), or we have something that doesn't make any sense, like Eat the mouse the cat. However, there's no particular reason why languages have to be organized this way. In fact, this isn't even the most common worldwide. Languages like Japanese and Hindi are "SOV" order, so directly translated their sentences are something like The cat the mouse eats. It's actually a bit more complex than this--a lot of languages have flexible sentence order, because you can use different endings or small words to mark which parts of the sentence are which, and then you can arrange them any way you want. For example, in latin, you could write Fēlēs murem cōnsūmit or Murem fēlēs cōnsūmit, and both mean "The cat eats the mouse," since the way you end the words for "mouse" and "cat" tell you whether it's supposed to be the subject or the object. Fun side fact: the rarest of all possible sentence orders is OSV, where you put the object before the subject and the verb at the end. There are very, very few languages on earth that use it, and most are isolated tribal languages in the amazon. However, when you hear it, it sounds familiar and pretty understandable. Why? Well, because with this sentence order Yoda speaks!<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do all pictures of Jesus depict him as a white man, even though he was from Israel? I've always wondered this. I know it might sound like something George Carlin would say to support his claim that religion is bullshit, but I legit want to know. If you're in some way offended by this question, and just want to blow off steam, please don't comment. Thanks in advance =)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Because what cultures were/are the most supportive of Christianity? White ones. Much of the artwork done (such as in the dark ages/Renaissance ) was done by Europeans. In addition, later on many philosophies like eugenics became prevalent, and led many to assume he was white (as it was seen as the "master race")<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How are we able to know what the core of the Earth is made of if when we haven't even drilled past the crust?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant We get information on the interior from a few different places. One basic source is from volcanic material--eruptions can bring material from the mantle up to the surface, and examining that is one way we learn about the planet. For the core itself, we can learn from analyzing the waves sent through the earth when an earthquake happens. The more dense a material is, the faster waves travel through it. So if an earthquake happens in Japan, stations around the world might notice the waves from that earthquake. But they all record them at different times--measuring the time it took the waves from the earthquake to reach different recording stations can tell us how fast the waves were traveling, and therefore how dense the material is. Knowing this helps us determine what kind of material is in the core, by comparing its density to what materials we know, and what materials are likely to be found in the earth.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user When starting to read philosophical works, it is better to read the work, think about it, and turn to secondary sources, or it is better to start with secondary sources first? As in the topic, I think. I'm quite new to philosophy and I want to read Descartes works. While I know the basic things about his philosophy, I wonder what is better in order to understand it better. Should I first go into secondary sources - primers about him, or just read the works and then turn to them for further explanation?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In most cases, primary first. You get better at philosophy by first forcing yourself to think about and try to understand the text in your own terms. Then, when you do come to the secondary text, you can also actually lay it beside what you thought in your head and see how it matches up.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Israel is under no obligation, morally or legally, to withdraw from it's 'occupied' states Hello! First off, I should specify that I'm a white atheist who lives in the hills of Kentucky. I don't have a personal stake in the matter, other than a slight prejudice of affection towards the Jews, for instance how I feel really bad about what happened to them in 1945. (Don't bother trying to absolve me of guilt, that's not the CMV) Secondly, I doubt anyone on Earth is fully educated about all the stuff that goes down over there, let alone some bum in Kentucky, so I could be wrong or over generalizing. Anyway, it's my understanding that when Israel was created, it was MUCH smaller than today. However, a GROUP (3 I believe) of nations attacked Israel very shortly after creation and when Israel won the ensuing war "with one arm tied behind it's back" they acquired the land around them and nearly doubled their size. On top of this, the nation itself was created from land 'acquired' through wars we (the allies in WWI and WWII) didn't start. First it came from the defeated Ottomans, then Palestine allied with the axis powers and subsequently lost again. This seems to me like a clear case of "screwed around too much and got burned". An occupation, to me, is when an aggressor invading army takes control of a country through force but doesn't exactly annex it into the larger nation. (Not a defender) For example, the Nazi occupation of France. (AFAIK the nations conquered by Germany were not absorbed into a larger Germany but instead kept their names as opposed to the Roman empire, the Sengoku period, or the U.S. civil war) Instead it seems to me like Israel 'won' this land fair and square. And we are using school yard rules otherwise the whole area would get along. This is like someone getting jumped on the playground by three people, fighting them off, then being held liable for hospital bills, or taking their wallets. If someone comes into my house and I fight him off, I'm taking his wallet. So why, then, do people exclaim that Israel is 'occupying' those lands and should forfeit them? Why do the surrounding people have such hostilities? I understand that Israel should probably just give it up to ease tension, but I do not think they are obligated to anymore than we were obligated to free Japan (Though of course we did) or allow Germany to remain intact, albeit in two halves, as opposed to that country being annexed into the U.K., U.S., or surrounding countries like Poland.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant What you're proposing is called the "one state solution" where the peoples of the West Bank and Gaza are fully integrated into the Israeli state and have an equal basis in citizenship with all other Israeli citizens. Though most people involved don't like that solution for a variety of reasons, it would certainly comply with the legal and moral imperatives of equality and sovereignty. It is not however the reality of how Israel treats those territories today. The residents of the West Bank and Gaza are not considered Israeli citizens, nor are they citizens of any other country. They are subject to the control of the Israeli government, but do not have a vote in how that government operates. It is widely considered immoral and unacceptable in modern societies for people to lack any democratic means to influence their government. > An occupation, to me, is when an invading army takes control of a country through force but doesn't exactly annex it into the larger nation. This is exactly what is going on in the territories. Israel purposely does not consider all of their land to be fully "Israel" where people born there would be entitled to citizenship. They treat it as effectively a colony where the people are stateless and subject to Israeli control, but not Israeli rights.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does flash memory work?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The actual science is pretty complex, but the concept is easy to understand. Data is stored on a PC as a series of 1's and 0's. Lots of 1's and 0's, literally billions on a common flash drive. 1 gigabyte is about 8 billion bits (a bit is a 1 or 0). 1's and 0's are stored on the flash drive by opening or closing "gates". A signal can be used to open or close the gate to "write" the data onto the drive. When reading, a current is passed through, and it knows which gates are opened or closed by whether the current can get through the circuit or not. It translates these open and closed gates into 1's and 0's, and when put together, you have a complete file. There is a gate for each bit (a 1 or 0) stored. They are very small, and there are millions to billions of them in a chip. Multiple chips are used to make higher capacity storage. Making single chips with as many gates, without defects, is hard to do. Many small ones is much easier.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Professors, what qualities do you like and dislike in a student who's doing a research project under you? I always happen to annoy certain professors even if I don't mean to. And they seem to like me for my dedication at the same time (maybe). This time I am going to do a research project under a Senior professor. However, I'm planning on asking him for a letter of recommendation once it's over. Therefore I really don't want to make any mistake regarding his relationship with me. He already worded his liking towards me for my prior experience and motivation. Please help me in not spoiling this up.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Do not be afraid to look stupid. Ask questions if you have a problem. Do a little work in trying to solve the problem. Then ask before it turns into a big problem. There have many research project utterly ruined that could have been solved in minutes by the PI if those doing the work came forward sooner. Although, from your statement it seems like you might have the exact opposite problem. The researcher might be very pleased if you show that you did due-diligence before distracting them with a problem that could have been solved with a couple Google searches or asking questions on a forum.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Are states obligated to protect only their own citizens? Hello, I have a debate tournament coming up(about democracy promotion in the Middle East if that's relevant) and I've been looking for literature on this topic. After a quick search on the SEP, IEP, google scholar, and this sub, I didn't come up with anything. If you can just point me to some works related to the question for further reading I can go from there.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The name of the idea that states have a duty to protect more than just their citizens is known as the "responsibility to protect." A good place to start is Gareth Evans's book The Responsibility to Protect and Responsibility to Protect, edited by Cooper and Kohler.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 What is log and natural log?? I just don’t get it. From high school til now post college graduate, I still don’t know what logarithms are.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Suppose we have two numbers, X=2 and Y=8. Log simply asks: how many Xs we need to multiply together to get Y? Or in this case, how many 2s do we need to multiply together to get 8? Since 2 x 2 x 2 = 8, the answer is 3. We need to multiply 2 by itself 3 times to get to 8. In math notation, we write this as logₓ(Y) or in our case: log₂(8) = 3. Sometimes we call X (2 in our case) the "base". It's just the number we want to multiply several times to get to Y. Turns out, for various calculations we are interested in multiples of the natural constant "e" (2.71828...). Rather than writing logₑ(Y) or log₂.₇₁₈₂₈(Y) every time, we just abbreviate it as ln(Y) where ln stands for "natural log". So "natural log" is just log with base = e.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How were the domes of historical structures, such as the Taj Mahal, constructed using heavy materials such as stone/bricks and without modern techniques of reinforcement using steel bars ? How were stable structures made using stone/bricks for the construction of the domes of historical structures such as the Taj Mahal without using modern techniques of reinforcement using steel bars ?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Steel reinforcement bars are used to improve the strength of concrete and other materials in tension (pulling, rather than pushing or squeezing). The main reason that domes and arches are so popular in structures built from stone or brick is that all the forces in those shapes are in compression, which stone has a much easier time withstanding even without steel reinforcement.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Can a Statistician using only R get a DS job not having a strong CS background? Hello, I’m majoring in applied statistics in a Ph.D. program and mainly using R and SAS. I want to get a DS job after graduation, but when I saw the job qualifications, it felt the world wants a CS programmer with a bit of Statistics like Python+SQL+Hadoop+TensorFlow..etc. However, I believe that I can do something with my Statistics background, especially for ML (I just skimmed some textbooks about ML, and I don’t think it is far from what I’m studying), but not sure I can get a decent DS job dealing with ML. I tried to do Python, but every time I realized that I didn’t like it and wanted to hone my R skills. Sorry for the not clear question, but the point is I’m curious whether the statistician only using R can get a DS job dealing with ML or it is not the most cases.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Most data-related job descriptions in this area are written to look for the most qualified candidate conceivable. Sometimes you'll even see descriptions that ask for more experience with a particular tool than the developers of that tool (e.g. 10 years experience with a thing that has only been around for 5 years). Apply to the things that interest you. But R is basically computer science, and don't let any gatekeeper tell you otherwise. You code in R, just like any other programmer. So, if you're good at R, you're probably pretty good at CS. So, yes. Having said that, knowing other CS stuff will help you. Python is not as stats-focused as R, but it is much more flexible. And knowing more than one programming language makes you more versatile, and able to take advantage of more opportunities.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Stereotyping is often logical and a perfectly normal application of human reasoning Stereotypes are perpetuated because there is some truth to them. Bad or absolutely false stereotypes are rarely common, because failure is like natural selection. People use stereotypes as a short cut to knowledge, because we almost never have all the facts to make an informed choice. So people fill in the gaps, sometimes that will prove to be incorrect, but if it is more often correct than incorrect it is providing potentially valuable data. Example, if you are walking down a dark alley and some guys are following you, there are a wide variety of valid stereotypes to approximate how much danger you may be in. It is not required for them to be always right to be useful. A guy covered in tattoos may be completely safe, but is he as safe as someone without any? No, of course not. And if you think so, you're simply misinformed or willfully ignorant due to social avoidability bias. If they're a bunch of young black guys, same thing, it's just more socially unacceptable to think such a thing. Are they women laughing together? No reasonable danger. So people and society should not be made to feel bad about applying simple logic. Until crime metrics change, stereotyping is here to stay. There is no way to effectively eliminate it without solving why the stereotype is applied. I understand it is demeaning and insulting to be stereotyped, but your feelings don't really change the facts. In the case of covering your body in tattoos, it was actually a choice you made, which removes all moral authority to be offended in the least. Studies have been done which indicate that there is a positive correlation between intelligence and stereotyping, however intelligent people are quicker at reversing a stereotype that they find unhelpful or invalid.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There is a subtle semantic distinction here that may explain the issue. Most of the things you mention are not stereotypes. Most of you the things you mention are expectations about certain groups. A stereotype is an expression of an expectation about a group, not the expectation itself. Acting on these expectations by treating people of different groups differently would be called profiling. So for instance, by your example: a guy with tattoos mugging you would be falling into a stereotype about guys with tattoos, and someone writing a character of a mugger with tattoos into a book or TV show would be stereotyping people with tattoos. Being scared of being alone in an alleyway with someone with tattoos would just be an expectation you have about that group, and acting on that expectation by staying away would be profiling. In general, we are against stereotyping (as in, creating representations of groups that fall heavily into the stereotypes about that group) because it tends to lead to the stereotypes being over-represented and giving people inaccurate probability assessment. For instance, yes, the average person with tattoos may be more likely to be a mugger than the average person without tattoos; however, the vast, vast majority of people with tattoos are not muggers, yet stereotyping may cause 80% of media representations of fictional people with tattoos to be written as muggers, giving people inaccurate expectations about their relative peril. The same s true for stereotypes about minorities, women, men, white people, poor people, rich people, etc. To the extent that your expectations are actually accurate, there's nothing wrong with holding them and using them to inform your actions. However, the reason many people are against profiling is because very many of the expectations people hold are provably inaccurate due to stereotyping in the media causing them to overestimate the prevalence of the stereotyped traits. So, basically: most of what you speak in favor of is either expectations or profiling. In theory there is nothing wrong with those things if you do them accurately, but most people do them inaccurately because of widespread stereotyping. Widespread stereotyping is badbecause it gives people inaccurate expectations which leads to improper use of profiling, thus screwing up the entire system.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user what is Transcendentalism? I'm especially curious as to how it's different from individualism.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Transcendentalism is a moral and spiritual philosophy, most strongly associated with Ralph Waldo Emerson and other writers of the 1830s and 1840s in the United States. For transcendentalists, truth comes not from physical evidence but from a sense of Truth that comes from communion with, for instance, nature. Think of it like the force. There's a connection that links all living things—a divine soul (but not necessarily a Godly thing). It's inherently good but has become corrupted by civilization, which splits man away from the oversoul. Humanity lives a dismembered existence as a result of the corrupting influence of civilization. Individualism is part of the philosophy. Only if men are truly self-reliant—that is, only if they don't bend to the popular will or fashions of the time, or established authority—can they regain the connection with nature and the transcendental oversoul.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are cartoon movies colored differently than their TV counterparts? When comparing episodes of a cartoon TV show (ex. Spongebob or Hey Arnold) to their respective movies, the coloring (and sometimes even the art style) doesn't look quite the same. What is different about creating the artwork for movies?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant 1. The medium: they are going to be viewed on is different. A movie screen is substantially different than a tv screen and a different aspect ratio. This requires higher quality picture 2. time: they have more time and funding to complete their task. Cartoons made weekly or biweekly have a tight schedule, a lot of corners are cut to expedite production to meet deadlines. 3. Funding: the source of income for a movie is ticket sales, the source of funding for a show is however much a studio appropriates depending on how much they can get for commercial time. Films in theaters tend to make money best when quality is high and quality cost money. Shows require new content, people want to ‘tune in’ to the newest episode that’s good for selling commercials. So cranking out new episodes is more important than quality.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:If DNA copying errors are random occurences, why do some diseases that are known to be caused by gene mutations can reoccur in their offsprings at a random point in their life?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are two types of mutations: germline and somatic. > Germline: passed to the offspring at birth. > Somatic: occurs de novo in the organism through mutation. Only somatic mutations are "random". Diseases arising from somatic mutations are almost exclusively cancers. Germline mutations are inherited. The manifestation of heritable disease from germline mutations is called the disease's penetrance. Penetrance basically refers to the total fraction of people with the disease relative to the fraction with the mutation. Many diseases are penetrant at birth (i.e. effects of the mutation are seen at birth). Examples of diseases penetrant at birth include sickle cell, cystic fibrosis, congenital dwarfism, etc. Other diseases' penetrance is age dependent. Age-dependent penetrance means effects are only seen at a specific age. The poster child of age-dependent penetrance is Huntington's disease. So, to answer in brief, most mutations that cause disease are not copy errors they are inherited. Despite this, just because a known detrimental mutation is present doesn't mean it is phenotypically expressed at birth, it may require a certain age or condition to appear.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do they know what chemicals your brain is producing in response to certain stimuli when it should involve opening your head to watch it? They say that the brain releases dopamine when X happens, or releases oxytocin when X happens, etc. How do we know that's happening inside somebody's head without cracking their skull open?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Mostly indirect evidence, eg. we know that X is swirling around your brain because we took a blood sample and its high in Y which corresponds to X in scenario Z. Alternatively, we injected you with X which makes Y light up on your brain scan while we show you pictures of your parents getting handsy. Sometimes semi-direct evidence, like having brain cells in a petri dish and observing them respond to stimuli or chemicals. Sometimes also direct evidence like actually having a rats skull open and continuously probed as scientists(hopefully) feed the rat sugar or something. All of it builds a knowledge base which is used to make accurate observations via indirect evidence.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What is the value in publications prior to entering a PhD? Is it worth it? I am studying within the Australian university system and am currently completing an honours project within a health field with the goal of first class and publication. My supervisors have approached me regarding one of my assignments and want to progress it into a publishable systematic review or meta-analysis. If I go down this route I would have 2, potentially 3 publications before entering into a PhD and experience on conducting a published systematic review or meta-analysis. However I am a little concerned about the potential detriment to my honours grade (First class is the most realistic chance for PhD scholarship), and my financial wellbeing where I am currently working 25 hours and doing honours full time. I questioned waiting until I am a PhD student so that I can actually be paid for the work but they did not want to wait that long. &#x200B; My question is what the potential career gain and benefit from contributing to this type of paper compared to the potential negatives, given I would like to pursue a career in academia and at the very least, research.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The value is that you are more likely to get a PhD place with funding. This can vary with country and field but many PhD programmes are incredibly competitive so the more evidence you have of research experience the more chance you have of being accepted.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why is medicine dosage linked so closely with weight? I work in a pharmacy and specifically in children the pharmacists will constantly check the patients weight for dosage. I found myself wondering why the dosage is linked so closely with weight, instead of some other factor. When I asked the pharmacist I was working with he didn't seem to know exactly why. All he told me was that if the patients weight is higher they can take a higher dosage of the medicine. I did a google search but all I got were links on calculating dosages based on weight. I apologize if this is too broad a question. I just want to understand why weight is the highest determining factor in dosage for children. Edit: thanks so much for all the answers. I think I understand a little better. Much appreciated.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant More weight means more cells and more blood/vascular structure to feed all of those cells (regardless of whether this is weight from muscle, fat, or bone). Thus, with a heavier person with more cells and more blood would need a higher dosage to achieve the same blood concentration of the medication.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 how you can measure that Ventablack or Black 2.0 are the blackest paints in the world How is the blackness measured? How does one invent a paint that is blacker than black, and then someone goes and invents another paint that is blacker than the blacker than black paint? https://www.format.com/magazine/features/art/anish-kapoor-stuart-semple-vantablack-blackest-black<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Have a light of known intensity. Shine it at something that's "black". Measure how much light is reflected off it, calculate how much of the source light was absorbed. Now shine same light against many different things that are different "blacks" from different paints/coatings/materials. Compare calculations and find that Vantablack or Black 2.0 absorbs the most light as compared to all other sources. Tout it as the darkest black in the world and challenge others to come up with something blacker (i.e. that absorbs more light than it does).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Doctoral Student: Should I purchase my own supplies? Hey AskAcademia, My adviser and I have had an extremely rocky relationship, including some sexual harassment shit in the lab that didn't go over well... I was harassed, he sided with the guy, later apologized for not handing it well, but then started to give me an extremely cold shoulder. I successfully completed my comps and had my proposal approved by my committee (and him), but now he is ignoring my emails and will not purchase the supplies I need to do my research. I have about $3,000 worth of supplies needed to complete the analyses on the samples I collected (which was extremely difficult to do). I'm toying with the idea of taking out a loan or putting it on credit just to get the supplies I need. I know it isn't a cost issue for him since he has been spending loads of money on frivolous stuff that the lab doesn't really need. My other committee members seem very supportive. I'm determined to get this degree. Should I do it? What ethical issues may make this a bad/good decision? I can use all the advice I can get.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant One of the main purposes of the supervisor is to provide you with working conditions. If the groups has money and it's something needed for your thesis, don't stop until you get him to buy it. Save every instance of communication in case there's shit after, and see if you can get some of the supportive committee members to help. Don't let the cheap bastard have his way, PhD salaries are low as is, it's really not your obligation to buy lab supplies. Depends on the University, but here in Europe we have quite a lot of mechanisms to report the unproffesional behaviour in superiors...<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does my clothes dryer’s lint catcher get so full, yet my clothes don’t fall apart? Where does all this lint come from?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant As you wash items, they lose particles (lint) which is collected in your lint trap. If you weigh the lint you’ll see that it is a small percentage of the (dry) washed items. As an interesting aside - laundry and linen companies (e.g., Aramark) often have a weight cut off for when they inject new linen. For example, if Aramark provides uniforms and the dry uniform loses 25% of its weight or more, it is retired from circulation. Edit: Injection is a term used in laundry & linen to mean a new item is put in (“injected”) to circulation. When an item is retired - which can be due to weight, but could be caused by any other number of issues like rips, tares, stains - they are no longer in circulation, which means they won’t be cleaned and supplies back to the client. Syringes and other injection devices are not involved in laundry injection.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why we have only 118 elements in periodic table? I've read somewhere, that we're currently limited by technology. But is it teoretically possible to create element with 119 or more protons? If yes, could you please ELI5 what would it take to make such atoms?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant All of the naturally occurring elements have been discovered, the newer ones with high atomic numbers were created for very brief fragments of time in large colliders by firing small packets of protons and neutrons at atoms of larger naturally occurring elements. They then use special instruments to detect and record the creation of these new elements. However, the atoms of the newly synthesized elements are very unstable and breakdown to elements with smaller atomic numbers within fractions of a second. It is theoretically possible to one day synthesize other, larger elements, but that would likely require a whole new technology.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Eli5: How do we know how many colors other animals can see?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Color perception is defined by the anatomy of the eye, specifically, photosensitive cells on the retina with specific pigments. If there are more types of these cells and they are sensitive to a wider range of electromagnetic waves, it means the animal can see more colors. If there are less colored cells or none at all, color perception is worse.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Can life we haven't yet found, perhaps extraterrestrial, be made up of something other than DNA and cells? Or does life in any form require DNA? Or is it not possible to know yet?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Life as we know it requires several things, including the ability to use energy, replicate, grow, etc. DNA (and RNA) are the only information encoding molecules known to us, but some proteins can perform self replication directly without needing DNA/RNA and hypothetical cell ancestors could have existed long before DNA (replicating lipid bubbles are one such theory). Complex life will likely need something to act as information storage and replication but it doesn't have to be DNA. RNA itself is interestign because given sufficient peptides RNA can replicate all by itself without all the extra baggage of a "cell" Non-DNA based life is only theoretical at this point, but there is no reason all of the requirements for life "as we know it" could not be met with some sort of crystaline, sulphorous, ammonia, or who knows what else.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do big banks refuse to raise their interest rates for savings accounts? Is there no incentive to at least coming close to the 2-3% online banks offer?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Banks offer interest on savings accounts to attract customers to deposit money, because then the bank can loan that money out to someone else for a higher rate. Banks are flush with cash right now, and fewer people are looking for loans. They don't need more cash. Before the pandemic excess cash reserves of US banks hovered around $1.5 trillion. At the start of 2022 excess reserves were more like $4 trillion. WAY more cash than they need. Right now that number has dropped closer to $3 trillion as the result of the Federal Reserve's efforts to combat inflation. That's better, but still higher than it should be.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 How do experts go about translating ancient languages? (For example Sumerian/Akkadian) So I've been learning more about ancient civilizations from a podcast during my commute to work. Sometimes they talk about texts from during those times and read them. It's poetry, letters to people, etc. I'm curious how did/do experts interpret and translate these texts so we can understand them now.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Archeologists find something like the Rosetta Stone (which had Ancient Greek next to Egyptian Hieroglyphics) which has a known language side by side with the language in question. Historians use finds like that to build a rudimentary dictionary to assist with translation.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:Why does garbage always seem to have a common smell regardless of what's in it? ??<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The smell is composed of small Nitrogen and Sulfur based molecules, produced when microbes break down organic matter. So as long as it's organic material. Because these molecules are small, they are easily blown into the air and up your nose. It does not really matter what you start out with, it all ends up as the same sets of small molecules once the bacteria are through with it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user AskScience AMA Series: We are Jeff Galvin and Dr. David Pauza (long time lurkers, first time posters) here to talk about “treating the untreatable, curing the incurable” -- the future of genetic medicine. How it works. What it can do. Ask us ANYTHING! Who are we? I’m Jeff Galvin, son of an MIT Electrical Engineer and inventor who pioneered advanced portable radar and analog signal processing. I’m an entrepreneur, Silicon Valley startup guy and former Apple International Product Marketing Manager in the 80’s; where I traveled the world introducing the original Macintosh (and LISA if you ever heard of that). Computer nerd from the 7th grade (early 1970’s), I taught basic computer programming on weekends at MIT and later became the youngest-ever Head Teaching Fellow for Natural Sciences 110 (the second largest undergraduate class on campus) at Harvard as a Sophomore. After a successful career in computers, software and the Internet, I retired to become a “Silicon Valley Angel Investor”. Retirement didn’t last long… I met Dr. Roscoe Brady at the National Institutes of Health and he showed me something that I immediately realized would be bigger than computers or the Internet ever became. In 2006, Dr. Brady opened my eyes to viral vectors and genetic technologies that I realized could let me reprogram the fundamental computers of life itself: the human cell. That “ah-ha moment” back in 2006 began my quest to solve intractable human disease by repairing the underlying genetic roots of cancers, inherited disorders and infectious disease. Now, I head a leading genetic technologies company that is going to help send chemotherapy and radiation for cancer the way of leeches and bloodletting, and provide treatments and cures for scores of formally un-addressable disorders and diseases. TL;DR - Silicon Valley sweetheart turned genetic drug developer The Activator - My name is David Pauza, an OG (original gene cloner) since the 1970s. My areas of expertise are human virology and cancer. For the last 30 years or so, I have been studying HIV / AIDS, publishing scientific papers and educating the public about viral diseases. Before joining AGT, I had started an HIV research program at the Salk Institute in La Jolla, California, then built a strong HIV program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and finally moved to the Institute of Human Virology at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. During those years my lab group focused on understanding the most basic steps in HIV disease and designing new treatments or vaccines. We first talked openly of curing HIV disease in 1992 and have kept that flame burning ever since. The path to a cure depended on studying fundamental aspects of human virology and immunology. Many of the lessons learned in our study of AIDS apply directly to human cancer, which continues to be a major threat to HIV+ people even with current therapy. I brought these perspectives, skills and some team members to American Gene Technologies where we are working with Jeff to chart innovative cures for major human diseases. TL;DR - A scientist with deep knowledge and a big bag of tricks. As we see it, the new frontier of drug development is genetic science, where rifle-shot treatments deal with the specific, underlying causes of disease, eventually leading to cures rather than lifetime treatments. We take a creative approach, believing that many diseases can be treated with genetic therapy if you mix the right technology with a solid understanding of disease and add advice from talented clinicians to guide treatment delivery. We are currently focusing on HIV / AIDS, Liver Cancer, Phenylketonuria (PKU) and Breast Cancer. Ask us anything about our mission, gene therapy basics, new technology, research, development portfolio or the future! If you would like more information about our company, team, research collaborators or scientific advisors, visit www.americangene.com We encourage you to follow us and ask additional questions on our social channels! Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/amerigene/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/americangene LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-gene-technologies-international-inc Thank you so much for your enthusiasm and questions today! We are grateful for the level of engagement and thought put into each and every question posed. American Gene Technologies (AGT) out...<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Do you regard ageing as a disease? Any indications whether genetics will help us break the 120 years 'lifespan limit' in large numbers? Will genetic work help us achieve older humans who feel good and are mentally sound through a larger percentage of their lives?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Does every piece of matter in the universe really affect every other piece (even negligibly)? (Physics of Douglas Adams's Total Perspective Vortex) Chapter 11 of The Restaurant at the End of the Universe by Douglas Adams starts with a blurb on the inspiration behind the Total Perspective Vortex--a fictional machine that gives the user a "sense of proportion" re their place in the universe. > "...since every piece of matter in the Universe is in some way affected by every other piece of matter in the Universe, it is in theory possible to extrapolate the whole of creation-every sun, every planet, their orbits, their composition and their economic and social history from, say, one small piece of fairy cake." I'm sure--pretty sure--that the latter sort of extrapolation is ludicrous. But I wondered about the first part. I've always assumed that the sum of forces on one body due to the presence of another body drop to *effectively* zero at a large enough distance. But is there some distance at which it is zero in exact arithmetic? (Sorry if this is too broad or poorly phrased).<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant An important consideration here is the finite speed of the propagation of information (the speed of light), which means that an event can only influence other events in its future light-cone; therefore it has no effect on anything which is occurring simultaneously with it. A piece of cake on earth would eventually influence events on the other side of the galaxy in a negligible way, but it would take 100,000 years for the signal to propagate.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How does the body build a tolerance against substances?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It can be a very complex process and is different for every chemical, but we can describe the general trend of whats going on when a body develops tolerance. Firstly, the body developing tolerance is different from the brain developing tolerance, but they are still closely dependent on each other. The body being tolerant is physical tolerance. This happens because your body can metabolize the chemical more quickly. A body might be able to drink lots of alcohol because it has alcohol tolerance. It has more liver enzymes to metabolize the alcohol before it can even get in the blood stream, so less alcohol can go to the brain. The body can develop some degree of physical tolerance to most drugs, psychoactive or not. Then there's psychological tolerance. Once the chemical passes into the blood stream, and only if it is the correct size/shape, it can pass the blood brain barrier. In the brain it causes psychoactive effects by bumping into and activating a variety of different neurotransmitter receptors, or by binding to allosteric modulation sites, or by preventing reuptake of a neurotransmitter, or by causing the nerve to dump all of its neurotransmitters into the synapse, etc... Very complex chemical cascades ensue. Repeated exposure will cause the brain to adapt by producing more/less neurotransmitters, producing more/less receptors, pulling receptors in/out of the cell membrane, turning receptors on/off, and of course growing new (and possibly unwanted if the drug is addictive) interconnections between neurons. This makes the brain "better" at doing brain things while its surrounded by the drug, which makes its worse at doing brain things when no drug is present. Only psychoactive drugs produce psychological tolerance because only they can pass the blood-brain barrier and act on the nervous system. Both of these tolerance processes are really specific cases of the body maintaining homeostasis. Anytime a body takes in any exogenous substance, it responds by trying to 1.) metabolize the chemical, absorbing whatever it can in quantities that are favorable to 2.) restore normal functioning business-as-usual as soon as is necessary. This is homeostasis. It happens when you take in any chemical. Not just drugs, even food, and (to a much smaller degree) water and oxygen/CO2. Our bodies develop tolerance because they are always trying to restore business-as-usual. If business-as-usual involves a foreign chemical in your blood stream, the body needs to adapt to tolerate this chemical imbalance. Tolerance is proof of your body maintaining homeostasis as best it can.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does water fry electronics?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Electronics have defined paths through which electricity has to flow. These paths are designed such that there is always a regulated flow of electrons from low potential to high potential. This flow also generates heat due to resistance and electrons colliding into each other. Water is usually not pure and conducts electricity. When it is spilled over these paths, it creates short cuts for electrons to flow unregulated. This creates a lot of heat and causes the components to melt. This damages the electronics and "fries" them.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why are people so willing to commit to compassionate euthanasia when death is imminent for their pets but not for their fellow human beings?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Here's one principled philosophical reason: it isn't wrong to kill an animal, but it is wrong to kill a human, because the wrongness of killing comes from interrupting life-goals (which animals don't have) or violating implicit social contracts (which animals can't make), or something like that. So with a suffering animal, there's no good reason not to commit to euthanasia, but with a suffering human, we've got to weigh the suffering prevented by euthanasia against the wrongness of killing a human (even with their permission). I don't think this kind of argument works, but it's probably defensible.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Traveling to an impoverished country to help build schools or whatever is self-serving and inefficient If you travel to Africa or something to help build a village or a school or a water well or something, you are doing good. But you are essentially doing little more than manual labor, which is actually probably easy to come by and pretty cheap in impoverished parts of Africa. The labor you are doing could probably be bought for less than $5 an hour. If you work 12 hours a day for 7 days, you've essentially donated less than $420 worth of labor. Given that you probably spent over $500 on the plane ticket to get you there, you've wasted a lot of time and money. It made you feel awesome to do a good thing, and you got to post selfies with poor people, but what you should have done is just donate an equivalent amount of money to that village. It would have done more good. _____ > Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our *[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)* first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Note that when the person comes back from Africa he is also going to be doing things--from talking to other people about the benefits of education in Africa (and encouraging them to do things), to financially contributing to charities...<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Dissertation without primary research? (curious how this works) Hey gang, I've been talking to a friend a lot about her dissertation (psychology). She's spent years creating research, gathering data, etc. and is putting it all together as you do. This has led me to wonder how other disciplines deal with dissertations. I studied English and Theater for Undergrad and Business for Grad. I've never been exposed to research the way my psych friend has. Do PhD candidates in these disciplines do primary research for their dissertations? How would this research differ/compare to the kinds of studies social scientists do? If I were to ever decide to pursue a PhD, how could I build the necessary research skills to be effective? For example, I'm aware of IRB's, but have never done one...or designed a study. I've plenty of experience hitting the [digital] stacks to find research and write papers, but it's not the same. Thanks!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The dissertation is always original research or original theorizing. The nature of research obviously differs from one field to the next--in psychology, gathering original data is pretty much universal. In sociology and political science, it's not uncommon for dissertations to report secondary analyses of existing data sets. For something like English or theater, the research may be focused on applying theories about text or audience to a body of work, extending an existing theory in light of such an application, or something along those lines. In addition, there is an emerging field called the "digital humanities" in which data analytic tools are applied to understand how audiences respond to media texts. It's kind of a sexy research area right now--lots of universities are hiring one or two digital humanities people, and they are in somewhat short supply. If you entered a PhD program, you would take classes that exposed you to relevant theories and research methods in whatever discipline you choose. As for the details of IRBs, study design, and data collection--you would tend to learn these things by working with your advisor on her or his research, then collaborating on your research ideas.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How exactly does the feeling of your heart "fluttering" in your chest happen when you think about someone you like or love?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant To put it in very simple terms: the things that you think of and emotions that you feel can have physical effects on your body. Its just like how your hands might shake when you get scared or angry and how your cheeks may turn red when you’re embarrassed. When you think of somebody you’re fond of you may get anxious or excited. When you have these different emotions your brain will release chemicals that are related to these emotions which will cause other parts of your brain to respond, like the area that’s responsible for heart rate. The part of your brain that control your heart rate and other basic functions isn’t able to reason out WHY you’re feeling excited or anxious because it’s one the most basic parts of your brain and it doesn’t do very much “thinking” at all. It just receives the message that you are excited and so your heart rate will rapidly increase. In fact, your body’s “built in” control mechanisms are constantly adjusting things like heart rate and breathing for a large variety of things you may not even be conscious of. The reason your body reacts the way it does to these certain emotions can be instinctual or learned. Another example: Your heart races when you’re scared because your brain is basically telling your body “get ready to run or fight!!!” Even though you may just be sitting on the couch watching a horror movie. It’s just the same. The heart rate part of the brain doesn’t know you’re watching a movie. All it knows is that you’re scared so it adjusts accordingly. Source: Degree in BioMedical Sciences<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why is ‘only’ 4.5% GDP growth bad for China? Per Howard Marks of OakTree, it would be the equivalent of negative growth in the US. Other than compared to expectations and history, it’s still ‘good’ or at least not disastrous, yes?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If you refer to Solow growth model, you will see that developing countries grow much faster than than the developed ones up until a certain point where they start catching up. This is mainly due to the cost of technical progress (developing countries don't have to use own resources to innovate) and the capital accumulation (poor countries have low capital per worker). China has been averaging around 7% GDP growth pa, therefore 4.5% is really critical.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Would dyslexic people be okay with languages that aren't letter based such as Chinese? Is that how dyslexia works?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Dyslexia has several different symptoms, such as orthographical awareness deficiencies, naming speed, motor programming, or even phonological awareness deficiencies. Someone who suffers phonological awareness deficiency might have trouble with latin based alphabets, but not Chinese alphabets. Someone with orthographic awareness deficiency might suffer in Chinese alphabets, but not latin or cyrillic. It just depends on the kind of dyslexia that they have.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user why are philosophical texts not written in simpler terms? Most professors advocate for students to write in simpler and comprehendible words, yet philosophical texts feel impossible to read. Is there a deliberate reason for this, or has it always been this way?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If you read any article in an economics journal like QJE and compare it with an undergrad paper, you'll see totally different levels of difficulty. Its hard to parse QJE papers without an understanding of a lot of math, but for a lot of undergrad papers, sure. &#x200B; Its the same for philosophy. Rigour is expected to be much higher in academic philosophy as opposed to undergrad philosophy, and as a result papers and books are much more technical.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What do computer scientists research in academia, as opposed to industry? So I was just wondering this today after listening to a seminar from of my CS professor's about his AI research. The talk was fascinating and intelligent, but it also seemed like something that could easily be developed by a tech company for profit. Most professors of any type have a Ph.D. and they typically have teaching responsibilities, but how does their research differ from say, some of the AI research and development coming from Google?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Most university researchers have research budgets because they wrote a research grant proposal to study something. They have papers to publish, and their research gives them things to write about, and their students topics to study. Most corporate research depends on the company's products. Product A needs feature B so there's someone doing research on "can AI do B?" Academic research is "B might be possible with AI".<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What are the differences between a REST api and other APIs? if a mobile application communicates with a web application is it called a restful api? When is json not needed in rest?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant REST a information transfer standard. It is an agreed upon contract on how to read and write information over the web. There are other standards such as SOAP and GraphQL. It may use other data formats but JSON is the most common. JSON is data format. JSON is in the same category as CSV, YAML, TOML, XML. These are all data formats. Think of JSON as the equivalent of the conventions when writing a physical letter, how you include your name and address and the recipients name and address before the message body, then think REST as the postal system that you have to adhere to in order to have your letter delivered.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:Plea deals in the US - why are they used so much and how do they work? I'm almost done with law school, but in Europe. In my country, there are actually pretty strict rules for someone to just confess to a crime and the judge ruling it as a confession. This is because it could be a false confessions etc. But my impression is that in the US, plea deals are widely used. I've heard some stories where innocent people have taken plea deals, because they are afraid of a long sentence and would not like to risk it. Does guilty beyond a reasonable doubt not work as intented in your country?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Trials cost money, both for the accused and for the people who are represented by the prosecution. Meanwhile juries can be fickle creatures, and you really cannot count on them to reach the right conclusion (look at OJ Simpson, 99.9999% chance he did it, but walked away with an innocent verdict). Better to skip the expense of a trial, secure a guilty verdict, and enforce even a fraction of the prescribed punishment, then to waste a fortune and risk that the perpetrator walks. It's a fucked up a system, but that's how it works. To paint it simpler terms, better to be guaranteed that your boss thinks that you're a good employee, than to risk a 50/50 "you're great" vs. "you suck". Source: Life long American, degree in Criminal Justice<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Does an insect's exoskeleton heal from injury? Does an insect's exoskeleton heal from injury?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It depends on at what point the insect is in its life cycle. They do have clotting mechanisms that will block an external injury and keep them from desiccating, in most cases. If it's an adult insect, that may be as far as external "healing" goes. If the insect is a juvenile and pupates or moults after the injury, the exoskeleton will typically be completely reformed or replaced.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:Why are universities such as Harvard and Oxford so prestigious, yet most Asian countries value education far higher than most western countries? Shouldn't the Asian Universities be more prestigious? In most Asian countries, they take education super seriously, like people rent out rooms just so they can study more. I'd only assume that they universities are very selective of their students and that the criteria to get in would be equally as selective. But, when looking at the top universities in the world, it seems to indicate that the western universities are better. And also, universities such as Harvard, Oxford and the like seem to be the best universities in the world.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Oxford and Harvard typically place well in any inter-university student competitions that they enter and produce world class research. That's 100's of years of being 1st, 2nd or 3rd so they built up reputations. Consequently they have the most competitive entry requirements now because demand is so high which in turn makes them more prestigious. In turn they get the best students and continue to excel in research and competition.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: how do we know how well other animals can see or smell?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Two main ways: 1. Dissecting animals sensory organs to analyze their structure (For example, we can look at the structure of rods and cones in their eyes and theorize based on that). 2. Running tests like playing high or low pitched sounds, putting them in mazes with food, etc.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Pokemon] Why are all gym members blind to the type strength matrix, and pointlessly specialize their teams?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In league competition, the gym challenge is a time-honored tradition of recognising excellence in trainers. Specialised gym types are designed to be a test of type-specific knowledge and skill. To face a league-sanctioned Gym Leader and conquer them is to demonstrate mastery of their type. Secondarily, specialised gym types help to promote a more controlled environment where pokemon are at less pronounced risk in combat. For a gym leader who can participate in as many as six battles a day, facing a trainer who knows what to expect can have a huge impact on the well-being of their pokemon. Pokemon gyms also serve a secondary purpose in their communities. Trainers will often seek out gyms as places to study the subtleties of specific types under the care and observance of the gym leader. Through this course of study a trainer can receive a "non-combat attained" badge which are recognised under the League's "Professor" and "Ranger" programs, but do not grant access into high-end competition ladders. Studying in a gym also offers some trainers an alternative way to attain normal "combat demonstrated" badges. By actively participating in combat drills with those who challenge the gym, those who are less confident in pokemon battles can build up experience and mastery over a type that way. Thank-you for your query on "Specialised Gym Types". Would you like to load "BILL'S PC", submit a "POKECENTRE TICKET" or "LOG OFF"? >_<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 : Ayn Rand and objectivism<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant 1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. 2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival. 3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do American semi-trucks (18 wheelers etc) exclusively use inline 6-cylinder engines, no matter if it’s a Mack, Detroit Diesel, Cummins, or Volvo-built engine? I get why they are diesel, but why are they all of the inline 6-cylinder configuration? Why not V6 or straight 8 or freakin huge inline 4-cylinders?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Inline-6 cylinder engines have a unique characteristic: they can have perfect primary and secondary dynamic balance without needing a balance shaft. Essentially what this means is that the forces on the engine caused by the pistons and whatnot moving around mostly cancel each other out, and the engine runs very smoothly without needing extra, very heavy parts to dampen the vibrations. All other engine types (V8, V6, especially I4) have imperfect balance, and V6 and I4 engines have bad enough balance that they need the heavy balance shafts to reduce vibration. I6 engines (and engines made of I6s like V12s) don't. As the mass of the moving parts increases, the forces involved increase, so by the time you get to the size of engine needed to move an 18 wheeler, you're dealing with some truly massive forces. With anything other than an I6, this would mean monstrous vibration or a stupidly heavy balance shaft that would take a lot of engine power to spin. Thus, for large engine applications, I6s and V12s are an easy choice.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If I get a TT offer, what things should I negotiate in the contract. I think everyone knows that salary is negotiable, but I am aware of people that have asked for other things before accepting (or declining) a position. Are there some basic things that I should be sure to ask for that most new hires would overlook?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The big one is obviously salary, but many times department heads are very constrained in what they can offer. If the faculty is unionized, there may be strong restrictions in what new faculty can get. But there are other things that are much easier to negotiate. The big one is the startup package: research money, computers, lab facilities, funding for grad students and post-docs. You can also negotiate your teaching load for the next few years and possibly even administrative load. Don't forget to get your moving costs covered and hopefully even housing support if the university is in a tough housing market. And obviously if you've got a two-body issue, this is the only time you'll actually have leverage so is it while you can.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are humans the only animals with brains as advanced as our own? like, if having a bigger brain to use for problem solving, reason, etc. isn't necessarily a biological disadvantage, then why aren't there like a races of monkey people (us), tiger people, wolf people, etc.?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Being smart is certainly an evolutionary advantage, but it comes at a cost. For example, for humans to walk on two legs and thus have hands free to use tools etc, and also to have huge brains, it makes human childbirth much more of an ordeal than any other animal, and it also means newborn humans are much more helpless than those of many other species. So it's not that being smart isn't an advantage, it's just not the most economical advantage possible for most species. With tigers, some may be smarter than others, but some also run faster or have bigger teeth, and those traits turned out to be more useful than the bigger brains. The thing about evolution is, it finds local maxima. Yes, humans are better adapted than tigers, as evidenced by the fact that we use them for rugs and not vice versa. But that doesn't mean that if you make a tiger slightly more like a human it will be a better tiger.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are some medications race-based?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There's sufficient genetic difference between various human races to create different reactions to certain drugs, or increase the possibility of certain reactions in certain races. An example of one such difference is a genetic switch in some Asians that floors them completely when they have one drink because their metabolism very rapidly turns the alcohol they ingest into acetaldehyde, which is poisonous when in larger doses and gives them wicked hangovers. Some drugs are metabolized or take effect in different ways as programmed by race-specific genetics, and that can lead to bad side-effects such as cancer or a drug that just doesn't work at all.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why is glass not crystalline? My understanding of glass was that it was that its a noncrystaline solid. Which right off the bat is confusing because theres something called "crystal glass". But in addition, I was looking at [wikipedia](&) about glass ceramics, which have both crystal and crystal aspects. In particular: >Glass-ceramics are mostly produced in two steps: First, a glass is formed by a glass-manufacturing process. The glass is cooled down and is then reheated in a second step. In this heat treatment the glass partly crystallizes. In most cases nucleation agents are added to the base composition of the glass-ceramic. These nucleation agents aid and control the crystallization process. Because there is usually no pressing and sintering, glass-ceramics have, unlike sintered ceramics, no pores. So it sounds like if you melt down a bunch of stuff and mix it together, it will cool down and become glass. But then they heat it up again and cool it down again, and it becomes crystal. I dont get how that works. They mention "nucleation agents", but also say "in most cases", implying its not always required. What exactly is a glass and what causes it to be that way?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Glass is by definition a non-crystalline solid, meaning it is made up of molecules that have no long range order. Glass can be made up of lots of different materials, silicon oxides are really common example. SiO2 can be crystalline (mineral quartz) or amorphous (fused quartz). The same is true for lots of materials we use in different glasses, they can have both crystalline and amorphous structures depending how we construct them. For example, if you melt down silica into a molten state, and cool it down very quickly, the molecules will be frozen in place in an amorphous state. If you cool it down very very slowly, with the introduction of a seed crystal or a nucleation site, the molecules will move into an ordered crystalline state before they solidify. In the text you quote they are producing a semicrystalline state, that consists of small ordered regions surrounded by amorphous glass, as a means to get rid of the pores that are often present in some crystals. Finally, you mentioned crystal glass. That's actually a misnomer, it's just a common name for a certain type of lead based glass.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do scientists determine the possible habitability of exoplanets? With the search for possible Earth analogs in our universe going on still, how to scientists determine whether or not a planet is habitable even tho often times they can't physically see the planet?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant They can tell how bright the star is fairly easily. From this information they can determine how much energy the star is putting out. Then, they look at how fast the planet is orbiting around its star by measuring how often the planet causes the star's light to dim or wobble. From information about how fast the planet is orbiting they can determine how close it is to its host star. Now that they have the energy output of the star they can determine if the planet is in the range where water can be liquid. If the planet is too close then all water will evaporate but if it's too far then the water will all freeze.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why does the Collatz Conjecture (and problems like it) matter? I was watching a video from one of the 3628468 youtube channels that the bearded englishman has and it mentioned this problem and I started to think, why does such a thing matter? Seems like just a funny maths thing for a child to play with but in the video the host mentioned that people have "ruined" their careers trying to solve the problem. What would happen if the problem was proved false/true? Is this a check on if maths as a whole work or something? If there is a simple and obvious answer, I do apologize. I'm just a lowly car mechanic and a bass player on top of that.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The problem is hard because it digs into how multiplication and addition interact with each other. We have lots of number theory that focuses on multiplication - this is where a lot of the importance of primes comes from and there are lots of methods that help us solve equations - and we have slightly less number theory that explores how numbers add together. It's not that addition doesn't happen in multiplicative number theory, or that multiplication doesn't happen in additive number theory, it's just that the kinds of questions you ask and methods you use are unique to each type. There are a few questions that cross the boundary, however. For instance, Goldbach's Conjecture says that every even number can be written as a sum of two primes. Primes are necessarily multiplicative, but asking what numbers you get from sums is additive and so this question crosses the boundary and is therefore very hard. The ABC-Conjecture is another such question that remains unsolved (despite insistence by some otherwise), and it basically asks how information about primes persist through addition; if A+B=C, then how do the prime properties of A and B determine (or not) the prime properties of C? Collatz Conjecture is another in this family. It mixes properties of 2,3 and addition in this dynamic kind of thing. Plus, heuristically, adding one is, in ways, the most destructive to multiplicative information, so the Collatz Conjecture has a lot of difficulties to overcome. (For instance, to get brand new primes, multiply all primes that you know together, add one, and every prime that you get from this new number is a new prime. Or, there are lots of primes like 2^(p)-1 whereas 2^(p) has the highest power an integer of that size can have.) Solving the Collatz Conjecture will not really do anything on its own. But, because it is this kind of problem that crosses the boundaries between multiplication and addition, a solution should help us navigate that realm better. As with almost all unsolved math problems, we don't really care about the actual solution or answer, what we're really interested in are the new methods that will almost surely need to be invented to solve them. We can use those methods elsewhere and to ask new questions. And that's really what matters.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why do most animals have their eyes, nose, and mouth clustered together in roughly the same way as other species? Why are the eyes usually horizontally aligned, with a nose centered on the face and a mouth slightly below? What are the benefits of this over say having the eyes and the mouth on opposite ends of the body?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant This doesn't answer ALL the factors you asked about but: * you want your nose close to the mouth to smell your food (for safety reasons) * you want your eyes as far forward and as high up as possible for seeing things * You want your mouth far from the waste-hole * You want all three of those sensory organs as close to the brain as possible (faster processing AND shorter wires are less likely to get injured. This latter one is actually a big deal. If your eyes were away from your brain, breaking your neck would blind you! If your mouth was away from your head, breaking your back means you physically cant eat because you can't swallow). You're right, the typical configuration isn't the ONLY solution to the above (and other) requirements riddle, but it's a pretty darn good solution - and evolution is very much a fan of "if it's good enough, that's good enough".<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How can tungsten be a metal, but have higher electronegativity than phosphorus, which is a non-metal? it's generally taught that metallic or non-metallic character is governed by the electronegativity of the element ([for example](http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/37_ak/NT.jpg)), so what's the deal with tungsten (and the others...)? edit: gold is an even worse offender.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I am a professor that studies the bonding in solids. The fundamental connection between EN and type of bonding is nothing more than a decent correlation. Electronegativity is a property of an element that arises from the energies associated with orbitals as they are filled or emptied. One could imagine the energy associated with filing the p- or d-orbitals as something like an upside-down parabola. This means the energy of the system, i.e., the atom, is minimum when a set of orbitals is completely filled or unfilled. Interestingly enough, a similar tend exists for the degree of bonding within a solid. Take H2 as an example for how electron filling at the aim dictates binding in a molecule - same as in a solid. Hence, the coincidental correlation. This happens all the time in atomic systems because everything is strangely similar and connected in someway. A bit more detail in the bonding, it turns out that half filled sets of orbitals on an atom leads to strong bonds when the atoms bond to each other. This is because the resultant binding orbitals are filled and the anti bonding orbitals are unfilled. As the orbitals are further filled, the strength of the binding decreases because some previously unoccupied anti bonding orbitals are now being filled. What happens in solid in this regard is highly similar to what happens in molecules. On the other side of the coin, as the orbitals of the atom are depleted lower than half filled, the resulting bonding in the solid also decreases but to a lesser extent, and can some times result in the remaining bonds becoming very strong. So, back to the initial question, taking the binding in the d-block, we see a decent spectrum of bonding as EN changes, but the "metallic" character of the metals actually decrases as we go to the left. For example, Ti and W both form very strong bonds in their associated solids, are still metallic, but are more like covalently bonded ceramics in that they are hard, more brittle, and have decreased conductivity (a better measure for metallic character). However, in the case of Au, with its high EN and half filled s-orbital, we encounter a highly mailable, highly conductive solid. So, we can easily see that this correlation is simply just a correlation that is old, inexact in its fundamental foundation, and should be used as a simple learning tool rather than something sourced from fundamental physical phenomena. TLDR; it is complicated and you actually have to read to understand science :)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user eli5 how does red blue and green lights in screens create a white light and all other colors? how does this work in phones?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant We know how human eyes work. They have rods and cones, and the colour sensitivity is to red, green, and blue. So we built computer screens with those colours to basically stimulate those things in your eyes exactly the way we want them. It's not perfect, but it's close enough. If we were a different species with different eyes, screens would be built differently. Thankfully animals don't watch TV or use phones.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What causes revolutions? How bad do things have to get before such a large number of people agree on how bad things are and come together to fix it? We hear politicians make promises during their campaigns, yet it seems that even though hardly any of those promises are kept, people don't really hold them accountable. However, there obviously have been times when the people get fed up enough and start a revolution. How come something like this hasn't happened to hold politicians accountable for their promises? How bad does it have to get?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant One big condition is common knowledge. In many cases, each individual feels that things are rotten, but worries that they are the only ones who feel that way. It's when something big happens that makes everyone realize the majority feels things are rotten that a lot can get done.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How do infants and toddlers who barely speak get diagnosed with eye problems, when we have no way of knowing if they're able to see things just the way they are ? Recently saw a video where a baby got correction glasses and was able to see it's parents properly for the first time. How do parent get to know their kids have issues with seeing and even if they do, how are doctors able to correctly prescribe them glasses<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Parents may include an eye examination as a routine check on an infant's health. There are diagnostic tools that will measure the focal point of an eye's lens. Myopia, nearsightedness, is caused by the lens focusing in front of the retina. Hyperopia, farsightedness, is caused by the focus behind behind the retina.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why are some races of humans taller than others? I was thinking about this today, as I sat eating lunch near a group of men who appeared to be Hispanic migrant workers. I think they were Guatemalan. My ancestry is European, specifically northern German, and I'm 6'4" tall. But every one of those migrant workers was less than 5'5" tall. One [source](http://www.disabled-world.com/artman/publish/height-chart.shtml) I found says that the average male height for Guatemalans is 5"2". The average height for German men is 5'10". The tallest race is from the Dinaric Alps, where the average is 6'1". Next tallest are northern European countries - Finland, Norway and Sweden. What are the evolutionary reasons why one race is on average shorter than other races?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant While genetics certainly plays a roll, health and nutrition play an important role as well. This is evident in Korea wear young men in the north are on average significantly shorter than their counterparts in the south. This difference is not evident in older populations due to the fact that economic conditions were more similar in the past. These changes are evident elsewhere as well. The Dutch, once shorter on average than Americans, are now the tallest people in the world, on average (not considering subpopulations).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why people say "pardon my French" right before/after they swear<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In the early 19th century, intellectuals and those well-traveled would often drop French words into the conversation to show how clever they were. They would then point out that the word they had just used was French, often to embarrass someone nearby who was less fluent in the language. To counter this, the less well-traveled (often poorer) people would, after swearing, loudly proclaim, towards those that had previously used French in the conversation, "Pardon my French." The latter stuck.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What happens after a failed suicide attempt? What happens when someone is hospitalized after a failed suicide attempt? I've heard of "suicide watch". What exactly is it, and what goes on during it? How long does it usually last, say if someone tried to OD on pills? What happens afterwards? Outpatient care? Inpatient? How long is someone typically in the hospital after a suicide attempt, such as an overdose? Would it be different for a more violent/severe attempt? edit: I mean in the United States, if that makes a difference. Note: This is not a cry for help or any need to be concerned, it is curiosity. Also, I'm sorry if this is the wrong subreddit. I wasn't sure where to put this.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Most states have laws that allow a police officer, a doctor, or a specially trained social worker or nurse to sign a form that allows someone to be held against their will for 72 hours, so that the person can be evaluated to see if they are sane enough to take care of themselves. How it usually works in practice is this: The person commits the act, and someone calls 911. The police and paramedics show up, and take the person to the hospital. Someone along the way will sign the mental health evaluation form. If the person is really sick (from a serious OD, for example), and requires an extended hospital stay, they will be treated for the condition in the hospital as usual, they just won't be allowed to leave and they will get psychiatric care while there. If the person isn't that sick, they will be evaluated in the emergency room and transferred to a locked psychiatric facility for evaluation. If you live in a large urban area, there is also a possibility that you will be held in the ER for those 72 hours simply because there isn't anyplace else that will take you, as psychiatric wards are not money makers, so there aren't enough to meet the needs of the communities. In theory, a psychiatrist is supposed to evaluate the person's mental health within that first 72 hours, and determine if they are a threat to themselves or others. If they are, they can hold the person until they are no longer immediately dangerous; if they are not, they release you. Most people, even those who are seriously depressed, are so fucking sick of getting the hospital runaround by this point, that they are well past the idea that killing themselves is a good idea, so they get released once they are evaluated.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What would be the economic consequences of making it law for enterprises to share x amount of their profits equally with workers? Minimum wage laws are bad because they needlessly raise the value if labour above market prices and hurt profits. Of removing minimum wage laws would increase profits, then how would Enterprises respond to a law forcing them to share, say, 50% of their profits equally among all workers? It seems like a good compromise,because workers would only get compensated as long as the business is making a profit.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The issue with this proposal is it's very easy to change the amount of profit by reinvesting into the business, either through capital or labor. There's no guarantee that such reinvestment would benefit the lower wage workers of the business.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user eli5: Why does working out helps so much with mental health? I have OCD and working out ALWAYS makes me feel better whenever I have spikes. How does that work?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Exercise had been shown in many studies to promote the production of serotonin and dopamine, the two neurotransmitters responsible for making you feel good. Evolution has selected for physical activity to make us feel good, making it more likely for us to be physically active, which promotes our physical health. This is called a positive feedback loop, and is an example of one of the many, many positive feedback loops employed in your biochemistry.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user eli5: Why are there so many bad chemicals in cigarettes? A cigarette is basically just paper, tobacco and a filter. So how do so many harmful chemicals get in them?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant While a lot of the additional chemicals are ‘naturally’ present as part of the tobacco, there are a lot of additives as well, added by tobacco companies to help the smoker better enjoy the smoking process and increase tobacco consumption. Smoke by itself is quite harsh, and so compounds like menthol are added in varying degrees (even cigarettes not marketed as containing menthol) to numb your throat. Bronchodilators are added to help the tobacco reach inside of your lungs better, something typically not present in cigars where the smoke is intended to stay in your mouth.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: why are loud noises so scary to many animals and humans?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant We evolved hearing to both find food and identify threats. The worst threats are those that don't care if something else hears them - that indicates confidence which is NOT good for the animal hearing it. This is why lions roar - to show everyone around them they're the boss. "Come get it."<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why does vision improve when one is squinting?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant This is actually more of an optics question than a biology question. When light passes through a small hole, it becomes focused because the hole is limiting the paths that the light can take. The smaller the hole, the more focused it becomes, but the dimmer it becomes (because it's letting less light through). When you squint, the light becomes focused by traveling through the small gap in your eyelids, and the effects of your eyes' lenses decrease. For more information, you can look up pinhole cameras, or camera obscura. It's pretty interesting stuff.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is Hillary Clinton using her personal email a big deal?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant By law, these are considered government related business documents and must be stored and maintained on government servers for future access in case of investigation, etc. Anything that she sent from her personal account would not be stored on a government server. Additionally, sending from a personal account is just simply not as secure as sending from a White House account and is more susceptible to hackers.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Eli5: why does the country Liechtenstein exist? It’s an incredibly small country in Europe, why isn’t it just part of Switzerland or Austria?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Originally, there were many, many such small kingdoms in Europe, ruled by powerful local families. The land was bought by the House of Liechtenstein, and nominally ruled by the Holy Roman Empire, but became a sovereign state in 1806, as part of a loose German confederation During the first and second world wars, many small states were eaten up by larger ones. However, Liechtenstein never really caused any problems for other countries, and kept itself to itself, and so there were always bigger fish to fry, and it remained self sufficient. It didn't have any great wealth or natural resources. It was just too much effort for any other country to bother annexing it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: The benefit of spending millions/billions on acquiring another company, rather than starting one themselves. I mean like Amazon buying Audible in 2008 for $300 million or Walmart buying Jet.com for over $3 billion. Why couldn't Amazon just start their own service rather than spending money on someone elses? Walmart has $3 billion to spend, why not invest that in themselves and make their own version of Jet.com?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You get their workers, machines, software, facilities, and customers in one transaction. Sure, you could get those things separately in a thousand transactions, but that does it cost to execute those 1000 transactions? When it's cheaper, you start a new business. Plus, when you buy someone, there is not an additional competitor diluting the market niche.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user US stock market hit 30,000. I am a hairdresser. How does this help me? (I don't own stocks) With COVID-19 raging my income has been cut in half. Can someone teach me how a soaring stock market helps? I am firmly working class/low middle class<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Direct Impacts The stock market itself does not necessarily have a direct impact on you. If you have retirement savings, you generally want the market to grow, but short term gains and losses don't have much on an impact. Indirect Impacts Even if you don't own stocks, the fact that others own stocks could lead to indirect benefits to you. If increases in the stock market increase the wealth of people in your area, you could potentially see increased spending where you live, which could include increased demand for your services. One concrete example: a customer of yours has an increase in wealth because of their investments, and decides to leave you a higher tip. It could be a good sign for you Even if it doesn't benefit you directly, an increase in the stock market is generally a good signal for other parts of the economy. Generally speaking, stock prices increase when people expect economic growth in the future. Much of the recent gains in stock prices is attributable to optimism about the COVID vaccine, and optimism for increased US government stability, both of which are expected to lead to more spending and more economic activity. More spending means more business for you. So, if you take movement in the stock market as a signal of what people think is going to happen in the economy, what we're seeing might be a sign that your income will increase in the future. It also might not be a sign There are plenty of reasons why it might not be a good signal for you, though. First, sometimes stock market prices go up due to speculation that they might go up in the future, rather than real evidence that the economy is going to grow. This is what's called a "bubble" - stock prices rising higher than the fundamental value of the stocks. Also, general economic growth might not mean that your specific situation will improve. The Dow Industrial Average (that's the stock that hit 30K) tracks 30 large companies traded on the US stock exchange. So increases in that really just means that investors expect those 30 companies to do well in the future. Those 30 companies are deeply integrated with much of the US economy, but in no way do they represent everyone. Some places will continue to struggle, while others continue to thrive. The stock market can't tell you much about what will happen to you, specifically. It's a sometimes-misleading gauge of what investors think the economy will do in the future.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: P vs NP I'm talking about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_vs_NP<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant As you'll get older you'll see that sometimes there are problems you will need to solve. Maybe you'd like a cookie but you can't reach the cookie jar, that is a problem you can solve by taking a chair and climbing up to the cookies. Well, P and NP are two families of problems, "P vs NP" is just asking if those two families are actually the same one. NP is the family of problems whose solution can be verified easily. For instance the solution to your cookie problem could be easily verified by climbing up on a chair and taking a cookie. Another example of an NP problem is figuring out how many stars there are in the sky. Say you have a guess, then to see if your guess is correct all you have to do is count all of the stars in the sky, which is "easy". P is the family of problems whose solution is easy to find. Again, it was easy to find a solution to the cookie problem so that problem is in P. Now, if P = NP then every problem whose solution can be easily checked can be easily solved. But if P does not equal NP then there are problems that can be easily checked but can not be easily solved. No one knows for sure which one is the case, but many people believe that P and NP are different. And because it has not been proved, we can't give an example. That is because if we could show one problem whose solution was hard but checking it was easy then we would have proved that P does not equal NP.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does eating expired meat make you sick even if you cook it well enough to kill all the germs?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Certain bacteria produce spores when they're within certain temperature ranges. Like when you cook meat and let it sit out at room temp for a while. This is when those spores go wild. When you reheat the food the bacteria is killed but the spores are resistant to cooking temperatures and will survive, eventually making you sick. In other instances you can have bacteria that grow and produce toxins. When you reheat the food, the bacteria toxins are not destroyed and can cause food poisoning.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is Daniel Dennett's "Consciousness Explained" worth reading still, in terms of being up-to-date? I'm listening to The Tell-Tale Brain on audiobook. I'm thinking of getting Consciousness Explained next. My concern is that it's a bit of an old book, and the supposed explanation of consciousness may be outdated. Is this the case? I'll be getting it on audiobook as well, if you have anything to say about that. Thanks!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The "pandemonium"/"multiple drafts" model he describes in the book is still the favored model for consciousness for Dennett and it remains influential in the field. Moreover, Dennett's primary aim in the book is to deflate a common sense view of consciousness in order to make the computational models in neuroscience make sense from a philosophical and first-person perspective. So, even though philosophy of mind has moved to new territories of dispute and new concerns (e.g., dynamic and embodied models of cognition), CE still has foundational significance. Besides, it's just a great book to read. Dennett has a way with words.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Eli5: Why are our tears connected to our emotions?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Humans are very social creatures, and to be social creatures before spoken language existed required Physical things to convey information to one another. Tears (along with the sound of crying). Are a way to effectively communicate that soemthing is wrong/you’re in distress.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Eli5: Voyager II With the Voyager II spacecraft millions of miles from earth and continuing on, how are we able to send/receive data from deep space?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There's a number of factors involved in allowing the Voyager probes to be able to communicate out so far. very large antennas - Voyager uses a antenna 14 feet in size, and the opposite antenna on Earth is 34 feet in size. Which is 10-30 times the size of your usual satellite dish. directional - The antennas are aligned to be pointing directly at each other, which increases the chances of relieving a clear signal interference - The radio channels used by Voyager are very quiet by human standards, this cuts down on interference. If we had used a common band like 2.4ghz for example there would be so much interference that we couldn't hear Voyager. power - the radios use a lot of transmit power. The radios on Voyager are 23 watts compared to the 3 watts of the average cellphone. But even this is pretty weak Big radio stations on Earth transmit at tens of thousands of watts and still fade out quickly. This is the benefit of transmitting through empty space, the signal is less likely to degrade. The transmit antenna on Earth however is several tens of thousands of watts to make sure Voyager can here us. As for receiving from Voyager it helps a lot that we know exactly where Voyager is, and what it's transmitting.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How do scientists estimate how many species have yet to be discovered?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are quantifiable species-area relationships. For example, in a given area, there are a finite amount of resources, let's say, bunny rabbits. A coyote needs some number of bunny rabbits to eat. One can then estimate the maximum number of coyotes if you know the number of bunnies. This can be extrapolated out to number of species in the same trophic level, which is to say, bunny rabbit eaters. somewhat of an oversimplification, but that is the gist of it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: why did two sexes become necessary for procreation instead of one that handled both aspects?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant genetic diversity. what you suggest is asexual reproduction which many bacteria and some aquatic life here and there do. the issue is that every copy is more or less identical to the first. why is that bad? well, a single disease could now wipe out an entire population. more so no form of reproduction is without glitches here and there and now that bad trait will be copied for every and the species ability to survive decreases. sexual reproduction ie mixing of two brings in a lot of diversity in the gene pool. yes certainly you can get all the worst traits mixing but you also get a case where all the best ones can mix and you get a super awesome offspring who will go on to likely make more super awesome offspring. that's why sexual selection is such a big thing. they want the best mate to ensure their offspring has best chance of surviving. why mutts ie dogs of unknown breeding are usually much healthier than purebred dogs. they are mixed with everything and are likely to be really hardy and resistant to a lot of stuff.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [The Matrix] Are humans the only lifeforms populating the matrix? What about apes or monkeys? Dogs and cats?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The machines were, at the end, made to protect and serve humans. Not apes. Not dogs. Not any other living being. Thus when the war came, and the Machines decided that protecting humanity meant putting them in the Matrix, other animals were not part of that plan.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do we construct things in water? Things like bridges or roads that need support pillars that go into the water. If they're made from concrete, how does the concrete ever dry if it's underwater? If it's in the ocean, does the very bottom of the pillar touch the seafloor?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Concrete curing is a chemical reaction that actually requires water to complete, although excess water in the mixture can yield a weaker cured concrete. Special concrete mixtures are used which are more resistant to chlorides (when pouring in seawater), and care is taken not to agitate an underwater concrete pour too much so that the mix doesn't thin out. You don't need concrete to dry to cure it. In fact, keeping a pour damp throughout the curing process will generally lead to a more complete cure, because the process generates heat that can evaporate water away from the surface, leading to slightly weaker concrete at the surface. Underwater you don't have that problem, though you do need to take care to keep the concrete and the surrounding water at its surface from being agitated and intermingling too much. Bridge pillars and the like are often constructed using caissons, which is like a waterproof shoring form that extends to the riverbed / seabed, and then has all the water pumped out so that dry construction techniques can be used.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do we use total internal reflection for fibre optics instead of just ordinary reflection? I'm a teacher and I gor stumped by this today, couldn't find any answers with Google.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant At ordinary reflection angles, there is both transmission of light and reflection of light at the surface between the two types of material. At total internal reflection angles, there is no transmission of light, only reflection. This is important for optical fibers because ordinary reflection will mean light is lost when it transmits through the fiber rather than remain reflected within the fiber. Since optical fibers can span thousands of miles, any little bit of loss per reflection will greatly reduce your optical signal over a distance. With total internal reflection, you don't get losses from transmission. Interesting enough, if you bend an optical fiber too much, the light going through it doesn't reflect at the internal reflection angle. If the light is visible, you can actually see it transmitting through the bend in the fiber. Optical fibers cannot do the sharp bends possible with metal electric wires.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is the coin grading system a scale of 60-70? That seems like a rather odd range.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The scale was originally proposed by William H Sheldon. Since no such scale was widely in use at the time he had a very wide amount of leeway in choosing what the scale would look like. Ideally the scale should have enough different grades that you could have a good idea of how worn a coin is, but few enough grades that there wouldn't be a bunch of disagreement between experts as to what the grade of a coin actually is. That sweet spot is not necessarily aligned with a nice round number that you might hope for, like 50 or 100. 50 was too coarse of a scale for Sheldon, apparently, and 100 was too fine, so he settled on 70. Since he was the first to propose a scale that gained traction (originally just for large cents, but it can be extended to other coins) it became the industry standard, with a few minor modifications over the years. Note that the scale doesn't just run from 60-70, as your title may suggest. The scale runs 1-70. It's common to see coins only listed between 60 and 70 as those are the highest grades and are the range where you could describe a coin as being in "mint condition." Also, proof coins (struck more slowly and carefully with polished dies) typically land in this range. Most coins are much worse off, but if you have a poor condition coin like that then it's not as common to go get it graded. A coin from the last decade in MS-68 condition may fetch a premium, but the same coin in AU-50 condition is just worth its face value, so it's silly to pay to have it professionally graded.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [ST:Voyager] Where does the USS Voyager get all of those photon torpedoes from? When the USS Voyager first became lost there were serious supply issues. Photon torpedoes pack a whole lot more punch than a phaser bank due to their 1kg antimatter warhead, but torpedoes are in limited supply. Once the torpedoes are depleted there's no more to be obtained. At first, Voyager's crew was very reluctant to use torpedoes. After a while they became very free in using torpedoes, to the point where torpedoes were being used on a regular basis and even became the weapon of choice. Replicating the parts to build a torpedo housing is something I can understand. Its energy expensive but its doable. They also did this to build new shuttles. However, a torpedo housing without a warhead isn't very useful. That warhead is pure antimatter. As Voyager is continually low on its power, where does this antimatter come from? Every kg of antimatter used to construct a new photon torpedo means one less kg for the ship's warp core. Power reserves are often times critically low, and yet Voyager still seems to be able to fire photon torpedo spreads at any time without concern to remaining ammunition. Where is it getting all of these torpedoes from?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant During the first part of their return, personal logs were filled with mentions of the criticality of resupply operations. Later though, as the situation settled somewhat, the drama of needing to be constantly resupplied wore off, primarily because it became much easier to barter with civilizations other than the Kazon. Many crewmen, including the senior staff, ceased discussing these now routine supply operations in all except regular status reports. One good trade with a warp capable civilization easily provided enough to "top off the tanks" as it were, including the storage bottles for fabricating new photon torpedoes.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: what determines whether a substance is solid liquid or gas at room temperature?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Intermolecular forces. Some molecules like to stick together, others don't. If they really like each other, they form a solid. If it's more like a friendship they form liquids. If they rather stay away from each other they form a gas. You can force molecules together by cooling them down, which decreases their ability to move around. Or you can increase the pressure. What determines wether molecules like each other or not? It depends on their chemical structure. Some molecules, like water, are polar. They are like tiny magnets that attract each other. Water molecules bond together at room temperature, but they still have enough energy to move around a bit, so that's why water is a liquid and not a solid.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user A lot of drugs are derived from plants. Why not just eat the plants? I keep hearing about new wonder drugs derived from plants - many of which seem to have long-known (according to local tradition) curative properties. If that's the case, then why not just use the whole plant? Is there a good reason, apart from making Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline a lot of money, that the source material just doesn't cut it? If its just a concentration thing, couldn't you just eat lots of it to get the same effect?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are a few reasons for this. By the way, microorganisms also produce a lot of drug compounds. Firstly, the concentrations of active compounds are often low, and nobody wants to eat vast quantities of plant material to get an active dose. Secondly, the concentrations of active compounds often varies greatly between different batches, so there's no way of knowing how much you're getting. Thirdly, the plants may contain other compounds which are poisonous or have unwanted effects. Finally, compounds taken from nature are usually not ideal drugs - they are usually chemically modified to optimise their beneficial effects and minimise side effects.<\|im_end\|>

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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