Split (1)

train · 52.8k rows

text stringlengths 82 65.5k
<\|im_start\|>user Is there a safe way to modify the human dna?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Safe is relative as it has to be balanced against the need to change. But generally speaking, there is no currently safe way to do that, but we do have new technology that can do that, most famous is CRISPR/CAS9. There is too issues preventing this from being used outside very experimental setting 1) the technique is about modifying a specific sequences of DNA, but it can modify DNA elsewhere in an in expected way 2) we really are only scratching the surface on what DNA we can modify, certain genetic diseases where we know a very specific segment with a very specific error is possible to modify and that is where the tech is being used on a very limited basis, specifically treating sickle cell disease But we are probably decades away from doing something like changing a persons eye color or making babies taller Edit : typos<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What are 5 essential books or textbooks every software engineer should read? Title Edit: Wow! Thank you for all the suggestions!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant 1. The Field Guide to Understanding Human Error. Not a software book, and you'll get the idea within the first half of skimming. Still very useful and important, and doubly so when you need to tell your boss's bosses why your boss is being a counterproductive asshat that's tanking the project, not saving it. The Mythical Man Month gets an honorable mention here, for correctly identifying problems in project management, but loses on having a rather uncompelling answer to them. 2. Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach. This is the literal bible on processor and computer architecture. You want to actually understand how your software actually executes? This is it. This is stuff that once you learn will continue to apply for decades. 3. C Programming Language. Short and to the point, and a bit dated, but the most simple and direct introduction to both c and posix, which have largely set the framework modern computing exists within. Past that I'd say pick two good books in a topic area that interests you. Make sure they're books that will challenge you a bit and that also offer exercises/quizs/something that lets you validate you're actually learning.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does a firefighter lighting a backfire help stop a fire and how does that fire not go out of control?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant When a home is on fire there are usually large sources of water nearby, like a fire hydrant, or the ability to call for tanker trucks for additional water. Wildfires are not that way, remote often far from roads or too difficult to being large tanker trucks. So wild fires are rarely fought with water except in certain situations. With a wild fire you stop the fire by removing the fuel. Use workers with hand tools, bull dozers and other heavy equipment to clear the grass brush and trees. Once you've created a fire break, and cleared as much brush as possible, a second back fire that's hopefully burning into the wind and not with the wind is set. By burning into the wind it's a smaller slower fire that burns all the fuel that the uncontrollable wildfire would want. So when the wild fire gets there all the fuel is already burnt and the main fire dies out.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Witcher] What are all the different Witcher schools like? Does the cat school focus on using speed instead of strength and vise versa for the bear school? Is there a best school? Does each school specify in a certain weapon? etc.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant - All Witchers have the same basic mutations and training, resulting in increased strength, speed, resistance to disease, sterility, knowledge of alchemy, and an aptitude for signs. Regardless of what they focus on, any Witcher will be stronger, faster, and more skilled than all but the most capable unmutated humans. - Different schools do appear to have different talents. The Griffon school is known for being generally better with signs. The Cat school is known for using light armor, quick strikes, and favoring speed over strength. All known members of the Viper school use short swords, rather than long swords. dual-wielding and poison use is more common for them than it is for the other schools. - That said, Witchers are very individualistic, and it would be a mistake to prepare solely for the expected fighting style of a Witcher based on the school they belong to. You might prepare fortifications against a Bear-school witcher only to find they're still dexterous enough to climb the sheer cliffs at your back and take you by surprise. You might ward yourself against the signs of a Griffon School Wtcher only to blown apart by alchemical bombs your protections against magic are worthless against.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do soap and shampoo clean your body?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant At a molecular level, if you were to examine a molecule of soap you would see that it is not symmetrical, in fact it has two different "ends". One of these ends is strongly attracted to water molecules while the other one is strongly attracted to fat molecules. So when you rub soap on your body, the fat-attracting end of the soap molecules binds to the grease and dirt on your skin. Then when you rinse with soap, the water-attracting part of the soap binds on to the water molecules, and as it gets washed away it carries with it the dirt and grease that it's previously "grabbed".<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is there an operator that can have an associative property without a commutative property, or vice versa? It seems that operators, whether they're pertaining to numbers, sets, propositional logic, vectors or whatever, will only have an associative property (ex. (a+b)+c = a+(b+c) ) when they also have a commutative property (ex. a+b = b+a). I can't quite put my nose on what the two properties have in common with each other; is there an abstract proof (or disproof) that they're bi-conditional, or something along those lines? Sorry if my question's not clear I'm slightly drunk and frustrated because I can't figure it out on my own.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are plenty of operators that are associative, but not commutative. And plenty that are the other way around. Just to give one example of each: Function composition: we define the composition of two functions from R->R, f * g as f(g(x)). Checking associativity: (f * g) * h = f(g(x)) * h = f(g(h(x)) = f * g(h(x)) = f * (g * h) However, this operator is not commutative. Let f(x) = x + 1 and g(x) = x^(2), then f * g = x^2 + 1, but g * f = (x + 1)^(2). The other way around, consider the operator that takes 2 real numbers and returns the average. So a (+) b = (a + b) / 2. This operator is clearly commutative since addition is. But it is not associative. Take a = 0, b = 4, c = 2: (a (+) b) (+) c = 2 (+) 2 = 2 a (+) (b (+) c) = 0 (+) 3 = 1.5 There are plenty of other examples that you can find for either direction, so in general it is definitely not the case that associativity and commutativity are interchangeable.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do different internet browsers perform better or worse than the other, and what makes Internet Explorer apparently terrible? Edit: *than others, for you grammar people.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Most web content follows a standard set of rules, called web standards to tell the browser what the content is, and how it should look. Every browser runs on a layout engine. These are sets of code that open web addresses, render the contents, allow you to bookmark, etc. Most browsers (Chrome and Safari, that run on the Webkit engine, and Firefox, which runs on the Gecko engine) follow the standards pretty closely and render content the way it was intended. They also use a Javascript engine, which interprets code the web site sends to your browser to run. This uses another set of standards that browsers follow. Internet Explorer, due to Microsoft being a very proprietary company, decided that they would create their own proprietary standards, and web content would need to conform to them to look good in their browser. So for a long time there was a set of rules for good browsers, and a set of rules for IE. So basically everyone hated IE for making them maintain two sets of code. Also, their were looooots of bugs in earlier versions of IE, where, even if you followed the rules, things would be rendered incorrectly, frustrating developers even more.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is full labor capacity possible without runaway inflation?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Yes, as long as you have an accurate definition of "full labor capacity." Because there will always be some people between jobs, and some people with outdated skills, even in a tight labor market, "full employment" will always carry a positive unemployment rate. Full employment was probably achieved right before the pandemic. In order to get an unemployment rate of zero, something would have to happen to cause workers to immediately choose any job available and to cause all employers to immediately choose any worker available. That's a somewhat apocalyptic scenario.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why can some businesses swipe my card without any verification(PIN/signature) from me?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There is usually a threshold set by the card companies above which a signature is required. Small purchases are less likely to be fraudulent since people with a stolen card are going to run the card up as fast as possible before it gets reported. Now that cards are more common than cash, not requiring a signature for every purchase adds convenience for the consumer and efficiency for the retailer. Security is great, but it adds more work and people are always looking for that balance.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are we taught Math that I'll never use out of high school instead of things like balancing a check book and paying taxes? I don't get why I'm learning how to do Algebra when I have no clue how to do any "real life" skills? To be honest I don't even know where to use this math in real life.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Believe it or not, math teaches you how to problem solve. Every math problem that we analyze forces us to use many, if not all, of the detailed methods of problem solving. Successful problem solvers pay attention to detail, they examine all elements & variables at hand, and they stick to a plan or formula -- all characteristics that are heavily reinforced by learning and studying math. It takes discipline to learn math and it takes discipline to focus on solving real-world problems even they aren't math related.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How do I explain the origin and nature of time to an 8 year old? Honestly, Reddit, I'm stunned that an eight year old is able to simply understand the concept. Last week, he asked me where the universe came from. BAM! Big Bang. Where did people come from? KAPOW! Monkeys, little man. What's more, I know my explanations stuck. In stumbling for a response, his mom, my girlfriend asked him, "well, um, how do you think the earth got here? Was it god or the Big Bang?" "You mean, like, little rocks that turned into bigger rocks that turned into bigger rocks? That way, the Big Bang." I have no idea how to explain time, as my understanding is vague and esoteric as it is. The extent of my understanding is that time is a product of gravity, and that it is relative to speed. As a man with a background in history, I'm pretty proud of this limited knowledge, but know it's missing almost everything, and have no way of relaying it to a kid. Besides, this will be a good exercise for anybody interested in educating people on science. If you can explain it accurately in terms that a second grader can understand, you understand it well enough to explain it to just about anybody. Just channel your inner Neil deGrasse Tyson.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Your best bet is probably time is just a way of measuring change. Explain to a kid how watching a movie is just a lot of pictures moving really fast (you can make a flip book or something as well). Time is just the difference from one frame to the next, but it is continuous. For the rest of science get him the complete Magic School Bus series. Seriously. You would probably enjoy it yourself as it still came in helpful well into university.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What is the difference between technician, postdoc and staff scientist in life sciences in the US asking for a friend<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Techs do not usually have a doctoral degree, though they certainly could depending on their career goals. A tech with a doctoral degree would often be employed as a lab manager with some supervisory duties, and his/her salary is entirely supported by the principal investigator (PI). Post-docs are usually "temporary" positions lasting 2-5 years and function as additional training for individuals looking to build their independent research careers (or potentially developing a skill-set before moving to industry). By definition, post-docs have doctoral degrees. Usually this is a PhD, although MD/DO/PharmD/DVM/SciD are all possible as well. These individuals are supported by their PI, but may also apply for external funding from the government or foundations. These grant applications are for "mentored" projects, where the PI is their mentor and supervisor. A staff scientist is usually a person with a terminal degree, as enumerated above. They often have PI status and are capable of submitting grants that are not mentored. However, they are often closely affiliated with another PI who is in a faculty role and with whom they may share labspace and equipment. It's kind of like a postdoc-plus, where you have additional independence but aren't yet at the level where a university of hospital is willing to commit the financial and physical resources necessary for you to have your own independently-functioning lab.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why are distant white clouds not blue-tinted? The further away something is, the bluer it appears, due to Rayleigh scattering. Which is also why the sky appears blue when lit up by the sun. However, I have never seen a distant white cloud be any less white than close ones. When it comes to darker clouds, which are grayish up close, they DO get bluer in the distance. But white ones always seem white no matter the distance, even when a mountain is right below it and very blue. Why does this happen?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Rayleigh scattering redirects shorter wavelength light (primarily blue) coming from a source into another direction. This results in two effects: 1- If you look at something relatively bright (say the sun) it appears red because some of the blue light that would have reached your eye is scattered away into other directions. 2- If you look at something relatively dark (say open sky) it appears blue because the air molecules in between you and the dark object "glow" blue (as a result of light scattered from brighter objects in other directions) adding more blue to what you see. Both of these processes are always simultaneously competing. In bright objects the light scattered away is the dominant effect making them appear red. In dark objects more light is scattered into your line of site than out of it so they appear more blue. In your example dark clouds and the mountains are dark enough that they become more blue while the white clouds are in the region were the effects of the two processes are roughly equal so the color does not change significantly. EDIT: note that Rayleigh scattering redirects all wavelengths of light not just blue, it is just a very week effect in the longer wavelengths (the strength of scattering is proportional to 1/wavelength^4 )<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why did most plants end up being hermaphrodites while most animals end up with two distinct sexes? The vast majority of plants have both male and female sexual organs, and when two or more plants fertilise each other, all normally produce seeds or spores. However in most animals the population is divided into males and females, of which only the females bear offspring.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Plants do not have the same kind of opportunity that animals have to find, pursue, and mate with another member of their species, since they are either rooted in one location, or in the case of aquatic plants, just go wherever the water takes them. Plants cannot really compete for mates or evolve into a more sexually attractive form. They just cast their spores to the wind. So sexuality has a much more active role in the animal world.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Where does the energy difference between absorbed and emitted photons go to? My teacher told me when a photon is absorbed and emitted again, it has a lower frequency. So it loses energy. Where does that energy go to?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Typically, when we talk about photons being absorbed and emitted, we're talking about electrons in an atom doing the absorbing and emitting. An election in an atom is attracted to the positively charged nucleus, which causes it to "orbit" in the closest possible position to the nucleus. (I put orbit in quotes because electrons don't literally orbit like planets, but it's a useful image.) In order to move an electron away from its nucleus, you need to add energy to it. It's similar to pulling two magnets apart: if you don't touch the magnets, they'll stay connected, but you can pull them apart, which uses the energy in your body and adds potential energy to the magnets (the potential energy turns into kinetic energy when you let go of the magnets and they snap back together). So when a photon is absorbed by an electron, the electron gains the photon's energy, causing it to jump to an orbit further away from the nucleus. If the photon has enough energy, it can even knock the electron clean off the atom. Now, due to quantum mechanics, an electron can only orbit at certain distances around an atom, and these specific distances correspond to certain amounts of energy. After a little bit of time, an electron that has been bumped up to a higher energy orbit will re-emit a photon, losing some energy and jumping back down to a lower-energy orbital. Most of the time, it will re-emit a photon of the same energy that it absorbed and jump back to the same energy level it was at before. But if the photon was energetic enough to knock the electron up by a few energy levels, it is possible for the electron to only drop partway, and release a photon with less energy. That photon will have the energy equal to the difference of the two orbitals that the electron moved between. A short time later, the electron will drop again, emitting another photon with less energy than the original, again equal to the difference in energy between the electron's old orbital and it's new one. This process can happen as many times as there are empty orbitals between the electron's current orbital and the one it wants to get back to (which is the lowest-energy orbital that is currently unoccupied), but usually an electron just drops the whole way in one step, and less frequently drops in smaller steps. In any event, when an electron drops some number of steps at a time back to its minimum energy orbital, the energy of all the photons it emitted will add up to equal the energy of the original photon that it absorbed!<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV:I don't think it matters whether the Grand Jury thinks Darren Wilson is guilty, he should have been indicted anyway. In the case at hand, there is doubt about the guilt of Darren Wilson. I am not saying whether or not he did anything illegal because I do not know, but the job of the Grand Jury is also not to determine guilt, it is to determine whether the case deserves a trial. http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/26/7295595/eyewitnesses-ferguson-grand-jury As per that article, it is unclear what happened. This is enough confusion to require a trial, and it doesn't matter from the perspective of the Grand Jury what the outcome would be, it should still be requiring a trial. To be clear, it is not a question of guilt that the Grand Jury should be answering, it is a questions of whether they are 100% sure that what has happened breached no laws. _____ > 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 The grand jury's role is to decide if the evidence present is substantial enough to go to trial. They decided that whatever evidence there was was not enough to justify holding a trial. We don't know exactly what evidence was deemed admissible by the courts to be heard by the grand jury. The media has been showing us a conflated view of what evidence there is and what it shows. Some sources are clearly biased in favor of Brown while others are clearly biased in favor of Wilson. What the grand jury was presented was a cold listing of the facts that would be admissible in court. Keep in mind that newspapers have no requirement to use relevant or verified facts to the extent that courtrooms do.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Evidence-Based Policy is Overrated I participated and was a volunteer for the Science March in Amsterdam. So don't get me wrong, I think that evidence-based policy is important. However, I have come across the idea that all policy must wait for evidence, which, as a designer, I think is misleading. Recently, I attended a research conference for education. This conference is organized by an organization that educators can tap to provide data for lesson plans. That's great, it really is. The conference started with a so-called pitch round, where different researchers pitched data and it's importance. That is where my red flags began raising, though. The researchers were presenting data of the past two years that they had collected. For example, data suggested that children like using paper over digital tools for certain tasks. Which is fair enough advice. However, the data was being presented as conclusive. Because of it being a pitch, people had to be hyped up by the data, so the data was being presented in such a way that it seemed like this was simply how brains were wired. The thing is; many data points aren't useful in a single snap-shot. You have to collect data over many years to find a trend and even then, you cannot infer from the data what the causal link is most of the time, because of hidden data that you didn't know was relevant until after you've seen the other data. So, all I could think during the conference was 'all of this may change in six years when children have grown up with digital tools; teachers are being set up for failure here'. Which is the crux of my argument. While a lot of evidence based policy, like climate change, is based on evidence that has already been collected, you cannot demand that all policy be backed with evidence. That means that you'll always lag behind the reality. Take the education for example. Let's say that it took 2 years to collect the data that learning to read is easier with paper tools than digital tools, but expanding vocabulary is easier with digital tools than paper tools. If you base policy off of this data, even corroborated with studies from the same period, you'll be lagging behind, since the educators first need to change their lesson plans and learn to educate in a new way. For the sake of extrapolating this argument to other areas, let's make the unrealistic estimate that it takes a year for the new policies to become nation-wide. Already, we'd be lagging behind 1 year. By the time that we get the results in, it might be another 2 years. So, already, we are far past the time period it took to collect the data in the first place, so another study may have come out that contradicts the first one, not because the first one was wrong, but because the second study described the applicability of the tools with new technology and a new level of digital literacy in children. It becomes a rat race of running after the facts. Instead, if you want better results, it can be better to try and find ways to make existing methods more efficient. To look at how school buildings are designed and to reduce the amount of time is spent wandering the halls between classes. Policies can be designed with economic theory in mind for how much incentives children have to pay attention in class if their digital devices can provide them with more entertainment than the teacher can with no apparent cost from getting caught. Those changes in policy don't require evidence, so much as they do planning and a good kind of sense. You can argue that they are, indirectly, based on evidence, but that is a different category of motivating policy change than we see in for example the climate change debate or occupational risk policies. And even the latter is still mostly based on anticipation and prevention rather than measurement. Maybe I'm not seeing the big picture, though. Maybe evidence-based policy has merits over other kinds of policy. I think that evidence-based policy is predominantly good for things we have data for over a large scale, not local policy. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You're misunderstanding proper application of evidence-based policy. Evidence based policies are aligned with the whole body of evidence. Progress in science is typically very gradual (outside of paradigm shifts). Singular studies in science aren't very valuable, and no one who understands how science works would base policy off of a single study. Evidence based policies do change, as the body of evidence changes, but as already mentioned, that body of evidence changes slowly, and new ideas/findings take time to become better and better established until they can be considered well-established. So a proper implementation of evidence-based policy for something like education simply won't immediately jump on some new study and ASAP, change educational methods in accordance. It'll slowly incorporate findings that are well-established by the evidence. And like you mention, the evidence regarding certain things can change due to generational/technological factors. The evidence will incorporate that as well. It's insane not to adopt methods based on the evidence; if you don't do this, you're simply not changing your methods for the better, or at the very least* not changing them for the better as much as could have occurred. And it's equally insane to adopt methods before the evidence regarding them is well-established, because you might be wasting your efforts. > To look at how school buildings are designed and to reduce the amount of time is spent wandering the halls between classes. This is an evidence based approach (as is your other example). You build a model which incorporates student behavior with respect to transit within a building, and optimize to minimize walk time. (As a bit of a detour, most major companies that have hourly workers that punch in/punch out via some means, do considerable analysis and optimization regarding start of shift and end of shift walk times, and also do analysis/optimization of during-work walk times... the evidence-based consensus on this is that it's quite valuable with respect to maximizing production per time. Schools not doing this already is an example of not basing policy on well-established evidence. And it's not like this just became well-established recently, it's been well-established for over 100 years now.) Although you say that this is only indirectly based on evidence, you are incorrect. Climate science uses similar modeling approaches (e.g. regarding climate change). They build models based on all the known facts, and these models can be used in a predictive capacity. Furthermore, those models can be used with respect to optimization problems (e.g. determining what some of the most efficient ways to cut warming per dollar are). This is a lot more complicated than such a simple modeling approach of walk time minimization, because we're literally talking about thousands of variables that have very complex interactions with each other, but it's still exactly the same principle of what we're talking about above. And we're still learning and gathering more data, which can be incorporated into our understanding (and our models). Climate scientists are still gathering additional data, and incorporating that data into their models, regarding say, climate change. Climate change is already extremely well established, and it's clear that no new data is going to completely overturn our understanding of it, but there's still a lot we don't know, and gathering more data and incorporating that into our understanding (and subsequently allowing that to fine-tune our policies) is quite valuable. There's literally no reason this exact same methodological approach can't be used to inform and develop evidence-based policies for something like education.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What purpose do the ridges & depressions common in food containers serve? They are present on the lids and sides, make manufacturing more difficult, and use more plastic rather than a flatter surface. Initial thoughts are maybe to disperse heat better or maybe lower surface tension (making it less susceptible to cracking) Edit: Thank you to everyone for your replies! For future readers the answer is essentially one word: corrugation. Corrugation adds strength and durability while using significantly less plastic than would be necessary for a flat border with similar durability &amp; strength. Another benefit is grip (think bottom of a bottle wouldn’t stay put as easy if it had a flat bottom) and some ridges are potentially remnants of the manufacturing process (unconfirmed).<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant They provide structural support. If everything was flat plastic it would bend so much it would either crack, or be so flimsy as to act as a stiff plastic bag. It actually saves plastic because the container would have to be a lot thicker otherwise. Look at the difference between bottles with flat sides vs something like a Gatorade bottle.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: When you load a new website how can we trust the website is legitmate? Is the ssl certificate downloaded in browser or perhaps we verify signed certficate with the CA immediately?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant the SSL certificate is sent by the webserver to you, which is valid only for each connection you make to the webserver (as it is part of the encryption). You (or your browser) check the legitimacy of that certificate by checking that some trusting agent has signed that certificate. An attacker could have sent his own (false) SSL certificate, but then it won't be signed by some trusting agent. Unless the attacker has also compromised the trusting agent, in which case your browser (and everyone else in the world) should ignore the signatures from that agency.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What is the process for decontaminating sites where nuclear waste is present? Just wondering the main stages after a nuclear event both long term and after and if there is regulations for it Also any links to interesting videos on the subject<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant 1. Measure, measure, measure:. Which isotopes in what chemical form. Whats the environmental matrix (sandy soil, clay, etc.). What horizontal and vertical distribution? What's the water table and surface water conditions, etc. 2. Stabilize:. Stop it from moving due to wind, rain, ground water flow, etc. Maybe a quickly deployed ground cover like hay and grass seed. Maybe subsurface pumps to keep it from going down into the water table, etc. 3. Remediate: depends on the details, but could for instance be scrape off the top few inches of contaminated soil and pack into drums. Sometimes the best option is just get it covered in grass and leave it. Drums will be analyzed for content and shipped to a waste storage site, often a carefully prepared area with no chance of ground water contamination.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What are the macro economic drawbacks for canceling student debt? From an unbiased stance, are there any negative economic impact for the American nation on a macro scale for just canceling the trillion dollars in student debt?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant 1. Increased national debt and the consequences that come along with that 2. Increased inequality. Student loans are disproportionately held by Americans with well above average lifetime incomes 3. If this is a recurrent event - moral hazard (this is microecon). Even not explicitly stated, merely the expectation that debt might be forgiven in the future could distort decision making.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What causes that feeling of "emptiness" when someone experiences an episode of depression or sadness?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It is not fully understood by science but much research points towards some form of serotonin deficiency, in either its production or turnover in our bodies. Serotonin is a neurotransmitter that we synthesise from the tryptophan we eat in our food and helps us regulate mood. Whilst poor diet can clearly contribute it is also clear that certain experienced events can also disturb our brain chemistry. Generally speaking that emptiness will also coincide with a lower level of serotonin or an ineffectiveness of the serotonin receptors in our brain to process it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What makes a work of art 'good' by contemporary philosophy of art standards?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I’m an undergraduate taking an Aesthetics course. Gordon Graham provides three normative theories for evaluating art: expressivism, cognitivism, and hedonism. Graham is a cognitivist, meaning he thinks what the extent to which art helps us understand truths about the world and our place in it is the metric by which we (should) judge the value of art.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why can't animals with gills breathe air?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Fish gills are very delicate, and have a very large surface area (which makes them work so well). It is completely dependent on being immersed in water to support their weight. Out of the water, the delicate gills will collapse like wet tissue paper, and very little surface area is left exposed, so gases can not be properly exchanged. Therefore, most fish can't survive out of the water for a long time, because oxygen deficiency will catch up with them and they asphyxiate. If we could find a way to keep the gills supported and moist without being immersed, a fish could survive for a lot longer, but this it isn't physically possible, even in a humid air-filled chamber at zero gravity, considering that the gills would just stick to one another. Water must completely fill the gill chamber to keep everything else in working order.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user does the amount of tension a wire is under affect its ability to conduct electricity? If so is it only to a minute extent?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Yes, mechanical strain affects the resistance of a conductor three ways. The resistance of a wire is (rho)L/A, where rho is the conductivity of the metal, L is length and A is cross-sectional area. If you stretch the wire, L goes up, A goes down, and rho goes up because the molecular bonds are being strained. The effect of rho changing is small in metals, but much larger in semiconductors. All three of these effects, taken together, are why we can measure stress and strain on objects with strain gages -- a subject well worth googling.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is it that when someone suffers from amnesia, they forget specific things or completely who they are but not how to act as a human and complete basic tasks like eating and talking?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Different memories are stored in differing parts of the brain, with differing degrees of permanence. If the amnesia affects only one part of the brain, then memories stored elsewhere are unaffected. In fact, when trauma happens to the language centers of the brain, a person can "forget" how to speak and understand speech properly, yet be fully cognizant of how to cook meals or what house they live in. For obvious reasons, the brain stores its most essential memories - like how to eat, what is edible, what causes pain - in the most protected sections of the brain. Both short-term memory (what card did you just pick?) and medium-term memory (What year is it?) are more volatile.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why does CO2 only reflect heat back at the earth? Shouldn't CO2 also reflect heat back at the sun, as well as back at the planet? Or is there something else?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The energy coming from the sun comes at frequencies that can pass through the atmosphere (visible light, UV, etc.). The earth re-emits the energy, but at a lower frequency (infrared). The lower frequency radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user At what point in your learning can you start looking for internships? I am currently a college student majoring in computer science and I have so far taken a python and a basic CS class. This semester, I'll be working with Java, PL/SQL, assembly language and might also take some web development classes. Students my age seem to be getting internships already but I do not know if I have enough knowledge yet to do an internship. When do you think is a good point to actively start looking for internships or what skills should I learn before I start?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You can do an internship at any time. The purpose of an internship is to learn, so if you can find one then go for it. It's never too early to start looking, and the experience is way more valuable than any of your classes.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How come when I am laying in bed at night and left with my thoughts I want to start working proactively in my life, but when I wake up I couldn't care less?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It's the difference between living "idealistically," which can stay a dream, and actually doing the hard work it takes to make those dreams come true. When you lay in bed thinking, tomorrow seems like forever away. When it's morning, the hardships of reality kick in.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How were diffraction patterns for crystallography resolved before computers? Was it done using pencil and paper calculations that translated into structures or did the patterns more directly correspond to certain structures? Edit: clarified in post body<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Only the simplest of crystals could be understood definitively, because you can predict the diffraction patterns for a given crystal type. Even the DNA diffraction pattern in the classic Watson and Crick paper (done, of course, by Rosalind Franklin) only gave a general (double) helical pattern, not the exact crystal structure.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Do I get more pizza with one 18" or two 9" pizzas? Is there a formula I can use to work out the relationship between the areas of different sized circles?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Pull out two coins and set them side by side. See how the two together are wider then they are tall? Imagine a circle around the whole thing that touches the left and right sides. See how much higher then the coins that circle goes? The same thing works for any circle, including pizza, see all that missing space between the actual coins and the imaginary circle? that's all the pizza you can't have if you get the two small ones!<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Knowledge about the size and scope of the universe does not make me feel small and insignificant nor do i think it should. I have heard people talk about how small and insignificant we or a person is compared to the universe, heck i even think Sagan said something like that. But i see no reason to feel that way. Yes the galaxy is big (an understatement) but really to a person that really dosen't matter. To quote a story "we are all the heroes of our own adventures." Our personal universe is the area and people around us, they are what matters in our day to day lives. If anything i would say that the size of the galaxy is so large and unimaginable as to be meaningless in our lives. What does the fact that we are just one planet out of trilions change in our day to day relations. And yeah we might not be special or even the only life but so what its our world that matters. _____ > 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 The point isn't to make you feel insignificant, it is to provide a beneficial perspective in life. We often get so worked up in the details of our daily routines and personal squabbles that we never stand back and realize the bigger picture. How petty is a fight over a small piece of land in a universe of potentially infinite size? What importance is there to the color of one's skin when there is potentially a universe teeming with life of infinite variations? That is what the knowledge is supposed to inspire. Not irrelevance, but limitless potential.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Research position at rural vs. urban R1 I have a friend who just finished their postdoc at a top tier school and now they're searching for a research position at an R1. USA, neuroscience. Obviously the competition is extremely high. Maybe rural vs urban isn't the right idea, but I'm wondering if there's a difference in competition at schools in big research areas vs. schools in isolated research areas. Like UCLA vs. University of Maine. I assume that UMaine has much less competition if people are turned off by the lack of local opportunities for collaboration, small rural towns, always traveling far for conferences, limited opportunities for trailing spouses, etc. And UCLA would have more competition for the opposite reasons. On the other hand, maybe the high amount of competition completely negates everything else and there are still more people willing to move to isolated areas than there are available positions. Either way, I haven't been able to find much info at all. Anyone have some insight?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Tenure-track jobs are rare enough that there are likely hundreds of applicants for each position. We all realize we have very little control over where we live, and will apply for any job we would reasonably take - while "reasonably take" will vary from person to person, the competition is enough that there really isn't an "easier" tenure track market. You're right that jobs on the coasts or other desirable locations are likely to get even MORE applicants, but that doesn't mean that less-desirable places somehow suffer or that the competition there is easier.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does white light contain all colors of the spectrum, but when you combine every color you get black?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Pigment is subtractive, in that when you add pigment together, you subtract the wavelengths of light that can be reflected. At some point, you add enough pigment together that you have subtracted every wavelength of light as it hits the combination of pigment, so what you see is black (obviously you aren't absorbing 100% of visible light with the tech we have right now, but enough that there is no color to be identified so you end up with what we call black). Light is additive in that as you add visible light waves together they approach what we call white - the presence of all visible light waves.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why can’t gravity be blocked or dampened? If something is inbetween two objects how do the particles know there is something bigger behind the object it needs to attract to?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The other explanations here are not really getting at the heart of your question (which isn't any different for gravity - other forces do the same thing). Your error is in going "this is a solid object and nothing can go through it". But what you think of as "solid objects" are not completely impenetrable. As an everyday example, light has absolutely no trouble going through glass. [EDITED to clarify: this part is here to explain to OP how their idea of 'solid' is inaccurate. It's not directly about how forces can go through things] ~~'Solid' objects don't fill up all the space in the region they occupy (in fact, they're not even close to filling up all the available space). They seem solid on human scales because electrons repel one another, so once two atoms get even somewhat close, they're pushed apart by the repulsion of the electrons in each atom.~~ On an even more fundamental level, fields (like the electromagnetic field or, if you set aside some of the weirder aspects of relativity for a sec, the gravitational field) aren't different things from the physical objects around you. Objects are "made of" these fields, in the same way that a wave in the ocean is made of water. What we think of as a particle is just a place where these fields take on different values from other parts of the field, in the same way that a wave is just a place where the water is a little bit higher. And so your question becomes, roughly, "how can water travel through a wave?". If this seems strange, well, it is. There's a reason it took fifty years and some very surprising experiments for the most brilliant minds in physics to figure it out.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: British agriculture should be allowed to decline and land stewardship should be transferred to the National Trust, Forestry Commission, and environmental charities Posting here because it's pretty difficut to find facts which support or refute this view. It seems to me like we are being asked to artificially support a dying industry that has no real value for modern Britain. Farming is becoming increasingly marginal, especially livestock farming. Other countries, mostly European ones, are perfectly capable of producing all the staple foods we consume, and we import more exotic luxuries anyway. Meanwhile, because farming is so marginal, many farmers don't have the time, money, or energy, to care for the environment they occupy. Modern technology allows farmers to modify the landscape to suit their needs, and they're no longer obliged to treat it well in order for their farms to survive. Farmers use herbicides, pesticides, and fertilisers, that poison the water table and reduce biodiversity. They leave litter in their fields and in the land beyond their fields, like fertilizer bags, feed bags, old salt lick buckets, and piles and piles of old metal machinery. They erode the land by driving through it with tractors, jeeps, and quad bikes, by diverting water ways, and by not practicing crop rotation. Their hunting activities contribute to loss of biodiversity, especially when they maintain grouse runs or carefully managed, monoculture plantation forests for pheasant shoots. When I've challenged farmers about these issues (admittedly I've only been able to speak to two or three children of farmers who are my friends/acquaintances) they say that they simply don't have time to be worrying about these things because it's hard enough to make a living as it is. What exactly is the benefit of maintaining such an industry? Why is it subsidised? Why are we encouraged to buy locally? Why protest against the dropping price of milk? It seems to me to be much preferable to allow farming to die out due to market forces and transfer care of the land to bodies who are more capable and have a greater incentive to do so. _____ > Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our *[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)* first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It's very important for a country (and especially an island country) to maintain an ability to feed itself via farming in a case of unforeseen emergencies which can make trade for food difficult or impossible. Maintaining farming infrastructure is essentially an insurance policy against starvation should things go wrong.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why is elevating your heart rate through exercise good for your heart but elevating you heart rate with caffeine bad for it?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Elevating your heart rate through exercise causes your vascular system to dilate, allowing for greater bloodflow. When the veins are wide open, the heart does not need to work as hard to pump more blood. However, caffeine is a vascular constrictor, causing your heart to work harder to pump the same amount of blood. Coupled with an elevated heart rate, your heart is now trying harder to force blood through constricted passages, which puts undue strain on your heart and your vascular system.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Exposure to Misinformation and Invalid Arguments is Crucial in the Exercise of Critical Thought John Stuart Mill said it best when he argued 160 years ago, in his classic On Liberty, that it is impossible to truly know if 'x' is false if we refuse to hear any arguments or evidence purported to be in favor of 'x'. If, for example, a given society were to decide that holocaust deniers and anti-vax people should be fully silenced to the point that I never heard their reasoning, then I would not be in a position to know whether in fact their arguments were invalid. And since being able to compare arguments in order to determine which ones are valid or invalid is a part of critical thought, my opportunity to exercise such critical thought would be greatly diminished. Potential Objections: 1. On several issues common sense or intuition can be used to arrive at the truth without the help of critical reasoning. Response: common sense and intuition are not infallible and thus need to be verified through the testing of evidence and critical thought. Many people have erroneously believed, for example, that it is self-evident that the earth is flat or that the sensation of color pertains to the objective world. 2. We've already heard enough to know that the holocaust deniers and anti-vax people are wrong. Response: that in itself proves the point that hearing such arguments is useful in determining what is true or false. 3. It is sufficient if others, as with previous generations or experts, hear those invalid arguments on our behalf in order to determine if they are valid or incorrect. Response: previous generations and experts can certainly do that, but if we ourselves simply trust them then we are merely conforming to their views rather than exercising critical thought or exhibiting genuine knowledge (on the assumption that having the correct view on the basis of conformity is not the same as knowledge). 4. It is for our own protection that we should not be exposed to misinformation. Response: perhaps so, but that does not relate to my view apropos of critical thought. It simply states that the harm outweighs the need for free speech and critical reasoning. If I've missed something I'll add an edit. But as a last point I will add that if my view is changed, then in a certain, perhaps ironic sense it would actually be proven, since it would show how a misinformed view grows into knowledge not through its censorship but rather through hearing a variety of ideas in the exercise of critical reasoning. In which case I would be happy to change my view!! :) &#x200B; EDIT: I forgot to clarify that while I believe that exposure to misinformation is crucial to the exercise of critical thought, it is not a sufficient condition of it. For example, if I am a deeply ignorant, uneducated person who is psychologically susceptible to propaganda, then being exposed to bad ideas won't by itself suddenly make me a critical thinker! But, nonetheless, if I am to develop into one then at some point I must be able to analyze bad information.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Misinformation that is presented critically is helpful in exercising critical thought. There is plenty of misinformation out there that can be analyzed and dissected, and there always will be. Misinformation that is spread widely with no context to masses of people with little to no critical thinking ability on the other hand is dangerous to critical thought.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Can you substantially heat a liquid by shaking it to produce friction?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Yes, example being high end blenders. A vitamix blender left on maximum for several minutes can heat soup (to the point where you need to let it sit before drinking) through friction. The motor in the base of the blender is connected to the blade via a plastic gear so there is little chance of any heat transfer occurring that way.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Explain time signatures in music I actually understand the "over" number. But in a waltz, 3/4 I don't understand how one derives the 4.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The bottom number indicates the type of notes filling each measure, and the top number represents the type of note the tempo is broken up into. So 3/4 would mean 3 quarter notes per measure, and the conductor would wave his baton 3 times per measure. And 6/8 would represent 6 eighth notes per measure. Also, there is common time, denoted as "C", which represents 4/4. Correct me if im wrong. Hope this helps.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user In a plant seed, has the metabolism completely stopped until germination or is there still very very very slow "life" happening? In other words, is it "paused", or is it consuming energy very slowly?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Seeds have inhibitors in place to prevent wasting Large amounts of energy and germinating In conditions that do not have adequate: water, oxygen, temperatures, or soil. Some seeds do use small amounts of energy while dormant to fuel cellular respiration. So, to answer your question, seeds that haven’t germinated yet use small amounts of energy for basic processes to stay alive and wait for good germinating conditions.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do some helicopters have two rotor blades and others have four ? And what exactly are the benefits of each type? I've always wondered that.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant How much wing you need to lift how much weight with how much engine. Each blade is extra weight and extra torque you need from your engine. The upside is that each extra blade gives you more area to generate lift and speed. So it's a balance between the two.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Mental illness diagnosis is a very imperfect science that can be harmful at times When you break your arm, the doctor can look at an x-ray and determine you broke your arm. As far as I know, when it comes to mental illness diagnosis, a psychologist will talk to a person about their problems and feelings, ask them questions and make a diagnosis. Before I go any further into this, I want to say that I think mental illness is very much a real and serious thing. I'm not saying that it's made up or even over-exaggerated. That being said, I have heard people say that after going through tough times they were diagnosed with bipolar disorder, or clinical depression, or anxiety, etc. And I do wonder, if all we have to go on is the way a person can articulate their thoughts and feelings to a psychologist (probably one they barely know at that) isn't there a ton of room for misdiagnosis? Aside from the fact that people can lie/exaggerate sometimes, even people who feel they are being 100% truthful are unlikely to be able to fully accurately represent what they're going though. It's common to hear people say they can never describe what something like love or happiness feels like, so wouldn't the same apply to despair and depression? And wouldn't it be hard for even a trained professional to see through the bullshit so to speak when they're probably only spending a small amount of time with the person? Wouldn't it be incredibly harmful for a person who is going through a difficult time in their life to be told say, that they have an anxiety disorder if that person didn't actually have it? Especially if that person is then given medication. Even if not given medication, a placebo effect could still derail that person's life if they start overthinking things all the time because they think they have anxiety, or they use their misdiagnosis to justify certain irrational behaviors. You hear people all the time say they "play the game" with their doctor so they can be prescribed marijuana, adderall, xanax, etc. If we know that works so often, who's to say that an innocent person can't also be given a drug they don't need just like someone seeking it out can get it when they don't need it? _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I don't think anyone is going to disagree with your premise, not even psychiatrists or psychologists - everyone agrees that there are occasionally misdiagnoses - so what exactly is your proposal based on this premise: do you think there should be no attempt at ever diagnosing mental illness and offering treatment? Or is it that there should be no treatment against a person's will? Or what?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is it better to learn c++ before learning python? I just started learning programming<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Depends on what you want to do. C++ is a lot more complex than python and require understanding many more concepts to actually be able to do anything. This makes it harder to learn as a first language, but if you are motivated and like to learn how things work deep down, or aim to work with C++, it's a good first language.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Colonisation overall was a net positive for the world. Reasons 1. It created the modern nation state which paved the way for stable borders and is the reason war started to decline. Democracy also started to become commonplace since permanent populations and institutions like school started to become mainstay. 2. The UK stabilised warring tribes into democracies. 3. Europe imported the rule of law, especially the UK for the first time for just about the rest of the world, people were ruled by laws and not by the strongest tribe or leader. It was also the first time that the law was no longer arbitrary based on which group was in better with the ruling class. 4. They imported the industrial revolution which greatly increased the life expectancy and standard of living. 5. Modern medicine and science we have Europe to thank for Mostly Germany which they gave to the rest of the world due to the fact that the whole world now had functioning nations and economies. 6. The continents and islands went from being separate worlds to being one connected world. In closing, if Europe had never colonised the world they would be at the space age and the rest of us would be still tribal, warring, and likely very uncivilised. So we should be grateful for them deciding the rest of the world was worth exploring.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are two types of colonization, both of which caused problems but one more so than the other. 1. Settlement colonization - Examples here include the United States, New Zealand, and Australia. The purpose of this type of colonization was to take people from your original country and start building a home for them in the new land. This is the type that is the cause of virtually every positive that you have listed - though your positives aren't quite accurate. Settlement colonization is the earliest known form of colonization, it was practiced heavily by the Ancient Greeks who would send their pioneers out to Sicily, Turkey, Italy and build new cities. When practiced in the modern era, it has invariably 100% of the time led to genocide of the existing population in the place you decide is your new home. The extent of the genocide differs - the Maori in New Zealand weren't slaughtered as thoroughly as the Native Americans in the US, but even a little genocide is enormously unacceptable. 2. Extraction colonization. This is the big one that fucked up more of the world than anything else. This was what most of the colonization in Africa was. The Europeans set up shop, threaten to kill anyone who resists, enslaves the population and has them dig up the rich natural resources that are abundant in Africa and then they transfer that material wealth back to Europe. The only countries in Africa that avoided this were Ethiopia and South Africa - Ethiopia because they got lucky and it was the Italians who tried to take over instead of the French or the British, so they kicked their asses. South Africa was a settlement colony and, like all settlement colonies, underwent a genocide because of it. So how are the Africans supposed to keep up with the rest of the world's economies who keep advancing post-Industrial Revolution when all of their labor is just collected and shipped off to Europe where the Europeans can become rich off of it and the Africans can't? The Africans are also unable to participate in the Industrial Revolution, not because they lack the resources or intelligence, but because their countries have been taken over and they work in a command economy set up by foreigners. The extraction colonies have fallen for the most part, a big part of that is that WWII was too costly and the British and the French couldn't afford to defend their colonial possession anymore, and here's where - after stealing all wealth for hundreds of years - they really fucked things up. European nations were allowed to develop their own borders as a result of their history. After countless wars, massacres, and genocides in Europe, most people had a country that worked for them and the borders were rarely in dispute. Instead of letting the borders of their colonies develop naturally, the colonizers just split lands and peoples willy nilly. In 1947 the British thought it'd be a cool idea to split the nation of India between Hindu and Muslim. Lord Mountbatten, the man behind the partition, didn't know shit about how to do that so he just drew two lines on a map and was done with it. The result was 200K-2M deaths and 14M people displaced. Other genocides that occurred because the colonizers decided to put persecuted groups in new countries that were led by their persecutors - Rwandan Genocide, Sudanese Genocide, two Ugandan genocides. Other great moves - promising the people of Palestine that they'd get to keep their land after they were conquered. Then promising the survivors of a German-led genocide that they'd get their ancestral homeland, which had just been given to another group. Now Israel and Palestine don't exactly see eye to eye, and they exist like this as enemies because of the artificial development of them as a nation that was caused by colonization. TL;DR - Africa had all their wealth taken for hundreds of years and then the colonizers just left and gave them shitty borders that they didn't want, putting opposing groups together and splitting their power for no real reason other than laziness and being dumb. Seriously, look at a map of Africa, all those straight lines on their borders are European colonizers just getting bored when figuring out how to split them.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Are there any good books on how the scientific revolution of the 16th century brought about that "science" and "philosophy" started to mean different things?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I can't think of a book that covers this topic explicitly (/u/wokeupabug might know one). It's a hard topic, in part because the change is not at all abrupt. "Scientia" has a distinct meaning before the 17th century (that's the century you want, by the way), but isn't really applied to science as we now understand it until Galileo's Two New Sciences and even after that not consistently. And the term "scientist" doesn't come into being until the mid-19th century, when it was coined by an anonymous commentator on Mary Sommerville and popularized by William Whewell. What you see in the meantime is a slow disassociation of what we now think of as philosophical concerns from those of physics and biology. But this change didn't happen overnight. Critics raised philosophical objections to Galileo's work (and lost). They raised philosophical objections to Newton's work (and lost). They raised philosophical objections to Darwin's work (and lost). And they raised philosophical objections to Einstein's work (and lost). (You might note a pattern here.) So it's not a simple story by any means.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 - whatever happened to acid rain?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Acid rain is primarily caused by specific kinds of air pollutants. Legislation in North America and Europe successfully limited the emission of these pollutants--for example, through the establishment of a "cap and trade" system that limits the total pollution and requires companies to pay more to buy the a greater share of that cap. That's why it's not nearly as serious of a problem anymore in the West and you don't hear about it: the solutions are working. In many industrializing countries, however, like China, acid rain is still a serious problem.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: why is democracy generally praised while populism is generally denounced? Both appeal to the desires of the majority, don't they?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Democracy is usually understood to appeal to the majority while respecting basic rights and freedoms for the minority. Populism is more of an us-against-them appeal to the masses against the elites. It's much more one-sided and exclusive.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Are President Biden's policies responsible for America's high inflation? Ok so it? President Biden is getting blamed by many. I thought it is another effect of coronavirus. I don't blame his policies. I also thought that if Trump were president, he would be facing similar inflation rates.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Simple version: it’s due to Fed Monetary policy and mostly due to global supply chain issues caused by the Pandemic. Presidents will always be blamed/praised for ongoing financial climates despite having much smaller impact than most believe.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How can the Universe be infinite if it is expanding? How can the Universe be infinite if it is expanding? Aren't those two ideas mutually exclusive? What about the widely accepted idea that the Universe was at one point a singularity, so if that is true then how can the Universe be in any way infinite?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The expansion of the Universe isn't talking about its boundaries expanding - we don't have any way of knowing what the boundaries are doing, or whether they even exist (i.e., whether the Universe is infinite), because the speed of light limit prevents us from seeing past a certain distance. What the expansion of the Universe means is that, if you take any two points (separated by a large enough distance), they'll be moving away from each other. It's a statement that isn't concerned at all with how things look on a global scale, just how things behave within a given region.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How does toxicity evolve in animals? Ive asked this question somewhere else before but only got lackluster responses with the catch all answers 'evolution the end', figured experts might have better answers. The question is this, how does being toxic to eat evolve in species? Say you are a frog and thanks to a random mutation your flesh is now toxic to eat (even though this would likely be more incremental over genetations?) It seems to not be terribly beneficial to have this trait if it only does something once you've been eaten. I understand how its helpful once the trait is established and predators know your not good eating, but all traits have to start somewhere and I'm curious as to how something only posthumously beneficial gets passed on as beneficial. Addendum: Why don't we see more animals (i.e. mammals) with this kind of adaptation if its generally helpful not to be eaten.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Toxicity, like all adaptations, evolves through small modifications on an existing template, selected for because it increases fitness. Your sticking point seems to be in understanding how something not directly beneficial to your own survival can be selected for. That's a great question. The answer is that you don't need to ensure your own survival for natural selection to act. You need to ensure the survival and propagation of your genes. So, if you sacrifice yourself and kill a predator before it can eat your babies, well done! If the predator - after having had several members die after eating your species and not having a chance to reproduce - evolves to no longer eat species that look like yours...even better!<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Are there any examples of organisms that completely contradict the theory of natural selection?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Evolution by natural selection (including artificial selection, humans are also part of the natural world) requires 4 things: * Offspring are similar to their parent(s) * Imperfect copying system (in terms of reproduction) * Variation amongst individuals of a species * Limited resources Find a species that species that isn't of this nature and you'll get yourself an organism that doesn't evolve by natural selection.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: NBA structure explained to an European As an European just approaching the NBA, I keep struggling to understand how the conference's and divisions work, I've seen posts here from 2016 but I Know some things changed since then. I thought I understood but now I see the Chicago Bulls played the Golden State Warriors, the only game between two conferences, and it's not playoffs... What did I miss?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Two conferences, with 3 divisions in each, and 5 teams per division. Each year, every team plays: * 4 games against the other four teams in their division. (16 games total) * 4 games against 6 other teams in their conference. (24) * 3 games against the remaining 4 teams in their conference. (12) * 2 games against each of the 15 teams in the other conference. (30) Total: 82 games in the regular season.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is having home-field Advantage so significant?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Familiarity with the pitch and playing surface, crowd support and less travel. Lots of professional athletes are also superstitious, it's easier to do your routines in a familiar place. Also, away dressing rooms are rarely as nice as home ones, which can psychologically make you feel better.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [WH40k] What does space marine combat training actually consist of?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Everything you would imagine it would, but more rigorous. They learn to shoot, sure, but they will also learn the recoil and spray patterns and the very "feel" of an assortment of weapons. They will learn how to wield a number of melee weapons, but will also be taught when and why to use them. They will learn the limits of their bodies and their power armor such that they become one and the same. They will learn tactics built upon a foundation of literally countless battles over the course of millennia. They will learn to work as tight-knit teams with any peers under any circumstances. They will learn of the enemies they will face in excruciating detail. They will learn how to effectively harness their loathing and despair and vigor, and they will learn to know no fear. They will learn to be the very fire that brings light to the darkness. They will hone themselves into the point of the Emperor's spear. They will be the very weight of our Lord's hammer. They will become paragons of virtue and justice and unmitigated power such that they can once again bring all of Humanity to a golden era of superiority. Space Marines spend every second of their waking lives, from the time they were basically toddlers, honing and perfecting their bodies and their minds. They are molded into the absolute epitome of what a soldier should be in any given circumstance or situation.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is it normally that the bigger the species, the longer the lifespan...but the bigger the animal within the species, the shorter the lifespan?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The average size of any given species is the largest it can be, without over stressing its vascular system. When an organism is of average size compared to overly large, its systems act in better equilibrium. Larger examples have overstressed vascular systems and typically have joint issues. Imagine that as a species you do jumping jacks and a different species does push ups, etc. Your joints are designed (evolutionarily) to withstand your body weight doing that specific action until your body can't go any more (death). Your vascular system is designed to keep your body at a peak level of performance until you expire. If you are larger, your joints which are designed for less weight, and your vascular system which is not designed to pump nutrients that far, will support you for a time, but will give out sooner. The star that burns twice as bright burns half as long in most cases.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does gravity have an effect on time? I seriously can't wrap my head around how time changes when gravity is in play. Let's say there is a clock on earth and a clock on a gravity dense planet, the time on the gravity dense planet will be slower. If you bring that clock back to earth from the gravity dense planet will they now be the same or different?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If you take two clocks and synchronize them, then send one to a location with more gravity, that clock will run more slowly than the clock still with you. If, instead, you travel with the clock to the high gravity area and observe the clock in lower gravity, it will appear to run more quickly. Time and space are the same thing - dimensions, or directions, in which things can move. Get a piece of paper and draw a straight line on it. Call it a dimension. If something moves across that piece of paper, and gets closer and/or farther away from either end of that line, it is moving forwards or backwards in that first dimension. Is there some direction something on the paper can move, without moving at all in the first dimension? At a right angle, perhaps? Right - so the surface of the paper has two dimensions. It is 2-dimensional. The world is 3 dimensional, because you can draw three lines perpendicular to each other. Movement in only the direction of time is perpendicular to all directions in space, so space-time is 4-dimensional. This next part is difficult to visualize, but mass causes this flat space-time to curve - as gravity increases, directions in space become less and less perpendicular to the time direction, they begin to point forwards in time. Get another piece of paper, draw another line labeled time, and a perpendicular line labeled space. This is flat space, outside a gravity well. Now, motion is some distance in space per unit/distance of time. Draw a second set of lines, angled 45° towards the forward time direction. This represents space curving towards time. Now, using the intersection between normal "perpendicular" space and time as a starting point, pick a point some distance in the space direction, and some other distance in the time direction. This represents speed, or distance through space in a given time (miles per hour, furlongs per fortnight, whatever). Do the same thing, the same distance, but from the intersection of curved space-time - move your point in the 45° direction rather than 90°. The two endpoints represent something moving at the same speed in their own frame of reference - both will have experienced traveling the same amount of distance in the same amount of time. According to an observer in the "flat" frame of reference, the guy down in the well did not move nearly as far in the "space direction" over the same amount of time, and therefore more slowly. Time passes differently for each. This is not a mathematical tool for making general relativity calculations, merely a visual aid to help understand why time passes differently for observers in radically different inertial frames.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: In software development; and in other fields involving extended thought-work that depends on focus and concentration; there is no value in having coworkers to interact with face to face - and in fact, distractions created that way are counter-productive I believe this comic expresses the argument most cogently: http://heeris.id.au/2013/this-is-why-you-shouldnt-interrupt-a-programmer/ Now, to my wall of text: I run a small software company that's reasonably successful. I've been doing this for the past 15 years. I've been employing people for years that I have never met — and quite possibly never will meet. Last time I met any of my developers face to face was maybe 6 years ago. I perceive no value whatsoever in meeting face to face. None. Working together in an office is an impediment to getting work done, and is a source of constant interruption. Email is generally better for productivity than face to face contact, or instant messaging. Both face to face contact, and instant messaging, are distractions, and are useful primarily in the situation that you cannot progress on anything without immediate input. Such situations are extraordinary. The people I meet face to face in my life are my wife, my son, and our nanny. I don't have a social need for more. I believe people who think they need face to face contact for work in software development are either confusing social needs with work — or possibly, I would fear, aren't competent to work on their own. Or maybe they're involved in some kind of work that involves extraordinary synchronization — the kind of which I do not know. If someone can't work independently, and must constantly interrupt other developers, I would consider them a burden, rather than an asset. To be an asset, one must be able to get work done on one's own, and coordinate as necessary. In fact, I would go so far as to say that, if you're not going to physically touch the other person, there is nothing you can do in a face to face meeting that you cannot do online. There's literally no reason to meet unless you're going to kiss, or have sex, or give a person a massage.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Steve Jobs was big on getting different types of employees (project managers, developers, marketing people, etc.) to have informal meetings throughout the day. A lot of Apple's better products came about because people just sat around at lunch and bounced ideas off of one another. Eventually, yes, everyone had to go back and do their own work independently. But that doesn't mean there was no value in the face to face interactions. Online meetings are good when there is a specific task at hand, but in person meetings are better for long term planning and generating ideas.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do plastic bottles have pointed bottoms? Also, how come others like Gatorade completely ignore this and don't have it?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The pointed bottom helps provide structure to the bottle. If it didn't have this, the bottle would crumple a lot. Gatorade bottles are made of a harder plastic than most plastic bottles, so they don't need the shape to keep their form.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why do things get darker when wet?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Refractive index of a material is the ratio between speed of light in vacuum and speed of light in that material. Light tends to bounce back when encountered with a sharp change in refractive index. Being wet means that there's a water film covering the material, mediating the change in refractive index, resulting in reduced reflection. Edit Part 2 of the story Apart from index mediation, the water film does something else. For rough/fibrous surfaces, the reflection will be diffuse, i.e. visible from all directions. When a water film is present, the surface becomes smooth, and the reflection will be specular, and only visible in one direction. So in most directions, the material will appear darker. Conductors are a completely different beast. The reflection off of metals are not solely dictated by the refractive index.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How is heart muscle so superior endurance wise compared to other muscles? Walking up a few flights of stairs makes your leg muscles burn and fatigue. Doing something like squeezing a stress Ball 2000 times consecutively would render your forearm muscles almost unusable until they recover. Yet your heart beats 50-80 times per minute every single minute for your entire life and never needs a break, never gets sore even after beating at a higher rate during exercise. How does this work?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Because the body is very well optimised to provide the heart the resources it needs. Muscle pain is due in considerable part to lactic acid build up. This occurs when energy is being produced faster than oxygen can be provided. The heart always has a strong supply of oxygen as long as there are no blockages and the lungs have oxygen, which means the heart never really runs out of the stuff. If the body is running a little low, then vessels are constricted to preserve blood oxygen at the heart and other vital organs. Muscle pain is also in part due to the formation of tiny tears in muscle tissue. This happens when a muscle is exerted beyond what it's used to. The heart is always pumping, so it's completely accustomed to this motion and thus doesn't form tears. There's also quite a bit of redundancy in the heart. At any given point in time, 60-70% of your heart cells are resting. The heart has such a huge amount of mitochondria (bits in the cell where energy is produced) and such a ready supply of oxygen that even just very tiny rests for cells is enough to prevent fatigue.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If we should use antibiotics sparingly, why is daily antiseptic mouthwash OK? We've been hearing for a while now that overuse of antibiotics leads to proliferation of antibiotic-resistant strains. Why doesn't the same apply to dental mouthwashes/rinses, which are recommended for daily use? I understand that "old school" mouthwashes are not really antibiotic; that they work by making it harder for plaque to settle on tooth surfaces. However, newer "burn-free" mouthwashes without alcohol, e.g. those that contain cetylpyridinium - does the same concern apply?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It is typically much harder to develop resistance to disinfectants applied externally. This is because disinfectants and topically applied antibiotics can be much more toxic to both the human and the bacterial target without negatively impacting the human. Things like bleach and alcohol are very toxic to microorganisms due to broad damaging effects, damaging effects that would occur in humans if we tried to use them internally. Consequently, bacteria cannot evolve total resistance since the disinfectant hits so many targets. For internal antibiotics, we must damage only bacterial proteins or processes without damaging host proteins or processes. Thus the antibiotics used internally tend to have much more specific targets like cell wall synthesis or ribosomal function. As a result, bacteria are able to more readily evolve resistance since only one or two proteins are inhibited. However, that is not to say externally applied antimicrobials are fine to use prolifically as we are beginning to discover bacteria resistant to triclosan, found in numerous products like soap and toothpaste. So the tl;dr version is that topically applied disinfectants like alcohol are able to damage numerous targets within the bacteria making resistance almost impossible. Think of it like a weed growing in a lawn. A weed can evolve to resist a pesticide that only targets the weed but allows the grass to grow but likely won't evolve resistance to napalm which would kill everything including the grass.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is the reason that it is common to eat 3 meals in a day?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant 'Mealtimes' are constructed to accommodate social, geographic and economic norms and lifestyles. Doctors will often ask you if you're getting three square meals, but that's just because its an easy way of gauging whether you eat enough. Its not the natural, or even optimal, way of doing things. Naturally, the time we eat should be determined by our stomachs, not the position of the sun in the sky. That's why more recently doctors recommend you have healthy snacks throughout the day. In modern Western culture, we eat three square meals because it coincided with industrial work patterns. The industrial revolution brought a very strictly regimented workday. Suddenly people were very concerned with hours and minutes. You couldn't simply allow workers on a factory line to pop off whenever they liked because they were hungry. Over time, our eating patterns developed around that industrial workday, to the point where they became a social and cultural fixture. You had breakfast before work, you had lunch with your peers when the line shut down at midday, and then you would usually have dinner with your family after the workday. We developed social patterns and rituals around those ideas, until they became so entrenched that many of us thought that's just how people have always eaten. In the modern world, with ready-to-eat meals available at all hours, those strict lines are also diminishing. You don't go home and have a big family dinner as much anymore. Lunchtime is also not necessarily a shared meal for all workers in a given workplace, because the nature of the workplace has changed. In short, its the way we organize our society that really determines our mealtimes. When we work, how we work, and even things like gender roles or technology can determine the cultural norms for mealtimes.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Will a kickball that is pitched faster go further when it is kicked? Why or why not? My friend tried to say it was related to Newton's "Equal and opposite reaction" thing, but I think the action here would be the kicker's foot, nothing to do with the ball. I believe that a faster pitch will be harder to kick because more force is required to turn it around.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Keep the elasticity of the ball in mind. The harder you throw a tennis ball against the ground, the higher it bounces, the same principal applies here. The kinetic energy of the ball is converted into elastic potential energy as the ball deforms against your foot, then is converted back into kinetic energy as the ball goes flying. More energy in yields more energy out. The equal yet opposite reaction basically means that as your foot exerts a force on the ball, the ball exerts a force on your foot, which slows it down a small bit, but not a whole lot considering a human leg has much more mass than a kickball.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are human eyes usually blue, brown or green as opposed to any other colors?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The stroma (top layer of the iris) is what determines eye color. For those with no melanin (pigment that makes eyes or skin a warm brown), the only color comes from the Tyndall effect of light scattering in the iris. This creates a blue color, like water with glacial flour or dirty smoke. When the stroma has a little melanin, it looks green because this blue combines with the the orangey brownish melanin. When it has a lot of melanin, the brown color takes over completely.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is it easier to talk when we move hands? I see it all the time during speeches. I noticed I was doing it the other day and it made my flow of speech better.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Words are linguistically representative of concepts, but their range of meaning is limited. You can get a lot of information from things like tone and emphasis (the audible equivalent of "reading between the lines"), but body language adds yet another level of interpretation. For people with the subconscious desire to be understood with specificity and precision, making hand motions and facial expressions is a natural extension of the communication process. Let me make it even simpler: you know when you comment on something in a sarcastic way and someone overreacts in a reply, not realizing that you're not really angry or upset? Imagine how much easier it would be if someone was listening to you speak instead of reading text in their own assumed tone. Hand motions and facial expressions are exactly that, but one level higher. You feel like it's "easier" to talk because you're using even more tools to make your communication clear, and you feel more comfortable and confident that you're being understood. And you're right - most of the time, you are being understood better when you use the right words, the right tone, the right emphasis, and the right body language.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Teachers should be one of the highest paid professionals in our society We need to prioritize what is beneficial to society as a whole and what is not. There is no justification to pay a CEO thousands of times more than what a normal employee makes. The foundation of our society depends upon educating our kids. It pains me to see teachers using their own money to buy school supplies because of budget cuts. Also it pains me to see teachers quitting their jobs over low pay. The average teacher's pay is so low compared to other useless professions like sports managers, investment consultants, etc &#x200B; Edit: No, I did not mean teachers should be paid millions of dollars as CEO's. I was just trying to compare the difference in pay and the value they bring to society. You may pay a bit more in taxes now to pay for the teachers, but it will be rewarded in the future. Teachers make way less than the value they add to society.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant How do you propose this be done? CEO’s, consultants, sports professionals are all paid through private industry. Teachers are paid through tax dollars. Should we privatize schools or nationalize all remaining industry?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:Difference between "Decriminalize" and "Legalize" So I'm trying to figure out the difference between legalizing something vs decriminalizing it? E.g. Marijuana<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In practice, "legalizing" something allowes the government to regulate it in a way that allows for some legalty. With marijuana, legalizing it is the process of getting the government to approve a legal amount to possess and tax the sale of it. Decriminalization is more straightforward- it simply means making it a non-criminal offense, like a speeding ticket. If marijuana were to be decriminalized, it would not be regulated by the govenrment, so you would only be fined for posession and the government would not regulate it with taxes.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: People should be kept anonymous until found guilty. In the American Justice system, arrest records are public, and it's easy for newspapers to find out what someone has been charged with. From high-profile celebrities to average people, all of this information is easily accessed. However, I think people should be kept anonymous until found guilty. This reform would consist of the following: 1. When someone is arrested, it is kept public that they were arrested, however the charges are kept private to prevent from their reputation being tarnished. This prevents abuse by law enforcement, so they cannot "disappear" someone, as they would be able to do if the arrest records themselves were kept private. This both keeps the media from publishing information that could tarnish the reputation of an innocent individual, as well as making jury selection easier, as fewer people will be biased by news coverage of the defendant's charges. 2. The defendant and their attorneys are provided access to any and all charges against them. A neutral 3rd party is also entrusted with the charges, and empowered to to postpone a trial in the event of charges being added the day of. This is to prevent prosecutors from withholding charges from the defendant and their attorneys until the court date in order to prevent them from putting together an adequate defense. 3. During the trial, the defendant is kept anonymous, using vocal filters and methods to obscure their appearance. This is to prevent the jury from being biased based on any personal aspects of the defendant, and to ensure that judgments are made solely based on the facts. In essence, ensuring that Justice is blind. This will also be done for expert witnesses, with the exception that their credentials are provided to the jury, in order to judge the merits of their claims. 4. In the event the defendant is found innocent, their arrest record is purged. An anonymous version of court records is maintained for the purpose of maintaining precedent and keeping records, however the defendant's identity is purged from the records. If they are found guilty, then their arrest and conviction record becomes public record, unless they are exonerated later. 5. The defendant should be able to waive the right to privacy at any point. This is their right, however they'll have to deal with the consequences of doing so. Unauthorized breaches of privacy should be punished, to deter people from violating the defendant's privacy. _____ There's a couple things I have to support a system such as this. The big thing is that there are many things a defendant can do in order to reduce their chances of being convicted. A good example is [wearing glasses](http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2011/03/eyeglasses-and-mock-juror-decisions/). Implicit bias is a major determining factor of a juror's decision on someone's guilt, and if something as small as glasses can alter the outcome of trials, then other things(race, gender, etc) most definitely play a part. These unconscious biases prevent juries from ruling solely on the merit of the facts, as they should be. Secondly, having an arrest record, even without a conviction, can cause hardship to innocent people. [Here's](http://articles.latimes.com/2005/aug/21/news/adna-rapsheet21) [some](http://talkpoverty.org/2014/12/09/held-back-by-a-criminal-record/) [stories](https://www.abine.com/blog/2011/online-guilty-before-proven-innocent/) about that. While some states have laws preventing this, not all do. Regardless, one of the cornerstones of the justice system is "Innocent until proven guilty". People should not be judged or prevented from finding employment because of arrests that did not lead to a conviction. This system prevents people's charges being broadcast through the media and staying in perpetuity regardless of the actual outcome. Our justice system is supposedly blind, but people are judged on a million things regardless of the facts. Even after they're innocent, those records can haunt them for the rest of their lives. Some people might think this is infringing on the press's right, but the individual's privacy should trump the press's rights until such a time as they're found guilty. The government in this case would have a compelling interest to abridge the Press's 1st Amendment rights, as they're protecting potentially innocent citizens. This system protects those who are innocent while allowing the press to report on those who are guilty. It's a happy medium between privacy, free speech, and protection from abuse. In today's information age, Anonymous Until Proven Guilty is the same as Innocent Until Proven Guilty. _____ > 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 Some interesting ideas there but a couple clarifications. Would you intend to stop citizens who necessarily know the identify of the accused, such as the victim, from identifying them publicly? If so how and how would this be enforced?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user I believe school administrations have no business interfering with student activities, particularly with respect to fraternities and sororities, when they aren't detrimental to people who aren't participating. CMV Background: I currently attend a university in the United States with a somewhat small fraternity/sorority (Greek, not the ethnicity/nationality) community next to university property. This Greek community is highly regulated by a university office that requires fraternities and sororities to do certain things in order to remain recognized by the university and participate with one another in any social activities (defined as any gathering with more than 8 members of one fraternity/sorority). Argument: The university is unjustified in regulating the Greek community to this extent, especially because 100s of non-Greek organizations on and off campus property are not subject to the same regulations, but have very similar risky social activities (parties, rites, etc.) which the university uses to justify its regulation. Examples of the rules: - must attend X number of school-administered workshops - must attend X number of school events - must participate in X number of Greek "dry" events - may only recruit in certain times and places, and only off of campus property - must pay semiannual fees to the administrative office - must document attendance/ participation of these events for annual review - failure to follow proportion P of these rules (there is a point system) allows the university to deny recruitment and social opportunities to fraternities and sororities<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant > non-Greek organizations on campus are not subject to the same regulations But what do those organizations bring to the university? Let's say the hockey team throws parties. Okay, but they also play hockey, which benefits both the players and the university. The theatre club probably throws parties. But they also put on plays. And so on. What does the Greek system do besides throw parties? Sure, they're great for networking for their members, but what do they do for the rest of the student body and for the university itself? You'll hear about charity events and whatnot but that isn't an integral part of their function and it's not a certainty that all frats or sororities do those kind of things like it is a certainty that the hockey team plays hockey. No wonder the school wants to regulate them - all the downsides of all the other groups, none of the upsides. There's nothing they can point to and say, "this enriches the students and brings the school money" to justify any outcry over potential wrongdoing in the Greek system like they can with every other organization. By the way, if you want to make paragraphs, add an extra linebreak after the line. (Hit enter again.) Those would make your post a lot more readable.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 : Why do we like to bother our siblings much more than other human beings around us ? I have two brothers, and I can't help but notice how much I like "fighting" with them, much more than anybody else, even the people I don't like and would love to see sad. Is it just the bond between brothers, does it affect all siblings, or is there any logical explanation behind this ?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant * familiarity - you know your sibling, what to expect from them in a way you don't with others * family bond - you are stuck with your siblings for the most part...friends might drift away, but you almost always will maintain a connection to close family * trust - you can "fight" with your siblings, knowing there isn't ill intent and there won't be lasting consequences...usually * culture - society is based on family unit acting together for their mutual interest...this notion has being impressed upon you from an early age. * genetics - children are not the only way to pass on your genes...your siblings share many of your genes, so helping them help you fulfill your genetic destiny<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: The difference between an API and a REST API<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant An API is just a formal, well-defined interface for programs to interact with each other. These interacting programs can be running on the same machine, or they can be communicating over a network. Doesn't matter. The API just makes it possible to pass data back and forth in a structured manner. A REST API is a certain type of API. It defines a set of standard rules as to how the computer hosting the API is supposed to behave, how it's supposed to handle requests made to it, how you're supposed to interact with it, how you're supposed to access its data. The implementation details, that is how the API works under the hood, don't matter. What a REST API is all about is how requests are responded to. It's primarily used on servers where clients must be able to access, create or manipulate data.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does music invoke such an emotional reaction from us? (e.g. making us want to dance, cry or sing)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I heard a story that Charles Darwin always believed that humans invented music (probably rhythm and humming) 10,000's of years before a spoken language developed to explain why music moves us more than the spoken word. He had no evidence to back his theory so he never published it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star Wars] Why does Vader close his fingers together to choke someone if he doesn’t actually have hands? Does the force still flow through his cybernetic limbs?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Many of the Force techniques (at least how they're taught) seem to require gestures of one sort or another. I'll theorize that this is sort of a mnemonic to whatever mental processes are required to activate the ability more quickly or with less mental overhead involved.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:How do signatures prove anything? Are they not easily forged?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Legally, your signature is any mark you make under the eyes of witnesses with the intent of affirming something. So the mark itself means nothing. The mark is merely evidence that you had, at the time you made it, the intent of affirming whatever it is to which you affixed the mark.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Gender-neutral pronouns reinforce the gender binary Gender roles are outdated and there is no realistic reason in America for people to confine to a gender norm or gender roles. It is socially acceptable today in mainstream culture for both men and women to do many things that once traditionally belonged to only one gender. For instance, it is becoming more acceptable for men to show feelings, enjoy crafts, or to take on the role of homemaker and childcare. It is acceptable for women to wear pants, work outside the home, and abstain from childbirth and/or from being the primary caregiver of their children. If we accept the notion that gender is a societal construct, then gender has been progressively becoming less defined through these changes. By identifying oneself as non-binary or "they," a person is implicitly defining what a woman (she) or man (he) is. This in turn reinforces the notion that to be a "real" man or woman, a person needs to have certain characteristics. By saying that you identify as "they," you are claiming that these characteristics do not define you...but in order for that to be true, you need to have a set idea of what it means to be a man or a woman. If "man" and "woman" (taken as gender) do not have set definitions, then "they" is a meaningless pronoun.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant >By identifying oneself as non-binary or "they," a person is implicitly defining what a woman (she) or man (he) is. This in turn reinforces the notion that to be a "real" man or woman, a person needs to have certain characteristics. Can you explain more as to why you think it does this? These things seem completely unrelated to me, as using the word "they" doesn't mention any characteristics.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: The difference between Laws, Statutes, and Ordinances in the USA?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Statutes and ordinances are laws. Statutes are promulgated by the federal and state government. Ordinances are promulgated by counties and cities. Statutes will apply in the whole state or country (if federal). Ordinances will only apply in the particular city or county where they are passed.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user AskScience AMA Series: I’m Dyann Wirth, Chair of the Department of Immunology and Infectious Diseases at Harvard T.H Chan School of Public Health and Director of the Harvard Malaria Initiative, and I’m here to talk about malaria eradication; Ask Me Anything! Hello, reddit! I’m [Dyann Wirth, Chair of the Department of Immunology and Infectious Diseases at Harvard T.H Chan School of Public Health and Director of the Harvard Malaria Initiative]( http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/dyann-wirth/). I also serve on the board of the University-wide [Defeating Malaria: From the Genes to the Globe initiative]( https://www.defeatingmalaria.harvard.edu/). Malaria’s impact across the globe is vast: Nearly half of the world’s population—about 3.2 billion people—is at risk of malaria. And an estimated 283 million people are infected every year—most of them young children in impoverished Sub-Saharan Africa. Recently, President Obama pledged to wipe out malaria. I told the [New York Times]( http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/18/us/politics/obamas-goal-to-wipe-out-malaria-may-be-a-dream-too-far.html) that we currently don’t have the “arsenal” to eradicate malaria today, but it's a goal that we’re working towards. My lab’s research has provided new insight into how the malaria parasite has evolved, allowing us to better understand the fundamental biology of the parasite and the [mechanisms of drug resistance]( http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/a-new-twist-in-malaria-drug-resistance/). Our team at the Harvard Malaria Initiative employs sophisticated laboratory approaches to understand the underlying causes of drug resistance identify and screen potential new drugs and drug targets, rapidly translate new findings into practical treatments, and train researchers and global public health professionals from the U.S. and malaria endemic regions. I’ll be here from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. ET to answer your questions about malaria; Ask Me Anything! EDIT: It's 1:00 p.m. ET and I'm now here to answer your questions! EDIT AGAIN: Thank you so much for your great questions! If you want to see more about how you can help us fight malaria, [check out this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46AHLCgXXgE).<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In the setting of the ongoing Zika epidemic, recent press attention has focused on the notion of eradicating mosquitos that are vectors for pathogenic parasites (anopheles, aedes, etc.), thereby removing the primary host for many infectious diseases - including, of course, your dear Plasmodium genus. What are your thoughts on this as a tactic, from both a theoretical and logistical perspective?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: You can locate an airplane when you hear one with reasonable accuracy. But why is it much harder to locate a helicopter?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You can make use of the Doppler effect to gauge the direction of incoming sound waves (changes in pitch correlate with the direction and motion of an object). Helicopters move a lot slower. Especially if they're just hovering, you lose one source of information about it's direction. So it's harder to locate.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What differentiates a "cuss word" from a normal word? In simpler terms, what determines/determined words like "damn" and "sht" to be bad words? Thanks :)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Well, in some sense, words are defined by what meaning people ascribe to them. So, a word is a cuss word or otherwise vulgar because people ascribe to it a meaning or connotation of vulgarity. Bad words are bad because people believe them to be bad / insulting. But if we dig a little deeper, cuss words tend to have one of three basic origins - sexual, scatological, or blasphemous. The first category includes your F-word, the second one contains s*t and related, and the last one has your hell and your damn and so forth. Why these particular origins? Because that's what was considered "unclean" or taboo, especially from a historical setting. Those topics, even today, aren't exactly the paragon discussion topics for polite society, and to associate an action or a person with something unclean is to, in effect, call the other person unclean or otherwise insult them.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why do economists plot independent variables on the y-axis ? Other than to annoy physicists<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Do you mean with price vs quantity graphs? Neither price nor quantity are truly "independent variables". In some models of markets such as Bertrand competition, we can think about quantity as if it were a function of the price, but other models (for example, Stackelberg competition) it's the opposite, price is a function of quantity.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: The new Canadian Cabinet should have been less about equal gender count and different cultures and more about who is RIGHT for the job. I'm in an office environment by day, and all I'm hearing is about Justin Trudeau being sworn in as the next Prime Minister of Canada. But when they're all talking about the cabinet of chosen representatives, they're not talking about their merits at all. All they can talk about is "That Kent is the right man for the job. He's in a wheelchair!" Or "There's going to be 50% women in it from now on!" When Justin Trudeau was asked why such diversity, his response was "It's 2015." Hooray for diversity, but not what I think should have been his answer... (I'm not starting a feminism debate, hear me out) So the look on their faces when I said, I'm more for the 'right person for the job' or 'who has the most merit to uphold the position. It's great that the selected are very diverse and gender balanced. But I don't agree that it should stay that way for the sake of it. If other people are better for the job, then they should step down. Not stay to keep a culture or gender balance... I wasn't saying pull them out, but their reaction was like i said i hate anyone different than me or something... Am I crazy? Let me know if this isn't how to use this subreddit... _____ > 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 Have you considered that these selections (which you apparently think are too diverse) also happen to be "the right people" for the jobs? I don't know about the other cabinet slots, but the new Minister for Defence is a retired Lieutenant-Colonel who served several tours in Kosovo and Afghanistan. Yes, he was born in India, which gives him "diversity points" or whatever you'd like to think of them as, but he appears to be qualified for the job. You might want to be careful about deciding that the new cabinet members are just diversity picks. Would you be so worried about their qualifications if they were all white guys? Your coworkers are a bit silly for being so excited about the new picks without actually knowing very much about them, but it is a fairly big deal that the Cabinet is a better representation of the Canadian people then it has been for previous administrations.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are old "religions"(norse, pagan etc.) are not considered religions today, when Christianity, Islam etc. is and they have pretty much the same proofs for their beliefs?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A religion isn't just the things people believe, it's the institution to act in accordance with that belief. That is, Christianity isn't just the belief that Jesus lived and taught in Galilee, was crucified by the Romans, and was resurrected, liberating some or all people from some or all of the consequences of sin. It's the whole apparatus of believers and churches and Mass and revival meetings and Bible study groups. Norse or Greco-Roman paganism doesn't have that in the modern world (except for a few revivalist movements, which most people would agree are religions, even if they think they're silly). The Elusinian Mysteries aren't performed. No one goes to Delphi or Cumae or Dodona to consult with an oracle. There are no Vestal Virgins. The last vestiges of the actual practice of Roman paganism died off in the five or six hundreds.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does wearing black make people seem slimmer?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Because black absorbs most light, rather than reflecting it like lighter colours, we can't see much detail in dark clothing. When we see someone wearing a light coloured item of clothing, more light reflects: specifically, it reflects differently depending on the shape of the person - lots of shadows, different light levels etc. What does this mean? Well, it means we see all their lumps and bumps and bits that stick out, because we can see the shadows created by those lumps and bumps more clearly. With dark clothing, we can't see those imperfections as easily or clearly, so our brain assumes they're smaller/not there. The same applies to some extent with the sides of the clothing - because the clothing is darker, there's no clear "shadow" as the body curves away. That means our body assumes the dark areas to the sides are all shadows at the side of the curve (rather than front of your body) and we "see" the person as "narrower" (or slimmer)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why is it that I can't see clearly under water without swimming goggles?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Your eyes have evolved to see in air, your corneas have evolved to shape and focus light passing from air into the eye. The different refractive index of water makes it so that your cornea focuses the image in the wrong spot. Goggles/masks give an air gap that allow the image to form properly. However, the refractive change from the water, through the lens, into the air, makes things look bigger than they are, that shark you saw diving wasn't 12 feet long, it was more like 9.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does 'Anti-Paparazzi Scarf' work ? I just saw the [Anti-Paparazzi Scarf.](http://i.imgur.com/LxxdHSE.jpg) Explain how it works.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Cameras can be set up a couple of ways. one way to use them very quickly in unpredictable situations (Like paparazzi for instance) is to put a flash on top so you always have enough light, and to let the camera pick your exposure for you so you don't have to take the time to set up the settings. In that sort of mode, when you take the photo, the camera very quickly does a couple of things. First, it starts up the light meter inside the camera. Then, it fires a "pre flash" to see how far away the scene/subject is to determine how bright the real flash needs to be, and to set the rest of the parameters in camera (ISO, aperture, and shutter speed) When that pre-flash hits the really reflective scarf, a LOT of light comes back at the camera, directly off of the scarf, which tells it that the scene is really bright, and doesn't need much extra light. So the camera decides to only put out a little bit of light from the flash, and to only let in a little bit of light from the ISO, aperture, and shutter speed, so in the final image, the scarf is exposed correctly, but because nothing else in the scene is so reflective, the rest of the image looks way too dark, and isn't usable. It's really easy to beat, however, by taking the time to set the camera manually for the exposure you know you'll need, or by not using a flash on the camera (which is how they get the "before" photo in the examples) TLDR: The scarf reflects the flash from the camera and tricks the camera into under-exposing the image so much that it isn't usable.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do celebrities rarely get prison sentences that match the severity of those given to non-celebrities? EDIT: thanks for all of the thoughtful responses, this turned into a really interesting thread. the side topics of the relationship of wealth and fame could probably make up their own threads entirely. finally, this question was based solely off of anecdotes and observation, not an empirical study (though that would be a fascinating read)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant * Better lawyers * Often have positive contribution to society to become celebrities, so better prospects of rehabilitation * More money = easier rehabilitation for things like addiction/violence * Reputation damage is often seen as a large punishment which 'normal' people don't have<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why do advances in animal models rarely translate to equally functional & effective therapies? I understand that there are fundamental differences in biology between animal models and humans. However, I don’t think I have a clear answer as to what broad categories of issues might be responsible for the aforementioned failure of successes in animal models to translate to human therapeutics and I was hoping someone could explain. Enormous amounts of funding go to these therapeutic developments each year, surely someone must have discussed this discrepancy.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A few of the "broad categories" that come to mind: * Actual anatomy -- presence or absence of anatomical features, differences in relative sizes of anatomical features or organs, etc. * Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics -- how quickly drugs are taken up by the body, distributed within the body, metabolized, and excreted * Immune system response -- how the body reacts to foreign species (e.g. implanted devices) * General considerations about genetic diversity -- animal models may use individuals more closely related to one another than a human trial would, which can confound study effects There are more factors, to be sure. I don't think that anyone using animal models of disease in their research expects the models to be perfect analogues of human physiology / biochemistry, but the idea is that the animal models are far closer to the "real thing" than an in-vitro test / cell culture or computer simulation would be.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why are people skeptical about metaphysics? I saw few posts titled ".... save metaphysics?" "is metaphysics no longer valuable?" Why are people skeptical about metaphysics? What's the problem?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant "If all we can have access to is the physical, the natural, how can we talk about the things beyond the physical?" has been an important question in philosophy. Some argued that they can finally get rid of metaphysics (some forms of empiricism); some argued that all philosophy is metaphysics (Kant's synthetic a priori); some argued that even arguing for physicalism/materialism is itself a metaphysical position (Wittgenstein); some held that metaphysics is an inevitable aspect of all linguistic usage, and that we should just accept it and move on (Quine), etc. I'd say in the beginning of 20th century, the rise of empiricism in the Anglophone world and the rise of phenomenology in the Continent made people skeptical of the old metaphysical ways of doing philosophy. But in the later half of the 20th century, there were some philosophers who "saved" metaphysics.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Teaching your kids to believe in Santa is stupid. Note: this goes for other made up characters like the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy. As a kid, I never understood people’s obsession with Santa. Christmas is to celebrate the birth of Christ and sure it’s now evolved to include some gift-giving and a big celebration too— I’ve known that since age 3. But I never understood why other kids in my class would insist that Santa is real or why their parents would happily go along with it instead of just communicating the real meaning behind Christmas (I’m not even Christian, so thankfully my parents never tried to push this nonsense on me). So here’s why I think teaching your kids to believe in Santa is dumb. 1. It literally adds nothing to their life. Santa is nothing more than commercialized balderdash by corporations taking advantage of children’s naïveté. He isn’t a God to pray to or instill “moral” values in the kid (other than “be good”, which is kind of meaningless). He isn’t some celebrity or amazing selfless person to look up to and idolize. He isn’t even real! Why feed your kid a load of commercialized bullshit, when instead you can be teaching them about the real world? You can teach them about why certain families can afford certain gifts and others can’t, why certain kids in their class don’t get gifts not because they’re bad but because they aren’t even Christian and don’t celebrate Christmas, where these gifts come from and maybe the economics behind creating and selling these items during a holiday season, etc. Literally all of that is more valuable than peddling bullshit to your kids. 2. It probably teaches kids to not think critically about the world. First of all, kids shouldn’t just be blindly believing what their parents tell them. They should be led to ask themselves whether it’s even possible for Santa to exist: How does his sleigh fly? How does he reach all 8 billion people in one night? How are his elves somehow able to create the brand new iPhone and package it in the exact Apple box it comes in? Furthermore, how is it possible for people to have explored the North Pole and yet never seen a trace of Santa? (I don’t even know how kids themselves don’t ask these questions on their own, because I did, but I have to imagine it’s in part due to a lack of emphasis on critical thinking in our education systems and the parents continuing to sell a crock of shit). 3. This just delays the inevitable truth from coming out. Your kid is going to find out that Santa doesn’t exist— if they don’t come to that conclusion by considering his impossibility, they’re going to realize it because their parents are definitely buying the gifts. Why delay the inevitable? What does that even do to benefit the kid? 4. It teaches kids the opposite of learning “good” behavior for its own sake. Kids shouldn’t be learning to be good because they’ll get a present at the end of the year. They should be kind and respectful because it’s just basic human decency 101. So you’re basically ruining their own development by linking good acts to rewards. Anyway, open to changing my opinion but this is it.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I’d argue in question 2 that part of the point is to teach kids to think critically. Kids largely figure out for themselves on that the balance of evidence Santa doesn’t make realistic sense by age ten or so. It’s one of the first times kids can find out that they can come to a different conclusion than what the authorities in their lives are telling them and be right and encouraged in doing that. It also teaches kids, once they inevitably do find out, that there parents have been giving them gifts for years with no intent on taking credit for it, which implies gift giving is an exercise in making the recipient, rather than the giver, happy.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do they measure the depth of caves when there’s no real direct path top to bottom? I’m talking about the record-holding ones in Georgia (the country) or Mexico. I’ve read a few books about these adventures but never do they go into HOW the depth is accurately measured. I’m 49, but my 13 year old asked me. Let’s pretend she’s 5.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Pressure, as you go down the amount of air pressure increases and this can be used to find out how low in the ground you are. It's the same principle which hikers use to measure how high they are while climbing mountains.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why do queen ants shed their wings after mating? Title<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant After a queen ant has mated, she will search for a suitable place to produce offspring and start a colony. Most species of ants make nests in the ground, in small holes of (dead) trees or other narrow spaces. Having wings in that case obstructs your movement greatly (which is why worker ants are wingless as well). The ant queen will also stay in that nest for the rest of her life (although sometimes ant colonies can move to a new place but even then she does not need to fly) and creates offspring that does the foraging and caretaking for her. So there no longer is use for wings. Therefore, ants that had their wings shed after mating probably had an advantage over ants that did not shed wings. When only living underground, wings are a burden and probably get damaged over time anyway.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What actually is Asbestos? I keep hearing about it in different contexts but still am not too sure what it is why it was considered good and turned out to be bad. Anyone know?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Asbestos is a naturally occurring silicate mineral. People have been using it since antiquity because it is flame resistant. Even the Ancient Greeks knew about it. During the Industrial Revolution it was mined at large scale, and used in all sorts of products - insulation for homes, textiles, bricks... The problem with asbestos is that when you cut it, you release tiny fibers into the air, and these tiny fibers are incredibly sharp. So you breathe in the tiny fibers, and they cause tiny holes in your lungs. Long-term this leads to scarring of the lungs, a condition referred to as asbestosis. You can also develop cancer in the lining of your lungs, which is referred to as mesothelioma.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:How does the Bible explain dinosaurs? According to the Christian faith, God created man and woman. How does that explain dinosaurs? > Wanting actual advice, not hating on relgion > > I'm just curious<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Worth pointing out that the bible is made up from texts that are about 1900 years old. Dinosaurs have only really been recognised in the last 200 years. The area in which the bible came about is not somewhere with particularly good fossil bearing geology so it's not a theme the bible ever had to deal with.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Marvel comics/MCU] Could Steve Rogers be worthy of wielding Mjolnir pre-SSS? Steve obviously has the requirements in his heart and character to wield mjolnir but is it the SSS that makes him capable of acting out these traits that lets him lift it or could he lift it pre-serum?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant His training prior to receiving the serum and talks with Dr. Erskine all indicate it was his character and attitude which made him who he is. The serum made him human-tier strong, but the hammer is on another level. Even if pre-Serum Steve didn't have the physical strength to lift the hammer overhead, if he was worthy the hammer would make him strong enough as soon as he tried to lift it<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What is the significance of "returning the power to the states"? You hear this a million times in every debate. A candidate is asked about his position on a topic, and ultimately the answer boils down to, "I don't believe the federal government should be making those decisions. I think those choices should be left up to the state." Well, why? Why is it OK if a single state passes x law, but unacceptable if made federal policy? Why should what is "right" not apply to the entire country?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It allows each state to pass legislation that is more tailor-fit to their population. Federal government passes a law that gay marriage is illegal, EVERYONE has to abide by it. Whereas places like Utah that may not be a big issue to the majority of people, places like California where the gay population is larger would be more upset. Similiarly, If the federal government required all personal automobiles meet a 30mpg fuel efficiency. That would go over well in New York, but smaller rural areas like Alabama where people drive trucks for functional purposes alot would be negatively effected. Basically, Federal government should be making as few decisions and laws as humanely possible, and leave the states to do their own thing. The only time they should be stepping in is when one state is functionally denying its citizens their constitutionally guaranteed rights. (for example, overruling Chicago Illinois' restriction on people owning firearms, which is protected by the 2nd amendment)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Antifa is a terrorist organization In the United States, the Antifa have successfully gotten two events canceled in the past week. First, at Berkeley, they made it impossible for the University and the Berkeley police force to ensure that Ann Coulter and people interested in hearing her speak would be safe. Second, they got the Portland Rose Parade canceled by threatening to attack any participating Republicans. They have also behaved violently in the past, so there's little reason to think that they won't make good on their threats. This is violence in the service of a political agenda, i.e., terrorism. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Terrorism is generally defined as "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." The actions so far are questionable as to whether they truly constitute terrorism. As well, this is a sizeable ideology, so it's rather diffifcult to claim the entire ideology is a terrorist organization, since it is not a very clearly defined organization. It's more of a lose ideology. At minimum, it lacks the true qualifications to be a terrorist organization* due to not really being an organization, and also doesn't really meet the requirements for terrorism either.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How were carnivorous plants able to evolve as they did? Let me preface this question by saying I have always been a firm believer of evolution. However, I've puzzled over many strange results of evolution and how they got to be where they are. Carnivorous plants are one example. How can a plant GRADUALLY evolve the ability to trap insects and absorb them without use of its roots? Did it just start out as a mutation that made a plant kind of sticky? It seems like such a radical change and the intermediate steps don't necessarily seem beneficial enough to ensure greater than average reproductive success. Edit: Thank you for all your informative responses! This was my first reddit post since the 4 years I've been lurking, and it is very encouraging.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant These plants are usually found in regions with poor soil quality meaning that they may only receive vital nutritients when animals die around them. They could hav evolved to simply inhibit the movement of insects with a sticky surface and gradually moved toward movement themselves. Once movement was common, natural selection picked the most efficient animal. Ones with the best energy efficiency survive and yield todays carniverous plants.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 Why is there so few natural blue colored foods?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Plants have only three pigments: Anthocyanin (red), xanthin (yellow), and chlorophyll (green). It's pretty difficult to combine them in a way that yields blue. Some plants get close, but it's really more of a purple color than a true blue.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Resources on the philosophy of fear? Since a very young age, I have found this emotion to be one of the most fascinating... especially with how it hinders a person. If you know of any resources on the philosophy of fear and can share them here, it would be much appreciated! Thank you.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You might find that, through studying what people who study the virtue 'courage' (cf. Aristotle, the Stoics, or any virtue ethicist, really) have to say, it would help to illuminate the nature of fear. Also, this may be a little different from fear (although it certainly contains it), but angst or anxiety are crucial concepts in the existentialist tradition (cf. Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Sartre, or even certain Buddhist texts). And, finally, of course, the key scholars of the psychoanalytical tradition (cf. Freud, Jung, Marcuse, Irigaray) have some interesting things to say about where fear originates and how it manifests itself in one's decisions/actions and general perception of the world.<\|im_end\|>

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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