Split (1)

train · 52.8k rows

text stringlengths 82 65.5k
<\|im_start\|>user Can someone explain leveraging debt. I’m mostly interested in how governments use their debt. Also what’s equity?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I am assuming you are talking about investment finance here. Equity means shares in companies. Leveraging debt means borrowing money (paying interest on it) and using the money to invest (in shares maybe?) and hopefully getting a much higher return than the cost of the interest of the money borrowed. This is not usually the language used for governments and they would not normally borrow money with the intention to invest it to get a higher return - and would be ill advise to do so. Nevertheless while not trying to do that, government capital spending can be modelled in that way. Governments typically borrow and have national debts while at the same time building roads or sewers which have a long term return.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How is real-time traffic determined with applications such as Google Maps?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Departments of Transportation have traffic survey systems. You can see them while driving around. Usually you see pairs of magnetic pickups in each lane, or a CCTV video camera pointed at the highway. By timing how long vehicles take to pass from pickup 1 to pickup 2 you can detect the traffic's velocity. Average out the velocities and frequencies of detection and you can figure out how crowded the traffic is and how traffic is moving. They also take police/fire reports of accidents and plot them. Traffic information services pull data created by the DOT and other traffic indicators like how many cell phones a cell tower placed by a highway sees. This is fed to whatever subscriber system requires it. Aircraft and Ships actually transmit their positions, and anyone with the right equipment can pick that information up.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Watts, Voltage, and Amperes What are they? The title is a bit misleading as I do know what they are but I don't entirely understand them. I have a test in Science class soon, however, taking a look back at my notes, I feel like I overcomplicated everything and am feeling confused. I understand that Watts is the outcome of power or J/S. I know that electrons actually move slower than snails but what we generally mean is the voltage drop. I know that VoltageAmperes=Watts I'm not sure what volts (or voltage) are. I'm not entirely sure what a voltage drop is, is it a constant burst of energy or is it just electricity moving? Are watts per second? If I left a 20W lightbulb running for an hour and I have to pay 18c per kWh, how do we figure out how much money that costs? EDIT:* Thank you to everyone who helped, I read everyone answers. I do feel I have a bit more of an understanding and could definitely relate this back to my notes. I do still have one more question though, is voltage constant?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The easiest way to understand the relation between the Volts, Amperes, Joules and Watts is using an analogy that, while not accurately representing the physical situation, provides a decent insight into how these quantities interact. Imagine an electrical circuit as a road with trucks traveling on it. On this road, there's a truck depot that serves as both the start and end point of the road, as well as one or more stops along the way. At the depot, the trucks are loaded with cargo and they will drive the entire road, unloading some or all of their cargo at each stop they encounter so that when they reach the depot again at the end, all cargo has been unloaded. The stops along the road are the places that use the cargo and they determine how much cargo is needed. There are two ways to manipulate the amount of cargo being driven around on this road: Either by changing the number of trucks that depart from the depot or by changing how much cargo each truck is loaded with. The total amount of cargo that this network uses per second is then equal to the amount of cargo on each truck multiplied by the number of trucks leaving the depot every second. Now, back to electricity. Using the example above, the amount of cargo loaded on each truck represents the Voltage. The voltage is a measure of the difference in electric potential energy between the start and the end of the circuit. In simple circuits, that is between the + and - pole of the battery / power source. This quantity is measured in Volt (V). The number of trucks leaving the depot per second represents the Amperage. The unit Ampere (A) is a measure for the amount of current flowing through a (specific point in a) circuit. The power, measured in Watt (W), is computed as the product of the voltage and the current. This is represented in the example by the amount of cargo delivered per second. Power itself is a quantity that expresses energy per second. The unit of energy is Joule (J). But rather than always speaking of J/s (Joules-per-second), we use the shorthand term quantity Watt, where 1 Watt is equal to 1 Joule per second. So if we have a device that uses 20 W, that means that every second it uses 20 J of energy. In one hour, that means it uses 60 * 60 * 20 = 72,000 J of energy. Since these quantities can become rather large quickly, we often express an amount of energy in a different way, namely as kWh or kilo-Watt-hour. 1 kWh is, as the name implies, the total amount of energy used by something that uses 1 kW of power and runs for 1 hour. 1 kW of power means 1,000 J of energy per second, so running that for 1 hour or 3,600 seconds means that 1 kWh is 3,600,000 J of energy. The aforementioned 20 W device uses 0.02 kW of power. That means that in 1 hour it will use 0.02 kWh of energy. Note: The trucks/cargo analogy is not an accurate representation of the underlying physics of electricity. As you remarked, the charge carriers in an electric circuit, electrons, move rather slowly and it is not the case that you have electrons racing around the circuit dropping their energy at devices ("stops") along the way. To make things more complicated, if you use alternating current, the direction of the electron flow changes rapidly (50 or 60 times per second depending on where you live) and that obviously doesn't translate very well to the truck/cargo analogy. However, the analogy does clarify the relation between the various quantities reasonably well (at least for simple circuits) and can be used to gain an understanding as to how these things relate to eachother.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does weed relieve pain? Does it work like ibuprofen or aspirin? How does marijuana relieve pain? Does it work like ibuprofen or aspirin?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Ibuprofen/aspirin, opiates, and marijuana relieve pain in different ways. Ibuprofen and aspirin interfere with the production of prostaglandins, which are hormones that help transmit information about pain and cause inflammation. So ibuprofen stops your body from swelling and transmitting pain at the site of the injury. Opiates bind to opioid receptors in the gastrointestinal tract, spine, and brain, and prevent pain messages being passed through those channels. I don't think we fully understand how marijuana relieves pain yet (there haven't been as many studies done due to its legal status), but the research so far shows that it doesn't reduce pain intensity, but rather it helps people ignore the pain or cope with it. So you might say "yeah, that stinging sensation feels like it's stinging just as much, but it's easier for me to not care about now." That different mechanism of action is one reason why it has promising medical benefits. If a patient in chronic pain doesn't respond to other treatments, then marijuana offers another way for them to get relief.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What physical properties make an object sharp?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are a few things that contribute to this. The first is simply how the force is distributed. The reason the blade of a knife cuts better than the side of your hand is because the area over which the force is applied is much smaller. This makes the pressure on that small area very high. (Pressure=Force/Area) This high force over a small area leads to a localized mechanical failure. Another contributing factor is hardness, which is a way to quantify a material's resistance to persona the deformation at the surface level. If you take 2 different rocks or metals and scrape them against one another, you will notice that one is often scratched and the other no (or significantly less). Knife blades are usually made of harder steel and then either heat-treated or given a surface finish to make them harder (and more scratch resistant). This also means they will scratch other (softer) materials better. When applied in a sawing motion, you can visualize scratches stacked on top of one another which makes the cut deeper with each action. Is this what you were asking?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why did they opt for an mRNA COVID vaccine as opposed to using said mRNA to generate the viral antigens and inject those instead? I'd figure the viral antigens themselves would be a lot more stable than mRNA and maybe not need to be stored at such extremely cold temperatures. Since everybody is getting the same mRNA and thus generating the exact same viral antigens, why not just produce the antigens in situ (or in vivo with COVID-infectable animals), purify the viral antigens, and ship those as the COVID vaccine?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The immune system responds to a foreign protein in the context of self. It doesn't just respond to free floating stuff. It has to be internalized by a cell and presented on the surface of the cell to be recognized by the immune system. Manufacturing mRNA is much easier and cheaper than manufacturing a complex protein. Also, some proteins require post-translational modification such as the addition of sugar molecules or changes in the three dimensional conformation of the molecule. Letting the cell do this naturally is more accurate than trying to do it in a bioreactor. Further, there's a much smaller contaminant profile that has to be cleaned up if you're not having to remove partial protein fragments, etc.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user eli5:Why is one side of our hands lighter than the other? This is easier to see in POC.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Here’s the ELI25 version, with an ELI5 at the bottom: The layers of the skin go (from outer to inner): the stratum corneum, the epidermis, and the dermis. The stratum corneum is the outer most layer of skin and consists of dead skin cells (they've lost their nucleus). The epidermis is where the melanin is produced/stored. The BEST defense against UV damage is a thick stratum corneum, the second best is increased melanocyte concentration. The skin on the palms of the hands and feet have thicker stratum corneum, compared to other regions of skin, and so does not require a large melanocyte concentration. ELI5: There are two types of protection against UV radiation. The first is melanin, which makes the skin dark. The second is a thick outer layer of skin. Since palms and the bottom of our feet naturally have a thicker outer layer, that means they don’t need as much melanin.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What exactly is MSG and why does it have a bad repuatation in foods.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant MSG is mono-sodium glutamate, a salt of glutamic acid, which itself is a naturally occurring amino acid which is essential for life. MSG has a bad reputation because it is used widely in Asian cuisine, and became an easy scapegoat for customers feeling unwell after eating Asian foods. After all, a strange white powder from a different culture with a chemical name can’t be good for you, or so the logic goes. There are countless studies which show MSG has no negative effects if consumed in moderate amounts. There are negative effects if you take 3g of MSG without food or water, but that’s not realistic.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Want a world with more trees? Use more paper. Want to keep endangered animals from going extinct? Turn them into food. It really just seems to come down to supply and demand. Just about all of our paper comes from privately owned forests called "managed timberlands," where trees are grown specifically to be pulped for paper production. No need for paper? No need for the trees. So the question is, do you want to live on a planet with more trees, or less trees? If you want more, then use as much paper as possible. Boosting demand will boost supply, and, voilà! More trees! Same goes for endangered species. You don't see cows going extinct any time soon, do you? Why? Because we eat them. Where there's a demand, there is (or will soon be) a supply. So if McDonalds started selling a McBengal patty melt, POOF! No more looming Bengal Tiger extinction. I'm not actually suggesting that we start eating every endangered species, or that we go around wasting paper. But it makes sense on paper. What am I missing? EDIT: Thanks for all of your responses! This was really more of a showerthought, but I wanted help vetting whether or not these ideas held any water. The verdict: they don't, haha. But I appreciate everyone taking the time to give me a lot of solid reasons not to go around telling people they should waste paper and eat tigers. Cheers ^_^ _____ > 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 Economic viability is important for businesses, and these plans won't provide the outcomes people want once that is taken into consideration. The trees in tree plantations are often a monoculture instead of a mixed ecosystem, so they all grow at the same rate. They may not even be from the area, as things like "growing quickly" will be favored over "local type." They are not allowed to become old growth forest with the associated ecosystem, often being cut down after only a handful of decades (which may seem like a long time, but isn't for a forest). Finally, the easiest land to build one is an existing forest which could be cut down to make space if it was economical to do so, which increased paper demand would do. The net effect would likely be maybe a few additional trees, but less forests. Eating endangered animals, on the other hand, has totally different issues. Most animals are wildly unsuited for mass production. For example, anything that is endangered because it doesn't breed well in captivity is a no-go. Similarly many take far too long to grow to a useable size, or require more expensive food (for example, predators and meat), will fight if kept together, or are extremely dangerous. You could theoretically try to start a farm for McBengal meat, but unless everyone is cool with paying $10,000 a burger and you can sell enough of them it isn't going to be economically viable.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does the stock market respond to falling oil prices with sell-offs? Shouldn't every sector that uses energy to make and ship their products see increased profits? I have a lot of money in the stock market right now, and I'm getting frustrated with the constant nosedives the DOW and S&P keep taking being blamed on low oil prices. I get that low oil prices hurts Exxon Mobil and BP, but energy is only 5.9% of the US economy: http://www.statista.com/statistics/217556/percentage-of-gdp-from-energy-in-selected-countries/ The other 94.1% of the economy purchases energy in order to manufacture and ship goods. Cheap oil should do wonders for the profit margins of the vast majority of the economy. What's more, cheap gas means more consumer spending in every other sector. When 20 stocks are trending upward for every one that crashes, my stock ticker should be bright green. Why is it red?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If you need financial issues explained to you on ELI5, you just shouldn't be following the financial news. Your stocks will rise in value over time if you invest them in a diversified, passively managed index fund. Your job as a responsible investor is to only put in money you don't need right now, and not check the balance of your brokerage account for another decade. Flooey's answer isn't wrong - in general, higher oil prices can be seen either as a sign of rising costs of production or as a sign of strong global demand. Which side of the equation is more important for assessing future economic growth is a complicated analytical question. But more importantly, the financial sector has tried to predict both of these effects long before you even thought about them, and changes in the market reflect a difference between recent information and pre-existing predictions, not between recent information and older information. A price of oil that is lower than last year's price could be either higher or lower than what analysts were predicting for this year's price, and that difference is what is likely to move markets. But it gets even more complex than that - the market is anticipating rate hikes from the Fed, which will cut economic production. Good news for the economy tends to push the Fed towards rate hikes, which are (in the short term) bad news for the economy. So current faster-than-expected economic growth can be good evidence that economic growth will slow within a few months. And there are even stranger interconnections between stock prices. Famously, when Russia defaulted on its ruble-denominated debt, the difference between the price of Royal Dutch and Shell (which are the same company, but listed separately as a British and a Dutch stock) spiked. Why? Because a huge hedge fund that was betting Russia would never default on ruble-denominated debt without also defaulting on dollar-denominated debt was also betting that Royal Dutch Shell would never pay a dividend to the Dutch stock without paying a profit to the British stock, and when they lost money on the default they had to unwind their position in Royal Dutch Shell, too, selling Shell and buying Royal Dutch. If it's not your job you shouldn't waste time thinking about it. Stay diversified, don't pick stocks, invest for the long term, keep money you need in the near future out of risky assets.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 - If electrons are constantly losing energy while being in an atom, why don't they fall to the nucleus? So our physics teachers asked us this question and I found many different answers to it, here and on different sites. It doesn't fall into the nucleus because it is in a state where the kinetic energy equals the potential energy, but that wasn't an enough answer for him. He said the electron is still losing energy, but he is getting it back somehow, how? I tried finding an answer but nothing seems logical enough or clear enough :/<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Big objects, like the sun, planet, and baseballs, behave how you're describing. They would lose energy spinning in circles. Electrons though are too small. They don't obey classical laws. They obey quantum laws. (Quantum means really small.) Electrons aren't really spinning around the nucleus. They're doing something else that we can't really describe classically. We sometimes think of it in probabilities. Sometimes it's in one position and sometimes it's in another and the shape can look like a ring around the nucleus. As for losing energy, we have to talk about "quantum numbers". When we put an electron in a potential (like a nucleus) we restrict what energy it can have. In a very very simple case, (the 1D infinite square well) electrons could only have energies if 1,4,9,16, and so on. An electron of energy 9 "spinning" around a nucleus can't lose 9 energy and crash into the nucleus, it can only lose 5 or 8.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: I believe cheating on your taxes is not immoral I'm self-employed and make a six figure income. However, I have worked my ass off for many years to get here. I served in the military out of high school, attended a cheap state school (first in my family to graduate college), and have been self employed for the last seven years. I find taxes to be extremely frustrating on a ideological basis. I currently pay more in taxes than the average US family makes in a year. Clearly, I've been very blessed financially and I absolutely want to give back to society and to help others with that blessing, but beyond a certain level (more on this later), taxes are simply theft. They're simply one group taking money from another group because they can. I often hear a lot of moralizing about how someone is a "tax cheat" and they should be ashamed, etc, etc. I'm curious as to how we got to this point where merely being born and making a living means that a large group of people can get together, decide to come and take your stuff (by force if necessary), and they demand that you tell them exactly what you've got so they can decide how much to take. And if you don't participate fully, you're an immoral person?? So what's the proper level of taxation? I'm not sure (maybe zero, at least for taxes you can't really choose to pay), but surely we can agree that if government officials were taxing all of us at 90% (regardless of income level) and then using that money to buy themselves mansions, it wouldn't be immoral to skirt those rules (and try to change them obviously), would it? But looking at the federal budget in the US, a huge portion of the things my taxes go to are things I absolutely don't agree with. From a huge military conducting stupid adventures all over the world (which I've seen up close), to the NSA spying on us all, to social security, medicare, medicaid (programs I'm not a fan of, particularly at the federal level). Yes, money goes to build roads and inspect meat and clean energy and space research. But come on, those things are like 9% of the budget. Why should I feel morally obligated to give my money to these people to do mostly terrible things because a group of people decided that I should? Despite all of this, I am meticulous about paying my taxes, because I fear the consequences of getting caught. However, I do absolutely exploit every single tax incentive that I can find to not pay one single penny more than I have to. The risks of getting caught are the only thing that keep me honest here, and there's definitely a level of taxation where the cost of paying everything is too high. At that point I'll either leave the US or break the law by cheating on my taxes. And I won't feel the least bit guilty. CMV. EDIT: Multiple people have made the argument that because I choose to live in society, I must live by its rules. While I think this can be taken too far by using it to justify horrible laws, I see the point. And yes, I could choose to leave. But I don't, so maybe that's enough of an argument that I feel the taxes I pay are worth living in this society. I'll ponder this more. I also want to clarify that I'm not against all taxes, but I find income taxes particularly problematic. It's like taxing intelligence or hard work or compassion, or anything else that we want more of in society. We should tax things we want less of. But I digress. Thanks for the discussion! _____ > 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 You clearly benefited from government services such as public education, military (potentially GI bill), state schools, all the regulations and infrastructure surrounding businesses, etc. Do you think that you benefited from the government (directly and indirectly) more or less than the average person?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why aren't linked lists and other data structures built-in to Javascript? I've googled as much as I can to find the answer, but every result I come across is just "Datastructures Basics! How to make a singly linked list!", but my question is more about the why. If linked lists, stacks, queues, trees, binary trees, etc. are used so often and are even an expected skill to demonstrate in tech interviews, why aren't they a standardized data structure in languages like Javascript? From what I've read, some of these structures are available in other languages (JavaScript is the only language I'm very comfortable with, so please correct me if I'm wrong). Is it merely a preference thing from the core devs? Does it include an unnecessary overhead? Are these data structures just not used enough to matter? Thanks!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There’s a lot to unpack in the question so let’s start at the beginning: Why doesn’t JavaScript have a bunch of data structures built in? I think there are two factors here: first, JavaScript wasn’t originally built with its current uses in mind. The goal was to give people a way to add some interactivity to otherwise static documents. JavaScript was around for a long time before websites started to move away from being documents with some interactive elements and toward being full fledged applications. Even when that transition was first happening, there was an attitude that the browser should implement all of the interesting things, and JavaScript existed merely to automate using functionality the browser supported. Internally the browsers use plenty of sophisticated data structures, but for a long time nobody really thought about JavaScript as a language for building sophisticated software. Eventually people did start to see JavaScript as a language for writing real programs, but by that point the momentum was behind using packages and frameworks. JavaScript itself never got much of a rich general purpose standard library because other projects stepped in by the time anyone realized it could have used one. Now days it’s just cultural- if you need a data structure just add a dependency to your project, for better or worse that’s the JavaScript way. So that explains JS, but why don’t other languages implement these data structures? Often they do, to some degree or another. JavaScript is at one extreme as a language with basically nothing built in, but all languages need to decide what to include and what not to include by default. There’s no right answer only trade offs, but the major focus is trying to write things that are generally useful to a lot of users. It’s not a good use of time and resources to invest in building fancy data structures that nobody will use. That brings us to your last question - does nobody use these? Fancy data structures are used less often than you might think. Most of the time you can get by with lists, arrays, and dictionaries. When you do need a fancy data structure, it’s often because you have a very specific use case in mind, and in those cases your often better implementing it yourself so that you can tune it to your specific needs. Even if the language provided a general purpose library, it wouldn’t be tuned for your exact needs so you’d still write your own.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If, during the month of January, you were to transplant a deciduous tree from the northern hemisphere to a location with similar seasonal conditionals in the southern hemisphere, would it be able to adapt to that instant 6-month change in weather conditions and survive? Also, which would be more favorable - going winter to summer or vice versa? I'd imagine the best time to transplant it would be in spring/fall due to similar temperatures.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Ignoring any complications with transplanting, could a deciduous tree adapt to immediate seasonal and temperature changes? I believe it could. Deciduous trees take cues from temperature, day length (amount of light), or drought stress for when they should drop their leaves and go into a hibernation. When those stressors are removed, the tree should regrow leaves and begin photosynthesizing again. I would think going from winter to summer would be easier to handle. There are preparation steps that deciduous plants go through to handle the hibernation stage in winter.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do tax havens (like the Cayman Islands) benefit from allowing corporations to register there? As far as I can tell, countries/territories (like the Cayman Islands) levy absolutely no taxes on corporations thereby gaining nothing from the corporations being registered there. Meanwhile corporations save billions not paying taxes in the countries they actually do business in. Seems like a bit of a one-way relationship. So what do the tax havens gain from allowing these companies to register there?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It's work for lawyers and bankers in the country. And it's money in their banks. And many "tax havens" actually charge a very small tax. 5% of billions is still a lot of money. It's better for the country than a high percentage of a tiny amount of money. And it's better for the company than paying a "normal" 20%+ tax.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What are the biggest obstacles in 3D printing human tissue or organs?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Complexity of structure. An organ consists of multiple different tissues arranged in very specific ways. Tissues themselves have their constituent fibres and/ or cells arranged in specific ways too. It’s not just this homogenous thing. Because in physiology structure= function, even if we can figure out how to tell stem cells how to differentiate, we then need to tell them how to organise.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do master keys work? How come Key A can open Lock A. Key B can open Lock B. But not lock A. And key C can open all the locks? Doesn’t that mean A and B should be able to open each other?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A master key only works on the locks it's designed to open When a key is inserted into a lock normally, it raises pins to specific points where they no longer stop it from turning, and most locks have different heights the pins need to be at to unlock making other keys not work A master key works by each lock having an additional point made on the pins that they can be raised to that also allow it to be rotated, so although they still work individually with their specific keys, a secondary key (the master key) works on them all as well<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 why does sugar turn brown when melted?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Sugar is a molecule made of a particular arrangement of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen atoms. When you heat up the sugar, this adds energy to the system that can be used to fuel chemical reactions that rearrange the bonds between these atoms. Some of these compounds are dark brown in color and add caramel flavors to the sugar. Similar reactions occur in meat when you cook it and get a tasty brown crust.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Harry Potter] How do Dementors sense souls? If they couldn't "see" Sirius Black's soul while he was a dog, how do they know when there's a human soul in front of them for them to slurp?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Dementors feed on the positive emotions experienced by people, and therefore recognize humans as walking food reservoirs. Because animals have much less developed senses of "self," as well as hazier memories and obscurer emotional experiences, Dementors receive little to no benefit from interacting with them, and largely ignore their presence.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: the difference between dementia and Alzheimer’s<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Dementia is a collective term for disorders marked by progressive decline in cognitive abilities such as memory in a way that interferes with daily life. Alzheimers on the other hand is a type of dementia. It's kinda like heaches vs. migraines.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Where do I start with Karl Marx's writings? I'm interested in familiarizing myself with Marx but I have no idea where to begin. Should I start with The Communist Manifesto? Or Grundrisse?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You could start with Wage Labor and Capital and Value, Price, and Profit because those are short and outline Marx’s mature economic thinking. But these won’t replace reading Capital. If you want an introduction to Marxist thought, a common way in is actually Engels’ short pamphlet Principles of Communism.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How do you keep updated in your field? Especially if you are an independent researcher I received my master about a year ago and currently I am between gigs (research and some other stuff) until I get a better opportunity. I have research interest in a couple of fields that I plan to focus on for a future PhD. However I don't have relevant groups/peers in this field, and no institutional affiliation too. I struggle in keeping myself updated. I have subscribed to a few major journals of my interest. I have made sure to check several author's Google Scholar once a while. I also follow them on Twitter and follow other relevant accounts too (conferences, accounts, and so on). I'm still struggling though. What do you use to keep yourself updated? Maybe RSS feed? Mailing list? Or some other sort of subscription? Thanks in advance! Btw I'm in anthropology/media studies/STS<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Google scholar alerts are great. You can set them to a weekly update for your subject keywords. You don’t need to be registered with a university to use it. Online conferences are often free or low cost so you could attend the relevant ones too (if you register they often send you the recordings afterwards so you can pick out the most useful presentations).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What determines whether or not someone is a naturally good singer?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Physically speaking, being a naturally good singer means you were born with a good "instrument". Your vocal cords would be more elastic and flexible, and this would make your voice able to produce more overtones, or the right mix of overtones which sound pleasant. Overtones are basically sound waves on top of sound waves which have wavelengths that overlap on the original wave, e.g. half the wavelength, one third the wavelength, and we can tell the difference between a trumpet and a piano or a sweet and a shrill voice largely by picking up on the differences between the mixtures of overtones. Besides that, being naturally coordinated would help controlling the muscles which keep a steady pitch or vibrato or volume, being naturally gifted in pitch and tone differentiation would be important(good ear, perfect pitch), and because IMO natural abilities get a little too much credit with the general public, a natural patience, memory, intelligence, passion and persistence would all be very important when it comes to learning and practicing. Because no one comes out of the womb singing.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: The Dickey Amendment banning gun research by the CDC should be removed from future budgets The [Dickey Amendment][1], orginally added to the federal budget in 1996, effectively prevents the CDC from doing research on gun violence. Specifically, the wording of the amendment says, > none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control Effectively, this prevents the CDC from doing any major research on gun violence, because they can't predict the results of their studies before they do them. Imagine for a moment if the CDC could conduct a unbiased study to answer questions such as "Does increased gun ownership reduce crime?" or "Does reduced access to guns actually reduce the suicide rates?" Depending on the results of each study, they might promote gun control, or they might give clear evidence that gun controls are ineffective. However, since the CDC can't predict results in advance, they are effectively banned from conducting this type of research. I believe that we would be better off if we had clear, unbiased, well researched studies answering these types of questions, and thus the Dickey Amendment should be removed from future federal budgets. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996) _____ > 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 Clear, unbiased research is never a bad thing. But the reason the Dickey Amendment exists is because the CDC has been caught conducting research and publishing it in a very biased way in previous studies on gun violence.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why does the sun look orange closer the horizon, but white in the sky?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant During sunset, the light from the sun has to travel through a thicker slice of the atmosphere to reach your eye than it has to during midday. As the white light from the setting sun travels through the atmosphere, red orange and yellow light is allowed to pass through with little interference. But blue indigo and violet light is scattered more (which is why the sky is blue). Why are they scattering? Our atmosphere has Nitrogen and Oxygen molecules and these guys will scatter blue, indigo and violet. During sunset, the light is travelling through more of the atmosphere, so the scattering is more pronounced and you see red-orange sunsets. If you were in space, it would still be white.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is it that cytotoxic drugs can be consumed but has a label to advise to avoid physical contact? Wouldn’t it do more damage if absorbed into our blood?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The pharmacists have done lengthy studies on how it is appropriate to administer every drug in the safest and the most effective way as they all have side effects to the body. Cytotoxic drugs basically attack all cells in your body. With the proper administration they will be much more harmful to cancer cells than to your body because, for instance, your healthy tissue regenerates faster than cancerous tissue. Exposing those drugs to your skin will just unnecessarily damage your skin tissue which might lead to complications.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What is the source of fundamental electric charge in leptons and quarks? *sips coffee<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The laws of physics are invariant (unchanged) under a transformation called U(1) gauge invariance. To get this invariance, individual fields have to transform in well-defined ways under this transformation. The way a field transforms tells you its electric charge. We don't know why we have fields with the particular transformation properties they have.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [MCU] Captain America's shield absorbed a full strength hammer smash from Thor leveling the woods around him in the first movie leaving cap unscathed, yet Ultron got knocked away by a casual hammer swing by Vision in the second movie. The shield and Ultron are both made of vibranium, why did this happen?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Vibranium can be applied in different ways for different purposes. The difference between the solid vibranium (alloy?) frisbee and a complex machine made up of individual vibranium components was a matter of purpose. The shield was designed to be a solid plate of metal that can withstand a hit. Ultron designed his final form for mobility and sarcasm.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 why was leprosy such a big issue hundreds of years ago? I remember watching a documentary about a Greek town where they would send people with Leprosy. Why was leprosy such a big deal if 95% of people are immune to it?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Before the cure for leprosy was discovered it was common throughout most of the world. North America was largely spared but the US did have it's own leper colony in Louisiana. If you contracted leprosy you were sent there to die. Ancient sources tended to call every skin disease leprosy, even what we now call leprosy today is actually three different diseases with different origins.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Struggling to give life meaning 30yo male here. Struggling to find my meaning of life. I find Stoicism very appealing but mostly to deal with personal things. Meanwhile I'm floating to and fro, from feeling a deep sense of civic duty and desire to be active in politics to hedonism or nihilism. I'm hoping to find a balance and to find an answer (that is satisfying to me, at least) as to how much I should/can care about 'the world' while maximalizing my own happiness. Or perhaps personal happiness isn't paramount relative to the good I can do for others. Or when speaking of happiness, what is the right balance between short-term gratification and making life less pleasurable in the short term in return for (potential) deeper happiness down the line? At any rate, I'm sure these are questions all of you have had and seem like babby's first ponderings to people who actually occupy themselves with philosophy. So any suggestions of reading material that could give me more insights or understanding of the problems I deal with, or writings that have spoken about this topic, will be appreciated. Edit: I've gotten a good amount of comments with a lot of effort behind them. A number of you have also messaged me. I'm going to take my time reading all of it on the few moments I have 'me'-time. You guys are great, I really appreciate it.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant For a philosophically informed self-help take on such matters of finding a balance, you can take a look at Edith Hall's Aristotle's Way. Not a work of philosophy, but it's written by a respectable classicist who appears to love Aristotle. For Aristotle, virtuous activity includes, among other things, finding the right balance between extremes (which are vices). The more you develop these excellences of character (which is what virtues are) by practice, the more habitual they become, and the happier you get, or, perhaps, the more your life becomes a life worth living. And human beings are political animals who can flourish only in a good society, so there is no fundamental conflict between your well-being and the good for the society. So in this sort of account, there is no fundamental conflict between engaging in political activity oriented towards the freedom of society as a whole and your individual happiness. The good and happy life requires political engagement and solidarity, but of course, in a balanced way. If you want to pursue your interest in stoicism, you could take a look at Pierre Hadot's works, The Inner Citadel, and Philosophy as a Way of Life. If you want something less philosophical, and more popular self-help, Massimo Pigliucci is a philosopher of science who has a recently developed interest in trying to apply stoicism to modern everyday life. He has books, blogs, videos. Just keep in mind he is not a scholar in that area.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How is it decided which gene is dominant and which is recessive? Does each gene have some sort of "score" and the highest one between a pair is expressed?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Let's say a gene is responsible for making a certain protein. The gene has two alleles - one that makes the protein and one that doesnt. Producing the protein causes a certain trait to be expressed. This makes the trait dominant - if you have one copy of the allele that can produce the protein, then you will have the trait. On the other hand, let's say there's a trait that is expressed only if you don't have that specific protein. This means that the trait is recessive, because you need both alleles that can't produce the protein in order to have it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How do doctors get the blood pressure of patients with amputated limbs?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant We can measure BP with an automatic cuff on either arm or either leg, so long as there isn’t significant peripheral vascular disease which may skew the readings. I’ve taken care of plenty of amputees but never a quadruple one, even then you can measure on the thigh. Alternatively, we can also measure BP directly by placing an arterial line. This is a catheter typically placed in the radial artery (in the wrist) and allows for direct, real time BP monitoring. We can also use clinical markers and our physical exam to make educated guesses on BP.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do governments assess private companies for estate tax considering they are not bought and sold and thus the shares to not have a price? Based on an discussion i had with friends, if its a large private company, but one which is not valued by the market how does the government assess it for inheritance tax purposes? cant i just sell/assess the shares for 100 dollars total even if its worth 100 million?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In the US private companies are assessed for the total value of their assets. The land, the building, every single peice of equpiment and furniture has a value assigned to it and they are taxes for it all. The longer that they have had the equipment the less taxes they pay on it, but for companies which have to stay up-to-date with their equipment that can be an issue.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 how rigor mortis works. Why does the human body get locked up in 6+ hours and then get flaccid again?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You’re muscles use a molecule called ATP to function, specifically it binds to muscle fibres and allow the connections in them to be broken, which allows the muscle to relax and the tension be released. When the body dies the muscles can no longer produce this ATP and so it runs out, leading to the muscles being unable to relax and thus rigor mortis. The muscles later become flaccid when the muscle fibres themselves begins decomposing and the connections are severed mechanically.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 radiation causes cancer, but radiation therapy is used to beat cancer?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Radiation causes DNA damage. DNA damage causes mutations. Mutations can cause cancer... but usually trigger apoptosis; cell suicide. Tumors are a concentrated mass of cancerous cells. In radiation therapy, many relatively weak beams of radiation are aimed at the tumor from all angles. They are aimed so that they *only* converge on the tumor; this means that the target tissues are affected tens of times more powerfully than the non-target tissues. Essentially, you irradiate the tumor with such an absurd dose of radiation that the DNA damage goes beyond the realm of mutations, and into the realm of, "What the fuck is that molecule anymore? Certainly not DNA." This kills the cancer cells.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Warcraft] How does magic work? From a spellcasters point of view how does magic work for the "wizard" classes (i.e. mage, warlock, priest, druid to an extent). Shamen seem to be granted their magics from spirits of nature, druid's have a similar deal going on, but the balance discipline seems to veer into wizard territory. But of the 'wizard' classes how does the magic work? They shape their mana into spells and release it, but where do these spells come from? Are they incantation based? Is there a "weaving" of their mana into spells? What's the difference between a warlock casting Incinerate and a mage casting Fireball? How do the elements of fire, frost, arcane, holy and shadow relate to the same mana resource innate to the caster? Is it simply usage that separate a mage, priest and warlock, or are they distinct magic systems?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The literary examples of how Magic works indicates its something like a circuit. Magic users basically take energy (Arcane being the base, natural magical source. Everything else is a variation of it)and through a combination of gestures and sheer will, shape it into patterns which elicit particular results. Different types of magical energy (basically wavelengths) have different reactions when harnessed in the same way, and depending upon what they are used. Fel and Holy tend to cancel out violently, somewhat like Matter and Antimatter, while Holy and Shadow only nullify each other. In terms of general practice... Most spells are simply memorized patterns that a magic user can easily put energy into, and eliciting a predictable effect. More complicated spells require more time and effort, often using physically reagents and focus points in complex circuits (generally referee to as the Spell Matrix) but incantation is rarely, of eger necessary. It can help novices focus, mind you.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is the difference between Marxism and socialsim? Is Marxism the ideological premise for it? Then socialism is the actual economic structure?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Marxism is a sociological principle created by Karl Marx. Basically, it's the idea that there are two classes, the proletariats and the bourgeois. In his theories, it is the bourgeois, who own the means of production, who actively exploit workers and reduce their standard of living. Marx thought that when the proletariats, who greatly outnumber the bourgeois, would awaken a class consciousness and rebel, collectively seizing the means of production and establishing a completely egalitarian society. Meanwhile, socialism is an economic and political system in which the public owns a great deal of property, especially the means of production, and the government has an active role in the economy. Modern European democracies like Denmark are good examples of socialist nations.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: why do words start to look unfamiliar or misspelled when you look at them for a long period of time?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It is called semantic satiation. If you look at a word long enough, you stop seeing the word, and start seeing letters, which have nothing to do with the word. The is nothing about the letters c, a, and t that connects them to a cat, so they start losing that meaning. If you look longer, you stop seeing letters, and start seeing squiggly shapes that have nothing to do with what the letter means, further alienating you from the word.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: High school GPA should be compared the persons z score. If you are unfamiliar with a z score, all it measures is how many standard deviations from the mean a score is. So if the mean is 100 and the standard deviation is 15, a score of 115 would have a z score of 1 and 85 would be -1. Colleges should evaluate high school GPA by finding the z score of a particular student. This would help to identify high schools that artificially inflate their GPA by making courses too easy, as a 3.8 may really have a Z score of .1 if everyone else's GPA is inflated. Likewise, someone with a 3.1 might have a z score of 2.25 if their school is really hard or disadvantaged, allowing schools to better identify skilled students in disadvantaged settings.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant That might be useful for bigger schools but any small school might have problems with sample size. A 30 person class is not gonna be ideal when it comes to finding means and z-scores. Plus, most colleges already use class ranking, which approximates this data anyway. If you're the valedictorian with a GPA of 2.8 they're gonna know that you're the cream of that school's crop even without a z-score.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:Why is vagrancy a crime? and why are poverty and unemployment illegal if both having no money and no taxable employment aren't necessary to support one's self without impeding on those who have both money and a taxable income?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Vagrancy, poverty, and unemployment are not per se crimes, however the law creates additional problems for people in such a condition. The reason urban areas tend to crack down on homelessness people is because they create burdens for the city and produce nothing in return. This is unfair of them to do, but it is perhaps equally unfair to jail or fine them for it. It is not a crime to go rambling in the forest or to homestead. But these tasks are harder than panhandling. It is entirely possible to chose a life of homelessness or poverty without running afoul of local laws. But its increasingly complicated and it's practically beyond the means an d skills of the typical destitute person.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do black widow spiders have such strong venom, when they only eat insects?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In nature, it's often advantageous for predators to minimize the time it takes to kill their prey so as to minimize harm, i.e. the longer the prey is allowed to struggle and fight back, the greater the possibility of injury to the predator. Therefore, many predators develop stronger and stronger venom.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Does Mass directly generate Gravity? Or is Gravity simply correlated with mass? I'm working on understanding the concepts of Relativity and how Gravity works. I've googled a little but the results I get are usually above my head. I don't need the math or formula's as much as an understanding of the concepts at this point. So... Do we know that Gravity is created by things with mass or is Gravity an observed correlation of Mass?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Einstein's field equations can be explained in a single line: Where is curvature = Where is massenergy On one side, you have curvature, this is what a straight line means in our universe. For example, straight lines on a basketball surface are curves. As an approximate example, mirages happen because light refracts through different density air, so you see patches of sky just above hot asphalt on the highway, the light has followed a curved path. Now take those ideas and melt them together to be curvature of spacetime. The other side is stuff. It doesn't matter what stuff, it could be mass, heat, light. Just anything with massenergy content. Now where is gravity in this picture? Gravity is the curvature. >So... Do we know that Gravity is created by things with mass or is Gravity an observed correlation of Mass? Much like electromagnetism, GR has self propagating vacuum solutions. This is the prediction that gravity waves can travel without any connection to stuff. While technically these waves have energy and therefore self gravitate themselves, they do not need to be "attached" to traditional matter in the universe, much like how once emitted, light has little to do with flashlights anymore.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: By what mechanism does the body force you to take another breath after you've held it for a long time?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant O2 levels in the blood fall. CO2 levels rise. Acidity of blood rises. Hypothalamus in the brain can detect this change, notifying the brain the O2 levels are getting dangerously low. Instincts kick in, and forces the diaphragm to take in another breath. Correct me If im wrong please (I might be)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Tax Loopholes: Fact or Fiction? I've heard my entire life, from every direction imaginable, that the "Rich take our money, and find loopholes to keep it!" Never ends. Sometimes new or more explicit phrasing, but typically always the same vibe. On taxfoundation.org it states that the top 1% of American earners paid more than the bottom 90% combined. https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2020-update/ So, with this in mind, were there "loopholes" that the wealthiest of Americans took advantage of to pay even LESS, or not at all, even if the other wealthiest took up the slack? Do these loopholes even exist? And if so, could the AVERAGE american ever take advantage of them like the wealthiest Americans can? Can I get in on some of that sweet sweet tax evasion? Or do I need what people tout "Some fancy lawyer" to do some law magic for me? Genuinely curious. Try to keep this as apolitical as you can, please.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Yeah there are quite a few loopholes, and you typically need to be really rich to access them. They mostly start from (1) a genuine need to lower tax on some front to benefit the economy, and (2) a legal requirement to treat all people the same, even rich people. Carried interest is one of these loopholes. If you run a private equity fund, your salary isn't paid to you as salary, instead you co-invest in your fund, and are paid a certain outperformance fee or "carry". Legally, this carry is a return on your initial investment, so rather than income tax, you pay capital gains tax. Another loophole is a share-based loan. Let's say you have some shares in a company, but you don't want to sell them because it triggers capital gains tax. You still want cash though. Instead you take a loan from the bank, pledging your shares as collateral. The bank is satisfied that this is a safe trade and gives you a very low interest rate - you've now monetised your shares without triggering tax! There's quite a lot of different ways to do this stuff, but they generally require (1) a lot of money, and (2) a good banker / lawyer.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Marvel] How strong is Captain America? This is something that a lot of people have trouble pegging down and Marvel's never really given an official word on it. He seems to be beyond regular "peak humans" in the Marvel Universe. Ed Brubaker and Mark Gruenwald have said that he's the peak of "human evolutionary potential", meaning that he's the next step in human evolution and not bound by what human biology is capable of today. Frank Miller depicted him as being multiple times faster and stronger than Daredevil, who is peak human and Winter Soldier (who is a peak human) stated that Cap is at least twice as strong as him. He's been shown bench pressing 1,200 pounds while holding a casual conversation and showing no signs of strain, so I'm hesitant to put that as his limit even though the Marvel Handbook says that's his max lift. The Marvel Handbook isn't exactly too reliable (it has Cap at the same durability rating as freaking Black Bolt). So how strong IS Cap? I want to try to come to at least some sort of consensus about his max lifting strength. Here's two impressive lifting feats: http://i.imgur.com/butRPnR.jpg http://i.imgur.com/LtxXNBd.jpg With those two as a basis, can anyone estimate Cap's lifting strength? How much would that statue or that tree weigh?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Caps strength and other abilities vary depending on universe. On Earth 616 Cap is defined as having the maximum of Human potential, meaning he is as strong as any human could possibly be (which considering the extreme strength normal people can display under duress is nothing to scoff at), with endurance, dexterity, intelligence, and charisma to match. Now what a normal human is capable of in that universe seems to be much greater than here on Earth 1218, seeing how the likes of Tony stark and Frank castle have survived injuries there that would have instantly killed anybody here. Now the cap of Earth 1610 (and earth 199999) is a full blown superhuman. He can bend steel with his bare hands and lift around two tons. He can sprint 75mph and has a 12 foot vertical, and keep going at full speed for hours before tiring. Not to mention he can heal broken bones in days as opposed to weeks and is immune to diseases and poisons.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do economists always discuss nonfarm employment? What's wrong with counting farmers?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Farms are highly seasonal jobs, like fishing. They're called "agricultural jobs". Because they can last as short as 2 months, but rarely year round, the industry isn't a good way to gauge the economy or employment numbers<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user I believe the cloud industry is destroying the very principle that made the internet so powerful in the first place: distributed organization. CMV! Now, while your data is theoretically safer as you 'distribute' it into the figurative cloud that is the vivid internet itself, here is the catch: Even if you think you are spreading your data over the 'whole' internet by placing it into cloud data services, you are still putting all your eggs into one basket. By which I mean: it is true that you might be distributing your data on a technological layer, BUT you are still giving it into the hands of a SINGLE company. On a corporate layer, this constitutes a single point of failure. Recent news are the best example, as virtually all your data can be looked into with just a few back doors into the current major cloud data storage services. Imagine if we kept all our data on our computers, properly downloaded our email like in the "good 'ol times" and used many different companies, each specialized for their respective task (i.e. not use google for everything!), how (iilegally) obtaining a full picture of a single person becomes exponentially more difficult. I think we should revert to saving our music and pictures on our own machines, use email or IRC instead of facebook and promote setting up servers for personalized, private cloud services and distribute the information that we are willing to publicize about us over as many services as possible. The Internet was designed from ground up to be distributed so that a single failing node would not even cause a disturbance in the whole network. Now, it is falling into the hands of a few corporations, obtaining the power to divert traffic like the some internet police. Imagine if google suddenly fell for some odd reason how it would literally take the internet with it. Even on the internet, too big to fail to too big to allow... I think. And by allow, people need to naturally loose interest and search for alternatives to maintain a balance of power. CMV! EDIT: I want to share a quote about RSS on this issue, from a link in post (http://adactio.com/journal/6291/) made by sigbhu below: "It will dip and diminish, but will RSS ever go away? Nah. One of RSS’s weaknesses in its early days—its chaotic decentralized weirdness—has become, in its dotage, a surprising strength. RSS doesn’t route through a single leviathan’s servers. It lacks a kill switch."<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant People are less worried about security, and more worried about accessibility and cross-compatibility. Which is why the cloud suits them. Apart from the people who are less worried about the latter, and more worried about security. Who don't use the cloud. The strength of the internet that it caters to both groups.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Where to go from Foucault's biopolitics? From the birth of biopolitics, are there any texts by either Foucault or anyone else that can be recommended? Be it a contemporary extension or some fundamental text that influenced the man<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You could read up Giorgio Agamben's writings on the state of exception and camps- specifically his concept of bare life. It's an extension of bio politics as it specifies how governments construct their subjects as both political animals and bare humans, the latter of which is used to justify indefinite detention of terrorists (e.g. at Guantanamo).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Other people are never the CAUSE of your emotions, only the stimulus. Hi folks! This is something I just thought up, and I want to see if there are any holes in my logic. If that’s not appropriate for this subreddit, please feel free to report/delete. TL;DR: Other people only stimulate your emotions. The cause of your emotions is you having and recognizing a need that hasn’t been met. [Edit: This concept is MORE useful and beneficial for thinking about emotions in everyday situations than the concept that other people directly cause your emotions, because it allows you to take responsibility for your emotions and to get your needs met in ways that are less likely to cause harm. If I could edit the title, I would include that statement.] And I’m going to be writing up some examples to demonstrate this. [Edit: My use of the word "stimulus" has been very unclear. I define "stimulus" as a less direct, less immediate cause than the "cause". I would just go edit every instance of "stimulus" in the post to "less direct cause", but I can't change the title....] I’m starting with the assumption that all emotions follow the law of cause and effect. I lose something, I valued that thing, I feel sadness. I lose someone, I valued them, I feel grief. I perceive a threat, I want to live, I feel fear. I expect a threat, I feel anxiety. I perceive a threat and my own vulnerability, [on top of another emotion, I feel anger]( https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/anger-in-the-age-entitlement/201812/the-function-anger-and-resentment). We animals evolved emotions to be able to respond to situations and fulfill needs. And although emotions are not objective and are irrational in the sense that they are influenced by [many](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-serving_bias), [many](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias), [many](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error) [different](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism_bias) [biases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-justification), they still follow the logic, the rule of cause and effect. Disclaimer just in case: I’m mainly referring to neurotypical emotional reactions, and not situations like giving someone a concussion that gives them emotional regulation problems, or other psychological illnesses such as bipolar disorder. To simplify these scenarios, we’re also going to say that I trust and respect you, and you taking my pen isn’t any sort of disloyalty or disrespect or insult. In other words, I’m fine lending you a pen when you need it. Scenario 1: You take my only pen --> I no longer have a pen --> I need a pen --> I feel sad/disappointed This is the baseline we’re working with. I think many people would believe that “you taking my only pen” caused my sadness, and I used to think that too. But I will show that it’s not the case. First, consider changing the cause: Scenario 2: I lose my only pen, or I break it, or I accidentally throw it away --> I no longer have a pen --> I need a pen --> I feel sad/disappointed Okay, so other causes can lead to my sadness. But you might say, that doesn’t necessarily mean Scenario 1’s “You take my only pen” didn’t cause it. Maybe all of those are just different direct causes. So let’s see what happens if we change something in the middle instead. Scenario 3a: You take my only pen --> I no longer have a pen --> Right now, I don’t need a pen --> I feel neutral Scenario 3b: You take one of my many pens --> I no longer have that pen --> I need a pen and I can just use one of my other ones --> I feel neutral This is the crux of my argument. If you take my pen, but I don’t need it, then I won’t feel sad. Therefore, my feeling of sadness in scenario 1 wasn’t caused by you taking my pen, but by me needing it. Other people only stimulate your emotions. The cause of your emotions is you having an unmet need. Going even further: Scenario 4: You take my only pen --> I no longer have a pen --> Right now, I don’t need a pen --> I feel neutral --> Later, I need a pen --> I realize I don’t have my pen --> I feel sad At the time of you taking my pen, because I don’t recognize that I need it, I’m not sad. But when I do, that’s when I feel sad. Last one, making the same point: Scenario 5: You take my only pen --> I no longer have a pen --> I need a pen --> I think I have another pen somewhere --> I start looking for it and feel neutral --> I realize that was my only pen and I don’t have it anymore --> Now I feel sad So in this one, my pen was taken, I need a pen, but because I think I have another one, I don’t recognize that I need the pen that was lost. Only when I recognize the need do I feel sad. The cause of your emotions is not just you having an unmet need, but you recognizing that unmet need. All of this still holds even if the recognition is only subconscious: “Why am I feeling X? I shouldn’t be feeling that…” Well, your subconscious is incredibly powerful, and it can hold a lot that you’re not currently bringing up to conscious awareness. ------------------------------ [Edit: It has come to my attention that my actual point is in this woefully incomplete short blurb at the end of my post, and I should have explained the connection more thoroughly.] “Okay, great, so other people don’t cause my emotions. I cause my own fricking emotions. What am I supposed to do about it?” Well, this recognition in and of itself will help you react better and less emotionally, rather than a way you might regret. Say your significant other ignores your birthday, and you (understandably! justifiably!) feel angry. Well, that anger is telling you that right now, you need them to love and appreciate you just as much as you do them, and you’re so hurt that you’re not getting that, you want to do something about it right now. If you can hold that in your mind, then maybe you can go take a walk, take some deep breaths, cool off, and then when you’re calmer go fulfill that need. Go talk to them about your feelings. And it’ll be so much better than yelling at them. [Edit: There is a massive difference between "You ignored me on my birthday, so I felt angry and yelled at you," and "I felt hurt and angry because I love you and enjoy your company and I wanted to spend time with you on my birthday, so I yelled at you." The concept I described helps facilitate this way of thinking. From my comment reply giving a delta: My true view is not that A is literally not a cause, but that seeing A as a less direct cause and B as the more immediate/proximate/direct cause is a useful and beneficial way to look at the situation. This is because looking at B lets us be more attuned to ourselves and what we can do to change the situation, whereas focusing on A often serves to justify C to ourselves, absolve ourselves of responsibility, and, in turn, (indirectly) cause an emotional response in the other person.] This whole process, this self-awareness, is what people mean by mindfulness. It’s simple. But that’s not to say it’s easy. It’s hard. It’s fucking hard to pay so much attention to yourself, especially when you’re not used to it. We’re used to pushing down our emotions and ignoring them. We’re taught to do so by society, we’re taught to praise logic and rationality. But in doing so, we forget how much of our lives and thoughts involve feeling emotions. ------------------- So, CMV—on any part of this!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If A causes B, and B causes C, it is still reasonable to say that A causes C. If other people cause us to realize something, and that realization is what causes the emotion, then other people still caused the emotion. Perhaps you mean other people are not the proximate cause or the direct cause, but so long as something is a part of the chain of causality, they are a cause. A stimulus, is a cause. A stimulus causes the response.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do you feel more awake after not sleeping for an extended period of time? Like if you stay up overnight you start to feel really drowsy at around 24 hours of no sleep, but then after that initial drowsiness you start feeling awake again.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant So there are two independent systems that influences your sleep/wake cycle. One is the circadian rhythm which controls not only sleep but also your hunger, how much urine you produce, body temperature etc. The other one is Adenosine, which is a chemical in your brain which creates that sleep pressure you feel when you are sleepy. The amount of Adenosine increase as the number of hours awake increase. This is only recycled from the brain when you sleep. The key thing here is that this two system do not influence each other, so whether you sleep or stayed up all night your circadian rhythm will still continue as if nothing happens. In a normal circadian rhythm you peak in wakefulness at around noon, so even though your brain is full of Adenosine (which makes you sleepy) you feel awake when your circadian rhythm reaches it's peak. You feel more tired early in the morning because your circadian rhythm is at low wakefulness and there is a high Adenosine level.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does it hurt more to pinch or hit parts of your body such as fingers when they’re very cold?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Our body uses some of the same pathways for sensing cold as it does for pain. So when our skin is cold, the sensory nerves have a heightened sensitivity to pain stimuli. Interestingly, this might be a protective mechanism- allowing us to sense pain and detect injuries despite the numbing effect of the cold.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What does the NSA do exactly and why is it so bad? I always hear about the NSA but I honestly have little knowledge about the group and what they do.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It's signals intelligence - i.e. they are concerned with the content of communications between parties of interest - which traditionally means other intelligence agencies, foreign governments, enemy combatants etc. When you get mission creep into routinely snooping on the private communications of ordinary citizens without any particular justification, that's when people don't like it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is it possible that Mars once had significant life on it? We're literally only scratching the surface of Mars at the moment, is it possible that full civilisations were once on Mars, got wiped out by an asteroid or something, and slowly over a million years the buildings and evidence disappeared under dust? PS I hope the answer is yes.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant What would be the best way to show an onlooking intelligent life form that life once existed a billion years ago on our planet. For example, say earth was slowly dying (technically it is), what would be the longest lasting beacon of life we could build for onlooking intelligent lifeforms?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do cameras on 0x zoom produce images that seem further away than what you see?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A "normal" lens is what yields approximately the same angle of view as the eye. It has a focal length about equal to the diagonal measurement of the sensor or film format. To go back to the old 35mm film standard, a 50mm lens is considered to be a normal lens. A shorter lens will yield a wider angle of view, making images look farther away, and a longer lens will bring things closer. A point and shoot digital camera might mention a 5X zoom. Typically in 35mm equivalent, it will be something like 30mm-150mm. Meaning that it starts as a slightly wide angle lens, and zooms in through normal and on to a maximum of about three times magnification.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How are video game AIs programmed?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Normally.by a mix of states and branching decision making. Depending on what's recently happen it will be in a certain state ie cautious, searching, patrolling, aggressive etc. Then based on their state it will have a decision tree to respond to situations for example in an FPS it may be: State [In combat]; underfire? No, enemy location known? Yes, Enemy on range? Yes, in cover? No. Outcome: Find cover the attempt to kill enemy.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does ice reduce swelling?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Your body restricts blood flow to cold parts of your skin to conserve heat. When you dramatically cool down your skin with ice, your body reacts as if it's in a cold environment and constricts blood vessels flowing into that area as if to conserve heat. Swelling is the result of blood vessels dilating to bring additional blood and resources to a part of you that has been damaged. The constriction to "conserve heat" counteracts the dilation in response to damage so overall less blood flows into the area and swelling is reduced.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Are there any texts that describe why some people are drawn to deeper meaning? I’m thinking of the scientist/artist/philosopher. It seems ultimately more painful to follow an innate curiosity for the unknown. But for some reason, many are drawn down a path that requires a confrontation with the undiscovered to reach some kind of fundamental truth.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are two psychological traits that might be relevant to your question. The first is Openness to experience, one of the Big Five personality traits. People who are high in Openness are naturally more curious and likely to seek out new experiences and knowledge. Part of that trait is a greater tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity. That, in turn, might contribute to greater interest in questions that typically lead to uncertain or ambiguous answers, compared to low Openness individuals who bow out when things get unsettling. The second is Integrative Complexity, which is a cognitive trait reflecting a tendency to see things in black & white terms or shades of grey. High IC individuals are able to tolerate more uncertainty and seek out more information before making decisions. Low IC individuals prefer quick decisions but avoid uncertainty. There are interesting evolutionary perspectives on why there is a diversity of tendencies around these traits that have been maintained over generations, mainly because there are trade-offs with all of these traits. In short, there's a selection bias that weeds out people with low Openness and low IC from being scientists or philosophers (not sure about artists). For them, there's less 'pain' in the unknown.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Cyberpunk] I am almost fully cybernetic and now I want to go back to being (mostly) organic. Is this possible?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Depends on what point in the timeline you're at. By the Time of the Red and out to 2077, bespoke high-speed organ cloning is a mature enough technology to have put most conventional organlegging out of business, so getting your cyber parts replaced with organic parts that are a close match for your original meat. Prior to that (4th Corporate War and earlier) the tech exists, but is more or less the exclusive toy of the very, very rich, so it's still an option but it's going to cost you.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What's the difference between general relativity and quantum mechanics and how come they don't work together?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant General relativity describes the effects of gravity on the motions of matter and light. It works well when really massive objects, like the sun or other stars, are involved. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, involves elementary particles such as electrons, and works on very small scales. When you try to make both theories work together, the math breaks down and the results don't make sense. In order to figure out how to reconcile the two theories, scientists would need to have a way of testing what actually happens when the effects of both theories are present. For example, looking at an object that is extremely massive but very very small in size (such as a black hole or neutron star) can and does give clues about how matter behaves in sufficiently extreme conditions. The problem is, there are a very limited number of ways that scientists can make good enough observations to be able to bring general relativity and quantum mechanics together. So for now, at least, there is a gap in our knowledge. Edit: grammar<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Where gold gets it's worth from and why it's so valuable to economies<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If something is useful, then it's valued more. If something is hard to find, then it's valued more. If something is shiny, it's valued more. Since Gold is useful, hard to find, and shiny, it is very highly valued. A few reasons Gold is used: * for jewelry and awards, because it's shiny and has a nice color. * for making computer parts, because it conducts electricity and is easy to mold into many shapes. * in spaceships by NASA as a lubricant between mechanical parts, because it can withstand harsh space conditions. There are plenty of uses for gold now, and the list of uses will grow, which means it will get even more valuable. And as Gold supplies get used up, fewer Gold will remain, further increasing it's value. And that is basically why Gold is so valuable.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Pokemon] What is the course of action if a strong pokemon ends up somewhere it shouldn’t be? Say a level 80 Salamence decides it wants to hang out just outside of Littleroot town and terrorize all the new trainers setting off on their journeys? Who deals with that and how?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Some of the lore implies that Gym Leaders are meant to be some kind of pillar in the community, an outstanding citizen who leads the town through its hard times. The anime seems to show the police, Elite Four, and even champion being more competent and solving problems when there, but the Gym Leader is most likely the first line of defense.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why when looking for life on other planets is water a prerequisite? Isn't it possible that some alien life forms can exist without water? Or is "life" just a very specific term? I've just always wondered why it's assumed that all life forms necessarily need water, or maybe I've just got the wrong end of the stick. Either way, feel free to enlighten me.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Water can dissolve a huge range of things in it, and living things will (probably) require a lot of complex chemical reactions that will need to happen in a solution. For instance, our own cells are more or less little bags of water with lots of chemical reactions happening inside that wouldn't happen if they weren't in a liquid. Is water absolutely necessary? We can't know. But it seeks like the best bet to look for, since it has peculiar properties that allow for a lot of interesting chemistry, and also because it's a very simple molecule, made of two very common elements, so it's all over the place. It's very possible though that there is life out there at very low temperatures that uses liquid methane or something.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [General Sci-Fi] Why are aliens always attacking Earth for its resources when mining the Sol System's asteroid would be more economic? Seriously. I've listen to enough science podcasts to know that asteroids are full of the minerals and metals that high-technology societies want...and they aren't covered with pain in the ass nuke-wielding ape-men.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Aliens heading for Earth are usually here for the humans or for the environmental resources. Sure, there's a lot of big rocks for the picking, but the only place you can grind humans into bloody mulch to plant your horror fungus is on Earth.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [MCU] What makes the people of Wakanda so special? Wakanda is described as having Vibranium, the special herb, and isolation from the outside world. Why is their technology and society advanced as compared to everyone else? Are the people in Wakanda the smartest, most talented people on Earth and because they were left alone could develop in peace? Are we to assume that would have happened anywhere, that Iceland would also be so advanced if they'd just isolated themselves? Or is there something special about the people in Wakanda? Has the Vibranium had an effect on them which increases their intelligence and creativity, or is it that particular bunch of people are overall the smartest people on Earth? The movie suggests that white interference in Africa has caused problems for other Africans and that's what's held them back as compared to Wakanda, then why aren't white countries as advanced as Wakanda?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The first real use of metal in tools started about 5000 years ago, and was critical for the development of early civilizations. Similarly the development of iron, and steel were critical to technological development. Wakanda was able to develop advanced technology with vibranium, bypassing bronze, iron, steel, and aluminum and producing tools that were significantly stronger, more durable, than other civilizations. Not only did this allow them to develop mathematics before anyone else, they had a scientific revolution and industrial revolution before anyone else, and never went through a dark ages period.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are binoculars and riflescopes expressed in magnification, but camera lenses are expressed in focal length?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Binoculars and rifle scopes are additional lenses in front of our camera system: the human eye. They change our innate view by the magnification. Camera lenses are just one part of the camera system. The overall camera properties depends on the lens focal length and the size/specifications of the image sensor.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: I believe that local councils shouldn't have the power to approve or decline the construction of major projects, as it always leads to NIMBYism I believe that local councils should never have the right to decide on whether or not they will permit the construction of projects which affect an area far bigger than their own district. For example, if an airport wants to add another runway they shouldn't have to ask the permission of the local citizens. Rather the city government as a whole must vote on the issue. If the issue is even bigger and affects the whole country (e.g. a huge nuclear reactor), then the country's government should vote on it, leaving zero power to the locals. The reasoning is that people are extremely selfish and will always rejects proposals that lower the local property values, leading to years of legal battles and multi-million losses over uncompleted projects, also known as NIMBYism.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are a few problems with this view. First of all, how do you define what affects an area bigger than the district? An airport is one thing, but what about the development of a mall? Or building a giant Tesco in a greenfield outside of a village? At what point do you say the impact of a development is bigger than what a council can decide? The developers will have a massive incentive to overstate the economic impact of their development in order to get outside of the local jurisdiction. Second, the people who will be most affected by a development need to be considered. If Heathrow builds its third runway, there are plenty of people who will now live under an active flight path, the noise of which will drastically reduce their quality of life and the resell value of their homes. Why shouldn't they have a say in this, if only to ensure that they have the power to ensure that they are properly compensated for the losses associated with a development. Balancing the local vs larger needs of a community is very difficult. But removing local planning authority is a very bad way of dealing with it. Your idea won't strike a balance between local and non-local needs, it will completely remove locals from the debate and subject them to the whims of a community who will not experience the negative externalities of the development.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How much do we sweat during and after taking a hot shower/bath? How clean are we really once we step out?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant This isn't really a good ELI5 type question because the answer depends on a lot of different stuff. How clean you are completely depends on what kinds of dirt were on you before you got in the shower, what you used for cleansers, and how well you rinsed off. You do sweat some in the shower but it's just slightly saltier water that gets washed away with everything else. But if you had a really hot and long shower that raised your body temperature and you're stepping out into a hot room, you'll continue to sweat some as you exit the shower, at least until your body cools down.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Can someone explain the differences and similarities between Epicureanism and Stoicism<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I'll assume that you're presently more concerned with a comparison in their ethical theories rather than metaphysical ones, since thats usually what most people are invoking when they compare the two. A brief summary would be as such The Epicureans believed that the good life consists of 'eudaimonia' or 'happiness'. The 'happy life' however is not one of trying to just pile as many "happy moments" on top of each other as you can like some wild hedonism party. This is because since these types of short-termed intense hedonistic happinesses often lead to greater suffering later on, with the standard example being that of someone who gets heavily intoxicated and then suffers from a terrible hang-over the next day. In addition to obviously avoiding immediate pain and distress, one should also avoid the fleeting pleasures that lead to them. Additionally, the more things you come to find pleasurable the more things you desire, and if any of those things are taken away you will fall into grave pain or distress. Thus the "happy life" is a simple one which is free from pain and distress but which also enjoys modest pleasures such as gatherings with friends fueled by good conversation rather than good alcohol. The Stoics agreed with the idea of living a simple life but for different reasons. The good life for them was not defined by having the proper formula for acquiring proper "happiness" but was a purely defined just by freedom from pain and distress. This freedom they called "apatheia". The person who has attained freedom from suffering acquires it by living in conformity with the will of the Universe or Nature. The only thing which we are fully in charge of is not the circumstances we find ourselves but rather how we view and judge these circumstances. If you want things to happen in a way that contradicts Nature then you will suffer, but if you instead want Nature to happen as it happens then you will be free from suffering. So for the Stoics the good life is determined by how one views and judges their circumstances. If they judge in accordance with their Reason and follow Nature, they will not suffer but if they follow their irrational Passions and desire that which Nature will not bring then they will suffer. Hence the Stoic quote "Men are not disturbed by things but by the views they take of them".<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user I don't believe that a married couple is any more legitimate, committed, or loving than any other long-term couple who doesn't want to get married, CMV. I think marriage is kind of BS, obviously it's beneficial b/c of tax breaks and benefits, but I don't think it will change the way I feel about my SO.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant it's like how certain cultures have a ritual of adulthood. it represents a passage from one phase to another. it is up to the person to feel a change or not. but to many, such a ritual can effect their view. "i'm married now, i have to be more dedicated" or "i'm a man now, i have to act like one" etc. it might not be that way with you but it does have an effect on many.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [DC Comics/Batman] What does Poison Ivy eat? She's obsessed with saving/protecting the plant life of the Earth (likely other worlds...). Seems to me she'd have a hard time eating fruits and vegetables. So, does she focus on eating mostly meats and dairies? Or is she vegan?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Thing to consider about Ivy not wanting to "harm" plants is that she'd be extremely aware of the fact that fruits are intended, by the plant, to be eaten by animals as a way of spreading the seeds. So eating an apple is simply participating in the tree's lifecycle (as long as you dutifully spread the seeds, afterwards)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Arrival] Why doesn't Ian learn the heptapod language as well so he can see his daughter? We're told the reason Ian eventually leaves Louise is because she gives birth to their daughter despite knowing she is going to die. This is made worse by the fact that while Louise has the ability to go back and "visit" her daughter in a sense, Ian can't as he doesn't seem to know the language in the future. My question is why not? He worked on the language right alongside Louise, and his wife even wrote a book teaching people about the language. Shouldn't he be able to see time non-linearly too and know the truth about Hannah?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It's not just that she learned the language, but that she became so deeply involved in it that it changed the way her brain processed the world around her. The short story goes into this phenomenon more, setting it up with examples like a culture that doesn't use relative directions (left, right, etc), only absolute (North, South, East, West), and as a result, seem to have an innate awareness of those cardinal directions. But it's not from simply learning the words of the language, but from the way the language requires you to think.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How water gets around to the rest of my body after I drink it.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant So cells all have a membrane, which acts like a border. This membrane separates what's inside the cell from what is outside. If you're looking to get into the cell, you have two ways of doing it. The first is called passive transport, and it involves things like water. Passive transport requires no energy on the part of the cell, so in this context it's similar to holes in the fence that let in certain things (bugs, air, etc), so the border patrol doesn't have to get up and open the fence. There's also an active transport system, which does take energy. There are a bunch of types of active transport, the specifics of which aren't completely necessary to know right now. This would be like how someone from the outside would have to go through customs to enter the country, or a citizen with special clearance. Sometimes, your country feels like invading another one, so they move the fence to encompass the new area. This process uses energy, as the doors to the border have to be opened, and closed, and you have to pay the staff, and sometimes you have to move the whole goddamn fence! Now, onto osmosis. Water is a hipster molecule. It wants to go to the places where it doesn't really exist in high concentrations. So let's say you take a pot of water and separate the pot into two with a special filter that will let water through between them, but nothing else. Then let's say you pour a bunch of sugar into the first half of the pot. Remember, the filter lets water flow freely, but the sugar can't. The sugar is stuck in the first half. So now what you have is a difference in water concentration. There's a much higher concentration of water on the second side, the one that has no sugar. So water really wants to even out its concentration and flows into the side of the pot that has all these sugar molecules floating around. It does this until the concentration of water is relatively the same in both sides. This is called osmosis, and this is usually how water gets around the body. In the body, water flows into areas with a very low concentration until there's an even amount everywhere. But sometimes, some areas need to be free of water. This is where active transport comes in. If there's too much water in a cell, active transport is the border guard that kicks the excess water molecules out. Sometimes, when an area is really sensitive to water, the cell builds a membrane that is impermeable to water, which is like building a wall that goes 100 meters below, and above ground. TL;DR: Water is an illegal immigrant, and the cell has very efficient border patrol Edit: Spacing, TL;DR, wrote down more stuff, etc.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why is there no precise weather forecast for very short timescales, very narrow locations? I know why the weather forecast for 2 weeks away is usually worthless, and ~3 days is the max at which we can get a pretty good to get an estimate of the weather. But what about going in the opposite direction? Short period, precise location, precise weather? I know the weather for my city for today is intermittent rains, about 50% cloud coverage. But why can't I find out if my street address will have sun or rain in half an hour? It's currently raining. Does it make sense to wait for it to stop within next hour or so, or should I call a taxi home? I can find "possible thunderstorms in the evening" a day ahead, but I can't tell if I have 15 minutes to roll my BBQ and hide before everything's drenched, or the heavy dark clouds I see rolling over the city will pass me to the side and leave my area dry. With current technology it feels like it should be easy enough to predict weather for a specific spot. Sure there will still be situation when the prediction is uncertain; the cloud passes just by, it may go 200m west or 200m east from me and I'll get rain or not. But in most cases it should be perfectly predictable that a cloud raining here, moving in this direction, at this speed, will rain there, in x minutes, and with this size it will take that many minutes to pass. [That scene from Back to the Future 2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h07KpxXchuc), when they arrive in a downpour, Doc looks at his watch, waits a moment, the rain cuts off, and Doc comments "right on the tick" - what prevents our smartwatches from displaying "Minutes until rain ends"?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Look up the weather radar for your city. In Australia we have BOM. You can see where it's currently raining and if it's heading in your direction. They are very accurate for current rainfall but you will not be able to tell if the current rain is going to actually make it to your location or get heavier before it does, or if a passing cloud is going to suddenly decide to drop its load directly on your house. Works really well for storms though!<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is there a theoretical minimum size for a living cell? I know that mycoplasma and rickettsia are among the smallest cells known, but is there a theoretical size smaller than these below which a cell could never be viable? What is the limiting factor?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant An interesting answer from a physics perspective was given by Schrodinger in "What is Life." He begins by asking why atoms are so small, by which he means why are organisms so large compared to atoms. The answer he gives is that life requires "exact physical laws." If you don't have enough atoms, statistical fluctuations will be too large for life to develop.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: The difference between 32-bit and 64-bit.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant imagine you're adding numbers like in school where you write 1 3 5 3 1 6 0 5 1 2 5 6 _________ 1 8 6 5 7 2 That's how a computer adds numbers too. A computer with "more bits" can work with longer numbers at once. But more importantly, because it "knows bigger numbers" it can use more storage: Every tiny bit of storage has an address. The processor shouts the address like a cook in a restaurant kitchen, then the storage with that address gives whatever it had stored. More storage-addresses is like a Gordon Ramsay who can shout at 64 instead of just 32 different cooks to get him lamb sauce. The storage/cooks still work the same speed each, but a Rordon Gamsay who can handle 32 at a time get's half as much lamb sauce as Gordon 64-bit Ramsay.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: why can kids pick up a new language and speak it like a native with no accent but adults cannot? Assuming an equal amount of language immersion as a 10 year old who moves to a new country, why can't a 30 year old pick up the language to the same extent?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Human beings have what is described in linguistics as a language acquisition device, wherein exposure to language before puberty, will result in a native tongue; after puberty the mastering of inflection within the language is rarely successful and certainly not easy. This is what we were taught in linguistics at university anyway.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How do you avoid allowing philosophy to paralyze your ability to say anything about anything? My initial goal in studying philosophy was to clarify and edify my thoughts and beliefs. I wanted to open my mind to new ideas and be able to articulate those ideas effectively to others. But ive found that as ive exposed myself to all sorts of new and contradicting ideas, I feel unable to hold a position or narrative or approach with any degree of certainty. I also have a hard time making claims or stating what I personally believe to others, because I feel disingenuous or close-minded in doing so, knowing that there are plenty of credible arguments against what i am saying. Basically my dilemma can be summed up in a quote from Mark Twaine: "Education is the pathway from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty." Maybe it's like the Dunning-Kruger effect? Has anyone else felt this way? How can I use philosophy to express myself confidently in the world, instead of being paralyzed by doubt and indecision?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Research the idea of “philosophy as therapy”. There’s an entire tradition of philosophers who have addressed exactly what you describe. There are a couple of helpful books and papers too. They’re all influenced by the way Wittgenstein did philosophy. It might be helpful to study modal philosophy for a bit too, especially its epistemology. And make sure to go and touch grass.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why are venomous and poisonous creatures more prevalent in hotter climates? Aside from the questionably-dangerous Massasauga Rattlesnake in Ontario, there don't seem to be many venomous or poisonous creatures in temperate or colder climates. These traits seem much more common the hotter you get - tropical and desert climates seem to house many more such dangerous creatures. Why is that?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant As far as vertebrates go, the vast majority of venomous and poisonous species are reptiles and amphibians. The diversity of both groups is highest in the tropics, and they are generally excluded from climates that are cold the majority of the time because reptiles and amphibians are both ectothermic (cold-blooded), meaning that they cannot be active when the ambient temperature is low. The fact that most venomous vertebrates are snakes combined with the higher richness of snakes in warmer climates means that most of the venomous vertebrates tend to be found in warmer climates. In addition to the Massasauga, the copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix), cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus), timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus), western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis), and Pacific rattlesnake (Crotalus oreganus) all occupy temperate habitats in regions of North America that get fairly cold. edited for clarity<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [ELI5] Why is Japan's shrinking population such a huge problem?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Like most developed countries, Japan has a social program that the younger workers pay into to assist the older, retired population. It may not be sustainable in its current form if the number of young workers paying into the system keeps shrinking while the number of aging, retiring individuals that are drawing benefits from the system increases.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is laparoscopy and how does it differ from conventional surgery? Edit: Thank you all for the inputs, me and my family are trying to get the basic differences in terms of recovery and procedure and decide which route to take. Once again, much appreciated<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Laparoscopy uses a device called a laparoscope, basically a long thin tube with a camera and a light attached to it to explore organs in the abdomen. It differs from conventional surgery because the incisions are much smaller (as only the thin tube goes inside), so both the surgery time and the recovery time are much shorter.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [DC] How come the villains never follow the bat signal? Has this ever happened in a comic? It doesn’t make sense why Batman can track the signal, but never the villains. Kinda seems like a good way to kill Batman.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant What do you mean, track the signal? It's on the roof of police headquarters. That's not a sensible place to go if you're a criminal. Bad guys have gone there to try to intercept the Batman (including a Yautja in one of the Batman vs Predator series), but Batman doesn't just rush in without checking the area first, so it tends to end badly for them.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How are birthmarks formed? Also, I'd always assumed that with age, a birthmark would 'fade' as the skin cells are broken down, is this the case?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are two general causes of birthmarks: either due to abnormal pigment forming melanocytes (the brown/blue colored marks) or due to vascular changes (the red colored birthmarks) The link that /u/wishyouamerry provided is a good overview of birthmarks. Some of these birthmarks can be associated with various syndromes, like the cafe-au-lait spots are associated with neurofibromatosis and the port wine stain can be associated with Sturge Weber syndrome. Do not freak out if you or your child has these markings, they are not diagnostic for these diseases by themselves. As long as the pediatrician knows they exist, the doctor will rule out these diseases.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why corporate tax? So with the Inflation Reduction Act, there is now a 15% minimum corporate tax. It got me thinking though, why do we even have a corporate tax at all? At the end of the day, all taxes are paid by individuals. Taxing a corporation just means taxing the shareholders, as the tax will be reflected in the share price of the company. It seems like it's objectively worse than just raising capital gains tax instead. My reasoning is this: Say there are two rich guys, Rich Guy A and Rich Guy B. Rich Guy A owns $100K worth of stock in a $1B company (0.01% share of company A). Rich Guy B owns $10M worth of stock in a $100M company (10% share of company B). Company A will be paying more corporate tax than company B, therefore Rich Guy A will be paying more tax than Rich Guy B, despite Rich Guy B being the wealthier of them. It seems like just creating higher brackets in the capital gains tax would do a better job at targeting the wealthy.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Firstly, your premise is wrong - if the companies have identical earnings profiles, then the earnings per share and therefore tax per share will be identical - Let’s say both companies are valued at 10x earnings before tax and the tax rate is 20% - Company A will have $100m of EBT and pay $20m of tax, so $80m after tax. However, Rich Guy A isn’t entitled to 100% of the company, he only own 0.01%, so his share of net income is just $8k. If you abolish corporation tax, his income doesn’t go up by $20m, it goes up by $2k, so - Company B will have $10m of EBT and $8m ok net income. Rick Guy B’s share is $800k, on which he effectively paid $200k of tax. - Rich Guy B has 100x the assets and paid 100x in tax as Rich Guy A Secondly, you’re assuming all the shareholders are US tax residents. If Rich Guy B is neither a US citizen and not a US resident, they will pay $0 in tax if you abolish corporation tax.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 What the Russian diamond announcement means to the diamond market, the global market as a whole, Russia, and DeBeers. This seems like a huge announcement. What does this mean?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant 1. Some smart people found some really hard rocks in the ground 40 years ago. 2. Things in the ground are hard to get out of the ground. Especially when they are really hard rocks. 3. Some other people decided not to tell anybody about the rocks in the ground because they were busy "playing" with their "friends" and had already decided to make their own really hard rocks. 4. They finally told everyone about their cool rocks. ** 5. The rocks are still going to be really hard to get out of the ground and it will take a lot of time. 6. The rocks aren't very pretty so they'll mostly be used for really big machines that need really hard rocks. 7. There are A LOT of these rocks. More than anybody has ever found before. 8. This means that once they get them out of the ground, lots of people will be able to use them in lots of different big machines (especially big machines that get very hot or that cut very hard things) and that those machines will create useful things for everyone. 9. But again they still have to get them out of the ground. *** Some other people (like DeBeers) mostly deal with the really pretty and shiny rocks. They already have plenty of those anyway so even if there are more nice rocks in Russia, they probably won't want any more. They certainly won't want to sell their rocks for less money.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is there a difference in doing 100 pushups in the course of 5 minutes and doing 10 pushups 10 times a day, in terms of health benefits and muscle development?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are two standards you can judge the two activities by: muscle build-up, and cardio (calorie burning). Its questionable whether doing 100 push-ups in a row would burn more calories due to increased inefficiency of the muslces--it makes intuitive sense, but research also suggests that the extra calories burned are negligible. In terms of muscle-building, it would be better to do 100 push-ups back-to-back. When you exert force on the muscle, it creates micro-tears--fixing these is what makes the muscle stronger. If you do 10 push-ups at a time throughout the day, the tears will be smaller and will probably heal-up between sets if there is enough time. 100 push-ups in a row, however, will create larger tears, and thus will build back up stronger. Of course, make sure you don't do more than your body can handle. Going from not working out to trying to do 100 push-ups in a row could result in spraining, or worse. -EDIT- Put in new info from commentators below<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Academia is toxic. Why? I hear this quite a bit on here. I will be starting a PhD soon, and I'd like to understand this concept and it's origins.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant While our academic model has been extremely successful for a long time and continues to produce outstanding results, some of the things that make it work can also facilitate a toxic environment: \- Academia is a meritocracy. It's not about how hard you work, how deserving you are, how much you have sacrificed, how well you work with others, etc., it is about results--publications, citations, external recognition, etc. Many people see that as unfair and it can lead people to treat others poorly in pursuit of their own career success. \- There is a power imbalance between faculty and everyone else. Tenure and academic freedom make it hard to punish anyone for all but the most egregious abuses. \- It is hard. Succeeding in academia is hard work. The work is relatively low paid, the competition is fierce, and it takes a lot of sacrifices to excel in that kind of environment. \- It attracts extreme people. Ordinary people don't choose academia as a career path. Those that do are by definition extreme. Extremely smart, extremely motivated, extremely self-confident -- extremely something. That makes for an extremely ... interesting ... workplace.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Mentally ill people that kill are inherently evil people. I myself am mentally ill and have had voices tell me to do terrible things such as burn down a church, stab an aquatence, shoot up my old school. I fought these voices and didn't do what they tried to convince me to do. I told the voices it was wrong, and the closest I came was almost killing myself so the voices would stop. I think the people that listen to the voices and kill were always evil people and they just used the voices as an excuse. I'm open to changing my point of view, but currently I think if I told the voices no, why couldn't they?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I think that you are approaching this from a very specific viewpoint: that the people who are mentally ill and hurt people are doing so because they hear voices. But there are a lot of different ways to be mentally ill, and pretty much every case of severe mental illness is unique. For instance someone can also have visual hallucinations. Are they an evil person if they stab someone who looks like a monster to them, and who they believe to be a monster? Or a lot of people have paranoid delusions, which can lead them to take actions which they believe to be in self defense due to said delusions. Do you think that's evil - to do hurt someone when you wholly and completely believe it is in self defense?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do languages have homonyms? Bat and bat, muñeca and muñeca. I'm sure there are a ton more in all languages, but why? Did we run out of words so we have to start using some twice? Note, this is not homophones, which sound the same (raise, raze, rays), but homonyms, so the exact same word. EDIT: Also, [this is a fun list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_true_homonyms).<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are two ways for a single word to have multiple meanings: * One word branched off in the past and the connection between the different meanings is now secondary or obsolete. * Two different words converged on the same sound by coincidence. The word "hard" is an example of the first: It can mean strong/rigid, or difficult. The concepts are related - it's difficult to break something that's strong and rigid - so it's an example of a single word with divergent meaning. Another example of the first would be "book." Someone makes a reservation, the reservation was recorded in a book, ergo they "booked" the reservation. Reservations today are not typically recorded in books, but they're still booked. The second (convergence of multiple words) usually happens with simple words - especially ones that are a single syllable. An example would be "mole", which converged from different roots describing either a blemish on skin or a burrowing animal. There's a bunch of other meanings too.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does the inverse square law show up so often?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The inverse square law describes how a set amount of something (a field, or a total emission of radiation) is diluted over area as it expands in three dimensions. Since we live in a universe with three spatial dimensions this can be expected to show up rather frequently.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: The Difference Between the Use of the Army and the Marines<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Traditionally: * the army had soldiers stationed on land who fought on land * the navy had soldiers who were stationed on ships and fought other ships * the marines had soldiers stationed on ships who fought on land This lead to the development of the marines a small, fast, elite force. These days, the distinction between the military branches is blurred...aircraft has provided alternate means of rapid deployment. There is no reason why a marine like force couldn't be part of the army, that's just not the way it evolved.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star Wars Episode 3] How can the force be used to keep other people from dying like Senator Palpatine explained to Anakin? In Ep3, Senator Palpatine told Anakin that the force could be used to keep other people alive and of course Anakin wanted this power so he could keep Padme from dying during child birth. But could that really be done? And is there any source in the canon where that's been done before? I know about [force ghost](http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Force_ghost), but that doesn't sound like what Palpatine was talking about. Or was Palpatine just lying to Anakin to get him to convert to the dark side?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There is some evidence that you could extend your natural lifespan with sufficient knowledge of the force, mostly just from what we know about Darth Palagious. However, there's nothing that suggests that the force could be used to save someone from any kind of acute trauma, like complications during child birth. So, Palpatine wasn't lying outright, but he was being intentionally misleading.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How is it possible to snipe someone from 2000+ meters away? I'll admit that I just watched American Sniper and became curious about long distance sniping. With all of the factors that must be accounted for (wind, gravity, etc) how is it possible to hit a person with one shot from that distance?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Practice, practice, practice. They have to take into account lots of variables -- wind speed/direction, gravity, size of bullet, explosive load of bullet, distance to target, curvature of the earth, rotation of the earth, and several others -- in order to make a successful long-range shot. They also have spotters with them to help range the target and establish wind patterns. The spotters also track the shot after it's fired and give data on where it hit, so that a second shot can be adjusted for better accuracy. Again.... practice, practice, practice.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: If remote controls use infrared light, why does it appear blueish when recorded on a cellphone?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Near-Infrared light, such as what is used by infrared LED remote controls, appears purple/indigo/blueish when recorded by a lot of cameras because the engineers who programmed the image processing algorithms for those cameras chose to map infrared to an indigo colour in order to preserve the colour balance of photographs taken outside in full sunlight. If the infrared light we can't see were mapped to a red colour in the photograph, then photographs taken in full sunlight would be disproportionately reddish. By mapping it to blue (which has a lower intensity in sunlight due to being naturally scattered by the atmosphere), the engineers found a simple way to "dispose" of the signal.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user When an adult learns a new language, does their brain store the words in the same way as when they learn new words in their native language (i.e. expanding their vocabulary)?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are two methods of learning words. The meaning-based method is used by childeren learning any language and adults learning new words in a language that they have a reasonable grasp of. New words are linked to the idea or object they represent. You think of that idea or object and the word will pop up in your mind. Adults learning words in a new language that they don't have a good grasp of yet will tend to use the word-based method. They will think of the idea or object, the word from their own language will come to mind and then they will try to remember the corresponding word in the other language. Normally once an adult has a sufficent grasp of the language they will automatically switch to the meaning based method. While speaking the other language they will no longer translate to their own language first. Only when they come up empty in the new language when thinking of an idea or object will the word from their own language pop up. So to answer your question: initially they are stored differently, but with enough practice in the new language they are stored simmilarly. The only difference will be that a fluent multilingual person can have multiple words from the different languages connected to the same idea or object whereas a monoligual person will only have one word connected.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does acid dissolve things? Can't understand what Google gave me :( EDIT: Thanks for the help!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Basically, aacids are really attractive to other molecules/atoms, to the point where they will leave their current bonds to combine with the acid. As parts of the material break off to bound with the acid, it dissolves<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Robots replacing people's jobs can have a likely positive outcome Everybody is panicking that when robots and automated scripts take our jobs from us, there will be a giant socio-economic crisis. They do have a point, I must say. However, what if instead of people losing their jobs we start to think in terms of people losing the time they spend at work? In other words: since robots will perform more Gross Work on our planet, it may become possible to share the remaining GW between people whose jobs were overtaken by automatisation. Instead a 8-hour-a-day worktime, humans will end up with 4-hour-a-day worktime. The same amout of people will end up doing half of the work they had been doing so far. And the rest will be done by the robots. I mean, isn't more free time what we all are striving for?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It can have a positive outcome if and only if we establish ways to care for those who are unemployed and create jobs in other fields. If automation occurs too rapidly and we have not done both those things yet then there will be suffering.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do the underground pipes that deliver water for us to bathe and drink stay clean? Is there no buildup or germs inside of them? Without any regard to the SOURCE of the water, how does water travel through metal pipes that live under ground, or in our walls, for years without picking up all kinds of bacteria, deposits or other unwanted foreign substances? I expect that it's a very large system and not every inch is realistically maintained and manually cleaned. How does it not develop unsafe qualities?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The water supply contains sanitizers once it has been treated for use. If you have a sealed system that you're constantly pumping sanitized water through, it's unlikely to get contaminated barring some failure of the sanitation or the piping itself.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Do objects physically change the wavelength of light or just absorb certain wavelengths and reflect others? Also, how is light physically absorbed? What happens to it? Does it just hit the electrons and cause them to vibrate more?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant When light hits an object, certain wavelengths are absorbed. In the process, the material's molecules move into a higher energy state (electrons go to higher energy orbitals). The molecules stay in those higher energy states for a variable amount of time (which depends on the material) and then "relax" down to their original state. In doing so, the energy initially added by the light either gets converted to heat, in the former of increased molecular motion, or, more rarely, is given off by emission of a new photon, which we call fluorescence or phosphorescence. Substances are coloured because their molecular structures lead them to absorb (and convert to heat) certain wavelengths of light and not others. There are cases where substances "scatter off" light at a different wavelength, but this effect (called the Raman effect) is incredibly weak and not detectable without specialized equipment.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Harry Potter] Could Voldemort have made anything a horcrux? Like Hogwarts Castle or a mountain? So Voldemort can turn a ring, a locket, a cup, a diary, a diadem, a snake and a boy (even if inadvertently) into a horcrux.. But what about something that’s got a little more lasting power? Like a mountain for instance? Almost guaranteed to live on forever there… Or the Castle? I know it’s incredibly magical, but so was everything else that he turned in a horcrux, so I’m not sure if that should automatically negate it.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant sure but consider that there for sure a lot of unknown factors about the process. For example, the diary proves that the process hardens any material used, but how much? is that hardening consistent or is it effected by how magical something already is or its size or its other properties? Like, imagine that he made a mountain a horcrux and the hardening is constant but only a small amount of damage is required to "destroy" the horcrux. Everyone knows there is something wrong, that mountain started spawning monsters and stopped eroding so now a piece of black marble the size of a mountain is just sitting on the English country side. Harry finds out that it is a horcrux and destroys it with a basilisk fang thrown out a car window because he only needed to make a scratch.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: When measuring the blood pressure nurses often say numbers like"120 on 80". What exactly do those numbers mean and why do you die when they coincide?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The first number is the systolic pressure (when the heart is actively pumping), and the second number is diastolic (when the heart is resting). 120 over 80 is the a borderline healthy measurement on the high side. High blood pressure is bad because it puts an undue strain on your heart, and comparing systolic and diastolic numbers can help determine exactly what the problem is.<\|im_end\|>

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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