Split (1)

train · 52.8k rows

text stringlengths 82 65.5k
<\|im_start\|>user Could someone please give a scenario in which the cardinality of an infinite set becomes important? Could someone describe for me a case in which it would be necessary to denote the cardinality of one infinity as opposed to that of another, and what branch of mathematics this falls under? I'm having trouble thinking of a practical example other than the ring of natural numbers compared to the set of real numbers.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Here's an example from computer science: Let's say a real number x is "computable" if there exists some program that prints out its decimal expansion to an arbitrary degree of precision. It turns out that the computable numbers are countable, which means a real number chosen uniformly at random (from some arbitrary interval) is uncomputable with probability 1. Along the same lines: Cantor's proof that uncountable sets exist is very similar to Turing's proof that there exist yes-or-no decision problems which are undecidable by any algorithm.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why is gravity able to accelerate an object with high static inertia (heavy object) at the same rate as an object with low static innertia (light object)? e.g. A 100 ton ball will be accelerated at the same rate as a 1 pound ball. One would think that the 100 ton ball has much more static inertia than the 1 pound ball yet its acceleration and velocity is exactly the same as the 1 pound ball. How does gravity achieve this?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Inertia is the resistance to change in velocity, which we measure in kilograms. Force is what is required to change the velocity of an object (accelerate) it. A force that accelerates one kilogram by one meter per second per second is one Newton. Newtons are how we measure force. The weight of an object is the effect of gravity on the mass of that object, and the force of gravity is directly proportional to the mass of the object. On earth gravity exerts a force of 9.8 Newtons per kilogram. If we know that acceleration=force/mass then we can solve for acceleration for any object with mass x knowing that the force applied by gravity is 9.8Nx(the mass of the object). Using x for the mass in kilograms that gives acceleration=(9.8Nxkg)/xkg. The xs cancel leaving us with acceleration=9.8m/s^2 for any mass (disregarding air resistance). TL:DR Heavier objects have a greater force acting on them but it requires a greater force to accelerate them as well, so it all balances out.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What would have happened to Oil if humans had never drilled it? Does it become a rock if left alone? Become a gas that bubbles though the cracks to the surface? or has not enough time passed yet to say?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Buried hydrocarbons work their way through the carbon cycle in one of two ways: A - they may find their way to the surface, either through the joint action of uplift and erosion or natural oil/gas seeps. In this case, they get oxydized and converted to CO2 by specialized microbiota. Some of these seeps support rich faunas of specialised macrobiota living complex often symbiotic relationships with methane consuming microbes. B - they get buried at progressively deeper levels until they reach temperature conditions where they become unstable. Throughout that burial process, they will convert to progressively shorter carbon chains through a process called thermal maturation. At maximal maturity, hydrocarbons are mostly stored as single-carbon bearing molecules (methane). Beyond the thermal stability of methane,the molecule will convert to inert carbon (graphite) and release hydrogen which usually at those depths and pressures binds to oxygen and forms water or hydroxyde. The carbon cycle through the lithosphere is a dynamic process which never really stops, albeit its progress rates seems insuffferably slow at the scale of human lives.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are stars and planets named with weird combinations of letters and numbers? I was reading this article (https://www.vice.com/en/article/z34883/scie-discover-huge-extragalactic-structure-in-zone-of-avoidance) and it talks about how a new galaxy cluster is named "VVVGCl-B J181435-381432" Does naming a galaxy cluster like this really help people in this field of study know what it is they're talking about?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are millions of things that we see in the night sky, we can't give them all normal-sounding names, so we set a standard naming convention based on it's discovery The first set (VVVGC1-B) refers to the survey that discovered it. Here, the VVV survey, General Catalog 1B was what recorded it The second part refers to it's sky location. J denotes the coordinate system (called J2000) and the numbers represent the center of the object in that coordinate system (right ascension of 18°14'35", declination -38°14'32") So, using this naming convention, we not only have a pretty much unique naming system for anything we find, but also it tells some basic information about it as well<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Harry Potter] Why does a school textbook give information on how to create Basilisks Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them states, in no uncertain terms, that the breeding of Basilisks is illegal, and for good reason. Since they are uncontrollable except by Parselmouths, they are as dangerous to most Dark wizards as to anyone else. However, the book also provides very detailed information not only on how to breed a Basilisk, but on how to conceal it should it arise suspicion. It is stated that a Basilisk is hatched from a chicken's egg incubated by a toad. If the creation of Basilisks is illegal, why would the instructions for doing so be included in a school textbook read by hundreds, if not thousands, of Wizarding children, some of whom might be tempted to try out what they read? &#x200B;<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Technically the method described in that book is a matter of commonly understood folklore, and depending on where you're looking, it can't really happen except naturally. Anyway, there's no point covering up information that's common knowledge; you can't exactly hide what the chemical compound of methamphetamine is.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Divorces should be adjudicated based upon the laws under which the marriage originated, not the laws under which the marriage ended. If you look at the legalities of marriage and put aside all the emotional aspects, marriage is really just a contract between 2 people. And that contract is recognized and enforced by the government. So doesn't it make sense that if one or both parties want out of that contract, the contract should be dissolved based upon what was agreed to when the contract was signed? So if marriage and divorce laws are different when a divorce is finalized, than what was in place when a marriage started, should the laws from the start of marriage (the day the contract was agreed to) dictate what happens in a divorce? And from what I can see, that change in what the marriage contract means can happen in two different ways: (1) Marriage and divorce laws can change over years or decades in your jurisdiction or (2) you can get married in one jurisdiction, but then move to another jurisdiction during the marriage and get divorced in that jurisdiction. As an example, let's look at a couple that gets married in Georgia. Georgia has a unique law that says that if you can prove adultery by a spouse, you will not be required to pay alimony upon divorce from that spouse. So say I get married in Georgia. That marriage and divorce laws in the state of Georgia are the contract that my spouse and I are agreeing too. So at the time of the marriage, whether we realize it or not, I am agreeing that if I cheat on my spouse and get divorced, I won't be entitled to alimony. But California has no such exemption. So if 7 years into our marriage, I get a job transfer and move to California and meet a hot Cali girl and cheat on my wife, why should she have to pay me alimony? That wasn't the agreement we made 7 years ago when we got married. And the same can work in reverse. If you get married in California and then move to Georgia, you can escape paying alimony that you otherwise would have been obligated to. So if you find out your spouse is cheating on you and you want to avoid alimony payments, the best thing to do is to "try to work things out" and find some way to convince your spouse to move to Georgia, and then file for divorce. That makes no sense.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I can see your point here, but how do you deal with situations where the laws _need_ to be changed because they are found to be unfair? Case in point - no fault divorce. Prior to 1970 (in CA, later in other states), you had to prove _cause_ for divorce, and cause was very limited. The way it worked out was that if either party didn't want to get divorced, it as nearly impossible to enact it. This left thousands (potentially hundreds of thousands) of men and women in terrible marriages that they couldn't escape. Thanks to no-fault divorce, these people finally had an _out_ and were able to live their lives. It was viewed as such an improvement that over the next 15 years, all but one state enacted no-fault divorce. In your system, this wouldn't have been permissible. After all, no-fault divorce was not what was agreed to when the contract was signed (assuming you were married prior to 1969). Those people would have remained trapped in terrible marriages even though we knew they should have an out, simply because we didn't realize the flaw in the system when the marriage was issued. We would have no way to fix our mistake, no redress for a broken system. Now, you might argue that we aren't in any danger of that happening now, but if one thing is true it is that we have _always_ found room for improvement in our laws and regulations. It may take us years or decades, but we usually find _something_ that needs to be updated or changed as time passes. You'd have to assume that marriage laws are _perfect_ right now for this system to make sense, and history doesn't really play that out.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:why does stress cause diarrhea like symptoms?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant These symptoms occur due to your body's innate response to stress, which is to move blood away from your gut (stomach, intestines) to your muscles and other vital organs causing gastrointestinal distress if you have food in your stomach. This is known as the "fight or flight" response caused by sympathetic nervous system activation. In opposition to the sympathetic nervous system is the parasympathetic nervous system which causes the "rest and digest" response in your body. In contrast to the sympathetic nervous system, when your parasympathetic nervous system is more active (in times of low stress, relaxation) your body moves more blood to your gut to promote digestion. Tl;dr your body is in "fight or flight" mode and not focusing on digestion, so you basically have food rattling around in your gut. Edit: added some information<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: the concept of a statute of limitations on violent crimes, why? Shouldn’t they always be eligible for persecution?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The main reason is to ensure the best evidence is presented in any case. The longer a case goes on the more unreliable the evidence becomes, ie witness statements become warped with memory, digital data gets lost, files get misplaced. It depends on the country as well, mostly minor and civil cases here in the UK have limitations to ensure defendants have an accurate case bought against them.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: If i were to use a random number generator, and then go back in time to just before i used it, would i then get the same number, or a different one?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Depends on whether you were using a true random number generator that derives its number from things like atmospheric measurement or a programmatic psuedo-random number generator. A real random number generator would give you the same value post time travel because it's derived from natural events which, assuming causality holds up through time travel, would be the same. A psuedo-random number generator could give you a different number because the program isn't derived from anything which should be causaly linked. Interestingly, if this experiment were to be done, it would answer whether free will exists or not.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Eli5 How/Why do calluses form?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Your body has evolved, on a microscopic level, to adapt to repeated damage by repairing itself to be stronger than it was before. In the case of callouses, your skin responds things like pressure, friction, tiny abrasions and breakages by building tougher surfaces using keratin (the same protein that your hair and nails are made of). This sort of action apples to many kinds of cells, including muscle tissue. For example, bodybuilders grow so large by inflicting controlled amounts of damage to their muscle tissues on a precise schedule. Then, they feed their bodies important proteins and amino acids which encourage regrowth. This causes their muscle fibers to heal and grow in order to adapt to this new stress. As far as your cells are concerned, this must be what is necessary to catch and eat food. So we have to adapt to this new normal. If that stress is removed, the muscle tissue reverts back to its previous state. Most of the time, this is good, but sometimes repeated stress and damage can cause scar tissue to develop in places you might not want it which can cause long term pain and in some cases increase risks of cancer later in life. Callouses are a pretty mild form of this, some people think they're rough and unsightly, but if you play guitar or work with your hands, those thick callous pads can protect your sensitive nerve endings and soft tissues from damage as you keep on doing the things you love.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why are clouds all fluffy on top but flat on the bottom?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A very cool way of looking at clouds is picturing them as the effect when warm moist air and cold air mix. Add in the fact that warm air rises because it's less dense, and warm sea-level-pressure air can hold more dissolved invisible moisture than cold lower-pressure air, and you have your ingredients to a flat-bottomed cloud. First, what makes clouds visible? In a very easily repeatable experiment which you can see in just about any nature documentary when big mammals are doing stuff in a winter somewhere, their breath is very visible and forms a little cloud until it cools down and dissipates. What happened there is "fog", and its cause was warm moist air in the animal's breath holds more water than cold air, and when it cools down it has to surrender that moisture. So a region of warm moist air entered a cold zone and fell below the "dew point", the point when the moistness it was holding condensed out and formed tiny visible droplets. Lowered air pressure can also helps this condensation effect, which is why you'll see a little tiny cloud form on its wingtips when a jet fighter go fast enough because the air pressure there is really low. So now let's look at clouds. Air generally gets cooler as you climb into the sky, and its pressure reduces. Sometimes it's not very disturbed and forms a clean gradient of temperature and pressure in the sky, both going down uniformly as you climb. On certain summery days when conditions are right, the level of the "dew point" is at a very flat, even height in the sky because the combination of temperature and reduced pressure is at a not-very-mixed-up consistent attitude. So the sun shines, and warms stuff on the surface. If it's humid, warm moist air starts rising and rising... and breaks THROUGH that consistent dew point layer. The result? It condenses to cloud just above that specific "dew point" layer. And you get a cloud with a flat bottom. To extend this, if the updraft is strong enough, moist air keeps shooting up and feeding the cloud's growth until you get highly energetic cloud systems with all sorts of cool stuff like rain, hail, lightning, thunder... and tornadoes (except they can sometimes be not so cool).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How many tumours/would-be-cancers does the average person suppress/kill in their lifetime? Not every non-benign oncogenic cell survives to become a cancer, so does anyone know how many oncogenic cells/tumours the average body detects and destroys successfully, in an average lifetime?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I don't think we can reliably estimate how many "pre-cancers" a healthy immune system can detect and destroy, but one of the major complications after a solid organ transplant is the risk for developing cancer due to the severe immune suppression needed to prevent transplant rejection. According to this article by Webster et al. (2007): "Cancer is a major source of morbidity and mortality following solid organ transplantation. Overall risk of cancer is increased between two- and threefold compared with the general population of the same age and sex. Recipients of solid organ transplants typically experience cancer rates similar to nontransplanted people 20–30 years older, and risk is inversely related to age, with younger recipients experiencing a far greater relative increase in risk compared with older recipients (risk increased by 15–30 times for children, but twofold for those transplanted >65 years)". So you can theorize that the immune system catches some in younger people (depending on the overall health of the person-some people have things that predispose them to developing cancer), with the immune system being unable to keep up as we age. Webster AC, Craig JC, Simpson JM, Jones MP, Chapman JR 2007. Identifying high risk groups and quantifying absolute risk of cancer after kidney transplantation: A cohort study of 15,183 recipients. Am J Transplant 7: 2140–2151<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do pyramid schemes work, and why are they illegal?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Pyramid schemes work in a way usually where the person / people on top benefit from the amount of money they take away from the people below them, usually by selling them items without or with little worth (Its called a pyramid scheme because the person on top is supported by the people below them, either relating to the gymnastics routine where people climb onto each other or because slaves were used to build pyramids for pharaohs). Its illegal because pyramid schemes manipulate you into thinking that you have a chance to get rich quick by taking advantage of other people, where your the actual sucker buying the product (in some cases). E.g. If you're applying for a job, a pyramid scheme that sells items like knives may offer you a job. They will take you into a room with multiple other candidates and use manipulation tactics to persuade you that you have 'the stuff' needed to be an effective salesperson; although they do this to everyone. They will build up your self confidence and their companies image until they offer you a job where you go door to door to sell their product - The only catch of this is that you have to buy their ridiculously expensive knives because 'people run away with them.' If you buy them, you'd need to find other people to buy them off of you at the same ridiculous price. This ruins people financially because they don't realize nobody wants to buy ridiculously expensive knives, and that in turn you need to manipulate people to come in and also get a job selling knives so that you can get out of debt TL;DR: Manipulation<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do countries that have no natural resources and completely rely on import even survive economily?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant They buy in raw materials relatively cheaply, add value by manufacturing facilities and expertise , then sell at a profit. Britain used to be known for manufactured goods based on imports from empire/Commonwealth sources. Japan also, they are not well endowed with natural resources, one of the factors leading them into wars of conquest before and during WW2.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: what's the deal with rap music? What makes rap music, and what's the criteria for "good" rap music? I listen to rap from time to time, and do enjoy it, but I don't exactly understand why it's "music." Although there are instrumentals, there are no pitches to the lyrics. Is it just supposed to be a sort of vocal percussion? And when music critics (or you) evaluate this kind of music, what makes it good?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are things like: * Clever lyrics and humor * Rapping before or behind the beat * How smoothly the lyrics come out * The timbre of the guys voice * The quality of the beats and other instrumentation Rhythm is very important but there are simple melodies in the verses if you listen carefully.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is an open-source OS considered more secure than a closed source?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant For open source systems, the computer code that makes up that system is public, and anyone can read through it. So if someone has left some sort of backdoor or security flaw, it can be caught and fixed. Closed source systems have code that's only available to the people who make the software. It could have a dozen backdoors or security holes, and you'll never know unless it gets exploited and someone talks about it. The idea is that if you can see how the system is put together, you can build a more secure system than one that works with code you cant see.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Babylon 5] Considering all the mayhem that came through the Jump Gate why didn't Sheridan mine the living hell out of the entrance? Especially during the Civil War period? Make them command-detonated mines to avoid accidents and B5 is much more secure. Plus Sheridan blew up the Black Star using a nuke as a mine so it's a familiar tactic for him.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A number of reasons: 1. Generally, larger warships that warrants mining against have their own jump drives and therefore could avoid using a gate in enemy occupied territory to exit hyperspace. Since mining is a significant undertaking, poses a navigational hazard even when inactive and B5's gate sees very heavy traffic, there is absolutely no way that any of the indigenous powers would not know about a minefield. 2. Smaller ships without their own jump drives are less vulnerable to mines. 3. Nuclear mines detonating in proximity to jump gates is hazardous to the gates. One has to remember that hypergates are strategic assets to be captured whenever possible, not to be risked haphazardly. Mining gates would undermine navigation in the whole area, for both combatants and non-combatants. If one doesn't have the ships to defend a gate, one really doesn't have any business occupying that near-gate space. 4. B5 was built with the goals of facilitating diplomacy and trade among the species. Mining the local gate would be politically detrimental to those goals.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why do we design vehicles to be aerodynamic (laminar?) while dimpled golf balls are designed to create turbulence to get them to travel farther? Wouldn't inducing turbulent flow on a vehicle reduce drag and increase fuel efficiency?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The dimples on golf balls were added after golfers noticed that the smooth balls they used went farther after getting cuts and scrapes in them. The uneven surface creates eddies around the ball that act as a cushioning against the air around it while flying. If you want to get deeper into the aerodynamics, there are two types of flow around an object: laminar and turbulent. Laminar flow has less drag, but it is also prone to a phenomenon called "separation." Once separation of a laminar boundary layer occurs, drag rises dramatically because of eddies that form in the gap. Turbulent flow has more drag initially but also better adhesion, and therefore is less prone to separation. Therefore, if the shape of an object is such that separation occurs easily, it is better to turbulate the boundary layer (at the slight cost of increased drag) in order to increase adhesion and reduce eddies (which means a significant reduction in drag). Dimples on golf balls turbulate the boundary layer. TL;DR: Vehicles are designed with laminar in mind because laminar flow has less drag overall, while golf balls have dimples that act as a symmetrical turbulent creator that has less drag initially.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why Is Diesel Preferred Over Petrol for Large Vehicles?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Torque, or how much force a motor can apply to the wheels at a given RPM. Diesel engines have a much higher compression ratio that gasoline engines. They work by squeezing their air-fuel mixture so much that it spontaneously explodes. Higher pressure in the cylinder delivers more turning power to the crankshaft, which is transferred to the wheels. The disadvantage to this is you need heavier engine components to withstand this violent force. This limits how fast the engine can turn. So diesels tend to produce most of their power at low RPM. Now if you're hauling a heavy load, that's exactly where you want all your engine power to be. You need that kind of force to get you moving, and most diesel vehicles don't need to go very fast. Nor do they need high acceleration. Now you could produce a gasoline engine that could match diesel torque levels. You see this in aviation engines, which need to produce a lot of turning force, but also need to be light. The problem is that gasoline will spontaneously ignite at a much lower temperature and pressure than diesel fuel. This causes a problem called knocking or detonation. The fuel prematurely ignites before the piston is at the top of the cylinder. This can severely damage engine components. Thus you need to introduce additives (boost the octane value) to reduce the ignition temperature. Unfortunately, doing so significantly increases fuel costs. Aviation gasoline (avgas) is usually around 100 octane. The average price today (Aug 13, 2016) is between $4.67 and $5.29 per gallon, depending on where you are in the US. Double the cost of diesel. Most avgas is also still leaded. It's a far more convoluted way to do things when there's a better and simpler technology available. Diesel can also be more fuel efficient than gas as well, which is important for the long haul industry. It has a higher energy density. Which means you can get more work done with less fuel, even at those low RPMs. It's a little less efficient at high speeds though. A fine trade off for trucks, but it's partly why they're not common in North American cars. A third advantage of diesel is it scales up in size quite well. The limiting factor becomes the transmission. You need a lot of big, robust gears if you want to directly drive the wheels. Train locomotives and ships use a diesel-electric transmission instead. The engine turns a generator which powers electric motors attached to the wheels/propellers. Electric motors produce a near constant torque across their entire RPM band. They don't need to be geared either, making them ideal for very large loads. Of course for a truck, this adds unnecessary complexity. Fully EV trucks will eventually replace diesel once battery life and recharge times improve. When you're getting paid by the mile, you can't really afford to wait a couple hours to refuel. Some trucks of the future may even use overhead lines like the Accela Express and other electric trains.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star trek]Why don't tricorders have bigger screens? http://tehne.com/assets/i/upload/event/medical_tricorder_2369_0.jpg<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are multiple possible explanations. Based on how we see them used, they probably have some sort of advanced artificial intelligence that automatically identifies relevant information. Eg. a medical tricorder probably automatically analyzes a person's vitals and presents only the things that deviate from normal. That probably only takes a few lines of text. Or: the interface is so advanced, it just isn't necessary. In the future, they will have had hundreds of years worth of improvements that make it unbelievably easy to get information out of a computer. Or, for battery life, since screens usually take up the most battery on modern phones.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Chemistry] Are frozen vegetables any less healthy than fresh ones? Does anything happen at a molecular level when you freeze vegetables that makes them process differently in our bodies?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Well, much like cooking, freezing weakens and ruptures cell walls. Making the vegetable softer and easier to chew and to digest. Also most commercially sold frozen vegetables are briefly cooked before freezing, this improves the thawed texture. So that will also affect the nutrition and digestibility of vegetables. On the other hand, most frozen vegetables were processed very quickly after harvest, and most 'fresh' vegetables in the store have been sitting in storage and shipping for a while. Lettuce make take a month to reach a store shelf, depending on the time of year and how far it had to be shipped. So all in all the most healthy choice between fresh and frozen, would depend on the time of year and how far that kind of vegetable had to be shipped. If the only fresh corn has to be grown over 1000 miles away and took weeks to get to you, frozen corn would probably be more nutritious. If the fresh corn came from a field ten miles down the road,and was picked yesterday then fresh corn will be the most nutritious.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Are different cultures more prone to closer friendships? I got into a discussion with a friend who stated that she thinks people in wester cultures like the US would not sacrifice as much for their friends and don't have as tight knit bonds. There is a lot to unpack here, like how to operationalize "closer" or "friendship", but I was wondering if there has been any research or frameworks on the subject.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are cultural differences between the nature of friendship and the characteristics sought by friends from each other. Gonzalez and colleagues (2004) compared Canadian and Cuban friendships. Cubans are more likely to focus on giving and receiving help, and character admiration. Canadians are more likely to focus on common interests and shared history. They concluded that these different types of friendship reflect the dominant ideals of the societies in which they're based (individualistic/pluralistic).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 How do birds (ducks, geese etc.) not freeze when swimming and dunking their heads in ponds in the wintertime when it’s - degrees out?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant They can be hurt by exposure, but they have evolved methods of (usually) avoiding it. For one, water birds have a thick layer of feathers covered in oil that repel water. This prevents the cold water from touching their skin directly, except on their feet. The main things birds have to worry about is damaging their feet through exposure to cold water since they aren't protected by feathers. Birds have to limit their time in cold water to avoid loosing too much heat.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 What causes you to see things out of the corner of your eye when nothing is actually moving or there? Why do people have the sensation of seeing something moving out of the corner of their eye when there isn't actually anything there or moving?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There could be any number of factors for this. A common one is that despite the sense that your vision is steady and focused, your eyes are actually constantly moving and adjusting the field of view very subtly, and the differing images are compiled and averaged in your brain. Particularly sensitive areas of vision, such as motion of the periphery (which might have evolved to detect ambush predators such as wolves or great cats attacking from the sides), will be able to pick up the subtle shifts of your eye movements given the proper context or backdrop. Another contributing factor is that your eyes' contents themselves are not uniform. Small amounts of tissue can become dislodged in the jelly of the eye, and as it floats may cross in front of light entering the eye, which you can see as motes or "floaters". If one of these motes crosses the sensitive peripheral vision, the motion could also be detected.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are Europe and Asia considered two continents?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The ancient Greeks first developed the idea of a continent. They saw that the Mediterranean divided Europe from Africa, the Red Sea divided African from Asia, and with their limited knowledge of geography, assumed the Black Sea divided Asia from Europe. They were wrong, but the notion stuck, and has been reinforced by a culture divide that runs roughly along the same lines.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: how did we get to understand any extinct languages? For instance hieroglyphs or other symbol based languages. How did we find out what those symbols mean, when we’ve got nothing to compare them to?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant We need something like the Rosetta Stone, a stone that had the same text written in ancient Egyptian, but also in two forms of ancient Greek as well. And since we could compare both forms of Greek and see that the stone had the same text for the two forms of Greek, it was then easy to assume that it also had the same text in Egyptian as well, and we were then able to begin translating by comparing the Egyptian to the Greek. Without something like that though, we really can't decipher an extinct language with no modern speakers.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user f(x) = e^x, f(x) = sin(x) and f(x) = 0 are functions which arrive at itself again when derived (multiple times). Are there more such functions? Is this a relevant class of functions?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You are looking for functions that satisfy the differential equation > f^([n]) = f for some positive integer n. For each n, this is an nth-order, linear differential equation. So the solutions form an n-dimensional vector space. In particular, there are only finitely many linearly independent such functions for each n. The equation has constant coefficients, and so it can be easily solved. If ω_n_ is a primitive nth root of unity, then the linearly independent solutions are > f_k_(x) = exp(ω_n_^(k)x) for k = 0, 2, 3, ..., n-1. For n = 1, we get just e^(x). For n = 2, we get e^(x) and e^(-x). For n = 3, we get, after taking suitable linear combinations, > e^(x) > e^(-x/2)cos(√3/2 x) > e^(-x/2)sin(√3/2 x) For n = 4, we get e^(x), e^(ix), e^(-x), and e^(-ix). So after taking suitable linear combinations, we can get sin(x) and cos(x). If you are wondering where 0 fits into this, remember that, for any n, we can take linear combinations of such functions to get another such function. The zero function is a linear combination of any function. You can then take it from there. --- Also, as a side note, the English word meaning "to take the derivative of" is "to differentiate". So we don't say functions which arrive at itself again when derived", we say ".... when differentiated". While it's true that the nominative and verbal forms of "derivative" have the same root in many other languages, they don't in English for some reason.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What does 20/10 vision mean? I just had a doctors appointment a few weeks ago and got a score of 20/10 on the eye test. I know the "average" score is 20/20, so does that mean my vision is twice as good as a normal persons? And what IS twice as good? 150 megapixels? Really curious.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The standard eyechart ("Snellen") test is really a very blunt tool for quantifying vision. It is reasonably good at determining your ability to resolve detail using your central vision which, while important, is just one component of visual performance. To directly answer you, 20/10 means that you can resolve details at 20 feet away what the hypothetical "average" person needs to be 10 feet away to see. Healthy young adults can fairly routinely see 20/15 or better. As you age, your ability tends to diminish, sadly. In visual acuity research, if we really want to get down and dirty with examining resolving fine detail, we use tools like spatial gratings, which tell how many sinusoidal-like transitions of white-to-black-to-white bars can be detected. We measure the acuity in cycles/degree; higher means more resolving power. I am leery of the whole attempt to relate human vision to megapixels, because we do not have uniform function across our retina. In fact, only the most central one-degree diameter circle is capable of resolving fine detail. This is the fovea, where the photoreceptors are most densely packed, like stadium seating on multiple concentric levels. This trick allows more visual fields per area. Some birds of prey, raptors, have even deeper foveal pits, allowing better packing of receptors, and therefore better acuity. But vision is way more than just the retina. Your lens and cornea, and all the juices and jellies in your eye must be properly functioning to allow you to see well. When we are young, our lens is clearest and most flexible, so it can be shaped (squashed or flattened) to bring images to your retina. As we age, our lens opacifies and also loses the ability to accommodate (change shape).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How long would the communication delay be from Mars to Earth? How long would the delay in communications be through audio and video from a person on Mars to a person on Earth?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The distance between Earth and Mars depends on where they are in their orbit, but it can vary between approximately 55 million and 400 million km. Light (or any other electromagnetic signal) travels 18 million km per minute, so sending a signal from Mars to Earth (or the other way around) would take anywhere between 3 and 22 minutes.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why graphs? So, in a lot of my programming classes at my university, we have discussed graphs. Graphs, in this context, are collections of nodes connected by “edges” (or lines). Why do we talk about graphs so often? Are graphs useful in computer science? If so, what are they used for?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Graphs are so generic that nearly any problem can be transformed into one or more graphs and operations on them. Notice how they don't put restrictions on what a "node" or "edge" are, only that they have some logical connection. That means that damn near anything can be a node and nearly any relationship of any kind can be an edge.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do dreams feel much longer than they actually are?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Studies have shown that our perception of how much time has elapsed is significantly influenced by how memorable the experiences during that time were. If you drive to work the same way everyday, you'll probably have the experience of getting to work and not really even remembering the drive, like you were "driving on automatic." They have suggested that this is why the years seem to go by so much faster when we're older. When we're young, everything is a new experience. After we've experienced so many things repeatedly, out brains don't need to store so much information about them. With that as context, I'd guess dreams that focus a lot of our thoughts could seem very long.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: I think renting a house/apartment isn't more expensive than buying This was a though choice between /r/theydidthemath and /r/cmv but I think there's so many ins and outs that it's close to being an opinion. I'm currently renting an apartment and I've been doing so for a few years. Everyone keeps telling me buying a house is better, it's 'an investment', but I think the difference could be really small, because buying also forces you to pay insurance, small and large maintenance costs, taxes, security, a loan interest,... Of course you can sell the house after years of 'usage', but that doesn't make a difference because you need to have invested a lot in maintenance to get a good price. I live in Belgium, so I'd be most interested having my view changed for my country, but since I realise there aren't a lot of Belgians on here any other country (probably US I guess) would be interesting too. _____ > Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our *[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)* first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The person you are renting from has to pay maintenance costs, security, loan interest, taxes, etc. The cost of rent is all of those costs, plus a little so that they're making a profit. So renting is, by definition, more expensive than owning. Of course, if you share a property with a lot of people, by renting, say, an apartment, you can spread the cost out, and end up paying less than you would to own a house. However, you will eventually pay off a property that you own, making it much cheaper to own in the long term (important when you find yourself surviving on retirement income!) With an apartment, your landlord eventually realizes the benefits of paying off the mortgage, but they aren't likely to pass any savings on to you. In the short term, apartments offer sound isolation and privacy. If you don't care about those things, and you have some very good friends, you might look into buying a house with friends and sharing it (that situation can get a little messy in the long run, though).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why aren't polar deserts sandy? I realise there's no requirement for a desert to be sandy, but I'm wondering if there's a particular reason that the polar deserts on Earth are nearly all rock or gravel rather than having sand. Is there a reason for it, or is it just one of those things? Is a sandy polar desert on an earthlike planet possible? What conditions would need to be met for a polar desert to become sandy?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Eolian sand systems commonly associated to deserts (think of the golden dune fields of the Sahara), require a source of sediment. In the case of the Sahara for instance, there was a pre-existing layer of sediment emplaced during the Holocene Wet Phase. When aridification went hog-wild and the rains failed, this sediment layer was remobilised by eolian processes. These processes essentially did three things: * They picked up fines as suspension load, such as clay minerals, and lifted them into the upper atmosphere; * They moved sand-sized particules as traction/saltation load along the desert floor; * They isolated areas of coarser material through deflation (lag). Of these fractions, the sand is interesting as it provides an erosive force susceptible to abrade coarser fragments and in-situ bedrock to generate additionnal particulate material. In other words, "Sand blasting" is a powerfull motive force to producing more sand. Back to the poles now, or Antarctica really as the North pole is an ocean. Antarctica's dry valleys at the small end of the scale for deserts, And there has'nt really been a prolonged period of rainfall to get sedimentation and erosion going for a long long time. So there is very little sediment to work with from the start and get things going, on one hand. And when what little sediment is present gets remobilised, it gets relatively limited opportunity to interact with the substratum and generate additionnal sediment before getting carried away over the icecap.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Did eyes evolve only once on Earth? Is there something about the small band of "visible" light that makes it optimal for eyes to evolve to see? Or is it just a coincidence that most animals see in the same spectrum? I have heard of animals that see infrared & ultraviolet. But they all see (or so I think) the same frequency of light we see. Would an alien eye be more or less likely to see nothing in our "visible" band of light because it sees a higher or lower frequency? If eyes evolved once, it may be that the commonalities are just happenstance and not due to some inherent quality about the small band of frequency of light we can see.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant "eyes" evolved independently in an enormous number of species. Or more accurately, the basic parts of an eye developed waaay long ago in the species that formed the base of a lot of different genetic trees. Long before the dinosaurs, or before most mammals existed. And this has to do with what the most basic form if the eye is, a cell that can determine light from dark is to most people an "eye" and that has evolved near the base of almost every family tree. It evolved because the sun is the basis of almost all life on Earth. From that simple beginning most animals have developed eyes as at least a secondary sensory organ. But those eyes are well different from each other, some only see certain colors, some see movement, some work in low light, some are farsighted etc etc. The basis of all of them is pretty similar, because the base evolved we'll before "human" and "cat" evolved to be separate. The original mammal had something that we might recognize as "eyes" and those formed the basis of what all the mammals (well, the vast majority) would modify into the eyes they have today.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Can you publish a paper excluding one of the authors? I have completed an internship and the paper is due to be published. It was between myself, another intern and a supervisor. However, the supervisor and the intern are still in touch and it appears that she took credit for the work I have done. The supervisor is also saying the research is her “own”. I have not received any updates regarding the paper or the publications, yet they are still in touch. I’m afraid they will get rid off my name when submitting the paper for publication. What can I do? Is there anything that would be good to prepare (save or obtain) in case they will actually remove my name? Are there any organisations that could support me? I still have messages from them, where we were discussing the work and the draft of the paper saved. They deleted the website where we listed who did what (however I doubt this has ever been checked in advance since specific graphs I created, the supervisor later said it was the other girl who did them)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I would just send emails saying that you would like to be included in the writing and revision of the manuscript. Of you contributed to the paper your name shouldn't be removed, but if you aren't part of the process you can't expect your name to be very high on the list, even if it's their fault.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Unleaded gasoline Why is it that almost all (USA) gas stations say unleaded gasoline? I know that in the old days cars needed leaded to run. Now cars are better, what happened?, More specifically what technology improvements for cars made leaded gas obsolete? (Other than electric cars) It seems since every gas station sells unleaded gasoline does anywhere still sell leaded gasoline? What still uses leaded gasoline? Why add lead to the gasoline in the first place? Obviously there are health risk associated with lead poisoning, how toxic are the gas fumes from both leaded and unleaded?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Tetraethyl lead was added to gas to allow for higher compression which increased engine power and fuel economy. In the late 70s and early 80s most countries began phasing out the use of lead additives in gasoline in favor of other octane boosters because of the serious health effects of leaded gas emissions Leaded gas is still sold for some specialty appications, and for use in some aviation engines.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Finances/fame shouldn’t be able to enhance your favor in terms of the justice you’re served for said crime in America For the most part, I feel as a country, we have a decent justice system overall. There are a bunch of flaws within the justice system, but there’s flaws in every system so that’s not my concern. My view kicks in with money. Money or fame shouldn’t be able to determine the justice you’re served or result in you suffering a less severe consequence versus someone who isn’t as stable financially having to take on the more intense consequences due to the fact that he/she couldn’t afford the top dollar representation. People don’t get me wrong, it’s obvious if you go out here and kill somebody, famous or not, you’ll be sent to prison and justice will most likely be served as it should be. But there are MANY cases where someone with money can pay their way to say, something like probation , versus someone without money actually having to go and serve jail time due to the fact that they couldn’t afford that top dollar representation. And I don’t agree with this one but. The law obviously differs from state to state, but I can provide many examples where a celebrity can do something and they’re able to pay their way out of that situation, versus a defaults citizen in that same situation, they would have had a different consequence. The law doesn’t say when you commit a crime, if you have this certain amount of money, you’ll get this etc. the law says you cant do so and so, and if you break that law, it states what is punishable for breaking said law. I feel this is unfair, and that many people haven’t been served fair justice. Just because somebody cant afford a top dollar lawyer, that shouldn’t determine how much less or more guilty they are for said crime. I feel we all are human and should all be treated as such. No one is bigger than the program. My post refers to something bigger than celebrity privilege because the people that can afford top dollar lawyers, at the end of the day they did earn that money. But I’m referring to when courts allow money/fame to help determine a consequence, I feel that’s wrong and it’s not true justice. This is my view.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Suppose you want to bring in an expert witness. Who pays for that person's time? The State? Suppose you want to bring in a dozen expert witness? Who then? What's the cut off? How much money is the citizenry willing and/or able to fund the defense of every plaintiff? Would you prefer the State fails to bring people to trial because they fear the economic burden the defense could incur on public funds? The bigger the trial, the bigger the stakes, the bigger the defense could dig into the public coffers. Maybe you think you'll put a cap on the amount of money a defendant can spend. Well, that's pretty much the system we have through the funding of public defenders. Maybe you think to make it fair, all defendants can only spend the same amount on a defense. Okay, but what limit is there on the State? And if a citizen can afford to bring in expert witnesses to refute the State, would you really want a system that prevents them bringing those witnesses forward? At the end of the day, the reason why money can buy more "justice" is that any other alternative is destined to lead to more injustice. The question is how much legal aid can we provide to the indigent compared to other systems. If you can show me a legal system somewhere that is able to afford more resources to mount a legal defense per capita for the indigent, then you'd start to be on a more firm foundation.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Paddington Bear] Why does Millicent think killing and taxiderming Paddington will bring her wealth and fame? The British public don't seem to view Paddington as any different to a human child. In the 2014 film, Paddington Bear, taxidermist Millicent Clyde repeatedly tries to capture Paddington, a sapient Peruvian Bear, so she can taxidermy his copse and become famous. However throughout the film the general public seem to be well aware of Paddington's existence, to the extent that they don't seem to be fazed by a talking bear cub and even treat Paddington no different to a human child. I'm assuming that if Paddington's corpse suddenly appeared on display in the national history museum it would not be one of the greatest scientific discoveries, but rather one of the most horrific crimes in British history. So is Millicent just a mentally deranged butcher trying to skin and taxidermy a kid, or does she legitimately believe that killing a sapient bear cub (who is acquainted with london's police btw) is her ticket to a life of fame and fortune.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The Sapient Peruvian Bear, when active, exerts a mild memetic effect causing any other sapient organism to perceive it as equivalent to a member of their own species, despite knowing that it is in fact a bear, and not to notice anything abnormal about the situation. Some individuals are, for unknown reasons, partially or entirely immune to this effect. Ms. Clyde either does not see Paddington as equivalent to a human child, or does, but notices that this is strange. The latter would be more likely, since most humans would be reluctant to harm any sapient organism, regardless of genetics; a creature with the power to manipulate one's own sense of reality, however, would be quite likely to inspire a homicidal, or rather ursicidal, response. Presumably, upon Paddington's death, the memetic effect would cease, at which point Paddington would appear to be simply a dead bear. Ms. Clyde could still be condemned for the murder of a sapient being, but would perhaps not inspire as much instinctive horror as the murderer of a human child with Paddington dead and his memetic power broken.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How come my twins have blue eyes when both my husband and I have brown eyes. We have 3 year old twins (non identical) who both have the exact same shade of blue eyes. I have brown eyes and my husband has hazel. Their paternal grandfather has blue eyes, their maternal grandparents have brown eyes. Both my grandmothers had blue eyes. I know that the gene for blue eyes is recessive, so I'm curious how they both by-passed all the brown eye dominant genes! Thanks!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Genes work like this: we have two sets of genes for everything (only exception is the gender-specific ones), one passed on from the father, one passed on from the mother. Which of the two sets of your parents you inherit is entirely random. This simply means that both you and your husband inherited one set of brown-eye-genes and one set of blue-eye-genes from your respective parents and you both passed on the blue-eye-genes to each of your twins. Unlikely, but entirely normal.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user My former P.I/Thesis Advisor went nuclear against the whole lab, me included. Advice appreciated Tl/dr: I can't get a rec. letter from my thesis advisor because we do not see eye to eye anymore and I don't think it is my fault that this has happened. Roughly two years ago I joined a bioinformatics lab for my Masters, my P.I. back then was an amazing mentor, she was patient, insightful and rewarded independent thinking and proactiveness. We published four papers together and went to a few conferences, so I was pretty damn sure that I would get a good recommendation letter (especially since I was also a T.A. for her class, extra-officially). Last year we had some drama happening in the lab, a postdoc was basically just playing computer games in lab all day and leeching off the graduate students' work, the P.I. got (understandably) mad at the whole lab and fired the dude. After that she was never really the same and got progressively worse month after month, starting to verbally abuse her students in front of the whole lab and stopped relegating the good projects to us (she would just work on them herself and publish alone or with her collaborators). During this time I was in an internship in my dream university in the US so I thought it was just a transient thing, but as soon as I got back and told her of my desires to pursue a PhD in the US she completely "disowned" me, going so far as removing me from the lab communication group since I were "already with a foot out", in her own words. This happened a few months before my thesis defense, which she went out of her way to make as complicated to schedule as possible. I am not going to ask her for a recommendation letter, as I have no idea if she will actually write about what we accomplished or if she will sabotage me. I know this potentially looks bad for my application as she was my thesis advisor, but is there any way I can communicate her descent into spitefulness (obviously not with those words) without making it sound like excuses? I'm pretty sure she was struggling with mental health issues and a lot of stress, and that she also probably felt betrayed for trusting so much in her students and having them stab her in the back, but it seems unfair that I should get penalized for those things. Anyway, thank you for reading thus far, have a great day.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You have to ask her if she is comfortable writing you an strong letter. If she isn't, perhaps a former postdoc from your lab that you have a good relationship will, and will explain the situation a bit.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How does a stem cell know what body part to become naturally? What type of communication happens inside an embryo? What prevents, lets say, multiple livers from forming? Is there some sort of identification process that happens so a cell knows "okay those guys are becoming the liver, so I'll start forming the lungs" ?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The process you're referring to is called "Differentiation", which in biology refers to stem cells becoming other cell types. Chemically: The chemical properties of the surrounding the cell and available nutrients play a factor. These are things like pH, oxygen levels, CO2 levels etc. Physically: Certain cell types are receptive to different mechanical stimuli and surface properties. If you're trying to grow stem cells on a certain material you can alter it at the nanoscale to promote differentiation into a certain cell type. Another example is repetitive stretching and compression can promote osteoblast (Bone forming) cell differentiation. Biologically: There are tons of biological signals that can promote differentiation in one form or another. Cytokines, proteins, antibodies, hormones etc. There is a common technique called 'Coculturing' where a scientist will grow stem cells and another cell type in the same media. The proximity to the second cell type can determine what type of cell the stem cells ultimately become. Preexisting factors: Not all 'Stem Cells' are the same! There are several classifcations. "Totipotent stem cells" can differentiate to become just about any cell type or expand to make more stem cells. "Pluripotent stem cells" can become almost every cell in the body. "Multipotent stem cells" can become several different types of cells, but not all and are more limited than Pluripotent. This is still a rapidly growing and changing field, and there are certainly blurred lines between those classifications as we learn more about cellular differentiation.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Food stamps should be limited to healthy foods only Food stamps are a very effective program. It only cost the government 4 billion dollars, whereas Medicaid cost the government 500 billion dollars. Food stamps are probably one of the best welfare programs looking at it from an investment standpoint it yields a lot of economic return for very little money. That four billion dollars probably saves us a lot of money in healthcare. Because people will have less health issues if they are eating. By that reasoning I think it would also make a lot of sense to limit the types of food you can buy with food stamps. I'm not saying we shouldn't let people have red meat or whole milk, but we could probably cut out Doritos, doughnuts, cookies, and most junk food. If taxpayers are giving people money to buy food for the purpose of helping them and improving the economy, that money would better be invested in healthy food. That way the people who are buying it end up in the hospital less often and will avoid putting them in further economic despair and while also saving taxpayers Medicaid dollara in the future.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I agree with this 100% but the issue is who will dictate what is healthy? You can't count on the government to do it because look at school lunches. Look at the food pyrmid. They will go with whatever Nestle and the other big companies say.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How can airline carriers get away with overbooking flights? Financially, isn't it a drain on resources to compensate affected passengers? Legally, are they somehow covered?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant They use statistics concerning past no-show rates to determine how to extract maximum profit from the seats on each plane. They have a formula where they calculate the chance of a few passengers not showing up, versus the cost of compensating a few angry people if the overbooking results in not enough seats, and they see it as purely a profit-making exercise balanced by a public-relations exercise. They know they can ALWAYS get a few people to agree to take a later flight if they offer the proper inducement. Have you ever sat in the take-off lounge and you hear the announcements at first offering a $100 voucher if someone will volunteer to take a later flight, and then if no one takes it, a free round trip, and so forth, until eventually someone caves and accepts the bribe to not sit on their planned flight?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user eli5 Why do we read from left to right? Unlike Hebrew which is the opposite. But they're both read from top to bottom. How was this established as the "natural" way to read?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Short answer: because most people are right-handed. For the first written languages such as Hebrew, people started writing by engraving letters into stone. Since most people were right-handed, it was easier to hold the chisel with the left hand and hammer it with the right hand. If you think about it, it's a lot easier to do this right to left and would be uncomfortable to do it the other way unless you hold the hammer in your left hand. Eventually, Hebrew and other ancient languages moved on to be written on animal skin, but people were already used to writing right-to-left. When Indo-European written languages such as Ancient Greek and Latin came about, papyrus and ink was already the common medium for writing. Since most people were right-handed, they would get ink smudges on the paper if they wrote right-to-left. Writing from left to right eliminated this problem.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 how pulse detection apps work I have a heart rate monitor app on my phone which works pretty gosh darn well. I place my finger over my phone's camera and LED flash and it accurately measures my heart rate in real time. My nurse girlfriend has taken my actual pulse at the same time and it's always very close. So how does it work?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Try this: open the camera app on your phone and start recording video while turning the flashlight (LED lamp) on, and then press your finger on the camera lens. You will see a blurred image of your finger and if you look closer you'll see a slight pulse in the color. Thats your heart beating. It works because the flashlight will penetrate your skin and scatter all the way around in your finger including your artery, and some of the light getting back to the camera gets slightly dimmer when your heart pumps.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If we have a moral imperative to self quarantine, do we have an imperative not to drive cars? It seems that if you're making the argument that we must self quarantine against the corona virus and that you are morally responsible if you infect someone with it (which I would agree with) then we must self quarantine and abstain from many practices that we commonly participate in, perhaps not driving being one of them. If we compare the amount of deaths caused by car accidents globally with the global death toll of corona viruses cases, about 83,000 people die every month from car accidents and about the same amount of people have died from corona virus in several months. These obviously aren't completely analogous, but it seems that if it's a serious imperative for one thing, then the other ought to be an imperative in its own right. I'm not proposing that everyone needs to stop driving their car because I understand how impractical that would be, but maybe if we thought about it in this way and attempted to walk or bike, perhaps take public transportation where we could, we might be better off, beyond the obvious environmental benefits. Do you think that's off? It seems right to me. It seems to me even more clear that if this argument for self quarantining is being made then we must donate large amounts of money to charity and go vegan, amongst other things that I doubt many of the people making said argument would be willing to do.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Interestingly, consequentialist-based theories have a pretty intuitive response to this that isn't available to other systems of normative ethics. Since COVID-19 has the potential to spread exponentially, exposing others to it can catalyze a spread to hundreds of people. This could happen even if one lived fairly cautiously. The risk of materially injuring that many people with cautious behaviour by driving a car is just not quite there. The two are different in that respect, at least.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [40k] I'm a Space Marine who wants to follow the example of Svane Wulfbad and turn myself Chaotic. How do I do this?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Oh that's easy -- just give me your full name, location, chapter, and a recording in your own voice stating your intentions. A Chaotic emissary will get back to you in two to five business days. quietly opens vox-link to chapter's fortress-monastery and nearest known Inquisitor<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does witness protection work with education/certificates? For example, if a guy has a specific degree like a Ph.D. in underwater cat breeding or served in the military then goes into witness protection, how do they maintain their degrees / service benefits / other awards?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You will be issued a equal or greater certification from an institution that fits the narrative created for you. If you grew up in the UK, but the new your grew up in Utah. Your new degree would likely before from BYU or the like. Anyone who checks at the college would be able to pull your records and verify you degree. If we can't find a college that is as good, we give you a better GPA. If they were an expert in their academic field and would like to continue working, we have in the past created a pseudonym they may publish under. Keep in mind most in witness protection are taken care of financially. (I used to do this for foreign nationals we relocated to the states after providing intel or being compromised before doing so.)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do 3D Movies look darker than 2D Movies?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant 3D movies work by projecting two different images, each polarized in a different direction. The glasses that you wear have two polarized lenses that match the polarization of one of images. So each lens blocks one of the images, while letting that eye see the other image, so that each eye sees a different image. That produces the 3D effect. But since each eye is only seeing half of the light being projected, the image looks darker. 3D movies use brighter projectors for this reason, but they're not twice as bright, so the light reaching each eye is still dimmer than a normal, 2D movie.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Let's say you stay up for a week? Why does your body still only need less then 12 hours to feel right again.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Feel right and function are two different things. 1. People can get used to the feeling of being overtired to the point of feeling normal. 2. The first parts of your sleep are the most important and the brain can change it's function dynamically. This means if you are severely sleep deprived your brain will go though more NREM sleep than normal. To the point the first hours will be entirely NREM sleep. 3. If you think this is healthy think again.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why don't cars have direct drive transmission instead of a gearbox? Wouldn't direct drive be more efficient/less complex than an engine with a transmission?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A gasoline or diesel engine has an ideal speed that it wants to be running at. This is usually somewhere in the range of 1500-4000 revolutions per minute. But, the wheels of your car need to spin either slower or faster than that depending on what speed you want to go. So, a gear box lets your engine continue to run in its ideal range while the tires spin at a higher or lower rate.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What are some core principles to keep in mind while coding I'm always wanting to consider things to think about which will keep my level of code high. What are the essential things to code by?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Simplicity and readability. The simpler the code is, the less room for errors, and the easier it will be to optimize it later if need be. The simplest solution is also often faster than most other naive solutions. Readability will go a long ways towards maintaining the code and preserving the value of the code as it ages. Comments are good, but self-documenting code is great. Well structured, clean code is often more bug-resistant as well.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Eli5: Why aren't baseball fields all the same size? Why wouldnt there be a regulated size every field has to have<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Because the rules allow for stadiums to design fields within certain parameters. That design is in order to benefit the team. Baseball teams play half their games outside of their own field, so it evens out. Every team gets half their games in their home field which is tuned to their advantage. The result is that teams win more often at home. Since most people who attend baseball games live nearby, that means fans see their team win more often, which means they have a better time, drink more $10 beers, and come more often.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star Wars] How can clones tell each other apart?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant They have numbers, they get tattoos and strange haircuts, they paint and mod their armor, they carry specialized weapons, and sometimes you can just know someone well and be able to tell them from people who look like them.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: According to a utilitarian ethics system, certain forms of slavery are permissible (perhaps a moral requirement), and this makes utilitarianism a dangerous philosophy. As I understand it, the basis for utilitarian philosophy is that whatever action produces the most happiness in the world is good, and those actions which produce less or take away from global happiness are less moral or evil. The enslavement of the minority by the majority, with the minority doing all manner of unpleasant jobs, or working to facilitate happiness for the majority, would produce more total happiness. Because I regard slavery of anyone as fundamentally evil (except for the forced labor of convicted felons) utilitarianism is therefore an unacceptable and horrific moral philosophy. Change my view!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant What you are describing is a common critique of utilitarianism (which is fairly common). What you are describing: > whatever action produces the most happiness in the world is good, and those actions which produce less or take away from global happiness are less moral or evil. Is close to act utilitarianism. However, rule utilitarianism is the idea that the an action is right if it conforms to a rule that maximizes utility. So a rule like “no slavery” maximizes utility (because the positive gains of slavery our outweighed by the negative of the slaves for example). Alternative discussions include, do you maximize average happiness, or total happiness? But what you may be thinking, (because a rule like ‘no slavery is a bit of a dodge’) is also called the utility monster (a monster who derives so much happiness from eating food, much more so than people, than we should give all the food to the monster). A common patch for this is Rawl’s maximum or difference principle: when utility can’t be evenly distributed, it should be distributed starting at the member with the lowest utility and increasing towards the highest. So slaves have a lower utility than free people, so utility should be directed towards them (by freeing them). Once they are no longer the lowest utility member, then other people get utilities. So yes, that’s an issue you pointed out, but it was patched a while ago.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If you saw a Tsunami coming towards you, say 50ft waves, would it be better to run towards land, or just stay where you are to dive in and swim upwards? So waves are coming at you, better to run away, or stay deeper out if you are a good swimmer?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Unlike waves, tsunamis are not just water going up and down, but the actual displacement of water. All the water near the sea shore is going to be the water that will be flooding across trees and rocks in moments. Basically, you are screwed either way.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How are published review articles regarded as an undergrad, as opposed to primary/lab research? Hello everyone, I hope this is the right place to ask, and thanks for reading! Due to covid, I didn't get the chance to do real experimental research for my final year project in STEM-research. Therefore, I wrote a (narrative) review, and I got the opportunity to publish it in an academic journal. However, I didn't learn any real lab skills or experiments during undergrad (except a week-long course during which we did some basic pipetting) How would you regard this if someone applied to an internship in a lab, or for an internship project? Would such an article still give the indication that someone could do research, even if there are no 'hard' research skills? Or would you prefer candidates who did more experimental stuff? I'm applying to research internships currently, and I am trying to get an indication of where I stand/what I could apply to. Thank you in advance!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I would say the ability to write, understand the publishing process, and being successful at it is incredibly valuable. Knowing lab work/instrumentation is a plus, but lots of people learn this while in grad school.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How exactly does the Atomic Clock work? What material does it use to power it, if I'm wording this correctly...? What would happen if it was off by a few seconds? Would a new position effect the time displayed?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant An atomic clock can be based on several different designs, but they all work on a basic principle of measuring the frequency of radiation emitted by atoms of some element in a chamber. Knowing the frequency that the particular element "oscillates" (a very general term but serves for this discussion) at allows it to be used as a very accurate metronome, which then acts as the basis for a clock. Most atomic clocks use the element cesium, which has a frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hertz. That means it "oscillates" (actually, transitions between energy states, but that's not important to understand how it's used as a clock) a little over nine billion times a second. Knowing the oscillation frequency and then measuring it in a device creates an incredibly accurate timekeeping mechanism. As to accuracy of the time displayed, it's important to understand that any clock is really just a device that counts out moments of time- they may be larger and less accurate, such as with a grandfather clock and its pendulum, or smaller and far more accurate, such as a cesium clock. But the time displayed is simply a function of knowing what time it is and then letting the clock drive the display by counting out those slices of time. If the clock is inaccurate because it does not measure its moments very accurately - such as with a grandfather clock or a wind-up clock that may lose or gain a minute every few days, for example- then it has to be adjusted. Atomic clocks have a very, very small amount of drift in their measurements, simply because it's impossible to continuously monitor time changes with our current technology- we have to do it in slices, like a pendulum, metronome or changes in energy states of an atom. But atomic clocks are the most accurate timepieces we've ever created, and their drift is so small as to almost not bear mentioning.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If the earth was placed at the border of our universe (some planet must have ended up there?). Will half of the sky be completely black? Or what will we see or be able to measure from the other side?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The observable universe — which is often what people mean when they say "the universe," and that ambiguity of terminology causes a lot of confusion — is simply a sphere centered wherever the observer in question happens to be. The radius of the sphere is a function of the age of the universe. Every point that lies within the sphere is sufficiently close to the observer that light has had time to reach the observer from that point in the time that the universe has existed. So if you could magically teleport yourself (and your telescope, of course) to a point at the very edge of the observable universe as seen from Earth, you would find yourself at the center of a sphere of stars and galaxies that looks entirely similar to what we see all around us. You'd be seeing stars and galaxies that no human has ever seen before, because light hasn't had time to reach us from those stars and galaxies since the beginning of the Big Bang, but other than that, there'd be nothing particularly interesting about your view. This raises the obvious question: If light cannot yet have reached us from those places, how can we know what you'd find there? Well, the honest answer is we don't. Not for sure. But it follows logically from the assumption that the laws of physics are the same everywhere. The technical term for this is translational invariance. Wherever you go, the same basic laws of physics apply. The reason we have stars and galaxies here is because the laws of physics caused them to form out of the soup of matter that emerged from the early stages of the Big Bang. Those same laws of physics apply there, so it follows naturally and inevitably that there will also be stars and galaxies wherever you go. Of course, it's technically possible that the laws of physics are not the same everywhere. But in many centuries of people observing the universe on scales both large and small, there's never yet been any evidence at all that the laws of physics aren't translationally invariant. So while it's an assumption, it seems to be a pretty darned safe assumption to make.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user In the absence of artificial light, do moths attempt to fly towards to the moon?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Insects, including moths, do not fly directly to a light source, but rather use it as a beacon, and try and maintain a constant angle to it. With the moon at effectively infinity, this gives a straight path, but with a closer light they end up describing a spiral around and then into the light, which then appears to an observer who only sees the end as if they have flown towards it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is the real world significance/ benefit of calculus? I stink at math and would like to understand!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The most unhelpful, but most true answer: Basically everything. Almost everything runs on, is modeled by, understood using calculus to some extent. Newton's second law, which is the basis of any kind of physical motion, and so used in all forms of engineering, mechanics, fluids, etc, etc, etc, is an equation in Calculus. The equations that allow us to discuss how electricity will flow, what magnetic fields will do, how light will propagate, are Calculus equations. Even many things in something that may seem like it has nothing to do with Calculus benefit from it, or discrete versions of it, particularly in Computer Science. Your whole world runs on Calculus. If you take advantage of anything invented after 1700, then you're more than likely directly benefiting from Calculus. Calculus is an infection. We are in symbiosis with Calculus. Calculus tells us how things change, and everything changes, so we need Calculus for everything.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 how Tilt Shift photography works. How does it make things look like model landscapes? Every time I see one I don't even fathom how it does that<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant What you're asking about is actually known as "Tilt-shift false miniaturisation". Tilt-shift lenses allow you to adjust the "tilt" of the lens (ie. the angle between the lens and the film/sensor) and the "shift" (offsetting the position of the lens relative to the film or sensor). As SneakyPete27 said, this is useful for things like minimizing converging lines when photographing tall buildings, but it can also be used to make false miniatures. It does this by creating a very narrow depth of field (which is the area in which objects are in focus), blurring out the rest of the image. This is very similar to how a macro lens behaves with small objects, and tricks our brains into thinking the photo was taken with a macro lens. You can then do other things such as bumping up the saturation of the image to make everything slightly less realistic and "plastic model" looking. You don't even need a tilt-shift lens to create these photos - you can add the lens blur effects to any photo using Photoshop for instance. There are many tutorials on the web of how to do this.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What careers/industries meet at the cross-section of Economics and Law? Soon to be Law Student with a background in Economics/Finance, what opportunities are there for attorneys who want to work in the realm of economics? Academics/ Academic Writing? Antitrust? Legislature?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Antitrust, Acquisitions, Competition regulatory agencies, consulting, audit, international organizations’ roles that needs understanding of economics and know how international law system works. Lots of opportunities<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:Why is it important to keep finding big prime numbers ?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant And, there are practical uses as well. - There are mathematical techniques that turn prime numbers into locks. The bigger the number, the stronger the lock. - Some of these locks make keys from reasonably large prime numbers chosen at random. - Numbers made of solid ones in binary are easy for computers to work with. (11 111 1111 11111 111111 etc.) These are called "Mersenne numbers", which makes Mersenne primes especially useful large primes. They're easy to guess, so you can't use them as "random" large primes. Why not: You might write some code that can do math with 4096-bit numbers. The smallest period over time for which modern physics makes sense is the Planck time. If you start at the Big Bang and start counting the age of the universe using "Planck times" as your units, you would be up to 61-digit numbers by now. In binary, that's 203 bits. You cannot imagine how many 203-bit numbers there are without a powerful metaphor like that. You would need a much more powerful metaphor to get from 203-bit numbers to 4096-bit numbers. It's easy to pick random 4096-bit numbers, obviously, and math with them is decently fast. Thus the usefulness in cryptography. Of the 4096-bit numbers, about 1 in 2839 are prime. It's surprising that we can estimate such precise odds, but the Prime Number Theorem makes it possible. Take the number of digits (4096), multiply the natural logarithm of the base (ln 2). The PNT says that this estimate becomes more correct with more digits. Mersenne numbers are much rarer. So rare, you cannot imagine how rare they are. In the near-infinity of 4096-bit numbers, only 4096 of them are Mersenne numbers. Only some of the Mersenne numbers are prime. You cannot guess a randomly-selected 4096-bit prime, even with an entire universe of computing power. But it's pretty easy to check a mere four thousand possibilities. You could knock that out with a calculator if you were bored.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Are there any cases of governments having good relations with their Indigenous populations where the majority of the government is not Indigenous? Coming from the perspective of North America where indigenous issues are deeply problematic, I wonder if there are case studies in other countries that Canada and the US can learn from. How are the Scandinavian countries relations with the Sami people? New Zealand with the Maori? Taiwan with Taiwanese aborigines? My scope of knowledge is limited to N. America and I would love to learn more about this topic from other countries experiences.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You might want to read up on Paraguay, where, iirc, the native people are not in the majority, but an aboriginal language, Guaraní, has official language status and a majority of the population speaks at least some of it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user eli5 why does manure make good fertiliser if excrement is meant to be the bad parts and chemicals that the body cant use<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant To put it very simply: animals and plants have different dietary needs. What’s waste for the one is nutritient for the other. You can also think about how we breath oxygen and exhale co2, while plants do the exact opposite.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How do supercomputers work with many CPU's and GPU's? Normal computers have problems making SLI run and I think its actually becoming less of a thing lately, yet supercomputers have truck loads of GPU's and CPU's all working together to render some massive weather data or something else? Why cant I have multiple GPU's and CPU's in a normal PC? Specially the CPU's, since I know SLI for GPU's is at least somewhat a thing.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The codes that are run by researchers on super computing clusters are specifically written to be run on parallelized machines. In the case of CPU clusters, this often means writing very complex code using what's known as the message-passing-interface (MPI). This is a set of standards/syntax that allows you to write a code so that multiple CPUs can be working on the same problem simultaneously. In the case of Nvidia GPUS, the analogous thing to MPI is CUDA. In your normal PC, 99% of the software you are running is not written to take advantage of parallel processing. The reason why your PC has multiple CPU cores is for multitasking, i.e. assigning different tasks to different cores. This is pretty different from assigning multiple cores to be working on the exact same problem in order to achieve a speed-up. The reason why SLI isn't really supported anymore is most likely because it's a lot of work for the devs to support a multi-processor project for the consumer market, on top of the fact that no one really needs it. If a game runs fine on 1 GPU, there's no real reason to add a second when you consider things like the fact that the second GPU will increase your power consumption and take up more space in your PC. Edited for typos<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What happens to the leg muscles during leg lengthening surgery & recovery? Do they stretch permanently? Is muscle taken from somewhere else?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant When bones are lengthened, the stretch on the tissues causes them to grow and lengthen. We know that his happens normally in growing kids as well. Only the bones themselves are lengthened in the surgeries.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why did China and India become so heavily populated? .<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A: They're very large countries to begin with in terms of geographical area. B: They both have multiple large river systems which can support large scale agriculture C: They both have had centralized governments for millennia. Central governments, despite their bad reputation, do serve to allocate resources efficiently, which leads to greater food distribution and overall population health. This leads to more people, and thus, more children. D: This increased population millennia ago provided the base for today's population growth. Population growth is an exponential growth model, so a little population difference ages ago will multiply into huge differences in today's population. In summary, they had a head start.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user The Role of Judas in the Bible Dismantles the Belief in a Loving Christian God. CMV. It's been noticed by many readers of the bible that the acts of Judas are difficult to judge. If Judas had never betrayed Jesus, there would have been no path to the crucifixion. There would have been no resurrection. No redemption. He did betray god, but that was part of the plan. Someone had to do it. What does this mean for Judas? He was guilty of the greatest sin. He denied the living god. The bible is clear that this is one of the most unforgivable sins, but maybe Jesus would have a more compassionate tone for this man given his necessary role in god's plan and the redemption of all mankind... >...but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born. No, it appears Judas is not spared. Judas will suffer eternal separation from god. Or "hell" as they've named it. This is from the mouth of Jesus that Judas is condemned. God's plan demanded that someone betray his son. And it appears that Jesus was always aware of who it would be. This wasn't a random individual who would carry this burden. God condemned one man. >'But there are some of you who do not believe.' For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him. One person was going to be sacrificed to save mankind. But it wasn't Jesus. The bible makes this clear. Jesus would be resurrected after his death and returned to his father to live forever again in paradise. It was really Judas that would be sacrificed. Judas is the one who has actually lost something in this story. He was the one given to the gates of hell so that all others could have a chance at eternal life. An infinitely cruel act. At least Lucifer was given a choice. Judas never had a chance. Given this reading of the bible, I don't see how it is possible to consider the Christian god to be a loving or compassionate god. He seems to have designed all of creation to hinge on the eternal torture of one unfortunate soul who is explicitly condemned for his predestined role in it all. CMV.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are a few inherent flaws in your theory, based upon what appears to be (not to be condescending) limited familiarity with the Bible. First, the damnation of Judas is still undetermined. There is no Biblical indication that Judas was actually damned, but we'll assume that he was for debate. The traditional understanding of the Bible indicated that Judas, wracked with guilt, took his own life after the crucifixion. That would be reason for his damnation. Under Christian belief, life is the greatest gift God gives to man, and to take your own life is a murder for which one cannot repent. The other relevant theory is that Judas betrayed Christ at his instruction. Knowing that he needed to die in order for the world to live, Jesus selected Judas to "betray" him. Judas complied, but the guilt was still overwhelming.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user AskScience AMA Series - IAmA Bioinformatics guy that works with DNA and protein sequences all day and works on things like the Human Microbiome Project. AMAA! After posting [mine on /r/battlestations](http://www.reddit.com/r/battlestations/comments/ol31r/scientistcoder_here_vertical_monitor_setup_for/) I had several requests and private messages to do an AMA, so here it is. For a bit of history, I initially went to school for microbiology & molecular biology. My thesis work was [transposon mutagenesis cloning work in herpesvirus](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14742422). My jobs during school were always computer related, and I had started doing database design/coding work when I was 14. When I graduated, I immediately got a job in bioinformatics, which is essentially doing [computer analysis](http://i.imgur.com/VhlQK.gif) of biological data. I was told to learn Perl in a week and get started with data that was coming off the [ABI 3700 sequencers](http://www.noble.org/medicago/Dscn1895.jpg). Open-source work landed me a job at [The Institute for Genomic Research](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Institute_for_Genomic_Research), where the genome of the first free-living organism was sequenced. Here I was able to work on a lot of genome sequencing projects including Aedes aegypti, which was on the [cover of Science](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5832/1718.short) and the [rice genome](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17145706). This later became part of the [J. Craig Venter Institute](http://www.jcvi.org/) before I moved on to the [Institute for Genome Sciences](http://www.igs.umaryland.edu/). There I work on several projects including the [Human Microbiome Project](http://www.hmpdacc.org/), which is an effort to catalog the huge variety of microbes that colonize different areas of the human body. This work requires a LOT of computing resources (petabyte scale disk arrays, grids with 1000s of computing cores, etc.) and I authored the paper for [Ergatis](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20413634), a web interface that lets you build analysis pipelines and run them on large clusters. I also have a faculty position at Johns Hopkins University, teaching graduate classes in Bioinformatics and do occasional consulting work for different centers. Phew. AMAA! (The 'almost' is only because contracts legally prevent me from answering ALL questions.) EDIT: 3:45 EST. Wow - A lot of great questions here. I have to step away from reddit for a few hours (RL + work) but will be back later to keep answering questions. Thanks everyone! EDIT2: 2 days later and questions are still coming. This has been a lot of fun, and I'm still working on them as I can. Please feel free to post and I am trying to get to them all. Thanks everyone.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I feel like these days there is a pretty big barrier between bioinformatics people, who are often trained in computer science, and biochemists/molecular biologists who are typically experienced in the wet lab. What advice would you give someone in the latter camp who would like to move into more computational/bioinformatics-type research in the future? What institutes/companies/academic labs (besides your own!) do you think are doing really amazing work right now?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Animorphs] Z-space morphing and mass transfer... Hey there! So, I'm in the middle of re-reading animorphs, and currently in book 10, 'The android.' In chapter 9, at the end, Ax mentions that he is worried about the rest of his mass. He goes on to explain that when you morph into something smaller than you, the rest of your mass is transfered to z-space. His worry stems from the possibility of a passing ships shielding system vaporizing his leftover mass. My question, is on two subjects: 1. What would happen to you? Would you be stuck in morph, permanently a nothlit? Or would it kill you? 2. If, when morphing something smaller, your mass is projected into z-space, where does the mass for larger morphs come from? If the morph technology can simply create mass temporarily, would it not be able to recreate your body once it was destroyed in z-space? Hopefully we can puzzle this one out together! :)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant From memory, a later book mentions "borrowing" mass from z-space for larger morphs. In terms of what would happen if your extra mass were struck by a passing ship in z-space, obviously you would be sucked into space to be rescued by the passing ship, stay there just long enough to be narratively convenient, and then return back to earth via a hand-waving 'SnapBack' effect.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV:If you don't get angry over a pig being killed to make your bacon, you shouldn't be angry over a hunter killing a giraffe bred to be hunted. People always post these things on social media "That bastard, I hope he dies for killing that majestic animal" when a giraffe that has been bred on a hunting reserve for that purpose is shot and the guy takes a photo with the corpse. But livestock are killed every day and its basically the same thing. Pigs are intelligent animals (https://www.seeker.com/iq-tests-suggest-pigs-are-smart-as-dogs-chimps-1769934406.html) so why are they not afforded the same compassion, apart from what we've got used to in society. I don't think hunting is good unless you need the food and I have no idea why someone would hunt in a special reserve where its like shooting fish in a barrell, but still its seems like a double standard.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Giraffes and other wild animals are foreign and rare for those living in the Western world. Hence they've had time to idealize that animal. It's irrational in the sense that we kill intelligent animals all the time for food and clothing, but it's a logically consistent emotional response in other ways. We could take it one step further. Cats and Dogs are widespread and not rare at all. And yet treated like extensions of the family in the United States. Someone will freak out over a person hosting dog fights or eating a dog or cat for sustenance, but not bat an eye at the conditions of livestock everywhere. It just depends on what the culture deems as important or sacred. For example the cow in India.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is the difference between what dietitians do and what nutritionists do?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Dieticians have to be licensed to use the labels RD or RDN, much like being an RN or an MD. Nutritionists don't. Nutritionists may have a lot of knowledge and be a big help or they may just be some weirdo who thinks kale is magic and gluten is the devil. If you wind up on a structured diet in a hospital, for example, you WILL be working with a dietician, not a nutritionist.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: I believe that labeling people as “unskilled workers” is a dehumanizing. Although I have nothing but respect for people working in highly technical professions, I don’t believe calling people “unskilled” is correct. It is my opinion that using this this term could be harmful to self-confidence and perhaps be one of the reasons people stagnant in minimum wage positions. If a McDonalds worker is “unskilled” would that not suggest any engineer or doctor could walk behind the counter and immediately start working? Isn’t there a point of sale software to learn? Food production training? Customer service skills to develop? I’m not suggesting this takes a graduate degree to learn but they are, by definition, skills. I think a lot of privileged people who have never worked service industry jobs underestimate just how complicated some of the jobs can actually be. I also believe that conservatives use the term to justify low wages. Edit: I have worked my share of entry level positions but I am also graduating college this month and will be starting full time work in my field of study within a few weeks. I understand what it means to be labeled "unskilled" but am also beginning to understand what it means to be labelled "skilled". _____ > 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 I believe "unskilled" suggests that you don't need any particular training prior* to starting the job (a degree, work experience, certifications, etc). All you need is on-the-job training that is provided after you are hired.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How is the ketogenic diet at all healthy if you're eating lots of fats, which clog arteries?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Put in a very simple way: Fat does not clog arteries by itself, fat deposits on blood vessel walls as a protective measure, against damaged caused to the lining by other things, mainly, sugar. its a protective measure to prevent further damage to the vessels, and to the blood constituents, the issue is that damage accumulates and so does fat unless lifestyle is changed. In the early 20th century when people saw clotted arteries with fat, calcium etc, they erroneously assumed that those dietary elements were the factor that was causing the issue, without realising that they were blaming the defensive measure for the problem. Sadly medicine is this giant machine that takes ages to acknowledge information is inaccurate, and even longer to start changing how it deals with it, it takes decades. And analogy: They saw a huge traffic jam, they saw shinny lights (cops) and blamed the cops for the jam, instead of realising the cops are there because there was a car crash, which is the true factor to blame for the jam. Ketogenic and vegetarian diets are good to help reduce and even reverse those issues, because you are removing the factors that cause damage to the inner lining of the blood vessels (excess sugar), also helps with diabetes as you prevent constant insulin spikes which lead to insensitivity. Fats are needed by the body, and quite healthy in themselves, yes, even saturated which is quite important for you, the issue is also how much you eat. TL:DR: Sugars be the evil, not fat, fat just cool dudes helping you and getting all the blame.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Capitalism isn't inherently flawed; the weak can be oppressed by the strong in any system of government (or lack thereof). Lots of people online seem to think that communism/socialism/anarchy are better alternatives to capitalism, since they will result in greater equality for everyone compared to capitalism. However, isn't any system of government vulnerable to be exploited by those who wish to do so? Power imbalances have always existed in society, between the strong and the weak, between the smart and the dumb, between those with privilege and those without. Unless we address these core inequalities (and preferably not in a Harrison Bergeron type of way), oppression will always exist in the world. EDIT: I think I wasn't clear in my original question. The CMV isn't that "capitalism is perfect." It isn't. The CMV is "shitty people will exploit others in any economic system." Copying from my response to someone below: The question is, does capitalism cause exploitation, or does it simply facilitate it? I think it facilitates it, but does not cause it. I'm basically saying the economic equivalent of "guns don't cause murders, but they do facilitate them." You can replace guns with knives, which will inevitably lower the murder rate, but it won't change the fact that people want to murder each other and will try to do so. In other words, other economic systems may reduce inequality, but they will not eliminate it unless you change innate inequality between humans. Put another way, I say that capitalism isn't inherently flawed because it does not cause inequality. Does it facilitate it? Yes. But it does not cause it. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It is possible for one society to have more equality and balance than another. No system purports to be perfect. No one says “let’s transition to system X because it will be a literal perfect world.” Rather they argue for improvements because it will, well... improve society. Your thought process is kind of a manifestation of the phrase “letting perfect be the enemy of good.”<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why did humans evolve mentally when every other species evolved physically? Why did we evolve for intelligence instead of strength, speed or some other physical trait? Edit: I know I phrased this question awkwardly, I'm not the best with words. And although the question has been answered I still love to read all the new well explained and thought-out responses to this question, but please stop telling me that human's also evolved physically and that animals also evolved mentally. I know this, I'm not oblivious, I just was speaking broadly in the sense that a Shark or Lion's most advantageous quality lies in their strength while a humans most advantageous quality is our mind.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Essentially every evolutionary niche that could provide an advantage got filled by something. It's not that we evolved for intelligence instead of strength, it's that we happen to be the ones that evolved for intelligence so we can even ask the question...other animals went for strength (or speed or camoflage or...). Humans are, physically, actually quite astounding in terms of endurance. If we're in good physical condition, we can run many other land animals to exhaustion.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why 5G towers and remotely read electricity meters and the EMF they emit are NOT dangerous. I don't believe they are, but I'm after a convincing argument to use with those who do, that isn't condescending and they might consider. I work for a power company and get a lot people complaining that they don't want one of those remotely-read (via cell network) electricity meters so close to their kids' bedroom because of "the harmful EMF from the meter".... (while calling from a mobile phone, in their home, which surely also has wifi and a microwave oven). Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is tinfoil hat shit, right? I know about ionising vs non-ionising radiation, and my understanding is that therefore the EMF these people complain about is harmless and their claims that their kids "have a condition that makes them vulnerable to EMF" are bullshit. I need to know how to explain this kindly, and hopefully turn a few conspiracy theorists and technophobes. Googling it just gives me questionable articles that suggest maybe there is some danger. I need cold, hard, truth about why your precious kiddos aren't in any danger from you installing a smart meter.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There's two types of electromagnetic radiation (EMF): Ionizing and non-ionizing. Ionizing waves have high energy and a short wavelength. Since their wavelength is so short, they can interact with matter on the molecular level. A photon, a packet of light energy, will sometimes collide with an electron and knock it off its atom. This results in the atom having a net positive electrical charge. This slightly changes its chemical properties and can cause DNA molecules not to replicate properly, increasing the odds of cell going cancerous. The immune system is pretty good at dealing with a few cells that mutate like this, but enough exposure overtime will increase the likelihood of developing a tumor. The high energy of the photons can also cause burns. Ionizing electromagnetic radiation includes ultraviolet light, x-rays, and gamma rays. Non-ionizing radiation is exactly what it sounds like. They have low energy and long wavelengths. Too long and too low to knock the electrons off their atoms. Though it can cause regular old burns if concentrated in one spot, by say a laser or microwave oven. Non-ionizing radiation includes radio waves, microwaves, infrared radiation, and visible light. 5G operates in the microwave band, close to the frequencies used by WiFi routers. These devices use relatively low energy that's spread out over a wide area. So where as a laser focuses it in one spot, these are more like a light bulb. There is no known health risk associated with it. Any claims otherwise is strictly psudo-science. It's also worth mentioning that you are constantly surrounded by both natural and man made magnetic fields. The Earth generates a pretty darn big one. High energy particles also continuously bombard us from space. Any time you run current through a wire, you also generate a magnetic field. The more legitimate concerns over 5G are security related. Much of the infrastructure is being manufactured by Huawei, a company that has direct ties to the Chinese Communist Party. So there's worries it could be used to bug the telecom systems of rival states. But that's more a geopolitical concern than one that's going to affect the average users. At least in direct terms.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is IE so hated? Is it really that bad compared to chrome/Firefox? If so, why hasn't Microsoft improved in all these years?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Browsers such as Firefox and Chrome implemented standards proposed by the W3C (a body that sets standards for the web) which make a page to look the same across browsers. Microsoft saw these standards as a threat and did not want the web to be interoperable (i.e. one browser can be replaced with another); so it proposed a different set of web standards that favored them and implemented them in Internet Explorer. Fast forward ten years: Microsoft's clients, especially large organizations, which use Internet Explorer have still retained their old websites but the outside world has moved much faster. Microsoft cannot do both i.e. adapt to the outside world and support its existing clients, so it tries to do a bit of each leading to Internet Explorer being suboptimal. As for the hatred towards Internet Explorer, its initial lack of support for W3C standards resulted in website designers having to work hard to display a website in Internet Explorer and all other browsers. Although it is not as true today, the hatred continues. Edit: Added the last paragraph<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If gravity is a property of spacetime, why are we trying to explain it as a fundamental force? I feel like I sound like a complete idiot asking this. I should mention I have no real background in physics, so I probably am an idiot. From what I understand, we describe the strong force, the weak force, and the electromagnetic force as fundamental forces of nature, with each force being mediated by their own boson (or in the case of the weak force, two bosons). Also from what I understand, gravity is caused by mass bending spacetime around it. To me, it seems that gravity isn't something we should be describing as a fundamental force, and that it should be described as a property of the fabric of spacetime. Are we trying to explain it as a fundamental force because it fits better with the math?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant the other three fundamental forces are gauge theories, meaning that they also admit a "geometrical" formulation similar to, but not equal, that for gravity given by general relativity. There are immense similarities between the other three interactions and gravity. Moreover, the geometric picture and the field picture (the one with the gauge bosons) are really equivalent - barring some global subtleties. Finally, the unification of gravity with the other forces is almost a necessity, not just something that would be nice. It is likely necessary to build a consistent theory of quantum gravity. We write gravity and the other forces in all possible equivalent ways so that it's easier to understand possible connections when studying theories of everything. For example, understanding how gravity unavoidably arises as the theory of a spin-2 massless boson (the graviton) made it really easy at the time to recognize that string theory included gravitation. (btw, the weak force has three bosons, and the strong force has eight)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is literary anti-cognitivism a seriously held position among professional philosophers? I've recently been reading about literary cognitivism and what I've found is that most (actually all) the papers I have been able to find online have been in support of the cognitivist position. I think I'm quite strongly in the anti-cognitivist camp, but because of the above, I'm worried that this view may not be taken seriously. The impression I get is that anti-cognitivism is sort of like radical skepticism in epistomology. That is, anticognitivism acts more like a foil for people to explore the question of what we can actually learn from literature, rather than a serious position people actually hold. I think the reason I get this impression is that in the articles I've read, it's often taken for granted that the reader will agree that literature seems to have some cognitive value, and it's only the task of the article to explain what this cognitive value could plausibly be. I don't have this initial impression of literature's cognitive value, so I don't find this kind of argument particularly convincing (just because they don't seem to be written with people like me in mind). I understand that my position would probably be quite radical to people who study literature, but I'm quite curious about what philosophers tend to think.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A common reason why someone might find a view that philosophers consider to be common sense to be unintuitive is that the philosophers have something different in mind than you do. For instance in this case, what kind of cognitive value do you think literature doesn't have but you believe aestheticians believe it to have.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What do blind people see when they dream? Assuming they were blind from birth.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Surveys have been done on this very subject. A lot of the results found that people with congenital blindness often report experiencing other senses while dreaming while almost none experienced any visual dreams. For example a lot of studies using participants of three different categories (congenital blindness, later onset blindness, and those not blind) reported that those with congential blindness often had dreams where they had sensations of smell, taste, touch, and mostly sound while almost none of them reported having any visual aspects to their dreams at all. People with later onset blindness after age 1 found that the longer they were blind, the less visual representations they found in their dreams.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does the human body metabolize stored fat? What can you do to help it metabolize at maximum efficiency (i.e. burn fat at greatest rate possible)? For example, I see a lot about the importance of drinking water but no real explanation of why. Online sources all speak in technical language I cannot understand or are simply weight loss sites spouting pseudo science. Brilliant scientist redditors please help! EDIT: Assume that I am already heavily restricting calories. Want to ensure that my body burns the stored fat and not muscle mass (or any other part).<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant ELI5: Your body has two main ways to make energy: Carbohydrates, and fats. Your body normally prioritizes carbohydrates to burn over fat. If there are no carbohydrates left then it will have no choice but to burn fat (Ketosis). Your body is not very good at controlling how much fat to burn because it is not its optimal way of making energy. What ends up happening is your body will burn more fat than it needs to because extra energy is better then no energy. EDIT: People really want to get into the nitty gritty details of nutrition in an ELI5<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user AskScience AMA Series: We're Rachel Davis, MD, and Moksha Patel, MD, instructors at the CU School of Medicine. With Rachel's expertise, Moksha decided to undergo deep brain stimulation surgery for OCD. AUA! Hi, Reddit. We're Rachel Davis, MD, (u/racheldavismd) and Moksha Patel, MD, (u/mokshapatelmd). We're here to answer your questions about deep brain stimulation and OCD, obsessive compulsive disorder. If you are struggling with OCD, you are not alone. Treatments and care are evolving. Deep brain stimulation or DBS is a rare, invasive brain surgery where electrodes are implanted in the deeper structures of the brain. These electrodes are then connected to generators in the chest that deliver small currents of electricity to the brain, similar to cardiac pacemakers. About Rachel: I'm Rachel Davis, MD, associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado School of Medicine. I'm also medical director of the OCD, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, program and co-director of the OCD surgical program. I've extensively studied deep brain stimulation for OCD and have worked with candidates, like Moksha, before, during and after the process. About Moksha: And I'm Moksha Patel, senior instructor of hospital medicine at the University of Colorado School of Medicine where I hold many roles. I've always been high-achieving and busy my whole life; working hard has helped me cope with crippling OCD. I recently worked with Dr. Davis and many others to undergo deep brain stimulation. I've put in a lot of work with Dr. Davis programming my stimulator settings and engaging in intensive exposure therapy. It's been a challenging process, but I'm happy to say I'm feeling relief; I am more engaged in life and can travel, go out with friends and go about my day to day without being completely stuck in my head. I'm also working toward an MBA at the University of Colorado Denver. Links: + [OCD Ruled Moksha Patel's life until a rare surgical procedure changed everything](https://news.cuanschutz.edu/news-stories/ocd-ruled-moksha-patels-life-until-a-rare-surgical-procedure-changed-everything) + [DBS Research for OCD: patients with comorbidities](https://news.cuanschutz.edu/news-stories/ocd-patients-with-comorbidities-respond-well-to-deep-brain-stimulation) We'll begin answering questions at 9AM MT (8AM PT/11AM ET/15 UT). AUA!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant For Dr. Davis: Second Sight discontinued technical support for their eye and brain implants in 2020 when the company collapsed. Patients with those implants now can't repair them. Does the success of Dr. Patel's treatment depend on the ongoing existence and benevolence of the company that made his implant? How do you ensure that your patients will be able to maintain and program their implanted devices for the rest of their lives?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ElI5: please, What’s the difference between crystal and glass?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are two different ordinary uses of the word crystal. The first ordinary use of the word crystal is a orderly arrangement of molecules of a single molecule. Two common crystals found in almost every bodies homes are salt crystals or sugar crystals. The other ordinary use of the word crystal is a special type of glass. This type of glass has a different ‘recipe’ than window glass or glass used for drinking or bottles. The crystal glass has a higher refractive index, so it is better at refracting sunlight into its constituent colors. Glass made with the ‘crystal recipe’ (often made with lead compounds) is used for prisms, chandeliers, anything where you want the glass to be ‘sparkly’ or colorful. This recipe is also used for ornamental drinking ware and special bottles used to contain, for example, brandy. Crystal glassware does nothing to improve the flavor though it does enhance the visual presentation.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Full Metal Alchemist] How is Alchemy triggered? In FMA, when the brothers try and resurrect their mother, their hands are already on the circle, and then they decide to begin the alchemical process like magic. Similarly, Alchemists who wear their transmutation circles/arrays on some sort of apparatus can trigger and control the alchemy at will. Does it work like some sort of magic? Is one of the key components to utilising alchemy the human soul, maybe that's a hypothetical reason why human souls are so valuable in Alchemy? I'm not sure, I'm probably reading into it, but it really does seem like there's a magical element that's completely overlooked.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Alchemy is triggered by touching the transmutation circle with intent to use it. Different symbols in the circles have different effects. However a single circle isn't limited by the quantity of stuff it can transmute (which is how Armstrong and Mustang are able to create walls and explosions of varying sizes). But the elemental ratio has to be there or else you get a rebound. But that's still not all of it. Each person has within them a "Gate of Truth", it is that gate which allows for the performation of Alchemy. Not everyone knows of it, and only those who have performed human transmutation have seen it. Circles are necessary for all transmutations. Even Edd's "clapping" counts as a circle. What happens when you see the Gate of Truth is you get all the knowledge of the world crammed into your skull at once (not that you'll remember any of it at more than a subconscious level, since the human brain can only hold so much). What happens when Edd claps is that his arms form a circle for an instant, as he visualises what he wants to transmute.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are empty glass bottles harder to break than full bottles? Was throwing a couple empty bottles around earlier today, and noticed that it took a lot more force to break than a full bottle did, why is this?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant 1. Full bottles contain more weight, so at the same speed they hit with more force. 2. Energy waves transmit much more strongly through water than through air -- the force of the impact will be carried all around the bottle quite effectively.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Safe Space subreddits do more harm than good. To refine this idea: In my opinion subreddits (particular ly political ones) which actively ban or delete user contribution which challenge the ideas espoused by it do more harm than good by creating echo chambers in which missinformation is more likely to spread. Missinformation and echo chambers can cause harm, primarily through causing people to vote and see the world in a way that is not supported by facts and bringing in candidates who platform on falsehoods. Furthermore missinformation and fake news can cause real harm in some extreme cases such as the debunked [pizza gate](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory) incident where a man shot up a popular pizza restaurant under the false belief that he was saving children trapped in a sex slave ring. Obviously subreddits should have moderation, but I personally feel this should be limited to removing obvious troll and unconstructive posts. In some political subreddits, stating factual information which happens to highlight flaws in ideology or simply fails to "tow the party line" within the subreddit can warrant a ban because the subreddit is meant to be a "safe space" and contradictory information is unwelcome. By banning users who attempt to correct or debunk falsehoods which further the subreddits agenda, the subreddit gives a platform for fake news and missinformation to spread and cause harm. Furthermore, I am of the opinion, that if you are secure in your beliefs, then surely you should be secure enough in them to defend your worldview from opposing viewpoints. (Hopefully this doesn't come back to bite me in an ironic way.) Banning / silencing people presenting reasonably backed up contributions which challenge your viewpoint is something that should be relegated to an Orwellian dystopia, not a platform for free speech and open sharing of information such as Reddit.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant > if you are secure in your beliefs, then surely you should be secure enough in them to defend your worldview from opposing viewpoints Perhaps safe spaces are more about providing respite from constantly having to defend your position.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Tape style White Out is far superior to liquid style White Out. Hello! Today I would like to present to you the concept that using a tape style white out is better in nearly every way than using liquid white out. My credibility on this matter is that I screw up a lot when I write and have to fix a large amount of mistakes. Pros of Tape: 1) Distributes controlled and evenly. 2) Can write over it immediately, no drying time. 3) Don't have to unscrew a cap, wasting time. 4) Can't spill all over my papers and make me sad. Pros of Liquid: 1) Can make little ghost finger puppets on your fingers when you're bored. Seeing as I can make ghost finger puppets at work in other ways, I render the only benefit of liquid white out to be null and void. However, I do accept my view may be flawed, as many liquids are pretty cool and there may be benefits to the liquid white out I have not considered. CMV! (EDIT: Formatting!) _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Pros of Liquid: 1. Takes time to dry giving you time to reflect over your mistake and plan on avoiding it in the future. 2. Depending on the type of applicator you get it's fun to play with. With the pen style, you can feel like a tattoo artist. With the brush style applicator, you can feel like a painter. With the foam tip, you can feel like a nurse or doctor prepping a patient for surgery. 3. Can be easily wiped away if you apply it wrong without risk of tearing the paper. 4. Smells good in a "this might be making me high" kind of way. Even if it's just a placebo effect, it's pleasant. 5. The final product looks smoother. 6. You can customize the size and shape of the white. You aren't limited to the standardized tape size which means it works better for smaller font sizes or narrower lines. 6. There's no risk of the paper getting scrunched up. 7. The pens have no risk of spilling. Or if you like to live you life on the edge, the bottles have the risk of spilling. Your choice.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is there a genetic difference between the races? I'm arguing with someone on another subreddit and we've pretty much exhausted google. So I'd appreciate some expert help. Thanks! * Is there a significant genetic difference between the races? * Is one race more intelligent than other races?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are genetic differences between races, but most of those differences are relatively insignificant. Human populations are actually relatively low in diversity, compared to other animal species. It's been speculated that the human population was bottlenecked down to as few as maybe 5,000 people only about 50,000 years ago by the Toba supervolcano eruption. Two mice species that look very similar to each other (to our eyes) can actually be more distantly related than humans and gorillas. And they can successfully interbreed. So compared to that, our racial differences are pretty much trivial. Also, our ideas about race actually correspond pretty poorly to the actual genetic data. The most egregious example of this is just lumping african populations together. There is more genetic diversity contained in african populations than there is in the rest of the world combined. An average swede is more closely related to the average mongolian than two africans that may live in the same city. As for intelligence, the current thinking from genetic association studies and twin studies is that 40-50% of intelligence is determined by your genetics. The rest is environment. However, given the degree of genetic diversity in place, you can't make a blanket statement that "africans are dumber than europeans". Africa contains so much genetic diversity, it will contain individuals that are "genetically" much smarter than europeans, as well as individuals that are less smart. The distributions of those and averages may be different, but it's hard to define the relative contributions of genetics for someone who grows up as a sub saharan tribesman and someone who grows up in sweden with free education. There is very little in common between their two educations, so it's very hard to make an IQ test that encompasses everything they both are good at.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is there a national/ international database for viruses, bacteria, fungi, etc that affect humans? I’m imagining something like DNA held in a crime case. They can’t find a match for it so a record is kept, and vice versa if you’re convicted of a crime your DNA is now on a database for future checks. Now back to my original question. If you present to hospital with a cough that leaves you struggling to breathe for days on end. The staff swab you, take a sputum test, even do an endoscopy to take samples. All come back negative for anything they have “on file”. Are records of these samples kept for future testing? Do private pathology labs have access to an international or national database? If so, is it mandatory to report everything that comes into the lab?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Check out databases like NCBI's GenBank, EMBL's ENA, etc. Basically, if you have an previously unidentified disease of some fungal/bacterial origin, your doctor can work with a lab (or may have their own lab) to run a lot of tests that can identify the type of organism. They can also sequence the organism and then publish a case study on your disease, and deposit that sequence in NCBI (say) using a relatively standard procedure.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is rice so readily available and cheap? I've traveled around Southeastern Asia a bit and seen rice paddies first hand, as well as have read a bit about how difficult life is for rice farmers. It seems to be incredibly labor intensive and somewhat low yielding, so I don't get why 1) there seems to be so much of it really available, and 2) it is such a cheap crop. Can someone ELI5?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I am going to look at this from a smallholder/ traditional farmer point of view It does appear to be incredibly labour intensive, but rice comes with one incredible advantage, you can flood the fields and plant the rice plants in the mud, and the rice will grow for the first few weeks of its life in the water, so while planting and harvesting looks backbreaking, apart from that you have 3 months or more where you just need to control the water flow. This means no plowing, no digging, and more importantly no constant weeding or bug patrol for the farmers, it also means that they don't need tractors or teams of oxen, or to spend money on weedkillers and pesticides.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Since time is not absolute, does it make sense to describe the age of far away galaxies in years?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It turns out the effect isn't that big in most real-life situations, but there is a convention we can use if we really want to be more careful when we talk about time. Time runs at different rates depending on the relative velocities of objects, and also based on the strength of gravity fields. However, you have to be going pretty close to the speed of light (relative to some other observer) to experience time at a significantly different rate, and you have to be basically right next to a black hole or neutron star for gravity to make a big difference. While we do experience time at different rates, for the speeds that most galaxies & stars are moving at, this comes out to a tiny fraction of a percent. It's usually way finer than the precision we have in measuring distances anyway, so it really doesn't matter, and we can basically assume that time is pretty much simultaneous everywhere - we don't care about a few days out of a few hundred thousand years. But if we want to be more precise, we use the cosmic microwave background as a base. The CMB is moving relative to us at a very consistent velocity, and it is very uniform across the observable universe. So it's a convenient frame to use if we want to define a convenient "universal" time frame. It isn't actually universal - it's just fairly constant over a very large volume of space, and that makes it a useful convention.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do they construct underwater supports and structures such as bridge supports and boat ramps?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are several techniques that can be used. As /u/Earhacker mentioned you can build the structure or build components for the structure on land and then sink them in place. The English channel forts were built this way. Other options include building on site either underwater using concrete that will harden underwater or using a caisson - a water free container that you sink in the water and build inside it. Side Note: The Brooklyn bridge in New York City used caissons that while successful left many of the workers handicapped because of decompression sickness. One option is to build a dam around the construction site. Then build normally and remove the dam and flood the site when construction is finished.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is it possible to transform martian soil into fertile soil through bacteria and fungi?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You’d have to find a way to thicken the atmosphere first. If we had bacteria or fungi that could function in a near vacuum. Add to that the problem that water boils at about 10c on Mars, and you’ve got a bit of a problem.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How do the scientists estimate mass of galaxies based on their brightness and colour? I've recently watched YouTube video called Dark Matter's Not Enough by The Royal Institution and I heard there the explanation of dark matter. Presenter said that dark matter idea came from discrepancy between two estimates: there seems to be 5x more mass in galaxies based on their rotation speed than when estimating mass based on their brightness. I know a little bit of science and I could image measuring mass based on rotation speed but you would need to know how large that galaxy really is, so that I imagine is a bit of a challenge. The bit that blew my mind was estimating galaxies mass based on star brightness. How such thing can even be possible and how can estimate measurement error for that? The 5x times discrepancy suggest to me that there might be huge error in there that is not accounted for, meaning that measurement may be incredible inaccurate.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant So the vast majority of normal (baryonic) matter is contained within stars, and obviously stars give off light. We can work out the ratio of how much mass a star has compared to how much light it gives off - this is called the mass-to-light ratio. For example, our Sun is a fairly typical star and has a mass-to-light ratio of 5133 kg/W. This ratio differs depending on the exact size and composition (stellar class) of the star, but the figure above gives a reasonable "average" value for a population of stars. Therefore if you measure the brightness of a galaxy, you can then work out the mass by simply multiplying by the mass-to-light ratio. As to the errors in this calculation, I'll have to defer to someone more knowledgeable.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Green Lantern] What specific power does each lantern ring give?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant All of them give relatively similar powers, but some have more unique properties than others. All of them grant the ability to travel safely through space at superluminal speeds, including a personal force field that provides life support, universal translation, and the ability to create beams of energy that can be shaped according to the wearer's desire. The further they are from the "center" of the spectrum with green, the more influence they exert over the wielder-- yellow and blue rings mostly amplify tendencies that are already there, while red, orange, indigo, and violet rings can dominate the wearer's personality entirely. * The energy produced by red rings is highly corrosive and intermingles with the blood of the wearer, forming an acid-like substance they can spew from their mouths in battle. * Orange rings steal the identities of those the wearer kills, enabling them to create and maintain constructs of those entities that serve them, and can absorb constructs from other rings to replenish their energy. * Green and yellow rings don't have many unique abilities, but offer a greater degree of fine control that is extremely difficult with other rings. * Blue rings are the hardest to create constructs with, but are highly adept at healing and can create a feedback loop with green rings that supercharge both, and can dampen the influence of red, orange, or yellow rings, as well as create images that reflect the hopes of a target, as well as recharge from the hope of those around it. * Indigo power rings reflect the abilities of other rings they're in close proximity with. They also heal, but can also cause pain to those who have caused pain to others, and can teleport over extreme distances. * Violet rings have similarly precise control to green and yellow rings, and can also create crystals in which a living being can be held in stasis and slowly shaped into an ideal wielder for another such ring. Their constructs are immune to the absorption ability of the orange ring. They can also teleport and resurrect the recently deceased by drawing power from the heart of someone who loved them.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If a person with a certain communicable disease dies of it and is buried, do the said pathogens continue to live, multiply and spread in the soil? By extension, like how vaccination improves herd health, shouldn't incineration be a preferred mode of disposal of the dead rather than burial?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant This will depend on the pathogen in question. Some examples: Anthrax can survive in soil after the host is dead, although the bacteria aren't actively multiplying (instead, they form spores). Prions can also persist in soil ("survive" is the wrong word here because they're not alive).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user I know a little bit about relational databases like MySQL. What are noSQL databases? How do they work and how does that differ from relational databases?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Whereas a relational database is typically thought of as a collection of tables, with columns, and rows of information referencing other rows of information in other tables, the structure in which a noSQL system stores data is markedly different. If you're familiar with any programming languages, you can think of the way this information is stored as a dictionary. Or JSON. Essentially an N depth hierarchy of key-value pairs. That's the difference in how they store data, individual systems on both sides have distinct requirements and considerations for things like distribution, scaling and redundancy.<\|im_end\|>

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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