Split (1)

train · 52.8k rows

text stringlengths 82 65.5k
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do some foods quickly become overwhelming? Like a quadruple chocolate cake or foods that taste very "rich".<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Rich foods tend to have a lot of free fat and other things that coat the tongue (like chocolate). This can create an overwhelming feeling in the mouth because you're constantly tasting chocolate and can't access other tastes. Adding some other taste - especially something acidic - can help to refresh the mouth. This is why cream cheese (mildly acidic) frosting is so popular. Also why the secondary flavor of a dessert is often something citrusy like lemon or orange.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user I believe states' rights are an issue of absolutely no importance and should matter to no one. CMV. I could honestly not give one crap about states' rights and I don't understand why anyone does either. This has nothing to do with the Civil War ("states rights" was not the reason the South seceded and was only invented as a justification after the fact). It's just that, I don't see the big deal. Governments overrunning the rights of the people, that matters. But federal government overriding the state government? I've never heard a compelling argument that includes those words, whether it supported views I liked (drug legalization) or didn't (overturning Obamacare). I can see why, with separation of powers, we wouldn't want the executive branches overriding one of the others ones outside of its defined authority, or vice versa. But if a federal law overrides a state law, I don't see why it matters.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Having several different states with enough rights to determine a majority of their laws gives citizens of the US 50 different sets of laws in which they could follow. A greater amount of choice lets people live in better conditions than they otherwise would. It also gives 50 different testing grounds for new ideas. For example if there was a law that would take all taxes away from a state except for sales tax it could be implemented and tested in one state first, then another and another. Then it would succeed. Or the law would start in that one state fail miserably and show better real world reasons why the law wouldn't work.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Cutting my PhD thesis in half I can't avoid the fact that the last two thirds of my Computer Science PhD thesis is much stronger than my first third. The first two years of my studies were devoted to following dead end routes and discussing these dead ends forms about 25,000 words of a 75,000 word thesis. In that section there's a lot of explanation that's mostly in service of exposition for the final part, with no real satisfying outcomes. I have a feeling that in my viva I'm going to be defending those 25,000 words non-stop and I really don't want to do that. Instead I was thinking that I might be able to get away with just not mentioning my early work. All I have to do is re-frame the latter half of the work. I haven't spoken to my supervisor about this yet as I haven't quite decided how to approach the subject. He did say that my thesis was like a PhD and a half though the other day. So does anyone on AskAcademia have any advice or experiences they would like to share?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I tried to put this type of material in several appendices so that others could read about the unproductive and half-explored leads, if they wished, without letting this material detract from the main message.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why do phone/laptop screens have such low contrast in sunlight? Other things (e.g. books) increase their contrast in the sunlight. Whoever invents a monitor that works properly outdoors will be very rich. EDIT: Okay, so I got totally into this, and I've tried to fully answer it myself. See below. I'm looking for real scientists to correct anything and everything I've said! We start out by defining what we mean by the "contrast". In subjective terms, I mean [my ability to distinguish between two things](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrast_%28vision%29). My eyes distinguish "white" from "black" based on a difference in number of photons received per second. (Ignore color for simplicity.) That difference is relative, not absolute -- the contrast between 1 photon/second and 1000 photons/second is much larger than the contrast between 900001 photons/second and 901000 photons/second. The difference between 1 and 1000 is perceptible; the difference between 900001 and 901000 is not. The important thing is the ratio. This measurement has a name, "[contrast ratio](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrast_ratio)". Manufacturers assign contrast ratio ratings to their displays. A typical rating for a display is 1000:1. This means that, [in a totally dark room](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrast_ratio#Contrast_ratio_in_a_real_room), the white pixels on their display will emit 1000 times more photons than the black pixels. What about a book in a totally dark room? Well, there ain't no light to distinguish the white paper from the black ink, so for our purposes, the contrast ratio is 1:1. In a totally dark room, the display wins out. Now what happens when we take these out in the sun? Let's deal with the book first. The important difference between white paper and black ink is that they reflect different amounts of light. I'll spare you frm Googling "measuring blackness" and finding scary historical cultural anthropological stuff. The way that these surfaces are measured is their [Light Reflectance Value](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Reflectance_Value), which is the percentage of light that it reflects. [This paper](http://www.xerox.com/downloads/usa/en/t/ThreeKeyPaperPropertiesWhitePaper.pdf) suggests that white paper is around 90% (and, fascinatingly, paper can be more than 100% if [optical brighteners](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_brightener) are added). [This book](http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=g82nsBwbAs0C&pg=PA290) says that "good quality printer's ink" is about 15%. This means that the contrast ratio of the book is 90/15 = 6:1. Notice that this contrast ratio will be the same under any amount of light, unless you're in a totally dark room, in which case it loses its contrast entirely. Now let's deal with the display. When the display is in the sun, it's still emitting light just like it was before. Only now it's also reflecting the light from the sun. The word on the street seems to be that that white pixel reflects just as much light as the black pixel does -- that is, they have a constant Light Reflectance Value. This means every pixel on the screen is also emitting a constant extra amount of light. The more that extra amount is, the worse the contrast ratio will be, just like the 1000:1 vs 901000:90001 in my example. To work out what that contrast ratio will be, we need to drop down from simple ratios into the world of absolute values. We need to know how many photons/second the white pixel emits, how many the black pixel emits, and how many photons/second are reflected per pixel. This (visible) photons/second thing is known as luminance, which is measured in nits (what?), or candelas per square metre. Manufacturers express the luminance of their displays as the luminance of a white pixel. [Apparently](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nit_%28unit%29), "Most consumer desktop liquid crystal displays have luminances of 200 to 300" nits. So let's say that white pixel is 300 nits. I think we can apply the 1000:1 contrast ratio to say that the black pixel is 0.3 nits. Now we just need how many photons/second are reflected per pixel. Since the reflected pixels don't vary depending on the emitted pixels, we can measure this when the display is off. The number of pixels reflected obviously depends on how many are shone on the screen -- in a totally dark room, it's 0, but in the sun, it's much higher. We can express the number of reflected photons as a function of the number of absorbed photons using that Light Reflectance Value. What is the Light Reflectance Value of a display when powered off? I couldn't find references, so I used my eye instead: my phone screen turned off looks roughly like a page of black ink, so I'll use the same measurement: 15%. This means that the pixels reflect 15% of all photons they absorb. How many photons/second from land on a pixel? This obviously depends on how bright the sun is. Now, [Wikipedia says](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminance) that "The sun has luminance of about 16000000000 candelas per square metre". But there are wildly varying measurements for the luminance of the sun. [This paper](http://www.scenic.org/storage/documents/EXCERPT_Measuring_Sign_Brightness.pdf) says it's 6500 nits, which is pretty different to 16000000000. I also don't know whether the "square metre" here is a square meter of the sun's surface or the earth's surface (?!). Rather than a measure of luminance, we probably want a measure of [illuminance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminance). [Wikipedia says](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight) that "bright sunlight provides an illuminance of approximately 98 000 lux (lumens per square meter)". But then we need to convert lumens to lux, and other people tell me that they measure different things. Damn. I will continue using the 6500 figure. Now, if I were to use that more sensible figure, 6500 nits, we get a contrast ratio of 6800 : 6500.3, or 1.04:1, which you can probably just about distinguish. As well as explaining the low contrast, this also explains why your phone screen looks dark in sunlight, too, as almost as if it's turned off. You're seeing the Light Reflectance Value of the screen, which is like a black sheet of paper, compared to your surroundings. The actual emitted light is almost irrelevant. Notice that I didn't talk about the iris and how your eye uses it to accommodate for varying light levels. Lots of people here have mentioned it as an explanation for the low contrast of the screen in sunlight, but according to my theorizing above, the iris is not actually relevant.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant LCD/LED (backlit) screens achieve contrast by _emitting_ varying degrees of light. books/paper/solid objects that are not backlit have contrast due to _reflected_ light (from the sun). Even at it's great distance, the sun's light is so hilariously overpowering, light being emitted by LCD/LED screens is washed out by the sun's reflected light, hence the dominant effect is the reflection of the sun's light off the TFT film behind the glass, which is rather uniform in contrast. On the other hand, eInk screens work by using voltage to change the reflective properties of each pixel on the screen (black to absorb, white to reflect) and as a result they work great in sunlight.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why isn't Chemistry the main Discipline that studies Quantum Mechanics?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Many chemists do fundamental work in quantum mechanics, especially computational chemists. Platypuskeeper is a resident computational chemistry expert that could shed some light on the details of such calculations. The issue is that the systems they deal with are very complicated, so you don't come across them until late in your degree after you've learned the mathematically fundamentals in a physics course. That said, you do a lot more quantum mechanics in a first year chemistry class than you do a first year physics class. First year chemistry class spends it's time looking at the qualitative aspects of the Schoedinger equation and the particle in a box, which is necessary to understand orbitals and quantized energy levels for bonding. Unfortunately in first year you lack the math to go much further.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do submarines go underwater and come back up? I mean that how do they off set the buoyancy of the air inside the hull and how do they recreate that buoyancy to come back up?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant They are designed to be buoyant (lighter than the weight of the water they displace, up to a certain depth), and they pump in seawater to internal ballast tanks to increase their weight until they start to sink. To rise, they pump the ballast water back out again.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does soap work? How does it keep off bacteria/smells?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Some molecules dissolve in water, and some dissolve in oils or fats. So if you get grease or oil on you (like from your own skin), water won't do much to get it off, because they won't mix. This grime can harbor bacteria that can make you stink and make you sick. Soaps basically contain molecules with one end that dissolves in water and one end that dissolves in oils, so that when you lather it up on your skin, it can stick to the grime and at the same time stick to water, so the water can wash the grime away.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What's the purpose of water towers and why are they built so high up?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant They store and provide pressure for water. You know how you can be on the second floor of your house, turn on the faucet, and the water comes pouring out? You don't have a pump in your basement forcing the water up, instead, you have a water tower forcing the water down via gravity. Since your second floor is at a lower elevation than the water tower, you have positive water pressure. If you're higher than the tower, you'd need mechanical assistance to bring the water to your floor. *edit: The water is pumped up to the tower, but by nature of its size, and storage capacity, the pumps can be run when electricity demand is low.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do voter I.D. laws discriminate against minorities? If the reason is the cost of the I'd to the voter, why does the state or federal government not provide I.D.s to poorer people at little to no cost?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Cost isn't just measured in money, it's also measured in time. Let's say you a) live in a city that isn't as dense as NYC or Chicago, and b) don't own a car. So you ride-share with your neighbor to get to the bus route you need to ride back and forth to your job. This basically has the effect of turning your 8 hour work day into a 10-12 hour work day. Now you need to find time during normal business hours to get to a state-authorized agency for issuing ID, and god help you if you don't have a copy of your birth certificate because now you need to go to another state agency only open during business. Now if you're high school or college-aged, getting this time isn't necessarily a huge drain on your resources. But if you're a single mother with two kids who also need to be watched during the day, visiting a couple of state agencies for a couple of hours of potentially wage-earning time is a huge deal.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Steven Universe] Why Earth? I mean, why was Earth of all worlds chosen to become a colony? Gems are seemingly immune to harsh environmental conditions (Peridot mentions that their projected bodies can adapt to any world) and so in our solar system alone they had dozens of other planets and moons to choose. Edit: grammar<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It seems that Earth's potential for life made it better suited for creating new gems. The fact that the Kindergartens leave the land around them drained of the potential for life seems to indicate that some aspect of the process drains energy from the planet. Perhaps only planets that could naturally form life on their own are possible locations for colonies? Sadly, our information on Gem Homeworld is spotty at best.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Who is gaining from all the money spent during elections?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The majority of the money is spent on advertising, so who benefits? * TV stations * Radio stations * Google, Facebook, and other companies with big online advertising departments * Everyone who has a website that's monetized using online ads<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Has PTSD due to trauma and/or violence affected humans for centuries or is this a more recent phenomenon? Have there always been long-term effects when an individual experiences trauma and/or violence?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Trauma is a natural phenomenon with a purpose. If a person in our prehistoric past were to live in a particularly dangerous place and time, they would become “traumatized” and become hyper-vigilant to threats. They would constantly be on edge, scanning their environment for threats, and would go into a fight or flight response extremely easily. This would give them a competitive advantage and increase their chances of survival in a dangerous environment. However, in the modern day and age, most people in developed countries live in relatively safe environments. So when a person is traumatized by some event or series of events they also become hyper vigilant to threats, they also become constantly on edge and go into a fight or flight response extremely easily. However, this way of being is not at all adaptive to the modern, relatively safe world that we live in (quite the contrary).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why do electrons have spin 1/2 and photons have spin 1? I learned in quantum mechanics that electrons are fermions and fermions have half integer spin, and that photons are bosons and bosons have full integer spin. However, this was always just stated as fact, and we didn't derive it. Is this just one of those measured quantities, like the charge of an electron? Or is there some theoretical way of showing that electrons must have half integer spin and photons have full integer spin?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In the Standard Model these are postulates. In other words, you can't derive the fact that the electron has spin 1/2; indeed, having spin 1/2 is one of the properties that makes the electron an electron, by definition. Other theories might be able to deduce the particle content of the universe from more basic laws, but none have been confirmed so far.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Democracy today lets demagogic pseudo intellectuals come into power through elections where unaware majority votes based on intuition rather than rational critical thinking. Democracy is flawed on many levels. Democracy today lets demagogic pseudo intellectuals come into power through elections where unaware majority votes based on intuition rather than rational critical thinking. If there's a form of governance, where only a few learned individuals decide on a non-tyrannous intellectual as their leader, then a nation adopting such a method of governance can prosper at a much greater rate than a nation where "democratically" elected incompetent leader struggles to find the balance. The whole point of democracy when it got established must have been to give the general public a sense of power and chance at not being subjected to tyrannous oppression. But, when did it become about demagoguery, propaganda and corruption? How can democracy save the nation? Or, rather, how can a nation today save democracy?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant > If there's a form of governance, where only a few learned individuals decide on a non-tyrannous intellectual as their leader, then a nation adopting such a method of governance can prosper The problem is with who defines 'learned', 'intellectual' and 'prosper'. For example, a theocracy can fit this description easily, and they will even tell you that they "prosper" even if everyone's dirt poor, half the population is discriminated against, and technology, health and education are virtually nonexistent, because that way of life ensures everyone there gets to heaven (and at a median age of 36, too!). Democracy, on the other hand, can give power to demagogic pseudo-intellectuals, but if the democracy is strong enough, even when such individual is in power, their capacity to do damage as substantial as described above is very limited.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: why does the human body experience such intense reactions from drug withdrawals? What exactly is happening?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Drugs are substances that are chemically similar to stuff our body uses for internal communication. Morphines for example are similar to endorphines (hence the name, endo=inner) If you take the drug the job of that internal substance gets done way too much. But your body isn't dumb. It knows thats too much, so it stops producing that internal chemical on its own when you supply way too much from the outside. The receptors also get more resistant from the constant firing, wich is why you build a tolerance. Now if you stop doing the drug the exact opposite happens. Now there isn't enough of that chemical in your body, and it takes a while for your body to readjust. And thats pretty dangerous, as these chemicals control basically everything your body does, including bloodpressure, breathing, emotions, ...<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: As a gay male, I think its better not to get close to Middle-Eastern immigrants I come across. I live in area with a fair amount of immigrants, and honestly, as a homosexual man, I think its best not to be friends with the immigrants from Middle Eastern and Muslim majority countries. To clarify, I'm referring to the ones who live there their whole lives, not moved when they were really young and are essentially westernized now. The reason I believe this is because to my knowledge, they are the least accepting of homosexuality; a lot of the countries that punish homosexuality are there, [and most of the ones that have the death penalty for it, are in the Middle East.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory) Also, to my knowledge there are no major LGBT rights movements in this part of the world, and the small movements that do exist, the people are usually considered outcasts. [I gather this opinion due to a Pew Research study I saw,](http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/) and similar studies I've seen on this subject have gotten similar results. Now, I'm not suggesting that we ban Muslims from entering the country, but I do feel concerned about letting in groups of people who have a culture and religion that has view negative views of homosexuality, and where bias and violence against gays is widely accepted. While I'm not suggesting this ban, I also couldn't force myself to do anything to fight against it, knowing that the majority of these people are probably okay with violence against me, I think I would feel safer with less of them around. But I'm mainly saying it's probably better for me not to befriend them, because when they find out I'm gay (most people say they can't tell I'm gay) they will probably be uncomfortable and want to end the friendship and probably think less of me. So, because I probably sound bigoted as fuck, CMV Edit: think you for all of your responses, and Im sorry for not getting back to you because Im at work. But I will get back to the responses tonight. Im really grateful for all of your responses.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Among the ways opinions can be changed about homosexuality is just personal experience with gay people, and seeing they're not really different or scary in the ways that people can assume. There may be some risk that's above befriending other demographics, but you can always get a feel for the people and decide not to tell them if they worry you in any way. It's a personal choice for you, there's potential for negative or positive outcomes, and while you may be able to predict before taking risk, you can't know with certainty.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What is the purpose of humans having different blood types? To unpack that question - I understand the basics about blood types as far as antigen and antibodies, and why one blood type rejects another. But from an evolutionary perspective, why would we develop different blood types? Or is it possible they are just mutations?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Having different blood types, and having a significant amount of genetic variation at the molecular level in general, prevents parasites and infectious diseases from being able to spread as easily from person to person. That's not to say that it's impossible for a parasite to adapt to multiple "environments", but it does make it significantly more difficult to spread. In plants and animals where there is little to no genetic variation, diseases can spread much more quickly. An example of this is the fungal diseases that can quickly wipe out genetically-identical cultivars of crops like bananas and oranges. Since every plant is genetically identical, diseases can quickly evolve to be very efficient at infecting that particular cultivar. (This doesn't happen as often in the animal kingdom because it's quite a bit harder to clone animals than it is plants)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How did country dialing codes come to be? I was on https://countrycode.org/ and noticed that, while USA and Canada use "1", no country uses "2", and all of them seem random (a few single digits, a few two digit, most are three or four digits). Is there an explanation?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Country codes are assigned by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), an United Nations organization. When a country becomes recognized by large, they petition for an area code, and are assigned one by this ITU. The first letter of the contry code is determined more-or-less by continent/region. US and Canada begin with +1, Mexico and South America with +5, Europe with +3 and +4, and so on. (The logic behind choosing these numbers goes to old dial telephones. It was faster to dial a lower number, and regions with more available communications got lower numbers (except Africa managed to get +2, who knows)). The following numbers are similarly chosen, a bigger, more advanced country within these regions will get a smaller number than a smaller country; like how the Netherlands has +31 but Macedonia has +389. Tl;dr, the first number is separated by region, and following number(s) are generally chosen based on how big/advanced they are; countries with more activity will typically have lower numbers for faster dialing<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is it that certain numbers are significant across different religions/cultures? Is there any reason that certain numbers are repeated across different religions/mythologies and within popular culture? Do different numbers resonate with us in different ways? Do we subconsciously assign significance to ordinary numbers? Examples: Jews wandering 40 years in the desert, the flood lasting 40 days, Jesus fasting 40 days, Buddha meditating 40 days. 10 commandments, 10 plagues On the seventh day, 7 deadly sins (to finally cite culture, 7 dragon balls and 7 chaos emeralds)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I think many of these are attention bias. You could find examples of many of the lower many cultures: * 2: Yin & Yang, Adam & Eve/Cain & Abel/Jacob & Esau * 3: Holy Trinity, three wishes, "I divorce thee" three times, 3 goddesses of the Zorya * 4: Four elements, four humors, 4 creatures in the chimera, four winds, four leaf clover * 5: Pentgram as an occult symbol, 5 books of the Torah, 5 Pillars of Islam * 6: 6-6-6 mark of the beast, 6 symbolic foods in a Seder plate, Six articles of Islamic belief * 7: 7 days of creation, 7 levels of hell (in Islam), 7 Dragon balls * 8: Noble Eightfold Path in Buddhism, circumcision on the 8th day after a child is born, 8 gates to heaven in Islam, the Eight Immortals in China * 9: 9 is a complete, perfect and divine number in Hinduism, Odin hung on the ash tree for 9 days, Ramadan is on the 9th month of the Islamic calendar * 10: Ten Commandments, 10 was the holiest number for pythagoreans * 11: Tiamat creates eleven monsters to take revenge for the death of her husband, The eleventh hour * 12: Twelve disciples, 12 tribes of Israel, 12 Petals in Anahata (Heart Chakra), Odin had 12 sons, 12 signs of the zodiac * 13: at age 13 a Jewish boy becomes a man, 13 is considered unlucky or sinister, 13 represents the 1 prophet and 12 Imams in Islam, Jesus had 13 total disciples (Matthias replaced Judas) * 14: Rama's exile in the forests was 14 years, Osiris torn into fourteen parts * 15: Julius Caesar killed on March 15th, Passover is the 15th day of Nisan, Quinceañera The lower number will have more significance in more cultures due to their simplicity and are more common. Numbers divisible by 10 will also have more significance attached due to our base-10 numbering system.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does water make grease fires worse?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Three facts: water is heavier than oil, burning oil is hotter than the boiling point of water, and when water boils, it expands- by a lot. So when water falls onto a pool of burning oil, it sinks, then boils, then it blows oil- burning oil- all over your kitchen.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Did trees bear fruits before there were mammals to eat them? As per my understanding (which is limited), fruits exist so that mammals will eat them and spit out the seeds far away from the parent tree, spreading the seeds around. Because of this, would it be biologically viable/possible for fruits to exist before mammals had evolved to the point where they could eat them?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The first angiosperms (flowering plants that all fruit trees are a subset of) evolved about 160 million years ago with their ancestors going back to 250 million years or so. Mammals first appear about 225 million years ago. Fruit trees and mammals evolved hand in hand to arrive at the mechanism you are describing of dispersal. Fruit does not require a mammal to eat it and disperse the seed however. That is just one mechanism for dispersal. Fruits can be dispersed by water (coconut), wind (maple), clinging to fur or feathers, being defecated not just spit out, or buried as part of hoarding behavior (nuts and squirrels). So yes there could be fruit trees in an environment lacking mammals. The Pacific islands are a good example, the only native mammals on many are bats but there are plenty of fruiting trees of different types; like coconuts that don't rely on the bats.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: I am an atheist I am an atheist, formerly of the faith, however a desire for more evidence based systems have left that faith lost, in favor of supporting evidence. I do not reject the idea that a god might exist, only that I don't know if one does, and that the supporting material I either don't believe, or I have found insufficient to prove the existence of such a god. As I went through my studies of the bible, I not only dealt with deep personal problems that my fellow Christians handled, in my opinion, poorly, but I also came to the rather slow conclusion that the evidence for us being the product of evolution and adaptation to our environment seemed to me more supported and plausible than the support for a god. This then led me to think more critically of the material I was studying (the bible and various religious works) to see the actual message of what was being preached rather than the cultural reinforcement. Overall, I decided that the morally correct option was to leave the faith, however I am still of the mind that I do not know, and if evidence could be provided that was sufficient enough to support the existence of a god, I would take that evidence and review it and, if finding no fault in it, accept it as true.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If there were reliable, repeatable, peer reviewed scientific evidence for any particular religion then it’d be front page news and everyone in the world would follow that religion. Bottom line, every religion relies on faith which is believing in things without evidence. If you’re trying to determine fact from fantasy, faith can not get you there because you can’t distinguish one religion from another. There is no evidence in favor of any particular religion, you simply can’t test the claims they make nor the scriptures in any meaningful or scientific way precisely because they believe things without evidence.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What books to read to get deep into ethics? Hey I have only recently gotten into philosophy, I started off by reading The Problems of Philosophy by Bertrand Russell, and now I want to learn more about ethics in general. More specifically, I'm curious in how you ground out a moral statement into something that you can defend against someone who attacks it. Like for example if I say "Causing unnecessary pain and suffering is undesirable", and someone disagrees with you, how do you argue against them? I'm looking for something more or less along these lines of like starting points for moral conversations.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I would look at the Platonic texts "Meno" and "Euthyphro" as a good starting point. They are both dialogues so they demonstrate how to have a debate about ethics. From there look at Aristotle's "Nichomachean Ethics", Mills "Utilitarianism", Kants "Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals" and Nietzsche's "Geneology of morals". These will give you a good groundwork for the major ethical theories.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: When it becomes widely available, a diet consisting primarily of 'lab-grown meat', would be more ethical than vegetarian or vegan diets. A little bit of background: I consume meat on a fairly regular basis, however. my girlfriend is a committed vegetarian and has been since she was very young. Recently, we both read an article on recent advances in the commercialization of lab-grown meat (more on this later) and its potential benefits. At the time, I asked her whether she would consider adding lab-grown meat to her diet if it becomes commercially viable and widely available, to which she replied with something along the lines of “probably not”. While that was basically the end of the discussion, it got me thinking about people who are vegetarian or vegan primarily due to their opposition to the killing of animals, or as a result of environmental concerns (such as clearing of rainforests/wilderness for cattle ranching, greenhouse gas emissions, etc.), and the effect that lab-grown meat would have upon them. With this in mind, I'd like to put forward the following view: 1) Not explicitly killing an animal to consume its flesh does not mean that no animals were harmed in the harvesting and production of non-meat products. It is clear that there will be some inadvertent deaths that result from any kind of farming; in the case of non-meat farming, for example, animals may be caught up in combine harvesters or other machinery, or else their habitats may be destroyed when the farmland is cleared during the harvesting process, or even when the land is to make room for the farmland in the first place. In light of this, it would seem that the realistic aims of vegetarians/vegans are to minimize animal suffering and environmental impact. 1) There is currently an effort to develop meat that is grown in the laboratory through the culturing of animal cells (see [this article](http://www.sfgate.com/food/article/Memphis-Meats-introduces-lab-cultured-chicken-and-11003907.php) and [this article](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23576143), for illustrative examples). It is believed that these products could be commercially available as early as 2020. 3) As far as I can tell, at no point is an animal killed in order to produce this lab grown meat. It would also seem that the inadvertent killing of animals would be minimized through the consumption of lab-grown meat. Taking these points into account, it seems to me that if you are vegetarian/vegan, and the reasoning behind your diet is to minimise animal suffering and/or environmental impact, and if lab-grown meat (as exemplified in the articles above) becomes widely available and affordable, then it is both logical and ethically correct to switch to a diet consisting primarily of lab-grown meat. I look forward to having my opinion picked apart :) _____ > 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 To really evaluate this claim, we'd need to know more about where the raw materials to manufacture lab grown meat came from. Cells can't just grow without some input. It's likely that whatever chemical input is used to grow the meat (aka a nutrient broth) is likely derived from plant materials, so you haven't avoided the farming issues of habitat destruction or combine harvesting you laid out in (1)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user eli5: Why are the oceans salty?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Salt is a mineral which can dissolve in water. The water cycle has water evaporating from the oceans and falling onto the land, running back into the oceans eventually. When the water evaporates from the oceans it doesn't take salt with it so what is falling onto the land is fresh water. But as it runs over the rocks and minerals on the land some of the salt will dissolve and go with the rainwater down through streams, rivers, and eventually into the ocean. Over a long time this means salt tends to move into the ocean, making it salty.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How can the morality of an action be seperated from its consequences? In a philosophy video I saw this quote from Kant (I appologise in advance if this is dumb question I'm new to philosophy): >Because morality is not empirical, whether an act is moral or not cannot be determined by it's consequences -- rather it must be determined by the nature of the act itself. If this is true, wouldn't the logical conclusion be that shooting someone could be a morally neutral action? If pulling a trigger is the action, wouldn't the action itself be judged in Kant's assertion regardless of whether or not the consequence is someone being shot?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Kant argued that morality of our action depends on our intentions. If our will is good then our action is good, despite of all possible consequences. This seems reasonable if you remember that our actions don't always brings results that we expect. For example, you are a royal healer who healed a daughter of a peasant out of goodness of your heart in a plagued village. Then to your shock you found that the villagers killed the girl because they suspected her to be the evil witch who caused the plague. And they suspected her because her health suddenly improved. Her parents told them about a kind royal healer, but they didn't believe. Would be her death your fault?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELIF: How does the heart get stronger as a muscle? I get how muscles grow and get larger, but how does a heart mimic this behavior?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The heart can get stronger in many ways. Transient ways include increased sensitivity to calcium, which means, for the same amount of calcium entering the muscle cells, you get more force. This is an instantaneous response to stretching the heart, it allows the heart to pump more blood if it received more (so it always has the same amount of blood left in the end of a contraction), this is called the Frank Starling mechanism. The heart can also get more calcium by releasing more of it from its internal stores and by getting more from the outside, this also gives more force (usually in response to biochemical signals like adrenaline), and more calcium is more force. These are all fast responses. When the heart is chronically (for a long time) facing high pressure like in exercise or hypertension, it needs a more permanent solution. So the muscle cells themselves grows in size (never in number when you're an adult). It does so by depositing more sacromeres which means it increases the number of the force generating units within each cell. It can either deposit them in parallel (next to each other) where the muscle cell gets thicker or in series (in front of each other) where the muscle cell gets longer. Usually, thicker means healthy adaptation like to exercise, longer means maladaptation like in disease such as hypertension. The heart also remodels in many many other ways such as metabolically and electrically all to make it contract faster (chronotropy), relax faster (lusitropy), contract stronger (inotropy), conduct electricity faster (dromotropy), or become more sensitive to electric stimulation (bathmotropy). Edit: English<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user In modern steam power plants, can the amount of power output be managed? In modern power plants that heat water, make steam, and turn turbines through steam power, is the output set, or can the operators feed it less fuel, produce less heat, create less steam, and output less power? I'm curious due to the nature of the power grid, where excess power just goes to ground. It is such a big waste, I'm wondering if the plants can throttle the output during non-peak times and ramp it up during peak times. Thanks!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Different power plants have different responses, and different time scales. A combined gas cycle plant, running off Natural gas can respond to the grid very quickly increasing its power output. They are often used as load balancers as they are rather expensive to use all the time. Other plants such as a nuclear plants cannot easily increase or decrease their power usage in a short time scale. They are used as a baseline load. If there is an outage, or suddenly power usage drops quickly they must dump power, or shut down. As shutting down is expensive you can have a resistive load balancer which will drag down the grid voltage to keep it in line with specs. This is basically a industrial sized coffee maker that heats water. Generally for non emergency load balancing water is often used. They will pump water in reverse in a hydro plant, then when they need more power they allow it to run through the turbines again. Renewables such as solar and wind are not comparable, as they have very strange power responses, and are controlled by forces outside of human control. However they are such a small part of the grid, it doesn't really matter. If percentage is to be increased, this needs to be addressed.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why do certain parts of our body reproduce themselves when destroyed (eg skin) and others don't? For example, if i rip or burn the skin on my fingertips, it will grow back. Or scars are somehow covered up.. But why if we cut a person's finger, or a whole hand it will not grow again..? Can this become under certain circumstances..? Any other examples more microscopically ?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Some parts of our body contain cellular machinery to heal wounds, and some do not. In the skin, if you have a deep cut, the stem cells (basal keratinocytes) in the stratum basale need to divide and reform into a single layer to start regenerating skin cells in the epidermal layer above them. If they are too far separated, this regeneration will be incomplete, which is why stitches are sometimes necessary. If you cut off a finger, there's no basal structures that can regenerate and the architecture is so complex, simple cell growth will not suffice. Other areas in your body - like your GI tract - work in much the same way. Your liver can take quite a bit of damage and still regenerate - from as little as 25% of the original structure - largely because other liver cells will proliferate and fill the space, restoring function if not the original architecture.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 why people blur cover their license plates when posting on the Internet since anyone can see their plates in real life anyways?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Helps prevent criminals from finding you as well as preventing someone from somehow making a copy of your plate and putting it on another car of the same make and model and color and preforming illegal acts with it. A lot easier to find something like that online than in person.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If one of the goals of exercise is to get the heart rate elevated, do things like anxiety or low BP help work the heart out? I've been told to set a HR when one exercises and try to keep it above that point to maximize the workout. I wonder: is there a difference, in terms of improving cardiac function, between running vs. anxiety, sitting in a hot shower, HR medications, etc?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Exercise produces an accelerated heart rate since the body is working harder to respond to physical stressors. While this does stress the heart, it can help reduce resting blood pressure and heart rate since it trains the heart to be more efficient. Anxiety, chronic tachycardia, and hypotension-induced tachycardia are the heart working hard at rest. This is the opposite of the effect that exercise has on the heart.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV:The Use of Closed-Source Software is NOT Unethical The Thesis I Am Challenging "The use of closed-source software is unethical" Defenses of the View I have run into this view quite a bit as of recent, and I'm not really sure what to make of it. I first encountered it in Sanjoy Mahajan's MIT OpenCourseware Course ["Teaching College-Level Science and Engineering"](http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/chemistry/5-95j-teaching-college-level-science-and-engineering-spring-2009/video-discussions/) where he mentions it in an off-hand remark about what file formats he uses towards the end of the series. He just casually remarks something like "Well, I prefer to use open office because I consider the use of closed source software unethical". I looked it up on the google and didn't really find him or anyone else defending this view. I know there's this sort of "information wants to be free" movement on the internet, and I'm sure this is related to it, but I'm not sure what the defense of that view is. My View I think it's preferable to use the software that is the most effective at accomplishing the task at hand, in a very utilitarian way. I don't think the closed- or open-sourced nature of the product makes one more ethical than another. If someone is willing to be paid $20 for a piece of code that I am willing to execute in a compiled fashion for $20, I don't see that piece of code, open source or not, to be an illegitimate commodity. _____ > Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our *[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)* first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It can be argued that information is a public good*. Basically, when people don't have the information they need to make a good decision they will invariably make bad decisions. By arbitrarily hiding that information from people you are creating a situation where others will necessarily make bad decisions that will harm them and society in general. In terms of software this means that by hiding that information you are removing accountability that you could be held to letting people get away with overcharging for substandard work and creating cover for criminals to inject spyware or malware all the while pretending to be an innocuous program.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user I'm horrible at finding literature This week I had a meeting with my supervisor for my master's thesis. One of the main points of feedback was that my literature review had to be more extensive and that I had to add way more papers. My supervisor was kind enough put ten minutes into searching literature together and found several relevant papers with no issue at all. Meanwhile, at home I'm using the same keywords at scholar and all I get are shitty papers. This kinda panicked me. Apart from this I'm horrible in general at finding good & relevant literature. I just read some other theses and I'm amazed by the fact how smooth literature reviews can be (though I sometimes look up the paper to which was refered and I can't find the statement which was made at all). Right now I feel like a major failure who doesn't deserve his master's degree but I'm trying to keep myself calm. I was wondering if someone has some good advices regarding finding literature or maybe even know some good reads about finding literature (oh the irony).<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Here's what works for me. Try to find a recent review paper of the topic you're interested in. Not only are these papers good for giving you an overview of the subject, you will have a list of references they used, which you can then look into yourself.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Mulan] Why is Mulan the only person with an ancestral guardian?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Ancestral guardians usually work behind the scenes, invisible and undetectable, but still able to influence matters with their vast powers. If the Great Stone Dragon had awoken like the ancestors had intended, then that's likely how it would have operated. Mushu is not nearly so powerful, so he had to take a more hands-on approach. Thus, it's perfect possible that other people had active ancestral guardians watching over them, it's just that these guardians were not visible. After all, Shang and the other soldiers do get rather lucky at times.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If soil comes from dead plants, what substrate did the first terrestrial plants grow on? This question was asked by my 8-year old as part of a long string of questions about evolution, but it was the first one where I didn't really know the answer. I said I'd look it up but most information appears to be about the expected types of plants rather than what they actually grew on.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Generally bacteria are the first things to colonise bare rock and provide a substrate for other micro-organisms. Simple multicellular organisms like lichens can thereafter colonise the rock. They reproduce quickly and can survive the harsh conditions, and many species don't need soil. Its these plants that start to lay down soil as they die off and decompose, providing a substrate for increasingly more complex species. What your 8-year old is asking about is called "ecological succession" and is the process through which an area can go from bare rock to a rich forest over a hundred years. You can see the early stages of ecological succession all over the place, particularly in concrete urban areas that have been neglected and are in the early stages of colonisation. In fact your local hardware store will sell lots of products which are the armoury of the homeowner in the struggle against the primary colonisers of ecological succession.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How can I as a layperson get better at judging whether a scientist is trustworthy? What parameters are important when judging a scientist's trustworhiness? There may be a better word than trustworthiness. By trustworthiness I mean what it says in the first two lines of the Wikipedia article: "Trustworthiness is a moral value considered to be a virtue. A trustworthy person is someone in whom you can place your trust and rest assured that the trust will not be betrayed." Peace out. Amazing forum!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant 1. Are they an actual research scientist? Put their name into Google Scholar. They should have many publications including some that have been cited dozens or hundreds of times. 2. Are they actually talking about their field of expertise? A nuclear physicist is not trustworthy when talking about disease resistance. There are exceptions, and other things to take into account, but those are the main things.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Are forests and jungles growing more rapidly now that there is an increase of CO2 in the air?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In photosynthesis there are 3 metabolic pathways for carbon fixation from CO2. In forests and jungles we are concerned with the C3 and C4 pathway (the CAM pathway is only found in arid plants). These pathways impact how a plant responds to elevated CO2 levels. In the C3 path oxygen competes with CO2 in the presence of the first enzyme, RuBisCO. Meaning that the enzyme can't distinguish between oxygen and CO2. Incorporating oxygen ultimately results in a toxic compound later on that must be disposed of through photorespiration which uses energy. So the ratio of the gases in contact with RuBisCO matters. More CO2 successfully being bound means less energy lost to photorespirstion. Increased CO2 can benefit these plants. 85% of plants use this C3 pathway including rice, wheat and trees. The C4 pathway evolved next and it removes the energy lost to photorespirstion by only allowing RuBisCO to bind CO2. This is accomplished by putting the enzyme in a newly evolved chamber and selectively exposing it to only CO2. These plants are pretty much already maxed out at what they can handle at current CO2 levels. They don't get any benefit from rising CO2 levels. These include plants like corn and grasses. Forests and jungles contain both C3 and C4 plants. C3 plants have the capability to grow more in the rising levels but climate change also bring along big temperature and rainfall shifts which can negatively impact the health of the C3 and C4 plants alike.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [ELI5]: Why do pigs go through a big transformation if they're introduced into the wild? How does a domesticated pig turn into a wild boar when released to the wild?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A creatures phenotype (physical manifestation) is dictated by its genetic code. There are actually different ways in which genetic code will be expressed depending on the environment that the creature finds itself; this phenomenon is called epigenetics. There is another phenomenon called neoteny in which creatures retain juvenile characteristics depending on their environment, and will quickly mature given certain conditions. So just as an example to illustrate the point, say that a pig is in a farm and is fed and shielded from predators. The chemical profile of this pig might show low levels of testosterone because there had not been any circumstances that would have precipitated the production of excess testosterone. When the pig is let out into the wild, it is suddenly in danger of predators and starved of nutrients, so the relevant chemical cascades kick in which will be conducive to its survival, and these may actually change the way it physically appears (testosterone --> greater hair production, etc).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 Why do some colours go well together and some colours not?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Some part of it is seeing which color combinations we're already familiar with. For example, if you were to pair leaf green with almost any shade of red, pink, yellow, orange, or purple, they would work together. It's a very common set of color combinations in fashion, interior decor, and graphic design. We also have all seen it (assuming you're not color blind) in nature, as flowers have these color combos with their leaves. Green is practically a neutral to us. For a similar reason, navy blue is considered a pseudo neutral color that matches with almost every other color; it's also the color of the night sky and the ocean. We've all seen it many many times, so seeing it again is comfortable. The color combo of red, yellow, and blue is not inherently childish, but some people associate it with preschool or elementary school related things, because it's often used for kids' stuff in marketing and product packaging. Basically, we become familiar with certain color combos, and sometimes we start associating them with certain things because we see them in a specific context so many times. If we like that context, we are more likely to like that combo. If we don't like that context, we are less likely to like the combo.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: American Christians have an obligations as Christians to follow church teachings personally, and as Americans to not inject church based agendas into the political arena. Separation of church and state is a foundational principle of governance in the United States. The founding fathers were careful not to identify a particular deity as having given us our inalienable rights and it is the first stated principle in the Bill of Rights. Also, the First Amendment guarantees the right of American citizens to violate the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 9th and 10th Commandments, as laws are meant to restrict as little as possible, while religious proscriptions demand adherence to a specific code of conduct. Thus the difference between crimes and sins. American state makes a point of not wanting to interject in the affairs of the church - in so far as to not even requiring filing of taxes for most churches, nor collecting any, and disassociating itself from even knowing about the financial affairs of the church. In so far as principles of liberal democratic governance drawing from Jewish and Christian religious doctrines, separation of church and state is also part of Christian teaching - Jesus himself taught to "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." Matthew 22:21. The context of the quote is also notable. The controversy was over paying Caesar's taxes, which required a Roman coin, which had an image of Caesar in the front, and believed to have an inscription stating "Caesar Tiberius, son of the Divine Augustus", making it a graven idolatrous image, that had to be brought into the temple for tax payment. The faithful also had no way of knowing that their tax payment would not be used to build more idols, temples to Roman gods, or for other purposes they would consider blasphemous. Living in a religiously diverse state with an idolatrous official religion, whose morality differed greatly from those of Jews and Christians, in a generally permissive society, was not a religious problem for Jesus, nor need it be for present day evangelicals. It also seems entirely possible for a reasonable Christian to have secular policy positions contrary to teachings of the church, as church and state are separate matters. It also seems reasonable for a Christian to accept removal of 10 commandments displays from government buildings as correction for a long-standing error in judgement on the part of the government, and to happily pay taxes, knowing some of it will go to fund abortions or teach evolution. My position is that evangelical forays into politics are presented as matters of faith and religious conviction, but this claim has little theological basis. Furthermore, the policy positions being pushed seem arbitrary, and also don't seem to have theological basis. Therefore, making support for these church political positions a matter of faith for evangelicals and christians seems erroneous, as well as the general contention that use of their political influence/encroachment of church into state is an exercise of their rights as faithful Christians. Please change my mind. _____ > 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 Personal political beliefs and how you vote must be based on ethics, and if you are religious your ethics will be shaped by said religion. Therefore it is not possible to fully separate the two as you are wanting.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are there so many species of most living beings but only species of humans?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant This is less a question about biology and more about human categorisation. We see quite a lot of distinction between ourselves and our nearest relatives (apes), in no small part because we're extremely familiar with ourselves and the differences between us and apes are a pretty big deal as far as our priorities are concerned. When we compare, say, a red fox and a grey fox (which are from entirely separate genera - Vulpes and Urocyon), the differences don't seem all that significant to us. They have a similar shape and similar enough behaviour as far as we care, so we dump them in the box labelled 'fox'. Most of the time we don't really care which kind of fox a fox is. Most of the time we care quite a bit whether something is a human or an ape! (In fact, many of those categories are specific to a particular language, and things one language considers 'the same animal' may be quite separate to speakers of another language. Japanese, for example, has no one word for 'otter' - it has kawauso for river otters and rakko for sea otters.) It is, however, reasonable to ask why there's only one extant species in the genus Homo (which humans are in), when other genera have many more species. This is in large part because humans have outcompeted or otherwise outlasted our nearest relatives, and other species that are conceptually closer to us than living apes are all gone now. It's also in part because genera are also human categorisation tools, and as much as they're intended to be independent of human bias, we don't always know what should be in the same genus and what should be in separate genera. It's not infrequent for genera to be split (or merged!) after taking another look at them. Really, the criteria aren't all that straightforward, and it's not uncommon to come across situations where there's no clear line at all between one species and another or one genus and another. What counts as 'one kind of living thing' versus 'another kind of living thing' ultimately is a purely external categorisation decided on by humans, even if the differences those categories are based on are real differences.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why isn't getting checked for cancerous tumors, or tumors in general, a routine process? I feel like tumors are only discovered when the patient feels as if something is wrong, and by then it is usually too late to take effective action.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The problem is that there are very many downsides to routine checks. Too many downsides, in fact. First of all, we do not have the resources to preform routine checks on everybody. In many places, there are already long waiting lists when people need certain types of scans or care. If we tie up our limited amount of scanning equipment and personnel that can use these machines and interpret the results with millions of people who don't even need them, the waiting lists will only get longer and longer. Secondly, body scans are not magic. They can detect if there are irregularities in your body. They cannot immediately detect whether this irregularity is something to be concerned about or not. Most of us have irregularities in our bodies that are absolutely nothing to worry about, just a result of how we aren't perfect beings and don't grow perfectly. If everybody gets routinely scanned, all of these irregularities are going to pop up and doctors will pretty much be obligated to investigate them further. Even though 99% of them are absolutely not any danger to you. That means more tests (so again, more strain on our limited resources) and also means more stress Which brings me to point three: quality of life. Basically, routine scans do not improve quality of life. In rare rare rare rare exceedingly rare cases, they might detect something slightly earlier than it would otherwise have been detected. In most cases it is going to detect harmless irregularities, which will lead to people having to undergo more (and sometimes painful testing), which they will have to wait longer for due to the longer wait lists, which all accumulates in a huge increase in stress. All to tell you something they knew already, namely that there is nothing wrong with you. Basically, the very marginal benefits of a system like this do not outweigh the much more common adverse effects (all the extra stress and pain of tests that people will experience and the added wait time to everybody else who does need these tests and might be in a worst position due to the long wait), so we don't do it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Could exposure to radioactive radiation be "good"? So I'm just curious no I'm not gonna try to expose myself to radiation and I know it's very likely to cause permanent damage or kill you but was I'm wondering is whether there is a chance when it changes your dna that it makes you "better"<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Let's be clear here, ionising radiation (as opposed to non-ionizing radio waves, WiFi signals etc.) causes changes in biological specimens by changing/damaging cellular structure. This occurs when the charged particle - an alpha particle (He2+ ion), beta particle (an energetic electron, e-) or a gamma ray (high energy photon) passes through a biological structure. Given that these particles are atomic sizes or smaller, and the proteins forming the DNA that is changed consist of tens or hundreds of atoms, and human DNA is literally 3.2 billion base pairs of proteins, the chances that you randomly expose DNA to radiation and it makes an improvement are about the same as randomly picking a word from the dictionary, and then randomly turning to a page of your favourite book and replacing the 57th word on that page with the one selected from the dictionary, and then making your favourite book better! And this is for the single cell affected. For radiation to turn someone into spiderman or something requires the radiation to modify each and every relevant cell in the body in the same way. So now consider your book experiment, and imagine that EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD has to do the same with their own favourite book. Statistically impossible, right? Now, the human body has some kind of system to guard against these changes (which happen more than you'd imagine) since we live in a naturally radioactive environment, albeit at a relatively low level. When cells are changed, some biological process switches off and the individual cell dies, and another one grows to replace it. When this doesn't happen right, people develop cancers. And this is why excessive radiation exposure kills people, because too many cells die at the same time. Theoretically, if this process could be understood and controlled, it could lead to improvements, but not by the process of making things better, but by killing off some cells that were less efficient than the others at whatever they did, or indeed cancerous. This is the radiotherapy treatments that others have referred to.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Fullmetal Alchemist] What is the farthest distance an Alchemist can transmute? Like could Ed transmute on one side of central city to affect the other side?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Normal alchemy has its effect centred within its transmutation circle, though the line of effect can extend beyond it. Example of distance alchemy like that include Armstrong's artillery rocks (where the transmutation is instant but the rock is thrown by force) and Mustang's flame alchemy (which is considered extremely complex, in that the effect really is centred on his hands BUT travels through the air with precision to the target at virtually lightning speed). People like Ed are somewhat of an exception due to their not using a circle, but the general limitation remains where the transmutation is centred on their point of contact (where his hands touch usually, though sometimes he channels out of himself elsewhere like his feet). He can achieve a limited degree of distance alchemy, but only where the effect is extremely basic because he's actually changing everything from where he's standing TO where the effect is occurring. That's why his little "create stone walls" trick is actually so mindblowing: nobody else can do anything nearly that complex, AND he does it on the fly meaning they can come out of anywhere. To affect something across Central, there's a few ways this could be accomplished. Option one is explored in the series: just make a giant transmutation circle that encompasses both you AND is centred on the location you're trying to affect. But that's not what you're trying to do. Option two, which is Ed's style of alchemy, would require him to have clear line of sight AND line of effect across that distance. With your example of Central City, that's definitely impossible due to buildings. So let's move this out into an empty field. Now, he needs to know what he's doing... as well as the composition of everything between him and his target. This isn't technically impossible, but it sure takes out 99% of opportunities. So again, let's move. Maybe a perfect stone plateau? It's now a safe bet that the ground is "stone" (whichever stone that may be) from here to the target location. Now he could make a statue appear from across that massive distance, by knowing all the necessary details. Option three is abandoning alchemy, and switching to alkahestry from Xing. It's specifically focused on distance transmutation, as long as it's along "ley lines" which alkahestry practitioners can somehow identify. Drop a circle on the opposite side of the city, trace a linkage to where you are and make a mirrored circle, and voila!<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Do peoples eyes really "change colour"?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Color is determined by both physical properties of an object and the properties of light around it. The pigments in our eyes which determine what wavelengths are absorbed and reflected do not change. However, the color can change based on the type of lighting (florescent, incandescent, candle, sunlight, etc) and the dominant colors in the immediate environment, which can include clothing. Both of those things change the distribution of wavelengths that hit the eye (and everything else) and so also change the distribution of what is reflected back (which is what we think of as 'color'). Additionally, in bright light, where those effects are minor, putting on a very bright green shirt, for example, might make the person's eyes look less green in comparison. This, though, is purely a perception issue of humans, and so the color would still be the same if measured by say, a camera, which is not the case above.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If every language is eventually compiled into the most basic machine instructions then why do languages like C and C++ run faster than Java and Python? I don’t understand why lower level languages run faster than higher level ones if they are all eventually compiled into machine code.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant First of all, you should distinguish between a language and its implementation(s). How and whether code in a language is translated to machine code can and does vary widely between different implementations of a language. For example the Python implementation PyPy has a JIT compiler, but CPython does not. > If every language is eventually compiled into the most basic machine instructions This isn't true. Not every programming language implementation emits machine code (as mentioned above, CPython doesn't), nor does every language have at least one implementation that does. Beyond that, it doesn't only matter whether machine code is generated - it also matters which machine code is generated (also when in the case of JITs). For example, a naive compiler for a dynamically typed language might generate type checks for every operations (while a more complex, optimizing compiler still wouldn't be able to avoid doing so in all cases) while a compiler for a completely statically typed language would have no reason to do so. Similarly virtual function calls will necessarily involve extra lookups that can't always be optimized away. In addition, a language might use big integers as their default integer types, heavily feature reflection, or contain plenty of other features that tend to be costly to implement. Even among implementations for the same language, performance can differ significantly, so it's not surprising that implementations for different languages with different features and requirements would have even more differences in performance. And then there's of course the fact that some languages simply have more mature (and thus better optimized) implementations than others based on how long they've been around, how widely they're used, and how much performance is even a priority.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Humanity has yet to master or even invent a form of government/economy that would sustain us as a species, on a massive scale, indefinitely, in outer space. First, let’s presume a few things: 1.) Humanity will eventually have to venture off this planet if we are to survive as a species because Earth is a very volatile place and could eradicate us fairly easily given the long view of its history. 2.) We have mastered the technology to create and maintain massive self contained environments powered by finite and renewable resources, whether they be large scale space stations, or planetary habitats. 3.) We have mastered medicine, agriculture, and any other technologies required for our species to flourish and survive indefinitely in such an environment. I hold this view because we do, in a way, already live on a sort of space station, with finite and renewable resources, and seem to be living in a very unsustainable way. I see our time here on Earth as a sort of practice run for the big game out amongst the starts I guess. As of right now, we don’t stand a chance, specifically in terms of governing people and economies in a mutually beneficial and sustainable manner. So please, for the sake of humanity’s future, change my view.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant We have all sorts of governments that could work under such scenarios. We have testbeds dotted all over the planet investigating long term survival for small groups of individuals just for such an occasion as we go to space. The military structure in particular features heavily because it's already a system predicated on group survival over most other factors. The problem isn't having a system. It's we don't care to implement such a system. Because these systems don't grow as well or distribute power as some would want. We measure our success with economics, liberty etc. And we vote based on individual benifit. Things that don't feature well in the types of systems designed to promote austerity and survival at all costs.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How could you recursively find all permutations of a list? I'm trying to write a program that does this, but I'm having trouble thinking of how to solve this algorithmically. I've been trying to understand other people's solutions for hours and I'm just not getting it. Can someone please try to explain what algorithm you can use to recursively find all permutations of a list of any size?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Recursion is all about defining the simplest possible case and building up from there. How do you find all permutations of [1]? Easy. How about [1,2]? Still pretty easy. The pattern starts to reveal itself around length 3: [1,2,3] [1, (permutate [2,3])] [1,3,2] ... [2,1,3] [2, (permutate [1,3])] [2,3,1] ... [3,1,2] [3, (permutate [1,2])] [3,2,1] ... See it? All the permutations of [2,3] start with 1. All perms of [1,3] start with 2. This is the basis for using recursion. Here's some pseudo code: def permutations(list): if len(list) == 1: return [list] result = [] for x of list: for p of permutations(listWithoutX): result.push([x, ...p]) return result Keep in mind that you want the index of x to efficiently grab the listWithoutX. In JS, you could do: listWithoutX = [...list.slice(0, i), ...list.slice(i + 1)] Because `list.filter(v => v == x)`will iterate over the list instead of just chopping it up. tl;dr perms of list with length 1 is itself, perms of any other list is perms of all lists 1 length less with whatever's missing in front.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Illegal immigration in the USA would be far less common if there were strict penalties for employing illegal immigrants. However, this won't happen because of intense lobbying From my knowledge and perspective, most policies aimed at curbing illegal immigration are aimed at the illegal immigrants. You even frequently hear the comment: "they are breaking the law" or "they need to follow the laws of this country". However, illegal immigrants have very little motivation to follow immigration law. If they follow the immigration law, they are denied entry into the USA and gain no benefit. If they violate the law, they gain better pay and only risk being caught and possibly deported. There is little risk and a great deal of reward. You would be a fool to just "follow the US law" Employers, on the other hand, actually have some reason to not employ illegal immigrants(see below). However, the benefit is only seen if everyone(or mostly everyone) is following the law. The current enforcement regime seems to strongly encourage businesses to cheat. Many small business owners I know employ illegal immigrants. Now, they don't knowingly hire illegal immigrants, but they are well aware that many of their employees are probably illegal immigrants. They know that the social security numbers they were given are probably fake, but as long as they run them through the government required website, they feel that they are clear of any consequences. However, these people will admit that they employ illegal immigrants. Example of strict law enforcement for suppliers: Alcohol sales Most states do not worry about underage buyers of alcohol. Rather, they focus on alcohol retailers and have strict fines and penalties for any supplier caught selling or providing alcohol to a minor. While minors still get access to alcohol, it is nearly impossible to find a minor drinking at a bar or buying liquor at a liquor store. In fact, many liquor stores/bars will deny sales to individuals who are not minors out of an abundance of caution. I am not saying that no minor ever buys alcohol with a fake ID, but I would say that there are far fewer minors buying alcohol than illegal immigrants working at large corporations. Why? Because bars/restaurants/stores suffer a severe penalty if they are caught violating the law. Please change my view. Most laws benefit everyone in society(my argument explained) Most laws actually benefit everyone. The law against theft actually benefits everyone eventually. If theft was legal, no one would benefit. A thief might temporarily gain some money by stealing your car, but then he would immediately lose it when the car was stolen from him along with his other property. If hiring illegal immigrants was totally illegal, the companies would actually be fine. They might need to raise their prices, but they would also know that all of their competitors would also need to raise their prices as well.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant To go somewhat orthogonal to your suggestion, wouldn't it be more reasonable to simply allow those people to immigrate legally? Your view posits that there is are industries that are built on exploitation of underpaid labor, and additional industries built on providing false social security numbers. It seems like allowing people to legally immigrate to the United States for the purpose of performing those jobs would serve to limit the exploitation, especially since as legal residents they would be better able to report any further exploitation by their employers. Now, you could combine that with more penalties for exploitative labor practices or hiring under the table, but that doesn't solve the issue that those industries (apparently) cannot find enough labor without turning to immigrants.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How do astronomers determine the distance and size of a star or exoplanet?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are many ways to measure the distance to an object in space. For the closest stars you can use something called parallax. If you put your arm out in front of you and hold one finger up and look at it with one eye and then the other it will look like the finger is at different places! Now try moving the finger to different distances from your eyes and the "jump" in distance will be larger the closer the finger is to your eyes. This is because our eyes are separated by a small distance and if we know this seperation and the apparent difference in distance of the finger when looking with the different eyes we can work out the distance between the eyes and the finger. Now if you look at a star and blink your eyes like this you won't see any difference.. But if you look at a star today and then wait half a year the Earth has moved to the other side of the Sun and this effect will be measurable! And since we know the distance to the Sun we can work out the distance to the star we are observing. Now if the object we are observing is to far away for this effect to be noticable we must use a different technique, and there's quite a few! The most common techniques include so called standard candles and red shift. A standard candle is something that always shines at the same intensity, that gives of the same amount of light no matter what. The most famous example of a standard candle are a special type of supernovae (SNe), namely type Ia SNe. These SNe occur when a white dwarf leeches material from a companion star. When the white dwarf has leeched enough material to reach a certain threshold, known as the Chandrasekhar limit, the white dwarf will explode and this explosion is very well understood and we know how much light it give out as they all occur under the same circumstances. By measuring the intensity of these SNe we can figure out the distance to the SNe since light intensity decreases with distance. Another standard candle are Cepheid variable stars. These stars vary in intensity and the period of their variation is tightly associated with its luminosity and be looking at how much of the light reaches us we can calculate the distance. As for red shift, that is for the very large scales! As an object moves through space the light it sends out gets shifted, just like a sound wave does which you can hear as an ambulance drives past you. As it approaches you hear a higher pitch and after it has passed you hear a lower pitch. The same thing happens with light waves. Because of the expansion of the Universe this means that objects separated by some distance will also be moving apart at a speed correlated to the distance, so by looking at how much the light has shifted we can see how fast the objects are moving compared to each other and at large scales this movement will be dominated by the expansion. (The light also gets stretched further from the expansion in another way but that's not necessary to think about here.)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is it that after looking at a bright light source, and then closing your eyes, you see a colorful outline of the light source for a little while?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Your eyes contain cells that chemically react to light. Stimulating them strongly can create temporary lasting imprints because either the cell is depleted of the signalling chemicals relative to other cells (you look at a red image then switch to a white wall - the red cells are less capable to signal than the green and blue ones so that portion of your vision looks more anti-red) or the cells continue to fire since they are so strongly stimulated (you close your eyes and see bright outlines).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What is special about sunlight versus artificial light that plants need it? If all light is just photons, and plants convert photons into sugar through photosynthesis then why do plants die when placed indoors even if given enough artificial light?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Plants operate best on certain wavelengths of light, and not all light is the right wavelength for them. There is also that people tend to vastly underestimate what is "enough light" for a plant to grow properly. Without special high output lights, indoor lighting is not actually bright enough for most species of plants. Plants can absolutely be grown with artificial light, you just need to make sure there actually is enough and that it's light they can efficiently make use of.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is it that if I'm hungry right before going to bed, I'm not longer hungry when I wake up in the morning? The other night, I was going to bed and felt pretty hungry, but I just went to bed. I woke up, expecting to be somewhat hungry but the feeling of hunger was gone. Does anyone have a nice quick explanation?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Very concise answer: The loss of hunger when you wake up is due to excess glucose in your system caused by the breakdown of glycogen from your liver while you're asleep. Explanation: Glucose is the main source of energy that your cells use to generate ATP, which powers many processes in the cell. When you eat, the glucose in your food, in the form of sugar and carbs, is absorbed into your system and spread to your tissues. Any excess glucose that you eat is stored in the cells in your liver in these giant chains called glycogen. These glycogen chains serve as a way to save the excess glucose for when your body needs it, much like how you store excess fats and lipids in your fat cells. The prime example of when the body needs these stores is when you're asleep. Think about it. The average person sleeps for 7-8 hours. For that same amount of time during the day, you can easily fit in two full meals, so your body needs some way to keep all of your organs supplied with glucose when you have no ability to get it from food yourself. That's when these glycogen molecules come into play. As your body falls asleep, the liver starts breaking down these long chains of glucose and releasing the individual glucose molecules into your system. This makes sure that all of your organs (especially your brain) is supplied with glucose throughout the entire night. This breakdown occurs for the entire time you're asleep and stops when you wake up (and shifts back into storage mode). But right when you wake up, the glucose in your blood is still high from the overnight glycogen breakdown process, and there still may be some residual breaking down as your body shifts back into an awake state. The higher level of glucose in your system tells your brain that "you're full' even though you may have not eaten anything for 12 hours by that point. You may have noticed that you got REALLY hungry within a couple hours after waking up. That's your body realizing that you haven't eaten anything in 12 hours AND you have the ability to do something about it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [MCU/DC] Who's richer? Tony Stark or Bruce Wayne? More specifically Tony from the MCU and Bruce from the Dark Knight trilogy.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If we only count the resources that each of them can freely use to advance their agendas (versus assets that can't leverage or liquidate, corporate holdings that are as much other people's money as their own, etc.) Tony appears to have more on deck. Batman's got a DIY 1984 level surveillance state, but Tony has a DIY space program. Further skewing things, Tony has some assets up his sleeve that are literally priceless; if he ever said "fuck it" and sold a man-portable arc reactor to the highest bidder he'd probably be able to buy a small country with the proceeds. Wayne, meanwhile, mostly works with gear that Wayne Enterprises couldn't sell because the original buyers balked, so none of his hardware could be easily liquidated. The comics or animated Justice League versions of Batman would be able to put up a stronger fight, but film canon Batman can be outspent by Tony.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user When was it first determined that Mt. Everest was the highest point in the planet, and how were they able to know for sure?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Mt Everest's hight was measured during the Great Trigonometrical Survey of India in 1856. All of the mountains on earth that are higher than 7000 meters appear in the mountain ranges in central/south Asia. All of the mountains higher than 8000m are in the Himalaya and Karakoram ranges which were measured in the survey. None of the other mountain ranges on other continents came close, and it was clear when they measured Everest that it was the highest peak. That said, the furthest point from the center of the Earth is Mt Chimborazo in the Andes.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [DC] How can the Anti Life Equation and the Life Equation exist in the same universe when they both "prove" inherently contradictory truths about the universe? The Anti Life Equation mathematically proves that life is meaningless and not worth living, while the Life Equation proves the exact opposite. But they're both undeniable proof of ideas that cannot exist in the same reality with the same basis of life. There can't be a universe where 2+2=4 and 4-2=3 can coexist, so how can both Life Equations?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Different axioms. If you run the numbers from one set of premises, you calculate that life is meaningless and has not capacity for more then slavery to darkseid. If you run from another, you calculate that all people have value and deserve freedom. One could say the entire point of all of DC comics is a discussion over which starting premises are more reasonable.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do warmer countries/closer to the equator tend to be poorer than colder countries? Sure there are exceptions like Singapore and Mongolia, but why do most colder countries seem to be richer than warmer countries?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant For most of history, there wasn't that much difference between most region of the world. Great civilizations rose and felt, bringing stability and wealth to different region throughout history. China was often one of the richest region of the world, the Middle East was a power house between the Ancient World and Islamic Golden Age, and Africa was known for several rich Kings, etc. America was usually behind in term of wealth. Why it was the case is a bit complicated. Being separated by an Ocean limit the spread of trade and knowledge (trade between Europe, Middle-East, Asia and North/East Africa was important), but there is also a theory about the lack of tameable work animal in America, which limited greatly the work capability of American tribes. Animal work in the field mean some people could do other things than food production, which lead to more trader, artisan, craftsmen, etc. It's really only because of the industrial revolution that Europe was able to get in front of the rest of the world in term of technology and wealth. According to Maddison (a British economic Historian), in 1600, China and India had 51.4% of the world GDP (PPP), but at that point in time only had 47.5% of the population, meaning they were not only big, but richer than the world average. In 1600, India had 22.7% of the World GDP (PPP), by 1820 it was 16.1%, by 1870 it was 12.2%. India wasn't getting poorer, their economic growth was 22.7% in the 16th century, and 21% in the 18th century. The difference was that the economic growth of Europe was just too big to keep up. Similar story with the rest of the world. So the question really is why the Industrial Revolution happened in England instead of somewhere else and why remained concentrated in Europe. That's again a really difficult questions to answer. The is a lot of factor that made the industrial revolution happen in England, the agricultural revolution of the 17th-19th century, a large and easy access to coal, the political climate, etc. Once this started, Europe had the technology and wealth to spread its power across the world through colonization. Places where European settled the most (America, Australia, New Zealand, etc) become rich, the places that were not settle by European but instead become exploitable colonies didn't received the technology and knew how needed to kick start an Industrial Revolution until several centuries later. At that point, their delay in economic growth was just too big leaving Europe and places they settled in ahead.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user While driving, if you look at dips in the road that are far away they seem to reflect light from ahead like a mirror. Why?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Other answers touch on this, but a substance's refractive index changes with it's density. The refractive index affects the angle at which incident light is "bent" at the boundary between two media (specifically, it obeys Snell's Law). When the angle of incidence (measured from a normal line perpendicular to the boundary) is great enough, the light can undergo total internal reflection, and reflect off the boundary rather than refract through it. A common example of this is if you have a fish tank, shine a laser at the top surface of the water from underneath at a wide angle, and it will reflect off rather than go through. Total internal reflection only happens when the light is travelling in a medium of higher refractive index compared to the medium it borders (refractive index of water is greater than that of air). In your case, on a hot day the road heats up and creates a layer of hot air over it, which has a lower density than the cooler air above (the ground has to be substantially hot to combat the hot air eventually rising away). The light from far away, then, is in higher density air - and hence air with a higher index of refraction, and so it undergoes total internal reflection with the lower density hot air and bounces off, just like a mirror.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 : how do we know what's under the crust? How to we know what the layers of earth are? I've learnt in primary school that underneath the crust is the mantle, then the outer and inner core, but how can we prove this if we have never dug below the crust?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant By looking at the stuff that bubbles up through features like volcanoes. We can also use data from seismic measurements around the world. As the energy produced by earthquakes moves it will deflect as it goes through areas of different density. By collecting data from all over the world we can get a pretty good idea of the depths of different layers. We can also measure meteorites in our solar system older than the earth's crust to get an idea of the likely composition of the earth.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are weather forecasts sometimes so different from each other? Don't they all use the same data and science? I'm talking about information displayed on different weather websites. One will say that there's a very high chance of rain in a place at a certain hour, for multiple hours, and another will say that there will be just some light rain in the first hour, then it will be dry/sunny.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are a couple of main models that almost all forecasting sites get their information from. The US model is GFS and the European model is ECMWF. Some websites will just pass on Unmodified forecasts direct from one or other of these models. Some websites will combine the data in some way and present a likely average. Some websites apply local knowledge of particular regions and geography to make more precise localised predictions based on one or both of the models.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user I teach high school Econ, but it’s very basic and relies heavily on content from before the Great Depression. What are some current theories an Econ 101 should include? I focus on the basics; being a business, taxes, government spending - but I know that economics has changed beyond basic supply and demand/ rational actor. I just don’t have a sense of priority with more modern content.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I would just suggest a textbook? (Mankiw, Krugman-Wells, Goolsbee-Levitt-Syverson, etc.) Supply and demand is still very relevant, but most textbooks do have modern content (even if "modern" means "from ~10 years ago," that's still modern relative to "before the Great Depression")<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does price gouging work? Couldn't one producer keep its prices low to attract all the consumers, and either profit by itself or force the other producers to lower their prices back to normal market value?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Usually the advantage is that a good is in such a short supply compared to demand that at least some sellers can ask for nearly any price and people will still pay that price, since there is no competition with a lower price AND still has goods to sell<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do squatters in the UK have rights to where they are squatting? Why can't they be kicked out as soon as they are discovered?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Although the specific laws and development differ in different places, the ultimate reason is always that the people who have to enforce an eviction don't know in advance who is actually right. Even if it may seem obvious in a news report, if someone is living at a place and some third party comes in and says "that's not there house!" presumptively believing that second person can create a lot of problems. Generally, society thinks it's better to let the tenant/squatter stay in place while the court system sorts out the truth, rather than acting hastily. It also incentivizes landowners to monitor their property (and prevent squatters) rather than pushing all the costs to the police. Of course, this can lead to weird outcomes, but the same thing could happen the other way.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What are philosophers experts at? When I want to fix my plumbing I can turn to a plumber as an expert at fixing plumbing issues. When I want to have knowledge about climate change, I could turn to resources from climate scientists and learn about the relevant facts on climate. For what should people turn to philosophers for? What kind of knowledge can they provide and what kind of skills are they the best at?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Philosophers are often expert witnesses at courts, sit in all kinds of ethics commitees, are bioethicists at hospitals. Logic is a subfield of philosophy and logic is used in many fields. Philosophers of science sometimes work with scientists on solving problems of data classification, solving some problems of method etc. The uses of philosophy in science are many. Most of the previous century quantum physicists were also writing work in philosophy, in an attempt to interpret the empirical evidence they were gathering. On the other hand, Einstein credited Mach's philosophy on time for helping him develop general relativity. There are many other subfields of philosophy, most of them have some practical use, even though practical use is not always the aim of philosophy.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Moon Base...feasibility and whether or not its worth it So we have the ISS which is a pretty impressive feat and allows us to conduct experiments in space and keep a presence there. Why not a Moonbase? I've read some of the obvious reasons such as cost and not believing there are many useful resources there. Although this article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/9141416/Russia-to-finally-send-man-to-the-Moon.html Says: "Scientists believe that precious metals and Helium-3, a rare isotope that has potential for power generation, could be extracted from the Moon’s surface." So clearly they can find some useful resources there. More than that though, why have the goal of sending a manned mission to Mars before establishing a presence on our own Moon. I understand it isn't as 'exciting' since we have been there and its not technically another planet, but wouldn't it make more sense to take steps such as these? If we established something on the Moon that could semi-sustain itself, complete with a landing/launch pad wouldn't that make reaching Mars much easier? Launching from the Moon rather than the Earth? Just seems like since we have been to the Moon it is overlooked now, but wouldn't it be a very useful stepping stone to more difficult tasks? I have more thoughts on the topic, but want to hear other people's thoughts who are more qualified or who have more knowledge. Thanks Edit: Just wanted to thank everyone for the replies...I understand and agree with the top points made. I guess we are just still not quite "there" yet. As in anything involving space is just so expensive and throwing humans into the mix further complicates. (I recently finally read Ender's Game so that also explains the desire for us to be better at space-type badassery)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The scientific value of human space exploration is very small, because of the huge overheads in cost which are required to get humans safely into space and keep them healthy up there. Instead of sending 70 kg of human, you could just as well send 70 kg worth of robotic equipment which can do far more science, and doesn't need food or water. Sadly, this is evidenced by the close-to-zero scientific return of the Apollo program and the underwhelming scientific achievements made at the ISS. A human Mars program would be equally worthless from a scientific point of view, the money is much better spent doing really cool stuff like sending submersible probes to the Saturn moons for example. As to the economic viability of mining moon: there just isn't a business case to be made at the moment. No business would ever be able to convince investors that it's worth gambling on a moon mining station which may or may not start producing something in 50 years from now. There's just too many unknowns, like for example how are you going to get stuff reliably back down to Earth at a price which doesn't outweigh the profits? While it might be feasible to build and maintain a small moonbase with our current know-how, it will still be a very risky undertaking, which could be wiped out any moment by known and as-of-yet unknown dangers.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:The structure of middle eastern music<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant could you be more specific on what you want to know? I might be able to give an answer, but it really depends on specific countries and if you're talking about how the music is composed, put in order, performed.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user eli5 Is it correct to think of events happening on the far side of the universe or in a different galaxy as occurring "at the same time"?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If you involve relativity events "happening at the same time" depends on the observer. So you can say some things are happening simultanously, but you have to say from wich perspective. There is no universal neutral observer that could give you a "most correct" order of events.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:How is it that old Japanese houses seem to be made mostly of paper, but don't seem to experience any problems during rain seasons? Just generally curious as to how this works. For example if one of these were built in, say England would it survive the rainy weather? Edit:wow I got a lot more responses than I expected! thanks everyone.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Traditional japanese buildings are built primarily of wood and wood products, the use of stone being reserved for special buildings such as pagodas. The large roofs, usually made of tile or thatch, we're built to over lap the furthest extremities of the base, providing excellent protection from the elements.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Embezzlement<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Embezzlement covers a rather diverse group of crimes, but let me give you a straightforward, concrete example. Suppose Bob works at a roofing company, and part of his job is to buy roofing tiles. Bob talks to his friend Charles, who sells roofing tiles, and agrees to let Charles overcharge Bob's company for those tiles. Instead of paying $30,000 dollars for the tiles Bob needs, the company pays $50,000. The extra $20,000 is embezzled from the company.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Would a perfect being ever create anything? Obviously this is about the idea of a perfect God that created the universe (or the world, or humanity, or anything really). Doesn't creating (or doing) anything imply there's some kind of need that isn't being fulfilled or at least is not being maximally fulfilled, which would imply the being in question is not entirely self-sufficient? And therefore not perfect? I'm not sure I can really wrap my head around the concept of creation for creation's sake. There surely has to be some impetus for an action. Empirically, I'm not sure anything can ever truly be done 'for it's own sake'. If this can be justified philosophically please help me understand. I suppose it could be said that the being is creating for the sake of the creation. But if it's morally better to create something than to not create it, than wouldn't that imply that the being's morality has been greatened and our being had to have been less moral prior to the creation and therefore not perfect?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Depends on what we think 'perfection' is supposed to be. It's not necessarily something that is incompatible with 'creation' - which we would also have to have a more thorough conception of. At any rate, 'self-sufficiency' need not be the determining theme. Besides, you'd have to fit 'agency' into this. If _doing_ is an issue, it's going to have pretty serious ramifications for the notion of 'a being'. Also, doing something moral doesn't make you _more_ moral. That's not a common conception, at least. It just means you did what was moral. Becoming "more moral" would be more akin to aligning your convictions better with whatever moral system you'd be adhering to.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Harry Potter] Are the owls that deliver the mail magic owls with heightened intelligence and such, or are they just regular owls that were trained by wizards?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are presumably magical variants of otherwise ordinary creatures found in the wizarding world. For example, in Prisoner of Azkaban, when Ron was shopping for some tonic for his pet rat at Magical Menagerie, Harry and co. ran across a rabbit who was able to transform itself into a top hat at will. And the shopkeeper also pointed out a set of black mice who were not only more intelligent than the average mouse (and able to skip rope with their tails) but also had a longer-than-normal lifespan compared to an ordinary garden mouse. Granted, it is possible that these were normal, garden variety animals that were captured by wizards and enchanted to gain higher intelligence, longer lifespans, and magical abilities, but since the shopkeeper offered to replace Scabbers rather than offering to improve Scabbers with these spells, it's unlikely (unless the shopkeeper is a middleman that buys and sells the enchanted animals but is unable to enchant them himself).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [DCEU] From an evolutionary perspective, wouldn't Aquaman be pale? Asking purely from a scientific/evolutionary perspective: If the Atlantians evolved underwater for tens of thousands of years, wouldn't the lack of constant direct sunlight leave them without any melanin in their skin and hair?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There may be countervailing selection at work here - traits that are beneficial in certain circumstances, but are deleterious in others. For example, pale skin may attract more predators in the depths and so the genes for them get weeded out even though it's metabolically more expensive to produce pigmentation.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [The Road] What exactly destroyed the world?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant While it is never directly stated in either the book or film, there are hints that can be gleaned from the details of the world. Noting the ever-present ash and the progressive cooling of the earth and darkening of the sky, we can assume that the world ending event ejected enough particles into the atmosphere to create a "nuclear" style winter. Since there doesn't seem to be huge signs pointing towards a nuclear war (no descriptions of destroyed cities or danger from fallout) we can probably assume that the collapse of civilization was due to the eruption of a super volcano or an asteroid impact.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Do freeze-dried fruits have the same nutritional value as fresh fruits? Are freeze-dried fruits less nutritious than fresh fruit? Is there any kind of damage that the freeze-drying process does? I'm not talking dried, sugared fruits, I mean just pure fruit freeze-dried.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant This question depends heavily on how one defines nutritional value. If you mean specifically the inorganic mineral content, then the answer is flatly yes, freeze-dried fruits have the same inorganic mineral content as fresh fruits. On the other hand if you are more interested in the content of various organic compounds in the fruits, such as organic vitamins, antioxidants, or sugars, the answer becomes slightly more complex. The freeze-drying process simply removes water from the tissue, so it should have no direct impact on the either the inorganic or organic components at the moment of removal. The process sort of locks in what is there by removing the water, which may have otherwise fostered an environment in which degradation of the organic compounds would have been more favored. However, it is also important to note that many nutritionally-relevant compounds continue to be synthesized in fruit throughout the ripening process, and freeze-drying would also put a halt to that. I think most people probably do not know how freeze-drying actually works, so here is a quick overview: Fruit samples are frozen to some temperature well below the freezing point of water, and are then placed under a high vacuum. We are all familiar with the melting and boiling points of water, but what we often fail to appreciate is that these points are also dependent on pressure; 0°C and 100°C are the respective melting and boiling points for water only at 1 atm. If we increase or decrease the pressure, those points change. For example, this is why boiled foods often include "high altitude instructions", which will say something along the lines of "boil 4 minutes longer." Why? At higher altitudes there is lower atmospheric pressure, meaning the water boils at a lower temperature, which means you need to cook your food longer to compensate. Back to freeze-drying: in a high enough vacuum (i.e. low enough pressure) solid frozen water will actually be unable to melt into the liquid phase, but will instead sublimate directly to the gas phase. You have probably observed this phenomena in carbon dioxide, which exhibits this behavior at normal atmospheric pressures. So-called dry ice goes directly from a solid to gas, and in the freeze-drying process the water is behaving as a dry ice. In freeze-drying, the water is removed in a low energy system through the process of sublimation. Because no additional energy is added, no additional reactions altering the nutritional contents of the fruit (or other food). Compare that to heated drying (or even cooking!), where energy is added and water leaves through boiling, a system favoring additional chemical reactions. These reactions may well destroy some of the desired nutritional components, though on the other hand they create other compounds with desired properties, such as flavor.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How can one prove simply that the Earth rotates around the Sun? (I know that it does, but I have to explain it to someone who is being very stubborn/ignorant) I know that it has to be true because the Sun is so much more massive, so the Earth would have to rotate around it and not vice versa, but the guy is even rejecting that the Sun is larger than the Earth. What would be a simple explanation/proof the Sun is larger than the Earth?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You can construct geocentric models that take into account any simple observation you might make; people did so for a long time. The way to go would be to show that heliocentric models provide simpler explanations. The usually-cited problematic observation is the apparent retrograde motion of the planets. If you watch how the planets move relative to the stars, sometimes they reverse their direction for a while. In a heliocentric model, this occurs because the earth is moving past that planet, while in a geocentric model, you generally need to assume that the planets are moving along a more complicated path.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How are octopi, salamanders, etc. able to regrow limbs, and why can't all animals do it?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The exact mechanism that allow animals to regrow parts of their bodies are something scientist study to figure out how to help humans. It seems very complicated and not immediately transferable, but it might give us clues as to how to help people. The reason why humans and other similar animals can't regrow limbs when animals like Lizards can usually comes down to evolution and costs and benefits. Keeping or evolving such a trait if it was easily done, would be more of a cost on the average individual than a benefit (especially if the individual is highly likely to die anyway after an injury like that). Unrelated fun fact: The plural of octopus is not octopi. Most of the words that end in -us and have an -i plural are from Latin. Octopus is Greek and Greek grammar is different. The correct Greek-derived plural is octopodes. The normal English-based plural of octopuses is the least wrong plural though.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How did Leibniz come to the conclusion that reality consists of single indivisible windowless monads? I'd like to know how you can even reasonably conclude that with just reason.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Leibniz's issue, along with many others at the time, was the problem of having matter at the foundation of all substance. If we take a chair, we can divide it in half, and again, and again... Leibniz doesn't like this answer. He argues that there must be a single complete soul-like concept as a foundation of substance. This foundation can't be material because then it would just be divisible. So he posits these monads. Monads are necessarily immaterial. These monads are soul-like in that they are indivisible and thus suitable for the foundation of substance.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are doctors and nurses encouraged to work such long shifts(like 14hrs +) Wouldn't the quality of care be of utmost importance, and decrease as staff get tired?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant To some degree having them work longer shifts reduces the frequency of hand offs which is where a significant amount of medical errors are generated through specific details about a patient being left out and the incoming doctors ignorance of the detail possibly leading to a bad outcome. Its a trade off though as the shift gets too long the work fatigue itself can impair the providers/staff functioning. Also lot of people like the longer shifts because then they can work 3-4 days a week instead of the "standard" 5 days a week from "the prototypical work week".<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Do molecular shapes really matter? We all have learnt about how water molecule is "bent" , SF ₆ is octahedral , etc but does it affect the macroscopic substance we see? if it does , how does it affect it.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The bent shape of a water molecule makes it polar, and contributes to it being an excellent solvent. Life started in water, because of all the cool stuff dissolved in it. So yeah, shape is pretty important! Proteins are molecules with complicated shapes, and the shapes determine their properties. The double-helix of DNA allows large amounts of information to be encoded and replicated. The macroscopic version of DNA is you)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If the human liver can regrow itself, why don't other important internal organs regenerate? People's livers can be cut and transplanted into other people, and then they regrow into full-size livers eventually. As far as I know, the liver is the only organ that can do this. Why can't a kidney? Or spleen, etc?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Much of an organ's ability to regenerate has to do with the importance of fine structure for the function of that organ. The human body is unfortunately kind of crappy at rebuilding fine structure past development. The kidney is a perfect example - the entire system is an intricate "pipe structure" (know as nephrons) which conduct reverse osmosis and filtration. This structure, once destroyed, is very hard to rebuild. The liver is a different story. While it has a structure, liver cells, for the most part, all perform the same function and do it in relative isolation of one another. When part of the liver is destroyed, neighboring cells divide to fill the gap. It is important to note that even in the case of the liver, structure is lost; a single lobe will regenerate enough tissue to restore function but would not restore the multiple lobe structure of the original.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do patients who suffer severe trauma often complain of being thirsty?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Patients who have suffered a severe trauma resulting in a lot of blood loss begin to go into shock. Without enough blood to circulate the oxygen to all of their organs, muscles, etc, their body goes into a natural state of damage control. What blood supply you do have is sent to the brain/heart in an attempt to keep these 2 most vital organs running. However, with oxygen practically cut off to the rest of your body, things begin to shut down; and one of the first systems to be ignored for the "greater good" is your digestive system. Naturally, you will experience a water craving because (even though everything is going haywire) your body wants to get back to normal and replace your blood volume. However, drinking water will cause the patient to vomit (because the digestive system is offline) which will cause further imbalances in the body and the possibility of breathing in/choking on the vomit resulting in respiratory distress.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is it that I can buy a perfectly edible block of cheese that has "aged for 3 years," but then cheese in my fridge goes moldy in a month? I'm fucking sick of this shit. AND I WANT SOME FUCKING ANSWERS!!!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Usually, it has been aged in a highly controlled environment, with precise temperature, humidity, and direct inoculation of a specific strain of tasty cheese-making micro-organism(s). Your fridge has varying humidity, temperature, and is full of thousands(++) of different micro-organisms all trying to get a taste of something to keep them going.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star Trek] how educated or intelligent is the average Federation citizen?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Very well educated compared to 20th century humans. Every citizen has access to very high quality education and job training as well as access to medical technology that can level the playing field in terms of alleviating disabilities that otherwise would have had that citizen restricted from pursuing an education or work. Imagine a world where all colleges are top tier, its completely free and you can research anything you want to pursue. Its created a society of artisans and intellectuals.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do we know DeepMind is right? I read that DeepMind AI solved the baffling problem of protein folding which is supposed to open new worlds in science. But if the issue is so baffling, how do we really know DeepMind is correct?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There's a class of problems, ones called NP-complete, that we know how to verify in a reasonable amount of time, but cannot solve in reasonable amount of time. Protein folding is one, so we can verify the solution and whether it's sound fairly quickly, even when finding the solution can baffle us for a long time. Think of a jigsaw puzzle. It's a lot easier to verify if somebody completed it (is it a perfect rectangle?) than it is to actually complete it. NP-complete problems are that, at a computational scale.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do people find the dark so fearful? Of course there can be many reasons, but is there any ultimate characteristic that is most common or something?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Evolution. Darkness presents increased risk. We as a species depend strongly upon vision, which is in particular very hindered by darkness. The same is not true of every other species, some of which are formidable predators, nor is it an inconvenience to risks like falls and other sources of injury. So us being strongly active (ranging and the like) at night, for much of our evolutionary history, would face a greater danger to our survival than if we were to sit down and shaddup. Fear is a natural 'discourager.'<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Should residential rental investment be disincentivised? Across the world, investing in residential housing as an investment is extremely popular. So much of people's wealth is tied up in housing. Are there any disadvantages of this? Should residential renting be disincentivised?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Should is not a thing economics can tell you about, but here we can also talk the trade-offs present in a policy proposal so that you can decide what trade-offs you think we should make. When an "investor" buys a house the purchase price of housing is expected to marginally increase but when they go to rent it out the rental price of housing is expected to marginally decrease. So, what actually changes when we allow investors to buy housing to rent out? The person who gets to live in the housing unit. Do you have some reason to prefer that the, on average, relatively well off get to utilize some random house instead of the, on average, relatively less well off?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How to ask critical questions nicely at a conference When I ask a question after a conference presentation, sometimes it’s critical in nature, but I don’t want to sound too aggressive or hurt the presenter’s feelings. So I want to sound as nice as possible and add comments like “thank you for your presentation, it’s very interesting…” before getting into the question. But sometimes this feels too superficial, and I was wondering what would be a more natural way to sound nicer when asking a critical question at a conference.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Go into it with the assumption that they considered what you're about to ask and have a good reason for having done it their way instead. Instead of essentially phrasing "I think you should have done Y instead of X" as a question, ask "can you elaborate on your rationale for doing X instead of Y" or "what are your thoughts on also attempting this via Y" or "what do you think are the pros and cons of doing this via X vs Y." I've seen questions asked this way a lot and answers ranged from a jovial "great idea, let's collaborate" to a thorough explanation that probably left the questioner feeling quite stupid because they were wrong (lol), to an interesting discussion about data availability/integration issues (I got to a lot of talks that are studying very large public datasets) that is helpful for many in the audience and occasionally helpful to the author as well.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user what's the expected number of meeting hours with an assistant professor mentor I (early undergrad) was matched with an assistant professor in a mentorship program (we aren't at the same school). She runs a lab group of 15-20 people. This looks like a large group to me lol, so I suppose that she is quite busy. I hope to learn some technical/hard skills/knowledge during this mentorship program. I am wondering what would be a suitable meeting schedule with a mentor like her? How often will we meet? How long should our meeting times last? I don't want to come off rude by proposing a meeting schedule that's too much commitment for her, but I also don't want to propose an under-average meeting schedule as this doesn't allow me to fully take advantage of the program. Thus, I am wondering what would be considered as a suitable meeting schedule for such situations? Any explanations would be appreciated!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Mentorship programs aren’t usually the place to learn technical/hard skills. Those would be things you get from courses or working in a research lab. Maybe your mentorship program is set up differently, but I’d strongly recommend making sure you’re on the same page as to what this program is for.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do teeth not repair themselves after cavities?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Cavities form when bacteria (or plaques, which are biofilms or special colonies of bacteria) secrete acids and other waste products that demineralize your teeth, leaving a hole essentially. For as long as the plaque is still there, the bacteria will continue to secrete acids and if your body can't remineralize as fast as the bacteria demineralize, the cavity will grow. Essentially the answer to your question is because there's usually still active tooth decay going on.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: If you have cancer in a certain organ (like liver cancer) why can't you just remove the infected organ and be cancerfree again?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant (cancer biologist / oncologist here) * Cancer likes to infiltrate other areas and where this has happened is not always clear. * Removing the organ might pose too much risk (e.g. you need your lungs) - this is why chemo and radiation often occur prior to any surgical removal But yeah generally surgical removal is very effective it just depends on what kind of cancer it is, how far advanced it is, how clear the surgical margins would be, etc. For example, breast cancer is treated rather aggressively with surgical removal of the effective tissue (so much that in some cases like dcis its considered to have an overtreatment problem)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user (ELI5) How do hot teas help with sore throats?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Other commenters have commented on the chemical compounds within tea leaves, but there are also the important elements of heat and hydration. So even drinking warm water without tea leaves (sometimes with honey and/or lemon, or even just plain), can provide immediate relief for sore throats because: - heat reduces muscle tension, so warming up the throat helps throat muscles relax which can reduce soreness. Think about how having a hot bath or shower helps bodily muscles relax. The reason heat relaxes is because it encourages blood vessels in the area to dilate (widen) so that circulation improves. - hydration is an important general treatment for illnesses that often cause sore throats, such as viral or bacterial infections. These illnesses often cause dehydration because the immune system's response is to try to expel the pathogen from the body through processes like coughing, sneezing or even vomiting or diarrhea. All of these processes cause the body to lose fluid. So rehydrating is an important priority.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is happening when a chiropractor cracks a patient’s neck/back?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant First and foremost, there's no scientific study that is peer-reviewed that provides any support to chiropractic adjustments except in very specific and rare conditions. Even then, the research is so limited as to not be trusted in those scenarios and says something to the extent "adjustment may provide help in this situation". The popping sound when you crack your back, knuckles, joints in general is nitrogen bubbles bursting in your synovial fluid which is the fluid that lubricates your joints like engine oil to your car. There may be a short relief of pressure in the joint until the bubbles reform which takes about 20 minutes on average. The science supports that any relief you get from adjustments is basically psychological.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is it common for someone to be published in a big research group paper and that person not be able to fully understand/describe all of the details in that paper? There's a popular question right now about impact factor for publications, and I thought of this question because of it. I'm not up on my science, but I know a few people who are in large groups (10 or more people sometimes in a publication) and they can't even describe what all of their paper is about. There are some sections that go over their head because other members of the team performed those experiments. For example, an experimental side and a theoretical side. The experimentalist might not understand the work of the theorists. Is this common? Does this usually only occur in very large research groups, or in specific fields like Physics but not so much in Biology?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I have been told that it is customary that if you contribute SOMETHING to the publication that you get your name placed on the paper. That something can be funding, data analysis, running a sample, any number of things. One way to add emphasis on who actually did the majority of the work is to make them the first author. But in short no you don't have to be able to fully understand/ be able to describe all of the paper to get your name on it =/<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why is/was Hegel considered so important and had such a great sphere of influence considering it seems almost nobody understands him? Probably a terrible question I know<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Lots of people understand Hegel. Hegel definitely has a reputation as a difficult philosopher, but he shares that reputation with many other influential philosophers, like Kant. Hegel's difficulty does not prevent people from understanding him. It just makes it tough.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are moldy food bad for us? Molds on foods like yogurt/cheese is fine, but on bread and suddenly we’re sick.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Different kinds of mold are bad for us. Like bacteria, there’s many species; some are harmful, some are harmless or even nutritious. The ones used to make moldy cheeses are carefully selected cultures that don’t harm us. The ones on your old bread or fruit that get you sick generally will digest into chemicals that make you sick. So unless you’re able to determine the species, or it’s meant to be there, don’t eat the mold.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does the heart beat slower, on average, for athletic people compared to less athletic people?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant As you improve your athletic fitness, your cardiovascular system becomes more efficient. Put another way, your body becomes better at taking the oxygen you breath in, and using it to make energy for your muscles to perform their job. The human heart naturally adjusts based on the need to get oxygen and other supplies to tissues in the body. When you're exercising and your muscles are doing a lot of work your heartrate goes up; when you're resting, your body is doing less work so your heart rate goes down. But because athletes condition their body to efficiently provide and distribute oxygen and other nutrients through the bloodstream, they don't need as many beat cycles to provide their resting body with the supplies they need. Think of it like a bunch of firemen in line passing along buckets of water to put out a fire. If the buckets were smaller, you'd need more buckets to get the water necessary to put out the fire. If the buckets are bigger, you need fewer buckets to get the same amount of water. When you get in shape, it's like you have big buckets that don't spill. When you're out of shape, it's like you have smaller buckets that may spill and not get all of their water to the fire.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do we know that conservation of energy is a law? How have we proved that energy cannot be created or destroyed?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A scientific law is simply a statement that holds up under repeated experimentation. The law of conservation of energy has held up with every experiment ever thrown at it across all parts of the universe we can observe. It is verifiable with math, measurements, and tests. Is it possible that it's wrong (or incomplete)? Sure, but just try to prove it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do doctors ask the exact same questions that I just told the nurse before he came in? ELI5: Why do doctors ask the exact same questions that I just told the nurse before he came in? Pretty annoying. Why do they do this?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A couple of reasons: * Easy to get charts mixed up. By asking you directly, they know for sure what your symptoms are. * It prevents the loss of communication. What the nurse interprets and what the doctor interprets may be two different things. Getting a first-hand explanation is better than a second-hand one. * The reason the nurse initially asks you questions is to help assess the severity of your symptoms.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: The public should be able to allocate where their taxes go Before I start explaining my view I should say that I am from the UK and since I do not have experience with other countries systems I'll mainly be phrasing this in terms of the UK's system. The only source I could for the tax as % of gpd gives a figure for 2017-2018 so I'll be using this but the basic idea stands without it. [Source](https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9178) Every year when people pay tax they have very little if any say as to where the money goes and what it is spent on. I believe that a system whereby, say through the UK government's website, people could allocate and choose where their money went to within reason. The site should have the option for funding local, regional and national scale projects as well as giving additional funding to various public services. For example if you lived in Essex (one of the country's of England) you could put some additional money towards road maintenance, education, local projects and so on. In this system on individuals would be able to allocate where the money they have paid in taxes goes and what it is spent on, businesses wouldn't be allowed this same process as a business is (normally) made up of a fair few people and so unless the business did an internal poll to decide it then it's not fair on those that didn't make the choice. Businesses wouldn't have a choice, the tax they pay would just go to the government to do with as they want. The reason I believe that this system would be beneficial is because it allows the public to fund and allocate their money according to their interests cuts through alot of the issues that people tend to have with governments and local councils spending money on things that aren't necessarily. The government would still have its own money if you like, namely if X% of GDP is from taxes then the government would have (1-X)% to spend as it likes. One issue with this idea is that the average person might not know choose or what's important enough to warrant their money. I have a few solutions one of which I focus on for the rest of the post. Solution 1. Before the government switches to this system it should spend time educating the population about what is and isn't important. Solution 2. A minimal budget is created for important services and projects ie in terms of the police for it would be the bare minimum needed to maintain the police force and allow them to do their jobs. In practice it might be difficult to determine such a number but let's assume it's possible and that the government only puts the relevant services in the minimal budget. I am going to focus on solution 2. for the rest of this post but there are likely others that would work as well. The amount needed for the minimal budget should be payed for both by the governments income and the taxes of the individual. For example say the minimal budget comes out to be Z billion pounds, find the proportion of Z of the total of the governments income and the total taxes paid by individuals and then deduct that percent from everyone's taxes and the governments income ie if the proportion came out to be 50% then half of the governments budget is sent towards the minimal budget and half of each individual's taxes and spent towards it. Everyone is then free to allocate the remaining money as they wish. Another issue is the fact that people who do not earn enough to pay tax would be largely left out and unable to access this system but that is not very different from how it is now. On the flip side those that earn a lot of money and so (hopefully) pay a lot of tax would have a larger impact and influence when it comes to allocating their money and this is completely true but again is not very different from how it is now and might even hopefully encourage them to pay more tax. I admit that I'm not a qualified economist or anything like that so the long term effects it would have on the economy if any I cannot say so please if you do criticize that please explain as best as you can as simply as you can. There are of course more things to consider such as what happens if a non essential project doesn't reach its desired funding? Should it go ahead with the amount it received or should it have to wait until it reaches its goal among other issues. TLDR: In this system people (not businesses) would be able to choose where their tax money went to and could act as another kind of voting if you like to represent public interest.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Average members of the public have little to no understanding of civil engineering, macroeconomics, national defense, and a host of other topics that are relevant to various functions of government. We don't understand how much things cost and how much they pay out, and even how to quantify the latter in many cases. In democracies, we (in theory) elect people specifically so that they can make it their job to understand these issues as well as they can, and to consult experts in doing so. It's a full-time job. If we went with your proposal, then flashy programs would make out very well but the more mundane, and often more essential, would go critically underfunded. Goodbye, waste management. See ya, coastal drainage studies. So long, regular clearance of fire-hazard dry brush. Moreover, many government programs rely not just on quantity of funding but predictability too. They build multi-year budgets that require a consistent stream of funds, but your plan would make that funding follow the fleeting whims of the public. That would be utterly devastating for the efficacy of these multi-year plans. The root problem of this plan is its disorganization. It would be one thing to suggest that lawmakers build a budget and then put that budget to a public vote (direct democracy). There are difficulties in that still, but you're at least working with a single plan assembled as a cohesive entity from the start. Even if the public had a good idea of what a government budget should look like, they wouldn't know what to do with their small part of it without knowing what everyone else was also doing with their own parts. No, the way to make your voice heard is to organize your community and call your representative, whether local, national, or other. It's their job to negotiate how funds are apportioned, and if you make it a reelection issue they'll try to get the package you want, especially if it's for a concrete local plan.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Marvel/DC] If it was possible to create a Lantern Corps based around each of the different Infinity Gems what would they be like and who would use them?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Power Gem - enhances strength, durability and has energy powers-- given to those who come from weak backgrounds, deep with insecurities, those who want power for control or to never have fear. Given to? Legionnaires: Bruce Banner, Cain Marko, Jessica Jones. Time Gem - Time Travel, slow or accelerate time, clairvoyance; draw to people too obsessed to live in the present moment, those prone to distraction by the past or future. Legionnaires: Drax the Destroyer, Cable, Steve Rogers. Space Gem - Teleportation. Drawn to outsiders, those who feel they fit no place; wanderers. Legionnaires: Kurt "Nightcrawler" Wagner, Logan Hewlett, Amadeous Cho. Soul Gem - Omniscience for souls, ability to steal souls; given to the spiritual and spiritually tormented. Legionnaires: Johnny Blaze, Doctor Strange, Frank Castle, Matt Murdock, Adam Warlock. Reality Gem - Reality alteration. Given to the mad and the utterly sane- those who live in their own realities and those with deep understanding of reality itself, as a counter balance. Legionnaires: Scarlet Witch, Reed Richards. Science and humanities, madness and super sanity, objective remove and subjective passion- there can only be two wielders, as any less would leave one in control of reality and any more would destroy it in the resultant confusion. Mind Gem - Telekinesis, telepathy, with limitless power. Drawn to empaths. Legionnaires: Charles Xavier, Jean Grey.<\|im_end\|>

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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