Split (1)

train · 52.8k rows

text stringlengths 82 65.5k
<\|im_start\|>user A gallon of jet fuel burned creates 21 pounds of CO2. How can that be when jet fuel only weighs 6.8 lbs per gallon? There should be an r/nostupidsciencequestions subreddit out there... I never took a chemistry class, so maybe I'm missing something basic. Using the numbers from here: [https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2\_vol\_mass.php](https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php), I see that burning a gallon of jet fuel creates 21.1 pounds of Co2. But a gallon of jet fuel only weighs about 6.8 lbs/gal. I would think that the act of burning fuel and using the heat and pressure of the combustion would result in less total byproduct, not more than triple it. What am I missing?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A carbondioxide molecule consists of 1 carbon atom and 2 oxygen atoms. The carbon is provided by the fuel, while the oxygen atoms come from the surrounding air. Carbon has an atomic weight of 12, while oxygen has an atomic weight of 16. With the 2:1 ratio of oxygen to carbon in CO2, that means that ~73% of the mass of a CO2 molecule comes from oxygen. In contrast, the mass of jet fuel comes primarily from carbon. The composition of jet fuel is not just a single molecule, so exact estimates of the fraction of mass attributable to carbon is difficult, but a large part of the mass comes from molecules that have a carbon-to-hydrogen ratio of something close to 2:1. With the atomic weight of hydrogen being 1, that gives us a very coarse estimate of about 92% of the mass in jet fuel coming from carbon. So, to conclude: While jet fuel has almost all of its mass coming from carbon, the combustion product, CO2, has its mass dominated by oxygen. And this oxygen is supplied externally (typically from the surrounding air), which means that the mass of the combustion products of jet fuel can easily exceed the mass of the jet fuel itself.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Mass unemployment created by robots replacing humans in the not-to-distant future may be positive for the general public People are often voicing their concerns about robots making human workers largely obsolete, a scenario seen as beneficial for individual businesses but devastating to the population which may largely become unemployed. (/r/DarkFuturology is filled with these concerns for example.) Generally the replacement of humans leads to increased efficiency as robots are more precise, don't need breaks etc. This means that theoretically the availability of resources and products should either remain or increase. In a socialised country with pre-existing welfare (or better yet, universal basic income), the population should still be able to maintain their current standards of living but with a decreased workload. I can't imagine a future where every job within a country is replaced by robots, as some can only be done by humans (such as the arts, teaching, scientific research). These remaining jobs could be distributed amongst people in a way that only requires most people to work a few days a week. With proper governmental control, people can keep living as they do now but with less time spent working and more time relaxing, spent with family, engaging in hobbies etc. This may ultimately create a happier and healthier society within countries that can properly guide this shift. tl;dr robots replacing most jobs is not dystopian but rather could create a happier society where people have to work less<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I agree with the outcome of a Utopian society where people work at what they wish, have machines to cater to their every need, and be a generally happier and healthier society. However, the issue is getting there. I believe there are two scenarios: one as you explained is a peaceful transition to this, the other is less peaceful. Right now rich/powerful people rely on poor people both to produce things for them, and also keep them safe. What if we invent autonomous security which can defend your entire estate with lethal force, without the need for humans? You would care less about placating the poor people, because you are safe. If we achieve full-autonomous production and security, there is a real risk that the rich/powerful may choose to not share their wealth and instead exterminate the poor who are ultimately leaching off of them in the form of tax/UBI.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: The sexual aspect of bachelor parties should be considered unfaithful behavior in a traditional, monogamous relationship. I am perfectly okay with the idea of a potential future fiancé going out with close friends to have one last wild weekend and am all for that. What I don’t understand is how other women are so accepting and open about the sexual nature of what happens at bachelor parties in the views of a traditionally monogamous relationship. Even if the bachelor doesn’t specifically have sex with another woman while away (which I would absolutely consider cheating), it seems like the traditional lap dance should be considered unfaithful behavior as well (within the confines of a monogamy). I believe most people would say it isn’t unfaithful because A) the dancer is simply doing her job B) the man usually isn’t allowed to touch the dancer himself. This seems like an awfully thin line to draw between having fun and being unfaithful. The man is certainly still being physically pleasured here. If a guy in a relationship were to go out and have another girl grind on him, it would generally be considered cheating even though there is no emotional involvement. Why is a lap dance any different? I admire women who can be so okay about. Personally however, I would feel hurt thinking about the man I am about to marry receiving such sexual pleasure from another woman especially since sex is so important and special to me in a relationship. I also want to acknowledge bachelorette parties in this argument. To me, the sexual aspect of bachelorette parties (male strippers) seems more trivial. I imagine it’s more like entertainment and about the performance. I don’t feel that there is nearly as much sexual pleasure derived from watching male strippers or even the bachelorette getting a dance. Lastly, it seems like people also rationalize the behavior because it’s “the last time to have some fun before you’re stuck with one woman forever”. To me, this just seems like a terrible and sad mentality to have right before entering married life. Perhaps I’m wrong and this isn’t really the mentality behind all bachelor parties especially when the engaged man is (hopefully) very happy to be getting married. Although I have never been engaged (I’m in my early 20s), I’ve been in several happy and committed relationships and don’t generally consider myself to be insecure or “the jealous type”. I’ve never felt irrationally possessive about my significant other. This is just me thinking ahead and imagining my self in the fiancée position wondering what it would be like. I’d like to hear your experiences.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant At the end of the day, faithfulness is keeping the trust and agreement of your partner. Unfaithfulness is breaking that trust. If a person's partner doesn't consider a lapdance cheating, then within their relationship, it isn't. Some couple's consider looking at pornography to be cheating. Some are open to their spouse having sex with other people. Everyone draws their own lines.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: "Feminism" shouldn't be used when talking gender rights, "Equalism" should be used. So, hear me out on this one, I am a little biased being a guy but I think its wrong to use Feminism when talking gender rights, it feels less inclusive to men and other people who don't identify as man or woman, I don't have any problem with gender rights, in fact I love what its being done in many places and couldn't be happier, but, the word feels more like an empowerment to just women when it should represents everybody, it is suposed to promote same opportunities regardless of gender and empower equal treatment. With gender roles in current society and double standards, disavowing the word in favor of Equalism in today's society is seen as ignorant and sexsist by some people. I just feel like its a bit hipocrtical to say its everybody when the name only features part of the people. I hope I don't come across badly its just what I believe in.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Feminism comes from the stance that women are typically the most disadvantaged gender in society, and while gender equality is the goal, the focus to reach that goal is mainly raising women up to the same level as men. It's not quite "Equalism" or Egalitarianism as it's usually referred to, as the overall fight of Feminism is against issues described to affect women- access to sexual health clinics, abortions, birth control, domestic violence, rape, hiring, wages, etc... The reason you get backlash to referring to egalitarianism rather than feminism, or MRA's etc... is because women are seen as the disadvantaged class of people in society, and discussions of issues which even if credibly do affect men are seen as distractions from the more pressing concerns affecting the more disadvantaged people. You can argue the merit of that, and whether arguments can go on concurrently, etc... but it does mean that distinctly Feminism and Egalitarianism approach the same issue of equality from potentially different perspectives.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star Wars] What does Emperor Palpatine do all day? You know besides crushing the rebels, exploring the dark side etc.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Most of the top-level daily business of the Empire is taken care of by the Imperial Ruling Council, who are His Majesty's most trusted advisors. Some members of the council, like Sate Pestage, were aware of his dual identity as Darth Sidious since long before the Jedi found out. It's still a big galaxy, though. Palpatine from time to time will tour his domain examining regional issues, which always has a magnificent effect on local military morale and productivity. He may also seek out the most sacred sites of historical Sith to taste their power, and bask in his victory at fallen Jedi temples. More than once he's gone off on a secret trip for no reason other than to mess with Vader. During his downtime, he has a harem of concubines, and often gets rather rough with the short Twi'lek girl he calls "my little green friend".<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Post-Doc] Would it be bad to leave a lab before fellowship is awarded? My PI wants me to submit a grant in a few weeks that, if awarded, would cover my salary for the next two years. However, I have been miserable and I'm searching for a job right now. Would it reflect poorly on me to submit this grant and then leave before its awarded?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I don’t have answers, but some questions that might help you think through this... * Would the grant follow you to a new location? * If it does, would it require you to keep working with your PI on this project? * Could you write the grant so it let you stay at the current place but didn’t require you to include your PI? * Have you looked up rules about withdrawing your grant application? * Edit: If the job would be changing careers (leaving academia), would it even matter if it looked bad to withdraw the grant application?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do sports stat sites calculate odds to win? I see these graphs on sports stat sites that calculate the odds that the Golden State Warriors will go 73-9. How are these odds calculated?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Though historic analysis of the teams, situation, and betting patterns. These are payouts, and the job of the odds setter is to set the payouts do there is the same amount of money on both sides. That way regardless of who wins, the book collects the vig or fee for placing the bet. As bets become lopsided on one side, the payouts will move to induce more betting on the other side. You'll often see this recorded as where the book opened and where it is now.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How come an individual's appearance seems to "change" depending on your feelings towards the said individual? Eg. When you fall in love with someone, they seem to look prettier/more handsome than how everyone else perceives the individual, and then they return back to "normal" once you're over him/her.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Attraction is more than just finding someone to be physically beautiful. As your desires in a mate mature the non-physical criteria start to carry more weight. As you get to know someone deeply you become aware of all of their various qualities in a way that outsiders do not. Ideally you are very attracted to many of those qualities.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do we make water safe to drink? (Including removing the chemicals used make the water "clean")<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Several ways: Desalination: turn water into steam. Salt and dirt doesn't become steam. Steam is clean. Turn steam back into water. Water is clean and not salty. Reverse osmosis: force water through a tiny screen. Dirt and germs are too big and stay behind. Distillation: pretty much the same as desalination except you start with not-salty water. Minor differences that a 5 year old won't grasp. Filtration: similar to reverse osmosis except use a can of charcoal and other stuff instead of a tiny screen. Minor differences that a 5 year old won't grasp. Chemical treatment: kill the bad stuff by adding bad-stuff poison. Boiling: kill the bad stuff by cooking it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Le Chatelier's principle - How do the reactants "know" that the concentration of products has changed? If you get rid of product as it is made, then the equilibrium will shift to further favor products, right? Why does having lower concentration of products make the reaction more likely to happen?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant No given molecule "knows" anything - you're right about this. The thing is that every molecule in a reaction has a probability of being in the first or second state. When you reach equilibrium, that's when the probability of forming the reactant or product (state 1 or state 2) balance. Molecules in state 1 have a probability of converting to state 2, while molecules in state 2 have a probability of converting back to state 1. When these rates balance out, the system is at dynamic equilibrium. This doesn't mean that interconversion isn't happening, but that it's happening at balanced rates and the net change is zero. Le Chatelier's principle addresses what happens when you remove molecules in state 2 from the solution. This can be by many means, a common one being by a phase change - molecules in state 2 are much more likely to evaporate or precipitate into gas or solid. If you remove a bunch of molecules in state 2, then you still have just as many molecules in state 1, which have the same probability of converting to state 2. But you now have less molecules in state 2 that can convert to state 1. As a result, you get a net conversion towards state 2. If you continue to remove state 2 molecules, more molecules will convert to state 2 until they are at the concentration where conversion back from state 2 balances the probability of conversion from 1 to 2. This works in reverse as well, if you add a bunch of state 2, and have more state 2 molecules than are normally generated by conversion from state 1, you will have a net production of state 1, pushing the equilibrium toward the production of more state 2 to balance the rates of conversion again.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does my dog pick up sticks in her mouth and carry them around? Doesn't it taste bad?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant When dogs were first domesticated a long, long time ago they were primarily used for hunting for quite some time. After a few millennia of evolution we bred a lot of hunting based instincts into them, one of those being retrieving prey for their master. Basically, when your dog brings a stick to you it's simulating bringing a hunted animal to you. If the dog wants you to throw it, it's mimicking it's natural impulse to chase after prey. If the dog wants to play tug of war with it, it simulates the prey fighting back or something trying to steal it away. (Fun fact, if your dog ever violently shakes it head back and forth it's trying to break the prey's neck) In summary, playing fetch or tug of war mimics the actions we selectively bred dogs to accomplish and gratifies them.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What algorithms do programmers use to produce "randomness" I know that it is impossible to make something truly random, but what algorithms do most people use to do so?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are different possibilities: There are so called "hash functions". You put a number in, you get a number out. The important thing: if you put two close values in, you get two vastly different outputs. If you use now the system time, you can get pseudo-random numbers. Another way is that your Operating System helps you. A computer can "gather" randomness by user input (what does the user type? how fast? how does he move the mouse?) and hard drives (how long does it take to read?). This is much better randomness, as it can't be predicted by software how you type. Then, when the randomness is gathered, the Operating System allows programs to extract random numbers.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Harry Potter] Why does the Wizardkind organize itself along modern muggle nation-states boundaries? (TLDR at bottom just in case). So, why exactly does Wizardkind do this? We see it in their governments, education systems, even sports. For starters, there aren’t there many of their kind, or at least who end up integrated in their society (Hogwarts has 1000 students at any given time in a country of 60 million), so they're condemning themselves to a lack of critical mass for many activities by dividing themselves that way. In any case, it appears strange given how dismissive even the most tolerant Wizards are of muggle affairs that the Ministry of Magic appears to have some allegiance to the muggle British government. I guess I could be convinced that with "English" or "British" being national identities which have existed for centuries, that muggle-born Wizards have sort of pulled their magical society in that direction. But other examples are not as easy to explain. I mean, we see a Wizard President of Germany in the latest Fantastic Beasts film. Why the hell would Wizardkind arrange their institutions around such a "recent" muggle country? Shouldn't there be centuries-old Prussian, Bavarian, etc. organizations unlikely to disband due to muggle wars? Would the Magical Congress of the United States sensibly identify with the United States, while simultaneously having an African-American female leader in the 1920s? Why not call themselves the "Magical Congress of North America"? Perhaps the most egregious example is seen in the Quidditch World Cup in the Harry Potter series. There we can see the flags of Uganda, Kenya, and other recent post-colonial states. I just can't imagine the pre-existing magical societies of those lands identifying with these states. Why isn't there a Baganda Quidditch team or a Bantu Quidditch team? There apparently was an old Flanders team, why would it care to merge with Belgium? There is apparently a modern Moldovan team, why would it ever separate from the Romanian team? TLDR: It's almost as if Wizardkind looks at United Nations and FIFA member states countries to periodically reorganize their institutions.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It’s just easier and make sense. Remember that wizards and witches used to live with non-magical folks side by side before they made their own world so, for example, England has been a thing for thousands of years. To make something different from that would just make things complicated. Kinda how when the US became independent and rather than rename English things, they were like, “well, it been working so far….” Also, it’s easier to govern as they do have to work with their non-magical political counterparts in matters of security.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Do any philosophers challenge the idea that an argument that's both valid and sound is necessarily true? One of the first things I learnt in philosophy was that validity means the conclusion must follow from the premises, and soundness means an argument is both valid and that its premises are true, but I want to know if there are any philosophers who accept that an agument can be valid and sound and yet, in some sense, not true. I suppose I'm thinking along the lines of Gettier problems and those who think that you can have a belief that is both justified and true, and yet still not have knowledge. Do any philosophers think something analgous to this exists for validity and soundness? It doesn't seem plausible to me, but then there's a lot of philosophy that also doesn't seem intuitive to me and yet still seems to be right. Thank you, lovely people.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I don't think so since, in a sense, validity and soundness are technical terms within the field of logic. They aren't broad concepts like "justice" or "goodness" that can be interpreted intuitively, they've been defined in a very specific way for a very specific purpose. Let's take the definition of soundness: An argument is sound if and only if it is a valid inference with premises that are true. This means that the conclusion of a sound argument is true by the very definition of soundness. There's no wiggle room in that definition; if we don't think it's right then we have simply changed the definition of soundness or the concepts that comprise it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Are there polynomial equations that are equal to basic trig functions? Are there polynomial functions that are equal to basic trig functions (i.e: y=cos(x), y=sin(x))? If so what are they and how are they calculated? Also are there any limits on them (i.e only works when a<x<b)?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It's possible to express these functions as Taylor series, which are sums of polynomial terms of increasing power, getting more and more accurate. (working in radians here) For the sine function, it's sin(x)~=x-x^3 /6 + x^5 /120 - x^7 /5040... Each term is an odd power, divided by the factorial of the power, alternating positive and negative. For cosine it's even powers instead of odd: cos(x)~=1-x^2 /2 +x^4 /24 ... With a few terms, these are pretty accurate over the normal range that they are calculated for (0 to 360 degrees or x=0 to 2pi). However, with a finite number of terms they are never completely accurate. The smaller x is, the more accurate the series approximation is. You can also fit a range of these functions to a polynomial of arbitrary order, which is what calculators use to calculate values efficiently (more efficient than Taylor series).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Writing while you read Currently I am writing my master thesis and am struggling to make progress, I have been told its best to write while you read but I have never really understood exactly how you do that. I guess it means plugging related info into the various chapters as you find them useful but to do that you really require some sort of outline for what it is you are doing in those various chapters. It is here where I continually find myself in a dilemma, because how does one construct an outline when the sense of what it should entail is still unclear?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant What has worked for me is to not think of the writing as having to go into your thesis. It's more about reflecting upon what you read and writing down the things about the text that you find important (ie a summary of relevant parts) your own (critical) reflection of it, and any connections you can make to other texts you've been reading as well as your own topic. It helps you navigate the literature that exists and get some (critical) thoughts in line that make it easier to understand where your own work is going. A lot of that writing might never end up going into your thesis! But a lot more than you initially think probably will, because writing helps you process what you're reading and develop your thoughts/ideas, which in turn helps you understand where your thesis is going to go.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Churches, chapels, cathedrals and basillicas- what's the difference between them all? Is it denominational? Architectural? Size based?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A church is a place of Christian worship. A cathedral is a type of important church where you'll find a bishop, who is in charge of many priests. A basilica is a Catholic church which has been granted that title by the Pope because it has some special historical or architectural significance. A chapel is a smaller place of prayer which is either part of a larger church, or which is attached to some non-religious institution: for example, a place of worship on a military base is a chapel, and the cleric in charge of it is called a chaplin.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Hard-shell tacos don't make any sense Here are the problems I have with crunchy tacos: * I have to turn my head sideways in order to take a bite without spilling the ingredients. * It inevitably falls apart, meaning I have to have a plate ready to catch the filling, and then I have to either use a fork or pick up the loose ingredients with my fingers. Am I missing something? Is there some trick to eating them? Do crunchy tacos have some appeal that overcomes these shortcomings? If given the ingredients to make a hard-shell taco, I can't think of any reason not to break up the shell and make a salad instead. _____ > 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 They make perfect sense, if you're a chain restaurant owner or grocery store owner in the 1940s or 1950s. Better shelf life, more convenient to fill quickly, and people do seem to like the crunch, which is why the authentic Mexican restaurants started deep-frying the corn tortillas in the first place. If decent preservatives haven't been invented yet, plastic-sealed food packaging hasn't been invented yet, there's no sizable Mexican community near you (and thus nobody making large quantities of tortillas locally), and you're trying to run a restaurant that serves tacos? Good luck getting enough fresh tortillas to keep your doors open. Why do they persist? Some people like the crunch. Plus, they're still cheaper.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. I've been reading a lot of physics books recently out of curiosity and interest in physics (I'm a compsci major). I was wondering if anyone could explain to me the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. I get what it's saying about how if one property is measured to high precision the others can't be. I'm confused as to why this is true. Edit: Thanks for all the explanations. They have made things clearer for me.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are multiple ways to approach this. The most intuitive approach is you ask how you would simultaneously measure both for some quantum system (where this principle becomes important). E.g., if you want to measure an electron's position, how do you do it? You bounce photons off of it and measure the photons locations in a detector. Well to measure its location to a very high precision, you need photons with very short wavelengths, and those impart higher energy/momentum to the the electron (for a photon shorter wavelength means higher energy), making you uncertain of its momentum. Now, the physicist approach is that the mathematical underpinnings of quantum mechanics have it as such that position and momentum are conjugate variables of each other. E.g., there's position space and its Fourier transform is momentum space. From this foundation you can derive the uncertainty principle (e.g., momentum is equal to the derivative the wavefunction in position space with respect to position (p ~ d/dx); and position is a equal to the derivative of the wavefunction in momentum space with respect to momentum x ~ d/dp; hence they don't commute and in the minimum uncertainty they can have (sigma_x sigma_px = hbar/2 is if the wavefunction is Gaussian shaped).). Now that may sound nonsensical if you don't have the math background, but that's how physicists think of it (in the framework of QM which explains lots of phenomena and has been very well tested). To simplify to non-mathematical language, when we have a particle (like an electron), before measuring its position or momentum, it doesn't have a definite position or momentum. It has a continuous probability function for both that are related by a transformation (e.g., the function might tell us it has a 10% chance of having a position between x=1cm and x=1.1cm, and and 20% chance of having a momentum if measured between p=0 kg m/s and 0.1 kg m/s). These transformation will take particles with very narrow probability range for having a momentum in a small range and make it so they have a wide range of position.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [General Fantasy] What are the defining characteristics of humans in comparison to other races? Elves are wise and stuffy, dwarves are skilled and extroverted, orcs are strong and combative. What are humans?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In most traditional fantasy, humans have wider areas of expertise, and are more prone to adventure. Dwarves, for example, are great at stonework and forging, while Elves are great at arts and arcana. Humans aren't the best in any of those areas, but you have humans that are excellent stone cutters, excellent smiths, excellent artists, and excellent mages. D&D represents this by giving humans a +1 to every skill, while the other races get a +2, but only to certain skills. Humans are more prone to adventuring, as well. Tolkien's Hobbits like to live quiet, content lives in their Shire, Elves will fight to protect their lands, and Dwarves will fight to protect their mines, but adventuring for the sake of adventure is rare in all three races. Humans, on the other hand, founded the Rangers. This is also true in Star Trek. The Federation is comprised of thousands of species on hundreds of worlds, but humans make up the bulk of Starfleet's exploratory missions. Humans are typically short lived compared to other species. Elves will live for a millenia, dwarves for centuries, and humans for eighty years, give or take. In fantasy, this often manifests as an urgency to wring as much as possible out of the short lives they've been given. It also makes humans more reactionary. If a Big Bad Evil Guy sets up shop in the town next door, an Elf might shrug and wander off for a decade or two until the whole thing blows over. Humans don't have that luxury.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do American high schools put so much emphasis on extra curricular activities?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Because getting into colleges -- especially if you're looking at specific programs, really prestigious schools -- is a competitive progress. Let's take Harvard, for example. You're this massive ivy league school with endless in applicants. Let's say 10,000 of them have 4.0 GPAs (the highest grade you can get without honors classes/weighted GPAs). Well, you can't accept 10,000 students as an incoming class of freshmen. So how do you differentiate the students? By the stuff they did outside of school. Do they show motivation and interest in succeeding outside of the classroom? What of your character can you see but what they've been doing? Who has already proven to some extent that they can be successful out in the real world?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: how are hot-air balloons navigated?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Aviators weather reports will provide anticipated wind speed and direction at different altitudes, so to some extent you can control which prevailing wind you are in by changing altitude. In general though, you are entirely at the mercy of the wind, so ballon journeys are hops in a single direction planned in advance in accordance with the wind direction.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How in love do I have to be with my dissertation topic? Coursework is complete. Working on the first draft of my dissertation proposal. Finally admitting to myself that I am not crazy about the topic. But I have support from my advisor, who I trust and who wants me to succeed. I feel like I need to just think of this as an assignment and get it done so that I can get to the next stage of academia. Is that what most people do?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You don't have to be head over heels, but the subject should interest you enough to keep you digging deeply over the course of several years so that you produce original research that makes a contribution to your field. This is not so much an assignment as a topic that is intended by your advisor to give you room to flourish, and if you don't foresee that happening, you should definitely talk to her/him before the proposal goes any further. Keep in mind that your dissertation will be the area in which you become the expert, and on which you will build in the following stages. Also, if you don't love the topic now, you may end up hating it in the coming years. Writing a dissertation is a long slog that requires persistence, and it's best if you find the topic inspiring so that the low moments are few rather than frequent.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: News Sites Should Be Banned From Using Clickbait Headlines Very simply, it's annoying reading a headline that overstates or clickbait's its reader into reading an honestly boring or mundane story. In a perfect world, a news headline would work like a name for a thesis paper; a rough amalgamation of all the important details. If you're writing a paper about some new climate change research, have the research company in the name, and a summarization of their findings. For example: Climate-Initiative has recorded a new world-record temp. of 140 Degrees in Death Valley. Boom. If you want to know more about how they recorded the temperature or death valley's history with high temps, you read the article. The only issue I see with this is that, at least in the U.S., due to the first amendment, you would have to be very tricky in how you handle it.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant >you would have to be very tricky in how you handle it. This is the main issue. How do you differentiate between "clickbait" and not clickbait? You'd need some sort of mechanism for deciding this which would inevitably be abused. Alternatively, you could use our current legal system, but that would take a lot of time and energy to manage.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user In multiple linear regression, how is it possible that multiple predictors are strongly correlated with the dependent variable but not with each other? This is very counterintuitive to me. If X and Y are the independent variables and Z is the dependent, then we know that X strongly tends to move together with Z, and that Y also strongly tends to move together with Z, yet somehow X and Y don't move together at all? In my mind this automatically leads to multicollinearity, yet clearly my thinking is wrong since this doesn't happen in practice.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Another example. On a dating app, you want to know how much one person will like the other one. You have date of the eye color and the age. Both are very important, but they age and eye color are not correlated at all. And actually, this is a behavior you want! This will mean they completely add new information that explains the dependent variable, meaning that there is no repetition of information. If to the previous variables we add to the eye color and age, if they are above 18, this does not add any information at all and it is a function of the age.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Without the context of the English language/alphabet, is there any meaningful distinction between "short vowels" and "long vowels" phonologically? If so, what is it? And if not, how did English vowel letters end up working the way they do now?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There is a linguistic concept called vowel length, which refers to vowels as being long and short, that has to do with duration of the vowel sound (or, really, the perception of the duration), but that concept is entirely different from the English gradeschool concept of long and short vowels. In English, long and short vowels are really just two distinct sounds that happen to be represented by the same letters. There are rules (often broken) that imply which sound a letter makes in that context, but the terms "long" and "short" themselves don't seem to have any particular basis.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why should getting a health insurance ever be a profitable decision for the consumer, when the profitability of all insurance companies depends on paying less on claims than whatever they bill in premiums? I get the value of insurance for farmers and merchants because it amortizes breakage over millions of people over decades, so one sunk ship or one bad harvest don't drive people to bankruptcy. But health insurance seems different. For me to benefit from health insurance, I should get more in healthcare value than any dollar value I lose in my monthly premium. But for the insurance company to benefit from my subscription, they should deliver less healthcare value than the dollar value I pay to them + overhead + profit margins. And that's assuming all insurances companies act in good faith and pay what they promise and in time. And if you count the penalties against pre-exsiting conditions, it seem like health insurance can only pay off if you will suffer from unexpected health conditions after signing the contract, which is a really poor way of "turning profit". So why should insurance ever be more affordable than paying out of pocket? It seems like insurance is a gamble. You bet you're going to get sicker than what you pay for, and the insurance company bets you're going to be healthier than what you pay. Being that any bet the insurance company makes against you (anything they quote you is bet they feel confident making) is backed by more data and analytics than you will ever be able to match them. Sure some people can profit, but in practical terms, the house always comes out on top. So why is it ever beneficial to have a health insurance?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Consumers are assumed to be loss-averse, so their utility from losses and gains are assymetric, as such they're willing to pay a premium to avoid the possibility of a loss. Let's say the expected value of your annual health-care costs are $1,000, but could be zero or could be $100,000. Depending on the shape of your individual utility function, it could be reasonable to pay $1,200 per year to avoid the possibility being bankrupted by the $100,000 bill. The problem with health insurance though, is you have asymmetric information, leading to adverse selection i.e. if you're healthy and unlikely to claim, you're less likely to buy insurance than someone who knows they're sick. Insurance companies respond by pricing the insurance to cover the claims of sick people, which makes insurance even less attractive for healthy people, setting off a vicious cycle. In order to function effectively, insurance markets need the probability of buying insurance to be independent from the probability of a claim. Hence, auto insurance works fairly efficiently, as it’s mandatory, as does property insurance, where there isn’t the same degree of asymmetric information.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Deathnote] If you had a Lifenote which was the polar opposite of a Deathnote, what would it's rules be, how would it work and what could you do with it?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Rules of the Life Note 1. The human whose name is written in this note shall not die from a particular cause of death. 2. This note will not take effect unless the writer has the person's face in their mind when writing his/her name. Therefore, people sharing the same name will not be affected. 3. If the cause of death is written within the next 40 seconds of writing the person's name, it will not happen. 4. If the cause of death is not specified, the person will simply be restored to perfect health. 5. After writing the cause of death, details of the death should be written in the next 6 minutes and 40 seconds.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Eli5 How does text to speech work? Do they get the people voicing the "speech part" to say a lot of words or is it a different way all together?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Depends of how advanced the text to speech is. In the early days of text to speech they only recorded sounds like "Ch" and "ee" combining them to make the words, The result was sloppy. These days they voice whole words by getting the voice actors to read whole sentences, like from a book and put that into an AI. The voice actor for Alexa spent weeks to months reading out loud and recording it. The voice actors try to read with little to no emotion yet still fluid speech so when the AI does need to chop up a word it can without it sounding strange.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Spider-Man] How are superheroes like Spider-Man so strong without also having muscles that would allow so? Shouldn't Spider-Man with his strength be at least five times the size of a normal human from a biological view?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The molecular structure of his body is slightly altered to increase it's strength. IRL, the average person only used around 25% of their full muscle strength because using any more on a regular basis would splinter their bones. Spidey not only had his bones strengthened to allow him to tap into his full strength, but his muscle fibres also adopted a stronger structure, giving him much greater strength and durability than he would have otherwise.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Discrete Cosine Transforms<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant When you want to compress a series of data (say, a sound recording) you can look for patterns in the data, and just record the patterns instead of the original measurements. DCT describes data as the sum of a series of waves (cosine functions) vibrating at different frequencies. This turns out to be a great way to describe sounds using just a small set of numbers. So it's used in audio compression. It's also used in video compression, since pictures also tend to have patterns.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What happens to breast implants after you die? So they decompose with the body or will they last with your skeleton for thousands of years?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The materials for medical implants are chosen because they are inert and non-biodegradable. They will not decompose when the biological parts of the body do. Future archaeologists who excavate our graveyards will find many bodies that still have pacemakers, artificial hips, titanium plates, and, yes, breast implants. Modern saline implants have a valve, which could leak and let the fluid out, but the silicone implant capsule itself would remain.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How come when you crack your knuckles underwater, it is incredibly loud, but when you try and scream underwater, the sound is muffled to a whimper?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Water transmits sounds quite well, so if an action vibrates the water to make a sound, you'll be able to hear it clearly in the local area. However, sound does not cross mediums very well. When you're trying to talk (or scream) underwater, the sound is being generated by vibrating air in your vocal chords. When this hits the water just outside your mouth, only a little of that energy is transmitted into producing underwater sound waves. The rest is lost, reflecting back into your mouth.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why is it that the smaller and less intelligent something is the less we value its life? For example people would spare a wolf before they spare 50 beetles. Ik the basic answer to this question but if someone could give a good in depth answer that would be great!!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Some utilitarians, such as John Stuart Mill, make qualitative distinctions in the ability to suffer that affect the ethics of an action. Since wolves can suffer to a greater extent than beetles, aggregate suffering would be greatest if an equal number of wolves were harmed as if the same number of beetles were harmed.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What causes the temporary burn mark left in the eye after looking at a bright light?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Cells in your eye are responsible for reporting light to the brain through changes in pigment. If they receive too much light, they use up all the pigment and need a moment to reset to their natural state. During that time period, they report inaccurate information.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user In diagrams where massive objects bend spacetime, what is depicted on the hight axis? Take for example this picture: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/Spacetime_lattice_analogy.svg/1260px-Spacetime_lattice_analogy.svg.png What is on the hight axis (z-axis) How should one interpret such a graph? Secondly, in animations like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GhkWuIDzpc, spacetime seems to bend "The other way"? what implications does that have?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant These kinds of visualizations are meant to give you a rough idea what's going on, but shouldn't be taken too literally. In general relativity, spacetime is modeled as a curved manifold. A manifold is a space, roughly like the sheet in your picture, but it need not (and really should not) be thought of as existing inside some larger, ambient space. It can be defined purely in terms of the set of points it is comprised of, and the distances between these points. This information alone is enough to define notions like curvature, and (with some work) to build up the entire theory of general relativity. Now, due to our cognitive limitations, it is difficult to visualize a curved manifold existing independently, so it is often useful to imagine it as living inside a larger space. For many purposes this is useful, but it can also be misleading. For example, take a piece of paper and bend it into a U-shape. It now appears to have curvature, but this is really an artifact of the way it is "embedded" in flat, three dimensional space. One says that it has "extrinsic curvature" due to this embedding, but "intrinsically" it has no curvature; it is flat. In general relativity, since we don't talk about embeddings, only the manifold itself, only the "intrinsic curvature" is important. A rubber sheet, like in your picture, does a little better - since the distance between points on the sheet can stretch, its "intrinsic curvature" can be made non-zero, and so one can really think of this as an example of a two-dimensional curved manifold. But the precise way in which it is embedded in three dimensions (and in particular the "height axis" you asked about) is basically irrelevant to its intrinsic curvature, and does not play a role in general relativity.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What is the difference between proof and evidence? Is proof always deductive and evidence always inductive? Or is it something else?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Context always matters, philosophy talks about a large amount of different topics, so if in doubt you should always try to figure out how a specific article or book use words. But if nothing else is specified there, a standard way to use those words is to say evidence for X if we mean anything that provides us with some reason to accept X, and proof for X if we mean something that establishes the truth of X. On this account it makes sense to weigh evidence for and against X and it's completely intelligible to have evidence for and against X - some reasons to think X and some reasons to think not-X. However, it usually doesn't make much sense to speak of proofs of X and disproofs of X at the same time. > Is proof always deductive and evidence always inductive? Or is it something else? Neither evidence nor proofs need to be arguments, so no.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why are we only looking for life, on planets with water? What if there are forms of life which don't rely on water, that have adapted to completely different conditions<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Because water is one thing that is proven to be instrumental in the creation and survival of life. There could be any other compound-based life, but we're not sure. We ARE certain that water with the right situation can harbor life, so it just narrows down the search. We accept that life could form without water- we just don't have the time or resources to extensively study every single terrestrial planet for life.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is the big deal about Google's privacy? Is it safe/smart to use?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Google provides a huge number of services for free. In order to do this, they make money by showing relevant ads when you search, check gmail, watch YouTube, etc. People are more likely to click ads relevant to them, so Google collects information about you when you use their services. For example, they might use your IP address or phone's GPS radio to figure out where you are, then show you ads for local businesses. In fact, if you have an android phone and opt-in to Google Now, they will try to learn all sorts of things like where you work, where you live, what you search for, what sports teams you follow, what stocks you own, what flights you are about to take, and all sorts of things. They use this information to show you relevant information in Google Now before you ask for it, like automatically showing scores for a local sports team or telling you what gate your flight will be departing from. People freak out about all this because it feels like a company knows way too much about them. While it's true companies like Google or Facebook collect data about everyone who uses their services, there isn't a human being sitting down and reading it. All this information is used in aggregate to make Google more money by providing you with more relevant information. This isn't "unsafe" by any means, but if you are paranoid about companies knowing about you, don't use Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. It's been reported that Google and Facebook never search through people's personal information to look for illegal or suspicious activity. The only way these companies release their information to other people is if law enforcement forces them. Google has publicly stated they are just as concerned with organizations like the NSA snooping on their data, and have started encrypting more and more of their services.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: White Supermacy/Privilege should be called Colonizer Supermacy/Preivlege. * It's not a precise enough term(s). A more precise term would be colonizer supremacy or colonizer privilege. Those who find themselves within the power fueled privileged system are typically of colonizer descent. * The current racial construct is outdated & broken. Yes race is a social construct, the latest data shows we are to genetically similar to be considered separate races. The effects and experiences caused by the social construct are very real but there will be inherent negative effects if it was on a weak baseless foundation to begin with. Using the racial concept only upholds the the racial construct. Yes those who colonized & their descendants enacted a system to maintain power based on human phenotype variation. Suffering stemming from the system still reverberate through society. Several routes have been taken to maintain power but we can not get stuck in these roads as they all lead back to the system. * Power is not static. Many of those considered "white people" will be a minority in the not to distance future, will they still have the power? If there is unequal opposing forces power can work in the fashion of a pendulum. Power will not vanish it will transfer. Supremacy and privilege is not exclusive to color/phenotype/image so why focus on that? An example would be the conflict in the Middle East.Through the centuries it's been 'Muslim privilege/supremacy or Jewish privilege/supremacy or whoever happens to take over and occupy the 'system'. This happens in a pendulum fashion. * Using the term 'white' is just divisive, misses the point and takes focus off dismantling systems that can create supremacy & privilege. Mark my words, if we don't meet these issues in the not to distant future you will be hearing calls of 'black/POC/latino/ Supremacy/privilege'. This is about human equality and systems that impede it. _____ > Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our *[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)* first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The privilege experienced is not because one can see in a split second that you are a colonialist or descended from colonialist. The privilege is experienced because one can see in a split second that you are white. White is the more precise term. Minority status: There are many areas where whites are in the minority already, yet still retain or have retained power. Obviously apartheid in South Africa is a historical example. One very, very contemporary example is Ferguson, Missouri, which is two-thirds black, yet the police force is 90 to 94 percent (accounts vary) white.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do "bugs" or "glitches" happen even when accomplished and successful studios develop a video game? EDIT: Perhaps I should've asked the question differently. I totally get that people are imperfect and make mistakes. I'm more interested in understanding why a glitch happens, even when professionals do the coding. Is there something that is just inherent in coding that creates glitches? Do different parts of the code conflict? Why is it so challenging to identify those glitches, even for professionals?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Imagine code like a set of rules. Lets say that you run a business, and you decide to upgrade your security/employee-management. You put finger print locks on the doors, so your building is more secure, and also so you can see when employees arrive and leave based on when they used the fingerprint lock on the front door. Now things will be so much easier! A week later, you notice one of your employees has missed every single day of work. You demand an explanation and he swears he was here, and his co-workers attest to that. So what happened? Well, it's because there is a *bug* in your system. He carpools to work, and walks in with is co-worker. His co-worker had been opening the door with the fingerprint lock, and he walks in behind them. You failed to take that situation into account when making your rules, and so, your system had more employees in the building than you thought. This is a bug. ___ But no matter, easy solution! Just add a new rule that each employee must open and shut the door individually. Bug fixed! Another week goes by, and you notice that for one of the employees the numbers don't add up. He entered the building more times than he left. Well that doesn't make sense at all. What happened? You look at the security footage and see that on two separate occasions, he opened the door to enter, but before going in he realized he forgot something in his car. He let the door shut, went to his car, and then came into the building. That means the records show that he opened the door from the outside more times than he opened it from the inside, explaining why the numbers don't match. Your mistake here was assuming that just because an employee opened the door, that they went through it. That oversight caused a bug. ___ As you can imagine, there are a lot more rules in a videogame, and thus the potential for a lot more bugs. A lot of situations that you should have realized would happen, but failed to, creating a bug. And with games the faulty information caused by one bug can cause other bugs, which can cause even more bugs, which can hide where the problem started. And sometimes you get a bug once, can't figure out what you did to cause it, and so you don't know what rules need fixing. You know it's there, you saw it happen, but as hard as you try you can't recreate it. TL;DR Bugs happen when a programmer fails to account for every possibility.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How is it that when multiple animators are making something, they all have the same style? The clone wars for example, all the episodes have the same style, with the only change being effort/time spent going up.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The same way classical musicians can play the same Beethoven piece in the same style—they’re pros who are good enough at their craft that they can form their art into whatever is necessary. Computer animation is another step away, as there are literal computer animation algorithms that perform actions for characters. The “animators” in this sense are quite literally programmers who are assigning commands to the animation software. Even still, “Style” and “form” are constantly monitored during the animation process, and always double-checked to conform to creative standards.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If surface area doesn't effect friction, why do racing cars have fatter tires? "Although a larger area of contact between two surfaces would create a larger source of frictional forces, it also reduces the pressure between the two surfaces for a given force holding them together. Since pressure equals force divided by the area of contact, it works out that the increase in friction generating area is exactly offset by the reduction in pressure; the resulting frictional forces, then, are dependent only on the frictional coefficient of the materials and the FORCE holding them together. " Affect*<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Friction is approximately independent of surface area for two hard, smooth surfaces. However, this is not the case for the interface between rubber and asphalt, where a fat tire will indeed give you greater friction.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star Wars] What are some typical middle-class jobs in highly developed regions of the Republic? I want to know more about the structure of everyday life for normal civilians. How is health care governed? Is there social welfare, minimum basic income? Are there 'sentient-being' rights of some kind? What does the economy look like (for instance on Coruscant)? It's hard for me to imagine what a civilization with droids needs from people/aliens in terms of employment.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If by "highly developed" you mean mid-to-upper levels of Coruscant, from current records we can assume that it's fairly similar to metropolitan life throughout history. Although solar mirrors around Coruscant provide ample supplies of power and fresh water (from melting glaciers), most sentients still need to work for a living. Some middle-class individuals work in hospitality or the restaurant business; pilots of all kinds ply the hyperspace lanes, working in bulk shipping and transport, and others found gainful employment in the Republic's civil administration and intelligence sectors. The Holonet also allows for wide dissemination of millions of news programs, dramas, and other programming employing many in media and production. Although some complained about the rise of mega-corporations during the late Republic, a fear made manifest during the Clone Wars, the Commerce Guild, Techno Union, and their ilk employed legions of bureaucrats, engineers, and other functionaries as befitting a robust society. Of course, massive variance existed due to the wide array of species and cultures present in the Republic era.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user I believe a Country should always be called by its native name. CMV For example: I believe the word "Japan" should not exist. Instead it should be called by its name it Japanese, but written phonetically. "Nihon." I think this would make inter language communication a whole lot simpler.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Names are a method of communicating an idea to others. We should use whatever name is understood by the population of people we're talking to. There's nothing intrinsically better about referring to Japan as Nihon, and if a good portion of the population doesn't understand what you're referring to than you're making communication harder. Why is having different names for countries in various languages any worse than having different words for anything else?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [MCU] Do other relams have "tech" like bifrost bridge ? Specifically Nine Relams.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It really depends on how "like" you're looking for. We still don't have a clear answer for where sling rings come from, do they count? The Guardians (and presumably most interstellar craft) use some form of portals/warp points for quick space travel In Thor: Love and Thunder we see that >!Zeus' lightning has the ability to transport people great distances.!< That's probably the most Asgardian-esque "tech" that we've seen so far.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is a high IQ score directly correlated to a propensity for alcoholism/drug addiction?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Imagine looking at a painting of a flower, where everyone sees the flower, you see every brush stroke, every meaning behind each brush stroke, feel what the artist felt when painting it. Sometimes, it's too much. You dull things, you escape the fact that everything around you is both mundane and complex at the same time. You try to shut it off, escape, become closer to your peers by not being better than them.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why can't I focus blue LED light?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You know how a prism can spread white light into all the bands of visible light? This is caused by chromatic aberration where different colors (wavelengths) of light interact differently when going through the prism. If the prism was switched to a single lens, chromatic aberration causes different wavelengths of light to focus at different distances from the lens. Your eye is an optical element as well. Due to chromatic aberration, blue light is just slightly out of focus on your retina while other colors may focus perfectly.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do NBA teams draft highschool players so high? I know Lebron, and to a lesser extent, Kobe ended up working out, but it really seems like a huge risk to spend a high draft pick on a guy who really has only played against other high school students.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Pretend you're a high school engineering teacher. Your students are tasked with building miniature model bridges, and your student Ann brings in a bridge that you can immediately tell is going to do well. It's built from the best quality materials, has structural integrity, has no obvious flaws, and the craft represents someone who knows what they're doing. You test it, sure enough, it wins the best grade in the class. Then you remember your own college bridge tests, that had advanced engineering principles, and you realize this bridge might pass those tests, too, even without Ann having gone to college. You look them up, you submit the bridge to those tests, and sure enough, it does really well with the college tests too. Then you remember some advanced software -- used by corporations and contractors that build bridges -- that will test if this bridge will actually do well in the real world. Now, the real world presents all kinds of different challenges, like wind pressure and direction, erosion, materials expansion -- that extend beyond just the model. But every bridge has to start with a model, and the data provided by this software can determine if this is at least worth a corporation's time to scale up. Sure enough, Ann's bridge does exceptionally well in many of the simulations. The thing is, Ann hasn't graduated high school, gone to college, interviewed at a company, or even have any work experience. BUT -- it turns out, a good bridge doesn't need any of these things, it just needs to have some key fundamentals down in order to succeed as a bridge. Likewise in the NBA, even with an abundance of variables that can cause failure, the model for success is the same: a 6'10" guy with a sturdy frame, long arms, quick hands, great basketball understanding & vision, excellent defense, professional work ethic, and a wicked shot (KD, KG, LbJ...). This model comprises the vast majority of successful NBA players, regardless of age or experience (note: experience offers some improvement, but isn't a replacement for the above qualities). There is no age minimum or maximum in that list, there is nothing holding back a 17 year old from playing the exact way an NBA star would -- it's just really uncommon. When these players do surface, there are numerous professional tools that a team can submit the player to that can indicate the player's future performance from a statistical perspective. Even a scrimmage with current NBA players is telling. But, as is with all NBA players, every contract is a gamble -- there are numerous ways for them to fail. So then why not look for the recipe for the ones that do succeed, and hire them, no matter what age they are?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: why do hormones make women moody/sad and does this ever happen to men?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Hormones are chemical messengers that travel through the blood and cause long term (on the order of hours to years) changes in the body. These hormones can directly influence the brain, or can cause other things to happen and influence the brain indirectly. Also, you can't just say "hormones". Some hormones makes you happy. Some make you stressed. Some don't do anything at all. Men can and are equally affected by hormones. Hormonal mood swings are associated with women because the menstrual cycle has some hormones flooding in and then disappearing throughout the cycle, while males don't really have an equivalent.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does the heat of the sun reach earth even though space is a cold void? How does it reach us through space?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There's three ways heat can be transferred. Conduction, which is heat traveling by contact. Convection, which is heat moving around as hot fluids rise. And lastly radiation, which is heat transfered through light. Light has no problem going through a vacuum. Radiation is how the sun heats the earth. The entire spectrum heats the earth including infrared and ultraviolet, but the sun peaks it's output in the visible light spectrum (by no coincidence really). It's no different than you sitting by a fire and feeling the heat on you. That heat isn't because of the air between you and the fire, that's heat from the radiation (light, though not necessarily visible, fire emmit more infrared).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do TV game shows tax people who get cash on the spot? I see game shows like How too make a deal give away cash on the spot. Are these people taxed? I know if you win showcases etc taxes are collected on items, but what about cash handed on the spot?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Any cash prize (including lotteries) is generally considered income in the eyes of the IRS (or similar entity for other countries). The person/entity giving the money will report the transfer of money to the IRS (and in some cases, offer to withhold the expected taxes) , and it becomes the responsibility of the recipient to submit a payment of the expected owed taxes in a timely manner and to report the earnings when the time comes to file taxes for the year.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: The words 'islamphobe' or 'islamphobia' are now thrown around too easily such that they lost meaning Definition of islamphobe on google: dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force. My position is that it is OK to criticize Islam (aka the religion), but it is NOT ok to criticize the Muslim people as people. For example, I can show why the belief that Mohammad rose to heaven on a winged horse is ridiculous, or why Mohammad was a pedophile for marrying a 9-year old (or 12-year old, according to other historical sources). Or I can argue why Islam holds back society. Or I can simply argue how there is just no valid evidence for any of the supernatural claims of Islam in general. All of this, to me, is perfectly valid things to say and is certainly NOT being rude or being an 'islamphobe' to do so. What is not ok would be to assume, for example, every Muslim hates Western nations and support ISIS. Or that every Muslim is a terrorist. Or that every Muslim wants to suppress women rights. But apparently many ppl don't agree, and think ANY FORM OF BASHING of Islam is automatically wrong.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Your arguments may be valid, but most people are not critiquing Islam for the sake of academic merit or correctness. Most people critique Islam for the purpose of generalizing Muslims as being undesirable people for belonging to the religion, which is a jerk move.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What in the molecular workings of plastic makes it turn yellow after a long time? I have noticed in older houses lots of plastic that used to be white turns ye yellow. Why is that?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant 1. Most plastics are polymers, aka they're made of extremely long repeating chain molecules linked together. 2. Sunlight has enough energy to break chemical bonds over time, and will eventually break these chains into shorter fragments, and break bonds between different chains too. 3. This one's hard to simplify. The property of "being coloured" comes from how a material's electrons are laid out and how they're able to move around. Basically there's a "sweet spot" of molecule size/length that's good at absorbing visible wavelengths of light. When some colours get absorbed, the object appears coloured since not all colours of light are reflected to your eyes any more. Putting it together: Over time, the light breaks down the plastic until its polymer chains are short enough that they start absorbing light and appear coloured. Related to this, for plastics that are initially transparent: the sun breaking down the plastic at a molecular level also causes "disorder" or just general damage throughout the material. What was once a more neatly packed array becomes fragmented and leads to more light being "scattered" rather than reflected or passed through. That's why clear plastics also go opaque as well as discolouring.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why does the Delorean have flame trails when it hits 88 mph? As I understand it, the sonic-boom type effect is the temporal barrier being broken, but what about the flame trails?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Relevant points to consider when answering: * The flame trails exist after the DeLorean has disappeared through time, not before. * The flame trails even occur when flying through the air. * The flame trails persist on the ground, i.e. something has literally set the asphalt on fire (or something flammable has been spread across the ground). The trails also seem to have at least some persistence in the air, i.e. they don't immediately waft away like most gases would.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is it still a challenge for some countries to build ICBMs while US/USSR could already do it in the 50's?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant ICBM technology requires an extremely advanced research and development basis in aerospace engineering and rocket science. Which in turn requires strong institutions specializing in physics and mathematical research. But that strong research basis will only get you the theory and design because engineering a rocket requires that your country also have a manufacturing sector that includes the skillful production of precision instrumentation, specialized machinery, advanced application of metallurgy, and chemical processing for fuel and lubricants. Which, by the way, requires even more knowledge and research to implement because all those necessary requirements would take decades to develop. But that's not all, guidance systems require that your country also have an advanced electronics industry capable of producing components that can withstand conditions normal electrical equipment would simply break down mid trajectory. Now, you can shortcut this extremely complicated process by buying and importing all those things that are necessary for the development of ICBMs, which is what North Korea did. But that still doesn't take into account the expertise and infrastructure you need to test and produce a viable system. The ICBM still needs a warhead which has its own development process, but actually relatively easier than producing the delivery system. So the countries that developed ICBMs are countries that had the foundation prior to their goal of producing ICBMs. The United States, and the Soviet Union, already had a strong industrial base and scientific research community to lean on to develop their ICBMs, not to mention that they both were able to acquire expertise and know-how by importing former Nazi scientists and capturing the research the Nazi regime made in developing their own rocket technology. Germany was (and still is) a great scientific and industrial center. Many countries even developed and advanced economies, lack ALL the components required to develop ICBMs. Even developed countries that do have the necessary factors to develop ICBMs choose not do so because the allocation of resources toward the goal of producing an ICBM would be economically ruinous for their country and result in major hyperinflation and suffering. It would take years and the resources put into developing an ICBM would be resources wouldn't pay for a national healthcare system, public education, retirement payments, etc. So many countries simply ally with the US and sign treaties asking to be under the protection of their ICBM program, for example, NATO. And those countries also agree not to pursue technology like that under international treaties at the behest of the superpowers.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do monarch butterflies migrate through multiple generations, considering that one of them can only make it part of the way?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Genetically learned traits. Basically they've been doing it so long it's become ingrained in their core. They even fly around an obsticle (can't remeber if it was a mountain or lake) that's not even there any more! A million (or whatever) years ago this feature of the Earth went away, but the butterflies still circle where it once was.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Innocent until proven guilty should always be upheld, especially regarding the recent trend in sexual harassment accusations. First of all I want to clarify that sexual harassment is wrong and should be prosecuted. But recently, the way the media and the public react to those accusations is wrong. Everyone immediately turns away from the accused, and treats them as guilty with out trial. I believe that those accusations should not be made public, but handled by the authorities, similarly to what Terry Crews has done recently. The public backlash is too severe and can hurt the accused even if they're not found guilty. There have already been cases of people falsely accusing people of harassment. This should never happen, but it does because of the way these accusations are currently handled.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Innocent until proven guilty applies to the law. As it stands, these men are not literally on trial for any actual crimes. In fact, they likely never will be, but that's not the point. We, as a society, are not lawyers. There probably never will be a trial, or tangible evidence, but we are welcome to believe what we want to believe.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why did it take so long until radioactivity was discovered In my country, uraninite was mined alongside silver at least since the 15 century, useless at the time. It is kind of strange to me that nobody noticed anything "weird" about it for such a long time (or did they?) Is the concentration too small in this form to have effect? Even if they piled it up in junk heaps along with everything that wasn't silver? Or were the people working with it already too ill to notice anything extra going on (mining was not a particularly safe or healthy occupation for a very long time)? Or did they actually know something is weird about it? After all, what did tip off Marie Curie that there's something odd about this mineral?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant So the thing about radiation, outside of the most extremely high concentrations it isn't going do much of anything immediately where you can really easily see cause and effect. Those super high concentrations don't exist naturally, they have to be refined into that. Even in modern times after something like the chernobyl disaster only 31 people directly died from it, the rest of the effects are long term increases in things like cancer rates which we can really only figure out because of statistics and having a huge sample size.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How can I quickly and accurately verify a science or history book is not making claims debunked by the academic community? I have recently taken an interest into listening to audiobooks focusing on history or areas of science I am not as familiar in to expand my knowledge. I've started to notice many of the reviews are focused less on the accuracy of the books and more on the readers experience and the descriptions/critical reviews are often hand picked to sell the book, which has made it hard to differentiate between the popscience books and academically respected books (especially in the fields that are easily politicized or monetized like medicine or neuroscience). To be honest, I am an embarrassingly gullible person so I am worried about picking books from areas I am unfamiliar in but interested in learning more. This is especially so since I already recognize some of the more obvious self help books disguised as science books in the medicine category. An example that comes to mind is that book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" which has been wildly popular but I have heard misrepresents the facts from communities familiar with the subject material. Is there an easy way to check on the accuracy of the claims of a book? I've tried googling books but it's often reviews done by people as ignorant of the subject matter as I am taking the author at their word that show up on the first page. It's also hard to tell with so many people crying "fake" at things they don't want to hear or actual misinformation being spread as facts. I don't have a particular field of study or title, I am just trying my hand at educating myself outside of the structure of a university. I'm from the US with a bachelors degree in Radio Television Film of all things, so I would like to expand my knowledge of various fields of science I may have neglected when I was younger. Any help on how to sort the the noise and find academically approved books would be greatly appreciated by this gullible amateur brushing up on their self educating tools. Thanks in advanced guys.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I'd honestly start by reading intro text books. You can find used old editions on Amazon pretty cheap ( <$10). With that foundation, you will be better equipped to judge what is plausible. Another (easier, but less beneficial in the long run) way would be to google the background of the author. Not the most reliable method, but it can give decent context to whether the person knows their stuff.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How can the weather be below freezing AND 100% humidity? Doesnt the temperature mean that fog can't be "humidity"? Isn't humidity moisture and doesn't moisture crystallize into a solid form below 32 degrees?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are two forms of humidity: relative humidity (%) and absolute humidity (grams of water/liter of gas). Something that is at 100% humidity means that it is holding as much water as possible, no matter how little that may be.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Pulling the lever to save more lives is the right response to the classic "trolley problem". Firstly, I understand that this has been posted before. However, none of the discussions I've read on other threads have managed to change my view, hence my posting here. When faced with the trolley problem, when the options are divert the trolley and kill one person, or leave it alone on its tracks and allow 3 people to die - I think we would have a moral obligation to pull the lever and kill the one person. Because the outcome is what's important. In other words, it's better for 3 people to live and one person to die, than 3 people to die and one person to live. _____ > 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 The problem with that is that once you establish that people have a positive moral obligation to act in this manner, you are compelled to also accept that you have the same moral obligation in other scenarios. For instance, you have enough organs to save the lives of several other people. Do you also believe that you ought to sacrifice your life in order to donate those organs to other people to save theirs? On net, we lose 1 life but save half a dozen, maybe more. As you say, "the outcome is what's important" so it shouldn't matter that you die, as long as we save more than 1 other person. And, that's probably a really simple problem. There are innumerable other problems with utilitarian calculations that force you into bizarre and untenable situations.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What is the Difference Between Deduction and Induction? Hi, I really can't distinguish between Deduction, Induction, and Inference. I guess inference is same is deduction (right?) and I do know what deduction is, but what's its difference from induction? Also are there any differences between Probability and Possibility? Thanks in advance<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Deductive arguments attempt to show that the conclusion must follow from true premises. If it is successful, the argument is valid. If it is unsuccessful, the argument is invalid. If it is successful and the premises are true, the argument is sound. Deductively Valid Argument: If it is raining, the grass is wet. It is raining. Therefore, the grass is wet. Deductively Invalid Argument If it is raining, the grass is wet. The grass is wet. Therefore, it is raining. Inductive arguments attempt to support (but not guarantee) the truth of the conclusion. If they are successful, they are strong. If the are unsuccessful, they are weak. Unlike deductive arguments, it's possible for an inductive argument to have true premises and a false conclusion while still being a good, i.e., strong, argument. Inductively Strong Argument 99.3% of bus drivers do not have a PhD in Economics. Jim is a bus driver. Therefore, Jim does not have a PhD in economics. Inductively Weak Argument Many Italians live with their parents until they 28 years old. Pablo is a 22-year-old Italian Therefore, Pablo lives with his parents. Arguments which rely on probability are usually in the inductive camp. Arguments which rely on possibility are usually in the modal logic camp. These are different things.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do different colors have a different shade of gray when saturation is removed? Like when I'm in photoshop and turn the picture to grayscale or remove the saturation. Red shades will always be darker than yellow ones for example. Why is that?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant On the surface it seems like all three colors(red, green, and blue) should be weighted equally because that's what the pixel is made of; but it turns out that gives you a really crappy looking grayscale image. Your eye is far more sensitive to green light than red or blue, and still more senstive to red than blue. When the computer converts from RGB to grayscale it will give far more weight to the green value than the red which means 0,255,0(green) will end up being far brighter than 255,0,0(red) or 0,0,255(blue). Since yellow has a green component it will end up being fairly bright.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Stephen King] Do any of the books make big news on a national or international level? Some books could be easily covered up, but some seem like a big deal that would be covered on national or even international news. Do the characters of one book know of the events of another book?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Books like The Mist and The Stand obviously do, but the others are hard to answer. IT doesn’t make national news, because in 11/22/63 the protagonist visits Derry and meets two of the characters from IT (and even kind of vibes on the monster). Given how exhaustively that character would have researched the local history if any of the major events from IT had made national, or even regional, news he likely would have mentioned it. Instead we just get his vague impression that the town is “sick.”<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Answer an ELI5 FAQ- Why do Coca Cola, McDonalds, and other national companies still advertise? Help ELI5 explain this common question so that we can redirect future posters here. Please also explain why companies that do not sell general consumer goods advertise, such as Boeing, Cisco and BASF https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/search?q=still+advertise&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are many reasons for advertizing by non-retail customers. Often called "image advertizing", these ads are designed to influence public opinion of the company. Public opinion influences the company in many situations, including: * Hiring, potential employees send resumes out to company they perceive as desirable places to work. * Lobbying, favorable public perception adds clout to the company's lobbying efforts. Particularly the threat that the popular company might take a public position for or against some legislation. * Community relations, advertizing activities that improve relationships with the community makes those "good deeds" more well known. Should something unfortunate happen, this store of good will may reduce the cost of mitigation. * Inventor relations, showing that the company makes uniquely profitable products, even if they aren't sold retail, signals investors that the company is a good investment.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are rings easier to get on than they are to get off a finger?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant 2 reasons for this: 1. The fingers are generally wider near the knuckles than at the fingertips. 2. If you stroke one of your fingers with another from nail to knuckles, you will find that skin has more resistance when you're moving knuckle to fingertips than vice versa, mainly because there's more skin near the knuckles than the fingertips so it kind of bunches up and resists more than going the opposite direction. Credit to /u/super_ag for the more accurate reason.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does the Japanese language have English loan words for things they already have words for? Words like "relax" (rirakkusu) and "hose" (hosu) seem like something that would have existed before contact with English-speaking people.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The words often have slightly different connotations. For example, the English loan word kyanseru (cancel) is an informal, modern-sounding way to talk about canceling something. If you were talking about canceling a contract or other more formal arrangement, you would likely instead use the Chinese loan word kaiyaku. And if you wanted to talk about canceling in a more general or abstract sense, like taking back your words, you might instead use the native Japanese word torikesi. Japanese is not unique in this regard. English has many French and Latin loan words for terms that already had native semi-equivalents: pain/hurt, rage/anger, response/answer, prior/before, commence/begin, creed/belief, abdomen/belly, corpse/body, fraternal/brotherly, construct/build, etc.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is fed to people in a coma? Is it blended every day food or similar to meal replacement shakes? If so does this include fruits and vegetables or are all essential nutrients provided though supplementation?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It's a special liquid formula that contains the right amount of calories, protein, and essential nutrients that can be adjusted depending on the specific needs of the patient. It's doesn't contain any actual food but it does have all the nutrients and calories we need from eating food.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do malls and businesses not have peaked roofs like you see on houses? I remember hearing about a store collapsing from too much snow collecting on the roof. Is there a reason not to have a peaked roof to prevent this?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Flat roofing is cheaper to build, is accessible (you can go up on it and do stuff up there more easily, including maintenance and are unlikely to fall), and you can add another floor more easily if you want to. Providing you have a decent membrane on there and it doesn't need much maintenance, it will be cheaper in the longer run than a pitched roof, and gives you more options.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: I don't think I should personally make changes to my life to fight climate change when multi billion dollar companies couldn't care less. Why should I stop using my car and pay multiple times more to use exorbitant trains? Why should I stop eating meat while people like Jeff Bezos are blasting off into space? Why should I stop flying when cruise ships are out and about pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere than thousands of cars combined? I'm not a climate change denier, I care about the climate. But I'm not going to significantly alter my life when these companies get away with what they're doing. I think the whole backlash against climate change is most often not out of outright denial, but rather working class people are sick of being lectured by champagne socialists to make changes they often can't even afford to, while the people lecturing them wizz around in private jets to attend their next climate conference.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant 1. If everyone thinks as you do, then change is not possible. 2. Helping a little bit is better than no help at all. 3. Reducing your meat consumption and walking or using public transportation when possible will neither change nor impact your life in any significant way.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What does not emit electromagnetic radiation? My remote sensing textbook states "With the exception of objects at absolute zero, all objects emit electromagnetic radiation." I understand that an object doesn't have to emit it's own radiation, it can reflect another objects radiation. So what are the processes that cause electromagnetic radiation to be emitted? Wha are objects that do not emit their own radiation?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Objects are made of atoms and atoms are made of charged particles (nuclei and electrons). Charged particles emit EM radiation when they are accelerated. All objects at a nonzero temperature T undergo some form of thermal motion and these random vibrations involve varying velocity and thus accelerations. Therefore all objects will emit a "baseline" spectrum due to thermal motion called a blackbody spectrum. A blackbody (body that doesn't emit or reflect anything else other than the blackbody radiation) has a spectrum described by the Planck distribution, which is universal, depending only on the temperature and not on the details of the body or the material. For temperatures above a few hundred degrees °C, the Planckian spectrum is significant in the visible range of wavelength and so bodies hotter than that glow with a specific colour and intensity, this is just incandescence. At room temperature, most of the blackbody radiation is emitted in the far infrared region, therefore named thermal infrared, and this radiation is visible only through (relatively expensive) thermal cameras.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is there an ancient African philosophy analogous to ancient European or ancient Asian philosophies? Discussing comparative philosophy the terms, "ancient European philosophy" and "ancient Asian philosophy" were being thrown around until somebody asked, "Is there an ancient African philosophy?" The presenter talked about the Middle East and ancient Egypt (technically part of Africa), which led me to think that perhaps there isn't a particularly African brand of ancient philosophy, there are just ancient philosophies that took place in Africa, usually Mediterranean countries near Europe and Asia. Is that mostly correct? Wildly incorrect? If someone were interested in reading ancient African thinkers other than North Africa, where would you suggest they start?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A few of Greek Historians (Philostratus and Heliodorus) record a lot of the teachings of the "gymnosophists" (which basically function as the proto-philosophy of both the pre-Socratics and post-Alexandrian philosophy) coming into Greece as coming from Ethiopian priests. In the same way, Plato confidently tells us most of his philosophical innovations can be traced back to Egypt. That said, there's not much documentation simply because there's not much documentation of the period in general, a lot of the gymnosophists preferred to spread their teaching only by word-of-mouth among dedicated students anyways, and the Greek historians don't always take tremendous interest in sorting out the different strains in the philosophy of the gymnosophists.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why can some animals be domesticated, while others can’t be? I saw a video of a “pet” raccoon living in somebody’s house. It was cute. I started looking things up about how raccoons become domesticated. All of the literature said it has never been done, and probably can’t be done. No explanation of why.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In guns, germs and steel there are six criteria for domestication. 1. The animal needs to be able to eat a variety of different things and be willing to live of human scraps. Even better if they can eat foods we can't like grass. 2. They must grow up fast or at least faster than humans. This is why despite Asian elephants being tamed for 3000 years they arent considered domesticated. We haven't been able to selectively breed them 3. Animals must be willing to breed in close quarters of captivity. This is why pandas and antelopes are a bad candidate for domestication. 4. The animals have to be pleasant in nature. An animal that is ill-tempered or unpredictable is dangerous. 5. They also need to be calm and not scared/skittish. Because they are hard to control as well. 6. Animals need to be able to see humans as their master so a social hierarchy is important. Even though some individual zebras have been tamed the species is hard to domesticate because of their temperament. We have also tried to tame or domesticate great white sharks but they will die in captivity. The longest one has been held has been 16 days.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Novice programmer, what paths should I take and what should I avoid when looking to have a coding career? I've been learning coding for about a month and a half now, which I was drawn to because 1) it's a skill I hear is in demand, 2) it's a skill you don't have to have a formal qualification in to get a job, 3) it's a skill that can be learnt from home, for free, in your free time. Specifically I've gone over the very basics of Python, as well as some basic data analysis lessons in Jupyter with pandas, covering data cleaning, tables, graphs etc. One thing I've heard anecdotally a few times across some of the programming related subreddits is of people having no experience in coding at all, then after a year of teaching themselves manage to land a job in it. Is this typical or are these outliers? What factors determine going from novice to employed so quickly? A concern I have about pursuing a career in coding is that I don't want to end up following a path that becomes obsolete in a couple of years time, see [https://twitter.com/sharifshameem/status/1282676454690451457](https://twitter.com/sharifshameem/status/1282676454690451457) This comes after I was under the impression that coding was a profession that would be safe from automation for some time. For those with experience, who understand the industry and where it is heading, which sort of paths is it best to go in to have a career and I won't end up learning something that is no longer employable in a short amount of time? Or if that's a stupidly wide net to be casting, what paths/specialisations do I want to avoid? Am I better off going "wide", and learning several different programming languages and tools, or going "deep" and sticking to python and data analysis to become really good at it and ignoring everything else?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It’s like any profession - you don’t NEED a formal education, but the chances of you getting a satisfying job are actually quite low without one. There are lots of people from overseas and in a situation similar to yours, who are attracted by the lifestyle and money, with low barriers to entry. You hear the success stories because they are exceptional. Now, coding is like construction: there are lots of tools and techniques - and every company has their preferred set of them. The important point is not actually the tools you know, it’s how deeply you understand the underlying concepts - avoiding bugs and . It’s also how fast you can learn and solve unexpected problems. So, how does it sound now? Just like construction, start with a job that’s building simple things in a high quality way - like setting up websites, or writing macros for Excel sheets, or using public APIs to access data. The goal is to build high quality outcomes. Your question about deep vs wide “skills” is something you’ll find comes as a consequence of doing your job well. They aren’t goals that directly lead to success in your career.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How are pilots able to make flights significantly shorter? A flight I’ve taken many times usually takes around 3 hours. I just took the same flight and the pilot was able to get us there in just about 2 hours. My return flight we were 45 min early. How??<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There’s a few ways: 1. Different altitudes have different winds. 2. Commercial aircraft rarely fly at max speed, so the can literally fly faster (at the expense of increased fuel flow). The key point the OP needs to know though is that it’s not up to the pilot. The airlines carefully manage flight plans (including speed etc) to ensure the overall schedule in the most cost effective manner. Sometimes it benefits the passenger😏<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If you had a national UBI policy how do you prevent landlords, energy companies, insurance etc from raising costs to capture some of that Income? I keep hearing about Universal Basic Income, and how universally give folks a set amount would help.deal with inequality etc. But wouldnt landlords, energy companies and others that have non discretionary costs simply up their prices /rates to capture some of that money, negating the inequality purpose of UBI?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant While landlords especially could raise their rates to capture some of the UBI income, the landlords whom don't raise their rates would have an advantage against those who did, and could more easily find tenents. Those who do raise their rates will need to compete with landlords who have better properties, but chose not to raise their rates. And since rent in the area has been raised, there is more incentive to build housing, which will also drive down prices. If a $1000/mo UBI is passed, landlords will not all raise their rates by $1000/mo. Rent will increase, but by some amount less than $1000/mo. Insurance will be handled similarly, but since they can more easily take on new customers, they will be even less able to raise their insurance rates. This is, of course, excepting the possibility of all the landlords in an area getting together and deciding to raise all their rates at once, while also ensuring that no other housing will be built.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 How game developers write and design games for the XBOX 360, PS3, and PC simultaneously? I always wondered how a studio can write a game for the XBox 360, PC, and PS3 at the same time and have all versions come out identical. Do they just make one version of it? Are there different teams that work on different consoles? How's it work? Keep in mind please that I know absolutely nothing about writing code or designing games.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant One of the big ideas in programming is abstraction. Basically, this means hiding away as many details as you can about things, in order to get a higher level view of it. Using a web browser is a good example of abstraction: In order to view a web page, you do not need to know anything about how the internet works. You just give the browser an address, and it does all of the work of finding the right server, requesting the page, and then rendering the page once it comes in. The details of how it does this are not important to you. In fact, Mozilla or Google could change how it works entirely, and as long as the browser still gets you your page, you don't really have to care. People writing games try to do the same thing. They try to add abstractions to their code, so that the details of what platform they're running on end up mattering very little. Inevitably there will have to be some platform specific code. But, in a well written application, this portion will be relatively small.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is it okay to give a small gift to my professor? I’m transferring this fall. And I wanted to give a small gift to one of my former professors who took me under his wing and helped me fall in love with English and Journalism. I took 3 of his classes. He has helped me find the schools that would fit me best. Because of him, I became an English major. I wanted to gift him a box of Nutter Butters (something that he always brought to class and snacked on) and also some nice carabiners (because he uses them a key chains and for outdoor activities), or if not the carabiners, an REI gift card. I will also write a little note thanking him. Anyways, is this too much? I just wanted to thank him for being so kind to me, taking me under his wing, and ultimately allowing me to fall in love with English. Thanks :)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Be sure that you have your final grade for any of their classes before doing so, and don't be shocked if they decline any part of the gift. Many professors have strong policies against conflicts of interest. Some schools also have policies on gift giving. It's a nice gesture, though.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Putting aside cost, tax policies, implentation, etc. I believe Sanders' free college proposal is fixing a symptom, not the problem, of education in America. We should be focusing on fixing K-12, not making college free. I want to avoid the discussion of how free college would be achieved. For the case of this argument free college is obtainable, paid for, and easily implemented. A college degree means less than it ever has [Source](http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2014/04/21/college-degrees-arent-becoming-more-valuable-their-glut-confines-people-without-them-to-a-shrinking-low-pay-sector-of-the-market/#7d6a14e371da). The current trend is that a bachelor's degree is becoming the new high school degree. Sanders, and those who support him, believe the solution to our education problem and job problem is to make public universities free. I believe this is fixing the symptom of our K-12 education process rather than fixing the fundamental problem that is our uncompetitive K-12 system. I believe the money that would be funneled into making college free would be better diverted to fixing K-12. College is not for everyone. As a recent college grad, I watched plenty of people come to, and drop out, of college after being pressured into going because "college is important." College is important, but it truly isn't for everyone. Making college free would further force people who don't belong in college going to college. Instead we should be promoting trade schools, apprenticships and fixing our broken K-12 system. I firmly believe free college would devolve into schooling being quasi-mandatory for 16 years rather than the current 12. _____ > Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our *[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)* first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I agree with you that the solution doesn't lie in "free college for everyone", but improving K-12 education doesn't solve the problem either. There are two benefits of college education. Increasing skillset, making you more productive, and competitive advantage against other job applicants. The fundamental problem, what drives people to college who "shouldn't go", is employment. If you want to have a respectable living wage with a decent standard of living, you pretty much need to go to college. (There are some industries that are overlooked and underserved like the trades, and we should encourage people to get into them, but that isn't going to solve the entire problem). 30 years ago, manufacturing was strong, people could graduate from highschool, start working immediately, and expect a decent living wage and some opportunities for advancement. Blue collar work like manufacturing is a fraction of what it used to be in the US, what with outsourcing and automation. No matter how good the K-12 system is, it doesn't bring those jobs back. There are two facets to this, worker productivity adding value to the economy, and competition, a higher qualified-worker-to-position ratio leads to lower wages. Improving K-12 education could improve workers productivity, but it won't change the competitive advantage aspect that drives people into the "pay to play" system.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does salt water naturally exist on Earth and why is there so much more of it than regular fresh water?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Salts are really common chemical compounds. Water is a very good solvent. It's not really surprising that large amounts of minerals end up in solution in large scale water reservoirs. It's just in lakes and rivers, the water moves on before it has a chance to get too salty. Except when the lake doesn't flow anywhere and you get the dead sea.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:Why do some (Cessna 172 for example) planes need a fuel mixture which is adjusted by the pilot, but a cars fuel air mixture is automatic?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Combustion engines rely on having the correct air to fuel mixture ratio. The air pressure (and therefore Oxygen amount) at ground level is fairly static, so maintaining the correct air/fuel mixture ratio manually is unneeded. However, at higher and higher altitudes, the air pressure , and therefore oxygen content lowers, and therefore in order to maintain the correct ratio of air to fuel for combustion at different altitudes requires the pilot to be able to set this mixture ratio manually.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What exactly are headaches and what causes them?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are many types of headaches with a variety of causes including tension headaches, cluster headaches, sinus headaches, and migraines. A lot of headaches are caused by inflammation of nerves, sinuses, or other tissues in the brain and neck. Sore/pulled muscles can cause headaches. Frequent migraines are less understood, and are often treated without knowing why the treatments work. Example- treating migraines with anti-seizure meds. Source: has chronic migraines, not a doctor<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What is the difference between a real and virtual particle, and why does that difference matter? Pun not intentional<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A real particle is a thing you can measure. A virtual particle is something which looks a particle if you represent perturbative calculations by feynman diagrams and has basically nothing to do with an actual particle.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Can we cut wasteful spending by giving government agencies incentives for having a budget surplus? I'm not sure if this is the correct place to post this, if it isn't, I'll take it down. Bare in mind I'm not an economist, it's just a random thought. So here goes: I've worked for a private company that is a supplier to different agencies of my local government. It's no surprise that prices of the products are way higher than the market since government contracts are essentially money printers for private companies. Besides that, an agency/ministry will deliberately blow through their budget at the end of the year. The reason for doing so is avoid budget cuts for the next year. The way funding is allocated to these government agencies incentives over spending and would increase government debt. My idea for this goes someting like this: At the end of the year, budget surplus will be tallied and the agency with the highest surplus will receive priority funding for the next year as well as a budget increase. Those that don't have a surplus will undergo an audit for overspending. Half the surplus funds will be collected to put back into the treasury and will be given back on the next budget allocation. Will someting like this work?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Public choice theory is the study of incentives by government agencies, politicians and bureaucrats. The general idea is that the incentives of those in positions of government don’t align directly with the hypothetical benevolent dictator, and choices are guided by self enrichment or other objectives. In one model by Niskanden, government agencies seek to maximize budgets, not the social welfare of those affected. It sounds like you are implicitly taking this incentive on through a budget surplus incentive. Sounds like the obvious perversion of incentives here are to maximize surplus by reducing expenditures as much as possible without the agency being penalized for that. So what is to stop a department like housing or education from cutting as much discretionary funding as possible in order to maximize next year’s budget? In general, if an agency had the ability to cut services in such a way that was socially desirable, why would we then want to increase those budgets in subsequent years? At the same time, why not audit all agencies? Oh, yeah because those auditors are also rational actors in the game. So we then need to audit the auditors. But who audits them? It’s auditors all the way down. Until we reach the turtle shell.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: what exactly is the determinant of a matrix calculating, and why does it end up being so significant/useful in other matrix calculations?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I'll focus on 3 x 3 matrices. Take any 3D shape. Something that's asymetrical, like a sculpture of Vincent Van Gogh's head. Or anything else, it doesn't matter, but it should have a finite volume V. (and not zero volume, like a flat plane). Think of your 3D shape as sitting in an x,y,z coordinate system. There are infinitely many points in your shape and each of those points P is described by a vector that goes from (0,0,0) to P. So you have infinitely many vectors that describe your shape. Now suppose we have a matrix M. We can think of M as transforming vectors. Take a vector v and M\v is some other vector (or maybe the same vector!). We're going to take every vector that's describing your shape and transform each of them with M. The end result will be another shape. How different it is will depend a lot on M, but it can be any combination of the following: your original shape rotated about some axis; your original shape scaled up or down in size; a mirror image of your original shape; your original shape skewed, as if it were made out of clay and your smushed/stretched it uniformly along some combination of directions. The volume of your transformed shape is likely different than it was originally. The factor by which the volume changed is the determinant of M. That is, New Volume = \|det A\| \ Old Volume. I used absolute value on the determinant there because volume ought to be positive and the determinant can be negative. A negative determinant has a straightforward interpretation: it means the transformation of your shape involved taking a mirror image. Like Vincent van Gogh's missing ear switching sides. With this volume-based interpretation of determinants we can quickly make some inferences about determinants that are pretty hard to perceive just from the definition of determinants. For one, a zero determinant must mean the transformation squished your shape to something with zero volume -- a flat plane, or a line, or a point. So any matrix that "projects" down to a plane or a line or a point must have zero determinant. Also we can infer if the transformation by M only rotated your shape without altering it otherwise, then the determinant of M should be 1, since the volume is the same. Likewise, a purely mirror-image transformation, or a mirror-image combined with a rotation, ought to have determinant -1. Also we can infer the important rule for determinants, that if K and M are both matrices, then det(K\M) = det(K)\det(M). I'll leave that for you to reason through.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user I think that scholarships specifically designated for a certain race are racist. CMV. There are a lot of scholarships out there that are only for African-Americans or only for people of Native American descent.. As a Caucasian female, I fail to see why this doesn't count as racism. If someone were to designate a scholarship for a Caucasian person, it would be immediately declared as racist. Just like I don't believe that someone's skin color or ethnic descent automatically makes them inferior to others, I also don't think that being a certain skin color/ethnic background makes it okay to separate someone out for positive benefits.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The purpose of scholarships targeted at these minorities is to offset other disadvantages they already face. For historical reasons they are more likely to come from poorer families and have greater difficulties obtaining a college education. One might ask why they are more deserving of a scholarship than someone from a poor white family and on the level of individuals this is hard to justify. However one must see the bigger picture and understand the problem this is trying to solve. The marginalisation of a particular group of society is not healthy for that society. Once a group becomes disenfranchised it can lead to social unrest and violence as has happened in the past. For this reason it is desirable to integrate minorities into society and attempt to give them an equal economic and social standing as other groups in society. Targeted scholarships are just one tool used to achieve this.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What value do cryptocurrency investors add to society? I guess same goes to stock investors as well. My idea of an economy is you produce goods/services for society and get rewarded with currency, which you can then spend on good/services that other people produce. You can only take as much value out of the economy as you put in. But this must not be correct because that very simplistic theory breaks down when it comes to investing. When someone makes a million dollars off dogecoin, they didn’t create a million dollars of goods/services for the economy. So why should they be able to take a million dollars of value away? All they did was hold an asset that appreciated tremendously, but where is the value created? My knowledge of economics is very limited so any explanation of why my simple economic theory is incorrect would be appreciated.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Stock investors are investing in companies that theoretically create value. Capital is aggregated through investment to make things possible that would be otherwise impossible for most people not named Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk. They obviously hope that as their underlying firm creates more and more value that their ownership increases in value. This is a very important aspect of an advanced economy. Crypto “investors” on the other hand are not investing in anything of inherent or intrinsic value but rather they’re speculating that someone will pay more one day despite the underlying “asset” remaining inert and unproductive.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What determines if two plants can be hybridized or not? e.g. can I combine an avocado tree and a strawberry plant?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Genes determine. So it is the same thing about when two animals evolve different enough to no longer interbreed. Humans have 23 chromosomes, so we can only breed with other things that also have 23 chromosomes and even further only if those 23 are pretty close to ours. Even if the DNA recombines, it can code for nonviable traits (like missing lungs or whatever). Same thing for plants. First they have to have the same number of chromosomes, then those chromosomes have to be similar enough to recombine and still have enough basics to make a viable plant, then seeds have to have DNA that can code for propagation of the new plant. It is actually very difficult to find plants that can crossbreed, as in general they have to survive being exposed to lots of different pollen while only propagating with the correct pollen (or whatever the equivalent is for the particular plant).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why when you evaporate coffee and store the steam until it becomes liquid again, the liquid no longer has the color of coffee? I did this experiment one day because I was curious, sorry if it's a stupid question<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Evaporating water, collecting the steam, and condensing it back into water is known as distillation. By doing this with coffee, you are essentially just separating the coffee from the water - the coffee stays in the cup and the water turns into steam (that you collect and condense back into water). Because the water no longer has the coffee in it, it goes back to being clear.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How can plants survive hydroponically, but die from over watering in different environments?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Over watering plants can kill them in several ways. It can "drown" roots and deprive them of oxygen. It can interfere with uptake of certain nutrients, or it can promote fungal growth which can infect plants. Hydroponic setups aerate the water to keep it oxygenated, and typically have some portion of the roots exposed to air. The water has specific nutrient levels in a form the plant can use. Fungi tends to do poorly in these systems because, unlike dirt, there isn't a lot of organic material to consume. That said, not all plants can be grown hydroponically. It's best suited for annual plants that have a short life cycle and doesn't work well for plants with specific soil needs.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How do so many experimental psychology papers get away with n=15? I've been reading a lot of papers for my thesis lately and I keep seeing papers (that aren't pilot studies) with sample sizes between 15 and 30. How is that even remotely enough to draw inferences from? Shouldn't there be problems with random noise not canceling itself out due to the small sample size?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The necessary sample size depends on what you're trying to estimate, and with what precision. Psychology has a problem with low power in general, but it's hard to speak generally about "getting away with n=15" without specifying what kind of experiment we're talking about. There are many results in psychology that are perfectly replicable with a sample that small, and many experiment that should probably be conducted with much larger samples.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How does brushing your teeth clean your mouth, and has the invention of toothbrushes affected bacterial evolution?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Toothbrushes mechanically helps in cleaning teeth by scrubbing off the dental pellicle layer that has been invaded with bacteria and thus preventing the formation of plaque and its accumulation, getting rid of food particles that remain on the tooth surface that might not be visible to the naked eye. Modern day brushes focus more on being less invasive towards the periodontal tissue (mainly the gums) and being more reliable in consideration to the time and amount of force that the consumer applies during their brushing sessions. Also back then when toothbrushes were not around, people often used alternative ways to brush their teeth (see miswak or teeth cleaning twigs). In relation to toothpastes and saliva they help in regulating the pH of the mouth that occurs due to by products of carbohydrates fermintation by the bacteria in the mouth, acidic pH increases the rate of demineralization of the dental enamel and limits the mineralization of the dental enamel. Also toothpastes tend to have prophylactic components that aid in the exchange of minerals between the tooth and the oral cavity and some have anti-microbial and others with periodontal-friendly components, but mainly saliva plays an important role in maintaining the oral balance and dictating its hygiene.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why are random access speeds of flash memory different from their sequential access speeds? I understand that on rotational disks, sequential reads and writes are faster than random ones because the head is already in place to read sector B after it reads sector A, and moving over to sector Z takes time. But a flash device has no moving parts. Why is reading page A followed by page B faster than reading page A followed by page Z?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are two primary factors that cause sequential and random access to have different speeds: * Sequential access allows future activity to be predicted and acted on ahead of time. Future data can be prefetched either in parallel with the current read, or after the read is complete but before the operating system has time to process the response (so it is ready before the next request). This saves time resolving wear-leveling mappings [1] and reading the data from discontinuous blocks if a sequential request is received next. This is similar to why sequential RAM access is a big deal when designing data structures when programming, because reading sequential RAM is extremely fast due to future requests being cached ahead of time. * An SSD has a maximum buffer size for the amount of data it can read in a single request. Random reads are often smaller than sequential reads in real-world situations. It will take more requests from the operating system to read the same amount of data in smaller segments than in a single large segment because some of the buffer space is wasted (unused) for each request if the random chunks are smaller than the buffer size. [1] Because flash blocks can only be rewritten a limited number of times, any practical consumer SSD will implement wear leveling. This essentially means that blocks are not contiguously and permanently assigned in the order the operating system sees them in when it reads the disk. The SSD automatically remaps which physical blocks store data to avoid overusing a single block to the point of failure.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Marvel Universe] Could Tony Stark make a suit out of adamantium? The way I understand it, adamantium is one of the strongest metals there is. I would assume Tony Stark would want the strongest suit. Would there be any barriers to him making a suit like this?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Cost and availability for one. Adamantium is very hard to get a hold of, possibly moreso than Vibranium. Also, the fact that once processed Adamantium cools it stays in that shape FOREVER would likely make it less appealing to work with. Making certain parts of the suit, specifically plates that cover the vital organs, from adamantium could be a possibility, but a whole suit would be very tedious to make. Weight is also another factor, and entire suit of armor could weigh as much as a ton and make for some difficulties in movement and flight<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 What is it specifically about substances like mercury and lead that kills you? I understand something like Carbon Monoxide which physically takes up space that should have oxygen there but what about lead in my blood kills me? Is it a chemical reaction that steals nutrients? Does it puncture blood cells?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Many proteins in your body incorporate atoms/molecules of specific metals like iron, copper, manganese etc. Those metals are crucial to how those proteins function. Heavier metals, like mercury can be put into those proteins by mistake. This means the protein will no longer work. Depending on what the protein does normally, that can cause lots of problems.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Frozen/Avatar] If Elsa was in the Avatar universe would she be viewed as just a particularly powerful water bender or something else entirely based on her feats?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The main sticking point would be the ability to alter the climate: while water benders can freeze water, they can't simply make it cold, and certainly can't affect things on a national level. Likewise, while benders can animate stuff by moving it, creating living beings is something there is absolutely no precedent for in the ATLA verse. There'd be more then enough evidence for people to realize that there's something going on here beyond merely a water-bending prodigy.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Does Chinese Herbal Medicine work? Coming from a family that believe in Chinese herbal medicine, I've been to the Chinese doctor plenty of times. They take a look at you, measure your pulse from your wrist with 2 fingers and just blank out for a few minutes. Then they list out a whole list of problems and prescribe herbs where you boil and drink (I call it Liquid Tar). My family believes in these practices as it has been practice over a long period of time but there doesn't seem to be a lot of research involved. I've asked my regular family doctor about this practice and he didn't have much to comment on it. So does Chinese Herbal Medicine work or is it just a Placebo effect? P.S. I drink the stuff but I don't know if I get better because of it or it's just my body recovering naturally.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Technically, we have to say "it depends", as all actual FDA-approved medicine was once herbal medicine that was studied for active ingredients, and we now know exactly what to extract that produces desired results. Eg; Your grandma's secret poppyseed bread may always remove pain because it's loaded with "milk of the poppy", aka Opium. Or that jar of mold she spreads on a cracker to cure your food poisoning is incindentally a raw version of penicillin. More than likely though, it's just placebo, or at least giving you vitamins and nutrients you haven't been eating because you hate your grandmother and don't eat your vegetables like a good boy.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Is HIV actually "cured" or not? There have been a lot of posts in News and Science and stuff like that about new cases of HIV being "functionally cured." What does this mean? Is it a solution, or just a first step towards a solution? Does the treatment work all the time, or occasionally? Do we know yet?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Essentially, with modern treatments, doctors can make sure that if you catch it early and can afford the treatment, they can prevent it from turning into AIDS for a very long time. The "functional cure" stuff is typical media exaggeration, though it does hold some promise for future treatments. What a "functional cure" means is that the severity of the infection stays low even after the treatment is stopped, which is different how the current treatments we use work. What they've found only works for some people, though. Basically, what doctors can do is keep the amount of HIV in your system low enough that it's very unlikely to turn into AIDS, which is what kills you. HIV used to be a death sentence, but now people who are HIV+ can live long and relatively healthy lives as long as it's detected early and treated. However, the treatments do not get rid of the HIV, so it can still be transferred, and it will come back if you stop taking your medicine.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do electromagnetic waves such as Bluetooth and cell tower signals pass through walls and other solid objects without any issues? And why are some wavelengths better or worse at it?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant What about windows? Windows are essentially solid walls. They can be quick thick, fairly sturdy, and pretty solid. Except light can go through them. Different materials are transparent to different frequencies of light. For example, stained-glass windows give pretty coloured patters because they are transparent to some colours of light but not others (a red glass panel absorbs frequencies of light that aren't red). Similarly, glass is generally pretty good at blocking (some) ultraviolet light. We don't notice because we can't see it, but if we could see in UV windows would look solid, like walls. The specific patterns of what frequencies are absorbed by what materials are complicated and we don't want to get into them. But walls are transparent to some frequencies of radio waves (they are also pretty good at bending around corners). Some frequencies may have issues going through walls (like light going through a frosted glass window), but that isn't as much of a problem for radio signals as we don't need to receive the full image (like we do for seeing things), just the signal from one bit. If you could "see" radio waves anything emitting them (a wireless router, a phone, signal towers) would have a fuzzy glow, and you might be able to see that through walls (kind of like objective markers in some computer games).<\|im_end\|>

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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