Split (1)

train · 52.8k rows

text stringlengths 82 65.5k
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: how muscle memory works. I find it fascinating that our fingers can type out words without a keyboard. [5]<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant When you perform a sequence of one or more actions your brain will begin to associate those actions with each other. There's a saying that goes "Neurons that fire together wire together", which can be interpreted in this context to mean that if you perform two (or more) actions in sequence often enough, the motor neurons responsible for the sequence of actions will become directly connected. Performing the first action will excite the neurons responsible for the second action and make them more likely to 'fire', those excite the neurons responsible for the third action, etc.. Each time you complete this sequence of actions the association between all the neurons involved in completing that sequence grows stronger. Essentially your brain has to work less hard each time you complete that sequence of actions, playing a scale on an instrument for example. This applies for all neurons though, not just motor neurons. Pretty much, if anything reminds you of anything else it is a product of this phenomenon. Your brain associates things when they occur simultaneously or sequentially.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How does 14nm lithography work? I am wondering what technology the semiconductor industry utilizes to achieve 14nm feature sizes. I searched the web for a while but could only find stuff about Moore's law and why 14nm is great, but nothing tangible about the actual manufacturing process. Would be great if someone could help out! Edit: I should have made more clear that I'm not interested in a general explanation of lithography but rather in the specifics of the 14nm lithography process, especially how the feature size can be so small.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The two main technologies used are photolithography and electron beam lithography. Generally, you take a silicon wafer, cover it in a material that is resistant to acid but sensitive to light (called a resist), and then expose it to UV light that is shone through a "mask" that lets light shine only on specific spots (this is similar to how cameras focus an image onto film). This induces a chemical change in the resist, such that the exposed parts can be washed away. Then, you expose the whole thing to acid so that the silicon that is not covered in resist gets etched, while the rest of it gets protected. When you remove the resist afterwards, you have a patterned surface. Electron beam lithography is similar, except instead of exposing light you use a beam of electrons, whose path is controlled with electric and magnetic fields, like in an old TV screen. This is higher resolution, but slower. Another technology is focused ion beam milling, which is sort of like using a pressure washer on a wood deck, except instead of water it's a beam of ionized atoms and instead of grime being blasted away it's the surface atoms.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user AskScience AMA Series: I am a leading researcher in the areas of cannabis plant science and plant physiology at Volcani Agriculture Research Center, in Israel. My name is Nirit Bernstein and I am researching cannabis plant sciences, and the best ways to grow medical cannabis, Ask Me Anything! Medical cannabis is a fast growing field and researchers are delving into the implications of cannabis for medical purposes. Israel hosts one of the world's leading primary research facilities in the area of medical cannabis. I was the first scientist in Israel to study the plant-based science of medical cannabis. I and my team work to advance the academic and applied science of the cannabis plant. Their objective is to develop basic and practical knowledge of secondary metabolism in health-beneficial plants, including cannabis, to contribute to human health and food security, while protecting the environment. Here are some links to some of my research: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2019.00736/full https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S092666901831015X https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2019.01369/full I will be available at 12 PM PT (3 PM ET, 19 UT), Ask Me Anything! Username: /u/Israelinsf<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Is there any scientific evidence that flushing plants (feeding only water or decreasing concentration of hydroponic solution) before harvest does anything useful to the final product? Is there any scientific evidence that leaving plants in total darkness for \~24-72hrs prior to harvest increases cannabinoid concentrations? Is there any scientific evidence behind the "white ash" test, in which growers seem to believe that cannabis that creates white ash is higher quality or has different mineral content? Can you speak to the chemical process that is occurring when Cannabis is cured? (e.g. after drying, putting cannabis into air-tight, humidity controlled buckets to allow moisture content to become uniform). Is there any evidence for supplemental UV lighting to increase cannabinoid concentrations?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If each atom has its own spectral lines, how does blackbody radiation cover all possible frecuencies? I mean,a copper filament emits according to the temperature, but shouldn't it emit only in the "copper spectrum"?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The natural lines are broadened and shifted by different effects. There is Doppler broadening, which refers to the Doppler effect shifting the emission wavelength, because the emitter is moving. Since the particles have a random distribution of speeds, this converts a single spectral line into a Gaussian distribution. Similarly there are interaction effects (like pressure broadening), a particle temporarily shifts its energy levels (and thus its emission light), while close by another particle. These effects average out the narrow spectral lines and you end up with the black body spectrum. But no object is a true black body radiator. E.g. if you put copper dust into a flame it will look more greenish than an ideal black body. Or look at fireworks, depending on their ingredient they glow in different colors. TL/TD: It is a statistical effect, averaging out the emission from many particles being in random states.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user development economics So, I'm from a subsaharan country and one thing thats always perplexed me is the literal title of this post — ' development economics' like why does there have to be this need to seperate it, like isnt this entire human science based on developing, its kinda shows how classification systems can hinder knowledge sometimes. Take for example the whole issue of diversity or allyship - its like why do you need a whole group for people who arent racist, that should be the default, or diversity its like you're basically acknowledging that in including people who don't look like you are deviating from some norm... when the norm should be that everyone is included... anyways i digress so development economics... lets talk about it<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Undeveloped countries face different problems than developed ones. It makes sense to focus on solving those specific problems. For example, undeveloped countries suffer from major brain drain and poverty traps. These are non issues for developed countries, they would receive no attention without development economists.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [General Supernatural] How far up and down does salt project it's warding power? It's often seen in movies and stories that a line of salt in a threshold is able to stave off the attacks of supernatural beings, most commonly ghosts and vampires. My question us why don't these creatures, both of which can fly, simply fly up over the line? Or why don't ghosts phase beneath it? Does the salt project an infinite barrier above and below it?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant As with most things supernatural, it depends on the intent. Salt across a doorway or window creates a barrier for that doorway or window. If there's another entrance, the creature could enter through that. If the salt forms a circle around an open area, it projects a dome (possibly a sphere going underground) of protection that intersects the ground at the salt. If the ring is smaller than human height, say just a couple feet wide around a person, or is inside a building, it would go from floor to ceiling or an equivalent height to protect whatever it encircles.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: If cardio is done by raising the heart rate to a high level and sustaining it, why does the heart not constantly improve its health since it never stops beating?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If your heart needs to get stronger it will, that usually means you are in trouble. Look into the physiological mechanics of most cardiac problems and you will see that most of them aren't the heart muscles failing the body, it's the other way around. High Blood pressure? Your heart muscle is fine, the problem is that it is working too hard because your body is in bad shape, narrow arteries, obesity, reduced kidney function. It will keep working too, but your arterial walls aren't strong enough to withstand the extra pressure and over time will weaken. Heart attack? That's a clot or blockage in an artery that starves your heart of oxygen, again it is your body failing your heart muscles. Low blood pressure? Hormone imbalances mostly. Your heart muscle is normally fine but it keeps getting orders to beat slower and weaker than it is capable of. Your heart muscle is so amazing compared to the rest of your body that managing your cardiac health is mostly about getting your body closer to the efficiency of your heart to make its job easier. Cardio expands your blood vessels and improves your circulation. It improves your bodies efficiency at using oxygen and dealing with the by products of anaerobic exercise. It means that your heart gets to take it easy. An incredibly healthy cardiovascular system is one you are likely to find in people with low excess body weight, active lifestyle, and a good diet that doesn't tax their metabolic systems. This hypothetical person will have a slow heart rate with a strong "beat" but not high blood pressure. Because the body is up to snuff and will have vessels large enough to allow blood to flow easily and a body efficient in using it. TLDR; You heart is so powerful, efficient, and sexy that it mostly doesn't need to improve, it's your scrub-ass "everything else in your body" that fails your heart.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:Axiom of Choice Trying to wrap my head around this concept. If someone could kindly duh it down for me I would be grateful. Thanks!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A "choice function" is a function which takes as input any one of a collection of sets, and returns some element of that set. So if we have all of the nonempty sets of positive integers, we can define the function "f(S) = the smallest integer in S". For example, f({11,12,13}) = 11, while f({2, 4, 6, 8, ...}) = 2. This is a simple example of a choice function. On the other hand, "f(S) = the largest integer in S" is not a valid choice function, since the set of all even positive integers {2,4,6,8, ...} has no largest element, and so f({2,4,6,8...}) would be undefined. But what if, instead of nonempty sets of positive integers, we're working with nonempty sets of real numbers? If we try to just copy over the same choice function, we'll find "the smallest real number in S" is undefined for a great many sets of real numbers, such as the set of all negative real numbers. Other basic attempts at defining a choice function will similarly run into problems with sufficiently weird sets of real numbers. It's far from clear whether a choice function should exist that is defined on all possible nonempty sets of real numbers. The axiom of choice states that for any collection of nonempty sets (whether nonempty sets of positive integers, nonempty sets of real numbers, or anything else) there always exists at least one choice function. It doesn't say anything about what the function is or how it works - it just says that there must be some such function. Surprisingly, this axiom is necessary to resolve several basic-seeming conjectures in set theory (and occasionally other areas). Some of them even feel "obvious", like the statement: given two sets A and B, either they are the same size or one is smaller than the other. Others are deeply counterintuitive, like the Banach-Tarski paradox, which shows that (assuming the axiom of choice) it is possible to cut a sphere into five pieces, move and rotate the pieces, and end up with two spheres identical to the original. Regardless of this latter category, the axiom of choice is generally accepted by mathematicians - though there are still some who reject the axiom of choice or who work with alternate axioms which negate the axiom of choice (the most prominent being the axiom of determinacy).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why having too many methods in a class is considered bad practice, yet most libraries have classes with dozens, sometimes even hundreds of methods ?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Having many methods in a single class is often a sign that you should divide it up into smaller modules, but that's not always the case. Think of a \`math\` library in most languages, it's likely it will contains dozens of public methods for sin, cos, tan, exponential, etc., plus public constants for pi, e, and so on. It makes sense to put them all together because the only other option would be to divide them up into separate math libraries, perhaps math\_trig and math\_stats and so on. If it makes sense for them all to be together, then keep them all together.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Foundation] What exactly is psychohistory?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It is the study of human interaction. Not at interpersonal levels, but at this if entire societies. As with anything, long term study of a field lets patterns emerge, and those can, if universal enough, be called "laws." Hari Seldon codified this into a branch of mathematics, with a complete internal logic built up around his understanding of these laws. This then allowed him to make predictions about societies, so long as they could not see them themselves.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star Trek] Do Captains have other areas of expertise like flying or engineering or did they spend all of their time at the academy just learning how to "Captain"?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The Command track involves learning enough of more or less everything to be able to fill in without spending the time necessary to specialize. The extra time is instead spent on "captaining" - that is, tactics, leadership skills, history, and so on.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: From an evolutionary stance, why are humans bereft of basic defenses:claws, canines, thick hide..And instead runs with diverse body types, no fur, and exposed vital organs? I accept evolution in its basic and complex forms, but how did humans dominate the jungle without even being able to hold their breath for more than two minutes, or getting a cold after every storm? Research tells me that the subconscious invested more time in perfecting precision and problem solving, but I can't help wonder if there are other theories.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A common misconception about evolution is that it should "improve things". In reality, though, it doesn't care where our organs are, or what defences we have. It simply favours animals that learn to survive. We have evolved from an ancestor of the Great Apes, for which this body structure was well-suited. Humans have since done a remarkably good job of surviving/reproducing in our relatively-frail form, and so those are the genes that get passed on to the next generation.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are babies sometimes so unwilling to eat, when it is fundamental for survival?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Failure to thrive is sometimes caused by things that aren't obvious: some babies have acid reflux, some aren't signaling they're hungry in ways the parents pick up on, some have other health issues. Essentially, if a baby appears healthy and isn't eating, something is going on - and it needs to be investigated.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:Why do astronomers take pictures of things in different wavelengths?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You can think of different wavelengths as different colors. The human eye can only see a small range of wavelengths of light - from around 390 nm to 700 nm - but there's light with wavelengths smaller than 390 nm (ultraviolet) and light with wavelengths larger than 700 nm (infrared). Just as there are a lot of details in the world that you can only see if you look for specific colors, there are lots of details in the universe that you can only see when you look at different wavelengths.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why would I use X language over Y language? Hello y'all! I am starting a new project, and I was wondering what language I should use. I am relatively new to "complex" programming (classes and threading is where I am now as far as learning). I taught myself c++ 4 ish years ago, but just the basics (up until classes, didn't do anything c++ specific like memory management). Just finished an AP python course for school (but because it was online it wasn't officially AP), and I take Java classes outside of school (at lambas and bytes). I am unsure which language to use and why I would use it. I am pretty good at learning things, and transferring knowledge (can rewrite things I wrote in python in c++ and vise versa easily) and I learn things fast (bad at memorizing great at improvising and understand concepts). I am willing to learn other languages for this (it's a game), looking especially at Rust and Go (in addition to c++ and python). So, why would I use Rust or Go over c++ or python (in general)? Looking to pick a language to really learn and focus on (I bounce around too much, learning just the basics from a lot of random languages like javascript, c#, node.js, etc). I have heard Rust called the "modern c++" because it supports things like memory management (and pointers?) but Rust helps with the more tedious parts, at the cost of "being limited" because it "accepts less" (not sure that that means, explanation would be nice). What is Go for? I know google made it, as a more readable and reasonable c++, (more python esq look), while still being compiled. I am open to other languages to learn, but preferably they are like c++ as far as use cases (compiled, 'fast', I will be mostly making games). I know Python is used for a lot of 'big data's stuff, but what else is it used for? I have used it for scripts (part of my xmobar used python scripts for a while), but I have heard it's bad for games (no built in threading, and not compiled) I am specifically making a game like Pacman, but without walls, and just 1 coin that moves when you get it. (Terminal output, with a nested for loop to draw the X and the Y). Which language should I use and WHY? (Really looking for the WHY, or type/style of language) Thanks in advance!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant This is really dependent on the application you are making. If you’re trying to make a web application C and C++ would be a bad choice. Use Python or JavaScript (IMO). If you’re application needs to be efficient and you are needing to access hardware elements directly, use C or C++. Choose the best language for the job. You wouldn’t go to a French bakery and try to order in Swahili.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How can the body of some animals like Cows, Horses, etc. that only eat grass make those huge muscles? They only eat vegetables, yet they have huge muscles. Their bodies are full of protein. How is that possible? In bodybuilding they say you need to eat high protein foods like beef and chicken to make muscles. It doesn't make any sense!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant First of all you need to consider that all plant matter, or every living being to be exact, contains all essential amino acids that are needed to assemble the proteins needed. The common claim that only some foods contain "complete protein" is utter bullshit - even apples and potatoes theoretically could supply us with sufficient amino acids to get by, we only need eat insane quantities to do so. The efficiency at which the pure protein of food can be used also varies by a large margin. Animals that can digest grass need to eat a lot of it, but by doing so they can get plenty of amino acids and most other essential nutrients to thrive. Now the reason bodybuilders usually recommend eating meat is that they aim for very low body fat and optimum muscle growth. One way to achieve that is to eat way more proteins than the body can use to grow (the amino acids can be used as source of energy otherwise) while avoiding fat and sugar, so lean meat and eggs are pretty good foods for that. If you merely want to get ripped you can be a vegan and grow muscles just fine. Legumes like beans and peas, and grains contain a significant amount of protein, and combined they can be used very efficiently (grain lacks one amino acid legumes have plenty of)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How come sometimes my finger smoothly glides over the surface of my phone screen, but sometimes it drags and leaves a streak even if I just washed?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are several factors that can affect how much resistance you have while moving your finger across your screen. For one, the harder you are pressing your finger down, the more friction there will be between your finger and the screen. You may do this without realizing this. Secondly, different amounts of sweat and grease may be present either on your fingertips or on the phone screen itself. If your hands are warm/sweaty or if it's warm in the air, you may get a more greasy interface between your fingers and the screen.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why is there a social stigma about living in your parents house in Western countries? Im not sure if someone already asked this before but why is this a thing on western countries? (US/Canada) Im Asian M23, grew up in Asia and me and my family moved in Canada when I was 19. I made friends at school and work and I’ve been asked few times where I live and every time I live in redacted with my parents there’s always something wrong with their reaction about it. Back in my country it’s perfectly normal to live with your parents until 30 or even older. Some people even get married and live with their wife (if you’re a male) in his parents house. I live with my parents here in Canada but I never asked them for money and anything. I give my share of utility payments, buy and cook my own food, pay my own car payments and credit card debts and student loans and I dont see anything wrong with that. Also, I don’t think I can afford with my current financial situation. I earn around 3kCad$ per month and around 60-70% of those goes to those stuff mentioned above. Usual rent in my city is around 700-1000 even with a roommate. I’m not lazy and I’m not trying to sound rude and ignorant but these people who asked me that are living on their own lives literally cheque by cheque and struggling to make ends meet. I dont see the point on moving out of your parents house when youre not financially stable and has some money saved up. Im not saying that im plannig to live with my parents forever but im going to wait to atleast have a decent paying job and money saved up. Atleast 2-3 years from now.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant To follow up, is there much research on prestige hierarchies in general? If there's pressure woven into the psychosocial fabric to demonstrate an ability to pay for things that aren't necessities and to dress them up as if they are necessities to cover up the aforementioned fabric, would we ever find out about it? Are some things too ingrained for an experiment to tease out the contributing factors?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is it that a building with the AC set to 70 degrees on "cool" mode is colder than a building set to 70 degrees on "warm" mode? Shouldn't they be the same temperature?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Upper and lower boundaries. Cooling to 70 activates cold AC when temp goes ABOVE 70. Warming to 70 only activates heat AC if temp goes BELOW 70. If the building is above 70 then heat AC will never turn on because it's waiting for building temp to drop below 70.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [General Sci-Fi] Do universal translators improve interpersonal relationships by smoothing out flukes of language/mistakes? Do universal translators (babelfish, ST and so on) translate the meaning of the spoken words, or the intent behind the words as they are constructed in the speakers mind before they are spoken ? It’s been made evident in some stories that the grammar and languages of alien civilisations are so different that straight up, live translation of words as they come by would either be impractical, or impossible. I have read about theories according to which the translator devices/systems were actually relying on brain waves/nervous system and other clues to determine the message without having to rely on the words themselves. Assuming this is true, what would that mean for any random interactions where words can get jumbled and the normal spoken message be muddied ? I’m thinking of any interaction leading a human experiencing a lapse of reason to say “sorry, this came out wrong / I used the wrong word / can’t remember the name for this thing here/I mixed two sentences together”) Would a translator literally translate the mistakes? Or would they, by being closer to the original intent, short circuit the mechanism by which people get their words messed up? And if this was true, would it not greatly improve relationships overall, diminishing the hurtful phrases, misunderstandings and frustrations of daily life?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Probably depends on how advanced the translator is. For example the TARDIS in Doctor Who is capable of translating almost all languages fluently and into whatever contemporary version of the language the listener understands and there's never been any cultural clashes as a result of this translation.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why is it that natural remedies occur so often in plants, but rarely if ever in animals?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Consider the chief difference between plants and animals. Animals can move, plants can't. If an animal needs to defend itself, it needs to move faster, or have more muscles, or have teeth and claws and so on. How does a plant defend itself? It can't run away from a predator. It can't bite or claw at an enemy. So how does a plant protect itself? Aside from maybe some thorns, they use chemicals. There is much more pressure for a plant to synthesize new chemicals that can be used to defend itself, making for a vast array of chemical compounds that may potentially have use in human medicine. There is not the same pressure in the animal kingdom to synthesize unique chemical compounds. Consider the smell of cut grass. Why does it smell that way? It's the smell of trauma. The grass is basically sending out a distress signal, a category of compounds called "green leaf volatiles". One effect these compounds can have is to lure bugs that eat caterpillars, which like to eat grass.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is Determinism?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Determinism argues that basically all choices and actions were previously determined by things in your past/genetics and other things like that. Because of this, Determinists argue Free Will doesn’t exists and any impulsive actions you think you’re doing have been doing were actually decided way beforehand. This is a huge simplification, hope it helps!<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: There is no way to justify "Honor Killings" of women deemed to have brought shame or dishonor to their family. (Warning, I think its safe to say some of the answers solicited can severely offend). I've recently stumbled upon an article talking about a person who will defend Honor killings in the upcoming Festival of Dangerous Ideas. While the western mindset has in many instances created outlandish and oftentimes vitriolic opinions of cultures and people foreign to them, the popular "western" notion of honor killing being savage and barbaric cannot be questioned. To subjugate a human being under a perilously unfair and draconian standard with failure to adhere being met with death ( oftentimes without due process) merely because one is born a woman is a crime against humanity. Here is the article: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/honour-killings-speech-prompts-boycott-of-festival-of-dangerous-ideas-20140624-zsk03.html<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Why do you want your view changed? Also the article didn't list the pro-honor killing individual's actual arguments at all. So we don't really know what his perspective is other than what seems to be hysteria from conservative people in a country with a terrible history of racial problems and a recent national hard turn to the political right wing.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star Trek] Why have the civilizations of Star Trek expanded SO SLOWLY? It seems like the biggest limiting factor is the crystals needed to power starships... but is it really so hard to harvest energy from other sources and store it in some other form (since it apparently is utterly impossible to synthesize the necessary crystals, even if one uses the highest quality replicators and parks next to a star or two)? If nothing else, couldn't they start spamming colonization pods that basically consist of frozen colonists + industrial replicators + solar panels (or some other such energy gathering device) and just not thaw out the colonists until enough progress has been made for them to live reasonably comfortably? * And what about the Borg? It seems like all they need to do is make ships and... that's it. They don't even need to colonize planets, do they? * And now that I think about it, how has the galaxy not been overrun by sentient machines? Are they really that rare? It seems like any race that has overcome the need for colonizing planets, maintaining atmosphere, etc, would have such a gigantic advantage over everyone else that it would be no contest unless they got snuffed out by a more advanced race before they had a chance to blossom. They could focus on using all their trilithium/dilithium for space travel and use other energy sources for staying alive. All other resources could be channeled into making ships and reproducing. Hell, the two need not even be mutually exclusive.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant * Population growth is massive limiting factor, you only really colonize as fast as your population expands (and even then, the need to actually go and settle new lands is low) * Terraforming is an expensive, long process and otherwise the number of habitable planets actually isn't that massive when you get right down to it, and when you further split things up by travel time and competition from other powers, you get relatively stagnant borders. * Not everything can be replicated. There are plenty of resources that still require extraction and refinement, and the quality of replicated goods is generally seen as middling. Perfectly acceptable for consumer use, in a sense, but for starships, heavy industrial equipment, really anything that is quality dependent you'll want to use standard processes to produce.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How would a blind person experience LSD?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It would depend on the cause of the blindness. LSD is an agonist of 5HT2a receptors and works at the level of the visual cortex. So if someone had a non cortical blindness due to for example a cataract it should still be possible for them to experience the visual effects of LSD. If the cause of the blindess was cortical (e.g. stroke) they would likely not experience visual effects. It should be noted that LSD acts on many other brain areas apart from the visual cortex and it has many other effects on cognition and perception apart from the more well publicised visual effects.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: I believe universities should be more exclusive I think everyone is going to agree that the current educational status of the united states is bad at best. The extremely high costs and the saturated laboral market are driving young people to start their lifes with a massive debt on their account and uncertainity on whether or not they are going to be able to get the job to pay for it. My point being that I eleibe this problem woulb be solver, or at it would help drastically if universities were much more exclusive. Full disclousure: Im not american, I follow the british educational system, which mostly suffers from the same problems than the american, gowever I opted to argue from an american view so that most people that are going to read this could relate to my arguments. In the british system there is an average made of all the exams and a grade "C" is calculated from this average, this means that if a student gets a 58% in an exam and the average of the students is 64% he will get a "D", if the average is 55% he will get a "B". This ensures that only a fraction of the class gets "B" and "A", the reason why Im explaining this is because Im unsure of whether or not the american system has a similar approach. Anyways, my underatanding is that if universities only admitted for entry students that had an average of "B" (or a gpa of 3, correct me if Im wrong on this) this would unsaturate the job market for university students, drive the prices of higher education down and also open the eyes to a lot of laboral opportunities that are looked down upon just because of voncept that you need a university diploma to be succesfull in life. (By the way Im not a native speaker so if I had spelling mistakes please overlook them and focus on the view)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Education is important for its own sake. Universities aren't just job factories, they teach other important skills. Things like critical thinking, research skills, a base knowledge in core subjects like science and history, a widened worldview giving you empathy for the "other." Even if you take those skills and use them for nothing but flipping burgers or digging ditches, all of society is better for having more people be competent in these skills. Consider the insane amount of fake news floating around social media that gets bought hook, line and sinker, the people who deny basic scientific truths like climate change and evolution, the way the American presidential race has become more about a popularity contest and sounding good than people thinking about the actual issues, partially because they don't know how to. Some of these problems could be at least not as bad if everyone had the right to a college education. Even better, if they started teaching these skills before college.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Can a [B.S. in computing and data sciences] help me land a job as a software engineer? The university in my city doesn't offer a B.S. in computer science or in software engineering (both available in other cities), it only offers a [B.S. in computing and data sciences]: Curriculum: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-PV_bSXL9Il7F7JdZqyYYQqNqczz76gyEUetNoy1rZI Would the later be good enough for an aspiring software engineer, or should I travel abroad and enroll in a university that offers a computer science or a software engineering degree? Any advice is much appreciated :)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant From the curriculum, it leans heavy towards statistical / math foundation, so indeed it points towards data science. Nothing wrong with these, if you dig these. It probably covers 30-50% of CS. I find less of these CS related staple subjects like: operating systems / systems programming / assembly, programming languages / paradigms / design, hardware / networking, software engineering / architecture.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why does an accelerating electron(or any other charged particle) radiate electromagnetic radiation?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Imagine you are very far away from a charged particle, and you can detect its electric field. Then the particle starts accelerating. The electric field far away from the charged object is no longer the same. However, the information that the source of the field has changed can only propagate at light speed. So the electric field has this disturbance propagating outward at the speed of light, which is what we call electromagnetic radiation.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How are we able to measure space? For example, I read about the Pillars of Creation and how they’re 4 light years tall and that equates to something like 23 trillion miles long. How do we know that it’s 4 light years long? Or another example, the galaxy that we’re in is 100,000 light years wide or something like that. How do we possibly know that? And i guess i also have a related question but how can telescopes see so much to begin with ? My mind can’t wrap around the understanding of how we’re able to observe space lol, it’s so daunting how small we are.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are several methods to calculate the distance of a celestial body. Which one is used depends on the exact circumstance. Here are some of the most important methods: --- * Parallax: Earth orbits the sun. In the process of this orbit, we change our position in space relative to a celestial body (just like you see a nearby tree in a different position if you move 10 steps to one side) Using trigonometry, we can calculate the distance to the celestial body in question. * Advantages: very precise for close objects, no complicated instruments needed. * Disadvantage: only possible for close objects --- * Spectral emission: Stars emit photons with specific wavelengths based on the material they are fusing in their core. We can identify the composition of a star by analyzing those photons. Due to the expansion of space, however, the wavelengths of photons emitted very far away get redshifted. That means, their wavelengths get longer the further they travel. By comparing the wavelengths of the photons we measure to the wavelengths the photons should have we can calculate the distance those photons traveled. And thus the distance to the celestial body. * Advantage: Possible over longer distances * Disadvantage: The object has to be bright enough so we can measure spectral lines reliably --- * Standard candles: Standard candles are celestial bodies of known luminosity (~brightness). We know this luminosity due to the characteristics of some bodies (special types of super novae etc.) By comparing the absolute brightness to the apparent brightness (the brightness the object has vs the brightness we see from the distance) we can calculate the distance to the standard candle. By identifying standard candles in distant galaxies and nebulae, we can infer the distance of those structures. * Advantage: Possible over long distances * Disadvantage: We need to find standard candles ---<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user To grad students/established professors: how do you get rid of researchphobia or just general anxiety of doing research? So I am planning to enter grad school. I know I just have to because my dream job requires me to have at least a masters degree( I want to teach college). I only have like one or two research works (one special problem and one undergraduate thesis) and both are deemed unpublishable in journals. Now this may have put a dent on my confidence doing research but I can summarize my reasons on why I generally loathe/fear doing research: 1. What if my research is not journal worthy? 2. I feel like I lack the training to even pull off a good research topic. I haven't done a lot of laboratory techniques on my field (cell biology). Most of my trainings are pure lecture classes with a little bit of paper reportings.(Case in point: molecular genetics. I know the gal and ara operon machinery and viral genetics but I have never done a recombinant DNA technology experiment.) And most research technician jobs require experience so I cannot apply to those either prior to applying to grad school. 3. I feel like everything has been discovered already. 4. They said that in academe you should be writing for grants. I don't even have the creativity to think of a good topic. My thesis was just a sub topic under a project of one of my professors, so I know the idea didn't come from me. 5. I feel like my writing skills are not up to par with like science standards. I still make grammar mistakes from time to time. 6. I sometimes lack the comprehension skills to understand a single paper. Takes me like 2-3 days just to fully absorb everything in it. I blame my lack of hands on training lol 7. Overall I think I just have some rejection sensitivity dysphoria lol How did you overcome this (if ever you went on this stage)? Any suggestions? I think I gotta clear my mind of this if I am to enter and apply to programs next year. Your advice is greatly appreciated.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Read lots and lots of papers. Read so many papers that you properly understand them and can see the flaws in them. IME this is around the 100-200th paper mark, if you’re reading casually (which you usually will be). Nothing shatters those rose-tinted glasses quite like reading the kind of flawed work that gets published in reputable journals. No one has discovered anything, and what they have discovered, they have incorrectly characterised. And the same will be true of your work too. Everyone’s work is a work in progress, and then we die and hand the baton on to the next generation.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How would universal healthcare affect the job market? I've always been told when job hunting to look for benefits package, not just the salary. I know health insurance (and vision/dental) are not the only aspects of a benefits package, but they're a major one. Would the view just skew more towards salary? And would salaries overall increase since they're not paying for employees' healthcare anymore?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There's some evidence that employer provided health insurance decreases labor mobility because workers are afraid to lose their insurance even if their total compensation would increase if they switched jobs.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does radio reception sometimes increase when we stand next to a radio or touch the antenna?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Your body reacts to electromagnetic radiation (which includes radio). FM just happens to have frequencies near the resonant frequency of the human body. So your body acts like a tuned antenna for some stations.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If light is a constantly shifting electric/magnetic field, why does it not interact with other external electromagnetic fields? I understand that photons themselves lack charge, and light interacts with things like other photons and electrons etc. but why don't the electric and magnetic field interact with, say the magnetic field around a magnet?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Maxwell's equations are linear, which means that EM fields obey the superposition principle. If you bring together two sources of electromagnetic fields, the net field at any point in space is simply the sum of the two individual fields.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does 'glow-in-the-dark' work exactly? I'm sitting here sleeping at a family member's house in the Seattle area and there's a big blackout in my town. The room I'm in has those stars that stick to your ceiling and glow when you shut the lights off. How does this work exactly? Additionally, I've noticed from past experience that using a blacklight as the light source really intensifies their glow. How come?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Incoming photons, which are a form of energy, are absorbed by molecules of (usually) zinc sulphide. This energy pushes an electron in one of the atoms into a higher energy orbit (state would be a better word, since electrons don't actually orbit). It's not happy there, and will eventually fall back, at some random time in the future, and the energy released as it falls back comes out as another photon - which is light. To start with, there are lots of energised electrons in the material, so there are lots of chances for some to fall back, so the glow is bright. As they fall back, there are fewer and fewer ready to jump, so the glow gets dimmer and dimmer. UV has a much higher energy per photon (which is why it burns your skin when you get sunburn) so it's able to bang a lot more electrons up into higher states, so there's more energy stored, so the glow is brighter as it's released.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What is the diference between rationalism in Descartes and rationalism in Kant? how do they utilize rationalism differently?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant An important distinction would be that, for Kant, concepts without intuitions are blind, meaning that we cannot posit entities on the basis of reason that do not correspond to possible experience. This includes proofs for the existence of God, free will, and the immortality of the soul. For Kant, we can only use reason to make determinations within the limits of experience, while the rest remains thinkable, but not knowable.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Could the conditions for life be different than ours in another part of the universe? Basically, can other life forms in the universe exist without our specific standards of living. Is it possible for life forms to exist not dependant on water or oxygen? Why is water the standard for looking for life on other planets? Edit: got more than enough great answers. Thanks everyone!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant We don't know what the full range of conditions is under which life can exist. What we do know is that life is possible in places like the Earth. So if you were going to look for life, better to spend your efforts in the kinds of places where we know life can exist, but that is not the same as saying life can't exist in other conditions.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: The Drake Equation<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant All of the terms are probabilities that certain things will happen. That a star will have planets; that a planet will develop life; that the life will develop intelligence; and so on. None of these probabilities are zero, because we know that it has happened at least once, but we don't really know how much larger than zero they are, so we have to make educated guesses. When all multiplied together, you get the probability that a given star will have intelligent life, which you then multiply by the number of stars in the universe to determine about how many planets there might be with intelligent lifeforms. Basically, the point is that it's quite unlikely that mankind is the only intelligent lifeform in the universe.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 is power only generated by spinning turbines? (besides solar) Nuclear power appears to be a powerful way to make steam that spins a turbine. Same with geothermal, wind, & hydro. Maybe not solar? Isn't energy lost in the multiple energy conversions (heat, water state, kinetic)? Is it theoretically possible to have a power source that more directly moves electrons through a circuit? If solar is the only one that can, it's limited in efficiency and where it can be used. What about power generation undersea or on Ganymede or something?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Electricity is generated by the movement of electrons through a circuit. You seem to understand that part. That motion of electrons can be cause by several different methods. Solar uses photons of light to push electrons across a semiconductor and generate a voltage. Fuel cells use hydrogen and a catalytic material to strip an electron off and generate a voltage. Spinning rotors use mechanical motion to cause changing magnetic fields to generate voltage. Thermocouples use heat differentials across different materials to generate voltage. Thing is, all of these methods include losses. Transferring one type of energy to another always will. It just so happens that spinning rotors have some of the best efficiencies, so they’re used most often.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why companies can't chemical ananalyze, for example, Pepsi, and produce identical mixture on their own? I believe some things are patented out - but then are not a secret. For example WD-40 oil is not patented and its recipe is secret, why people just don't analyze it's contents to produce a copy and gain huge cash?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Well there is no machine that you can pop a sample of something into and get out it's chemical composition. Qualitative analysis (the process of finding out what a sample of something is made of) is a long and difficult process that is normally very specific to the material you are looking at. Not only that but this process would only tell you what exists in the sample, not any manufacturing techniques used to create the sample. And brands like WD-40 use their reputations just as much, if not more, than their actual product to make money. Even if someone was able to recreate WD-40 it would not sell nearly as much as the same product just with a WD-40 label. AND most of the time competing companies do not want the secret formula to their competitors products. For example Pepsi was offered the formula to Coke-a-Cola multiple times and turned it down every single time instead turning over the people who offered to sell the information to the FBI and Coke-a-Cola. Edit: Unrelated but Pepsi is actually the tastier product according to a double blind taste test done in the 70s. Coke-a-Cola still out sells Pepsi mostly due to branding and reputation.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: If the flu shot contains a non-active version of the flu, then why are "flu like symptoms" common for the days following?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant the non-active proteins trigger an immune system response which can involve some inflammatory system responses. once the immune system is activated for that infection your body will react more readily if the actual infection gets into you.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: It's not "anti-science" to include transgender people with their gender of identification. Critics of transgenderism (?) say that biology shows there's only two genders, male and female, based on sex chromosomes (which are implicit from one's anatomy and hormonal balance if one's chromosomes are not known). After all, biology classes do say that men have XY and women have XX. To not lump in transgender people with members of their biological sex, then, is denying biology. I know that it's undeniably clear that we are a sexually dimorphic species. The division of people with XX chromosomes and people with XY (with their respective anatomy, sex hormones, etc) is about 50/50. This is something that can be empirically tested. But if you were to say something like "people who have XY chromosomes and this kind of anatomy are men, and people with XX chromosomes are not and cannot be"--is that a statement that can be empirically tested? My point is, it's only a "scientific" statement in the sense of "used for scientific purposes," not "demonstrable empirical fact of nature." Including transgender people with their identified genders when appropriate does not deny empirical facts of nature, as critics claim. The statement "people who have XY chromosomes and this kind of anatomy are men, and people with XX chromosomes are not and cannot be" is merely a statement defining the boundaries of a category. These categorical criteria serve a purpose in many scientific, medical, anthropological, etc. contexts, but they need not be ironclad in all contexts. Different contexts sometimes call for categorical words to have different criteria! Here are four examples of categorical words that have biology-based definitions but don't always adhere to those definitions in all contexts: * Genetically, I'm <5% Jewish. This may be relevant in some medical contexts, bringing up what kind of conditions I or my progeny may be predisposed to. But in, say, a demographic survey, I wouldn't call myself Jewish. It's just not relevant in my life, neither ethnically nor religiously. * I'm pretty sure we all understand that to be a "father," such as for the sake of celebrating Father's Day or contact info for the kid's school, need not involve the actual physical sire of the child. For many purposes, it's the male figure who's raised the kid as a typical biological father would. But if you were to go on the Maury show to be told, "You are not the father!", you'd know he doesn't mean "You are not the one who's been raising this boy alongside the mother his whole life!" * Rabbits and hares were declassified as rodents in 1912 because their teeth suggested that categorizing these animals in a different order would reflect phylogenetics better. But in pet stores and pet owner communities, they might as well be rodents because they're lumped in right alongside them. * To put it pithily, "knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing that it doesn't belong in a fruit salad." To put it more maturely, yes, tomatoes are considered "fruits" by botanical criteria, but in culinary contexts, they're not. If people want to discuss whether it's a good shift to categorize transgender people by non-biological criteria in non-biological contexts that distinguish between men and women, that's worthwhile. It's just that the "anti-science" angle reflects a misunderstanding of what a scientific fact is, I believe. In short, the big trans question isn't so much whether the biological definitions of male and female are valid so much as it is whether these biological definitions should serve as the categorical boundaries between men and women in all non-biological contexts.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant >In short, the big trans question isn't so much whether the biological definitions of male and female are valid so much as it is whether these biological definitions should serve as the categorical boundaries between men and women in all non-biological contexts. If you're talking about a context where this is not a useful distinction, why would ANY discussion of gender, biological or identified or otherwise, be worthwhile?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Does gravity have a range or speed? So, light is a photon, and it gets emitted by something (like a star) and it travels at ~300,000 km/sec in a vacuum. I can understand this. Gravity on the other hand, as I understand it, isn't something that's emitted like some kind of tractor beam, it's a deformation in the fabric of the universe caused by a massive object. So, what I'm wondering is, is there a limit to the range at which this deformation has an effect. Does a big thing like a black hole not only have stronger gravity in general but also have the effects of it's gravity be felt further out than a small thing like my cat? Or does every massive object in the universe have some gravitational influence on every other object, if very neglegable, even if it's a great distance away? And if so, does that gravity move at some kind of speed, and how would it change if say two black holes merged into a bigger one? Additional mass isn't being created in such an event, but is "new gravity" being generated somehow that would then spread out from the merged object? I realize that it's entirely possible that my concept of gravity is way off so please correct me if that's the case. This is something that's always interested me but I could never wrap my head around. Edit: I did not expect this question to blow up like this, this is amazing. I've already learned more from reading some of these comments than I did in my senior year physics class. I'd like to reply with a thank you to everyone's comments but that would take a lot of time, so let me just say "thank you" to all for sharing your knowledge here. I'll probably be reading this thread for days. Also special "thank you" to the individuals who sent silver and gold my way, I've never had that happen on Reddit before.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Yes, gravity has infinite range and changes in gravity propagate at the speed of light. It's a very analagous with electromagnetism, ie electric/magnetic fields and electromagnetic waves. Every piece of matter in the universe is attracted to every other piece of matter in the universe. And when wild things happen, like neutron stars merging, the hiccup in gravity you feel from them spiraling into each other at half the speed of light arrives in almost lockstep with the light from the explosion from the matter they fling off.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: why do we get itchy when we are sweating while sitting/ laying on grass fields? Wow, I dunno what to say, this blew up. Thanks for all the responses everyone!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Even for those without allergies, grasses and plants contain many organic compounds, like phenolic acids, that can be a skin irritant. Parts of the grass (especially freshly cut, dry grass) can also cause mechanical injury to the skin and elicit an itching response. Sweating likely dissolves these irritating compounds and allows for closer contact with the skin.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is "0! = 1"? If n factorial is n(n-1)(n-2)...(3)(2)(1), Why is 0 factorial=1? If 0=n, should the answer be 0 due anything multiplied by 0=0? EDIT: Wow thanks for all the good responses! Never actually expected this to make it to my top post, but Reddit never fails to amaze me!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A factorial represents the number of ways you can organize n objects. There is only one way to organize 1 object. (1! = 1) There are two ways to organize 2 objects (e.g., AB or BA; 2! = 2) There are 6 ways to organize 3 objects (e.g., ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CAB, CBA; 3! = 6). Etc. How many ways are there to organize 0 objects? 1. Ergo 0! = 1. This is consistent with the application of the gamma function, which extends the factorial concept to ~~non-positive integers.~~ all reals EDIT: except negative integers!<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Eli5: how does assembly code work?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A computer is a machine that only knows how to follow a list of basic instructions. It can read values from memory, do basic math on them, and store the results. It can also compare two values and jump to a different place in the instruction list based on the result. The computer uses numbers to represent these instructions. So for example, 1 means load and 2 means add, etc. A computer program is stored as a list of numbers. Assembly language is just a simple translation of these numeric instructions into readable words like MOVE and ADD. When you write assembly, you are writing directly in the basic instructions the CPU understands, but with codewords instead of numbers. On the other hand, high level programming languages let you write English like instructions for advanced operations, like printing to the screen or connecting to another computer. The compiler or interpreter does the job of translating these into the sequence of assembly code that the computer can actually follow.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is bait scientifically classified as a tool? If a predator uses bait to catch it's prey, has that predator used what scientists would classify as a tool?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It depends on whose definition you are using. Some researchers consider a tool to be an object that is manipulated by the animal to extend the physical impact the animal has on itself or the environment. Some researchers will differentiate "tool use" and "object use". A bird using bread to catch a fish may be consider using a proto-tool. For more info search "tool use by animals".<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What exactly is aging? On a cellular level, what is the exact process?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant As DNA replicates, data is eventually loss/damaged, resulting in aging. Think about making a copy of the document, then further making copies of the copy. Eventually, you find the document is muddy with marks and words on the document will become more and more distorted. Same thing happens with DNA<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Back to the Future] What exactly is the time machine travelling through that causes it to frost over completely? The very first time that Doc Brown tests it (and the others too, I think), the time machine arrives completely frozen over, to the point that ice cracks when he opens the doors and it's painful to touch. The parking lot is wet, meaning it didn't freeze naturally from the air temperature, either. Additionally, where does the water come from? The DeLorean was driven to the lot inside a closed truck and the rain has obviously stopped, meaning that it couldn't have been wet beforehand.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Theoretical: the time displacement field extending from the aluminum body of the car on outwards saps all energy right down to an atomic level, resulting in the body of the car becoming quite close to absolute zero. One the field is gone it begins absorbing the ambient warmth around it again (there was some delay before Doc reached the car to touch it) but it's still extremely cold for a short while. The DeLorean isn't actually traveling through anything between the two points of spacetime, as seen when we're along for the ride to a different time. A quick flash of light from the formed time displacement field and then you're in the targeted spacetime once it fades down again. The moisture is just condensed humidity from the air flash frozen to the body of the car. Like your windshield frosting over in winter.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do we spend billions and billions of dollars on cancer research, and still use Chemotherapy as the most widely used treatment. After having people come to my door asking for support in Cancer Research, I asked them how much further we've come in the last ten years, and they couldn't tell me. And they said that Chemotherapy is still the most widely used treatment in America for Cancer. After having multiple family members who have died from Cancer after going through Chemo, I am just curious how effective Chemo is against Cancer cells, and where is all the money going that we donate if it's not making any widely known progress.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Cancer is a broad spectrum of diseases that involve uncontrolled growth or production from your own cells. As broad a term as cancer is, chemo might be even broader. Chemo is medication that kills cells or targets them for killing, but does so preferentially to cancer cells than non-cancer cells. Cancer research and effective chemo is making a lot of progress, as pretty much everyone on here is saying. Money for cancer research goes toward staffing cancer research centers/hospitals, testing chemo drugs, and testing cancer screening strategies, just to name a few things. There are MANY cancers that we have developed a very effective chemo regimen for. Testicular cancer is one that we are able to very effectively treat with chemo. More recently, a specialized chemo drug for Her2 positive breast cancer has been developed. This form of breast cancer used to be a death sentence, now it's one of the more favorable breast cancer diagnoses because of the efficacy of our available chemo. You'll never turn on the news to a headline of "chemotherapy stops all cancer all at once." What's unfortunate is that the many small victories in cancer research don't receive the attention that they should, leaving the lay person to believe that there hasn't been progress.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user My Boss Sent Me A Journal Article to Read and I Can't Understand It... Hello everyone, This is my first time posting in this sub so please bear with me. So, I graduated with my BA in Psychology this past May. A couple of weeks ago I started a job as a Research Assistant working with a highly distinguished professor in the field of cognitive science and abnormal psychology. Now, cognitive science (or any science for that matter) was never my strong suit. I also fulfilled my science requirements in undergrad 2 years ago, so I forgot a lot of information. I was hired mainly to work on one of his projects that has nothing to do with his primary research interests, but aligns perfectly with my interest of abnormal psychology and working with a completely different population. Last week, I got hired to work on another project. So now I'm working part-time in both projects. My boss sent me a lengthy article to read, and I can't understand a majority of it. My boss mentioned that if I had any questions, I can just ask. But, I'm afraid that I'll look incompetent and that I really don't belong in the lab. The paper was way too advanced. I've been researching key terms, going on websites and reviewing notes from years ago. Although it does help, I feel so inept and that I don't really belong in this lab. Imposter syndrome has already got the best of me. I'm one of the youngest working in the lab. Most of my co-workers have PhD's. It's so intimidating. I know the common sense answer here is to just ask my professor questions, but I've had demeaning professors before and I'm trying to prevent a poor situation. What do you suggest I do? I'm not considering dropping out of this project, considering my boss really needs an RA for this project. I definitely still want to work in this project because I love learning new things. I'm just overwhelmed with imposter syndrome symptoms and I'm not sure where to begin. Any advice would be greatly appreciated!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Look at the older papers cited in the article; it's likely these will provide some of the background for how the research in the article itself came to be. Keep going down the rabbit hole as needed. Are the new project and subsequent article cognitive science-based, and that's why you feel you don't understand them? Try to fit the paper in with the concepts you do understand from the new project. Do you need to thoroughly understand everything from the article before you will be able to carry out your duties as an RA? In that case, you will need to explain the situation to your PI. That's improbable, though, ime.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why don't people have different natural hair colors like blue or green? Are there any natural hair colors besides red, black, brown, and blonde?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Mammals main source of coloring is melanin, which produces browns, blacks and shade of tan. Other animals such as birds have multiple types of pigment along with melanin including, carotenoids which produce red, orange or yellow feathers. Also Porphyrins, an amino acid that can produce red, brown, pink and green colors. The source of these pigments comes from many of the foods that birds eat. So the way a birds body digests and converts these substances is another thing that our bodies did not evolve to do. The forth material that produces colors like blue and green is keratin. Our hair is made up of this same material although the way keratin is used in other animals is a bit different. The structure of the keratin reflects certain light waves which makes it appear blue. The color of the keratin isn't blue itself. A birds feathers on a microscopic level can have a structure that reflects blue light. Butterfly wings also work in this way. Our hair doesn't have this complex structure to do the same.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why some video games allow in game, real time graphics changes, and why other video games require a restart before applying the graphics changes. I'm curious as to why this is the case. Please explain. Thanks.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Some changes technically require releasing and re-acquiring a resource from the OS, like resolution changes of the game window. That means the game has to release then re-create all the resources associated with the first one, like the textures and vertex buffers. Other changes require loading different assets, like high vs low resolution textures or models. These shouldn't technically require restarting the program. Likewise for many of the effects settings, like turning on or off SSAA, SSAO, DOF, etc.. That said, it still takes coding effort to add the ability to actually SWAP between different assets. It's often easier to just assume the high-vs-low setting is fixed from the start of the game, and never code the ability to swap our textures and models. Thus, you have to restart the game to get it to load the other set of assets.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Since the human body is widely influenced by ion channels in the cell, does magnetism affect this at all? Would prolonged exposure to magnetism have any effect on one's health?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Well, the strength of MRI ( Magnetic Resonance Imaging ) is limited by their ability ( when strong enough ) to stimulate nerves via this principle. They operate just at the stimulation limit. It is not uncommon for patients having a MRI to experience facial tics or muscle twitches due to this. It is theoretically possible that if the magnetic flux were increased, that a MRI machine could cause serious problems, such as heart arrythmia, breathing problems, etc. Mind, this is "Acute" exposure to incredibly strong fields.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why when I tilt a cup to slowly pour liquid out, does the liquid not fall straight down but seems to grab and runs down the outside of the cup instead? I presume it's got to do with path of least resistance and the liquid itself is holding some sort of resistance...but I'm sure some high school physics would explain this better.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It is a combination of surface tension and van der waals forces. Surface tensions keeps small drops of water in a spherical shape and van der waals forces will gently make it adhere to most surfaces. These forces are relatively weak and not very noticeable on large scales. Edit: It's a combination of hydrogen bonds and VDW forces and surface tension is a product of this.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:how do we determine how good an animal’s eyesight is? And how do we compare it to our own or another animals?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are a variety of studies that can be done. Some are observational. You see an eagle swoop down from one thousand feet high to catch prey and you have to assume it was able to visually detect the prey from that distance. Lab tests can be run in a similar fashion, putting something desirable at various distances away and recording how far or close the animal has to be to notice it. You can also learn stuff by analyzing the eye itself via dissection. Like humans, other animals have rods and cones in their retinas, and scientists can observe the density and types of these structures to get an understanding of what types of light an animal might be able to detect and how well. For example, nocturnal animals will typically have more rods and fewer cones to adapt to low-light vision. Meanwhile, the aforementioned eagle's eyes have a larger variety of cones compared to humans, indicating that they see differences of color much more precisely than humans which helps detect prey at long distances.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What is it that is keeping us from having "wireless" electricity? There are ways to charge certain small electronics via inductive charging, but why haven't we gone "completely wireless," to the point where we even need to plug things in anymore? What's the roadblock, and when will it conceivably be overcome?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Electromagnetic waves spread throughout space and weaken with increasing distance from the source. A wireless signal can be weak as long as it is amplified upon being received. If you want to send a large amount of energy, and not just information, then you're stuck. Even most information today is actually sent by wired signal through fiber optic cables.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What's the difference between an Embassy and a Consulate?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Its kind of like a library system, you have the main big library in your area and the smaller branches depending on it. In simple terms the embassy is the main headquarters, where the ambassador lives there can only be one ambassador from a country so therefore only one embassy. Consulates are offices of the embassy spread out in bigger cities so you dont have to travel to the embassy, they provide the same services but slower at the Consulates because they usually send or forward the paperwork to the embassy.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What do scientists mean when they say "We only know what makes up 5% of the Universe"? What makes up the other 95% of the Universe and how come we don't know what it is ?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant We can measure the total matter density. We can also observe how many stars there are and what their masses are (and calculate the energy corresponding to this mass). They contribute 1% to the total energy density. Add gas in galaxies, gas between galaxies, planets, black holes, and everything else we can directly observe and you end up with about 20% of the total matter density. What about the rest? We know it is there from its gravitational influence, we can even map its density, but we don't know which particles it is made out of (there are searches for possible particles, but without a discovery so far). This is dark matter, contributing about 80% of the total matter density. ---- We can measure the expansion rate of space, and the total matter density allows to calculate how much expansion should slow down over time. But the measurements show it is expanding. There are multiple ways to describe this, but the easiest approach is dark energy: A constant energy density everywhere that - unlike matter - makes the universe expand faster. To compare this to the matter density, we can convert the matter density to an energy density via E=mc^(2). The overall result is 68% dark energy, 27% dark matter and 5% regular matter.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do male shirts and female blouses have their buttons lined up on opposite sides?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Historically women were more likely to have maids and such doing most of their dressing for them and it was easier for the servants to button the clothing if the buttons were on the opposite side. Most people being right handed and all that. Tradition carries on. Edited: missed a word or two<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why are there only two genders in nature? Why not more?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant First, a semantic issue. Gender is a cultural term, and some cultures do have more than two genders. Sexes are the scientific term, of which humans have two, barring exceptions. As the animal kingdom comes from a common ancestor, two sexes is generally common. However, there are some species which have individuals that reproduce asexually, are hermaphrodites, can change their sex, or are sterile. You may consider this just different variations of the two sexes, which is appropriate. When you move away from the animal kingdom though, you can find more "sexes" in bacteria and fungi. A conjugative plasmid separates bacteria into F positive and F negative for that plasmid, and there are more than one such plasmids a bacteria can or cannot have. Some Fungi have mating types that are noted as + or -, which are already different from male and female. Some fungi take this a step further and have even more mating types. These mating types are there to prevent a fungi from sexual reproduction with its own mating type.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is the purpose of the 'Press Start" screen at the beginning of almost every video game?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It has two purposes, one modern and one more historically. Right now the main reason of the start screen is to identify the player (in case of more than one controller connected). The player is the one that presses the start key. It also gives an opportunity to ask which storage device should be used. The second reason is that console manufacturers require the player to have an input before a certain time frame has passed. This to ensure that the game is being started properly. The press start screen is a perfect opportunity to do this since it doesn't require many resources to be loaded yet.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Talking on radio transmitter at 50% speed of light. What would it sound like if I am traveling at 50-90% the speed of light and communicated to a stationary person via a radio transmitter? Would my voice be slow?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are two things that are going to have an effect here. 1) Doppler effect (which depends on the relative locations of you and the stationary observer) 2) Relativistic effects (time dilation primarily) In any case, the effects will likely result in the fact that the radio reciever won't even recognize your signals, unless it's designed to account for that.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Curious to hear economists' breakdown of Einstein's "Why Socialism?" There's this [article](https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/) by Einstein blatantly endorsing socialism. I'd like to clarify that I have no dog in this fight, and I think Einstein being Einstein deserves the benefit of the doubt. Now I read the article. It has some interesting points. Though it seems very idealistic in some cases. Most discussions I've encountered about this article online and on reddit talk about whether Einstein's qualified to talk about this along with the typical socialism/capitalism circlejerks. None are actually addressing the points being made in the article. So I'm curious to hear what economists have to say about the things written there.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You should keep in mind that Einstein, while an excellent physicist, is about as educated in economics as your average Joe, and not instantly credible in the field of economics because he's good at physics. Same goes for an economist regarding physics. If an economist wrote a paper on general relativity with a bit more than average research (that probably isn't correct to begin with), would you take him seriously? Probably not. In the article, he seems to be essentially saying that economics is not a real science by comparing it to astronomy, which isn't a very good argument. The field of economics does have a set methodology they use to conduct research. See Econ methodology FAQ in the sidebar of this sub. He then appears to make the ethical argument for socialism, which, while completely ok, is outside the scope of economics. Overall this article isn't much different from any other. It ignores basic economic concepts and instead makes an ethical case, which an economist can't really respond to.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How do trees fight off disease? I'm assuming trees don't have an immune system, so do they have any protection against disease?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Trees do in fact have an immune system, as all plants do! Plant immunity is an innate immune system, while animals have innate and adaptive immune systems. Plant immunity is, in general terms, concerned with detecting pathogenic proteins and/or pathogen-associated molecular patterns that would signal the presence of a potential plant pathogen. Once detected, plants activate a number of processes designed to make the plant tissue inhospitable for a plant pathogen. A classic hallmark of plant immunity is the production of reactive oxygen species (or ROS) that will kill pathogens or drive them to dormancy. This is analogous to a fever in animals. Another molecular response that occurs in plant immunity is the creation of barriers to the diffusion of pathogens. Deposition of callose - a complex polymer - prevents pathogens from growing or moving freely in the interleaf space. In more serious immune reactions, plant cells around the pathogen will kill themselves in a process known as the hypersensitive response (HR). This denies the pathogen living tissues and nutrients. Another important barrier that prevents plants getting sick is physical barriers. The bark of a tree is an excellent barrier, much as our skin is, to prevent pathogens from getting anywhere near the important parts of the tree. This is why the vast majority of tree diseases are seen after the tree is damaged by pruning, weather, or by burrowing insects.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Eli5: how does alcoholism run in a family? I under stand cancer and diabetes but if alcohol is an out of body deal how it is it possible for it to be genetically in a family?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Biochemist here--Our genes code for proteins that impact many things that can relate to alcohol addiction, including how our body metabolizes (breaks down) alcohol, and how our brain responds to it. In particular, some people inherit DNA that makes them have a higher liklihood for their brains to enjoy alcohol and to become biochemically dependent on it. This can also occur for other substances too, even cigarettes. There can also be other traits and conditions that someone can inherit from their parents that can make them more prone to alcohol misuse, such as biopolar disorder and ADHD. edit: The expression of these genes can be affected by environmental conditions as well, so it can get very complicated.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What more megapixels give you and what they do not (or, why more megapixels isn't necessarily "better")<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant More megapixels means that you get images with more pixels. This means you can make a larger image at a given resolution, or have better resolution for a given size. Most people don't make prints large enough for this to really matter, as most cameras have plenty of megapixels. More megapixels can be bad when you have to cram a bunch of them onto the camera's sensor. This is a silicon chip that detects the light and makes the image. If you try to squeeze in a bunch, you can limit the quality of the pixels. For a point and shoot camera, it doesn't make sense to try to put in more than 12megapixels or so, because the camera's sensor is quite small. A fancy DSLR will use a bigger sensor, some as big as 35mm film. There are many reasons this can be better. One of them is that you can increase the number of megapixels without degrading the quality of the sensor. There are also optical advantages that allow for higher resolution. None of this really matters, though. There are other factors that are far more important than megapixels, like lens quality and skill. Learning what sort of light is good for shooting or how to use fill flash will both get you better images than any number of megapixels.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What happens when your injected with blood of a incompatible type?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You must first understand how bloodworks: Type a blood has an "A" antigen(basically a license plate for your cells to tell your immune system what they do) Type B blood only has a "B" antigen Type AB has both an "A" and a "B" antigen Type O has none of these antigens So your immune system is good at attacking anything that it doesn't see as normal. It is afraid of change so it will kill bacteria and stuff but also any foreign cells. So your immune system uses the antigens to see if the blood is the same type as it. If you have type O(no antigens) but your immune system sees a type A blood cell then it will pour all its resources into getting rid of the type A blood cells and you will get sick from your immune system not being able to do more important things. Now let's talk about donations: if you have type O blood then you can donate your blood to anybody(no matter the blood type of the recipient ) and type O people are known as universal donors for this. They can donate to anybody because their blood has no antigens and thus can't be recognized as foreign to the immune system(it's a bit like taking off your license plate because the police can't identify you). If you have type AB blood you are a universal recipient because you have both A and B antigens so your body won't attack the blood because it thinks it's natural. I hope that helped Source:I am in a college Hematology class.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user eli5: How can Google maps know many small and recent businesses' locations so accurately? I've realised that most businesses (even small kiosks) are seen on Google maps. Where and how do they get that information?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant These days most businesses enter themselves into google maps. It's really simple and it drives traffic to the store. Back in the day, these kinds of things were community sourced. If you turn on the option, even today google maps will ask you a bunch of questions about places that you've been.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Does non-Euclidean geometry render Kant's claim that space and time are a priori intuitions irrelevant? What the title says. Per my understanding, Kant claims that space and time are a priori intuitions, but the discovery/ potential of non-euclidean geometries means that to find which one is 'right', we must test them against each other, making our intuitions of space and time empirical. Please correct me if I am wrong.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The typical argument is that post-Kantian developments on this point require us to distinguish intuitive, mathematical, and physical spaces in a way that Kant didn't--or rather, to regard them as independent in a way that Kant didn't. For Kant, these three concepts are interconnected in an important way: our intuition of space serves as the ground for our judgments of geometry, and this relation between intuited space and geometric space explains why objects of intuition are describable by geometry, so that it serves as the ground for physical space. The subsequent developments in mathematics led to the idea that we can speak of a number of diverse geometries. The implication here is not that geometric space is an empirical rather than a priori intuition, but rather that it's conceptual rather than intuited. This mathematical development raised a new question about what geometry to use in the theories of physics. As you say, on the typical view this choice is responsive to experimental considerations, but that doesn't quite mean physical space is an empirical intuition. If the theories of physics are admitted to be conceptual constructions, then they are freed to use whichever geometry best suits the requirements of their theorization, and it could be that physics settles upon a construction of space distinct from our intuitive experience of space.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do taxes get taken out of your paycheck, but then you get taxed again when you go to buy food at Burger King?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are a lot of different laws written that include a lot of different taxes - where they are applied, and what those funds go towards. So, you might pay 10 cents a gallon in tax on gasoline to fund highway repair, and 6% on soda towards the general state government, and some amount of taxes based on your income to the federal government.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Eli5: Why is Prince Philip of England a prince and not king, despite his being married to the Queen? The wife of the previous king, George VI, was Queen Elizabeth, not Princess Elizabeth. The fact that people are upvoting this makes me feel glad that I wasn't the only one confused by this! Mandatory "This blew up" edit. Marked as Explained, because of /u/barc0de's fantastic explanation.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are two types of Queens, Queen Regnant and Queen Consort. Queen Regnant inherits the position from the previous monarch, and is the ruling head of state Queen Consort is the wife of the current monarch and has no official role within the state. There is no equivalent King Consort, so Philip could only be Prince Consort instead. Ruling Queens have avoided naming their partner as King to avoid appearing weaker or not in charge. The only occasion where a Queen Regnants husband was styled King was as a result of the glorious revolution when Mary replaced her deposed father on condition that her husband be allowed to rule jointly with her<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: The Bible does not clearly explain the requirements for Christian salvation Apologies in advance for my hungover brain not forming very good sentences at the moment. I had a conversation on [this](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2qf2pw/cmv_if_a_religious_person_truly_believed_their/) thread that made me realize this could be a good CMV. In mainstream protestant Christianity, the idea that salvation is gained through faith alone is an important tenet. It is supported with passages like these, mostly from Paul's letters: >If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. - Romans 10:9 > For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. - Ephesians 2:8-9 But other parts of scripture seem to paint a different picture. [This long-ass passage](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+2%3A14-25&version=NIV) from James, and [this longer one](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+25%3A31-46&version=NIV) from Matthew make a pretty strong case that salvation requires doing good deeds. Anyway, I'm not a believer anymore, but I'd like to hear some compelling arguments that Christianity is actually crystal clear on what it takes to achieve salvation. _____ > Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our *[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)* first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Some argue that the Bible is quite clear on this point--that true faith inevitably results in good works. Ephesians 2:10 New International Version (NIV) 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. This, according to those who argue in this vein, explains the other passages. For example, in the Matthew and James passages you quote, the argument is that a person of true faith would never allow a man to starve or turn the needy away from his doorstep. However, even if you did good works in the absence of faith, lacking faith would mean that you had never received the gift of salvation through Christ from God.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why doesn't the metal walls of the microwave cause sparks but most every other metal does? Obligatory front page edit!! Thanks for the answers guys/gals!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant First off, the problem that metal in a microwave causes most often is that the metal can reflect and focus microwaves into food or onto the walls, causing things to burn or melting the walls. The worst thing that can happen is the metal reflects the energy right back into where they came from, damaging the Magnetron, the thing that makes the microwaves that cook your food. The walls of the microwave do the same thing, but are designed to evenly reflect the microwaves around the microwave without reflecting them back into the magnetron. The reason you might see sparks when you place a metal object in a microwave is that metal will naturally pick up a static charge when hit with lots of energy. When this happens in a microwave, it happens with enough energy and for long enough to see the static charge overcome gaps between one area of the metal and another, causing it to arc across, creating a spark.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Islamic banking system. How is it different from interest?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are two methods that can be used: 1) The bank acts as a traditional investor and just directly invests money into a project in exchange for an ownership stake. This is usually what people hold up as being the definitive model used by Islamic banking. The problem with this is that it only works for investments in which taking a long-term ownership position is a viable option. IE, this works great when you're financing a startup or an established company that's ok with trading stock for cash. It doesn't work at all for consumer debt, such as home/car mortgages or credit cards. It also doesn't work for most established companies, as they're usually unwilling to trade stock for cash, the exception being that they may use that stock as the basis for a Murabaha contract. 2) Murabaha. Murabaha is when you and the bank make a contract for you to sell something trivial to the bank and then buy it back in the future for more money. IE, the bank pays you $100 for a loaf of bread. You agree that in 1 week you will buy the bread back for $120, and to pay the bank you make 12 monthly payments of $10 each. The value of the bread isn't anywhere near $100 or $120, even though you have agreed that it is. This is how the overwhelming majority of Islamic banking transactions are structured, and is functionally identical to making a traditional loan. The only difference is that the terms of the loan have been phrased to eliminate any mention of the word interest and an Islamic cleric has issued a fatwa legitimizing the loan.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: I think it is wrong to use China or the USSR as citations of communism as a failed system For those familiar with Marxist communism, the actual communist society is meant to be similar to an anarchy of sorts. Following a revolution in which the extremely developed capitalist society is overthrown there would be an interim period of dictatorship of sorts which would set up the remaining infrastructure needed for the communist society. Following that, the dictatorship would release all power and let the actual communist society start. Russia had some manufacturing potential, but arguably wasn't nearly ready enough to proceed to the "communist" phase. Lenin and others sort of wanted to jumpstart it and just skip the long capitalistic society part and go straight to communism. That isn't so much the concern here, but rather the fact that they didn't have nearly the manufacturing society to support it. China was even worse, they barely had any kind of manufacturing potential and were nearly a complete agrarian society. While they managed to move into manufacturing eventually, the sudden change and poor planning was a massive failure. Additionally, it seems clear that neither of the society's leaders ever planned to actually leave the dictatorship part. Stalin in particular was just far more interested in having absolute power, and there are some similar tendencies in china, although not nearly to the extent of USSR under Stalin. I think this is the strongest point to make, that neither society were communist to begin with, and were merely totalitarian governments that called themselves communist. Although they had a few communistic/socialistic tendencies, that doesn't make their system of government communism. Its like when N. Korea calls itself democratic, or perhaps better examples being various middle eastern countries that are "democratic" or "The People's Republic" We never cite them as failures of republic governments, so why should we cite Russia or China as communism failures.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Let's say you are an IT person- who has developed a brand new operating system. This operating system is just... it's the tits man. Once you get it fully functioning and onto everyone's PCs, it's going to be perfect. Now, there is one flaw- every time you try to load it up onto anyone's system, it doesn't work. It causes crashes, hardware failure, the like. Is the system not a failure? The road to implementing anything is often as important, if not more important, then maintaining said thing. If one can not get the system off the ground, then said system is clearly rife with problems.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5, How La Croix flavors it’s water? Ingredients: “only carbonated water, naturally essenced.” What is the natural essence?? EDIT: Hoping I picked a close enough flair<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The FDA requires most ingredients in a food product to be listed by their actual name. However, the names of some ingredients can be hidden under the groupings "natural flavors" or "artificial flavors" - depending on the exact production method used to obtain those ingredients. 99% of the time, if a company is able to list an ingredient as a "flavor" then that's what they do, but again, they don't have to. They can use the actual name for the flavor instead. Some ingredients have stupid actual names. One of those is "essence". "Essence" is the industry term for fruit flavors derived from a specific method of production (basically they subject the skin of the fruit to very high temperature/pressure steam and concentrate the fluid that comes out). That resulting concentrate tastes like the parent fruit but doesn't have any sugar in it. That's what Lacroix uses to flavor their drinks - its the same natural flavor that is found in a lot of other foods. In fact, Lacroix used to list it as "natural flavor" on their ingredients label. But they've gotten clever and realized that "essence" sounds healthier than "flavor" and since the flavor itself is actually named "essence" they're allowed to call it that.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 How does face scanning work with twins?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are different methods of "face scanning," but they all rely on nuances in physical appearance. (More advanced methods use the topography of the face and not just a comparison between images.) They can't distinguish between two different people that look essentially the same, anymore than a lock distinguishes between two people that have subtly different copies of a key. The accuracy of particular methods, and products that implement them, varies. Identical twins also vary in how alike they are--the environment does have an influence on how you look, not just your genes. But it's safe to say there's a significant potential for a scanner to fail to distinguish between identical twins. Ideally, biometric markers should never be relied upon for authentication, because you can't change them if they are compromised. They should be more like a user name than a password. But they can strengthen security if implemented alongside a secure authentication method, such as passwords, a key card, etc.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How is human vision stabilized? I.e, when you're walking there must be a lot of small movements in the head, but we don't really perceive them.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I believe you're referring to the vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR), which stabilizes your gaze in space. Other things are also controlled, like focus and pupil dilation. The VOR is driven by two sensors: vision and vestibular organs (inner ear). In the case of vision, the slippage of image on the retina is detected, processed by your visual system, and relayed to your brainstem, where a compensatory command is sent to your eye muscles to rotate the eye toward the slip. This works primarily at low frequencies of motion. The vestibular organs include the semicircular canals, which are essentially rate gyroscopes. They detect angular velocity of the head, rather than image slippage. The information is again relayed to the brainstem and then to the muscles, in part sharing some of the circuitry for vision. Except this one works primarily at high frequencies of head motion, and the two complement each other so that you get good stability across a large range of frequencies. There are also other contributions to gaze stabilization. Another vestibular organ is the otoliths, which are more like translational accelerometers. There's usually a small component of VOR related to translation and not rotation (translational VOR). Similarly you can sense bending of the neck with proprioceptors, which also can produce a small component. But by and large, vision and semicircular canals handles most of it. Finally, you can also suppress VOR like when you turn your head to look at something, in which case the eyes don't oppose the motion. Source: Just search vestibulo-ocular reflex, or look in [wikipedia](en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestibulo-ocular_reflex). This is a fascinating area of neuroscience that is fairly well understood in terms of control systems principles.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do Jews get so much discrimination throughout human history? Why is it that Jewish people throughout history have gotten their rights and lives violated wherever they reside in? What is it about Judaism that a lot of humans seem to resent so much? Why is it that this resentment seems to get justified by so many people? Why do they deserve this much abuse?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Traditional Jewish laws make it impossible to assimilate very well into a different culture; lots of things are required or prohibited, in a way that makes people following the laws stand out. Modern Jews aren't generally too strict about following all that stuff, but in the past they were more so. And because they were an easily visible minority population, it was easy to point a finger at them.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What exactly happens when someone donates their body to science?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Read the book "Stiff". A lot of things can happen to you once donated. Medical schools, crash test dummies, even rotting for research. Bodies are left to rot to test how they react and help police determine cause and time of death. You normally can't choose where your body goes though...<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Thoughts on cheating students I'm an instructor who works in a department of a university that will remain nameless. Essentially I have caught two students cheating and I feel my department is not handling the situation in the right way. I caught the two students looking at each others papers and talking prior to both of them turning in their exams. I relayed what had occurred in my class to my supervisor, but he/she has decided that nothing can be done, won't take my word for it, would like to sweep it under the rug, and has decided that I should be fired for bringing the matter forward. I would like your thoughts on the matter.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Document everything and go to the chair of the department. The cheating students aren't as big of a concern now that your job itself is on the line. If the chair doesn't quietly resolve the situation, go to the Human Resources department. At this stage, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Scientifically, why can't blood testing using a few drops of blood (i.e. Theranos' purported and testing regime) work? What can we actually test for using single drop blood testing? Completely putting aside the fact that the Edison machine didn't work, what is and isn't possible for pathologists to do in terms of testing using a few drops of blood? It's currently most commonly used for blood sugar, and this particular video I watched said that it isn't necessarily reliable for some tests, and some require separation or the addition of chemicals. Another article I remember reading said it can make your potassium levels look like you're dying. That can't really be it to why single drop blood testing can't work, right? As far as I've seen, no one really has seemed to clearly explain in layman's terms as to why it couldn't or can't work. And likewise, what can actually be done accurately using such a test? Edit: Thanks for all the really thoughtful and clear answers. Even from the answers alone some people don't seem to agree with one another - hopefully Reddit will help parse out which of these answers are more correct than others!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In a single drop of blood, you can test things that are present in the blood in large quantities. That's great for cholesterol or red cell count. However, most blood tests look for molecules which are not that dense in the blood. If you want to measure the level of PSA, a biomarker for prostate cancer, a traditional test measures in nanograms/milliliter; 1-4 is ok, >6 is a warning. A typical drop in 0.05ml, so you're looking for something in the range of 50-200 picograms. That's only thousands of PSA molecules. To get a good reading, your machine would have to work at an atomic level.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV:Leaving the toilet seat up in mixed gender toilets is neither more nor less considerate than leaving it down. There are frequently comments and jokes in pop culture, usually from women, complaining about men leaving the toilet seat up. It is sometimes said that this is because "leave downers" don't want to touch an unhygienic thing. However, in order to put the seat down, you are simply shifting the contamination to someone else. Picking the seat up necessarily requires more prolonged contact than putting it down. One argument for putting the seat down is that the person using it next is less likely to need it up, since most women and many men will need it that way. However, leaving the seat down encourages lazy men to not pick it up at all and rely on aim, which is notoriously poor. > 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 If you want to minimise conflict among all parties, the solution is simple: have everyone always put both the seat _and the lid_ down after use. This ensures that everyone must lift something in order to use the toilet, and that everyone does so with a single motion (lids and seats can be lifted together). Further, this significantly improves hygiene, as flushing a toilet ejects a fine mist of the contents in to the air above. With respect to "touching something dirty", when you're finished, you wash your hands... right?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Highlander] What makes an immortal "powerful"? I'm thinking more about the chronicles of Duncan McCleod, not his clansman Connor (whom I'm less familiar with). I've heard a lot about "when you take an immortal's head, you take his power". And I've also seen the videos of the "quickenings", when heads are taken, which are quite destructive (and more destructive for older/more "powerful" immortals). I also recall seeing some documentaries where the dead immortal sort of takes over the live immortal (Duncan McCleod was once taken over by a "dark quickening", where he effectively became evil, and another where Richie Ryan took on characteristics of an immortal he killed, including falling in love with his girlfriend). All that being said, I don't understand what they mean when they say, "when an immortal takes another's head, they take his power". It seems to me that Duncan McCleod is "powerful" because he trains like crazy and has trained with some of the greatest masters. Richie Ryan is able to kill many immortals that are much older and more supposedly "powerful" than him, likely because he trains with McCleod. TL;DR: What does an immortal's "power" actually refer to?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It's the sum of an immortal's strength, knowledge, experience. Everything. Basically all the things that made them a person, their soul you might say. Since immortals, true to their name, live a very long time they tend to build a much greater reservoir of knowledge and experience than normal people, not to mention any they might have collected from killing other immortals.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:Can someone explain what an isomer is in layman's terms?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant An Isomer is a molecule with the same kind of atoms, but they are are a different shape. Imagine a lego set, put it together one way to make a plane. Take the plane apart, use all of those pieces to make a ship. The ship and the plane are isomers of each other, same stuff, different arrangement. EDIT: OK just might want to make this clear, the ship doesn't actually have to be made out of the plane, they just use the same kind of pieces in the same amounts.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do the tips of our fingers and toes need a covering such as our nails?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Nails provide a firm backing, allowing for better grip, finer sensory function, and giving a handy pair of built-in pliers for delicate work. Imagine you stuck a chopstick through a sausage, stopping a centimeter or so from the end. Now try to pick up something small. That stupid squishy sausage rolls around and you lose your grip. Now add a spoon to the back of the sausage, lightly connected to the chopstick. Now all that stupid sausage doesn't roll around as much, so you can pick things up. In a pinch (pun intended), you can also use the edges of two sausage-spoons to pick up something very small. That's the "what" of fingernails. As for "why," well, they have a function which arose from modifications to the claws we inherited. Why on the toes? Because they're on the fingers.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: the "anti-racist baby" book is nothing more than a way to get people who love to virtue signal to waste their money and it does nothing to stop racism anybody who buys the book specifically because they don't want a racist child should think about why they need a book to teach the child that lesson aby racist person is gunna look at tgat book laugh and walk by. If one were actually trying to change peoples racism they have to be subtle and have some nuance, at the very least in the name of said book. For example the movie slingblade has heavy critiques on racism and sexism but its packaged in such a way that it sneaks in there without realizing which is what makes it effective, being so ridiculously blatant will not change tge people you are trying to change. Edit: A quote from the book "some people get more while others get less, because policies don't always grant equal access" how the hell is a baby supposed to understand this book? Idk if its spam bots but the reviews are at 19% on google so i guess people arent happy with it lol<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Look through children's books that teach skills and values. Not many of them are there to teach skills and values that the parents themselves lack. They're there to help parents who already value those things pass them on in a way that works on the developmental level of their child. So subtlety really isn't an issue. It's not about sneaking in ideas the parents might object to, it's about giving parents a tool to help their child instantiate a value they hold. In that way it's exactly like pretty much any other book for kids designed to teach values.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Flatland] Could you convince the 0th dimension being to believe in higher dimensions? He believes that everything is himself, including thoughts and ideas. Would he adopt spoken ideas about higher dimensions as his own so much that he believes them?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I feel like in order to understand the dimensions above you, you'd need to experience the dimensions below. Without those experiences, it's far more difficult to make the leap to understanding something greater. A Square got to experience Lineland, so when he was introduced to Spaceland, he was able to understand the experience. The Sphere (and the reader) gets to experience Flatland, so you'd think that if we were pulled into Hyperspaceland, we'd be able to understand what's going on - if we're willing. But in Pointland, there's no step below, so Pointy couldn't learn to recognize the ignorance of believing there's nothing greater than what you can see. Because of that, and because he's all that he's ever known (compared to the other dimensions, which are densely populated by segments, shapes, and beings), it'd be pretty hard for him to learn what a "line" is.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If I take ice II at 500MPa and -80°C, and reduce the pressure to 100kPa, will the ice reorganise itself into ice I? Does it need to be melted in order to transition between its solid phases? Do any of the solid phases of ice form a stable configuration that can be taken out of its usual temperature-pressure boundaries once formed?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I don't know about ice specifically, but for other materials, phase changes between different solid phases certainly does take place. For example the changes between the different phases in steel is used in order to create the desired microstructure to give the desired bulk physical properties for particular applications of steel.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What makes someone smart?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant From a psychometric perspective smartness is a relative measure of ones' problem solving ability compared to the rest of the population, and it can be divided into two categories: fluid and crystallized intelligence. Fluid intelligence is ones' ability to solve novel, previously unencountered problems with nothing more than just raw brainpower and with minimum additional knowledge. It's the most culturally fair aspect of the general intelligence, highly correlated with ones' biological makeup and is the hardest part of intelligence one can ever hope to change in any significant way. It's correlated to reaction time, working memory capacity. Crystallized intelligence is the knowledge and skills based part of the general intelligence. It's the collection of knowledge and the mental skills acquired through lifetime, like language proficiency, factual knowledge, etc.. Generally we don't quite know what intelligence is. We would have already made super AIs by now if we knew. But you can think of it as the ability to use the environment to set and achieve beneficial goals efficiently. What can you do to increase your intelligence? For fluid intelligence; be mentally and physically healthy: have a good and nutritionally balanced diet, be physically active and fit, socialize as broadly as you can. For crystallized intelligence; learn as much as you can, don't shy away from complexity, learn how to manage the things that you don't understand (no one understands everything, smart people learn how to manage the unknown), learn to simplify, and don't think that you are not smart enough.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How did ancient civilizations know so much about the solar system with limited technology?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Ancient civilizations were able to track the stars and objects in the night sky. While they didn't have telescopes, they had far less light pollution, allowing them to see a lot more stars far more easily than we can.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user The strive for knowledge has been shattered by the public education system. CMV. For quite some time I have been looking into the priorities and the structure of the American education system. I myself am a senior in high school and, like many others, always wonder what the point of it all is. But what I've noticed is that when students ask this question, they do it out of laziness and lethargy. To put it simply, they just don't care about any of the information. Previous posts on this topic attempt to blame this disinterest on teachers, parents, etc. Whatever the reason, I would in turn like to present my view on how the public education system has turned the endeavor for knowledge into a single desire for exceptional grades and university acceptance. From my experience, what I have noticed is how grades have engulfed everything. A student's highest priority is to get all As in school, or to simply pass a certain subject. Not once have I heard someone make the new years resolution of learning something new in school. It's always to do better grade-wise. It's not exactly their fault either. The material being taught at school is centered around a [punishment-rewards system](http://www.alfiekohn.org/books/pbr.htm). This disciplines kids, not educate them. Even a lion learns to behave in fear of a whip - but you would call such a lion well trained, not well educated. In the case of the modern public education system, this "whip" is supposedly evaluating a student's work to the point where the assignment will only achieve full marks if it reflects previously generated exceptional works. How, then, do we move forward if we keep imitating the past? What I think none of us understands is that intelligence is dynamic and possibly endless. How can we possibly measure that with a tiny scale that focuses on, for lack of a better word, "busy-work"? We're given packets and worksheets and graphs to absorb and memorize - not to understand. If we've memorized it enough, we get a sufficient grade. Then we arrive at standardized tests that attempt, as another redditor had put it, to measure how well you will do in college, not how intelligent you are. If you take a look at various SAT/ACT practice and training courses, you will notice that they don't teach you the material. They explain strategies to take the test in the best way (as in, process of elimination, cross this and that out, etc.). These tests now dominate and obstruct the education system, instead of support it. In conclusion, I believe that the education system has turned schools into factories. Students are therefore enduring school instead of enjoying it, as they should. This leads to extreme stress and can contribute to harmful mental injuries. I accept that my views are not exactly conscientious, and I would like someone else's opinion on the matter that may or not CMV.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The purpose of school is to give you credentials to eventually enter the workforce/adult society. Intelligence/learning something new by itself isn't rewarded because they aren't rewarded in the work-force/adult society. Edit: The part where your view is wrong is that you are looking to the education system for something that it doesn't do and it shouldn't prevent you from enjoying learning new things or striving for knowledge.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Capitalism is a greedy killing machine and it's not okay. The Left vs right politics war waged on humanitarian leaders by greedy elites (oil billionaires mainly) who need extensive therapy and mushrooms (and quite possibly a hug) Let me explain Mental health awareness is purposely suppressed in America because it's "bad for business". The more people that become aware of their own mental health and sense of self-worth, allowing themselves to focus on what they (and the rest of society) actually need to be doing for the betterment of ourselves and everyone around us, the less and less people are okay with scummy behaviour exhibited by greedy corporations, the big guys on top realize this and are now actively suppressing this stuff rather than just passively and it's time we did something about it. Oil billionaires use radicalization to fund political wars so the big companies that can mass produce can sell resources for wars. This way all the misguided but intelligent greedy souls in need of therapy can stay rich and keep getting richer. They also use lobbyists to create bought-out congress members who can gear the country towards bailing them out and keeping them in power. Artificial intelligence is going to a world of terror in the name of Capitalism and I fear for our future.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In the past two centuries, capitalism has raised more people out of poverty and into middle class prosperity than any other system of economy. Yes, it is the worst system, except when you compare it to all the others.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: After a tooth is removed how is it that the hole left gets completely filled over time? I understand how the wound would heal but how does the body know to fill in the entire hole left by the tooth removal? That space didn’t have any gums before, since a tooth was there but it all gets filled.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Dentist here - inflammation and normal trauma processes carry out cell growth, tissue differentiation, repair, etc. like they would for any wound. The body doesn’t like voids and will fill them. They first heal to close the wound, then slowly over time remodel into a smoother shape (bone and soft tissue).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does a fruit "bruise" when dropped. What actually happens that causes the change?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant When the cells within the fruit are damaged, it allows oxygen in. When oxygen gets in to the cells, it reacts with the chemicals in the fruit in that area. The result of this reaction is a darkened color to the affected areas of the fruit.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [SCP Foundation] What if SCP-140 got filled in all the way to the early 1700s? http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-140 This magic book is capable of retroactively changing history to incorporate the existence of a powerful ancient nation ruled by evil sorcerors. Every time a type of fluid visible enough to write with comes in contact with the book, the history of the "Daevites" is changed. Real-world history, such as archaeological discoveries, change retroactively every time the book is added to. The Daevites are extinct, but the date of their extinction gets closer and closer to the present. Right now, it's far enough in the past that it has no real affect on the present. However, what if the book somehow got filled in enough to reach the early 1700s? How would moving their extinction to a mere 300 years ago affect history?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Consensus reality would be profoundly different - provided that the Foundation did not manage to successfully eliminate evidence of the Daevites from the historical record, and wide-spread use of amnestics and deep infiltration of history, archaeology, and anthropology departments would be costly and difficult; the greater spread and survival of Daevite hemomancy and herbomancy, artifacts, genetics (one can imagine intermarriage among noble families, for example), even language would cause widespread anomalous activity and support of neo-Sarkic cults, and the possibility of syncretism with established religions or governments would make containment even more problematic. In addition, all indications are that the initial retroactive removal of the Daevites from mainstream reality was only accomplished with means that are no longer available; the Foundation might have to enlist the aid of the Children of the Night to re-establish containment, and that's potentially trading one SK-class dominance shift for another.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How exactly does Deja Vu happen, and is it abnormal to experience it daily? I remember one of my professors giving me this thin, run down explaination of it, but he didnt say more than two sentences. I still don't understand it.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Humans have two kinds of memory, a short term memory that lasts a few hours and the long term memory that archives the memories. What you perceive from your senses is processed in your short term memory and is eventually shuffled off to long term memory when the brain no longer deems it useful for the current time. Deja Vu occurs when the signals to your short term memory either go to long term memory first or ends up in both at the same time. Seeing the sensory input in both the short term and long term memory confuses the brain into thinking that it has experienced the event in the past and at the current time creating the feeling that you have experienced before. Since it occurs when something goes wrong in the brain anyone who gets it on a daily basis should seriously see a neurologist on that.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: The US Government should allow transgender people to serve, but should not pay for their surgeries I'm not interested in arguing whether transgender people should be allowed to serve in the military, I'm more interested in the second part of my title. So starting with the assumption that trans people can serve in the military, why should the government pay for their surgeries and hormone treatments? Two big arguments I think support my case: 1. Sex reassignment surgery is an elective plastic surgery that only changes a person's physical appearance. The government wouldn't pay for an elective nose job or breast enhancement, so why should they pay for sex reassignment? The military medical coverage should only pay for medically necessary procedures and plastic surgery that arises from deformities sustained as part of service (i.e. A nose job for somebody who's nose was mutilated in battle would be justified) 2. I also don't want to set a precedent for pre-op trans people to think that joining the military was a way to get a "free" sex change. That would only encourage more people to sign up for the military only so that they don't have to pay for their own surgery, which is not what the military is for. We shouldn't make military service a bitter pill for desperate, but poor transgender people. I'm very luke warm in this opinion, so I'm curious what people think. Edit: just noticed I wasn't clear in my title. I'm referring to military service here, not other civilian government jobs<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant 1. Many would argue that these treatments are not "elective". Gender dysphoria is a documented mental illness in the DSM-V and one of the established treatments is transitioning (inclusive of the medications and surgeries necessary to enable such a transition). While not all transgendered people are gender dysphoric, many are. To deny them the accepted treatment paths for that disorder would be denying them the same privileges that we give to people with any other diagnosed disorder, be that mental or physical. 2. How would this be any different than people who sign up for free college using the GI bill or free money through enlistment bonuses? We provide financial incentives all the time for people to join the armed forces - why should the financial incentive of free healthcare be any different, so long as they are prepared to meet the obligations of service?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Healthy animals should never be put down simply because they’re not getting adopted. I understand the issue about space, accommodation and how many shelters are already struggling taking care of the ones in shelter, needing 24/7 care and attention. But do we put down our family who are going through similar or more painful health issues? Family who’s fighting through cancer, or elderlies who are too old to care for themselves, we take on the responsibility for them. Then why can’t we try and do the same for animals who are much more helpless and in need of support instead of putting them down simply because it might be too much work and money? I may not know all the specific details that go into this decision, so help me learn please?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Animal rights advocates/vegans, say that we should be adopting the animals that we can, make sure that animals are properly spayed/neutered so that they don't breed in an uncontrolled way and crack down on dog farms and breeders which bring dogs into the world , the unwanted dogs of which get thrown away out of sight and out of mind. Unfortunately, shelters will need to put dogs down just as a matter of lack of resources. What else is there to do? Keep them alive but isolated and under-cared for? Send them to a home that may not be right for them where they are likely to suffer further? You need to look at the broader picture. These animals absolutely have a right to life and it is our responsibility to take care of them but where we can't give them a good life then they will also just be suffering anyway. If you care a lot about this topic then you need to ask what practices led to all of these unwanted dogs and solve the problem there instead of downstream after the problems are difficult to solve.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user starting out my journey in philosophy with Kant , is this a good idea ? Any tips? I had my first contact with philosophy in class when we studied Socrates . I was blind but now I see, my eyes are open and I know I want to actually get into philosophy. I have chose Kant's critique of pure reason as my first book and I wanted to know if you guys have any tips or important things I should know before going into it or as I read it . Or if maybe you think this is a bad idea or a decent one . Cheers !<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Following the historical sequence is often a good way to go. With Socrates you make a good start, and since you read about him in Plato, it is a good idea to spend more time with Plato. There is a strong historical progression from Plato, to Descartes, to Hume, to Kant. Kant's philosophy, is very much part of that progression.<\|im_end\|>

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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