Split (1)

train · 52.8k rows

text stringlengths 82 65.5k
<\|im_start\|>user What is the purpose of pointers in C/C++? What benefits do they provide?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Benefits compared to what? Pointers are needed for any piece of code that need to dynamically allocate some amount of memory (since it needs to track the location of the allocated memory which may change from one run to an other depending on how much it needs to allocate and how much has already been allocated.) An alternative is to simply never allocate memory and only use static buffers everywhere (which is unpractical for big and complex program).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: how is it that in times of crisis major businesses will go bankrupt within months? Do they have no savings or what?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Well it depend on the business. What if they just made a new factory and so they have a lot of debt for some period of time when the crisis hit. What if they are very sensitive to the crisis in specific, for example construction here is doing not that bad, some project were stopped and we receive less work, but compared that to restaurant that were completely empty for the last week. The impact on different industry is different. The cost of maintening a business can also be astronomical. The larger they are the bigger the cost. It doesn't matter that nobody buy their product or services anymore, their income drop, but they can't decrease their cost by much and no matter how much money you have aside it will be drained so quicly. Imagine a company with monstly cost of several millions, you can't keep tens of millions aside just in case. In addition, some companies might decide that it's better to close now than to bleed for months before finally having to close. You don't need to run out of money to close, you can do the math and figure out that you will for sure close in a couple of months and you are better off closing now and saving what you can.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: When writing an amount of money, such as '£50' or '50p', why does the '£' come before the amount of money but the 'p' comes after? I guess the same logic applies to American currency with '$50' and '50c' (I don't have the symbol for cent on my laptop). I'm just wondering why money values have the larger symbols ahead of their money, but the lesser values always come after?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It's a quick glance tactic to avoid mistakes. If there is not a 0 and a decimal written before the number, one might actually misread ¢50 as $50 or vice versa, so the ¢ was after the amount. This was more prevalent in days of handwritten books as the two symbols were really only one curved stroke apart from each other. However, the presence of the 0 and decimal point can work just fine in electronic spreadsheet modernization. $0.50 is much more largely considered acceptable today as it's usually a computer doing the calculations.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do some things burn and other things melt?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Most things will do both, but one is easier than the other. Melting is a state change from a solid to a liquid. This requires enough energy (heat) to raise the temperature high enough for the current atmospheric pressure. Some materials simply require too much energy or too low of a pressure for this to happen easily in normal life. Burning is a chemical reaction between fuel and oxygen. It also takes energy to start (heat), but usually releases even more energy which makes the reaction continue. For some materials, this initial energy is too high to happen easily in normal life. It gets more complicated when your substance isn't a single material. For example, wood. While we generally think of wood as "burning", there are a lot of other materials in a piece of wood that will melt or evaporate while the cellulose (woody part of wood) burns. So essentially, it comes down to which of the two needs less energy for the current conditions. This is known as the combustion temperature (burning) vs the melting point (melt). A somewhat familiar example is magnesium: this is a solid metal at room normal temperatures and pressures that is commonly used in firestarters because it is so flammable and easy to burn. However, if you put it in a non-oxygen environment at the same pressures, it melts rather easily.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: The "Trolley Problem" has a clear "right" answer Context For those unaware of the "[Trolley Problem](https://goo.gl/images/uXskAG)", or its details, it is a thought experiment on the subject of morality. Essentially it states a hypothetical scenario: A trolley is headed down the tracks at high speed, towards a fork. On its current path, five people are tied to the tracks. You stand in front of a lever to switch the tracks to the other path, where only one person is tied to the tracks. Assume the trolley cannot be safely stopped before it hits the people, and they cannot be freed before the trolley gets there. Do you: A) Do nothing, resulting in the trolley killing 5 people, but you are in no way responsible Or B) Pull the lever, being responsible for one persons death, but saving 5 lives. *** My view is that the clear answer to this problem is option B, and that option A is not only worse morally, but rooted in selfishness and therefore even more immoral. The only argumemt ive heard for option A is that option B means youve interfered and directly caused death, whereas you did "nothing wrong" in op A so its not your fault they died. That reasoning is completely selfish, as it values your conscience over four human lives. Even assuming you should feel remorse, youre saying four lives arent as important as you feeling shitty. Even further, if you're "not responsible" in option A because you didnt create the situation, youre not responsible in op B either, for the same reason. This problem seems so obvious to me, but its often touted as a moral dilemma, so are people just being selfish as Ive concluded, or am I missing something? CMV Edit 1: bunch of responses already, thanks everyone! So far ive given out one delta, based on the re-imagining of the problem as the "transplant problem". I cant give deltas to everyone who cited this cause im working, but hopefully "upvotes where i can" will do. Another common one ive seen so far that id like to address is "its not meant to have an answer". Im aware its not meant to, that was the point of this CMV. Finally (so far), Ive seen people add questions like "who are the people, how did they get there, what if ones a murderer?" Etc. Id consider this moving the goalposts. The problem is based on you not knowing any of this. If you add this problem, it changes it completely, and if you know nothing about any of the people involved, each life is valued as unequivocally equal.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The thing about the Trolley Problem is that it isn't about finding a "right" answer - it is about exploring how different ethical frameworks handle situations to explore why we may agree or disagree with that particular framework. Lets take a different spin on the same problem - the transplant doctor. The doctor has five sick patients that would all be cured with an organ transplant - can he murder one healthy person in order to save the five? Most people would argue no, he can't, but it is the exact same moral situation as the Trolley Problem: kill one to save five. If you agree that the doctor should _not_ kill the patient, then you have found a situation where Option A being the right moral answer.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 - Someone please explain R-squared regression to me! Seriously. I will need it for work. I haven't been able to understand that shit from any online resource until now. Please ELI5<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant So you have a bunch of data, and you would like to put a line through it. The problem is that your data doesn't sit on a line. So instead you just pick a line that gets as close to all your data points as possible. This is a linear regression. Some of your points won't be on that line. The difference between a data point and the line is called the error. When you have a computer do this it's going to select a line that minimizes the overall error. Depending on your data this might work really well and it might not. The R-squared value is just a way of determining how well the line fits the data. If you have a R-squared value close to one, then you have a really good line. If you have an R-squared value close to zero, then your data is totally random and can't be fit to a line.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How come the slightest typo on a flight ticket means you won't get on the plane/admitted into the country? Even correct spelled names in the in the wrong fields won't do, like first name in surname and vice versa. Where does the problem occur? Cause you have like atleast 5 - 10 customs agents and flight staff manually watching your passport/ticket, and they should be able to conclude that the ticket is yours. Or?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In statistics we worry specifically about the "cost" of "false positives" vs. "false negatives". In this case lets allow "cost" to the result. Let's also say our assumption is that a typo on a flight ticket is always the result of deliberate malice, a person is trying to illegally sneak on a plane as part of a criminal act. If the person is totally innocent and it's just a typo and we prevent them from getting on the plane, that's a "false positive" and if the person is a criminal but we let it slide, that's a "false negative". The cost of a false positive is inconvenience to a person, they have to get their ticket corrected, or prove their identity and that's a darn hassle, but only for that person. The cost of a false negative is the person is committing a crime and going to commit a criminal act of some sort. By definition security will seek to limit false negatives as much as possible (prevent crimes) and it doesn't really care if false positives get swept up in their process.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user A Neuroscience major I know argued that the mind is separate from the body and modern Neuroscience backs that assertion up. Is consciousness rooted in physical processes? I apologize if this post doesn't belong here. I attempted to do my own research and I'm pretty sure this is a faulty claim. Her whole argument was that "consciousness is not understood" and that modern Neuroscience thinks of the mind as non-physical. She's currently studying alternative medicine. Can someone shed some light on this, given that "consciousness isn't fully understood?"<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Consciousness isn't well-understood, but it is clearly rooted in physical processes. You can build a computer and run a program on it called Doom, and you can build a brain and it will run a program we call "consciousness". You could also figure out how consciousness works and run it on a (powerful enough) silicon computer, and you could build a "brain" out of neurons that connect in a different way and run Doom. Anyone who says otherwise is repeating religious or philosophical dogma, or else finds the idea of being "just a machine" so unbearable that they'll be willing to believe anything. Your friend is studying nonsense and actively making it harder for herself to understand the world. If she intends to work in the field of "alternative medicine", then she will also be a snake-oil salesman who, at best, rips people off (though with the best of intentions) and, and worst, kills people by helping convince them to avoid real medicine when they need it. Good luck convincing her of it, though.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is a Workers Union and what do they do? Also, why are there jokes about being unionized? Is it a bad thing?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A union is basically an organization of workers that will collectively bargain in order to ensure that wages and working conditions are good, using the resources of the collective crowd that could not be attained by the individual. The good thing about this is that it ended practices such as child labor, horrendous factory and mining conditions, long work hours with fewer days off, and low wages that were seen in the early 1900s. The bad thing is that unions have in modern times taken that idea and pushed it far enough to where workers are overpaid, spoiled, and almost impossible to fire. A unionized janitor can be paid as much as 10 non-union janitors for doing the same job, and there are people that put on tires for 30 dollars an hour. The fact that you are put into a tenured position is also problematic because it means that you don't have to worry about quality or even doing a good job. Teachers are heavily unionized, and the ones who are tenured show a visible lack in quality. Like any system, it proves that too much of a good thing can be a bad thing.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: might be a /r/shittyaskscience question, but how the fuck does shaving cream work? what I mean is how does it expand so much? one drop of it can cover like half your face. what causes it to be so expansive?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It's important to understand that most gasses compress very well. Shaving cream is a compressed mixture of the actual 'cream' and gasses, this keeps the gas bubbles very, very small. Once you squirt it out, the gas is free to spread out and takes up many times the amount of space. This causes the cream to expand as the little bubbles inside spread out. Another effect is the cream remaining in the can gets a bit more space to spread out and the pressure decreases. This decompression cools it down and that is why the can feels cool to the touch just after you spray some out.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Want to get a solid understanding of the history of Christian philosophy, feel overwhelmed. Any advice? So, my primary philosophical interest is Christianity, and how Christian ideas should be interpreted in light of certain philosophers and the history of philosophy in general. My long-term goal is to gain a solid understanding of Christianity in terms of the history of philosophy (and obviously to understand the history of philosophy itself from a secular point of view) in general in order to inform my (nominal) Christian views and think about Christianity 'properly', I suppose you could say. This task, however, has become seemingly more daunting and overwhelming the further I get an understanding of what this entails. This is due to the volume of work that it would require, which seems to exceed what is possible in a lifetime. I browse some users here to get introduced to certain ideas in terms of this goal (read: /u/wokeupabug), and it obviously gets more and more overwhelming as the volume of material seems to get larger. I'm a first-year undergrad, so obviously I don't know shit yet, so I just have no idea where to start. There's the Scholastics, Augustine and Latin Christianity, and Kant, and so much more in between, I just have no idea where to start. Any advice?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant For Christian theology in the pre-modern period, there's Di Berardino and Studer's History of Theology, Vol. I: The Patristic Period, and D'Onofrio's History of Theology, Vol. II: The Middle Ages and History of Theology, Vol. III: The Renaissance. The volume on the middle ages covers the material most often dealt with in relation to the history of philosophy, whereas the other volumes deal with material that history of philosophy has often neglected, although it's still interesting and relevant. So depending on your interest you may wish to read just volume two, or else one or both of the others as well. For modern theology, consider Simpson's Modern Christian Theology and/or Livingstone's Modern Christian Thought, Vol. I: The Enlightenment and the Nineteenth Century and Modern Christian Thought, Vol. II: The Twentieth Century.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is it ethical for me to visit a student at their dorm? I work as an academic advisor at a community college. My supervisor sent me a text message earlier this afternoon giving me a student's name, ID number, and dorm room number telling me that the student has been struggling hardcore. Apparently the student has not been attending any of his classes or turning in any of his work. The student is also one of my students in my seminar class. Well, it seems like other professors have contacted the student via phone/e-mail, and now administration wants me going to this student's dorm in-person to check in on them. My supervisor has told me the student is known to lie about what's going on in his life. Is it really ethical for me to go to the student's dorm and try to convince them to come to class? I'm not sure I have the proper training to negotiate with students who may be in distress or having problems, to the point where the student is lying to his other professors. Is there a "professional" way to decline what my supervisor is asking me to do, or at least mention that I don't think I am the right person to try and convince the student?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You mention that you're an academic advisor... Is this a faculty role, or a role in student affairs? You may not feel comfortable doing this, but this is a role that someone in a similar job position in student affairs would be responsible for doing at the universities I've worked at. Perhaps you could say this isn't something you've done, and ask if there was someone else who could go with you?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does the press respond so differently to Trump saying that McCain was not a hero than Bush saying the same thing about Kerry?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Two things: 1) Your suggestion probably contributes. People expect Trump to say ridiculous and offensive things. Media loves playing to expectations because people like having their personal biases confirmed. 2) It probably helped that Bush and Kerry were in opposing parties. There is a built in opposition to Trumps comments because he is attacking "his own". Bush was attacking "the bad guy". Further, the 2004 presidential election was particularly vitriolic. People were more receptive to that kind of political rhetoric.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does an optometrist create prescription lenses for an infant?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Lenses work both ways, so the Dr. can use a scope to look in the infant's eyes and try lenses to bring the back of the eye into focus. It won't be perfect, but if the infant has bad enough vision that they can tell the infant needs glasses, you'll be able to make a huge improvement anyway.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 Data Warehouse vs Lake vs Lakehouse I have a general understanding of warehouse vs lake, but how does lakehouse blend the two?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A data warehouse is a highly structured environment where data is stored. It has complex rules for indexing the data and a rigid metadata system for cataloging all of the data presented. This makes it very easy to query data in the warehouse, but very time-consuming to set up and manage. It also makes the warehouse unsuitable for data that doesn't fit those strict rules. A data lake is the opposite - a very unstructured data retention system. Data is just kind of "there" and it is up to the programs querying the data to figure out what it wants. Easy to set up and maintain, but the heavy lifting has to be done by the programs or users requesting data. A lakehouse is a middle ground. It applies _some_ of the indexing and rules seen in a warehouse while still keeping the easy-to-scale and manage structures of a lake.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Assuming the existence of a God (for the sake of argument), why would they need to create a universe? If they truly knew everything as the Abrahamic God is said to do, then isn't it more probable that we only exist in their imagination because why would a god bother creating a physical universe when their omniscience would make them capable of knowing how every possible combination of parameters of universes would turn out?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There is a complex and diverse history of work by philosophers and theologians about creation. But here are two typical sorts of respones to your proposal: One, that the hypothetical scenario you propose is deficient in that it involves no real relationship between things, no real plurality of things, no real diversity of things, etc., and this deficiency is incompatible to the power of the creator, whose creative act is precisely an act meaning to bring about relations, plurality, diversity, etc. Two, that the hypothetical scenario you propose is deficient in that it involves no real distinction between good states of affairs and bad states of affairs, both of which are conceived by the divine intellect, and this deficiency is incompatible with the goodness of the creator, whose creative act is precisely an act meaning to bring about a good state of affairs, so that the divine will would choose to bring it about that there is in reality only one of the many states of affairs the divine intellect can conceive, namely the one that is the best.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user When ants drink water, do they have to bite it off because of surface tension?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I am a masters student of Engineering specialising in microfluidics. - / The mouth or jaws of the ant are composed of a rough surface together with very small hairs. This surface is thus hydrophobic at that small scale. The scale influences the surface/volume ratio which causes surface forces to dominate. The jaws, when clamped shut, will most definitely be able to "cut" off a droplet from a bigger drop.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user I can't seem to understand what a virtual image is in optics. Secondly, is a rainbow an example of a virtual image?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant When you look at something, your eyes see and your brain interprets rays of light diverging from individual points of the object. This is called image formation. When you look through a magnifying glass at something, you still see rays of light that appear to be emanating from a common point, but those rays of light didn't actually start there. They actually started from the object and bent at the lens, then went to your eye. Because the rays you see don't actually touch each other, the image is called a virtual image.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How come some beaches have pebbles and some sand? For example, my local beach has pebbles/stones but about 20 miles up the coast, the beach is sand. Apologies if this is the most stupid question of all time.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A beach's particle size depends on how far from the origin the beach sediment is and what the sediment is composed of. If your beach has pebbles, then it could be that the source isn't that far away, whereas sandy beaches require the sediment to weather more before being found at the beach. To answer your question, It could be possible that the 2 beaches have 2 different sources, or 1 source where the sand is the same material as the pebbles, but just more weathered.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: There is nothing wrong with intentionally trying to lose weight I've seen many dieticians claiming that all intenional weight loss is a bad idea. They cite studies that over 95% of people gain back the original weight and more after five years, and that weight cycling (losing and regaining weight) is worse for you than just staying fat. First, in the case of someone who is extremely obese, I just can't understand telling them that they are doomed to remain that way and they shouldn't even try to lose weight. I've seen people refer to the desire to lose weight as "internalized fatphobia" and that you should just be happy with your body as it is. This is ridiculous. It's not fatphobia that causes people to suffer the health consequences of obesity. Even if there's a 95% they gain it back, it still seems worth it to try when you are at death's door because you are morbidly obese. Second, even if you are not morbidly obese, what's wrong with trying to lose weight for aesthetic purposes? We don't tell people they shouldn't get any cosmetic surgeries because they should just be happy the way they are. Even if it's unfair, the fact remains that being thin and in shape is desirable in our society. What's wrong with seeking out that goal in a healthy way? It seems like many dieticians agree with the idea that intentional weight loss is bad. Examples: https://more-love.org/2019/02/04/stop-supporting-intentional-weight-loss-heres-the-science-to-support-a-non-diet-weight-neutral-approach/ https://haeshealthsheets.com/why-we-dont-recommend-intentional-weight-loss/ https://slate.com/technology/2015/03/diets-do-not-work-the-thin-evidence-that-losing-weight-makes-you-healthier.amp I am open to having my view adjusted on this, but I don't think I'll ever accept the proposition that no one should ever intentionally try to lose weight. Edit: Thanks for the responses. I have some work to do now, but I'll respond to more later today.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant First things first: I'd like to thank you for actually linking to the actual materials you are referring to! It's very rare in this sub that people do that. But that does put us in a weird position because you are linking to, and so presumably have actually read, the answers to your own view. One thing I've begun to realize very recently is when people claim "there is nothing wrong with X" what they actually mean is "It is hypothetically possible to do X without resulting in the negative consequences that people are concerned about" which is true, in the hypothetical. Your kind of just saying "if we completely ignore that fact that behavoir X predominantly and predictably leads to negative outcomes. There is "nothing wrong with it". But in reality there is something wrong with it. It predominantly and predictably leads to negative outcomes, as your links seem to point out. This can make the conversation kind of difficult because people will be responding with the actual reasons that we shouldn't focus on weight loss as they exist in reality, but the bar that you've set is "If you ignore all the reasons focusing on weight loss typically results in negative outcomes than hypothetically focusing on weight loss can be succesful.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Blind Applications are the best way to eliminate any hiring discrimination What I mean by blind applications is that until a certain point in the hiring process, an applicant is simply a number with his or her relevant information attached to this number. Companies can then eliminate these anonymous candidates before they know any traits that could be used to discriminate against any group. After a company has filtered out many of these anonymous applicants, it can then do things like interviews that require familiarity. Obviously, this system isn't perfect. One could dispute what information would have to be initially omitted in order do keep the process fair. Also, some of the information that is probably necessary to determine if an applicant is qualified might allow one to garner some of the hidden pieces. For example, if the applicant when to Merideth College, she is certainly a woman, and if the applicant attended Morehouse College, he or she is almost certainly African-American. However, this system would help eliminate unconscious or snap-judgements that certainly contribute to hiring discrimination.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If there's any point in the process where the candidate meets with company hiring them in person, they can be failed for a discriminatory reason. Like they do now, companies can say that they're not hiring someone because they were bad at the interview, when in fact it's because they're black or a woman or have tattoos or whatever. If you're suggesting that companies should never be allowed to meet face to face with the applicants for their jobs, it seems like a recipe for companies not hiring qualified people, since there is a lot more for being qualified for a job than where you went to school and what your last job was.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user eli5: Why can’t you combine a telescope and microscope? This is one of those things that I know doesn’t work, but I don’t know the exact reason WHY it doesn’t work. I remember asking a friend in 7th grade biology why I can’t just put a telescope up to a microscope to see even more detail, but he just laughed and no one I’ve ever asked has given me an answer<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Telescopes are generally limited by the size and perfection of their optics rather than what you can see. You could tack on some optics to look at a narrower portion of the telescope, but the narrow portion wouldn’t contain any more detail. Kinda like how digital zoom doesn’t increase the number of pixels, it just crops away the outside of the image and stretches the center to fill that space.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What are the effects of antidepressants and anxiety medication on a healthy person? I'm wondering what are the effects of antidepressants( SSRI) and anxiety medication ( GABA) on a healthy person.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant GABA drugs like benzodiazepines will have many effects common with alcohol, as alcohol also targets that system among others. SSRIs are a bit more complex as their exact role in depression is not well understood and their effects in general are much less predictable. It could provide a level of mood stabilization, no noticeable mental effect or some undesirable side effects; it'd both depend on the person as it does in depression and what the increase in serotonin in the synapse does beyond help with depression. Without a study, it would be hard to draw any general conclusions.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are the leaked, internal emails from professionals so sloppy? Whenever there's a cache of internal email revealed through court or hacks, I'm always astounded by how poorly they're written. Not just informal, but horrible grammar and spelling. Given these are often from very accomplished and educated individuals, I feel like I'm missing something here.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Several reasons that all add up. Firstly, many of these emails are written on a phone while multitasking or traveling, so punctuation and verbose language is avoided for practicality. Second, a lot of these emails are quick, informal communications between people who talk all the time and just want something quickly in writing as a reminder. They're just augmentations to previous discussions. Third, they're not writers for a reason. As long as they get the point across, who cares? If the communications are meant to be public, they'll get someone else to write them or re-write them before releasing them.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are advanced stage colon cancer patients expected to live only 21.4 months after diagnoses? What actually kills them? (What will actually casue my death?)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant At later stages, the cancer spreads to other systems, such as your pancreas, lymph nodes, etc. The most common is the liver. What is bad is that most of these organs affect the entire body so once the cancer gets into that system, it can travel anywhere, like a freeway. Then it is just a case of how well those organs can function with cancer taking up space, pinching, cutting off blood supply, etc. Good luck with treatment. Bring a good book to chemo, and be sure to buy Gatorade for at home. Half Gatorade, half water, and drink as much as you can stand.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is there any credence to the idea that our universe could be microscopic in relationship to a much larger universe?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant This is an idea looking for evidence. The evidence we have indicates no. You could likely twist the data into saying its possible, with an internally consistent model that can't be immediately disproven, however that's more an exercise in the cleverness of the thinker than the likelihood of it being reality. You can produce evidence to support any idea, if you work hard enough at it. The trick is looking at the evidence and seeing what it supports, not looking at the evidence for what you support.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why when your stressed are you more susceptible to illnesses?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant When you are stressed, your body is producing certain chemicals and hormones to deal with that. These hormones are good for handling something in the here and now, especially the sort of threats we used to face when we were hunter/gatherers, but over longer periods of time these hormones have the side-effect of suppressing the immune system. In addition to that, they also generally suppress your appetite (harder to fight off bugs if you are low on energy) and can wreak havoc on your sleeping (again making it harder to fight off disease)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is space the same as distance? And wouldn't distortions of space likewise distort everything within it to the same degree?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant They are a little different. * Space is a set of points * Distance is a relationship between points In a 100 cm box, you can measure the distance 1 cm in many different places. Are you measuring near the front of the box? Near the back? Or near the center? Distance alone doesn't tell you this. A distortion (It doesn't have to be as exotic as gravity, just imagine the separation between two dots as you blow up a balloon.) tells you when the relationship between two points in space changes. Essentially, distortion tells you how distance changes. In relativity, you can't just use euclidean 3D space anymore, but 4D spacetime and thus distance now include the passage of time on clocks as a form of distance.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does RAM work?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Imagine you have to do research in a library. So you (the CPU) go to the library (the computer) and walk though the ailes (the hard drive) collecting books (data) on the topic (the computing task). You take your books and sit down at a desk and stack all your books in a pile on the corner (RAM). As you read through the books you end up keeping some of them open in front of you as you reference them frequently (cache). As you read them and process the data, you are writing your report (the processes result). Note the relationship between your types of storage space and how fast you can reference them. You can only have a couple books open at a time in front of you as you are skipping around reading them, but it is really fast to do so. You can always reach over, grab a different book from the stack on the table, and replace one of the currently open books. It takes a little bit of time to flip through the pages and find what it is you are looking for but the process is still relatively fast. If you realize you don't have a required book on the table (the data isn't loaded into RAM) you then have to get up and wander around the library to find the book (like when your computer is taking its time turning on or opening a program for the first time). There is one slower method of data retrieval- when the library doesn't have the book and you have to request it from another library (pulling data over a network, aka the Internet). A multi-core processor is when there are multiple people at the same desk doing research. The desk space fills up pretty fast you you definitely want a big desk (lots of RAM) or it will slow everyone down because they don't have much space to store their books. Dynamic RAM, like what you hear when you say your computer as 4 or 8 or 16GB of ram, is temporary - meaning that every night the librarian comes through and clears off your desk. You have to start fresh every time you leave. These are the sticks of RAM that are sticking out of motherboards that you can upgrade if needed. Static RAM, like the Flash memory of your phone or a solid state drive, is kinda like being allowed to keep your books on the a special table overnight an no one touches them. Lots of RAM is expensive in a system (you can only put so may tables in a library) but it definatly speeds things up. If you have "too much" RAM it doesn't really help you (how may books will you ever realistically need on any topic to find the answer?) in most cases unless you are doing some pretty high end stuff (NOT surfing the Internet or writing an email). Cache is RAM that is built into the CPU, where space is at an extreme premium. It's fast as hell, but very expensive.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What are the strengths and weaknesses of macs vs PCs? (Objectively, please)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Macs are custom designed to work with a smaller set of hardware and software. So more attention is given to details that are hard to enforce in an open, generic platform. However, inevitably, Apple is stuck with a smaller number of vendors who can therefore exert price pressure and ultimately cause the machine cost to be highly marked up. Windows main selling point is the high degree of backwards compatibility and openness. There is a high onus on independent developers to provide all the quality of their solution by themselves. Since Microsoft does not have any real method of enforcement of any quality standards (other than minor incentives such as the "Windows logo" program) you get solutions with quite varied quality. On the other hand the more open market place tends to create fair and correct pricing for third party hardware and software. So there is a common conception that Mac's tend to crash less and "just work" more and that Windows tends to be flakey, insecure and more difficult to use. Windows machines tend to be much cheaper than Macs.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Are there any viruses that humans must have in/on our bodies in order to stay alive?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It’s possible that some bacteriophages (viruses that infect bacteria) are important for keeping gut bacteria in check, though it might be hard to prove that one way or another. Alternatively, there are parts of the human genome that are theorized to have originally come from viral DNA, so if you count those as viruses still, they are very essential.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why does paper lose structural integrity when wet with water, but not so much with oil?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The polymers that make up the cellulose in paper are hydrophilic. When they’re wetted, the water disrupts the network of hydrogen bonds that holds the fibers together. Oil will coat the surface of the fibers without interrupting the network in the same way.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Pineapples have a 1 year growth time before it can be harvested. Why are they relatively cheap despite them having a long growth time?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are a lot of plantations that grow them rotating fields so that they have an almost constant supply. Because of this supply is high despite the long growth time and thus costs are relatively low.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do artificial flavors work? For example, how is it my yogurt tastes like "boston cream pie"?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Food scientists spend a lot of time researching exactly what kinds of chemicals produce what kinds of flavors, and then trying to synthesize chemicals they think might make good flavorings. Then a whole lot of testing happens where they mix different flavorants together to try to produce different tastes. Eventually someone finds a mix of flavorings and product that results in yogurt that tastes like a Boston cream pie.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user I think that not all cultures are equal. Some are definitely superior to others. CMV. I read a recent TIL article about how certain aboriginal tribes will form holes in the bases of boys' penises when they come of age. The hole is kept open with a splinter. There's just no way that all cultures are equal, or worth the same. Western culture tends to emphasize reason over superstition, human rights and equality, and technological progress. Western culture has given us beautiful art like the Mona Lisa, and beautiful literature like Paradise Lost. The Renaissance, the Enlightenment, democracy, etc. are all products of Western culture. As opposed to Aboriginal culture, which has given us holes in the bases of penises.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant What criteria are you using to judge which are superior? Whatever your criteria are, they're influenced by your culture. If you live in a culture that values reason, you're going to see cultures that emphasize reason as the most superior cultures. If you're in a culture that values freedom, or happiness, or knowledge, or strength, or any number of other qualities, you're going to prefer the cultures have those. If that sounds circular, it's because it is. How can we demonstrate that your values are the ones we should be judging superiority with? Where one person see a culture that causes needless harm to each other, they may see a demonstration of strong men who can withstand pain. Where one person sees art, they may see a waste of time and effort.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How are "albums sold" determined in this era of music streaming?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The music industry has a specific unit for that: the "Album-equivalent unit". A single physical album sale is defined to be equivalent to ten song downloads, or 1500 song streams. So, if you as an artist sells 5000 albums, people download your song 10.000 times, and your music was streamed 1.300.000 times, you are credited with 'selling' 6800 albums.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Privilege shouldn't be a source of shame Exactly what the title says. Personally, I am just wondering why it would even be a good thing for the so-called privileged to be looked down upon. Isn't the entire point of striving in life supposed to be all about attaining something more? Privilege itself shouldn't be shamed because its a ridiculous notion. Essentially you would be shaming people for having rights bestowed upon them by a fluke of birth. Wouldn't it make more sense to be against an unwarranted benefit rather than the person it affects? It just seems petty to be against people for no other reason than being born a certain way. An example of this anti-privilege ideology running rampant is the idea that women that can reproduce have privilege because of no other reason than being born a healthy female. Even if we should shame the privileged, shouldn't we shame people that choose to waste great potential rather than shame all people for a trait they can't control? Overall, change my view by either giving a legitimate reason why privilege in general should be a source of shame or that those with privilege should be shamed for no other reason than having it _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I think this is a strawman. When people talk about acknowledging your privilege, it has to do with two things: 1) Recognizing that there is no such thing as a "default" human, and perspectives other than the dominant one are also valuable (example: "mankind" is considered universal while "womankind" isn't) or 2) Recognizing that some Institutional aspect of life is unfair and that the institution could be changed to be more fair (example: police are more likely to shoot and kill innocent black people than innocent white people). Shame is not the desired outcome of people asking you to recognize your privilege--improved quality of life for oppressed people is. In fact, your shame is at best irrelevant and at worst a hindrance to improving the situation. Does that make sense?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: why are scientific paper on two columns? It seems all papers use this format...<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Ease of reading, as a carryover from the days when they could only be printed rather than available to read on a controllable screen such as a monitor. Most scientific papers pack a lot of information into a small-typefaced article, and include terminology and concepts that can make them a bit harder to read than, say, a cheesy romance novel which is full of short paragraphs where people are speaking. Quite often journals involve very long paragraphs too. So you want to do what you can to make them easier to digest, even if only by a little bit. By breaking long lines into two columns, you are less likely to lose your place every time you finish reading a line and start the next one, because your eyes don't have to travel as far. Your eyes only have to return halfway across the page, making it less likely to either start rereading the same line or accidentally skip a line, which is something that's easy to do when reading long paragraphs.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 - Islamic/ Sharia Banking I understand that usury (interest) is not allowed but I'm still unclear on the work arounds.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant in some cases it is handled the same way that christian usury standards were circumvented in the middle ages: the "late" fee. a lender would charge a a borrower a "late fee" if the loan weren't paid on time, which would be commensurate with the interest they wanted to charge. the borrower would pay 1 day late along with the "late fee". this is not common in formal business circles any longer. in western banks that loan to strict muslims, for example in the case of a mortgage, they cannot charge interest as strict muslims are forbidden from both charging and paying interest. in this case there is a separate muslim contract used. instead of showing the interest as a separate line item, it is added to the principal and the loan is paid by the borrower as if they were paying just the principle of the loan split across however many payments it would be. in reality they are just paying a the principal and the interest as one lump sum, but this is considered acceptable as long as it's not openly documented as interest. *edit: homophone confusion<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is there any reason why all the gas giants in our solar system formed in the outer solar system? Why didn't any gas giants form in the inner solar system?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant What's important here is a concept known as the "snow line". Water can only exist in two states out in space - as a gas, or as ice. Since the pressure is essentially zero in space, water's phase will only depends on temperature. In our solar system, this threshold is located somewhere around 5 AU (where 1 AU = the average distance between the Sun and Earth), and is known as the snow line. For space inside of 5 AU, water is generally found as a gas, while for space outside of 5 AU, it's generally found as ice. This threshold is very important for solar system formation. If you imagine proto-planets slowly building up from dust grain sizes up to planetary sizes, you can build a lot faster with rock and ice rather than rock alone. This is especially important if you want hydrogen gas to be a significant percentage of your planet - the general rule of thumb is that a proto-planet needs to be about 10 Earth-masses or greater before it has enough gravitational force to hold on to hydrogen. Also remember that as the Sun ignites, it also starts blowing all that gas out of the system over relatively short timescales, so the places where the proto-planets can grow to 10 Earth-masses the quickest are the places that are eventually going to have planets with lots of gas. Again, reaching this 10 Earth-mass threshold will happen the fastest for planetary cores made of both rock and ice rather than just rock alone...but that can only happen outside the snow line. It's no surprise, then, that Jupiter is at 5.2 AU, just outside the snow line, and the remaining giant planets are out beyond that. Inside the snow line, meanwhile, nothing got massive enough to hold on to hydrogen gas, so we just see rocky planets there. TL;DR: Out past 5 AU, water in space becomes ice. This is important because the proto-planets beyond that distance could be built from both rock and ice, allowing them to more easily reach the 10 Earth-mass threshold required to hold on to hydrogen gas.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why can you grow plants hydroponically but if plants in soil get too much water they get root rot and die?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Plants’ roots need oxygen, as counterintuitive as that seems. In soil, there are a lot of tiny gaps that hold air. When you over water a plant those gaps stay filed with water instead of air and the plant drowns Any hydroponic system includes a way to get oxygen to the roots. Sometimes they leave the roots exposed to the air for a while (ebb and flow), or sometimes they pump air into the water like in an aquarium (deep water culture)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is there a name for the philosophical approach of deconstructing concepts? This is a poorly worded question I’m aware. For example, when asking “what is a chair”, someone might say “a seat with four legs” but then someone will deconstruct that idea further and come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a chair. Is there a philosophy or philosophical term for this kind of thing? Thanks<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant This kind of process, wherein someone thinks they have a firm grasp of some concept but is proved to lack such a grasp, appears in Plato’s dialogues; the confusion at the end of the process is called aporia. You might want to do some searching around that concept, if this is something you’re interested in.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why does burnt food stick to the pan and why does soaking in water unstick it? I was trying to wash a frying pan after I burnt some chicken and it felt like trying to excavate concrete.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I believe this is a combination of two major factors. First, burning the food dehydrates it, so there's no liquid to lubricate the particles in the burnt food, making them feel like concrete. Secondly, burning food causes organic molecules to polymerize. It's like caramelization gone too far. That increases the average molecular size, making the food more viscous and hard. Soaking helps because it can lubricate the particles, making them easier to get off the pan.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If a space ship is going 99% speed of light time is slower for them according to the earth (I think) but if the space ship is out reference point then the Earth is going 99% the speed of light. So wouldn't time be going slower on earth in relation to the ship? So 1 earth hour is only .5 hours on the ship (I am fully making numbers up here) because the ship is moving 99% the speed of light relative to the earth. But if you choose the ship as a reference point then the earth is the one moving so that would mean (as I understand) that 1 hour on the ship would only be .5 hours on the earth. And now 1 hour of thinking about this is causing a 3 hour headache!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It is important to take into account the difference between the very nature of the two observers. If you take the observer in the spaceship, what they see is the earth and all of space moving away from them, as if their ship is standing still. This means that we must also consider spacial contraction. This is the contraction of space in the direction of movement. It means that if, to take your example, a 1 meter ruler is moving at 99% the speed of light, the ruler will actually be .5 meters long when observed by a stationary person. Now this means, in the reference frame of the dude in the spaceship, the distance of space that they are traveling through is actually shorter because, according to them, all of space is moving by at 99% the speed of light. Warning, the following is physics! There is an interesting application in physics where scientists have observed muons that typically have a half life of 2.2 microseconds. These particles are created in the upper atmosphere and move toward the earth at very high (relativistic) speeds, something comparable to the speed of light. Using classical physics, we can easily determine that something like .05% of the muons will make it to the surface of the earth, however we experimentally observe something around 80%. It makes sense, if we use relativity, that in the reference frame of an on ground observer, the half life of a muon will actually be longer because of time dilation, this easily explains how 80% of the muons actually make it to the surface. But it is not so clear if we take the reference frame of the muon, and this frame is perfectly fine to use, so how do the muons survive with a half life of 2.2 microseconds, their half life cannot change because they are not moving relative to themselves. The answer is spacial contraction. Because they are moving so fast, they see the space that they travel through to be shorter. This means that, despite having a short half life, they don't have to travel as far to reach the surface of the earth and be detected. It is weird to think that two different observers can explain the way something happens in two completely different ways, but physics tends to work like that.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Who cares if moral realism is true? I've never seen this assumption formalized in the literature, but it seems to me that there is a general feeling that it is "important" whether moral realism is true or not. Without being overly-general about the personal values of individual philosophers, the potential truth of moral realism seems to carry more weight than the potential truth of, say, some obscure and technical mereological theory: that is, if moral realism is true, then we expect it to have a significant impact on how we view humans and human action, and we expect it to have an appreciable impact on our own behavior. Upon further analysis, however, I'm not convinced that this position is correct. Suppose that at least some moral facts are true, and that humans are capable of learning the truth of these facts. Why should these facts alone influence anyone's behavior, in any situation? It may be the case that the true correct theory of morality entails that if an agent does X and X is wrong, then that agent will be harmed, and that constitutes a good argument for why you should not do X; but if the set of actions that are morally wrong is just a subset of the actions that will harm you, then shouldn't we just dispense with trying to find a metaphysical account of moral properties and simply focus on describing the actions which are personally/socially harmful? The addition of a moral property adds nothing; people can only be compelled to act by physical properties. Someone may decide that they want to act in accordance with moral properties, but this decision seems arbitrary. I suppose I'm getting at the oft-repeated thesis that moral facts must be causally inert, but instead of using this as an argument against moral realism, I'm simply pointing out that this means we shouldn't really care about moral realism. Knowing that an action is wrong or right seems to be as irrelevant as knowing that the action is occurring X miles from the sun. Now, you could certainly still be interested in whether moral properties exist or not for purely intellectual reasons, but as I pointed out in the beginning, I don't think that people are interested in moral realism for purely intellectual reasons. They want something more out of it. To sum up: should the truth or falsity of moral realism affect my behavior, and how? Is it possible for moral facts to be causally efficacious?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The view that moral facts would necessarily affect behavior is called motivational internalism. Basically, just by learning some moral fact, you automatically have a motive, though not necessarily overriding, toward some end. Most moral realists reject this view because it seems impossible for any facts to behave like this. A more developed view, reasons internalism, states that learning some moral fact necessarily gives you a reason to act in some way. Giving you a reason to act perhaps (on some moral realists' accounts) gives you a motive to act insofar as you are rational. If moral realism and reasons internalism are true, then moral facts should affect your behavior so long as you are rational. The question whether these are true is important because the answer shows whether we have the authority to determine our own reasons, or there is some independent authority that gives us reasons (with the stipulation that some, like Korsgaard, think we have the authority to determine our own reasons but rationality is such that we necessarily give ourselves moral reasons).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How the education system in Germany works I went over the German education system articles on Wikipedia but I am thoroughly confused even with the diagrams. All the different types of schools and the German words are very confusing. Then there are different laws for each type of school and different laws for entry as professors, occupations etc. Can someone explain the whole education system from the lowest grade (playgroup?) till the highest (doctorate?) with emphasis on the university level?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Kindergarten: its possible very very early, also its optional but common. Elementary: from 1st to 4th - (6th) grade depending on the federal state. ( now it gets complicated) a) hauptschule: 5th grade to 9th grade, allows you to learn most of the crafts b) Realschule: 5th to 10th grade: allows you to learn any job you don't need to go to university for. c) Gymnasium: 5th to 12th (13th) grade allows you to study at any university that thinks your grades are good enough.( or that has a seat left in a less full course) Those three may be mixed in different ways and you can get the allowance for the some university also after learning a craft. In the public system are two parts of colleges: Universität: You need "Abitur" to study there (you get it from the gymnasium) exceptions could be if you are a musician with great talent or want to become a priest( because catholic church is in dire need of priests. You study for different bachelor or masters degrees ( exception: if you want to become a doctor or a lawyer/judge) Fachhochschule: you need to learn a business or a craft and than make a different kind of abitur (fach abitur) for 2 years. now you can get a bachelors or masters degree in, engineery courses. ( wich you can also get at university,but not with a Fachabitur) veeeery simplified but i think it provides the general idea<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Lately, I've been getting crank calls where, whether I pick up or not, the caller hangs up immediately leaving no message or insistance that I call someone else or anything. What is the purpose of telemarketing like that?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant One reason an organization or entity would do that is to identify what numbers are "live". Suppose you are setting up a robo-calling operation and want to call everyone in Texas with your message. You can look up the area codes easily but if you called a random number the chances are it isn't valid. All you would get is some "This call cannot be completed as dialed" message. So to prepare this organization would set up an auto-dialer to call every possible combination of numbers and see which ones connect. If they hear the tones from the calls that cannot connect they remove the number from their list, but if it connects to anything they hang up immediately. After they have culled the list they will start calling with a message.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: There's this document on the FBI website that seems to confirm UFO stuff. What's going on? https://vault.fbi.gov/UFO/UFO%20Part%201%20of%2016/view#document/p22 If it really is some declassified document that reveals the existence of aliens, I'm sure it would have been all over the news, and I would have first heard about it from somewhere other than a Minecraft mod developer's Twitter account. So that seems unlikely. So what's this document referring to?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There were many theories discussed, in response to many reports sent into the FBI. The "What should we do if this turns out to be real?" question is a reasonable one, without there ever needing to be aliens.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How can gravity be so weak (10^29 times weaker than the weak force) at the subatomic level, but at the same time be the dominant interaction at the macroscopic scale?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Because everything that has mass exhibits a gravitational field and the gravitational field is purely additive. Contrast that with the electromagnetic force. Not everything has an electromagnetic charge and for the things that do, there are roughly and equal amount of positively charged things as negatively charged things, so they cancel out. At macroscopic scales, things are neutral.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is inflation/interest rates and how do they affect an economy in the long run? Reading about economic history. I have a vague idea about what "inflation" and "interest rates" mean, but I don't know how exactly are they supposed to affect the economy positively/negatively. From what I've heard—both inflation/deflation and higher/lower interest rates can be good or bad for the economy, depending on the situation. How and why does this happen?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant These are related to how a monetary based system works. One way to look at it is that interest rates are a "tool" and the inflation is one of the "outcomes" the tool is supposed to manage. It gets a little bit difficult to picture but a core idea is the idea of purchasing power. For example, say you have $100 and the current (nominal) interest rate (controlled by the Central Bank more or less) is 10%. This means saving this $100 results in $110 after 1 year. Meanwhile inflation is 5%. This means something that costs $100 today costs $105 in 1 year. In this particular scenario, saving for 1 year increases your purchasing power since $110 is greater than $105. It can be said that the real interest rate (ie accounting for inflation) is positive - this generally benefits saving over consumption. However too high real interest rates, causes too many people to save and this has the detrimental effect that overall consumption decreases (meaning the economy shrinks) - this is called the 'paradox of savings'. The bad thing is that it is possible to get into a vicious cycle where initially sellers reduce their prices (to increase sales) and this causes deflation. If this cycle continues, sellers shut down factories and more people are unemployed and this causes further shrinking of demand - a vicious downward cycle. This is why deflation is almost universally considered a very bad thing. Central banks/governments will do everything to avoid this. On the other hand if real interest rates are low or negative, it induces more current consumption (holding cash is bad) which stimulates the economy but at the cost of people who are earning fixed incomes. (eg people with not much savings or who are retired living off their savings). Most of the time, governments will target a low inflation rate (say around 2%) which gives them some room to react if something happens. They do so by controlling the nominal interest rate to boost the economy (lower rates) or slow down the economy (increase rates) In extraordinary situations (like COVID-19) the interest rate tools are not very effective and the government will go to more extraordinary measures (directly pumping money into economy) to keep things from getting too bad (it will be bad - but hopefully not as bad). Bottom line though, it is important to know that these are monetary actions and are indirectly used to control the "real" economy - ie actual goods and services, trade, employment. The real economy usually grows - more people join the workforce (due to population increases), technological and productivity improvements, new inventions etc etc. This is why a healthy economy usually needs a bit of inflation and monetary base growth to keep up.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Can every philosophy be defined by a set of axioms from which the rest of the system is derived? If so, shouldn't the axioms be the primary field of debate and discussion?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There have been attempts to axiomatize and formalize moral systems (Deontic Logic, for example). But really, axiomatization is of limited use in moral philosophy (and philosophy in general). Logic is a useful tool for argumentation, but formal logic isn't going to tell us what values we should uphold.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is the mechanism that allows birds to build nests, beavers to build dams, or spiders to spin webs - without anyone teaching them how? Those are awfully complex structures, I couldn't make one!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Generally speaking, there are two primary drivers for animal behaviours: their genes, and their environment. How important either of these factors are for explaining any particular behaviour is a subject of much research and debate. Genetics: Core programming or instinct that can become surprisingly complex stored in their DNA passed down through the generations. The animal elicits a particular behaviour under certain conditions. They shiver when cold, pant when hot, startle when they hear a loud noise etc. These core behaviours evolved to increase in complexity. For example, one species survived more when their startle response triggered them to run away from the noise immediately (deer), while others survived more by freezing perfectly still (rabbits), while others still just leap back out of range of the perceived danger (cats). Evolved genetic behaviours can become surprisingly complex over many many generations. Spiders web building for example (even though its simpler than it looks) in which they create giant concentric circles that get smaller each pass. They just feel an urge to do something and don't necessarily know why (think hormones). But even this complex behaviour started simple (perhaps by using silk to hang from things or rope slow prey they already caught in) and evolved into what we see today. Environment: Things learned over time based on their experiences. Cold animals feel that their siblings/parents are warm and huddle up to them, hot animals feel the suns heat and try to hide from it in the shade etc. These can also be taught by parents. Beavers and birds are born and grow up in a dam/nest and so learn that=home. When they are forced to move out they know they now need a home of their own. They are taught the basics by their parents like how and where to find the building materials. This is where the debate comes into play. A bird never actually sees it's parents building the nest they grew up in. How do they know how to build it? They start simple. Pick up a twig and place it in a spot that looks similar to where their first nest was. Does it look like the old nest? No? Better go get another twig... repeat until it looks/instinctively feels right. In the case of Beavers they will start placing sticks in areas of shallow water as a bed/hole to sleep in like they used to. However, they instinctively know to block running water by placing sticks where they hear leaks. Research scientists did a study where they placed a speaker playing the sound of trickling water near a beaver's dam. The beaver buried the speaker in sticks every time.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How are nutrients/chemicals in food dispersed to where they are needed in the body? For example, how does the calcium in milk you drink find its way to enamel in your teeth, or anticoagulant chemicals in medicine reach the blood stream?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Almost everything is extracted from food in your intestine and directly transferred to blood. There are lots of blood vessels right next to your intestine that make that work. (The only exception is fat, which is extracted from food in your intestine and transferred to your lymphatic vessels and then transferred to blood.) From there everything goes to the liver, which removes a bunch of things that are toxic, dumps them into bile, which is then dumped back into your intestine and eventually excreted. After filtering, the liver transfers everything that's worth keeping into your main circulation. (Fat is again an exception; it bypasses filtering in the liver and goes directly to your main circulation) Once in main circulation, the nutrients are spread all over, and cells that need them pick them up as they go by. (There are lots of simple and complicated ways for cells to pick up nutrients, so there's a whole another complicated story buried in there, but that's the gist of it.)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:Why are Hindi and Urdu considered different languages, and not dialects of the same language? From what I can tell, most native speakers of one language can understand the other, and they share most words/grammar structures. Why are they separate languages and not dialects?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant depends on who you're talking to. a linguist would tell you that they are not even dialects, but registers of the same language (hindustani). they're correct: hindi and urdu are mutually intelligible with the main differences being vocabulary. urdu takes a lot of vocabulary from persian and arabic due to the influence of muslim leaders. hindi, however, has decided to replace this vocabulary with words coming from sanskrit. politics play a huge role in the hindi-urdu split: urdu being the language of pakistan (despite the fact that most pakistanis speak punjabi natively, and urdu for most is a second language acquired in school) and hindi being the language of india (despite the fact that india is one of the most linguistically diverse places in the world, and english being one of the mainly used languages in education and commerce). in the last century, india and pakistan have grown to have separate identities due to religious and political reasons. also, many hindi speakers cannot read the urdu script, and vice versa. not because they can't learn, but because they simply never did. so, in a place like canada where a lot of people speak either language, it makes sense to have one message in hindi and one message in urdu. keep in mind that both hindi and urdu have standard forms, often taught in schools. however, people don't tend to speak standard hindi or standard urdu; instead, they will speak their own regional variant of this hindustani language. in writing, however, the standardized forms are quite common.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 How do the medicines like paracetamol or ibuprofen work? Do they help the brain by making it ignore the pain (suppressing) or by actually fighting the cause of pain?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Ibuprofen works by stopping an enzyme from creating chemicals called prostaglandins that can cause pain and inflammation. Paracetamol does that a little bit too in your brain, but we don't completely know how it works.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user My professor asked me for something that should be so simple that I can’t mess it up, but here we are. Hi, all. I’ve just completed my first class toward obtaining my master’s degree, and it went really well. This whole “being in grad school” thing is extremely new to me, so I apologize if the answer to this question should be painfully obvious and I’m just not getting it. My professor asked me if he could have a titled copy of my annotated bibliography from a presentation I did so he can use it for reference in future classes. Does this mean he literally wants it just the way it is except I should change the title to something more fitting than “Annotated Bibliography,” or does he want me to add a bit of context surrounding the project as well? Maybe something resembling an abstract? I would email him and ask, but he’s busy wrapping up our final grades, and I don’t want to deter that whole process. Thanks in advance for any answers!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Put the title of the presentation at the top along with your name and then paste in the annotated bibliography. Easy and done. (A helpful way to start answering these questions on your own is to anticipate what the person wants it for. In this case, I’m guessing your professor wants a copy for his files, but doesn’t want 1,000 files on the desktop, all with the unhelpful name “Annotated Bibliography.“ How would you want it titled if _you_ were looking for it?)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: the gender equality activism is a sign of tunnel vision privileged and entitled communities suffer from. Current gender equality fights are strongly focused on evening the gap in typically high tier jobs. These are available only to people from families who can afford college education for their daughters. Such families are typically, although not exclusively, white. This side of pure gender oriented activism completely neglects the inherent problem of POC access to higher education. While many fight for a broader equality, the lion’s share of the discussion is purely focused on gender. As such, it is hypocritical for not highlighting the much bigger issue of inequality across communities rather than gender.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant First of all, the gender equality movement is about a lot more than just the gender wage gap. Gender equality isn't even just limited to the feminist movement, but feminist activists fight against a lot of things, including the prejudice faced by people of colour in accessing higher education, which is compounded by gender. Just because the gender wage gap is a major issue doesn't mean that other problems within the movement aren't prominent too. Also, the second half of your argument seems to suggest that you think gender inequality only affects the gender wage gap, which is just downright wrong. Gender plays such a huge factor in inequality and prejudice experienced by everyone, to such a deep-rooted degree that a lot of people don't even realize how confined and limited they are in their choices and lifestyle because of gender prejudices. Gender inequality and prejudice is a major, if not fundamental component of general inequality, and it is an area that has as great need to be focused on. Income inequality and race-based prejudice are not devoid of gender-based inequality. Just because feminist activists fight against the gender wage gap doesn't mean they don't also care about other issues that involve different people.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is meant by a "Negative income tax"? (xpost from r/askeconomists) I have a fair idea how such a tax works (In theory anyway), but I'm having trouble putting it into words. I have an exam on Wednesday and may have to write a paragraph or two on the topic. If anyone here could help it would be much appreciated<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Consider this example, taken loosely from Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom." 1. Decide a cutoff income, say, $10,000 per year. 2. Above the cutoff income, taxes work as normal. You take your income, subtract $10,000, and pay the usual rate on the remainder. * Say the tax rate is 20% and you make $110,000 per year. Your taxable income is $100,000 and you pay 20%, so your tax bill is $20,000 and your take-home is $90,000. 3. If your income is below $10,000, you receive half of the missing income as a subsidy * If you make $6,000, then you're $4,000 short of the cutoff. You receive a check for $2,000, and your take-home is $8,000 * If you make absolutely nothing, you're $10,000 short of the cutoff; you receive a check for $5,000, and your take-home is $5,000. * You're paying "negative" income taxes, because you're receiving an income subsidy That's the basic idea. It's a replacement for the welfare system; instead of giving out food stamps, housing subsidies, and other sorts of aid to low-income people, we just give them cash.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are employers the ones providing insurance under Obamacare? In the wake of all of craziness following the Hobby Lobby ruling earlier this week, I'm very confused as to why employers are involved in this at all. Are all employers supposed to provide healthcare? Why is this even an issue in the first place? Also, I'd like everyone to stay as politically neutral as possible, please!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The story for the current system in the U.S. has its roots in WWII. There were so many people needed for the war effort and it was difficult for companies to compete with the government's hiring. Companies increased wages to try to entice workers but the government then put a temporary ban on wage increases. The companies' work-around for this was to offer health insurance (non-wage benefits), which are tax deductible for companies, in addition to wages in order to entice workers. The employer-based system stuck and at this point it would be a monumental undertaking to switch to another system.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Can temperature decrease in a closed system while entropy increases? For example if I have a bowl of water at room temperature, it will slowly evaporate, will that increase entropy while decreasing temperature, or will the pressure increase keep the temperature the same? Is there some other way to do it?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A sufficiently interesting example: if you have an isolated vessel, with a wall separating it into two chambers, and you have a real (ideal doesn't work) gas in one of them and vacuum in the other, when you remove the wall the gas expands to fill all the chamber. This is called free or Joule expansion. Entropy increases because this process is obviously irreversible. Temperature changes; for almost all gases in most conditions this is a decrease (though there are a few exceptions), in that case here's your example. Note this cannot work with an ideal gas, as these have U = 3/2 NkT, so that since U is constant (as the vessel is thermally isolated and no work is ever performed on the gas) then also T must remain constant.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Marvel/DC] How does superhero marking work? For example, I was reading a Fantastic Four comic, and Reed was eating Hulk Smash cereal. It got me wondering. Do they have to ask for permission to do things like that? If so, how do companies get certain characters to agree to it? Maybe a guy like Superman would do it, but I doubt Batman would even respond to the request. So how would they be legally able to use his likeness to sell toys or plushies? Wouldn’t they be afraid that they’d get sued Just curious.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Well, in order to copyright/trademark a name or likeness you either need to reveal your secret identity or have the money to hire a lawyer and set up an LLC or something to hold the trademark for you. The company you have holding your trademarks would still need to pay you in some way. So there would be a money trail to follow. So yea, if you started selling knock off Batman stuff, you could probably be sued, but that would open the hero up to the possibility of being outed.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:Can someone ELI5 the difference between a Will, Trust, and an Estate? Can someone ELI5 the difference between a Will, Trust, and an Estate? Edit: Thank you everyone for the explanation!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A will is a document that describes how an estate should be handled once the holder has died. It often will talk about how much money his wife and kids get, who gets the house, etc. A trust is a type of account that can only be withdrawn from for specific reasons. Usually rich people make one for their kids. So if they go bankrupt and all their money gets taken, their kids still have a ton because it belongs to them. The rules vary but usually a kid can withdraw from it to pay for college and put a down payment on a house or start a business, but the dad can't withdraw from it to buy himself a boat, even though it was his money that went into the account. An estate is everything someone owns, but usually this term is used after they died. They might own houses, cars, a business, and a bunch of cash in the bank. The estate will be used to settle any outstanding debts to creditors and then enacted according to the will of the deceased.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Was working at Jimmy John's today when I customer came in and was severely allergic to cucumbers but could eat pickles, how's that possible? Top clear up people saying he just said this to get us to 100% not put cucumbers on his sandwich he had us change gloves and cutting boards. Also said he used to be a manger at JJ and couldn't handle cucumbers<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Food allergies are often caused by an allergic response to a protein. Proteins are very large molecules made out a long chain of chemical groups called "amino acids." These chains are "crumpled up" into a 3D shape, and the exact 3D shape is what the body recognizes as an allergen. If the protein is unfolded, then the body may no longer recognize it. If a protein is exposed to heat or to acidic conditions, like they would in the pickling process, it can unfold and lose its 3D shape.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Has any significant problem of modern philosophy ever been "solved" in the sense that most scholars agree on one position, or is it always an ongoing argument and a multitude of opinions? edit: thank you to everyone for your answers! Many interesting takes and references.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If you take a theory/position in philosophy X and ask "Is X true?", then that's arguably a problem in philosophy. And if X has received some amount of attention in philosophy it's a significant one. So you'd 'only' have to look for positions which are incredibly unpopular, then most scholars agree on the position that "X is false". If you look at the often cited philpapers study, you can find a couple of positions which the editors deemed significant enough to list as an option but have less than 5% support, so presumably >95% would answer "no" to "is X true?".That would include skepticism about the external world (4.8%), idealism about the external world (4.3%), relativism about knowledge claims (2.9%), and something called sense-datum theory about perceptual experience (3.1%).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Use of unethical research is not in itself unethical Let us assume that someone - let's call them Dr A - conducts unethical but otherwise sound research that provides useful information or insight into a problem, say a disease. If someone else - let's call them Dr B - uses said information in their research on the disease, moving forward understanding and contributing towards a cure/treatment. Dr B conducts his research with all appropriate ethical concerns excluding the ethical concern about Dr A's research methods. There seems to be an idea that in using Dr A's research, Dr B has somehow committed a moral wrong. This is explored in a wide range of media - Star Trek TNG and Voyager are both good examples - but while they establish why the initial research was unethical, none have done an especially good job of showing why \using\ such research is morally questionable. Obviously, all research should be conducted as ethically as possible, and unethical behaviour should be punished appropriately, up to and including criminal prosecution for especially egregious or inhumane behaviour. I'm even open to the idea of researchers being fired for major ethical violations, with the details of the case made public so future research institutes can see and make it harder for such researchers to be hired (assuming some fair standards are implemented). However, once that is done, why should the research itself be judged by any other standard? The only real arguments I've been able to find that support this position are: 1. Using such research is itself a validation or support for the methods used to gain such research. This I think is a weak argument - if Dr A is criminally prosecuted and punished, and Dr C sees this, he's going to be pretty leery of replicating Dr A's methods, since he presumably doesn't want to go to prison. And to Dr A, I wouldn't imagine someone using his work is much comfort. 2. That since Dr B - and by extension, those who his work helps - benefits from Dr A's research, they are somehow culpable in Dr A's choices. This is very weak as well in my view, since Dr B, much less the other people, usually had no way to interfere with Dr A's choices, so they are apparently morally guilty by something they had no role whatsoever in or control over. It also raises the question of how far removed do they need to be. If Dr A does unethical research, which informs Dr B's research, which helps people, are the people "contaminated" by Dr A's unethical behaviour? What if there are more researchers in the chain? I really can't see any arguments in favour of the idea of using the research being unethical. So I turn to you guys to help me fill in my blind spots. Thanks in advance!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant For scientific theory to be robust, experiments which confirm the theory need to able to be replicated. It's the cornerstone of peer review, and prevents scientists from fudging their results. An unethical scientist comfortable with torturing a particular subset of the population, could just as easily make up results to indicate that the subset is biologically inferior. No-one would repeat the study because torture is unethical, and if you allowed scientists to use the study, then suddenly everyone thinks the subset is inferior forever, with no way to disprove it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How do scientists know an animal can see colors we humans can't? (And vice versa) Yesterday I read a comment that said that shrimps can see colors humans can't see, don't know if it's true, but I wondered how they can know that, I mean, they can't see the color. And also there's the belief that dogs see in black and white. Sorry if I'm saying bull crap :)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The number of colours we can see depend on the number of color-specific receptors we have in our retinae (cells called cones in animals). Humans have blue, green, and red detecting cones. The mantis shrimp you are referencing are known to have receptors for several more distinct colours, each with a characterized absorption spectrum (how sensitive each is to different wavelengths of light). So we can know how many different colours they can pull out of light, despite never being able to understand what those colours may look like.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Cyberpunk: Edgerunners] What was Lucy pick pocketing? Are those chips some form of wallets or something else? Not sure if those were wallets... or if she's just selling implants.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Datashards containing money. Datashards can contain all sorts of information. videos, images, schematics, braindances etc... They are also used as a tool for holding and transferring currency. Most people have multiple slots that they can slot datashards into. One of them being a datashard they use as a wallet. They likely don't contain the entirety of a persons savings and are more for day to day use. As a netrunner, Lucy looks up her victims information and forcibly ejects the datashards without the victims knowing.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are humans so bad at giving birth? Women die in childbirth fairly often, even in developed countries. Without proper sterilization, babies are subject to infection at birth. Even if all goes according to plan birth is considered one of the most painful things a human goes through in their life. Why are humans so bad at reproducing? Other animals just pop out a baby and keep going on with their day.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The orientation of the human pelvis and location of the birth canal are a consequence of humans evolving to walk upright on two legs. It's not very conducive to having children, but boy don't we look cool standing up straight.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is the Crash Course Economics series a good way to learn economics?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I would say yes, although it will primarily help you with understanding academic economics, in that it helps you pass your economics classes, specifically in regards to the non-math based side of economics. It’s a good starting point, and they did a great job of teaching the basics while making it interesting and funny. They even do a good job of touching on political economy. It doesn’t necessarily delve into mathematics or equations relating to Econ, but there is a good bit of topics covered through an Econ lens that you can actually learn a lot. Go in with an open mind, and expand deeper with more college level discussion when you’re ready! Good luck, and have fun.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user In Marx’s writings, what is the distinction between concrete labor and abstract labor? Why is this is important for his larger critique of the commodity form? What do you think?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Concrete labor is what goes on in the act of producing things. Qua concrete, it is always labor of a particular kind - harvesting, hammering, driving, data-entering, etc., and it is measured by the actual amount of time that passes during the labor process. The most plausible interpretation of the concept of abstract labor is that it is, as the name suggests, an abstraction from the concrete character of various types of labor which is accomplished in the exchange relation. In an exchange society, money sets all commodities (in various proportions) potentially equal to each other. So, e.g. one pack of cigarettes = $20 = a copy of Das Kapital. In setting various commodities, which are products of heterogeneous labors (e.g. cigarette-rolling and book-binding), equal to each other, the exchange relation practically abstracts from the concrete, particular character of the labor that went into the production of these commodities. Okay, but this seems a little strange - why talk about it? What's the point? Well, at least one of the things Marx wants to draw attention to here is a particular feature of capitalist society. In capitalist society, people do not consciously, collectively decide how the whole of society's labor should be allocated. Instead, private firms carry out their concrete labors, and it is only by having their products purchased on the market that this labor can be retroactively validated as part of the whole social labor. If the products do not find buyers, this labor will have been "socially irrelevant" so to speak. So, what Marx wants to draw attention to is that a society of generalized commodity exchange engenders a sort of contradiction between the concrete and the abstract: we have concrete private labor which, through exchange, is able to count as abstract social labor. Ultimately, these considerations play a very broad role in Marx's thought. For example, he suggests in places that the political form of the abstract equality of persons derives from this abstract equality of labors in the exchange relation. How exactly that works is a little too much to get into here.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Judge Dredd] What about other, non-criminal areas of the law? OK mods, I'm hoping that, like a Judge, you'll allow me for a bit of an indulgence. I'm making the argument that /r/AskScienceFiction can potentially expand into /r/AskSOCIALScienceFiction. And so, my question: OK, so my knowledge of the Judge Dredd universe is limited to the 2 movies and maybe a panel or two shared on message boards. So I had a question about the comic's universe. Particularly when it comes to other areas of the law. Like clearly Dredd and his pals are all in criminal law, but are there judges for the other areas of the law, like for traffic violations, business law, family law, etc? and is it as quick and dramatic as criminal law? Like when two people are getting a divorce and they are fighting for custody of the child, does a Judge just bust into their house, grab The baby out of the crib and chuck it like a dodge ball at the parent he thinks deserves it most?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant This is a list of divisions and bodies under the auspice of the Judge System in the Mega Cities: * Street Division (normal Judges) * Riot squads * H-Wagon crews (aerial units) * Heavies/Manta Tank crews (artillery) * Vice * Academy of Law * Psi Division (judges with psychic powers, encompassing Exorcist Judges and the Department of Magic) * Special Judicial Squad or SJS (internal affairs) * Tek Division, a.k.a. Technical Division (scientists) * "Wally Squad" (Undercover Division) * Space Corps * Public Surveillance Unit (PSU) * Black Ops * Defence Division (army) * Public Relations Division * Accounts * Diplomatic * Traffic * Med Division * Fire Division * Meat Wagons (corpse disposal, often using civilian auxiliaries) * Township deputies (mutant deputies drafted to police Cursed Earth townships) * Holocaust Squad (teams of disgraced Judges who undertake suicide missions at times of extreme peril to Mega-City One) Very rarely would civilians seek out Judges for civil disputes, especially when the bulk of the Judges' considerable resources are tied up in criminal cases. Even then they are several undermanned thanks to both their high failure rates of recruits from the Academy as well casualties rates for Cadets and Street Judges.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Eli5: How do historians/scholars translate a totally unknown language when they don't know any of the words meanings? I've always been curious about this as, to me, and my limited understanding, this sounds impossible and a recent documentary prompted the thought. It's about the ancient sumerians ([its incredibly well done and there's not a single mention of aliens](https://youtu.be/d2lJUOv0hLA)) and apparently they had a language completely new and unique to scholars, but somehow we were able to learn really fine details in their language, like the fact that there were several different terms for things like damns, irrigation, reservoirs, etc... How could we know that?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Most of the time they look for translations of such texts in languages they do understand. The Rosetta Stone is an excellent example of this. Prior to its discovery archeologists and historians couldn't read ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs or script, but the Rosetta Stone contained an inscription in both ancient Egyptian forms of writing AND in ancient Greek, which is a language they DO know. From there it was all about putting the pieces together to rediscover this ancient writing system. There are, however, some ancient languages we still have no clue how to translate.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is being inbred often associated with deformities of the body/mind/etc?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It has to do with genetics, mutations, and dominant/recessive genes. If a mutation happens in a person's DNA, they can pass it on to their children. But, if the child gets one "good" piece of DNA from one parent and one "bad" piece of DNA from the other, it's possible that the mutation won't show up or cause problems. But, if two people who are related have a child, there is a higher chance that both parents inherited a mutation from a common ancestor, and the child might get TWO "bad" pieces of DNA and end up with serious problems.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Mass Effect] What are some everyday, non-military applications of the Mass Effect?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The mass effect has many applications and usages throughout the galaxy, ranging from utility, military and pleasure. One such application is the one used on the citadel to help simulate an atmosphere on the wards. While it frequently uses oxygen reclamation to provide fresh air, the breathable air in the streets of the wards only exists up until a height of seven metres. After that, the vacuum of space exists unexposed. The only way to travel beyond the seven-metre safe zone is in a flying car. Omnitools - whether combat-oriented or civilian models - are another application, as the mass effect is used to use moisture to refract light and produce a holographic display around the user's arm. It is also used to provide haptic feedback in computer interfaces where a mass effect field would push against the user's hand... although this requires sensory peripherals, either gloves that need to be regularly washed or small microchips implanted into the tips of fingers to interface with. According to Cerberus Daily News, a newsfeed ran through the Mass Effect 2 title screen, there was also a form of sport called Densing that was created when element zero's market price crashed, serving as a form of Sumo wrestling. Anti-gravity chambers are also abundant in asari space and Peebee turns the evac shuttle in the ship from Andromeda into one such chamber to float about. Finally is the primary usage in manufacturing - forging under high pressure gravity field in order to produce extremely durable metals.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are pet fish okay living in perfectly clean, filtered water, when they normally come from natural bodies of water that are not so pure?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Firstly, because it's not just about cleanliness it's also about oxygen content. Natural bodies of water will absorb oxygen from the atmosphere, but a small fish tank, without some kind of filtration system, will end up depleted of oxygen. Secondly, it's a specific kind of "impurity" in your fish tank that hurts the fish. Their water is filling up with their own feces. If any natural body of water were as full of feces as an unfiltered fish tank, those fish would be sick and dying too. Other kinds of impurities are more tolerable for the fish, not harming their health even though they wouldn't be good water for you as a human to drink. Also though, natural bodies of water that become heavily polluted will eventually see the fish and other wildlife in them die. Even parts of the ocean can become so polluted that they are "dead zones" where few if any organisms live.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Would businesses benefit by raising wages so that workers can afford to spend more money on their products? I heard that Henry Ford paid his employees relatively high wages for this reason.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Firms that pay businesses wages higher than the equilibrium rate is known as efficiency wages. Studies have shown that workers are motivated to work harder if they receive a wage higher than the equilibrium rate. - By paying a wage above the market wage, the firm raises the costs of workers of losing their jobs because alternative jobs may pay only the market wage (think opportunity cost here). - The increase in productivity that results from paying the high wage can more than offset the cost of the wage, thereby lowering the firm's cost of production.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do games render particle effects so much faster than programs like after effects? I understand that while games have preset effects, programs needs to calculate every particle. However the games particle effects arent the same everytime which I guess means that each particle is also calculated. How is it that a game like overwatch can calculate tens of effects more than 60 times a second while the same computer takes a minute to render a simple particle effect?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Part of it is the hardware used. Every computer has two main pieces of hardware which calculate things, graphics (gpu) and central (cpu). Each are specialized in some kind of processing and have a performance advantage at it. This is like having both a sedan and a truck. While both can take you shopping, a sedan is easier to park and the truck can carry large objects better. Going to the mall may work better the sedan and going to a home improvement store may need the truck. How programs leverage those resources is up how they are written. More recently, programs do a better job using the GPU when available and can spread the load across both accordingly, but games surely do have on average a larger focus on the GPU than other programs. It just so happens that the GPU is generally much more efficient for particle physics. The other part is how the particles are created and calculated. Games cheat in a lot of places to make it fast, as a stuttering image is far mor noticeable and negatively impactful to the viewers experience than cutting corners in particle calculations and only having an ‘approximate’ version of what should happen. Given that after effects and the like don’t have this real time constraint, they can take their sweet time in getting everything just right. A really good example of where this makes a difference is in lighting. Games will do something like ‘hey here’s the sun, it’s bright, and these surfaces face the sun so they’ll be bright too’. This is most of the way there, as in an outdoor, daytime scene, the sun is the brightest object. What it misses is that all surfaces reflect light to some degree. Mirrors obviously reflect a lot, but every object you see does too. That’s why you can see it. Calculating how bright something should be based off of not only the sun’s direct light, but also the faint reflections of everything around it gets to be very complicated. If you want to get it really close to accurate, that computation takes a while. If you want it to be live, you may only get to 90% accurate. After effects will start from how accurate it needs to be and work backwards for how long it will take, where the game will effectively work the other direction and set the time you have and cut corners to get something in that time frame.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user "Don't do an unfunded PhD" - always true? I guess I'm not the only one who has heard this piece of advice (perhaps you may call it a 'rule'): if you're not being funded, don't do a PhD. What is the basis for this? If you can afford to do it, why not go ahead? Has anyone here self-funded their PhD? EDIT: Having encountered a good number self-funded PhD students here in the UK, I am wondering if perhaps this is more true of US institutions. Does anyone have any insight on this?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are exceptions to every rule (like what if you are an heir to a giant corporation, and want to study history of art for 5 years). But generally, yes, it's a good rule of thumb. If you are competitive, and the field is competitive, you probably can find a funded PhD. If you are not competitive (for the field of your choice), it's probably a good idea to become competitive before you plunge head-first into a PhD, as things are not likely to improve drastically once you are in the program. It's a big decision, for most folks.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How are unwitnessed behaviours (such as an adult bird building a nest the chick never saw the construction of) passed onto the next generation?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Nest building is a species-specific innate behavior, birds don’t learn how to build a nest, they’re born with an instinctual drive that lies in their genetics. It’s also why different species make different types of nests which be radically different in construction. For a contrast, brown bears are NOT born knowing how to fish, they have to both learn from their mother by watching her, and also they develop their own unique style. Each bear fishes in slightly different ways, some like to wait under the water, others prefer to wait at the top of a fall for a fish to practically leap into their mouths, others wait behind the boil of the fall to pick up fish that failed the jump, some use jaws first and others use paws.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [superman] Aside from the Anti-Superman stuff, is Lexcorp a legitimate business?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Lexcorp is a large corporation with many areas of business, including construction, pharmaceuticals, military supply, and many other fields. The majority of it operates mostly within the law like any other corporation, but there are some parts that operate in shady or downright illegal areas, such as weapons sales to unfriendly nations or terrorist groups or illegal research into genetic engineering. So the answer to your question is definitely yes and definitely no.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What gives things color on a molecular level?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It has to do with how compounds interact with visible light. Colors occur when a substance absorbs or refracts specific frequencies in the visible spectrum, which depends on specific physical or electronic properties of the compounds that vary from compound to compound. Since visible light is a rather arbitrary and narrow range, many compounds don't interact with it, therefore the "default" is to reflect all of the visible light (making it appear white) or allow all visible light to go through (making it colorless).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why can solar panels only convert roughly ~20% of sunlight received into energy? What will it take to increase this percentage? I recently learned that only ~20% of sunlight received is converted into useable energy. Why is this? What will it to take to receive more energy from the solar cells? Thanks!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Check various science sites - there is a lot of research into improving the efficiency. There are some solar cells that have achieved over 40% efficiency (although these are still pretty expensive). BTW, even though 20% seems low, did you know that a gasoline engine only delivers about 15% of the energy available in the gas?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How do space vehicles know how to orientate themselves? (Specifically unmanned spacecraft) Do they use a gyroscope system? Or the planets magnetic field? (I got curious watching a Scott Manley video on YouTube, he talked about the pitch and yaw of the recent ‘Astra’ rocket launch and I realised I’d never questioned the method - hard to get a straight-forward answer out of google)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Commonly-used sensors are: coarse sun sensors, gyroscopes, magnetometers, star trackers, and GPS receivers. Common actuators are: reaction wheels, magnetic torquers, thrusters, and (less commonly) control moment gyros. Coarse sun sensors are simply photovoltaic solar cells. Arrange several of them around your spacecraft, and you can get an idea of where the Sun is. Gyroscopes (aka inertial measurement units, inertial reference units) measure angular rate. There are several technologies available: MEMS gyros (which you might have in your phone), fiber optic gyros, ring laser gyros, and hemispherical resonating gyros. Magnetometers measure the magnetic field, like a 3-D compass. A star tracker is like a video camera that can compare its image with an internal star catalog, and so figure out where in the sky it is pointing. This is the most accurate off-the-shelf sensor in common use. A GPS receiver tells you your position, not your orientation. But position is a good thing for a spacecraft to know, too. Reaction wheels exert torque by action/reaction. Spin one up clockwise, it makes your spacecraft spin counterclockwise. Use several, properly arranged, and you can control all three axes of your spacecraft with precision. Magnetic torquers are big electromagnets. Energize one, and it tries to line itself up with the local magnetic field. You can use this to exert torque on your spacecraft. Magnetic torquers aren't precise, but they are very commonly used in combination with reaction wheels in low Earth orbit. Thrusters are rockets. Push mass out one way, the spacecraft moves the other way. You can exert both forces and torques with thrusters, so you can change your orbit as well as control your attitude. (Everything else on this list is torque-only.) Control moment gyros (CMGs) are like reaction wheels except different. Instead of exerting torque by changing the wheel spin rate, you keep the wheel spinning at a constant rate and use a gimballed mount to change the CMG's orientation in the spacecraft. Spinning masses resist having their axis of spin re-oriented (look up "gyroscopic stiffness"), so the result is a torque on the spacecraft. CMGs are bulkier, more power-hungry, and more expensive than reaction wheels, but they provide orders of magnitude more torque. If you are very agile (like some remote imaging spacecraft) or just huge (like ISS), CMGs are worth it. I hope that gives you enough of a start that you can get more traction with google.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Eli5 - If a person with Leukemia donates blood to a normal person, how come the other person doesn't contract Leukemia also?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Leukemia is a bone marrow disorder. That is where the disease originates from- the over production of certain leukocytes. Most leukocytes don’t have that long of a life, so the excess WBC would not cause disease in the recipient<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Shaming someone for a lack of empathy is just as bad as shaming someone for any other inborn trait It seems like it isn't uncommon for people to resort to using "lack of empathy" as an insult, especially when discussing social issues. It's my understanding that empathy is largely an immutable personality trait that has little to no component of personal choice involved. Trying to shame someone for not being empathetic is no different than trying to shame someone for any other innate trait of who they are, be it sexuality, race, or physical size. I personally see the act as even worse when it comes up during conversations regarding social issues because it's most likely to be said by someone who would condemn insulting someone based on some part of themselves they can't control. From a perspective of social power, I will go ahead and point out that shaming those who lack empathy is an institutionalized process that comes from the idea of empathy being fundamentally good, as opposed to it just being one aspect of the human personality. So... CMV. _____ > Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our *[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)* first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You can argue that almost anything is an "immutable trait," such as prejudice, tendency towards violence, crime, etc. It seems that the logical extension of your view is that we should never criticize anyone for anything even if we perceive it as bad (or criminal). Are you saying we shouldn't criticize people for being tactless, shallow, petty, greedy, selfish, or prideful? To paraphrase MLK Jr., we should judge people on the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin. You are arguing that these are entirely analogous.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Do college students get paid for breakthroughs/discoveries in science, archaeology, etc? It seems quite often that I'll read an article with a statement like "Students at ____ University recently discovered a new gene" or something along those lines. Would these students get paid for discovery (doesn't have to be directly through the school, also from various organizations) or are they not compensated?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant No that's not how it works really. Even professional scientists aren't explicitly paid on a "per-finding" basis. They are usually paid some salary just for doing their work on a daily basis much like most other people are (there may be other pay structures but that's not what you're asking). When a scientist discovers something it basically allows them to publish the findings and be the first to publish it. That allows them to add it to their credentials when they want to apply to a more prestigious job or if they are applying for what are called "grants" where you get funding from an external source other than your employer that goes, typically, directly to funding your research. This is similar in collage students - having a first finding of something adds quite a bit of prestigiousness to your credentials, allows you to publish etc. They can't apply for grants typically but they can apply to "scholarships" which are sort of similar. In summary, typically you don't get paid on a "I discovered something" basis directly but it does help to get better jobs and be more prestigious.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What makes a programming language "good" for certain tasks? For example, I've heard that Python is a "good" language for data analysis, and C# is for building apps. Theoretically, all programming languages should be able to do the same things, so what makes one better for a certain task? Is it the standard libraries?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A range of factors, and a lot of opinion. Some things are just hard requirements. You need to use a language that compiles to native machine code if you want to write an OS kernel. You can't really write a complete OS from scratch with no other code in Python or Javascript. Interpreted languages like that need a bunch of extra code at run time to make them work. But, you can't load that extra code without already having at least some minimal working OS of some sort. So, you will see a lot of C in OSdev. On the other hand, if you want to run code in a browser, you probably will use Javascript, because that's what browsers will run. Sometimes it's just a totally arbitrary availability of tooling. If some wacky professor writes a really great library for doing a particular task, then whatever language they write it in can suddenly become the best language for that task. This kind of happened with Ruby when the Rails framework was released. As a bare language, it's pretty similar to Python. But for certain kinds of webdev, Ruby is much more convenient because people wrote better tools to do it in Ruby. Performance can make a difference. Pedants will point out that a programming language isn't inherently slow. Different implementations of the same language can vary wildly. Sometimes a slow language is fast, and sometimes a fast language is slow. But in practice, Python is generally slow and C++ is fast. So, you see C++ used in a lot of high performance stuff like 3D rendering and games. (Or, at least game engines.) Maya is written in C++, Direct3D games use C++, etc. Lots of the modules that get used in a slow language like Python are written in C or C++, so you can o fast work with a slow language. Static vs. dynamic typing, and a few other features effect the convenience of a language. Python has nice simple Syntax, dynamic typing, and a bunch of useful libraries, so it tends to be an eminently convenient language. Loading JSON into Python is very convenient because of the dynamic typing -- fields can be added to objects at run time when you load a JSON file. Doing something similar in C++ is a pain in the neck, and has to be done with a bunch of indirection, specifying some classes ahead of time, and maybe some template weirdness, depending on exactly what you want to do. So, loading some data and doing some processing (possibly using a fast module which is implemented in c++) tends to be super convenient in Python. Static strong typing can be useful for for making big projects more reliable by writing pedantically type safe code. It's a pain to write such code, and a pain to use. But it eliminate a class of bugs that is really easy to write in Python. And, a static type language can be analyzed for likely bugs ahead of time. Python often explodes in completely unexpected ways at runtime, because of that dynamic typing you can never be 100% sure what somebody is going to pass into a certain function. With C++, passing the wrong type of object to a function is generally just a compiler error, so you can't ship a program to a user with that type of mistake in such a static types language. Ada is no longer terribly common, but it used to be used in a lot of military and aerospace projects because it is even more enthusiastic about strong and static types than C++ is. Does this help clarify?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is Stoicism? Is it like "I don't give a fk, bring it on" thinking?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Stoicism is mainly about learning to cope. Originally it included a whole theory of the universe about fate, determinism and free will, theology... it's been called fatalistic and pessimistic. But we can adapt the main philosophy to the modern day. Stoics believe your reaction to events in the outside world is what controls your state of mind. So it's not that you're frustrated because your boss yelled at you. You're frustrated because you think she has no right to yell at you, or because you think she was unfair, etc. The point is your own thoughts created the frustration. Stoicism helps you to embrace the idea that things are not always going to be as you wish they were. It doesn't mean you don't care about anything. It means you develop patience to remain calm and emotionally healthy. Then, you are able to work towards making things better productively. A stoic doesn't hate, doesn't get frustrated, holds no grudges, and can never be found at the computer at 3:04AM because "someone is wrong** on the internet".<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If photons are smaller than atoms, why don't they pass through solid matter? Aren't atom's mostly empty space, between the nucleus and the electrons? Shouldn't photons pass through those spaces and penetrate basically any form of matter?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The closest thing to "size" for a photon is its wavelength. Different types of light have different wavelengths: x-rays have really short wavelengths, while radio waves have really long wavelengths. Visible light is somewhere in the middle. If the wavelength is small compared to whatever we're dealing with, then you can treat the photon like a particle - i.e. it's a "bullet" that either hits, misses, or bounces off whatever we're dealing with. Visible light is 100s of nanometres in wavelength, which is way smaller than say, a window, and so you can think of it as a bunch of light "particles" flying towards the window: some of the particles go through the window, some bounce off the frame etc. But if the wavelength is big compared to whatever we're dealing with, you really need to treat the photon like a wave - i.e. instead of a bullet being fired at a solid object, imagine a bunch of objects floating around in the ocean being shoved around by a water wave. This is the case for visible light and atoms. Visible light is 100s of nanometres in wavelength, but atoms can be even smaller than 1 nanometre. So you can't really "miss" with visible light - the photon passes through hundreds of atoms at the same time. This means there is definitely some interaction going on, and so the photon can be changed a little by the atoms, and that allows you to "see" the atoms when the photon hits your eye.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What exactly is "Information"? In many other posts they say that information can not travel faster than the speed of light, but what exactly is information and what can be considered not information.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant At its most fundamental, information is any propagation of cause and effect within a system. The degree to which the the past state of one part of the system can be known through observation at another part of the system. Effect can only propagate at the speed of light (since nothing can go faster). Information is carried in a "signal", which is the variation of any physical property, over time, against the backdrop of random variation (entropy). Different fields discuss information in different contexts. E.g. in physics you'll probably be talking about the propagation of cause and effect. In information theory, you're probably talking about formal logic, statistics, signalling, bandwidth, [edit: also, should include language, coding, compression, cryptography, etc.] etc.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do sugar granules dissolve faster in liquids when you stir them with a spoon, than just leaving it to sit?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant When something starts dissolving in water, it increases the amount of stuff dissolved in that particular part of water. The more stuff is already dissolved, the less likely it is that more dissolves into it. If you just leave it sit, diffusion is the only process that carries the dissolved molecules away so fresh water without anything dissolved can come by to pick up more molecules. If you stir, you artificially accelerate the carrying-away of dissolved molecules, making more space for new ones to dissolve faster.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do game makers know what computer specs you'd need to run the game? My guess is that they use different PCs and make the game at different quality but that'd take too long so idk.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Games undergo an optimization process to ensure they operate reasonably well on a reasonably inexpensive machines. This involves improvements to the code of the game to make it run more efficiently and avoid unnecessary operations, as well as providing the lower-quality textures and various filters that make up the "video settings" menu in the game. During this process they typically target a few different common specs that they want to support well - for example, many games are optimized to use about 3GB of VRAM at their highest 1080p settings, since the GTX 780 is an extremely popular card among 1080p gamers (while 4GB and more is usually necessary for 1440p or 4k.) Of course, it is also important to provide a good experience for everybody using a GTX 680, 770, or one of the various R9 AMD cards with 2GB VRAM. CPU performance is pretty linear - it's not difficult to ensure the game runs on an i7, i5, FX-8XXX, and FX-6XXX and figure out at what point the game stops working. Most games are optimized to run on 8GB of RAM.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:What role does hydration play in being tired?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Water is great for moving things around in the body, such as blood. If you don't have enough water your muscles can't move quite as well, and (for a personal anecdote) you could even get a headache as well as feeling tired.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:Where does innate shyness come from? Never really knew any simple scientific explanation behind shyness which is hindering a lot of people from become the best version of themselves growing up and even as adults.. Is being shy hereditary or is it developed from childhood? Some kids start off super shy for some reason and some kids are considerably more confident than others.. Does it have something to do with someone's upbringing in their early stages in life or the environment they live in also has an influence?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant This is kind of a hard thing to address because personality traits can be genetically predisposed, environmentally activated, and socially learned. Let’s say little Jimmy is born with genes that say he’s going to be outgoing. If Jimmy were to be subject to abuse or neglect during his developmental periods, his body could actually disable these genes and reconfigure them to make him shy - this is an area of research called epigenetics. From a social standpoint, behaviors can also be learned through a psychological phenomenon called classic conditioning, which is how your brain learns to relate an unrelated thing to something more relevant to you - say, you’re a prisoner and someone brings you a meal every day, but this person has a distinct type of sound when they walk. You would eventually associate this sound with food. The same concept applies to behaviors. If you’re outgoing and you’re repeatedly belittled for it, or one significant negative response occurs, your brain will associate extroverted characteristics with that negative response. To sum it up in a more general way, anything psychological is also biological. Nurture (environment and social conditions) works on nature (genetic predispositions).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are there so many different bolt and screw designs (Hex wrenches, flathead, etc.) ? Wouldn't it be easier to have one universal tool?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant No, All have different uses, and in turn are optimum for different types of jobs. Moreover cost can also be a driving factor for what to use. And lastly whether your screw driver, impact driver, hammer drive, etc... will slip should also be considered. For instance Lag Bolts (Giant screws with hexagonal 'nut' ends) are great for anchoring 2x4 shelfs that will support ALOT of weight. Since they can be 3", 4" or 6" and beyond - you need to use a socket set with an impact driver to really make sure that bolt will not slip. Alternatively, if you were framing a deck, and needed 2.5" screws Philips will work just fine - but green deck screws should be considered (costly) and the t-25 bit "star shapped" will not strip easy (and again will cost more). Right tool for the right job, bro.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star Trek] why do the starships engage in combat from such close ranges? I understand the federation is on peacekeeping mission and normally don't expect combat but I imagine it would pop up.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Most starfaring races in contact with the Federation tend to use phasers or similar for their primary weapons. These are unguided weapons, and given that they're essentially particle streams, they propagate somewhat slower than the speed of light. What this means is that you have to lead your target, not shooting at where he is, but where he will be when the beam has traveled the required distance. The problem there is that as range increases, the target has more time to change course and not be where you predicted him to be when you fired the weapon. With the kind of acceleration possible with inertial dampers, and a computer capable of carrying out a number of 'random walk' style maneuvers, it becomes very difficult to hit a ship with a phaser at medium to long range.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: why is it impossible for animals to grow to certain sizes without collapsing under their own weight? If you just scale everything up 1:1, why can’t they just function normally at increased sizes?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Imagine a cube with each edge of length 1. The sides have an area of 1 x 1 = 1. The volume is 1 x 1 x 1 = 1. Now scale it up "1:1" so all the edges are now length 2. The sides have an area of 2 x 2 = 4. The volume is 2 x 2 x 2 = 8. So despite you scaling all the lengths equally "1:1" by 2. Area went up 4 times, and volume went up 8 times. Things like strength of bones are how wide they are, so they vary by area. Stuff like weight depends on how much stuff there is, so they go up by volume. And as you can see, area goes up a lot slower than volume does. This is called the square-cube law, because the sides are squares which go up a lot slower than the volume. Bone strength is just one factor. Stuff like heat loss is skin area (goes up with the total area of the sides), heat generation is how much organism there is ( goes up with volume) And many other factors like oxygen flow, etc.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Since both a WiFi signal and light are electromagnetic radiation, can I simulate the range of my WiFi Access Point by replacing it with a bright light in a pitch-dark night? I would probably need to leave all doors open since the WiFi signal has no trouble to shine through them, but it seems that concrete and brick walls are opaque for both WiFi and light.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant No. All materials have different absorption and scattering properties of electromagnetic radiation, and these properties are different for different wavelengths of light. Visible light and radio waves will not have the same behavior, especially since houses are such irregular objects made of so many different materials. Furthermore, you wouldn't simulate the correct power or signal-carrying properties of the light either.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: A common model for gravity’s effect on space is a sheet of elastic material with some stuff put on it to make wells and such. But how does that apply in 3D?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The whole "rubber sheet" model is effective for the limited number of dimensions that we can visually represent. If you wanted an accurate representation of the effect of some mass (e.g. a planet) on spacetime, you would need to make in at least four dimensions (three for space, one for time). The problem is that we cannot draw a truly four-dimensional (or n-dimensional) picture - we exist in and directly perceive three spatial dimensions, while time is perceived as sequential differences. The solution? We exclude something. In the case of a drawing like "the Schwarzchild radius of a black hole," this looks like a "bottomless" funnel around an infinite mass. In the rubber-sheet depiction, it appears as a depression in an otherwise flat surface. Trying to add dimensions simply does not work - even if the underlying physics is true for the additional dimensions - and so to represent a system completely we need multiple such reduced depictions.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If you could start your PhD life from scratch, what one thing would you do differently? Hindsight hour!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant 1. Start therapy. Mental health is the most important thing and imo the best determinant of success in grad school and in life. Also student insurance is sweet. 2. Network network network. Don't assume you will stay in academia. And don't look at the PhD as an end in itself. Think about what you want once you are done and prepare for it. You might change your views along the way but better start the process early than in the last 1 year. 3. Stick to a 9-5 routine if possible and actually socialize on days off. Don't let anyone push your boundaries. People will try to make you feel bad for not slaving away. Recognize it for the dysfunctional way of life it is. Work smart and work consistent. This is your degree, don't follow anyone blindly if you don't agree.<\|im_end\|>

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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