Split (1)

train · 52.8k rows

text stringlengths 82 65.5k
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How come a round camera takes rectangular pictures?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The lens of a camera is circular, but the image sensor of a camera is rectangular, whether it is film or a digital sensor. Imagine if you draw a rectangle inside of a circle... This would be your image/picture.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Economics] How have women entering the workforce in increasing numbers the past 50 years affected the economy? I see two main effects, the increase in labor supply lead to an increase in productivity, GDP, etc., while also meaning with an increase in supply, average wages would decline since there are more available workers. I realize the more people working does cause more jobs to be created, but I'm not sure that is at a 1 to 1 ratio. I don't have any data or studies to back this up, I'm wondering what research is out there. It seems to me that back in the 1950s, the nuclear family ideal of a man working and providing for his wife who took care of the kids was more than enough money. That seems to be much less true today. This is based off of [a Reddit comment](http://np.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/18of5w/netherlands_women_work_less_have_lesser_titles_a/c8gkax2)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You're right about the labor supply effects, but remember that the increase in household income also led to increased demand. So quantity [of generic widgets] certainly increased, but we can't say what happened to price.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How Mercator Projections are better for navigation than other projections (like equal area projections)? I've read that although the Mercator Projection distorts the relative size of continents, it is still used for navigation. What would the same plotted course look like on the Peter's Projection versus the Mercator Projection?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The Mercator projection preserves angles in a way that navigation paths are shown as straight lines. That makes it very practical for navigation: measure the angle on the map, take course on that direction, and you will arrive to your destination. Preserving angles also makes the Mercator projection to preserve local aspect ratios. That means that although landmasses appear deformed if they are too far apart (Greenland is actually as "tall" as Australia, not as big as Africa), they tend to appear with more or less the correct shape themselves. This is the reason why Google maps uses the Mercator projection.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user In economic terms, what are the benefits and drawbacks of the profit motive? I don't know if this is the question I want to ask, but I'm gonna roll with it and try to explain what I'm getting at. In the modern economy, for the most part, the goal of any business is to generate a profit. Some care about profit maximization more than others. My perception is that, at least in some industries, profit maximization has led to negative effects on the consumer/society. News organizations prioritize sensationalism and spin because it gets them more clicks or views. Tech companies have been making their products with planned obsolescence in mind and making them near-impossible to repair, leading to an increase in electronic waste and forcing customers to buy new products cyclically, because that makes more profit than building a product that will last. Fast fashion companies churn out disposable clothing produced in sweatshops with no regard for their impact on the environment because, again, it's more profitable. I can accept that regulation is necessary to curb these negative effects. And I don't have a problem with profit as a general rule; if a bakery makes a cake with $0.25 worth of ingredients and sells it for $5, I don't think that's necessarily a bad or immoral thing. However, I hesitate to "endorse" profit because it's clear that profit maximization can be detrimental to society in at least some important circumstances. Rather than get into a moral or ethical debate about whether profit is "good" or "bad," I want to know what economists generally think of it. Does the profit motive lead to a more efficient allocation of resources, on-balance? In what contexts does it work? When is it inappropriate? What function does it serve in the economy? Are the examples I listed profit maximization or something else? Am I missing something important here?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant First, the benefits of the profit motive: When firms are profit maximizing in competitive markets, and markets are complete, then goods are allocated efficiently. Formally, this is the first welfare theorem, and if you're interested in the details you can find proofs online or in a textbook (e.g. Mas-Colell). Informally, this is Adam Smith's Invisible Hand. The profit motive induces firms to produce goods that are desired, and produce them at low cost. What are the drawbacks? In reality the assumptions of the first welfare theorem do not hold. You have identified several problems which violate the "markets are complete" assumption. If there are externalities without associated property rights, then firms will not internalize all the costs of their activities. Over-pollution (in some forms) is a classic case of this problem. Usually this problem would lead profit-maximizing firms to produce too much, although if there are positive externalities they might produce too little. The second assumption is perfect competition. If profit-maximizing firms have market power and can affect the price of their goods, then they will tend to produce too little of the good. In summary, the profit motive brings the economy close to efficiency when markets work well, but can lead to over- or under-production when market power or externalities (or other problems of market incompleteness) are large. I hope I've answered your question. Here are a couple more to think about. Clearly, some markets are incomplete and some firms have market power, so the first welfare theorem does not literally hold. How can we solve some of the problems? Governments sometimes use regulation to do this: anti-trust laws constrain market power in some cases, and environmental regulation prevents some problems with externalities. Are there other options? If you are interested in these sorts of questions, measuring and solving these problems is one of the main jobs of IO economists.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What are 'fuzzy mathematics' and what are its applications?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant 'Fuzzy' is a term used to indicate that you're treating normally discrete phenomenon in a continuous manner. For example, consider classic set theory. Let's say you have a classification scheme of 'fruit', 'vegetable' or 'meat'. You look in your refrigerator and sort everything you see into one or more of those categories. Each item you sort is fully within a category or fully outside of it. If something is a 'fruit', it is 100% a fruit. A 'fuzzy' version of this would be to permit something to only be partially within a category. So something might be '50% a fruit'. In terms of its applications, that's harder to say. 'Fuzzy math' is pure mathematics rather than applied mathematics. It's an intellectual framework for discussing such phenomenon. As a result, you can describe all sorts of different systems with fuzzy math, but almost no one actually uses fuzzy math to build those systems.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:Could we really build Star Wars sized space ships? Say, something that was several kilometers long and could house tens of thousands of people. Is this feasible with existing materials science? EDIT: Let me clarify: I'm assuming cost isn't a factor, nor is getting the material into orbit, etc. Let's just build the damn thing up there.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Simply designing and building the structure would probably be the easy part. Objects in space don't need to worry about gravity nearly as much as objects on the ground. It's sort of like a whale... a whale is fine in the buoyancy of the ocean, but stick one on dry land and they'll crush themselves under their own weight. If it will always stay in space, it shouldn't be too bad of a feat. The bigger problems would be things like simulating gravity, propulsion and the real big one... getting that much material to space in the first place.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How to start reading Heidegger? After reading some of Husserl's work, I'm eager to start my Martin Heidegger studies. Is there any recommended way to start, any particular book? I can't even find a good website with the chronological guide of his works. Thanks for the help.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant One could start with Being and Time directly, though you will want a guidebook to read alongside/beforehand. The other option is to read Basic problems of phenomenology and/or History of the Concept of Time which are two transcribed lecture-series from around the same time which cover a lot of the same ground as Being and Time, but they are quite a bit clearer.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Could somebody explain why the US is not on the gold standard? And for what reason it is more useful to us as a country? and perhaps what exactly our current system it?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The Gold Standard, as the name suggests meant that all money issued by the U.S government was effectively a certificate that one could redeem for a fixed amount of gold. The U.S Government could only print as much money as it had gold reserves, because every 'dollar' had to have a corresponding amount of gold stored somewhere for which it could be redeemed. The advantage of this system was stability, and resistance to inflation. A government couldn't print absurd amounts of money and thus devalue their own currency (like the pre-Nazi German Government did) and money retains its value because it can always be traded in for gold. There are a number of disadvantages though: - Economists believe that being on the gold standard makes a recession much harder to escape. If your government can only print as much money as it has gold, it can't inject money into the economy during times of weakness. - There's only a finite amount of Gold in the world. The amount of money circulating in the U.S alone right now is more than the value of all the gold that has ever been mined in the entire world put together. - Economists believe that what you want for a currency is a slow, gradual rate of inflation because it encourages people to spend, invest or deposit their money rather than store it in a mattress. A gradual, predictable inflation rate is most easily achieved without the gold standard. What the U.S has now: The U.S currently operates what is called a fiat currency, which is a fancy way of saying "not tied to a specific commodity like gold or silver. Basically, the U.S dollar has value because the government says it does. The government is willing to accept these specific pieces of paper as taxes and charges. The actual 'value' of the U.S dollar is determined by the market and the laws of supply and demand. Traders exchange their currencies for U.S dollars at the best possible rate they can get. The going rate at any given time is the value of the U.S dollar.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Which is more important for growth in the modern economy: consumption or production? I'm sure this question has been asked a million times by economists and many studies have been performed to try to find the answer. What do current mainstream economists believe?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Over long time horizons, innovations on the production side drive economic growth. Over shorter time horizons, with the capital stock and state of technology basically fixed, consumption (and other components of demand) play a larger role in determining aggregate growth. In short, to put it crudely, it isn't an either/or -- we need to understand both supply and demand.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user When will we be able to industrialize graphene and when will the consumer likely see graphene in household products such as computers?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I currently work in a research lab where several members are studying the properties and manufacturing techniques of graphene. There is a lot of research in the topic right now, and this is mostly because of increased media exposure and "buzz" surrounding the material. The graphene that we can grow today is small and expensive, that's the bottom line. Making large scale devices of material that is incredibly delicate is hard. You may be thinking "but graphene is super strong!," and it is. But maintaining a certain phase of material at conditions we consider "normal" is not straight forward. One leading researcher in the field is Dr. Jamie Warner at Oxford. Look up some of his stuff if you're interested in real science on the subject of graphene. This is probably not the answer you wanted, but there is no good way of addressing this question. Often times research is non-linear. Also, we may or may not get to that point. There are other promising avenues for technology processing that we are exploring. TL;DR: Not anytime soon.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How mixable are different types of plastic? Like PET and HDPE?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Some polymers have an affinity for each other and mix well. Polycarbonate, some styrene copolymers, and PET Mix well. This is driven by the chemical structure. Think that some are more polar, water like and others are less polar or oil like. However most polymers by themselves are typically not mixable. When mixed they form a blend that has poor adhesion and thus poor strength. it only takes a small amount of incompatible polymer in a mixture to make the material useless. Which is why it is important to have clean recycle streams. The outcome of a good mixture is to get desirable properties of both materials in a single material. For example high temp stiffness with rubber impact resistance. To make them mixable the two polymers are typically reacted to together to form a copolymer that acts as a soap allowing them to mix. ABS ( LEGO plastic) is a mixture of polybutadiene (rubber) and Styrene-acrylonitrile copolymers. The rubber provides break resistance while the styrene copolymers provide stiffness. Super tough nylon ( weed whacker string) is a mixture of nylon with ethylene-propylene rubbers that contain an acid group that reacts with the nylon’s amino group to form the copolymer. There is a whole industry that tries to figure this out.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do some sodas (like Coke) produce a lot of foam when it's poured into a cup, from say, a can, while other sodas (like Sprite) don't produce nearly as much?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant the most important factor in how "foamy" a soda acts is which of its ingredients raise or lower surface tension. Aspartame promotes the formation and persistence of bubbles, as do certain preservatives. The combination of multiple foam-promoting ingredients and circumstance is why Diet Coke reacts so energetically with Mentos candy.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why do computer parts work faster or better when they are cooler?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Circuits and wires are made of various metals, which are conductive (electricity moves through them quickly/easily). When electric current flows through a wire, some of the energy is lost as heat, causing the wires to get hotter. Heat reduces the ability of a conductor to conduct electricity, so the hotter your computer gets, the slower it gets and the worse it performs. Computers that are running are constantly generating heat that needs to be removed. That's why all computers have fans, to keep cool air moving over the circuitry.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user In the United States, I think that the religious based marriage should be removed and replaced with secular based civil unions. CMV. I believe that in the United States, marriage should be removed as it follows religious rules and doctrine in most parts of the US. I believe that this is absolutely in the jurisdiction of the church and should remain there, allowing churches to marry people as they deem appropriate. I believe this because of our separation of church and state. Civil Unions that are based in secular principles should replace the marriage institution. Any adult able to consent to a contract would be able to form a union with another individual. (Or other individuals, but that is a different discussion.) This would grant the same benefits marriage currently has. It may seem like just a name change, but its a fundamental shift in philosophy. Change my view?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Marriage in the legal sense is already independent from matrimony within the Christian faith and similar ceremonies in other religions. It's already possible for two individuals of opposite genders (or the same gender, in some areas) to get a marriage license - and become subject to all the legal statuses marriage entails - independent of sexual involvement, religion-based marital status, and similar factors.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user I believe that everyone is selfish and there is no true kindness in people. CMV This could be stemmed from my poor social experiences or from what i learnt in my psychology diploma, and soon recently came to the conclusion that there is no true kindness/altruism whatever you call it. For a behavior to happen, there needs to be some sort of motivation. Intrinsic or extrinsic, there is a need for people to behave a certain way. Extrinsic motivation is plain and simple. The most common is money. People work for money, people steal for money, people who do charity gain acceptance of society, which in turn lets them earn more from their enterprises since the company they represent is more accepted. That's what i believe. Even if there is an intrinsic motivation, the person definitely have to do it for his or her own cause. For example, a generous person who makes self-sacrifices for others could gain satisfaction in his own mind that he's done something "good" and the social acceptance which he gets would motivate him to do more kind deeds, since society as a whole promotes pro-social behaviors. Or someone sees an injustice and steps in for the victim. The person seeing the injustice could just be annoyed at the situation and in order to resolve the annoyance he steps in to help the weak. I would also think that that's just a method for the person to deal with some internal unsolved issues to make himself/herself feel better. For example, a man who was a bully victim steps in to fight off some bullies because he did not have the courage to stand up to them when he was younger. Because of that, he may feel a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction in himself. Thus, since there is a personal gain, I do not see pure kindness. So basically even when someone does something good or kind, i would attribute it to his or her need to be socially accepted or the self-satisfaction, and when there's personal gain from displaying pro-social behaviors, I do not believe that people can have pure kindness. But hey, that's just my opinion man. Edit: ok basically, I believe that there will always be personal benefits when someone does some kind deed that is beneficial to others. Without the personal benefit, nobody will do anything solely for the benefit of others. No matter how I looked at things, I can always attribute acts if kindness with some form of personal gains. I may not have phrased it correctly saying that everyone is selfish. I just tend to be quite avoidant at times and think the worst of people. Lol Edit2: so many people talked about positive and negative values. So my question is: how do you determine the TRUE values of one's motivations for an action?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant What about the economic principle of marginal utility? In short, the idea goes: you buy an item -- lets say it's an ebook reader, and you have a large marginal utility (you love to read), say it has a number value of 100. What if you bought another ebook reader of the same type? Would that value still be 100? What if you bought 20 of them? Would the 20th kindle or nook be still worth 100? Probably not, right? Well, if you do charity work for intrinsic value, at some point the marginal utility could be bordering on zero right? At some point you'd have been recognized as a very kind person in the community and everyone recognizes that -- what if you keep doing charity work at near zero marginal values? Why would you keep doing that? You have next to nothing to gain (you've already gained what you could) but you keep doing charity work. Is that not an example of selflessness?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why does the speed of light being constant for all observers imply spacetime is non-Euclidean? I'm a layman when it comes to physics, so the question may be ill-formed and/or incorrectly framed. I'm trying to really grasp the nature of (flat) spacetime. I'm watching [this video](https://youtu.be/iBTez-nTKes?t=272), and she says how there's no way for the speed of light to be constant for all observers if spacetime were Euclidean. If I take the speed of light being constant for all observes as axiomatically true, then I feel like I'm close to grasping flat spacetime, but I don't really understand why this statement has to be the case. I'm guessing there's a simple mathematical proof that shows why the spacetime is basically a series of hyperbolic contours -- can someone point me to that?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Let's say you're standing next to a railroad, and a train approaches you going 100 m/s. You see its approaching speed as 100 m/s. Now, let's say you're on a train next to the railroad mention above, you're traveling in the opposite direction at 50 m/s. Now you see the other train approaching you at 150 m/s. Now, let's substitute a beam of light for the first train. Standing next to the railroad, you see it approaching at 299,792,458 m/s. Next, you get on a train going 50 m/s. In this case, no matter which direction you look, you measure the speed of light as exactly the same velocity. In other words, you don't add your speed to the light speed. So, in the first example, your frame of reference made a difference in the speed of the oncoming train (this is consistent with Euclidean observations). But light speed is always the same, regardless of the frame of reference. And this is why it is non-Euclidean. This is not at all intuitive (but it has been verified experimentally countless times) - but it is the difference between Euclidean and relativistic observations.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does rhyming in poems and songs appeal to us?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Repeating patterns are attractive to many forms of intelligent life, certainly most mammals. See a thing, remember it, see it again and recall it. This is done with all signals, sight, touch, smell, taste, and hearing. Think about the advantage of an animal that recognizes the rhythm of a predators charge - they can run away without needing to see it. They survived and got to have kids, and some of their kids could do the same thing. This is the basic mechanics of evolution. Animal brains only have a few main drives, survival comes first but then there are things like hunger. The animal that feels hungry will be driven to look harder for food, which may be an advantage. Hunger and pain are closely related, but what about pleasure? The opposite side, what if the animal is driven by something that makes them feel good. This seems to be something that we see in very intelligent animals - they like playing. They get positive signals that drive them towards survival traits. Humans are smart communal creatures. We love patterns deep down in our brains so much so that we learned to play with them. We played with them so much we made music, art, and language to share what we thought and felt with other humans. Rhyming appeals to us because it’s a game we play with patterns.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Marvel] What is the difference between a dimension and a realm (examples) how are asgrad and the dark dimension different<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A dimension is a physical existence separated from all others by dimensional barriers. Usually requiring specific technology to move in or out of. A Realm is a political structure, is much the same as a nation or state. There can be more than one realm in a dimension but sometimes a realm encompasses and entire dimension, leading tot he confusion. At times a realm may leave it's home dimension (like Asgaurd left for earth during the "Dark" Osborn period. The realm odd Asgard was in like Idaho and the dimension where it always was.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:How do corrective lenses correct one field of vision (nearsighted or farsighted) without distorting the range we can already see? I am nearsighted and everything goes VERY blurry about six inches from my face and beyond. My glasses / contacts are a single prescription (not bifocals or trifocals). Wearing them I can see everything clearly. How do they let me see far away while NOT distorting my current vision?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant When you are nearsighted or farsighted the lens in your eye is either too powerful or too weak. If you're nearsighted, the lens is too strong, it focuses an image too quickly so that its in front of the retina. The corrective lens diverges the light coming in more, spreads it over a wider angle, than it would be, so the too powerful lens focuses the image where it should be. Why does this affect vision at one distance only? Because the lens of the eye is actually made to change shape and change focusing when little muscles pull on it. Your eyes change how well they focus naturally if you're looking at something near or something far away. If you're nearsighted, the range of focus you can get is all close up, and not enough far away. So corrective lenses shift the whole range to farther distances, so that you can get a more "normal" range of distances covered. For farsighted its the opposite. The eye is designed to be able to focus on a range of distances, corrective lenses shift that range as a whole.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user We know about colour blindness, where certain colours cannot be seen properly and get compensated for by the other cones in the eye. Is there a similar condition for taste buds where people will experience vastly different flavours from a 'taste-normal' person?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are some particular foods that are experienced vastly differently than others. Probably the most famous is that some people find cilantro to be a very favorable taste while others are almost repulsed by it, reporting that it tastes "soapy."<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Avatar LA/LOK] Which element do you think is the most powerfull? In your opinion which one has the most power and most potential? Edit: I'd say earth has a lot of versatility, but some of y'all are saying air so I agree now that I think about it you can do a lot of things with air (fly,breathe,)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Earth and metal can change landscapes and protect their practitioners. Water can flow and crash, heal and in extreme cases control. Fire and Lightning are said to be destruction incarnate. But air? Well, everyone needs to breathe. Ever stop and wonder why airbenders are pacifists?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What’s the difference between internet browsers. Aside from appearance and customization, what causes the mechanics of different browsers to work better on certain websites?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant So, technically the components of websites (HTML, CSS, and JavaScript primarily) are standardized, but it's still up to the browser makers to actually implement those standards. These standards are being updated all of the time, so some browsers that are quicker to update and designed to be fully featured (e.g. Chrome, FireFox, Edge) will support these updates while older browsers or ones designed to be light won't support these updates. A web programmer has to know what sort of features are supported while writing code in order to support their target web browsers. Sometimes programmers will target a specific browser and not update their website to work well with other browsers.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Where do uploaded files go? Okay, had a big discussion last night with 3 more friends about the nature of the Internet. Since our perceptions were a bit altered, and there where no engineers in the room, this turned into an all-out debate. Sorry for the misconceptions, but here goes. When you have, for example, a 2MB file in your computer (without a web connection), that file has a "physical" element right? Somewhere in the hard drive, something is modified because of that file. But, when you connect that machine to the Internet, and you upload that file, where do those 2MB go? I concluded that the Internet was like an infinite and intangible hard-drive on which infinite information could be put. But HOW CAN THAT BE? I simply have no idea what I'm talking about, I'd love for anyone to explain it for me. Like I was 5, of course. Thanks a bunch! EDIT: Great and clear answers guys, I certainly appreciate it!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Part of why you are having conceptual difficulty here (which others have addressed) is because the internet isn't just a big sea of information: it's a network of other computers. Any data "on the internet" is hosted from a specific computer somewhere.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are "verbs of being" irregular in so many languages? In my own studies of Latin, French, and Swedish and limited forays into German and Spanish, I have not come across any languages with a verb of being that had a regular pattern or conjugation. EX: English: (To be) I am, you are, (s)he is, etc. I was, I shall, I will... Swedish:(att vara) Jag ar, du ar, hon ar... Latin: (Sum, esse, fui, futurus) Sum, es, est, sumis, estis, sunt.... French: (Etre) Je suis, tu es, il est... Je serai.... I suppose the short answer is that languages are linked (Latin to Romance languages, etc.) but why does such a pattern perpetuate? What are some languages without that? Is this linked to other language trends?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Words that are used frequently tend to be more grammatically irregular in most languages. "To be", "to have", and "to go" are all very common words and are irregular in a lot of languages. Languages often change by either contraction or analogy. In contraction, speakers end up saying things with different accents or speak quickly and the form of the word changes that way. With analogy, speakers copy the forms of other words (e.g., you may not know what an "estuary" is, but you know that the plural would be "estuaries" by analogy). Contraction tends to lead to irregularity and analogy to regularity. Contraction is also more common with regular words because they are spoken more frequently and as a result there is more chance for contraction and people will recognize them even when contracted. The end result is commonly used words tend to morph more often and become irregular while more uncommon words tend to stay regular.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user PhD Advisor Doesn't Let His Student Go on Internships Okay, I recently got an internship and I need to file my paperwork which requires the approval of my advisor. Here is some background about me and my lab: I am an international student in an US university and I started my Ph.D. in Fall 2018 and have passed my qualifiers and published a journal paper and am writing my second paper currently. I don't intend to stay in academia after graduating, and I have no work experience hence I applied for an Internship to get jobs after I graduate. It is difficult to get jobs in the US when you have no work experience and are on a visa. Now my advisor is known for not allowing his students to go on internships. Two of my colleagues in my lab couldn't go on internships as my advisor strongly advised them not to and some of his former students didn't even apply. My relationship with my advisor is positive so far however, I am concerned as to how I can approach him about this. I will send him an email explaining my situation sometime this week as I need to keep the company informed too. &#x200B; I would like to get your input on how I should go about approaching my advisor. How I should react in case he says no. What should I say and what should I avoid. Thank you very much for your advice. Clarification: before joining the lab I have informed my advisor that I will work in the industry and not academia. Furthermore, the funding in the lab runs out before summer and there is no incoming source of money as far as I know. Thank you all for the responses. I appreciate them greatly. Update: So, I spoke to my advisor, yesterday and in short he agreed to the internship under the condition that I keep working on our research. He shared his concerns with me, as about 5-6 years ago he had 2 students who did excellent work for him went on interns, one did not come back and the other came back only to graduate within a semester and did not pursue any more research work. I reassured him of my intention to return to the program, and that legally I cannot just take a full-time job after my intern is over as my visa won't allow me to just quit my program and start working for any company in the US. He agreed the intern will significantly help in my personal career growth and will save him some money as he won't have to pay stipend over the summer. While I would have preferred to work the internship alone in the summer, however, getting the research work done will be beneficial to me in the long run. He further emphasized the need to be in a strong position to graduate, by working in the summer and producing more paper I will be in a safe position and can graduate quickly in case he is unable to get funding. I agreed with his reasoning, I do want to finish my degree and achieve my research objectives without having to support myself. Again thank you all for the kind and supportive advice you provided to me in handling this delicate situation.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It’s pretty early in the year - if you have a good working relationship w him perhaps ask him to go for coffee and ‘advice’ - explain the situation (many US faculty don’t know all the visa rules that international students deal with), and that you have been advised that this would help you post- degree, ‘but you don’t want to leave the lab short staffed for 10 weeks this summer’ — so is there a way to get work done in the spring (etc etc) In your conversation project a belief that you both want the best for the lab and for you / your future - and that you need help figuring out how to do this.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Could anybody please explain what "internalism" and "externalism" are in epistemology in simple terms? I've read a few articles in various encyclopedias, but they seem to be confusing. Could anyone please explain in Layman's terms what "internalism" and "externalism" are in epistemology?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Internalism is the position that whatever makes the difference between a merely true belief on the one hand, and knowledge on the other has to be accessible though introspective reflection. In other words, in order for your justified belief to count as knowledge you have to be able to determine what makes your belief justified using reflection alone. Externalism is the position that at least some beliefs that count as knowledge need not be such that their justification is accessible through reflection. Does this help?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why don't waterfalls get worn down to gradual inclines?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Waterfalls form where a layer of hard rock lies on top of a layer of soft rock. The soft rock below erodes faster, creating a steep drop, sheltered by a ledge of hard rock above. Eventually, the soft rock starts to erode beneath the hard rock, creating an overhang, which breaks off when it gets too long, creating a new vertical face, so the waterfall gradually moves upstream.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How are certain foods made to be “instant”? Such as instant oatmeal, potatoes, pasta, etc.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Each product is prepared in a different way, but the general strategy is this: Do most of the cooking process, then dehydrate it so it will last in a package, then package it. That way when the customer gets it, they simply have to add hot water which will rehydrate it and finish the last 10% of the cooking process.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are some people more prone to being bitten by insects than others? I'm currently on holiday abroad with my family. I am being EATEN ALIVE by mozzies, while they all seem to be fine, a bite or two but nothing compared to me (I seem to look like an all-you-can-eat buffet to them). Why is this? I've heard people say that some people are 'tastier' than others - is this true? And why is this? Thanks!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are several factors as to why insects - such as mosquitoes - bite some people more than others. Blood type. Mosquitoes are blood based feeders, and they prefer O type blood groups more than any other. If you are O type, you are between 50-80% more likely to be bitten than others like A,B or AB. Also, about 85 percent of people secrete a chemical signal through their skin that indicates which blood type they have, while 15 percent do not, and mosquitoes are also more attracted to secretors than nonsecretors. The reason for the preference to O type, could be evolutionary, as O was the first and oldest blood group (other types are more recent mutations), so it could just be that mosquitoes simply evolved when that was the only blood group, hence their preference to the familiar. Carbon Dioxide. Many biting flying insects detect prey using carbon dioxide signatures. We breath out CO2 and they can detect that from over a hundred feet away. Larger people produce more CO2, and larger people tend to get bitten more. Some insect traps utilise this by burning fuel which produces large amounts of CO2, which proves irresistible to them. Pregnant women have been shown to be a particular target, this is qualified by the fact they produce 20% more CO2. Chemical / Biochemical Markers. Sweat is another attractant, it contains ammonia, uric and lactic acid and all of these are huge attractants to biting insects. Certain bacteria secreted by humans and animals also proves to be very attractive to biting insects. Feet and ankles seem particular effective at producing bacteria that these insects enjoy. Thermal Indicators. Insects tend to bite warmer people, this is probably correlated to sweat production too. So metabolism plays an important role. On the whole, genetic factors seem to play the biggest role in who gets bitten and how often. EDIT : If you don't match the profile of someone who should or shouldn't get bitten there are other factors at play. You may be a non secretor, so get ignored. There are other chemicals secreted by us that also serve as an attractant in our skin and breath, even if you don't sweat much (one for example is octenol). You may also secrete lactic and uric acid without realising it as both can be in our breath. But probably the biggest reason is microbes on the skin, we have 100 trillion of them and the types and combinations vary massively from person to person, your microbe cocktail may just be one of the unlucky biochemical markers that are attractive.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What causes rocks to be such a wide variety of different colours instead of just grey? Here's an [example pic](http://i.imgur.com/5yqZYLN.jpg) posted earlier in /r/pics.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Different types of rocks or minerals are made up from different chemicals. For example, an Albite Feldspar (found in the Earth's crust) is (Na or Ca)AlSi3O8 and is white or colorless unless it has impurities. It's because these chemicals can be arranged in a wide array of crystal structures (In the Albite Feldspar example this structure is called Triclinic). These structures affect the wavelength absorbance of the rock; and with it, the color we see when we look at it since it's reflecting light it doesn't absorb. Edit: grammar<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is usage of MIT licensed code looked down on? Hey, a newb programmer reporting in. If I were to create a website, using someone else's MIT licensed code, would that be hugely looked down on by the programming community? I can definitely see why it would be, but would it? The website in question would be for my mother's friend, who wants a website for his services and I would like him to have a nice looking website, instead of the simple, dull looking shit that I know how to code. My creatings honestly look like they're from the 20th century.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Do some light research into what general licensing means. When an artist wants to use a piece of someone else's song, they pay for a license to use it. The MIT license is a free use license. Read it carefully. If your usage fit within the license terms, which you likely will, then use it to your heart's content. Reinventing the wheel is stupid, if it's free use it. Give credit if you want/have to. Edit: let me add as a separate point, know your audience. If a customer sees the site looks similar they won't care. If you make a site for web developers and they see it's basically a default template, they might judge you. Audience is important.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How far from earth do you have to be when you change from perpetual free fall going around the earth to being in zero gravity? If such a point even exists.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It's not exactly about distance - it's about speed, or kinetic energy. But beyond some distance, the speed you need becomes very small. If you are above escape velocity, then the Earth's gravity will never be enough to pull you back down. Even though the gravity is constantly pulling you, it gets weaker as you continue to go further away, and it never adds up to enough to pull you back. As you go further away, the escape velocity you need to escape Earth's gravity becomes smaller. If you are 4x more distant from the centre of the Earth, you need half as much speed. On the Earth's surface, you need to go quite fast - about 11 km/s - to escape Earth's gravity, even if you don't count drag from the atmosphere. From the Moon's orbit, you only need to go 1400 m/s, or about 5000 km/h. Once you get to Jupiter or Saturn, this gets down to 100 km/h, which is much lower than the speeds that planets and moons are moving at. And once you're a light year away, the escape velocity is about 1 km/h. This is quite a big distance. If there were no other objects in the universe, you would have to get to a significant fraction of a light year away before escape velocity gets to around walking speed. But of course, we live in a universe with other stars and planets, and these tend to move at 10s to 100s of km/s relative to each other. Earth's gravity stops being important mostly because you're closer to something else that is providing far more gravity, or you're moving so fast that Earth's gravity doesn't have time to add up to much.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Admitted to JD-PhD —good idea? Hi all! Looking for different perspectives and advice. Was recently admitted to a joint JD-PhD in philosophy at the University of Michigan. I was fortunate enough to receive full funding from both the law school and the philosophy department. So, fully funded for 6 years, and could likely get both degrees in those 6 years. The law school is being flexible about my start date, so I could essentially order the two degrees however I would like (for ex., could do the first 2 years in the PhD, next 3 in law, final in PhD, or any other combination) Career goals: Ideally, I would love an academic career (though I do have doubts about my ability to succeed!). I would be happy to teach philosophy in a law school, or applied ethics and some legal philosophy in a philosophy department. So long as I am doing some philosophy, I will be happy. That said, I appreciate the idea of having a JD as a backup in case academia does not work out (I recognize the market is tough). My questions are these: is a joint degree a good idea? If so, how should I go about structuring it? Should I be publishing in law journals, philosophy journals, or both? How would a law school view a joint degree? How would a philosophy department view a joint degree? How can I best ensure good employment outcomes? Any other things I am not considering? I will also note that I was accepted to Harvard Law School. That is another option I am considering.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Yes a joint degree is an excellent idea if you value research and publishing. It will set you up with good options academically and in law. You should try to publish anywhere and everywhere, but if you're trying to be an academic then target crossover journals that deal with both philosophy and law. On the other hand, Harvard Law is hard to turn down and will probably guarantee employment in law. Either way, congrats!! These are huge accomplishments!<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user GPS requires microsecond clock accuracy in the satellites but the terrestrial receiver accuracy doesn't matter at all. Why is this?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Think of it like a math problem where you are trying to solve for your coordinates (X,Y,Z) If you know the current time, you can solve this by comparing the signals from 3 satellites, which have a known position and broadcast their current time. It takes longer for the signal to reach you from satellites that are further than you, so you can compare the current time to the time the signal was set out and determine the distance. Each satellite signal creates an equation involving X, Y and Z. With 3 equations, 3 unknowns, you can solve for all 3. This would work if you had a super accurate atomic clock on board. But you don’t. So instead, treat the current time as an unknown variable as well. Now you have 4 unknowns. With signals from 4 satellites, you can solve for 4 unknowns (X,Y,Z,T) ..... where T is the current time.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How did the nature documentary planet earth get such incredible footage ? Are the cameras planted? Some of them it feels as if the camera was on the animal almost- it's amazing that the animals are not bothered by the cameras.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Start with really good camera's and phenomenal lenses. Add in a good documentary cameraman. Tell him to go film nature for a year. Then trim out 99.99% of the footage and cherry pick the most amazing shots.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Any young adult philosophy book recommendations? I work in an adolescent psychiatric inpatient unit and often certain themes arise in my groups with them. I'd love to set up a group dedicated to introducing them to philosophy and critical thinking. All of the young people I work with have experienced significant adversity, trauma and deprivation. The psychiatric system in turn hampers them in additional ways. I'm a psychologist with limited philosophy study in my undergrad days and I think a philosophy group in addition could help them cope with the system they are in. Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If you’re thinking about a novel, Sophie’s World is a great suggestion. If you want something less objective then you have to keep in mind that you’re conditioning their beliefs at that age. Nonetheless, there is The Myth Of Sisyphus by Albert Camus.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star Wars] How did Darth Maul survive bring cut in half and falling down a massive pit while Qui Gon Jinn got sabered in the chest and died? Wouldn't the saber have cauterize the wound and prevented him from bleeding out long enough to get him to a doctor?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Everyone is answering with medical concepts, but there's a deeper answer: Maul was willing to tap into the dark side of the Force to keep himself unnaturally alive, whereas Qui-Gon instead accepted his death and proceeded to supersede it as a Force Spirit.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What does the thesis committee talk about when they ask the audience to leave the room? In my department it is customary during the defense exam that the committee excuse the audience (these days by means of breakout rooms) at the start (before presentation ends) and end (after presentation is done) of the defense exam. They talk for about 5 min each time. I am defending my PhD soon and this issue is playing with my mind a bit more than it should. I wonder if anyone could let me know what is being discussed at these two points of time. Thanks in advance.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Most times we'll discuss your work, your qualifications, quick discussion of any unfinished business. But think of it like a wedding: "if anyone has a reason to stop this, speak now or forever keep your mouth shut." They want you to pass at that point. Most times they just talk about what you'll be doing next and what lunch is gonna look like.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Mathematics]Can anyone explain the Riemann Hypothesis in the simplest way possible?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant At what points does the function y= x^2 - 9 equal zero? The answer is x=+3 and x=-3. What about y=x^2 + 9? There is no real answer, but the imaginary numbers 3i and -3i solve this, where i^2 =-1. The Riemann zeta function is a much more complicated function, where Zeta(x)=1/1^x + 1/2^x + 1/3^x etc. Zeta(2) is pi^2 /6, for example. Generally though, x can be a complex number (real and imaginary parts) and its output Zeta(x) can also be complex. There is a different form of it (an analytic continuation), if the real part of x is less than one. Anyway, for negative even integers -2, -4, etc, Zeta(x) is zero. There are also complex numbers for which Zeta is zero, for example Zeta(0.5+i*14.134...) is zero. The Riemann hypothesis says that besides the negative even integers, every value for which Zeta(x) is zero has a real part of 1/2.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [40k]Craftworld bretheren. We have conquered a Mon Keigh world. The Seers demand their subjugation instead of the usual Wailing Doom. How did we craftworld eldar handle a pacified human tribe? By Khaine we have captured what the mon keigh called a civilized world and slain their astropaths to prevent cries for aid. However a Farseer told me that we cannot slaughter them for they will serve a role in a prophecy that will spare many of our kin many years from now. So we must lord over them. I knew of how our wretched fallen would do but we Craftworld Eldar are enlightened. What would we do to lord over the Mon Keigh?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Use a light hand and an invisible approach. Choose there new leaders carefully and prop them up, doing as much as possible to remain unseen as you do. Once you have chosen the leaders, you must educate them and train them to seek out your goals. The project will take a great deal of time, many of there life spans and this must be accounted for. The heirs to the world must also be directed, set on a grand path which they have no choice but to follow. After a time, the future will be set in stone and need only the lightest guidance from time to time. In three to four of their generations the battle they lost will be forgotten and the leadership will seem like nothing but loyal imperial citizens when the inquisition arrives. Now on a river only a massive event can turn them from their course and you have seen success.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If you had a properly sized lens completely free of any imperfection, could you build a magnifying glass that could see atoms? If not, what about large molecules or cells?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant No, because the wavelength of (visible) light is longer than the distances between atoms, so they cannot be distinguished are the therefore non-resolvable. 1000x magnification is about as far as light can go, which allows you to see bacteria, but not viruses. Electron microscopes are instead used because the wavelength of electrons...or something...is short enough to distinguish between two objects at that scale.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Since trees grow so slow, and cutting down a tree is almost instant in comparison, how are we able to keep up with things such as paper products?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Decades ago various industries that rely on trees for materials like lumber recognized quickly and easily that although their businesses were sustainable it would require them to actually sustain them. Those industries thought ahead and began planting trees then for them to harvest now. Most industries that rely on wood use farmed trees that are planted following every harvest and left to grow for as long as it takes. If anything, they create the problem of too many trees, or at least too many of the same species in one area, creating a monoculture. The trees that are not being sustained are the forests that are clear cut to be used for something else, usually farmland. It's not the trees, it's the land that isn't being sustained.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is there a European and American model for tracking major storms (hurricanes, tropical storms, snowstorms etc) and why are they always so drastically different? For instance, the upcoming Hurricane Irma path from the EU model is saying it'll [stroll through the Caribbean with decent strength before drastically losing strength and making it's way up the western Florida coast and dying off in Mid Atlantic interior](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/09/05/catastrophic-hurricane-irma-now-a-cat-5-is-on-a-collision-course-with-florida/) Whereas the American model it's saying Irma is gonna fuck shit up, to say the least. Do they have different mapping techniques? Which one is more accurate? (i.e. When it snows here Europe tends to be more accurate and drastic) Why do we follow/use European models in America? Does Europe use or models?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Basically the algorithms used are a bit different as you can imagine weather especially on the scale of hurricanes is complex. Additionally the EU and US use different satellites to get data. In recent years the EU model has tended to be more accurate but that could be a fluke.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why does our immune system need one or two injections to learn to fight a new threat and many injections to unlearn to fight a perceived threat (e.g. dust mite)? Thanks<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The goal of allergy shots is to slowly make your immune system switch from one type of immune response to another. In order to do that, they have to start with a super-low dose of the allergy trigger so that it flies under the radar of the allergy responders and instead gets the attention of a different type of immune cell. You slowly increase the dose of the allergy trigger to build on that process until your immune system turns down the allergy response and instead is more primed to use a different type of responder that doesn’t result in allergy symptoms. If you start with too high of a dose or jump to too high of a dose too quickly, the allergy responders will sense it and trigger an allergic reaction instead.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Eli5: If you can represent yourself in court, why can't you have anyone you want represent you? I got this idea watching the episode of Married...with children where Kelly represents Al.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Well you can, but they'd have to agree to represent you, and be qualified to represent you. You don't have to be qualified to represent you, but you're a unique case... mind you a judge can still decide that you need representation and assign you a public defender anyway. I mean, you could ask for Bon Jovi to represent you, but why would he, even if it would be allowed?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What do you think of the tenure track system in the Netherlands? Hello good people! I have a few question on the tenure track system in the Netherlands, in general and regarding the new reform. 1. What do you think in general about the tenure track system in the Netherlands? 2. Would you consider it a real tenure? Like, does it give you a job for life? 3. What do you think about the new tenure track system that was adopted very recently (tenure after 18 months and promotion to Assistant professor 1 after 4 years roughly)? About the fact that you don't necessarily get an associate professor position in the long term? 4. The pay scale for professors there is super straightforward but very much lower than what you'd get in North America. Does the work life balance and tenure after 18 months make it worth it? Curious to know what you all think.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant >The pay scale for professors there is super straightforward but very much lower than what you'd get in North America. Does the work life balance and tenure after 18 months make it worth it? This is pretty much impossible to compare. Work-life balance isn't the major issue, it is the cost of living long-term. When you don't have to save up for your future children's college, you don't have to pay for health care, child care is heavily subsidized, etc. x 100, the math regarding wages is something else. Also, it depends on how long you plan to stay. 1 year, country A. 5 years, country B, for life, country C. One way of looking at it is like this: Are the two countries comparably equally wealthy? If so, where do tenured Professors place as percentile of national incomes? If they are about the same, the pay is likely comparable.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How do doctors know the prescription for glasses for babies/children who are too young to do the usual sight tests?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant They can map the shape of the eye pretty easily and get about 90% of the way to knowing the prescription. Then they need feedback from the patient for the fine tuning. Babies just can’t give that last little part that doesn’t matter much.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How did fruit transported from colonies to the capitals during the colonial era stay fresh enough during shipping trips lasting months at sea? You often hear in history how fruits such as pineapples and bananas (seen as an exotic foreign produce in places such as Britain) were transported back to the country for people, often wealthy or influential, to try. How did such fruits last the months long voyages from colonies back to the empire’s capital without modern day refrigeration/freezing?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Besides what a lot of people already said (picking early, losing a lot in the process, iceboxes, greenhouses, etc.), many of those fruits were transplanted to places with tropical weather that are closer to Europe than the colonies, for example, the Canary Islands - they still grow A LOT of bananas to this day<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do scientists know what the global temperature was millions of years ago?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Basically they use a bunch of methods to estimate what the temps must have been like. They measure ocean sediment composition, ice core samples, pollen samples, tree rings, fossilized leaves etc. Ocean sediments contain different levels of oxygen and different isotopes of oxygen (for example when there is more of a heavier oxygen isotope present it generally means a warmer climate). Different layers of ice cores have different chemical compositions (including oxygen isotopes), which helps piece together what gases were in the atmospshere, and ultimately the temperatures. The pollen, tree rings, and leaves contain indicators on how the plants did (how well they survived) at certain times/years which would be due to the different climates/weather conditions, including temperature. EDIT: Wording<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do we get the uncontrollable urge to stretch? Why is it connected to yawning and how does it happen?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Stretching helps stimulate circulation and manage muscle tension. Likewise, yawning flexes the ear canal and dislodges excess earwax. It's kind of like an itch. The body has a maintenance issue that needs to be taken care of so the brain suddenly gets the urge to do something about it. The exact connection is complicated but it's sufficient to say your brain comes with a set of instincts on how to maintain the body. It's not complete but it helps.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star Wars] Why are other Force traditions frowned upon or ignored? From what i've been able to gather, there are a number of Force organizations that the Jedi cannot match in both combat prowess and ability alone. Yet they get no attention even though some of those traditions are superior due to their emphasis on how to apply and access the Force? I understand that the Jedi and Sith were the first ones to be around, but is it really reasonable to say they have the best understanding of the Force - even though there are other traditions that have shown better results?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Better results is largely subjective. Different sects have different abilities, and the results are hard to compare. Aing-Tii monks, for example, aren't known to be able to use the Force in any offensive manner, but are able to transport themselves across the Galaxy with it. The Fallanassi are able to hide themselves and leave messages in the Force, but had no telekinetic ability. It's not really possible to say whether this is better or not. As to why the Jedi are so prominent, it stems from two things: the Jedi were the most numerous of any Force-user group, and they were closely interwoven with Galactic Republic politics since the very beginning of the Republic. They gave the Republic both military and non-combat aid countless times over the millennia, and because of this are well known throughout the Galaxy.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Most well-rounded programming language to learn? Greetings, Lads. I am copy-pasting this with minor edits from /r/sysadmin upon suggestion from another fellow. I would have cross-posted if this sub allowed that. Context aside: &#x200B; As of right now I am just a Help Desk tech whilst schooling for my second major (Networking first, CyberSec now). I want to make my resume more powerful and it seems like Programming might be an ideal thing to tack on to said resume. What would be most ideal? I'm most at home with Windows (of course) but Linux might not be a bad avenue either. I see a lot of talk about Python, and sysadmin seems to agree upon Python, Bash for Linux, or Java. Would those be the best ones to put time into? If so or if not, what are some books I could use to build said skills, or links to get the environments required, ect? &#x200B; Thanks lads.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If you’re looking at getting into Cybersecurity, you might want to focus on more scripting oriented languages. Python comes to mind as something that would bridge well for you, assuming you’ve had experience with shell scripting and what not being a networking major. Working on simple operations and syntax writing scripts first and then branching out into more of the subjective aspects, like Python’s OO aspects and stuff like MRO, would make sense as a route to take.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is there a way to express the Cobb-Douglas Production Function in terms of (K/L)? Using >Y = A \* K^(a) \* L^(1-a) where Y = GDP, A = total factor productivity, K = capital, L = labor, and (a) = input shares, is there any way to express A as a function of K/L? I'm curious because the aggregate capital-labor input ratio (K/L) would help illustrate the growth rate of capital relative to the growth rate of labor, unless I'm misunderstanding something? Any input would be appreciated, thanks!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant This is indeed part of the reason that the Cobb-Douglas production function is helpful to work with. We can rearrange your equation to generate >Y/L = A * (K/L)^a which states that output per worker depends on the capital-labor ratio and total factor productivity.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How do we know how far away the planets are from the sun? I know that distances can be measured by laser but only if it gets reflected on the object, so that wouldnt work quite well I guess? How do we find out the exact distance between planets and the sun or other astronomical objects without sending a probe that is kept track of? I cant think of any other method to measure such long distances and when I asked my father about it he didnt really know either, he just said that it could maybe be derived by the planets weight and how fast it moves, but how do we know the weight? (I am sorry for my lack of english skills and hope that this isnt a dumb and silly question)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Look for "Kepler's Third Law." Kepler discovered that the square of the period of a planet (the planet's year) is proportional to the cube of its distance from the sun. So if we say that Earth is 1 AU from the sun and it has a 1-year year, then we can look at Mars with a year of 1.88 years. That tells us a = (1.88)\^(2/3)= 1.52. So we'd calculate Mars was 1.52 AU from the sun, which is correct.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Should I get a masters degree in Computer Science or an Online degree or Self-Study or Go to a Coding Bootcamp? I am in a weird position. I am 30, and no longer find Accounting interesting. Although I have 4 years in the industry, but I want to transition in a Tech role. &#x200B; I am wondering if I should get a masters degree in computer science or should I go to a online school?. If not, I am willing to self study everything I need to become a developer with freecodecamp and other online resources, however, I feel that I will be overlooked because I don't have a BS in CIS. &#x200B; Another option is getting a coding bootcamp certificate, I think because I have bachelors in Accounting this might be good option. However, I don't know if economically it is work it since I am currently unemployed with 10k in the bank. &#x200B; What should I do ><\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Is there any chance you be interested in taking the middle step to a business intelligence / data analyst position? You can absolutely get jobs in those fields writing a lot of code and your experience will be appreciated. If you took this approach you could probably just learn VBA and SQL at home and then start applying. It’s not sexy work like web development or data science but, it would be a good middle step while you’re learning theory.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How much if at all does the amount of physical activity early in life affect potential physical limits of an adult? Would a 25 year old male who commited his life to weightlifting and eventually reached his peak results would have different peak results if he trained as a child? How would the answer be different depending where the muscle is or if instead of muscle strength we look at flexibility, lung capacity, etc.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Basically the younger you start the better you get. In optimal conditions. However optimal conditions only apply in lab experiments. If you trained too hard and broke something early on, you could get a lifelong detriment (injury etc. ) that will always hinder your performance. A lot of people who were forced to train at a young age, can’t train that sport in later stages of life coz they have trained too hard and are now broken in multiple places. Idk if this made any sense, but in the end of the day, you do you. And don’t train too hard. Life is a marathon not a hurdle.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What exactly causes snot to be green/yellow when one has a sinus infection? It just seems like a silly color. Neon green doesn't exist that often in nature.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Bacteria can be all different colors, but because they're so small, it's only obvious when they're in large groups. That's also why if your nose is running from just allergies or a viral infection, it tends to be clear - few or no bacteria means no color. Color can actually be used to help identify bacteria - generally, yellow is Staph. aureus, green is Pseudomonas and white is Strep. There's even a bacteria used in microbiology classes that's bright red, called Serratia marcessens.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How come so many Windows installs / file copies, etc get to 95-99 percent complete in 2 minutes... Then take another forever minutes to finish?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant An installer has a checklist of things to do. Written simply, it will simply report what percentage of the list is complete. Problem is, it doesn't know how long each item on the list will take until it's done. Imagine it this way. You are a robot who has been given a shopping list. 1. Bananas 2. Sandpaper 3. Beer 4. 1,000 kg of sand 5. The remote control for the TV Your master sends you out to grab all the things he needs for the weekend. It takes you 20 minutes to go to the supermarket and buy some bananas, then you text your master "1 of 5 items bought, or 20% done." Then it takes you 20 minutes to go to the hardware store, buy some sandpaper and say "2 of 5 items bought, or 40% done." The liquor store is on the other side of town, it takes you 40 minutes to get there to buy the beer, then you say "3 of 5 items bought, 60% done." It took you an average of 26 minutes to get each item so far, and there are two items left, so you naturally estimate that it'll take you 26\2 = 52 minutes to finish the work. Only you can only carry 100kg of sand at a time, so it takes you 10 trips to get it all, or 5 hours total. You finally bring it all home. Now it's taken an average of 95 minutes an item, so you say it'll take 95 minutes to get the remote. But the remote is just under the couch, it takes you 10 seconds to get it. This is how progress bars work. Computers don't know how long work will take until they've actually done it. The items on an installer's to-do list can vary in type and complexity, and it's just telling you how many* items have been done, not how long each item takes. The very last item on the list might be "Double check that every file we've copied is there and the right size, no incomplete files." If you installed a big game this might take a minute or two as it checks tons of big files. If it's the last item on a 100-item list, it'll say 99% done while this is happening. Just how things work.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Pro/Con lists are not the best way to make a decision Pro/Con lists are very popular for people to use but often the winner of the Pro/Con comparison doesn’t end up being what the person chooses to do. This is due to an inherent flaw with the method.. which is that it assumes equal weight of all the bullet points. The idea behind a basic Pro/Con lists is that you have a decision to make, and you make a list of everything that’s good about it (Pro) and everything that’s bad about it (Con) and then you pick the option that has more reasons to do it. Example: Should I go to a movie tonight? Pro: - It would be fun and I’ve been very overworked and stressed lately and haven’t done anything relaxing or fun in a long time so I need a mental break. Con: - It would cost money. - The movie I want to see has only one showing, starting at 10:45 pm at a theatre 45 minutes away from my house. And I have to work at 5am tomorrow. Going will make me very tired at work tomorrow. - It got bad reviews. - It would use gas for me to get there and also put miles on my car. - I don’t have anybody to go with and I would like to not have to go alone. - If I wait a few months I can watch it for free online. So as you can see here, “not going” to the movie should be the decision made because the p/c list has pointed out that there are many more reasons for you to not see the movie than there are for you to see it. However, I could feel really strongly about wanting to do something fun despite any drawbacks. In that case I would put more value in the one point in the Pro list than all of the points in the Con list combined, so I’d say fuck this list and go to the movie anyway. The other flaw with this system is it essentially only allows you to say yes/no to one option. People use it to compare two options, which isn’t how it’s meant to be used. This forces you to decide before making a list which option is the pro and which option is the con, which defeats the purpose. All making the list does then is bolster the decision you made before making the list. Pro/Con lists not only don’t work well for comparing two options, they also don’t work well for comparing more than two options. Many times we make decisions between more than two options, and a LOT of decision making has at least 2 options. For example: (still using the “should I go see a movie example from above) The movie I want to see is at the far away theater with one showing, but there’s a theater closer to my house showing other movies. now you have 3 options: A.) don’t go to the movie, B.) go to the movie, or C.) go to a different movie There are some decisions that just require a simple yes/no, so I’m not saying that doesn’t exist. But even in those cases, you still have the problem of the points having different value weights. Two options I think are superior to the Pro/Con method are: 1. [The Paired-Comparison Analysis](https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTED_02.htm) 2. [The Decision-Matrix Analysis](https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTED_03.htm) aka Grid Analysis, aka Pugh Matrix Analysis, aka Multi-Attribute Utility Theory EDIT: To make discussion easier, I’d like to define a few things.. there are 3 different types of lists being talked about in the comments, and it’s derailing the conversation from the one specific type of list that I intended to talk about. 1. A list: a simple, single-column list made for the purposes of brainstorming, with no inherent requirement of analysis or comparison. 2. A Pro/Con List: a two-column list that inherently requires comparison/analysis. It is made for recognizing the good and bad elements of a single factor, although it is commonly incorrectly used to compare more than one option. It essentially answers a yes/no question based off which list has more bullet points. 3. A Quantitative Pro/Con List: which assigns weights to each point, and also inherently requires comparison/analysis. This allows you to actually compare two different options and the winning option is the column with the most points. My post is specifically regarding #2, a Pro/Con list. It is not regarding #1 or #3. I understand and totally accept that often people conflate #1 or #3 with the term “Pro/Con” List, but I am specifically discussing the ONE type of list in which the better option is the one with the most pro’s. Arguing with me that #2 is identical to #1 or #3 is not going to change my mind because I know those exist and I am not talking about those. #So in order to CMV, you need to argue that the best way to make a decision is by listing all of the reasons to do / not do something and choosing the option that has more reasons In other words I’m not here to argue over what #2 and #3 should be named.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Making a list of factors doesn’t necessarily mean you have to pick the option with the most points. Comparing pros and cons is a simple method and is generally superior to going with an impulsive gut feeling, hence why it is so popular<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why causes particles to decay? And why does it take so long for some? Some elements for example can take millions of years to decay. Also, how can we tell their age?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The stability of an atom is determined by the interaction of several different systems 1. The Strong Nuclear Force. This holds the nucleus of an atom together by binding the constituent parts in ways that are incredibly complex, but it's very strong at super small scales. 2. The Coulomb Force. Thus is the positive-positive repulsion that is felt by the protons in an atom. This is the force that dominates when you go a little bit further away than where the Strong Force applies. 3. The Weak Nuclear Force. This is the cause of the actual process of decay. This force facilitates some particles changing into others. Sometimes, those particles will make the new atom unstable, and it decays immediately. So the overall effect is that large atoms begin to exit the size for the Strong Force to apply, and some slight change due to the Weak Force causes it to go unstable, at which point, the Coulomb Force shoots out something at great speeds. We can tell object ages with decay because while nuclear decay is a random process, it follows a strict formula that half of whatever sample you have will decay in the same period of time. This is true of any size sample. This time for half of the sample to decay is called the "half life", so if you know the sample size now, you know how much there should have been, and you know the half life, you can calculate the time to get back to the original sample.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do you grow thick skin mentally? How does a brain not care about someone's opinion? What I always hear is "grow thick skin". I guess there should be a process to do that or a mental training. But how? I don't talk about insensitivity or sociopath behaviour, but more like being toughy when it comes to little problem.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant One thing that helps is experience, the first time someone expresses a negative opinion of someone, they have no idea what's going to result, and they're bound to wonder about all the potential results. When it's happened many times before with either nothing occurring or something positive happening (like bonding with anyone else who had the negative opinion expressed about them), the event isn't going to be as stressful. Another thing that helps is feeling secure in your position. If someone knows that they are highly valued by others, they're not going to risk losing that relationship over a external complaints or opinions. Finally, making the realization that when you do something embarrassing, many of the people you think noticed probably didn't actually notice, or only care for a short period of time.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: If states have to abide by a federal ruling, how come Marijuana is legal in some states but illegal Federally?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It's because of the difference between, on one side, what states have to do with federal interpretations of the Constitution and, on the other side, how states and the federal government interact when talking about statutes. The short version is that states have no obligation to enforce federal laws, but it's not that way with the Constitution. State courts have to treat the Constitution as the law of the state, as well as the law for the federal government. (mostly) So, If the Supreme Court says that the Constitution says that you have to let gay people be married, than the courts of that state would have to say the same thing. Statutes are different. Federal statutes trump state statutes, but states don't have an obligation to enforce federal statutes. So if the state legislature passes a law that gets rid of their punishment for marijuana possession, than the state cops can't/won't arrest people for it, and the federal government can't (directly) make them do it. But, the federal government can still arrest people for marijuana possession, and they still can even in states where it is "legal" under state law, because it remains illegal under federal law.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: When you boil a pot of water until it all boils off, what is the whitish, dusty residue that remains on the bottom of the pan? Is it just minerals/other impurities in the water?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The technical term for this is "Total Dissolved solids" (this assumes the water went through a filter at some point to strain out any sediment or fish or whatever, but in tap water it you _should_ be just getting dissolved stuff). Exactly what makes up TDS in your water varies from region to region, but it's usually calcium and magnesium and carbonates. Calcium/magnesium carbonate is the most common source of "white stuff". It also makes for "hard water". There may be more sodium and chloride if you are close to the ocean and getting a teeny bit of seawater inflow. Sulfides are common in well water in some areas...you will usually smell them if they are present. All in all, this stuff isn't harmful unless there's a huge amount of it...honestly it's probably a net benefit to get a bit of calcium and magnesium from your water. Straight up totally pure water also tends not to taste great.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Since plants do not have muscle fibers, how do they get flaccid when deprived of water and stiff again when watered?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Plant cells fill up with water when there's water around and lose water when there isn't. You know how when you blow up a balloon, its skin is rigid and you can bounce it off of things, but when you let all the air out it's just floppy and useless? Plant cells are basically like that, but they're filled with water instead. They're rigid when they're full of water and flaccid when they aren't.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Is there a difference between an attorney and a lawyer?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A lawyer is someone trained in law, typically, it refers to someone who has graduated with the basic degree in law from a law school. "Attorney" at it root means "representative;" to be an attorney-at-law you have to be qualified to represent people in court, generally meaning you have passed the bar exam. Most people do not observe this distinction strictly.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do music streaming services pay artists? How much are artists paid? What is payment based on (number of plays, etc)?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant They know what people are playing and they compile costs based on play count and cut checks to the labels on a pre-determined basis. Sometimes rates are different based on quantity and such. It all differs, but most services pay standard rates that are set by law. Sometimes companies pay different rates depending on if they have a contract that gives the artist greater control of the streaming rights and sometimes they pay different rates for specific artists for things like exclusives. It depends on the situation, the song, and what agreements have been struck.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How can water extinguish a fire, but can make a grease fire worse?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant When extinguishing a regular fire, water does two things: It cools down the burning substance and it smothers it, depriving it of oxygen. Both of these things work well because the water forms a thin layer on the surface of the burning object / substance. But when you throw water on burning grease or oil, something else happens. Since oil/grease is hydrophobic and less dense than water, the water will pass through the oil and sink to the bottom. You then have the water trapped by a layer of burning oil that is hotter than the boiling point of water. The water is rapidly brought to boil and when that happens it expands to well above 1000 times its volume as it turns into a gas. This rapid expansion quickly pushes the oil away, breaking it up into tiny droplets. In the form of droplets, the oil has far more surface area than what it had before, giving it much better access to the oxygen in the air and therefore speeding up the rate of combustion. So instead of a contained volume of burning liquid with limited surface area exposed to the air, you suddenly have a cloud of burning droplets, which are burning much more intensely than before.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Planetary Protection (the concept of protecting other planets from Earth life) is a flawed concept. Planetary protection, for those unfamiliar, is "a guiding principle in the design of an interplanetary mission, aiming to prevent biological contamination of both the target celestial body and the Earth" (Wikipedia). The basic idea is to preserve any extraterrestrial environments that may harbor life by not accidentally introducing Earth life. This has been enforced, to an extent, by the [Outer Space Treaty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty) Article IX: "... States Parties to the Treaty shall pursue studies of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter and, where necessary, shall adopt appropriate measures for this purpose..." I disagree with the concept of planetary protection. It provides the view that the Universe sans Earth has a 'Do Not Touch' sign on it. However, the goal of life is to spread. Whether accidentally or on purpose, life has 'infested' every corner of our planet, so there should be no reason to stop life artificially at this point. Another argument against planetary protection, at least on Mars, is the fact that asteroid impacts have been shown to carry impact fragments between Earth and the red planet, implying that if Earth life could live on Mars, it would be already, and vice-versa. In addition, Elon Musk (and others, of course) want life to spread to, and ultimately terraform, Mars. If the idea of planetary protection and the related OST clause were to last, even a manned Mars landing probably wouldn't be allowed. (The astronauts would need to live in-situ until a transfer window, unlike Apollo.) Now, for the record, neither I nor many astronomers believe the OST will last; it's too idealistic. However, it seems like so many people support planetary protection there is just no argument to be had (thanks, reddit!). In summary, planetary protection breaks the logical path of life for sentimentality, impedes interplanetary exploration, and is overly idealistic. Reddit, change my view. EDIT: For those who have read it, Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson examines this issue a bit more. For those who have read it, feel free to discuss it. _____ > Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our *[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)* first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Let's change the situation from other planets to something a little more simple. You are an archaeologist, you get a grant to explore an ancient tomb. This tomb is SO old, that there is a strong theory that life may have formed by itself* independent to current life. To find a new form of life would be the biggest thing to ever happen on earth. Even if that new form of life is exactly the same as the life we are used to, it would be world shaking to find out that all life seems to follow a common blueprint. Now, when they break in and start searching, they don't follow any quarantine practices. This means, they find life in this tomb, and it looks exactly like the life they walked into the tomb with... congrats, you changed the biggest finding in human history into an obvious conclusion. If you bring your own life with you, you will always find life wherever you look. Now, with Mars it is exactly the same, except everything is much bigger stakes. It is much less likely to accidentally bring life from earth, but finding life on Mars is pretty much the biggest deal right now.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 How do companies get gases like oxygen and helium into canisters?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are two ways to put gasses like He and O into bottles. Firstly, you can liquify them by cooling them under high pressure. Then you can put the liquid into the high pressure bottles, seal them, and allow them to warm up. The contents will then enter a state called 'super-critical', where they are neither liquid nor gas. Secondly, you can take the gas and simply compress it, It will get hot as you do this, and you have to get rid of that heat. If the pressure is high enough, it will again become a super-critical fluid. Lastly, there is another way to store and transport oxygen or helium. You can liquify it, and place it in a dewar flask, which is a container that is insulted by a vacuum. (A Thermos flask is a domestic dewar flask, and, indeed, they are often used to hold small amounts of liquefied gasses). The insulation is good enough to slow the boiling of the liquefied gas so that you can transport them long distances without losing too much of it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: I think the Internet could eventually replace universities Universities as institutions serve a variety of purposes, but first and foremost they provide a social structure that produces and passes along knowledge in a manner that is verified and trustworthy. Universities create standards for knowledge and education by establishing disciplines with standardized methodologies and accepted practices, but they also encourage and award innovation as long as new ideas and methods can be properly explicated. Disciplines change, and academic professionals are rewarded for changing their disciplines, as long as their ideas can actually hold up to the level of rational scrutiny that is promoted within these institutions. Similarly, the standards of the discipline are exercised to evaluate students, and this evaluation is what gives the University degree its value in the labor market. My question is basically this: can the internet develop to the point where it can establish this sort of standardized disciplinary knowledge independent of the institutional structure of the University? Can disciplinary knowledge also become social knowledge that is freely accessed, produced and disseminated by literally anyone that might choose to participate? For this to be possible, I think we would need to see a couple big changes take place. First and foremost, we would need a sort of second-wave Enlightenment which would throw out the current paradigm of “alternative facts” and insulated echo chambers of information. Society as a whole would need to accept a common sense of objectivity and rationality, such that it is able to uphold its own standards of legitimacy. Bad-faith research and education would need to be quickly marginalized; but we would also need to be willing to accept innovation and new ideas, as long as they meet the standards of our collective scrutiny. Secondly, we would need to see some sort of system of compensation that would fund research and education as goods in-themselves. As it currently stands, this is the biggest issue in higher education and research. During his presidency, Reagan criticized the disciplinary knowledge produced by University researchers, claiming that they were merely satisfying personal curiosity about obscure or useless issues, and using this criticism to justify a massive defunding of higher education. The legacy of this defunding has been the increase in student tuition and debt, an increased presence of private businesses on university campuses, a new focus on collegiate athletics and recreation to attract students, the co-opting of research by private interests, etc. Research and education have been re-cast as means to capitalist ends; research to provide technological innovations to industry, education to equip laborers with knowledge and/or general capabilities needed for workplace success. For the internet to become the new medium for research and education, we would need to somehow return to a social paradigm where knowledge itself is a valid end to pursue, and education is inherently enriching, and these goods are willingly funded by society without some expectation of an economic return. Can we reach this point in our future? I would speculate that we can for a couple reasons. First, the current university system is not sustainable. There will come a tipping point where the continuous expansion of higher education devalues the degree such that it is no longer economically feasible to pursue. Secondly, while much of what we see happening on the internet is not encouraging, there are still some bright spots, and there is still the fact that the internet is very young. We have future generations that will grow up not even knowing a time before the internet existed; we can hope that these new immersed generations will make better use of the internet as a medium for research and education. We can hope that these younger generations will react against the uncertainty and relativism of our current generations, and bring about this “second-wave Enlightenment” that would need to take place. Change my view.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Who's going to accredit degrees? Who's going to test them? Who's going to define thr curriculum? Who's going to do the paperwork? Who's going to house labs, offices and libraries? You've just said "what if universities were replaced by the Internet", but you haven't actually said what that would look like. It's very hard to argue against something with so little substance other than to point out the lack of any planning, detail or thought into this that you've presented.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do sharks sense a drop of blood in water from kilometers away? A lot of documentaries say that sharks can sense a single drop of blood into the water from kilometers away. This way, they can find food easily. However, how is that possible? How can only a few drops of blood diffuse into the ocean and the sharks are still be able to sense everything?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Shark olfaction is fairly sensitive--although it varies by the species. They can detect very small amounts of a chemical within the water, which undoubtedly is advantageous for hunting. However, in order for the shark to actually detect said chemical (e.g., trace amounts of blood in the water), it needs to actually physically encounter it. So, if you cut your finger and start bleeding, it's not like sharks within 1+ kilometer distance will all start swimming towards you because they haven't actually physically encountered blood in the water. It would require a steady stream of blood leading from you to it. Another way to think about this is how we detect stars in the sky with our vision. If a star forms today, and it's 1 million light years away from earth, we won't know that the star has formed until light rays travel far enough to reach earth (i.e., 1 million years from now).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How can a hacker be tracked after he's hacked a system? Edit: Thank you everyone, it's all very clear to me now!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You can look at styles and methods of one hack and associate it with the same methods being used in other hacks with known attackers. For example, certain malware programs are known to be Russian others are known to be American. Once you know the attack methods, you can often know the attacker. The hacker could of made a mistake and left traced that they were there. Those logs might be viable to trace the hacker's origin. You can trace the released information backwards. Find out who has the information now, then find out where they got it from and so on until you arrive at the hacker. If you have access to the routing infrastructure of the internet (like the US government does) then you might have the ability to track historic traffic. Giving you the ability to tell who was sending packets to where at what times. Or it could be ways that we simply aernt aware of.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is Hegel's main work the Logic or The Phenomenology? Which should one read to know about Hegel's system? It was said that The Phenomenology is disjointed so should one focus on the Logic instead?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences is the full system, but its only the outline that Hegel used to lecture to students, divided into 3 parts on Logic, Nature, and Spirit. The Science of Logic covers the same ground as the first part of the Encyclopedia in more expanded form. For the other 2 parts he died before publishing any more fleshed out version, but different sections of his philosophy of spirit are expanded on in his other publication Philosophy of Right and various transcripts of lectures he gave from his students (Subjective Spirit, Philosophy of History, Art, Religion, and History of Philosophy).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How do people find time to work on multiple research projects and publish multiple papers? I can barely find the mental capacity for one. I'm an MSCS student who does research in machine learning. I've noticed that many people work on several projects at once (usually their own project and as a participant in another) and often have multiple papers published in venues. Right now I'm trying to get my own research project going as I'm graduating next semester and need to write my thesis anyway, and am also involved in another project with a PhD student at my lab. I find myself usually spending 100% of my time on this project, and my colleague seems to expect that as well. I spend the entire day at the lab working on that project, and at night I'm also constantly wondering what kind of ideas I could try out. I've tried doing the "alternate days" thing, but I find that it often takes me more than a day to work on some ideas, and when I'm done with that there are more things to do for one project. Maybe my predicament is the result of me being relatively junior and not trained enough, but if there are any tips that you guys could give me that'd be great. The most advice I get from my lab mates and advisor is along the lines of "everyone goes through it." Thanks.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It just comes with experience. Time management is critical, too. Once your own project is up and running, you’ll hit points where there’s nothing to do but sit and wait for data, IRBs, reviewers, finding, etc. Those are the gaps you fill with other projects. Plus you’ll gain enough expertise to serve in more of a consulting role which doesn’t take as much time as running a project by yourself.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: "Appropriate" margin So on all these "business" shows like Shark Tank or The Profit they are always talking about margin and the appropriate amount of margin that a product should be making. Like "Clothes should be a 50% margin" or "food should be a 60% margin". Where do these people pull their numbers from? It makes sense to try and maximize margin, but why the standard for different product?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Comparables (other businesses in the same sector), mostly. It's more an indication of what you could make than what you will make. Some businesses by their nature sell their goods for only slightly more than it costs them to offer them - like grocery, with average margins of 2-3%. Grocery stores make up for it by selling 200$ worth of goods to 500 people every day, and hordes of people won't shop at your store if your prices are 20% higher than everyone else's. Other business have higher margins, often because they offer something luxury or rare or unique. Clothing, for example, can demand 60$ margins because if someone sees a dress they have to have they can't easily find it elsewhere - even on the internet it's hard to search for a specific shape and color of a unique piece of clothing. Sometimes the margin is demanded by the nature of the business - a luxery food market like Whole Foods can charge yuppies a lot more for their food but it's also going to have to pay more for range-fed organic all natural unseasoned no-preservative blueberries, and it's going to end up throwing a lot more of it out because it goes bad. So they have to charge more, but they sell a lot less. So they pull the numbers from other businesses that sell roughly the same thing.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is the difference between a degree in computer science and a degree in software engineering? Will getting one over the other limit job opportunities?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Think of Computer Science as a science, and Software Engineering as engineering. Computer Science generally deals with algorithms; the high level implementation, optimizations, and proofs. It's usually more academically inclined. Software Engineering generally deals with the practical implementation; how to get the product to the customer by next Wednesday. It's usually more commercially inclined. That said, different schools will label their programs differently. One school's CS degree could have very similar course-work to another school's SE degree. Check out the actual offerings from the school's you're looking at, and see what kind of jobs graduates from those degrees get.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How is therapy effective when it is in the therapists' financial interest to keep you as their patient? Same goes to other medical fields, I guess. How can a doctor make you better when their job requires people to be sick?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Aside from the personality types looking to get into these fields of work there's two objective factors that would make it a bad idea to prolong treatment and they kinda go hand in hand: supply and competition. Many therapists have lines of patients waiting to get appointments and if you have a bad reputation they will go somewhere else. This is also the case in countries with free healthcare, but there you also have the added reason of costs.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How is bandwidth used? I understand its basic principles and how it affects internet connections and speeds. But for example if I have a 50mbs connection and I have one device watching Netflix and streaming at 1080p which only requires 7mbs to accomplish, does that leave 43mbs for other device on the network to tap into?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant To add to the other reply, imagine a highway, the lanes represents the speed. You have 50mbps,you have 50 lanes. Each lanes is a one way though so only one car can go in one direction at a time. You need 15 cars going back and forth for an online game, but only 7 for a full HD movie. If you have 10 lanes used you have 40 to do other things<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What causes some cultures to adopt western styles of dress and others to forgo it? And why do men tend to adopt it moreso than women? I was looking at [this post](http://tv.reddit.com/r/HistoryPorn/comments/1bjvhs/an_indian_woman_a_japanese_woman_and_a_syrian/) over in /r/HistoryPorn and got to thinking - why is it that the Indian and Syrian women in those photos would likely be wearing a similar style of dress today (perhaps not so fancy for the Syrian woman), yet the Japanese lady would not? My initial gut reaction would be 'wealth', but 1) Japan seems to have adopted Western fashion before it became wealthy and 2) Certain other wealthy countries, such as the countries on the Arabian Peninsula, have become wealthy without abandoning their traditional dress. Colonialism seems to be out, as Japan only went through a short occupation period, whereas Syria was colonized for decades by the French and India for centuries by the British. Religion would also be out, as plenty of followers of both Hinduism and Islam seem to do fine maintaining their modesty laws with Western-style clothing. And as a corollary to this question, why is it that men seem to abandon traditional dress so much more often than women in a culture? Whereas I can think of multiple cultures in which traditional dress would be acceptable for a business meeting for women (West Africa, the Middle East, India, etc.) I can think of very few where traditional attire would be acceptable in such contexts for men (only the Arabian Peninsula and Burma come to mind). So what is it that makes a culture more likely to adopt Western clothing? And why do men do so more than women?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant This going to be woefully short but you can break out the googe scholar for the rest. There's a good explanation from Institutional Theory. The business dress and the common western dress could be seen as the institutionalisation of a norm. Basic idea is that societies and organisations are built on sets of norms - or ideas that are seen as intrinsically "right" and "legitmate"(Weber, 1978; Meyer, JW and Rowan, B 1977; Powell and DiMaggio, 1984). It can be anything, the language, the titles, the relationships, the dress, the food and the structure of the day. So, once an idea is seen as giving you legitimacy with the framework of society or the organisation, that idea is then adopted and extensively enforced. Another important idea from Bourdieu (1989, 2006) is the idea of social capital. He argues that capitalism not only create capital but the structure of it create norms and codes that are socially valuable and thus can be called social capital (Portes, A 1998, 2000; Adler, P.S and Kwon, S.W 2002. ) So put those together , take the norms that you need to accept to be considered legitimate and then consider the following of those norms a creation of social capital. The dominant creation of norms has been the "Western" form of capitalism and that brings with it notions of social capital that are intrinsic. In both the case of colonialism , which was a direct intervention of Western norms into other societies, and international global capitalism the way you dress is an important norm and bring you social capital. This is basically how it became "normal" to wear western cloths, especially a suit. Those who wore that attire had more legitimacy and social capital than those that did not. (Ladgegard, G 2006; Behtoui, A; 2006; Hartmann M, 2000)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What is happening when something is sticky? What causes stickiness? Is it Viscosity? Always wondered what is happening physically when something like honey or sugar is sticky to the touch.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If you're touching something like honey or a sugary solution, and it's sticky, it's because the molecules are forming interactions, like hydrogen bonds, with the molecules on your skin. Hydrogen bonds are what keeps oxygens and hydrogens together to form water, and they're also involved in keeping proteins and DNA together. Honey is made of fructose and glucose, which both have lots of sites that can hydrogen bond.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:What's the difference between a Business and a Corporation?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A corporation is just an organizational structure that someone may choose when starting their business. The corporate structure has advantages and disadvantages; an advantage is limited liability for owners, meaning an owner (stockholders) is only liable for the money they willingly give to a company. The stockholders are not personally liable for any of the corporation's debts. Personal assets are also protected from a legal standpoint, so long as they aren't obtained illegally through the company. A disadvantage of the corporate structure is double taxation. Because a corporation is its own legal entity, it is responsible for paying taxes. A corporation pays income tax, then the owners again pay taxes when corporate income is paid out in the form of dividends.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do some electrical plugs (USA) have 1 large prong + 1 small prong and some have 2 small prongs? And then some larger things, like portable heaters, have all 3 prongs (large + small + circular prong)?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant So the plugs that have a large prong and a small prong are to keep polarity correct. The plugs with two of the same sized prongs are not polarity specific. And the plugs with all three require an equipment grounding conductor (small round prong). Source: am electrician<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Eli5: how do radios with a scanning option know the difference between static and a station that comes in?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Radio signals are electromagnetic and a radio works by receiving this energy from the air using an antenna, filtering to a desired frequency and then amplifying the audio. There will be more energy picked up when the radio is tuned to a frequency with an active broadcast signal vs when it's tuned to white noise. This means the signal level can be measured on each channel and the radio can be made to stop scanning when the signal level is high enough.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do I feel grimy after a brief nap, but not after a full night's sleep?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Sleep happens in cycles and phases, a phase consisting from light restorative sleep to REM or rapid eye movement phases. When you take a nap for longer then 10-20 minutes, it goes into the REM cycle. The REM phase reacts badly when stopped abruptly much like a drop on a roller coaster. That's why the best amount of time to nap is 10-20 minutes, before the onset of the REM phase. Sleep on the other hand is best in multiples of 3 hours, which is how long one cycle lasts. TL;DR: Naps make you feel better if 10-20 minutes, but any more makes you feel horrible. Sleep if in 3 hour cycles also makes you feel better.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Eli5: How do bones and other organs know what shapes to grown into?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant This topic may be too complicated for ELI5. There are a lot of genes that produce growth factors, and many of these genes are expressed only at specific times and in specific places. The location and timing are controlled by other genes making other transcription factors or inhibitors or whatever, also at very specific times and places. Sometimes growth depends not just on a growth factor being produced somewhere, but on that factor diffusing outward through nearby tissues, producing a concentration gradient. The gradient gives a sense of direction to the tissue growth. Sometimes the shapes of growing organs are affected by the shapes of everything growing around them. Sometimes the growth of one tissue layer is faster than another, which causes them both to fold or bulge or take other shapes. Sometimes even the stretching and straining of tissues being pulled around by other growing parts triggers these tissues to make their own growth factors. This is tangential to your question, but sometimes the shape doesn't even come from growing, it comes from dying. Fingers work that way - your hand starts developing almost as a flipper, and the cells in between where your fingers should be undergo programmed cell death.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: I (probably wrongly) think that the republican party hasn't, in the last two decades, been concerned with improving the country. How about another super fun post-election bummout? I live in a democratic bubble, and I will freely admit that. However, it seems to me that the Republican party hasn't, in the last two decades made any significant strides for the betterment of the country. They have, [as has been well documented](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-mindless-obstruction-has-helped-create-something-far-worse/2016/03/11/46ba9022-e723-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html), been most concerned with digging in their heels and making sure that the country doesn't move in any direction. The majority of the citizens of this country [continue to make it clear](http://www.gallup.com/poll/190775/americans-say-upper-income-pay-little-taxes.aspx) that they have no interest in tax breaks for the top earners and allowing corporations to dodge their fair share, yet the republican party still insists that [Tax breaks for the rich](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/business/what-trump-and-the-gop-can-agree-on-tax-cuts-for-the-rich.html) are in the country's best interest. And since it seems that a majority of Americans [actually support progressive policies](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-01/majority-of-americans-want-college-to-be-free) it seems that the republican party has no interest in what the majority of the American populace wants. When a man who many of the party leaders and vocal spokespeople for the RNC obviously thought was unfit for the highest office in this country began to win by [obviously lying](http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/pants-fire/) and [fear mongering](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/donald-trump-and-the-politics-of-fear/498116/) they sat on the fence and didn't do anything because they felt it was more important to get their party in power than to have a man or woman of conviction in the White House. This man was the most prominant and outspoken birther. That's a really stupid position to have. I'm not alone in thinking that conservative Americans are divisive. Every time a Republican politician makes a [racist](http://winningdemocrats.com/here-are-the-10-most-racist-things-republicans-said-in-2015/), homophobic or [sexist gaffe](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/579v4z/head_of_iowa_womens_gop_group_quits_over_trump/d8qgvww/) we're supposed to be stupid enough to accept the explanation that they don't represent their fellow conservatives or even the woldview of the person who made the gaffe. We're supposed to just ignore that this party clearly aims to represent a small portion of the people they will soon be entirely in charge of governing. Now, I know I sound pissed (and trust me, I am to a certain extent) but what I really want is for someone to convince me that this once-great party of Lincoln is doing good instead of fluffing up its own ego by celebrating [embarrassingly small victories](http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-trumps-carrier-deal-isnt-the-way-to-save-u-s-jobs/) that in no way represent the kind of macro, country-wide problem solving that needs to be done in order to make things better. I want to hear some facts about the good that the Conservatives in this country have done, and the good they're planning to do. I don't want to hear about an expensive literal or metaphorical wall that will stop an immigration problem that most experts think is solving itself. I don't want to hear about the fear mongering about Islam and how Donald Trump will personally punch terrorists in the face. I want to hear about real solutions that really happened, and, political leanings aside, can be shown to have unambiguously benefited this country with quantifiable evidence. Please? I need this. Edit: I have emboldened the last bit to make it very clear what I'm looking for. Second edit: /u/blalien made a great point below that I'd like to add here: >There are some metrics that the majority of Americans believe are good for America: more jobs, less crime, better public health, improved infrastructure, etc. The best way to achieve this is up for debate, but I think most people believe these are worthy goals, and whether or not these goals have been achieved can be broken down into raw numbers. For example, you may agree or disagree with Bush Jr. and Obama on certain issues, but in terms of economic health I think the numbers agree that Obama did a far better job than Bush. >Setting aside wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage, there are only three possibilities: >1. The GOP has succeeded in improving the country in quantifiable metrics. > 2. The GOP has attempted but failed in improving the country in ways that most people can agree. >3. The GOP does not want for the country what the majority of America wants. Edit #3: it's been pointed out that my title isn't as clear about what I'm looking for as the content of my post. But as we all know, titles are not editable after they've been posted. Ahem... /u/spez? Can you fix that for me? Editsode IV - A New Edit: Well it's nearly ten and I'm packing it in. But I promise that if you bring a new argument while I'm asleep l'll get to you tomorrow morning. Thanks for the discussion. The Fifth Editment: Thanks to /u/compounding for his wonderful explanation. A Delta has been awarded and my view has been changed. I did have some wonderful discussion, but I do need to get back to work. If I see a particularly interesting comment I will respond when I can.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Everyone wants to improve the country. The difference comes in what they consider "improved". Democrats, for example, hear Republican proposals about deregulating businesses, lowering taxes on the wealthy, banning abortion, etc. and they think "Why can't they just work for the good of the country", completely neglecting the idea that that IS the good of the country from your average Republican's point of view. They DO think the country would be better off with less government regulation, with no abortion, with religion in schools, and all of the things that Democrats consider a step in the wrong direction. And the opposite is true as well. Republicans think Democrats are just being entitled, selfish assholes when they talk about increasing social programs, expanding reproductive rights, etc.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What exactly is Communism? I just can't wrap my head around it.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The noble idea that mankind should work together in equality, each giving according to his ability, and receiving according to his needs. Unfortunately, it has historically been implemented by people who thing that they are more equal that others. A great read on the mentality behind Soviet communism is Animal Farm, by George Orwell, in which Lenin-Pig and Stalin-Pig create the perfect society on a small country farm...<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: how do we know dating something is accurate? If the materiales from which something is made are millions of years old, what difference does it make once it’s made into something?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The radioactive isotopes that are checked for with radiometric dating exist naturally in the world. The acts of molten rock churning in the Earth, or the waters mixing in the oceans, or animals eating plants, and even breathing, all increase the amounts of the isotopes found within the body. Once the thing is no longer moving, eating, or breathing, it is no longer adding the radioactive isotope into itself, and it begins to decay. The most common form of radiometric dating is carbon dating, which is most useful for recent (within a few tens of thousands of years) artifacts made of living material, like cloth or pottery. That carbon isotope is generated by sunlight, which replenishes the amount found on the planet.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user (In-coming Senior, Econ Major) What skills should I learn this summer? Hello! My Internship got cancelled due to the pandemic so now I’m going to be at home during this whole summer. I was wondering what skills should I learn this summer? I was thinking of fully learning Tableau, any other suggestions? Edit: Appreciate all the feedback! Thank you! Unfortunately, for some reason many of the comments are not showing up, hopefully this is fixed.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You could always brush up on R, Python, or STATA (depending on your preference) and do a small project. Bonus if you have a professor who is willing to answer questions during that. Maybe you could learn GIS and how it applies to economics, and do a small project there as well. I’m in the same boat as you, and I’m currently planning on learning GIS, doing a small project with a language I’m not comfortable with, and reading economics books.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What is the limiting factor on hydraulic cylinder size? Could you lift a house with a sufficiently large hydraulic cylinder and a small hydraulic pump? If hydraulic force is just pressure times surface area of the cylinder, what happens as you increase the size of the cylinder? Does that put more force back on the pump until it breaks?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Note that for a piston to sit securely in a cylinder without tipping, it has to be sufficiently long compared to the diameter of the cylinder. If you start making huge diameter pistons, you'll need them to be long, too. The volume of the piston would become huge, and it would be heavy and expensive. And hard to fit where you need it. That might mean that you'd want many moderate size pistons instead of one giant one to lift a house. You could pipe them all the the same pump, and you wouldn't need any extra pressure because of the many pistons connected, assuming they are plumbed in parallel. You'd just need many pump strokes to move them a significant distance.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is Game Theory? Thanks for all the great responses. I read the wiki article and just wanted to hear it simplified for my own understanding. Seems we use this in our everyday lives more than we realize. [ As for the people telling me to "Just Google it"...](http://www.siriusxmfan.net/files/theres-the-door-now-get-the-____-out_535.jpg)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Game theory is the mathematical study of strategies. If you're playing Monopoly one day and decide you want to work out, mathematically, exactly what the best decisions at every phase of the game would be, then you would be creating a work of game theory. It doesn't have to be a board game, though, just any situation where people are making decisions in pursuit of goals. You study the situation, the odds, the decisions people make, work out which would be optimal, then look at what people actually do. So the situations game theory might study include optimal betting strategies in poker, or nuclear weapons deterrance strategies between nations, applying many of the same concepts to both.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Harry Potter] What is the deal with wands anyway? In the Harry Potter universe all practicing witches and wizards use wands to do magic. However, it is established that magical children can use magic innately. Why use wands at all? Maybe because they can be taken away?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Wands, and other tools, help focus the magic. To use wandless magic properly requires lots of control and training. Very few wizards, relatively speaking, can do any form of wandless magic, and most of them can only do one or two spells like that. Children can innately do magic without wands, but they can't focus it to a certain target or repeat it the same way on command. It usually happens in times of distress and they don't even know they are doing at it at the time.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why wouldn't my friend's idea for "free energy" work? This may sound like a /r/shittyaskscience question, but hear me out: So my friend understands that virtual particle/antiparticle pairs are continuously being created and annihilated by "borrowing" energy from the future and the annihilation "repays" it back. And that when this happens on either side of a black hole's event horizon, the black hole has to "repay" the energy and loses mass while the other half escapes as Hawking Radiation. He then reasons, that if he separates the particle/antiparticle pair with an extremely strong electric field, the energy "debt" never gets "repaid", and he has created free energy. Obviously this wouldn't actually work, but I'm finding it difficult to argue exactly why. My reasoning is that either: - The antiparticle would anihalate with some of the machinery to repay the energy debt - The energy required to maintain such a strong field would create another particle/antiparticle pair that would annihilate with the original pair to get the energy back - or, the energy required would create a black hole. Would any of these things be correct? If not, what would be the best way to explain why this system won't work?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant How do you produce an electric field? Suppose that you produce the electric field by separating positive charges from negative charges, in a configuration like a capacitor. So imagine that you have negative charges on a plate on the left and positive charges on a plate on the right, and an electric field in between. In order to produce the electric field you have had to do work on the charges to separate them; you have expended energy in doing mechanical work on the electrons and converted that energy into the potential energy between the positive and negative charges. Now suppose what happens when your E-field produces and separates a particle-antiparticle pair. The positively charged particle will drift toward the negatively charged plate, and the negatively charged antiparticle will drift toward the positively charged plate. When they reach the plates, they will annihilate a corresponding particle or anti-particle in the plate, thus 1) radiating mass-energy in the form of photons and 2) reducing the total number of positively charged particles on the positively charged place, and negatively charged particles on the negatively charged plate, so that the E-field between the two plates will be smaller than what you started with, and total energy is conserved. Since the E-field between the two plates is reduced, you can easily see that this process cannot continue indefinitely without continuing to supply energy to build up charge again on the two plates. Therefore your friend's idea does not produce free energy.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do little kids like/want to hurt each other I just realized how mean some kids can get and I just want to know why<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Empathy, like all human traits is developed over time. Because children obviously haven't had much time on this earth, they also haven't had much time to refine their sense of empathy. You know which other groups of people have under-developed senses of empathy? Sociopaths and serial killers. The other big part of it, is that children require constant stimulation for their little cold-hearted brains. So kids will do things, just to get any sort of response. They don't quite understand that they are causing another kid agony, but they do understand that they are able to cause an effect on the other kid.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV:Realism is the most accurate theory of International Relations First, I don't think that any single theory can be 100% accurate in the social sciences. Nonetheless, I think the one theory that gets it right most of the time in IR is realism. Realism's basic tenets are 1. States are the primary actors in international politics 2. The international system is anarchic 3. All states are rational actors who seek to maximize their self-interests 4. States value security above all else More specifically I believe that John Measheimer's offensive realism is the most accurate. Mearsheimer argues that states seek to maximize power in order to ensure their security. I think that realism is the most accurate because historically it's how states behave. Even when people state realism is dead, as they did at the end of the Cold War, it always seems to come back as it has recently with events like Crimea. I also think that non-realist states get out-competed by realist ones which forces them to act realist. Finally, in talking to actual foreign policy makers they seem to mostly fall in the realist camp, especially those who have been in the game for a long time. If anarchy is what states make of it, they have decided to make it realist. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The theory of rational actors needs to be applied recursively. Byzantine fell because internal factionalism made combined military efforts impossible. States are the primary actors, but they're neither monolithic nor alone. There are transnational companies, religions, etc. And at times politicians make sub-optimal foreign policies for gains at home. Tldr, it's a pretty good model, because it captures a lot of behavior in a little information. But it captures 80% tops.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What languages do you hate and why? I've had a lot of discussions with my peers about certain languages they hate (like Typescript and Python), and I was wondering what feelings a larger community has about those and other languages out there.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant i'm a software engineer and not a computer scientist, so this all comes from the view of writing and delivering working software. i dislike interpreted languages for the most part. so python, javascript, groovy, perl, shell scripts, etc... they're useful for quick and dirty things, but always come up short when trying to write easily maintainable code. you lose so much when you don't get compiler errors/warnings. it really only takes that first time your python script takes down prod because you forgot to write that one test case and that's something that would've been caught by a compiler in a compiled language. the above is why i actually like typescript. it's nice to have actual classes and more logical scoping of variables in addition to getting trans-compilation errors/warnings. i dislike java quite a bit because i've used c# and c# is just way more convenient to write. i dislike php because old php allowed you to write such ugly code, new php is backwards compatible and i've also never really liked the way the syntax looked. i dislike c++ because the people that write it constantly talk about performance and still write code that performs worse than it would in a managed language. not to mention all of the template and macro meta-programming that can make debugging a nightmare. ehh, i can go on and on with dislikes. there are also likes to many of the languages i've listed.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do multi-million dollar companies end up paying $0 tax?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A few ways. First thing to know is Company's only pay tax on profits, not revenue. 1. Setup headquarters in low taxing country and shift profits there. One of the big mining company's in Australia sells it's own coal to a Singapore based company they own. In Australia then pay tax on the heavily discounted rate they sold it for or possibly make a loss and pay no tax. The coal is then on sold at full rate out of the Singapore company and hey presto you've got taxed in Singapore at a lower rate. 2. There is a thing called "carried forward losses". If you make no profit in a year then you pay no tax but if you made a loss then you can use that loss in future years to offset your tax. So if a company lost $500m in a year and have taxes of $100m for the next 5 years they pay no tax.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Almost all Political Scientists agree that the Judicial Branch is the weakest because it lacks the power to properly enforce their rulings. In order to fix this, the Courts must be given power to impeach politicians of the other branches who ignore and fail to enforce these rulings. When the branch was formed, Alexander Hamilton said that it lacked the checks that the other branches have (Congress can impeach a president for abuse of power and defund parts of the executive branch, and pass constitutional amendments to override the Supreme Court, and the president has the power to veto and nominates the Justices). When a Supreme Court ruling is declared, they have no power to enforce that it is implemented, an example is after Brown v Board of Education Eisenhower didn't enforce any implementation until violence broke out in Little Rock, Arkansas and yet there still were segregated schools for at least 20 years after this ruling. The checks in 'checks and balances' is the ability to overrule a branch that is becoming too powerful. Therefore, in order for the Supreme Courts to have that power, they must be able to impeach and remove from office anyone who refuses to act on these decisions. _____ If you have other ways that you think will give the courts the proper 'checks' that the other branches do, don't be afraid to mention them!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The whole idea of checks and balances is that the other two can counter the third. Executive appoints SCOTUS and Legislative approves. Impeachment is made by Legislative and ~~adjudicated by SCOTUS~~ presided over by the Chief Justice, etc. What a terrifying thought that 5 justices could remove a duly elected president on their own? Or a Speaker of the House they disagreed with? Nope, agreement between two branches makes a lot more sense. EDIT: Clarified SCOTUS role in Impeachment per /u/kilgoretrout71 - thanks!<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How is it possible to treat allergies by repeatedly presenting the antigene to desentize but when you vaccinate (and booster) an antigene presentation trains the immune system to fight said antigene?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A classical vaccine typically contains two things: an antigen and an adjuvant. The antigen is what you're training the immune system to recognize, and the adjuvant is a more generic substance that lets the immune system know there's something dangerous going on. If you only give an antigen, that danger sign is absent, and the immune system instead "learns" that this antigen is not dangerous. PS: Newer vaccine technologies sometimes don't include the actual antigen, but instead a recipe for making it (either mRNA or DNA). mRNA vaccines also don't always need the adjuvant, because encapsulated RNA itself can work as a "danger signal."<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 Why do we cringe? Whenever we see someone doing something bad or embarrassing we personally feel some sensation a sort of embarrassment even though we clearly did not do anything. What is the science behind this 😬?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I believe it's more along the lines of psychology rather than biology. Your body isn't functioning because it saw something--your body is reacting due to the signals sent by your brain observing something.<\|im_end\|>

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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