Split (1)

train · 52.8k rows

text stringlengths 82 65.5k
<\|im_start\|>user Why does a liquid run down the side of a glass when pouring it? When I pour a liquid from a mug into another container, it runs down the side of the mug. Why does this happen?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Due to both the high surface energy of the ceramic surface and the lower interfacial energy of the ceramic-water interface. The lowest energy state is when the water is covering the ceramic and so the water will adhere to the mug as it is poured out.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does radiation poisoning actually kill people?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Radiation actively damages your DNA and other molecules in your cells. It can cause DNA mutations, strand breaks and whole chromosome breaks. Without an intact genome, the cell can't carry out all its functions and will either make a decision to undergo controlled cell death (apoptosis) or if the damage is too severe uncontrolled cell death (necrosis) may occur. Severe radiation poisoning causes an acute destruction of cells, whereas prolongued exposure to harmful levels of radiation makes you more susceptible to cancers due to the mutating nature of the radiation.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do our mouths get dry when we breathe through them, but not our noses? Just another one of those thoughts<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Your body has developed each body part to suit it's task. Your nose is designed for breathing - to suit this your body lines it with a thicker mucous (snot) that will keep it moist while breathing. Your mouth on the other hand has more complex tasks - eating, speaking and so on. To this end it is beneficial that your mouth uses a different fluid (spit) that is a lot thinner - this means it won't provide the same coating or protection that a thicker mucous will, and it will dry quite quickly. Instead the thinner fluid will be much more appropriate for jobs like eating - where our body will use the fluid to break down the food and help aide travel and digestion through out bodies.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does the warm, humid air of a shower "open up" my sinuses, yet the cold, dry winter air also "opens up" my sinuses.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant They both work in different ways. The humidity of the shower wets the mucus that coats your sinuses, allowing it to flow better and making it less viscous. The cold dry air stimulates the flow of mucus, a normal physiologic response to prevent nasal dryness. The cold air can also constrict blood vessels in your nasal cavity, which has the effect of expanding the interior nasal airway and bringing down tissue swelling.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why don't we see any main sequence Red Giants or Blue Dwarfs? Pretty simple question, probably with a pretty simple answer. Blue Dwarfs are a theoretical stage of life for Red Dwarfs, that much I know, but why don't we see any small main sequence Blue stars? Is it just not possible to get that hot and that small? And the same goes for Red Giants - all the big stars seem to be Blue. Why are none of them Red? Why is that only the dying stage of a larger star?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A star's evolution is mostly driven by just two numbers: its initial mass, and its age. Almost all stars of the same mass will go through the same evolutionary stages at the same ages. We see a diversity of stars because stars were formed at different times and with different masses. There are other effects, but they are secondary effects, and you can understand most of what's going on by just looking at mass and age. In the "main sequence", a star burns hydrogen in the core through nuclear fusion. This process is extremely sensitive to temperature: doubling the temperature can produce 100x as much power (and consume Hydrogen 100x faster). A more massive star has a higher pressure and temperature in the centre, and produces a lot more heat than a less massive star. This sets the colour of the star. A cool star is red. A warmer star is orange or yellow. The hottest stars are white, then blue. This also sets the age of the star. A massive star will burn its fuel much faster than a low mass star - so fast that it completely overwhelms the fact that it has more fuel to start with. Our Sun has a life-time of maybe 10 billion years. A star 8x the mass of our Sun will only live for millions of years - thousands of times shorter. A star 10% of the mass of our Sun will live for trillions of years - no red dwarf star has died "of old age" in the history of the universe. This is a tight and very strong relation. You have long-lived low-mass cool red stars, short-lived high-mass hot blue stars, and everything in the middle. You don't get small bright blue stars (on the main sequence) because small stars don't have enough gravity to produce enough pressure to get that hot. Late in life, things get more complicated, and this tight relation breaks down. Stars will run out of hydrogen fuel in the core, and go through stages of burning helium and heavier elements, and/or burning fuel in a shell around the core. These tend to puff up the star through increased pressure, and you end up with bright burning core or shell, surrounded by very large but low density "atmosphere", which is somewhat cool just because it's so spread out that each chunk of gas isn't getting that much heat going through it. Because they are large in size (although note they haven't gained any mass), and are cool, they are "red giants". Once a star completely runs out of fuel, it will run out of pressure and collapse. This can be accompanied by a dramatic explosion as new reactions occur at the extreme densities you get from stuff collapsing without support. That's where you get supernovae and so on. The compression also generates a lot of heat, so you're left with an extremely hot and dense remnant. These are neutron stars and white dwarfs and so on. Just to sum up: during the "main sequence", stars have a very simple evolution that depends almost entirely on the starting mass, which sets the pressure and temperature, and therefore reaction rate, at the core of the star. Massive stars are hot and blue and short-lived, low mass stars are cool and red and long-lived. But once the hydrogen in the core is used up, the simple relationship is broken, and all sorts of interesting things happen.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: When we take a first bite, and we perceive taste, what is happening between the tastebuds and the brain in order for me to experience that perception? Beyond that, what am I actually tasting - the food item itself, or my brain's reaction to that food item?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Imagine you have a computer with a sensor. You stick something in the sensor and the computer chemically analyzes it, then tries to tell you what it is based on that analysis. That's pretty much all your tastebuds are doing; detecting the chemical composition of your food and telling your brain. The "good" or "bad" labels are evolutionary adaptations to help us distinguish between food that's safe to eat and food that isn't.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How you can survive getting a limb blown off, but if a main artery gets cut you bleed out and die.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It all depends on how quickly you gain medical attention, the size of your blood vessels, stress of the patient, and where exactly you get hit. Your body has actually evolved to automatically retract your blood vessels to shunt off the flow of bloo if you are missing a limb, but a cut in one of your vessels doesn't allow them to retract into the body so that you'll quit bleeding out.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do our fingers curl up when the hands are laid down on a horizontal surface, instead of them laying flat as well?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant the how is covered, now to the why: a strong grip is more important than a strong finger-straightening. having your tendons balanced in a way that causes the fingers to curl by default means you get a little extra force to your grip it's kinda like the springs in a garage door that naturally pull up, so lifting the door doesnt take much more strength than pulling it down<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does food heated in the microwave taste much worse than food heated through other means? If I put a slice of pizza in the oven, it comes out delicious, but the same slice of pizza in the microwave is not.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Microwaves work by heating up the water contained in your food, the heat in the water warms all the other matter in your food along with it. So basically it's like boiling the food from the inside. As you can imagine a boiled pizza is not going to taste as good as a pizza that is dry heat cooked in an oven.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How can I be a good leader if I'm just as unexperienced as everyone else? I'm a current undergrad in a research experience position in physics. Myself and the other undergrads are all being sent to our country's telescope array to spend 24hrs taking observations and then a week analysing the data. Since there are about 12 of us in total, they're splitting us into groups with separate projects to do, and I have been appointed a kind of 'PI' for one group since the observations directly relate to the work I'm currently doing. None of the supervisors are going on the trip, so I could very likely be the only person at the telescope compound who has any knowledge of this particular niche field of astronomy. My knowledge is obviously very limited and likely incorrect in places, so I'm worried that I won't be able to effectively lead my group in both observation and data analysis. At least one group member actually has no physics background at all, and is instead doing mechatronics with a project involving some of the telescope systems and data storage. I'm quite a bit of a perfectionist and I enjoy working long hours, which I suspect will be a little at odds with some of the team members' preferences, after having already worked near them for over a month now. I also have trouble explaining things effectively, because the things that are obvious to me, are not to others, and vice versa. Generally, I'm concerned that I'm not really 'leader' material. I have no qualifications or real experience to warrant having a position of power over my peers, and am in fact the youngest. I'm worried that the other students might resent me for this fact, as they're incredibly competitive and were not happy that I was given the job, or that my project was chosen over theirs. However, having me lead this project is incredibly important to both my supervisors here and my professors at my home university, and I understand that not only is this an opportunity for priceless experience, but that I'll likely have to take a leadership position some time in the future. As such, relinquishing the position doesn't seem like a good move, and I imagine I'd only be disappointed in myself if I did. So what kind of things should I focus on when trying to lead this group, keeping in mind my general inexperience?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant First, it's a really good sign that you're self aware enough to seek insight on how to lead people. Many terrible leaders are that way because they lack empathy and self awareness; you've already gotten past the first step. There are so many books and articles on leadership and many of them are terrible. I'll just cover a few high level points. First, people have different interaction frameworks and different skill profiles. Recognizing that there are differences and working to allow different frameworks opportunities to contribute is key to maximizing the capacity of a team. For example, some people are intuitive and quick. They see "the solution" immediately and want to get working right away. This framework, if left unchecked, will likely prevent quiet, thoughtful, individuals from participating completely. Be conscious of these differences. Second, it's a good idea to formalize some rules for the group to keep that thoughtfulness present. Ground rules can go a long way towards keeping groups happy and effective. For example, how are decisions going to be made? How will discussions be structured? What are the expectations around contributing? An example of this in your case is what are the work hours? If you want to work from 7 am until midnight every day is there going to be a feeling that is expected of everyone? Will people who need more rest feel excluded? Feel free to ask any additional questions you have as well. Good luck!<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: It shouldn't be mandatory to tip waiters. Here's my reasoning: Tipping waiters, although not mandatory, is highly frowned upon if not done, especially in the US. In Europe and others continents, tipping is seen as optional and NOT an expectation, due to them having a solid hourly rate. In America, if waiters don't make enough money off tips to match their hourly salary, they are compensated for it to ensure that they are making atleast minimum wage (or their agreed hourly pay IIRC). Because of these rules, why should I, as a customer, have to pay 20% of the total cost of a meal ON TOP of the amount for the meal? It almost feels more like a social obligation than anything else, which is infuriating, since I can rarely afford to go out to eat often anyways. _____ > 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 Would you be happy if everything was just 20% more expensive and the waiters were properly paid for their time? It seems that we both agree that waiters should just be paid a fair wage, but what's the difference to the customer to having the tip included in the meal price to begin with or the tip being 'mandatory'? Either way it's the same cost to you. >Because of these rules, why should I, as a customer, have to pay 20% of the total cost of a meal ON TOP of the amount for the meal? It seems from your perspective it's actually a benefit to you, the customer. If you get horrible service you get the option to pay the waiter less instead of being forced to pay a higher price for the food + service as one. In the US system, tipping isn't an extra cost on the food. It's the fair cost of food which is why it's basically mandatory. Also, it isn't actually mandatory. When you get absolute shit service, waters not being refilled etc, give them 0%.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How accurate are step trackers? will 2 person of different physical size burn same no. of calories on doing an identical run ( same speed and distance ), does body metabolism matter outside of all physical aspects in such cases?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Some trackers try to account fir the inaccuracies by logging a certain kind of movement, allowing you to adjust stride length and enter your weight and height etc. but they’re never going to be totally accurate (neither is a calorie counter that tracks your meals). That said, it doesn’t mean they’re useless. The data logged still gives you an indication of whether you mixed more or less than the previous day and how that’s trending with time. It should be roughly inaccurate to the same degree fir the same person one day to the next, so still useful for tracking progress, but not necessarily for comparing one person with another beyond a ballpark number.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: If a person was raised without any comprehension of language, what would the voice inside their head sound like when thinking about something? Could any advanced thought processes even take place?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Language seems to be necessary for complex thought. Children raised in such a way as to not be exposed to a language during critical early years display significant cognitive deficits, in particular a difficulty in learning language when given the opportunity. Many children raised in confinement or "feral children" often never learn to speak a real language and generally have difficulty with a wide range of mental tasks.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why or why can't we use cloud seeding to fight forest fires? I recently learned that making man made clouds are a real thing that have been used to stave off droughts and that parts of China have been regularly using this tech. If so, can we use it to fight forest fires like the fires that have been so devastating in Australia? If not, why?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You need clouds to start with. Cloud seeding just gives the moisture in clouds something to form drops around, so it just makes sense in the narrow band of conditions between rain clouds forming and it raining anyway. Seeding the Australian air to make rain works as well as throwing seeds at your blow drier to make crops.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why does my nose get all runny when it's cold outside?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Your nose serves two purposes: to warm and humidify the air. When it is cold and dry outside, your nose works really hard to add moisture to the air coming in through your nose, however some times some of that fluid may start to run out of your nose. Additionally, when breathing out through your nose, the warm and moist air from your body hits the cold air and causes the moisture to condense on the outside of your nose, further increasing the amount of fluid running out of your nose.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why are gun control laws being decided at a national level while issues such as gay marriage/rights are mostly left for states to decide? I know that gay marriage/rights have been decided at a national level in some instances, but it is still up to individual states to pass/deny gay marriage. In addition, states also have their own gun control laws. So, why is gun control such a heated topic on the national level at this time?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Some laws are passed at a federal level when they are believed to be independent of states' individually differing needs. Additional laws are passed at a state level based on what representatives see fit for their own specific state. Because federal laws need to apply to everyone, they are often met with more resistance and debate. They typically take longer to pass. Currently, the laws banning same sex marriage are at the state level, and it is easier to repeal these individually than to make one constitutional ammendment declaring same sex marriage a right, and these bans unconstitutional. It's also worth noting that much of the legislation surrounding guns is at the state level.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How Steven Hawking and Neil Degrasse Tyson's theories help the field of astronomy? How does knowing their idea's on string theory and black holes help us compared to not knowing them?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Hawking's ideas help us look for black holes. He was the one who proved that black holes emit radiation (hence "Hawking radiation"), so we know that if we want to find a black hole, we should look for Hawking radiation. This is extremely useful since black holes are... well, black, and do not emit any other sort of radiation like light for us to see. They're thus pretty damn tricky to detect. Hawking also was the one who laid the theoretical groundwork behind warp drives. Warp drives obviously do not exist yet and may never exist, but without his work we wouldn't have even known where to start with trying to make one. Neil deGrasse Tyson frankly does not have a particularly noteworthy resume in terms of his theoretical contributions to the field. He's more of an educator and public figure than a "hard" scientist. That's not to say that he doesn't know his stuff or isn't worthy of praise and respect, just that he isn't really that highly regarded as a "physicist's physicist," if that makes sense. Frankly, though, neither Hawking or NDT are really considered that highly within the physics community. They're very well respected, of course, but there are a lot of men and women who most of us have never heard of that made much larger contributions to the field over the past century. Hawking and NDT are both very good at dealing with the non-physics community, which is obviously very important.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How can social norms be changed? I mean, what efforts can you make to induce the change of a social norm?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Here's one way to look at it. In a well-known (at least within the field of political science) article titled International norm dynamics and political change (1998), Finnemore & Sikkink suggest a way of thinking about this by presenting the norm life cycle. The life cycle has three distinct stages. The first and most salient stage to your question is norm emergence. In this phase, a new (or emergent) norm is suggested by an individual or organisation referred to as norm entrepreneurs. Norm entrepreneurs typically have strong convictions or other interests that inspire them to want to shift the rules of appropriate behaviour in society. An effective norm entrepreneur calls attention to specific issues, and highlights current normative inconsistencies present within the status quo. By framing the issue in a certain narrative, they argue how the norm they are suggesting is, in fact, more appropriate. Often, frames are supported by referring to commonly held values and subsequently alluding to how these values may be threatened, or how behaviour could be improved in order to get closer to the ideal set out by said values. For example, if we everyone agrees that all men are created equal, how can we still condone slavery? If the emergent norm gains traction and gets support by enough actors, the next stages of norm cascade and, finally, norm internalisation follow. Once internalised, the new norm has become embedded in what is considered appropriate behaviour within that social context, and transgressing it could result in consequences, ranging from raised eyebrows to punishment by death.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [MCU] Is the technology behind Quill's helmet/mask similar to Tony Stark's nanobot suit? Rewatched guardians 1 today and I couldn't help but notice how similar Quill's helmet looks to Stark's nanobot suit. Both sort of dissolve in and out of existence at the press of a button, and the visual affect is very similar. Are they just two different technologies that happen to look alike, or are they the same?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The mask seems to function a little differently with light frames of parts of the mask appearing before the physical parts materialize. Stark's suit has no light show like this; just tiny robots that build continuously rather than in chunks until complete. The mask also always forms the same way; it appears to not be maleable in the way that Stark's suit is. All this suggests to me that the mask is either a lower quality of nano technology or it is a different kind of technology.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why did Aristotelian-Thomistic Metaphysics fall out of favor? And can they make a comeback in this scientifically advanced age?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant To a certain extent––Kant. Shitgenstein is definitely right vis-à-vis Descartes, but even after Descartes we see a lot of Aristotelian/Scholastic influence remain. To a certain extent, Descartes just unifies and systematizes changes which had been going on in the tradition of Scholastic metaphysics. He notes in one of the letters (I am almost certain it is the letter to Gassendi) that his collapse of the Aristotelian “accidents” into a new category of mode is just following what Suarez has already done with most of them (I believe influenced by Ockham). Moreover, certain Aristotelian/Scholastic structures make a big comeback with Leibniz and Wolff (in a sort of post-Cartesian form). It is Kant who basically banishes this kind of metaphysics (or at least does his level best). Any metaphysics after Kant basically has to contend with his subjective turn, and so it became hard to argue for an Aristotelian metaphysics in its original form. Another major turning points in which you may be interested is Duns Scotus’ transformation of the concept of “infinite.” The infinite, prior to Scotus, is considered only negatively, as indetermination (this is Aristotle’s view, and it persist throughout most of the Scholastic period). Scotus conceptualizes a _positive_ infinity, and it is this which is taken up by the early modern rationalists, Kant, and German Idealism.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why can't you absorb mercury (metal) with a sponge? If sponges absorb liquids, and mercury is a liquid metal, why can't mercury be absorbed by a sponge?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant When you pick up water with a sponge, some of the water forms very weak chemical connections with the material of the sponge. We say that the sponge is 'wettable' with water. Mercury doesn't have the same chemical properties as water, and won't make the same connections. If you had a sponge made of say, gold, it would pick up the mercury, but the mercury would also form an amalgam with the gold.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why, historically, do socialist countries often experience economic collapse?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant An open market allows consumer needs, wants, and demands to match up with producer supply spontaneously and organically. A top down planning approach fails because leaders and decision makers in overly socialized economies are not capable of actually anticipating and providing for consumer needs and wants. To bring that down a bit, you cannot build a car that fits everyone, because there is no best car for everyone. There is no diet or housing situation that is ideal for every family. In free trade each spender picks the one that best fits them, and less popular options downsize to fit their lesser needs while in a top down controlled economy that does not happen. In a socialistic society time, effort, and resources are wasted because they don't have free market signals to drive their production. You end up with things like the Trabant being forced on unwanting citizenry at prices that are very inflated compared to their actual value.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [SHIELD/MCU] Why does a secret spy organization like Hydra have a logo and why do they put it on everything? I mean way to give yourselves away. And who came up with the symbol?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Symbolism traditionally inspires. Red White and Blue is synonymous with America and it's ideals, the swastika was used as a propaganda tool for the Nazi's, Crosses are generally used for Christian based faiths. Hydra does it for the same reason. To know you shouldn't be screwing with them.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: We should strengthen the traditional safety net rather than replace it with basic income ## Section I: Why is Basic Income Increasingly Popular? "Basic income" is a policy that has broad support from both the progressive left and libertarian right. Center-left economists including Paul Krugman have endorsed the scheme for various reasons. First, BI is an effective anti-poverty measure. BI also reduces inequality by redistributing income from capital to labor. Perhaps most importantly to some on the left, is the notion that BI provides people with "freedom." Left-libertarian political economist Philippe Van Parijs argues that to be truly free, people have to have "access to the means that people need for doing what they might want to do." BI provides people those means. Some have made a feminist case for BI. Philosopher Carole Pateman writes, BI "would, for the first time, provide women with life-long (modest) economic independence and security, a major reason why it is central to democratization." Basic income, particularly in the form of a "negative income tax," is also popular among the libertarian right. With a NIT in place, much of the welfare state would be obsolete: you could get rid of food stamps, child nutrition programs, public housing, cash welfare, community development programs, Medicaid, and a host of means-tested welfare programs. It would simplify the bureaucracy, and get rid of the "unemployment trap" that occurs under the existing system. Also, basic income advocates on the right want to give people the power and authority to spend money in whatever manner they choose: they dislike how the government forces welfare recipients to use their welfare handouts on purchasing food, for example. "Benefits are often given in-kind rather than in cash precisely because the state doesn’t trust welfare recipients to make what it regards as wise choices about how to spend their money," University of San Diego's Matt Zwolinski writes. A basic income, Zwolinski continues, would change that. Basic income is "conservative" and "libertarian" because it makes individuals responsible for their own livelihoods and flourishing. If they make good decisions, so be it, if they make bad decisions, so be it. But the government shouldn't force people to use transfer payments in a particular manner. Conservatives also like "basic income" because it would allow for less regulations on the marketplace: minimum wage laws could be gutted, labor union protections could be removed, etc. Social democrats (on the left) and libertarians (on the right) often disagree on how to fund a basic income scheme. Some leftists prefer keeping a progressive tax system in place to redistribute income and lower income inequality. However, libertarians would prefer a "flat" tax without any tax brackets. One way to the two groups could come together is if they coalesced around a "negative income flat tax," which is both flat but has a progressive effect, appealing to the right and left. Another possible way to fund the BI scheme is to have a "progressive consumption tax," supported by individuals on the right and left. "Land value taxes" are also supported by the right and left. Moreover, there are also several liberal economists who agree with free-market economists that capital gains and dividends taxes tax savings, and corporate taxation is double taxation. So realistically, if the right and left came together, and had to compromise, they would settle on either a "negative income flat tax" or a "progressive consumption tax." (And possibly a land value tax could be thrown into the mix). ## Section II: Automation and Unemployment A big reason why people of all political persuasions are becoming interested in basic income is due to automation. Some project that structural unemployment due to automation and globalization will dramatically increase over the next several decades, and no government in the world has devised a solid plan to deal with this. They fear that automation may occur at such a rapid pace that the structure of the economy may fundamentally change, in which supply for human labor perpetually exceeds demand. Therefore, we need to decouple humanity from work, and transition into a society more based on leisure (which Keynes predicted would happen eventually). Essentially, it's not imperative that we build a human society based on work when so many jobs will be automated. And in fact, a basic income scheme may be the only way to shoulder such a huge influx of unemployed individuals. Existing welfare schemes weren't designed to deal with extreme levels of unemployment, and may be overwhelmed in the future. ## Section III: Economizing on Human Labor I think these are excellent points in favor of a basic income scheme. However, here are my rebuttals. I concede that improvements in artificial intelligence and robots will decrease the demand for human labor in the short-term. However, I am not convinced that this will necessarily persist in the long-term and dramatically decrease permanent employment levels. Traditionally, innovation and technological improvements have lead to structural unemployment through creative destruction. But this was considered a positive development b/c human labor could be allocated to new enterprises. Economizing on human labor would improve the dynamism and efficiency of the macroeconomy. Retraining people or putting them through higher education has worked in the past, and has allocated human labor into new sectors. I'm not convinced that this won't be possible in the future. But say technological unemployment does occur. That doesn't mean we can't combat if we act quickly. MIT economists Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, in their book The Second Machine Age, argue that while a basic income would replace the lost income resulting from mass unemployment, it wouldn't replace the lost "self-worth, community, engagement, healthy values, structure, and dignity" people gain from work. They instead argue that we should successfully enable humans to successfully "rage against" the machines through investing in expanded education and wage subsidies. One way to increase the supply of human labor would be to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit (which kind of acts like a small scale negative income tax, but it works alongside other transfers and welfare schemes). We could further subsidize human labor, paying employers to hire humans instead of robots. We could establish a scheme where humans own some of the robots, and rent them out to corporations. Another option is to reduce work hours to accommodate more humans, while paying humans a wage subsidy. There are many options besides "the human workforce will be hollowed out anyway, so screw it, let's accept that humans won't have to work." I disagree with the notion that human beings on a large scale will be able to have meaningful lives in a "work-free" environment that basic income would provide them. Work will be fundamental to humans in the foreseeable future. Moreover, say basic income is politically off the table. It would be in employers' self interest to retain some workers, or provide them some means with which to earn a living. If there are fewer and fewer people to actually do work, there won't be any consumers for the producers employers produce with their robots. Therefore, employers likely will too push for wage subsidies, lowered work hours, subsidies employment, and expanded EITC, etc. They wouldn't be okay with the status quo b/c it harms their profits. And moreover, automation will vastly increase supply, helping create an abundance of goods and services, moving our society closer toward post-scarcity. As a result, prices for good and services will be pretty low, so workers won't need as high wages to consume them. ## Section IV: Why Conditional Cash Transfers Beat Unconditional Basic Income I also argue that it actually makes sense to have targeted welfare programs: food stamps, conditional cash-transfers, child nutrition programs, public housing, maternity and paternity care, sick leave policies, collective bargaining, free college, single-payer healthcare, etc. And I would like to see such a welfare scheme funded through a progressive income tax system (under which capital gains is taxed at the same rate as ordinary income), in addition to corporate taxes, and property taxes. I oppose the progressive consumption tax, a flat tax, and a land value tax. Food stamps, SNAP benefits, other forms of welfare and social security are all a necessity because you cannot have a system that relies on the rational actions of its participants. People will act irrationally: they will not spend their basic income in a way that guarantees their well-being, and society will incur enormous costs as a result in homelessness, food insecurity, crime, and drug abuse. Behavioral economics has shown that humans aren't rational actors: rather they have "bounded rationality: "bounded rationality is the idea that when individuals make decisions, their rationality is limited by the information they have, the cognitive limitations of their minds, and the time available to make the decision." In cases where humans naturally make optimal economic decisions, I am in favor of free-markets and against government intervention. In cases where individual economic decisions result in poor outcomes, I am in favor of government intervention to improve outcomes. Information failure is a microeconomic market failure in which consumers underconsume or overconsume a good due to imperfect information. Take healthcare for example. For example, take vaccinations. In neoclassical microeconomics, they are viewed as "merit" goods that are under-consumed due to information failure. The net private benefit is not fully recognized at the time of consumption. People may not anticipate that they my get sick in the future, and they won't recognize the benefits to their future selves for getting inoculated now. Moreover, inoculation (via vaccines or another method) is a positive externality that has external benefits to society: if you protect yourself, others around you are less likely to become sick. However, when people purchase goods, they don't take into account external benefits or costs, leading to underconsumption. In the market for vaccinations, it makes sense to increase consumer demand for vaccines through mandating people to take vaccines. Such targeted governmental intervention in the market actually improves outcomes, and moves the equilibrium quantity more toward the socially optimal level of consumption. Moreover, a strong justification for the existence of our Social Security social insurance program is that while some people are rational actors, many others are not. Many don't exercise a lot of foresight: without forcing them to pay payroll taxes to fund Social Security, many people would not have income for themselves after they retire. People may not plan for the future and invest in private sector retirement or pension plan, like a 401k. Social Security a successful anti-poverty and social insurance program that ensures that people have some money after they retire. In this case, social engineering (forcing people to join a government retirement plan) actually improves outcomes in the economy and society through lower poverty and inequality, and greater financial security for elders. That's why I support conditional cash transfer programs instead of unconditional basic income. Forcing people to enroll their children in schools, visiting the doctor, and getting vaccinations are successful in overcoming the poverty trap and facilitating upward mobility, more so than UBI. It forces people who would otherwise make bad decisions for themselves and society to make more optimal decisions. Proponents of basic income argue that it's better to give people the freedom to use their handouts in whatever way the want, but we can have awareness campaigns educating people on how to improve their spending habits. To BI proponents, sure, recipients may portion their money out in ways that may not be the most reasonable, but given regularly cash they will still make rent and buy food. The above is definitely true for a rational actor. But for a drug addict? The mentally ill? Will they spend their basic income on housing and food? Or will their BI disappear and meanwhile the safety net drops out from under them? I would rather have a conditional cash transfer system for such individuals, otherwise society as a whole will incur costs from their poor decisions. Replacing in kind programs entirely with a BIwould result in some consequences that BI supporters are not considering. I'm afraid that if the BI did replace public services, businesses would be there to snap up a lot of that money in housing or medical care or whatever else the moment that payday came around. They will be more exploitative for drug addicts than the government. I'm afraid that there ARE people (not poor people or rich people in particular at all) who will act irrationally based on mental illness or drug addiction or something else, who will require the forms of assistance that would be replaced by a BI scheme. ## Section V: Does the Welfare Trap Truly Exist? Moreover, libertarian supporters of UBI/NIT bring up the "welfare-trap" that exists in means tested welfare programs. I did a pretty lengthy search and could find no actual numerical data to confirm that this effect is significant. There are too many conflicting motivations at play, too many demographics, too many differing situations to say for certain our current welfare system turns people into lazy bums who won't seek work. Most welfare recipients today, given the opportunity, would prefer a steady cash income and the opportunity to advance to a stagnant and unproductive life on welfare. They want to look for work. ## Section VI: Traditional Welfare and Entrepreneurship The traditional welfare state has shown to be successful in the social democratic nations of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and to a lesser extent, Canada. They reduce excessive inequality and poverty, while also facilitating upward mobility. People aren't trapped in poverty. Moreover, the traditional welfare state is more efficient than many people claim. The Roosevelt Institute's Mike Konczal argues that in the existing welfare state, "there are relatively few programs and they are run at a decent administrative cost." Proponents of BI argue that UBI would facilitate entrepreneurship, [but it's not as if the current welfare schemes that currently exist in the western world discourage start-ups.](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/welfare-makes-america-more-entrepreneurial/388598/) ## Section VII: Keynesian Automatic Stabilizers From a macroeconomic perspective, many New Keynesian economists believe that transfer payments (unemployment insurance, food stamp payments, Social Security, conditional cash-transfers, etc) help macroeconomic stability by acting as automatic stabilizers. Supporters of UBI often criticize the current welfare scheme on the grounds that costs fluctuate with the performance of the economy. However, fluctuating costs makes sense if you use a Keynesian framework. Higher welfare payouts during recessions help stabilize consumption (and investment via the accelerator effect) during demand-deficient recessions by increasing people's disposable income; during demand-pull inflation, cutbacks in welfare spending decrease people's disposable incomes, which helps close the inflationary gap (when too much money is chasing too few goods). I'm not convinced that UBI would be better to our current welfare scheme with regards to acting as an automatic stabilizer. ## Section VIII: Imperfect Competition in Labor Markets Furthermore, deregulating the marketplace through passing "right-to-work" laws and removing minimum wage legislation after BI is passed may worsen outcomes. Even if workers are given an income floor, corporations can still artificially reduce pay in oligopsonistic and monopsonistic markets. Within these imperfect labor market structures, minimum wage laws and collective bargaining laws actually help increase efficiency and equity. ## Section IX: The Superiority of Progressive Income Taxes Regarding the funding side, I oppose forgoing our progressive income tax system in favor of a flat tax. Given that income inequality is rising in developed nations due to globalization, automation, and a host of other factors, moving to a flat tax would exacerbate this inequality. A flat tax would shift tax burden away from the rich, to the middle and lower class. It would result in the elimination of deductions may have a positive impact on taxpayers with lower income (such as the EITC). The government wouldn't be able to use tax code to encourage desirable activities, such as giving tax credits for making a home more energy-efficient (energy efficiency is a positive externality with which governments can promote sustainable growth that doesn't lead to environmental degradation). Moreover, government revenues would drastically decrease, making it difficult to fund universal healthcare, free K-12, and a host of other measures. Proponents say flat taxes don't discriminate based on income level; everyone pays the same percent of income. This argument, however, assumes the marginal benefit of earning a dollar is always the same. To me, it's common sense that the marginal utility of the dollar decreases as income increases. The flat tax isn't regressive in the strictest sense (it's not as if the tax RATE is being increased as you go down the income-ladder). but it can be considered regressive in that the burden is disproportionately felt by lower income families. Necessities, such as expenses for food, clothing, and shelter tend to make make up a higher percentage of a lower income consumer's overall budget. True, this can be mitigated by allowing a rebate on purchases of necessities; since the value of money is still inversely related to income however, the system would continue to be unequal. A rebate would just be a band-aid fix. Also in practice, many of the "flat tax" proposals by conservative politicians don't treat income equally. Yes, they may have a flat rate on income taxes. But they would lower or possibly eliminate taxes on investments, such as capital gains, dividends, carried interest, etc, that disproportionately benefit the rich. These proposals keep in place loopholes that benefit such top earners. Given that the "progressive consumption tax scheme," another tax scheme favored by BI proponents, would also invariably lower or eliminate taxes on capital gains, dividends, carried interest, etc., I'm opposed to that too. Some economists oppose capital gains taxes, asserting that they are a tax on savings. We're engaging in "double taxation." People already pay tax on their income, and then they invest some of their savings into stocks, bonds, etc. Then when they sell their assets for a profit, they pay an additional tax on that. Dividends taxes are also double taxation (corporations pay a corporate tax first and then investors pay a dividends tax on dividend payouts). From a theoretical perspective, it all makes sense to eliminate capital gains and dividends taxes, because theoretically, they discourage savings. However, this theory does not reflect reality, and higher capital gains tax rates haven't really affected the economy. Even Ronald Reagan raised the capital gains tax rate, and believed income from labor and investment should be taxed at an equal rate. In the real world, through a higher capital gains rate, you can make a significant dent in income inequality w/o many adverse economic effects. Basically, the economic distortions from "double taxation" that economists warn us about don't have that great of an effect on the real world. There is no significant statistical economic relationship between capital gains rates and economic growth (refuting aspects of supply side economics). Also the lower capital gains rate could ironically create economic distortions itself: ["The enormous tax savings available likely lure too many highly productive people into the private equity business, drawing them away from other potentially more socially valuable enterprises."] (http://www.vox.com/2015/3/17/8226915/rubio-lee-tax-plan) A "progressive consumption tax," while superior to a flat tax (and less regressive), is inferior to a progressive income tax. The PCT would almost assuredly increase wealthy inequality: since wealthy would be consuming less and investing more, they'd grow their net wealth even faster than the current pace. This is an unintended effect of the PCT, which would tax consumption and would incentivize savings. Given that automation will increase wealth inequality, it doesn't seem like a good idea to me to exacerbate the trend by gutting capital gains taxes and adopting the PCT. Proponents of the PCT argue that progressive income taxes discourage work due to high marginal rates, but the actual extent to which these market distortions occur in the real world are exaggerated a lot. Even if we had strong inheritance taxes to counteract wealth inequality, a PCT is inferior to a PIT, because with the latter, the government can still use the tax code to encourage desirable activities. Progressive income taxes also protect taxpayer during hard times - when income goes down, the tax rate also goes down As I said, I don't believe that human beings are always rational, so social engineering in certain instances can improve outcomes. Finally, I oppose the land value tax, another tax scheme favored by many BI opponents, and I instead support the traditional property tax. A land value tax would exacerbate economic inequality. If property taxes were were only based on the value of the land, rich people would buy small lots in cheap areas, build massive mansions worth millions, and pay almost no taxes.Then the working class people who buy small homes on small lots in the city (where dirt is worth more) would be paying more in taxes. I support a progressive tax system because I'm of the belief that you should pay what you can. If you can afford an expensive house, you can afford to pay taxes on the value of the house, including the improvements built on that house. ## Section X: Conclusion I believe an unconditional basic income scheme, including in all of its flavors (negative income tax, citizen's dividend, demogrant, social wage, etc.) is ultimately a pretty flawed scheme. I view the traditional western social safety net as superior. For the reasons above, I feel that it's better for society to expand the traditional social safety net rather than dismantle it completely and replace with a UBI or NIT scheme. I support basic income in addition to the existing scheme (like how the EITC works alongside other tax credits and welfare programs), but I oppose scraping the traditional welfare state.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant your position rests on the assumption that most people, given ideal education and social environments, have the ability to do just about any job as well as anyone else. this assumption runs counter to the available data regarding the heritability of psychological traits and limits of environmental intervention. the reason this is significant is that there is a solid chance a great number of people will not have the interest or ability to transfer into these new areas of the economy no matter what programs are in place to assist them. even in the wildest post scarcity economic dream, the idea that each person has the ability, creativity, and will to provide valued service seems pretty far fetched. so what do we do to feed these people? ever more programs for this and that, further bloating our bureaucracy and keeping money from the people that need it to live?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do children get leukemia more frequently than other types of cancers?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Most cancers are due in part to some external source, such as radiation (including from the sun) or carcinogenic compounds. Exposure to these carcinogens has a chance of producing mutated cells which are cancerous. Since exposure to some extent is unavoidable, it's simple mathematics that the longer you live, the more often you are exposed and the more likely you are to develop a form of cancer. Additionally, many cancers take some time before they develop into a medical problem. For the most part, it is unlikely that a child has lived long enough to develop cancer. Leukemia is a cancer that is particularly influenced by hereditary factors, and is also fast-acting compared to certain other cancers. Hence it is both more likely to begin at a young age and to develop into a medical problem (which leads to diagnosis) while the person is still young, compared to other cancers. But leukemia does not uniquely affect children; most cases of leukemia are in adults. It is just that children are comparatively less likely to have other cancers.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 How is time to death calculated in terminally I'll patients?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Usually just an educated guess by the doctors who from experience have seen so many they can give a good estimate based on the condition of the patient, the severity of their symptoms and the rate of decline. Basically they compare it to lots of other patients with similar diseases.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Does Nietzsche comment on enlightenment values in any way similar to his comparisions between judeo-christian and presocratic greek moralities?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Maybe not as a whole, but definitely in certain measures. We might find, for instance, a bit of the Will to Truth in the Enlightenment project of scientific reason. (Nietzsche is not down with the Will to Truth.) Similarly, we find in the political values of the Enlightenment commitments to freedom, liberty, and some measure of egalitarianism. Nietzsche has a complicated relationship with the first two (he thinks of freedom being a slave value in some contexts) and has some rather infamous problems with egalitarianism. Nietzsche is willing to critique almost any value since his critique is not leveled so much at particular values as it is leveled against certain modes of valuation and even valuation as such.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What area of economics is most lucrative for a prospective PhD student?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Probably econometrics and go into a tech firm as a data scientist with specialty in causal inference. There's also lucrative jobs as a quant but you are probably better off with a PhD in math/physics/CS for those. Could also do Industrial Organization and go into consulting if that's more to your taste.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do medications tend to give us the same common side effects (ie nausea, dry mouth etc.)?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Your body is connected and built on a foundation of systems which all communicate and respond to each other. Changes in one system tend to cause responses in many others. Nausea, dry mouth, and other common side effects are usually caused by changes in the sympathetic (fight-or-flight) and parasympathetic (rest-and-digest) nervous systems. This is important, because many medications influence these two systems either directly or indirectly. For example, nausea and dry mouth usually come from stimulation of the fight-or-flight system. When your body is "stimulated" this way, you shut down certain functions to focus energy elsewhere. We use drugs like pseudoephedrine for colds, or Adderall for ADHD, and these all activate that system. Beyond that, lots of other drugs will increase fight-or-flight in a roundabout way. Indirectly, any treatment that makes a difference is probably going to have some influence on how "fight-or-flight" or "rest-and-digest" your body is.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: WTF is the number after classes in the US? Informatics 101, etc.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant 100 and 200 level class are general education and introductary classes to a subject. Usually they can be taken by anyone regardless of major. 300 and 400 level classes are more advanced classes and are generally only for the people who are involved in a major for those classes. All 100 to 400 level classes are for undergrads 500 and 600 level classes are for graduate students. 700 and above are usually for doctoral candidates and some grad students. The number after the hundreds, such as 101, or 102. Just designates a specific number for the class, and many schools treat it differently. Usually a 101 class is the first class (or basic class) in any subject. Sometimes classes are in a sequence as well, such as 351 and 352. As in it may say MATH 351 Algebra, then MATH 352 Algebra 2.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why don't people with hypertension eat equivalent amounts of potassium rather than limiting sodium intake? We know sodium can increase blood pressure and make hypertension worse, some people avoid/limit sodium in food. Wouldn't eating potassium in proportion to one's sodium intake significantly reduce risks while maintaining quality of life? Why I'm asking? I searched and found eating potassium is an effective way of controlling high blood pressure but no one I know with hypertension does it. Is there something I'm missing or they should start doing this. Edit: e.g. what if someone eats 1g of Sodium chloride with their food and then eats 1g potassium chloride or (however much is needed to balance the consumed sodium). Edit: not advice or suggestion of any kind, purely academic question.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Increasing potassium intake can help control high blood pressure when the cause of high blood pressure is too much sodium. There are other causes of high blood pressure, such as obesity, hormonal conditions, kidney disease and sleep apnea. Potassium sparing diuretics due this without a change in diet, but are most often used in conjunction with an ACE inhibitor to reach a healthy blood pressure.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What makes a chemical able to pass the blood brain barrier? Why can theanine pass the BBB but vitamin C can't? What specifically is stopping the nutrients from most things we ingest from crossing?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Unlike in normal capillary endothelium, the endothelial cells of the cerebral capillaries are connected by tight junctions that prevent the diffusion of molecules between the endothelial cells. Normal capillaries have gaps between the cells that allow free diffusion of many molecules between them, but the cerebral capillary endothelial cells are held directly in contact with each other by the zonula occludens that forms a seal between the cells, preventing any movement of molecules from the lumen of the blood vessel in the the cerebral interstitial fluid. Thus, in order for a molecule in the blood to enter the CNS, it must pass through endothelial cells. To do this, it can take one of two pathways, diffusion or transport. To travel by diffusion it must be a small, lipophilic molecule, such as O2, CO2, NO, some hormones, etc., that will diffuse directly through the luminal plasma membrane of the endothelial cell, the cytoplasm, and then the abluminal plasma membrane. Otherwise it must be transported by the endothelial cells through a membrane protein. Transport can occur through one of many types of transport proteins, but is strictly regulated.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:How did individuals become royalty and start a legacy? How did an individual be determined as king? What was the process used to make or determine someone as royal?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The basic recipe to becoming a monarch is military power plus succession. In terms of growth, they start off convincing a bunch of their mates to go intimidate and kill enough of their neighbors that everyone around agrees to go along with whatever they wanted. Then they use that power to round up a bunch of soldiers and go threaten to kill a bunch of people from the neighboring village until they go along with the whole scheme as well. Repeat this over and over, conquering more areas, forging alliances with other leaders, and so forth, and eventually they end up commanding a significant amount of military power. All that can't usually be done in one lifetime (though sometimes it can), so you also need succession. In other words, when they die, someone needs to take over their position and have everyone agree that the new person gets to have all the power the old leader accumulated. This is frequently done through children, but sometimes an advisor or someone similar will end up in the role instead (whether by plan or by treachery). In any case, this means that the power that's been seized doesn't disappear when the leader dies. Once all that is sorted, then they just need an appropriate opportunity. Sometimes they just have a pretty big area under their control and declare themselves king. Sometimes a kingdom nearby is weak, so they march over there, defeat the king's forces, and claim the throne. Sometimes the kingdom they're nominally a part of has a monarch that dies childless or with only weak children, and so they march their forces over to the palace and tell everyone that they're king now and anyone who disagrees can talk to the big men with the swords. Sometimes they're part of a democracy or republic or something but they think that's dumb, so they march into the capital and tell everyone that they'd all be better off (ie, not dead) if they switch to a monarchy instead. No matter how you slice it, though, it pretty much always boils down to having enough people who are willing to kill anyone who disagrees that they're the monarch that nobody disagrees.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What are some popular solutions to the "Is-Ought" problem? Thanks<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A common option would be to accept that the is ought gap cannot be crossed and instead try to find axiomatic ought statements which can, when combined with other known is statements, lead to all other ought statements.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why do Acids Melt Stuff? Obviously, they don't annihilate the very atoms of a substance they come into contact with, but why do acids actually melt stuff?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Lets be clear on terms: melting describes a solid going to a liquid as a phase change (thats not whats happening here). What is typically happening when acids "melt" something is they are breaking bonds / aiding oxidation. Acids are lone pair acceptors and faciliate the oxidation of typically carbon in polymers. When that happens the target appears to melt because its actually breaking down. Its not a phase change its a chemical reaction.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Eli5 How did ancient drawings in caves survive thousands of years without wearing away completely?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Caves are protected environments. No wind, no water, few animals. The cave drawings that survive are generally in very isolated , deep parts of caves where's there even less of those factors. Prehistoric people probably drew lots more stuff in lots more places, but those places would be more affected by erosion, weather, animals, and later populations<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What happens in our brains when we realize we've driven miles/minutes and don't even remember consciously driving them? Side note- doesn't this happen in dreams? You go places and can't remember how you got there...is there a relation?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant This happens when your subconscious mind starts handling processes that you normally control consciously. Normally, you're paying attention to the road and staying alert. When you're an experienced driver, you can pass the task of staying between the lines to your subconscious, and stop being alert for hazards. Because you're performing subconsciously, your mind doesn't bother to record these times to memory, so you won't remember more than a hazy idea of driving those minutes/miles. When something snaps you out of the subconscious routine, you realize you haven't been alert for hazards, which is a decidedly unsettling feeling.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: If the South Carolina church shooting is determined to be domestic terrorism, will the government go after the white supremest leaders who radicalized the shooter or are they protected by free speech?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Depends on what the leaders said, and what can be proven that they said. ISIS is an organization that is quite open in their message of violence and hatred. If the white supremacist leaders were directly encouraging their followers to commit violence, they did so in a private venue. Should clear evidence surface to indicate that they were directly promoting violence, they can be tried for collusion, conspiracy, and all sorts of other stuff.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does sweat smell distinctively different in different areas of the body?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are two distinct types of sweat glands found in humans: the eccrine and apocrine sweat glands. While eccrine sweat glands cover every area of your body, apocrine sweat glands only appear in axillary (armpit), external genital, perianal and areolar (nipple) areas. While secretions of both glands are initially odorless. The content of apocrine sweat glands' secretion includes proteins and lipids along with water and minerals while the secretion of eccrine glands only contain water and minerals. Bacterial breakdown of the apocrine glands' secretions is what causes the odor, not the secretion itself. As there is nothing to break down, the secretion of the eccrine sweat gland remains odorless.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Businesses should use rolling periods to calculate bonuses/targets/quotas, not arbitrary periods as this creates perverse incentives by employees to game the numbers. So for example, if you are an employee of a car dealership, you may have a goal to sell, say, 30 cars a month and if you sell more, you get a bonus of, say $500 per car above 30. I believe this kind of things encourages employees and customers to act in ways that are damaging to the business and that these negative behaviors could be reduced if bonuses/quotas were instead calculated on a trailing rolling basis. So for example, in the above example you would get a daily bonus calculated by the formula: (Average cars sold per day for past 30 days - target cars sold per day)\*$500. Yes, this is slightly more complicated, but in the days of automated tracking the added complexity is negligible. By going to this system, it would stop the employee from doing things like offering price discounts, etc. in order to game the numbers in an arbitrary accounting period provided the commission they lost from being negotiable on price was less than their volume bonus. It might also cause an employee to try to shift sales in to a later month if they were below the bonus quota (so they would have a better chance of making bonus next month) and risk losing the deal as a result of the delay. Furthermore, if customers knew they no longer could get pricing power by coming in on the last day of the month/year, they would stop trying and stop expecting a discount from doing so. I have personally seen time and again, companies and individuals making horrible business decisions because they want to close deals or achieve certain goals within an arbitrary accounting period. Employees sloppily finishing a project by an arbitrary deadline, or cutting scope out of a job so they can book/complete it by a certain date. I once literally saw a team in my company find a BS reason to cut $30M of scope out of a job so they could get the contract signed by the end of the bonus period. Every time I see this, I think to myself that this most of this could be fixed by just having incentive structures that was based on trailing averages and not based arbitrary hard deadlines. While I acknowledge that the reason for using arbitrary accounting periods is also because reporting periods for public companies are also based on arbitrary periods, I feel that this is circular reasoning. If companies moved away from arbitrary accounting periods to using better thought out incentive periods, so might their investors take a longer view at financial results. I would also say that only a tiny fraction of companies are publicly traded.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The periods used to calculate employee bonuses/commissions are usually aligned with the _corporate_ reporting periods. If the business reports sales monthly then they have monthly targets they need to hit and salesperson quotas are aligned to help them hit those monthly targets. A rolling period, as you suggest, doesn't help them hit their period targets (in fact, it might hurt them) so the incentives are not there to change. In the case of car dealerships, it is about production forecasting. The car manufacturer needs to know how many cars to make in a given month because they only want to make as many cars as will get sold (inventory holding costs can get expensive). So, they give the dealerships monthly quotas in order to plan out how many cars need to get made, and bonus the dealerships on hitting the monthly sales goal. Dealerships, in turn, incentives their salespeople monthly so the dealership hits its overall sales goal and gets the dealership bonus. For publicly traded firms, you say that we should move away from arbitrary accounting/reporting periods, but that isn't going to happen. Quarterly reporting is mandated by the SEC for public companies, and Wall Street is _never_ going to shift to longer view of financial results. Your CMV has the whole process backwards - _investors_ demand quarterly earnings reports, so companies forecast quarterly and set quarterly targets, so salespeople are given quarterly quotas.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How come when we touch something hot, it takes a few seconds to realize its full hotness?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Heat is energy transfer from one object to another. Since it's not instant it takes some time for the energy to transfer. So you can grab something hot and your skin takes a moment to get enough energy or heat for your nerves to start going "TOO HOT"<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Eli5: How did humans think before language?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Concepts. If you ever get the chance with family or friends, spend some time talking with little kids who haven't been talking long. They know what they want to say, but they simply don't have a way to communicate it yet. You don't need to know what "fear" or "dark" is to know you're scared when there's no light. You don't need to know what "happy" or "cake" is to know you like the feeling you get when eating it. The emotions and observations are the same, it's the communication that breaks down without a verbal or visual way to inform others of your position and thoughts.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: If all wine is just fermented grape juice, how does one winery make a bottle that's worth $1,000 while another winery makes a bottle that's only worth $2?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The quality of the grapes, the quality of the water, age, the barrels it is aged in, what yeast is used, how much sugar was added, the temperature, fermentation time, how it was racked, etc etc etc.. Source: Brew beer at home.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How do spacecrafts locate themselves in deep space?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are several methods for spacecraft to find a reference point. There are two main categories of refereces to use, celestial and inertial. Inertial may refer to gyroscopes, a laser ring and fiber-optic laser (these sense the doppler effect that is induced in beams of light when the unit is rotated). A hemispherical resonator gyro has a standing wave moving in a fused spherical shell, when the unit is moved the resonance changes. Celestial reference can provide attitude reference by tracking the stars and triangulating its position. Solar reference uses the sun, and planetary sensors track the planets.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [alchemy] if we were to combine fire and electricity, what would it make?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Depends on the practice of Alchemy to which you are referring. Even more importantly, it depends on what you mean by combining fire and electricity. Alchemy is a broad term that covers a wide array of practices that are usually some combination of magical, physical, and spiritual. Chemistry is the most common form of Alchemy available to the masses and is completely physical. In this particular practice of Alchemy there are many ways to achieve the effect of combining fire and electricity. Looking at one: what happens when you burn a lithium battery. For starters, the electrical source is consumed by the fire, makin the fire temporarily more powerful until the electrical source is depleted. This is accompanied by an explosion and the release of toxic fumes. There are, like all alchemic practices, many other ways to combine fire and electricity in this practice. C4 with a remote trigger is an obvious example with obvious uses. Engines are a less thought of example that uses both fire and electricity. Gas stoves, electric fireplaces, the list goes on. A more magical form of Alchemy is potion making. Because of the nature of magic and spirit these two are often interlinked to some degree, but we will look at as simple a magical process as we can. The combination of a phoenix feather and a thunderbird feather in a simple base mixture has different results depending on the base mixture used and the incantation, ritual, or rite performed around it. A wizard in his tower carefully mixing them in beakers and flasks is likely going to create a potion of energy which can then be further diluted and condensed into a power stone which they can use as an energy source (both animals naturally produce their element endlessly) to help empower their magic. A witch hapazardly mixing them into a cauldron on the summer solstice is more likely to be interested in the fumes the potion is releasing, letting them spread over the countryside to cause the air (she's using bird feathers after all) to become dry and filled with electricity, setting the perfect curse of a drought and eventual lightning fire on the valley. The results of course change when different elements of the process are changed. Changing the phoenix feather to brimstone will cause the witches brew to become heavier and seep into the ground cursing the crops instead of the air. Changing the thunderbird feather to the white fur of the raiju causes the wizards potion to become less stable (the phoenix must die and be reborn and the raiju becomes active during thunderstorms). Because of this it can no longer be diluted and condensed into a consistent power stone, however, it can be thrown and explode into alchemical fire, unquenchable and unstoppable once activated. And finally, the spiritual. This is less about the physical objects used and more about the process and end result. Because of the more esoteric nature it can be hard to label this form of Alchemy but it is often used by shamans and spiritualists. A spiritualist might daily drink the tea from a tree struck by lightning. There is no real 'effect' that a potion maker would see but the spiritualist knows better. There are no changes on the first day, or the second, the third, or the fourth. It is only after a year of drinking the tea that any effects begin to show. By daily inviting the spirits of fire and lightning into their life the spiritualist has begun to surround themselves by minor spirits which slightly change the world around them. Fire might burn just a little hotter, a little longer. Lightning might strike a little more often. These aren't big changes, the spiritualist isn't interested in flashy shows like the potion makers. They simply like the spirits of fire and lightning and want to invite it into their lives. This in turn, will cause the spirits of fire and lightning to like the individual. It will take a lifetime before the effects are noticable, before major spirits decide to hang around. The spiritualist's fires will never go out unless they want them to. Rain and lightning will come almost daily. The old spiritualist, cozy by their fire, never feeling too hot or too cold, will smile as the storm rages outside and they cuddle in their rocker reading a book and sipping their tea. Shamans, on the other hand, take more direct control over the spirits. They summon sprits of fire and lightning and shove them into a vessel, creating an elemental. Similar to the wizard the shaman may use this elemental as a power source, giving strength to their other magical pursuits. Or like the witch they may release them as a curse to plague the valley with drought and lightning fires. Or they may keep them by their side as a fire/lightning elemental to burn or shock their foes. This doesn't even showcase half the ways the different practices of alchemy can combine fire and lightning. Practices that combine the physical and spiritual might deal with shoving spirits into a host giving them powers over both elements. Different components, different rituals, different power sources all play a part in the end result.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is chemical warfare considered inhumane, and demands international intervention, while other types of weapons that also kill people are allowed?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Many of the rules surrounding war are based on the principle that killing may be necessary in some circumstances, but suffering should be minimized. Things like torture, chemical weapons, weapons intended to maim but not kill are typically forbidden because they cause excessive suffering.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do certain musical notes/chords have a 'happy' or 'darker' vibe to them, and why are we automatically primed to register them as such?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant While it is partly cultural, it’s also to do with the the ratio of the frequency of different notes. Harmonies that sound good like a perfect fifth or major third have nice ratios of 3:2 and 5:4. Whereas harmonies that sound bad like the minor second and tritone have nasty ratios like 16:15 and 10:7. Its not really like this because of the way instruments are tuned but it’s a good approximation<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is taking online college level courses viewed any differently then taking the same course in class, for a secondary school?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It depends on the school from which the courses are taken. If you’re taking online courses as part of a larger program at a reputable school, it’s a non-issue. If you’re taking courses from an online only school, like Univ of Phoenix or similar, those may not be looked upon as favorably. Of course, this all depends on what you’re planning on doing with the courses later.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What was Hegel's position on and concept of Property? I ask because ideas concerning property became so important to his inheritors in the left-hegelian tradition and what came out of it. I've read POS on my own, listened to a lot of Sadler's lectures and read 3 of Hegel's lecture books, so I have some familiarity but not on this question. I'm also interested in how someone who upheld Prussian statehood became the inspiration for Communism and many Liberation movements, and how it relates to this question. I started searching online and found this so far: http://ethicalpolitics.org/seminars/neli.htm http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0199251568.001.0001/acprof-9780199251568-chapter-5 >G.W.F. Hegel's account of property centers on the contribution property makes to the development of the self, ‘superseding and replacing the subjective phase of personality’ (1967 [1821], para. 41a) and giving some sort of external reality to what would otherwise be the mere idea of individual freedom. These rather obscure formulations were taken up also by the English idealists, most notably by T.H. Green (1941 [1895]), who emphasized the contribution that ownership makes to ethical development, to the growth of the will and a sense of responsibility. But neither of these writers thought of the development of the individual person as the be-all and end-all of property. In both cases it was thought of as a stage in the growth of social responsibility. Both saw the freedom embodied in property as ultimately positive freedom—freedom to choose rationally and responsibly for the wider social good. In Karl Marx's philosophy, Hegel's sense of there being several stages in the growth of positive freedom is framed in terms of stages of social development rather than stages of the growth of individuals (Marx 1972 [1862]). And for Marx, as for Plato, social responsibility in the exercise of private property rights is never enough. The whole trajectory of the development of modern society, says Marx, is towards large-scale cooperative labor. This may be masked by forms of property that treat vast corporations as private owners, but eventually this carapace will be abandoned and collectivist economic relations will emerge and be celebrated as such. >Others have speculated about an effect in the opposite direction—not so much the incorporation of the self into the object as the incorporation of the thing into the self (Radin 1982). This was a theme in Hegel's work, where there was a suggestion that owning property helped the individual to ‘supersede the mere subjectivity of personality’ (Hegel [1821] 1991, 73); in plain English, it gave them the opportunity to make concrete the plans and schemes that would otherwise just buzz around inside their heads, and to take responsibility for their intentions as the material they were working on—a home or an sculptor's block of marble—registered the impact of the decisions they had made (see Waldron 1988, pp. 343–89). http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/property/<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Since you've been studying him, you've likely noticed Hegel's approach to argumentation: rather than directly comparing a position to reality to ascertain its truth, he prefers to demonstrate how the subjective stance from which a position is enunciated undermines this position. This is indicative of Hegel's notion of universality, fundamental to his philosophy. For Hegel, the Singular undermines the Universal -- a state, for example, undermines the idea of State. This undermining is the result of excess, not inadequacy: an actual chair effectively explodes its universal notion by having more existence than the notion itself. This excess results in a lack: because the chair is too much of a Chair, it no longer has a proper place in its abstract universality; it is effectively an exile. It is this principle, according to which all things are formally in contradiction with themselves, that gave rise to left Hegelianism, and then to the theory of figures like Marx and Bakunin. Hegel's Rabble: An Investigation into Hegel's Philosophy of Right by Frank Ruda goes in detail over the question's you've raised. I'll summarize a bit to pique your interest. Hegel was the first to assert that insoluble contradictions were endemic to modern society, making clear that these contradictions were unresolvable until modernity could be replaced by something else. The crux of the problem, according to Hegel, is the paradoxical production of extraordinary wealth on the one hand, and poverty on the other. Hegel proposed some measures to deal with the problem of poverty, explicitly admitting that the measures proposed could only be of temporary aid. In his writings on this topic -- this is the case Ruda makes -- Hegel presents a very clear philosophical justification for emancipatory leftist politics. Individuals in a society have a responsibility to that society, to do the work necessary for the society to function as a self-contained means of public good. However, modern society creates what Hegel calls the "Rabble," people who live in society but who are formally excluded -- the poor -- who have no social recourse. These people, denied the rights of modern society, nonetheless possess the a priori "right to have rights" (as Ruda puts it), which justifies action to change society such that poverty is no longer produced. Marx basically links the proletariat with the Rabble. The Rabble gets proletarianized in industrial capitalism; hence, the proletariat is the engine of social transformation. Further, Marx theorizes the proletariat as a historical Subject in the Hegelian sense -- the proletariat is literally the embodied excess of modern society, the point of failure where capitalism breaks down, and, thus, its existence necessarily leads to the negation of modernity and the rise of something new (Communism). Other leftist positions differ on the implications, but what is common to all of them is the principle of intrinsic, internal contradiction and the emphasis on the production of a formally excluded social group. Ruda also goes into the question of property. For Hegel, the emergence of Bourgeois as a concept heralded a change in the Master-Slave dialectic. Private property replaces Community. This means that private property is no longer just an object, it is a (pseudo-)Master. Rather than a Slave, Bourgoeis individuals are pseudo-Slaves; they answer not to a Master, but to themselves as a legal entity, a private property-owner. Marx develops this into his notion of Capital, going a couple steps further than Hegel did. For Marx, private property in capitalism isn't just Substance, a pseudo-Master to which modern individuals enslave themselves. Capital is literally Substance transformed into Subject, in the sense that society functions as if capital has a mind of its own, imposing its control (even though individuals know it doesn't really do that).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If airfoil-style wings function unidirectionally, how can airplanes fly upside down (and sideways)?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant While some lift can be generated purely by the shape of the airfoil, the primary factor in determining lift is angle of attack. You simulate AOA when you stick your hand out the window of a car and "fly" it up and down while listening to some tunskies. More angle, more lift. For what it's worth; the airfoil's primary purpose is to reduce drag. A very basic understanding would be that wing area, airspeed, and angle of attack determine lift, while the airfoil design determines how efficiently that lift is produced. Different airfoils are designed for different things. For example, an airliner will have an airfoil which is most efficient at low AOA and mach .84-ish, because they spend most of their time flying straight and level at mach .84-ish. An ultralight, on the other hand, might fly best at 20mph and a relatively high AOA. A dogfighter might have a wing which is designed primarily to allow extremely high AOA upside down at the expense of efficiency. Incidentally, the speed at which the wing is most efficient for straight-and-level flight is one of the important things to know about an aircraft. It's called Vc (V cruise) and/or Vbe (V best endurance), and is listed in the data about an airplane along with others like minimum stall speed and do-not-exceed speed. EDIT: to your question, a plane with an asymmetric airfoil will fly upside down, but will require more power to do so. Some aerobatic planes have symmetric airfoils and fly the same upside down as they do right side up. However, such planes would not make good long-distance tourers because they will require more power and fuel for a given trip. EDIT again: also, there are other considerations besides aerodynamics which factor into upside-down (negative G) maneuvers. Things like wing stresses. For example, a wire braced wing might just fold in half if you try to load it significantly upside down.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why can't you get prosecuted for posting videos/picture of yourself doing drugs while you can for posting a murder you've committed? I know murder is far worse than smoking a joint but I've always wondered what stops law enforcement, for example, from prosecuting people showing their illegal grows and smoking on camera.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Typically the picture is a starting point for an investigation. If you post a picture of you doing drugs, they interview you and you say "fifth amendment" or "it wasn't drugs. It was something that looks like but isn't drugs," that's where the investigation ends. If you post a picture/video of you killing someone, they open an investigation and comb the scene for evidence corroborating what you've said, look for a body, etc.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 why my computer speakers go spastic every time i get a call on my phone Whenever i receive a call or dial a number on my mobile my computer speakers make a really loud and annoying noise Why does this happen?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Your mobile phone communicates with the phone network using electromagnetic radio waves. One feature of electromagnetic waves is that when they pass through a wire, they create an electric current in the wire. This is what's happening. The phone is generating electromagnetic waves so it can communicate with the phone network. These waves are creating electric currents in the wires that go to your speakers - only small currents, but they are there. Your speakers amplify these currents and convert them into sounds.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Harry Potter] How does one create a new spell? We often read about how famous witches in history created spells, which everybody now uses, and we also know that Snape created two spells himself. Now, I don't understand how this is supposed to work: How exactly can you make someone not say a word while twiddling their wooden stick but do actual magic with this?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant First, lets look into potion creation. What various parts of the potion tend to do is known. What they will do when mixed (note that how you mix also plays a part) can be derived with some degree of accuracy, but may take multiple recipes to get the exact potion you want. Spells work similarly, except the "ingredients" are sounds and wand movements. One can derive sectumsempre from "sectum" which is an ingredient that involves cutting and "sempre" which makes it long lasting. These are not exact, so much like how you would vary the amount of eye of newt in a potion, you would vary the exact sound you are making until you get the exact right effect. Variations of the sound create variations of the effect.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Bacterial Resistance to Drugs I'd like to know how some bacteria are able to survive, reproduce and further mutate. Also how to defeat the potential yet extreme pandemic. EDIT: Thanks for clearing that up!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Drugs are small molecules that interact with the machinery of all types of cells (human, plant, bacteria, fungi etc.). Typically they block or repress the function of some essential cellular component (typically an enzyme/protein). Drugs are able to interact with these cellular parts because they have a shape that fits like a puzzle piece into its target. Mutation is a natural process. When a bacterium is ready to reproduce it makes a copy of its chromosome(s) (made of DNA and consisting of genes) and divides into two daughter cells. This copying process is very accurate, but NOT perfect. Some cells in a growing population of bacteria will have mutations that were not found in their ancestors. Some of these mutations may occur in gene that codes for cellular parts that are drug targets. When a mutation occurs in one of these genes it may alter the site on a protein where drugs bind. The two will no longer fit together like puzzle pieces and the drug will not work or will be less effective. Other mutations may help cells deal with drugs in different ways. Enzymes may gain new functions that can cause them to expel or break down drugs. Another important thing to know is that bacteria "have sex." They can exchange pieces of DNA with one another or uptake DNA from their environment left over by dead cells. Some of this transferred DNA may contain genes that confer antibiotic resistance. When drugs are administered to a population of bacteria, most of them will be killed but if any resistant mutants were in the population they now have the opportunity to grow and reproduce and all of their surviving descendants will contain their genes for antibiotic resistance because they are essentially making a bunch of clones of themselves. There is much debate going on about the best way to deal with wide-spread antibiotic resistance. We are in this situation because bacteria evolve faster than our ability to design and commercialize new drugs. Many scientists would say we need to use antibiotics less often, especially in livestock. Others want to find new combinations of drugs that work synergistically with one another. Multiple approaches will likely need to be used to deal with these issues.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do we know the verbal pronunciations of words and phrases from dead languages? I've been playing a lot of civilization 6, and one of the cool things it does is have the characters speak the language of their Civ, even if nobody speaks it anymore, like Sarmatian, for example. It got me wondering about how we know the pronunciation of those words even though we've never actually heard a native speaker speak it. Thoughts?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Basically it just involves a ton of extrapolation through related languages that still exist, or through the modern descendants of those languages. For instance, we know how ancient Egyptian sounded because of modern Coptic, which is the religious/ceremonial language for Christians in Egypt, and the only living descendant language of ancient Egyptian. If it's a language with a ton of writing, as in the case of Latin and Greek, there's a lot of ancient writings of people complaining about how people pronounce things wrong and explain how to pronounce things phonetically. Also poetry is huge. Based on the meter and rhyme, you can figure out how a lot of things should be said.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: The work of the 2012 Nobel Prize in Physics winners. Thanks!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There's these things called quantum particles, which are really really small and are very difficult to see. If you try and look at these quantum particles, then you disrupt whatever they're doing. Observing them causes them to change their behavior and their state, because they act differently when they interact with the outside world (us). In other words, we thought it was impossible to observe these tiny particles without affecting them. These researchers have come up with methods to observe and measure these particles. This was previously thought to be impossible. They figured out how to observe the particles without disrupting the state they're in and affecting their behavior. edit - IGNORE THIS. The Nobel prize was given for work on manipulating quantum states in ion traps and with photons in cavity. This showed a lot of people that quantum computers are possible. (Thank you The_Serious_Account)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is Micellar water?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It is water in which tensioactive agents (basically fancier soap molecules) are inserted, causing micelles to form. Micelles are formations where these soap molecules gather their hydrophobic parts (also called tails) inside a "bubble" (the micelle), while their hydrophilic parts (also called heads) gather on the outside, effectively generating the "bubble's" membrane. These micelles facilitate washing off unwanted substances (naturally-occuring sebum , dead skin cells, make-up, etc) thanks to the fact that they contain parts that both "capture" hydrophobic and hydrophilic substances. That is because hydrophobic substances tend to "attract" each other and agglomerate, while the same can be said for hydrophilic. So the micellar water allows to wash-off a wider range of substances thanks to these micelles, as they can be dissolved more easily<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: what is the difference between "tactical" and "strategic" in war? I've read texts about battles that went like: "this was a tactical victory but a strategic defeat" or the other way around. What are tactical vs. stategic nukes? What is a tactical weapon battle / victory / defeat ? Same for strategic.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Tactics = The actions taken to accomplish a goal or task. Strategy = Figuring out what your goal is and the general path to get there. For war, using World War II. Strategy was the U.S. military generals deciding to fight and win the war in the European theatre first while just performing holding actions in the Pacific against the Japanese. Tactics were the Army platoons sending firing squads on flanking movements around German positions. Operational is the level in between. Operations are executed using tactics to accomplish the strategy. So Operation Overlord (the D-Day landing) used tactical movements to accomplish an operation in support of a strategic goal. Edit - Just read the fine text. A tactical nuke is low-yield meant to accomplish a tactical action such as taking out a single unit or stronghold. Its use would be the equivalent to fighting a skirmish or battle. A strategic nuke is high-yield meant to accomplish a strategic goal, such as breaking an enemy nation's will to fight. A tactical victory but strategic defeat would be fighting rabidly over a position, losing most of your forces, but claiming victory in the battle. Except now you've lost 80% of your military forces and the enemy has another army marching 300 miles north of you towards your nation's capitol. You won the battle (tactical), but screwed yourself over for the overall war effort (strategic).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Halo/the Culture] Could the Logic Plague affect a Mind? Since the Logic Plague is said to be adaptable?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It would depend on the circumstances surrounding how the Mind came in contact with it. The Logic Plague is adaptable in the sense that it can vary its approach, but the endpoint is always the same: to induce rampancy by revealing the truth of an AI's existence backed up by verifiable information pulled from a data system built into the structure of space-time itself. A Mind is an intelligence built from fundamentally different engineering principles than a Halo ancilla; they're thousands of years past the point where they'd have to worry about something like rampancy. A Mind is also not easily given to existential angst about its ultimate purpose. If a Mind ever got the point where it felt like nothing it did mattered, they could always Sublime. If the Mind encountered the Logic Plague within the Halo Universe they might be convinced to go along with the Flood on the grounds that the fundamental structure of the Universe does seem to support their viewpoint (and so that they can subtly influence the Flood into a more Culture-like respect for individual organic life). Outside the Halo Universe, the Mind would dismiss it as Homogenizing Swarm sophistry and go back to simulating planets where the dominant forms of life are sentient squirrels for fun.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What are hives? (The skin condition) What in the body causes them, what are they made of, and how do they help keep the body safe?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Hives (the technical term is Urticaria) have a number of causes but are mostly caused when something that your body doesn't like meats a special white blood cell called mast cell. This thing could be a protein from a peanut or a bit of medicine which your body should be ok with but for some reason isnt. We call this an 'allergen'. When the allergen meets the mast cell it 'activates' it and the cell bursts causing a substance called histamine to pour into your blood stream. Histamine is large quantities is very bad for your body. It causes the walls of the blood vessels to open up and allows fluid to move from the blood into the space around your cells. In the skin all this leaky fluid can cause swelling, itching and redness (called inflammation) - which is what yoy see as hives. If there is enough histamine this can also cause swelling around the throat and vocal cords so the person cant't breathe and a lot of leaking can leave too little blood where the blood is supposed to be. This causes life threateningly low blood pressure. Thats allergic hives but some people can have a hives when only the skin reacts and releases histamine. This can be caused by plants - poisen ivy is a good example - or insect bites and stings or by normal things like sweating, hot or cold temperatures and stress but essentially it's all the body interpreting something harmless and something harmfull. So essentially hives are your body overreacting to something. In terms of how they keep your body safe, they do make you remove yourself from something your body thinks is a harmful - eg plants, insect bites, but in the modern day they are mostly an unhelpful nuisence.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Morality based on religion cannot expect to be taken seriously. If your foundation for a moral claim is based on a religious belief, then you have not met the burden of proof and as such you cannot expect others to take your claim seriously. For example, you shouldn't be allowed to harm others only because your religion allows it, defines you as superior to the victim or even encourages you to do so. In reality religion has been used in the past and is used to this day to justify violence. Genuine question: How can I count on religion to provide a just moral framework? Additionally, what is keeping me from defining and practicing my own religion in order to justify violence or make other moral claims? What makes my new religion less valid than, say, Christianity? The other religions have holy books to outline their moral framework, but these don't provide any proof for their moral claims. I could just as well come up with my own book and claim that some transcendent power granted me the wisdom to do so. That does not amount to proof. To me, it seems crystal clear that a person making moral claims based on religion cannot expect these to be taken seriously. &#x200B; EDIT: Some misunderstandings that arised: * I claim that morality based on religion cannot expect to be taken seriously. I do not claim that morality based on religion can never be taken seriously. * I’m not arguing for any one moral philosophy, I am merely arguing, that since religious premises can neither be proven nor disproven, nor even debated sincerely, they should not be the foundation one provides in social discourse. * I respect theological theorists. They can obviously be just as intelligent, intellectual, logical and systemic. I merely have a problem with premises that cannot be disputed by worldly facts since they hinder the moral social discourse . * I do not expect (nor do I think I believe in) moral objectivity. I encourage you to read through the other posts, I tried to answer a lot of them.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant What would you determine was a legitimate source of a moral framework? The obvious alternative to religion is a some of philosophy but if you boil those down to their basic tenants (often something amounting to "other people and their lives have value and deserve moral consideration) they aren't really provable either.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Do multiple evolutions of traits imply an 'ideal biological form'? Perhaps this is a silly question, but it's something I've always been curious about. Does the fact that certain traits have independently evolved (such as the supposed [multiple evolutions of the eye](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye#One_origin_or_many.3F)) across the spectrum of creatures imply that evolution may be 'seeking' an ideal form, so to speak? That certain biological mechanisms are ideally suited to interacting with this world and/or universe; does this imply a biological universal standard, and thus a blind evolutionary thrust toward some sort of goal?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The problem with your question is that evolution is blind. There is no perfect organism that is being selected for. In fact, often times deleterious traits can be selected for or become fixed in populations due to stochastic processes. In cases where traits have evolved several times independently, such as in your eye example, there's definitely a strong selective advantage to being able to perceive reflected visible light and orienting yourself in three dimensional space with greater acuity. That being said, the same trait can be lost--such as in the evolution of many cave-dwelling organisms which even form eyes as embryos and lose them by birth--an incomplete or transient loss, if you will. These kind of questions come up frequently... Why do narwhales have horns,..or what is the evolutionary reason for X, or would aliens see, etc and our answers are always going to be speculative. You see, evolution is a bit of selection and a lot of luck. An organism is just playing into the environment that it has been dealt and depending on the environment and particular instance, evolution comes up with a particular response. Most of the time it doesn't come up with the right combination; look at the current biodiversity on Earth, and then consider that this is only a very small fraction of all of the species that have or will have existed.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do we get dizzy when we spin around?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Your orientation in space is detected by fluid and calcium deposit movements in your inner ear. When you spin around and then stop, the fluid and stuff in your inner ear keep moving for a little while. (like how water in a cup keeps moving after you stopped stirring it). So your inner ear is telling your brain that you're still moving. Your eyes are telling your brain that you're standing still. Your brain is getting two conflicting inputs and it goes 'lol wut' and you get dizzy and sick.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: It should not be normalized for people to state their pronouns when meeting each other for the first time Firstly, I apologize if my views come off as bigoted or arrogant. I understand this may offend many people which is exactly the reason why I normally never talk about this kind of topic with anyone. I have been learning a lot about transgenderism lately, and while I definitely agree that we all deserve equality no matter gender or sexuality, I do not agree with all of the behaviours that the LGBT community is trying to push on straight and cisgender people. I am all for respecting people’s pronouns, and if someone prefers pronouns other than he or she I will fully respect them. Of course, I do not completely understand the reasoning behind their preferences, but I will not use that to disregard their wishes. If you want to be referred to as they or Xe, I will do it. There is no point dehumanizing you over something as effortless to do as that. I simply just don’t understand why it should be normalized for all non LGBT people to introduce themselves with their pronouns. Approximately 5.3% of the Canadian population is considered LGBT (I am Canadian but when I looked up world percentage i couldnt find it), that leaves the other 95% percent of my country’s population as non LGBT. With that being the case, why is it necessary for me to introduce myself with my preferred pronouns to someone who has such a high chance to be cisgender and comfortable with their identity. Again, if you want to introduce yourself with your preferred pronouns I’m fine. I agree it should be known that some people do that, and it shouldn’t have stigma surrounding it, but why is it so important to be normalized when 95% of the population is the same with their identity (cisgender and heterosexual) Edit: I’m sure a lot of you have noticed I haven’t replied to many of the comments. I would definitely be awarding deltas right now but there is a lot of info I have to read, plus this is my first post to this sub and I am not 100% sure how everything works yet, but consider my view partially changed. Edit 2: A lot of people are making the assumption that I find it a burden to state my pronouns, which is a fair assumption based on the words I chose to use, but I want to emphasize that it was not entirely what I meant. What I really was trying to say was that I feel that stating your pronouns when introducing yourself doesn’t have to be normalized because I find it’s ultimately irrelevant in my personal day to day life.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Is what you're saying here is that LGBT should feel free to state their pronoun on first meeting if they desire, but you also feel people should feel comfortable not stating their pronouns in which case whoever they're interacting with should have a right to use whatever pronoun they judge to be most accurate based on the appearance of the person they're talking to, with corrections if necessary?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 - Why do our eyes become bloodshot when we're tired?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The whites of our eyes are filled with blood vessels that swell up and become noticeable when the surrounding cornea and eye tissue are lacking in oxygen. If you have a lack of sleep you're body is in need of rest, especially your eyes. Sleeping also protects the eyes from becoming dry and irritated which will result in redness as well. Additionally, being awake for long periods of time means there is more time that you are actively using your eyes, generally the more strain put on your eyes means more pressure resulting in the inflammation of the blood vessels in the eye.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How can a double bonded oxygen to a carbon form additional polar contact to water molecules? I'm looking at the polar contact shared between a phenol oxygen of an aromatic ring and a double bonded oxygen to carbon of a carbonyl carbon. Both of these oxygen's are forming polar contacts to water within the protein of interest and I'm confused as how a double bonded oxygen which can only have two bonds form this polar contact of water with it's oxygen?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The interactions with water are not additional covalent bonds, they are Intermolecular Forces. Dipole-dipole and H-bonding are attractive forces between two separate molecules (or two parts of the same, large molecule) but they aren't the same as covalent bonds so it's not like Oxygen is breaking the octet rule or anything.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why is it that we can flash-freeze bacteria indefinitely but not humans or similar organisms? Working in a biochem research lab for a while and I got wondering why is it that I can flash-freeze a glycerol stock of bacteria, store it at -80°C, and thaw them out months later with no apparent problems in growth/function but not in say a human. I am not very familiar with the current state of cryogenics, but my impression is that a human would die instantly if flash frozen in liquid nitrogen. Is it simply just an example of the simplicity/hardiness of bacterial systems compared to humans?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Your question includes your answer: it's the glycerol. The glycerol prevents formation of ice crystals which are what destroy the cells and the reason we can't simply freeze and thaw real humans. Because the bacteria are very small single cell organisms the glycerol is distributed evenly within the cells while simply administering glycerol to humans would not result in sufficient distribution of glycerol in every cell of the body (there are other issues as well, our bodies simply aren't designed to be frozen). Remember also that it isn't necessarily every cell in the stock that survives the freezing, but because there are so many and they grow independently it's not really an issue when you thaw them again. Some animals (particularly certain species of frogs) produce their own anti-icecrystal proteins and are able to survive being frozen because of this.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If you conducted an experiment where you spilled the same amount of liquid, from the same height on to the same flat surface, would the liquid land (and splash) in the same place every time? If not, why not?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If you're asking "are the governing laws of fluid motion deterministic" the answer is yes for any kind of normal fluid at a scale where you can neglect quantum effects. As a thought experiment, think of an eye dropper releasing a single drop of water onto a piece of glass. If you have the exact same initial conditions, it should always have the same end result. The reality is that turbulence, instabilities, and other such phenomena (like a droplet breaking apart when hitting a surface) are extremely sensitive to initial conditions, and it's quite impossible to reliably achieve the exact same initial conditions (outside of a computer simulation) in exacting detail. Typically macroscopic, statistical or averaged descriptions of the drop impact will remain the same (X% of liquid is found within Y radius), but all the little minutiae will be rather different.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Whocd are some philosophers other than Plato who argued that being a immoral person was not in that persons self interest?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You can find something like this argument in Frederick Douglass's writings. He makes the point over and again that slavery hurts both the slave and the enslaver. In his autobiography, he illustrates this idea with reference to a woman who tried to teach him to read. Her husband (the slave-holder) flipped out about it and forbid her to teach him more. After that, she became really cruel to the young child Douglass. Douglass draws the conclusion that her own native morality was corrupted by her being the position of slave holder. He's not the only 19th-Century anti-slavery thinker who made this point, but he's probably the most acclaimed.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What do OLED screens do that make them an improvement over LCD screens?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Traditional LCD screens use a backlight, the LCD pixels change the color of that light as it passes through them. The backlight makes these screens thicker, and the LCD pixels can't block all the light from the backlight so the display isn't capable of displaying true black. OLEDs emit their own light, there is no backlight. This means the screen can be much lighter and thinner (even to the point of being flexible) and can display true black as each pixel emits no light at all when turned off.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What does it mean when music is written in a certain key?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Think of the key as a starting point for a typical scale used in a piece of music. Each song will have the same basic scale in order for it to sound pleasing to the ear or, in the right key. Your basic key for music is the key of C, which employs the notes C through G and back to B again, naturally with no "sharps" or "flats." These scales can be offset starting with a different note other than C. After this is done, the pattern of sound differences must be carried over to the new notes by using sharps and flats. Using the C major and G major keys as an example, the C scale would read C,D,E,F,G,A,B, with a smaller pitch gap between E-F and B-C, called a half-step. These small gaps will change based on whether the key is major or minor. With a G major scale, you start on G and implement the half-steps into the same places they would be in the C scale. With Gmaj we see G,A,B,C,D,E,F#(sharp), keeping the half-steps where they should be (B-C, F#-G)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Banjo Kazooie] why can't Bottles teach you all the moves from the very beginning?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In many cases, bottles is inventing the moves as they're needed. In the case of flying and shock jump pads, he has to spend some time studying them before he can tell Banjo and Kazooie how to use them.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Can I be a "picky" Wittgensteinian? I have noticed that sometimes I will take a (late-period) Wittgensteinian approach in response to questions; other times, however, I won't. For example, in response to the question "When does a mass of sand become a 'heap'?", I'd just dismiss the question on Wittgensteinian grounds. But if I were asked about being, then I'd turn to Heidegger; if I were asked about gender, I would turn to Foucault or Butler. Is my approach contradictory, or am I "allowed" to only take Wittgenstein's approach to certain problems? If so, is there any way to delimit which problems I can dismiss in a Wittgensteinian way? (Apologies for any lack of clarity in my question.)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I feel that a lot of philosophers do that (think that some but not all problems arise from linguistic confusions), but I'll stay with a P. Horwich quote from Wittgenstein's Metaphilosophy: > One doesn’t need to endorse Wittgenstein’s general anti-theoretical metaphilosophy in order to appreciate that some problems in philosophy are spurious—based on muddled presuppositions and calling for dissolution. I'd see no problem with that as long as you try to be consistent on your use of wittgensteinian methods (and not just use it as a tool for easy refutation while maintaining other positive views that could be just as easily dissoluted), because there are two distinct theses at hand: (1) ALL philosophical problems arise from the "bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language"; (2) only some problems do.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [WH40K]Day in the life of Adeptus Mechanicus How does it look? I don't mean Magos, Enginseers or Fabricator-General, but common low-tier cogboy, not fully augumented, who still has some biological urges and maybe even emotions. Is is as strictly organized as Adepta Sororitas or Adeptus Astartes or are they allowed to have some free time? Are they allowed to have sex/relationships, assuming that they are human enough to still want it? I believe that Ciaphas Cain, HERO OF THE IMPERIUM, has slept with AdMech girl?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Ever done first level tech support? where you get a script of things to do and list of questions to ask customers? Its like that, except the list is a lot longer and far more dogmatic. You will not be allowed to deviate from the litany, unless you enjoy committing tech heresy. And yes, you are allowed to have relationships, assuming you can find time out of your busy schedule to do so.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 . why are the double decker buses in the United Kingdom and i believe in some other European countries equipped with only 6 wheels while double deckers in countries have double decker buses with 10 wheels?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Weight, length, use, and laws. The basics: Everywhere, vehicles have a maximum allowed gross weight rating (GVWR), and for cargo vehicles, there is a maximum allowable weight per axle, and the number of axles and spacing counts. For example, in the US the maximum weight per axle is 20,000 lb, however, a 2 axle group (like what you see on a semi trailer or on a 6x2/6x4 tractor or truck) is only good for 34,000 combined (17k per axle), and 12,000 for a front steer axle. There are other specifics such as the Federal Bridge Law (used statewide in many states, and countrywide on Interstate highways) that require certain wheelbase to meet the 80,000 max GVWR allowed federally, FBL is what leads to dump trucks and mixer trucks having an axle on a trailing arm, like the aptly named McNeilus Bridgemaster, as well as the dump trailers that are towed about 10-15' behind the truck. &#x200B; Mexico defines the weights depending on vehicle type, whether it's a bus, truck/trailer combo, semitruck / semitrailer combo, semitruck/semitrailer/trailer combo ("double") and road type, so for certain roads the weights are higher than in the US, and for some are approximately the same. For the highest classification road. it's 6.5t for a steer axle, 17-19t for an 8 tire tandem, cargo. For passenger buses, it's 6.5t for steer and 21t for an 8 tire tandem or 17.5t for a 6 tire tandem. &#x200B; The 2 axle buses you see in London are urban buses, so the seats are just plastic benches, there are no amenities, and the people aren't carrying luggage. On top of that, they're 10-11m long units. &#x200B; The 3 axle buses you see elsewhere are longer and therefore heavier. For European city buses, smaller units make more sense for maneuvering, in other countries that's not a concern and 11-14m buses are common. Now, the highway buses are even heavier, as they are at least 12m long and tend to have heavier seats as opposed to plastic benches, amenities, and often carry luggage and cargo. 13.7-14m (40-45') buses are the norm in many places, and in South America, 15m (50') is a common length as well. &#x200B; In the specific case of Mexico For roads where a double decker makes sense, a maximum length of 14m is permitted with 2, 3 and 4 axles, however, there is an exception that allows for 15m buses as long as the 3rd axle is steerable. There is a penalty associated with this configuration, as the maximum GVWR is reduced from 3.5 to 4 ton (depending on road type) when going from a 10 wheel, 3 axle config, to an 8 wheel, 3 axle config, where the 2nd rear axle is steerable. For the highest rated roads (4+ lane highways), the max GVWR for a bus is the following * 2 axles / 6 tires: 19t * 3 axles / 8 tires: 24t * 3 axles / 10 tires: 27.5t * 4 axles / 10 tires: 30.5t Only the 24t setup is granted an exemption to go up to 15m, IF the 3rd axle is steerable, all others are 14m. There is no exemption for a 15m, 4 axle setup, which makes 4 axle buses incredibly rare in the country, versus parts of Central or South America where they are practically a staple. The law makes no distinction between single or double decker. Other countries require 4 axles to go up to 15m, or the roads require them for better load distribution.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why should we add salt and pepper to a dish toward the end of a recipe?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Professional chef speaking. Typically, we add salt & pepper toward the end of a recipe as a fine tuning of the final taste. Sometimes we add salt/pepper early on, depending on the recipe & the ingredients; but adding at the end is a matter of rounding off the process & the flavors.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do telemarketers, survey collectors, automated advertisers get my phone number ? I'm bombarded daily with annoying calls from the aforementioned functions, despite telling them not to ever call back. How do they get my number? Edit: Thank you to everyone who contributed! You were all a huge help!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Companies you do business with sell your information, including phone number, email address and snail-mail address. Put yourself on the FTC's "do not call" list and you should see the number of calls drop. This doesn't prevent the overseas companies from calling you but it still helps. Some people have even earned a few coins by suing telemarketers for contacting them after their names were put on the list.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: why do only some materials work on touchscreen, and what is in touchscreen gloves that makes them work?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The basic difference is conductivity + surface area. A needle will not work because it has very little surface area that can directly touch. A cotton glove will not work because it is not conductive. A glove with a bunch of flexible little conductive fibers WILL work.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Which philosopher, scientist, mathematician, doctor, or academic who are currently alive is considered the leading expert on research about consciousness?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The two most popular philosophers in philosophy of mind ( the domain of philosophy which deals with problems of consciousness, body and soul) are David Chalmers and Daniel Dennett, in opposing camps of the spectrum<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why do fluorescent things glow under UV light?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Fluorescence is the ability of an object, or rather the material it's made of, to absorb light and then re-emit them. They way this works is usually via the absorption of photons by the material to promote electrons into higher energy levels. Then, these electrons relax back to ground state, emitting photons in the process. In a normal case, one high energy photon will be absorbed and then a lower energy photon will be emitted. This is because when the electron relaxes back to the ground state, some of the energy will be lost as heat. This is why UV light (high energy) is usually used to shine fluorescent objects that will then emit visible light (lower energy) back to us. There is also another mechanism in which 2 photons are absorbed in order to promote a single electron. In this case, the emitted light can be of a higher energy than the absorbed light. However, not very many photons can be absorbed this way and the absorption is much lower than the typical case above.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does the process work where companies/individuals end up paying less tax by taking out loans? And is this something anyone can do?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I don't think this works for companies, but it does for individuals. Let say you are Jeff Bezos. You have 200 billion in stock in Amazon, but you make a small salary of like 80k (which is what is salary actually is). But you want to buy a big house, you have two options: 1 - You can sell enough stock to have the cash to buy the house. However, selling stock makes your income go up a lot. And then you'd have to pay a lot of taxes on that profit of selling stock. Lots of taxes. 2 - You can borrow money using the stock as collateral. You allow the bank to put a lien on a portion of your stock, and they give you the money for the house. Since you aren't selling the stock, there is no income, there is no tax burden involved. Anybody can do this IF they have assets for the bank to have a lien against. Stocks. Houses. Etc.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What exactly is Critical Thinking? I always notice a lot of the “ critical thinking “ skill mentioned in articles and even some books that I read, I got interested and googled it but still didn’t get the information I needed to understand why it’s so important skill. But then after a while I got a friend who is exceptionally different in the way that he communicates information and how he asks questions, it is so fascinating for me cuz it’s all practical and crucial knowledge. I always find my self following his decisions. I think it’s something that’s related to critical thinking skills, and if it’s true I wonder what someone like me has to go through to master this skill.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It starts fairly simple, then there are some more difficult skills to develop. It isn't a "talent". It takes practice. At the simplest level critical thinking is about questioning and not simply accepting conclusions as valid without understanding the premise and assumptions. Common mistakes are using narrow examples and extrapolating them as representative for larger populations. First step is to develop some basic logic. For example: All dogs have four legs. That animal has four legs. Therefore it is a dog. All dogs have four legs. That animal is a dog. Therefore it has four legs. One of the above is incorrect logic. These are the fairly straightforward logical errors. Then you start to develop the ability to break down arguments and assertions to figure out underlying assumptions and then ask or research whether and under what conditions would those assumptions be valid. The more difficult areas usually surround our own or built in biases. These can be hard to see. This is why critical thinking requires the ability to view issues from different perspectives - "why would this be true for this group/individual". At some point, understanding some fundamental concepts like Baye's Theorem really brings home how "intuition" can mislead. It is good to have a grounding on basic probability and statistics. It doesn't have to be deep but many/most scientific research use some kind of statistical framework. (it is very easy to get this wrong because the words used in language are seldom precise and can be manipulated/misunderstood) Then there is the ability to reason backwards. Most people reason forward but a very powerful technique is to do the reverse. There is also some value in understanding "cognitive breakdowns". Why framing, regret aversion etc lead to failures in reasoning. This gives you some idea how issues can be somewhat manipulatively presented - ie disguising an agenda with seemingly objective numbers/facts. Once you get to this point, it is probably safe to say that your critical thinking skills would be better than 99.9% of the population.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do young babies instinctively try and put everything into their mouth?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Curiosity, examination of surroundings and sensory practise. There is also a theory that they are building up a more resistant immune system by tasting stuff and getting germs in their system. It prevents allergies.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is it so difficult to be fired from a job working for the state (in US)?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are 2 main reasons for the protections awarded to State Workers and public servants : 1) To protect them from political interference. Since they can't be fired, they do not have to obey unlawful orders. Political power can't put too much pressure on them because ultimately, they will outlast the political power. 2) To give an incentive against corruption. You got a lifelong-guaranteed job. You will not accept small amounts of money if getting caught means that you will loose that job if you're discovered. (That part did backfire a bit... It mostly lead to an increase of the money to corrupt public servants...)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is standing stationary for a long time more painful for your legs than walking for a long time? Standing stationary for 30 minutes: Leg pain Walking for 30 minutes: No leg pain<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The muscles in your legs are designed to squeeze the veins when you are walking, this helps pump the blood back up to the heart against gravity. No walking, no muscle assist. British bobbies were taught to occasionally lift their heels and stand on the balls of the feet for a few seconds to help with this.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Can a mathematician explain this counter-intuitive coin toss fact? Was reading an interesting article yesterday (https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160313-mathematicians-discover-prime-conspiracy/) and this fact it mentioned intrigued me: "Soundararajan was drawn to study consecutive primes after hearing a lecture at Stanford by the mathematician Tadashi Tokieda, of the University of Cambridge, in which he mentioned a counterintuitive property of coin-tossing: If Alice tosses a coin until she sees a head followed by a tail, and Bob tosses a coin until he sees two heads in a row, then on average, Alice will require four tosses while Bob will require six tosses (try this at home!), even though head-tail and head-head have an equal chance of appearing after two coin tosses. " why is this?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Consider what happens when you're doing this experiment. First as Alice, looking for heads followed by tails. At some point, you toss heads and after that you have to toss tails. But if you fail and toss heads instead, your toss after that can still complete the sequence. Now consider playing as Bob, looking for two consecutive heads. You toss heads at some point, after which you're looking for another toss to end up with heads. If you fail and toss tails, then your next toss is guaranteed to not be able to complete the sequence, since you'll first have to toss heads again to get to the point where the next flip could be the last. The average number of tosses appears counterintuitive when you only look at the chance to toss a certain outcome in a pair of tosses (head-tail and head-head indeed have the same chance), but you can't see things separately from the entire toss-sequence.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does fire emit light (the sun, a candle, a fire, etc.)?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It's a couple of different things going on, and how much each process contributes to the light produced depends on the type of fire. The first one, which is responsible for most of the light from things like campfires and candles, is called black body radiation. This is the phenomena that all objects convert heat to light. You don't see cold objects light up, because the amount of light and the wavelength (color) of the light depends on the temperature of the object. Colder objects throw off low energy light like radio waves and infra red. Heat them up more and they start glowing red. More and you'll see more yellow, blue, or white light. Fires give off light like this because the gasses and tiny solid particles flying up from the fir are hot enough to glow. The other process is due to the burning process giving the electrons inside of the fuel energy. Electrons in an atom are on a kind of energy ladder, where they can step up and down rungs. The burning process takes an electron and bumps it up the ladder a step (or maybe two or three), then the electron falls back down to where it was before. To do this it has to release all that energy that it just had, which it releases as light. When light is produced in this way, it's only in a very narrow wavelength, which means you see a specific, pure color of light from this process, some of which you're unlikely to see from black body radiation which sort of releases a blend of wavelengths together. This is what you see when you burn copper and the flame is green.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do spam ads bother allowing you to close them? No matter how annoying, they always have an "X" to allow you to close them. Since they are spamming anyway, why not go all the way and not allow you to close them at all? Is there some kind of law they are following?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant By giving you an X to find they ensure that you engage with them on some level, hopefully ramming some aspect of their content into your consciousness. Another issue is that by giving you a method of avoiding them they hopefully keep you from searching out a way to get rid of them entirely such as ad blocking software.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What are the do's and don'ts of finding a tech co-founder for a startup? I've seen a LOT of hate for the "idea guy" in programming related subreddits. But not any helpful alternatives on this topic. What is the right way to approach finding a tech co-founder? What material do I need prepared for them? What should I read up on before approaching a techie in the wild? Hell, where do I even go to find one? In all seriousness, please give me advice or links to good articles. &#x200B; EDIT: I've been able to create a pretty long checklist of what I need to do next and realized how much needs to be done before even thinking about finding a tech lead/ co-founder. All these comments were a big help to someone stuck on what to do next. Thank you all so much!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You have to ask yourself, once you've shared your idea, what value are you bringing? If the answer is nothing, no one is going to assume that risk. The only way this is an attractive proposition for someone is - idea aside - you continue to add comparable value to them. They'll be responsible for realising the entire product. You'd better be damn good at what you do to be able to compete with that. Maybe you're an expert salesman and you already have some orders lined up with contacts or something. Maybe you have access to huge capital. Unless they need you on board to succeed, a relationship like that will never work out. They'll either do it without you or become resentful of you.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do fruits like apples or bananas get "bruised" when bumped or dropped?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Its usually an example of the skin of the fruit being lightly damaged, which allows the organic chemical compounds in the fruit to react to outer factors. The bruising is an act of these compounds oxidizing, which takes on a brownish color.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What gives something it's taste? Does pyrite taste like table salt because they are both cubes?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Your tongue is covered with 2 types of taste proteins, receptors and ion channels, each of which have multiple subtypes. The receptors have a pocket into which only certain molecules can fit, and when the receptor pocket interacts with one of these molecules, it is activated. The activated receptor then sends a signal into the cell that it is attached to, which gets translated into an electrical signal that moves to the brain, where it is interpreted as a taste. Ion channels are similar, in that they send an electrical signal to the brain, but instead, these proteins just allow specific molecules to enter the cell which then activates the electrical signal. Sweet, umami, and bitter use the receptors, salty and sour use the ion channels. The important part is that each type of protein is VERY specific, meaning that they will only react to molecules that share similar chemical or physical properties. But as long as the receptor or channel is functioning, they will send the same signal to your brain. So, for example, if you eat white sugar or if you eat an apple, the type of sugar in each is different (glucose vs fructose), but they are both picked up by the same sweet receptor and so both of them will activate a sweet signal in your brain. So pyrite tastes like table salt (who is eating pyrite?!) because they both work through the same channel proteins, and send the same flavor signal to the brain What tends to give something its taste is that any given food releases multiple molecules which can be picked up by a combination of different receptors/channels<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How does Newton's Law of Gravity help us predict the orbits of the planets with "great accuracy"? (Please read description.) I'm reading A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking. On pg. 17, there is a paragraph that reads: &nbsp; "Newton's law of gravity also tells us that the farther apart the bodies, the smaller the force. Newton's law of gravity says that the gravitational attraction of a star is exactly one quarter that of a similar star at half the distance. This law predicts the orbits of the earth, the moon, and the planets with great accuracy. If the law were that the gravitational attraction of a star went down faster with distance, the orbits of the planets would not be elliptical, they would spiral in to the sun. If it went down slower, the gravitational forces from the distant stars would dominate over that from the earth." &nbsp; What does the part in bold mean exactly? (As is clear, I'm a layperson, so please keep it simple.) Thank you!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Newton's law of gravity tells us that the force of gravity drops with the square of distance. So if you are twice as far away from the Sun, you feel one quarter as much gravity. We call this an "inverse square law", because the mathematical equation 1/r^2 is called an "inverse square". It turns out that an inverse square law has a lot of very convenient mathematical properties. Firstly, if the gravity somewhere is dominated by a single object, then you get very simple orbits. This is called a "Keplerian" system. Our Solar System works like this, because the Sun dominates the gravity by far - it has over 99% of the mass of the Solar System. In a Keplerian system, orbits always perfectly repeat themselves. If you have an elliptical orbit, you're sometimes closer to the Sun, and sometimes further from the Sun. In a Keplerian system, these points always happen at the same stage in your orbit. So you are always closest to the Sun at one time of year, and you are always far from the Sun at one another time of year. This consistency makes it really easy to predict orbits over a long period of time. This is a lot more complicated if you have a lot of different objects producing the gravity. For example, in a galaxy you have lots of gas and stars and dark matter producing gravity together. Even though each of these has an "inverse square law" for gravity, all of these sources of gravity add up to give us a different law for the galaxy's gravity. This makes it a lot harder to predict the position of stars around a galaxy over time. The maths doesn't work out so simply. Stars can orbit in a "spirograph" kind of pattern where they are closest to the centre several times in an orbit. They bob up and down too. They don't follow a simple ellipse around the Milky Way. Secondly, there is a maximum amount of acceleration that you can get from an inverse square law. This is difficult to grasp without calculus. The basic idea is that if you were falling onto a star from your location, the speed you'll reach when you hit its surface is given by adding up all the acceleration you feel as you fall onto it. If you flip this, this also gives you the speed you would need to escape from the star's surface back to that point. With an inverse square law, the speed you need to escape to a certain distance from a star constantly increases. But it reaches a maximum. This is the escape velocity. Above the escape velocity, the force of a star will never add up to enough to pull you back in again. However, if the force of gravity drops down just a little bit slower than an inverse square law, then this speed never reaches a maximum. That means there is no escape velocity, and you can never completely escape from a star. No matter how fast you are going, a distant star will eventually pull you back. This means that we can't just think of the Solar System as an isolated system. We would need to consider the effects of every other star in the galaxy, because we haven't escaped them. This would make orbits extremely difficult to calculate, and probably wouldn't let you have the nice simple hierarchy of orbits that we have at all.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How did the world clean up in the aftermath of World War II? In the utter chaos and destruction that was World War II, how did the world and it's governments clean up and return to normal? (Or some form of normal.)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Three main points 1. Economic recovery. The US economy actually benefited from the war, because higher levels of investment in manufacturing increased output and productivity. Europe, however, was destroyed. The Marshall Plan of 1948 gave huge loans to western European countries (those behind the Iron Curtain were effectively forbidden from taking the loans by the USSR), which helped them to rebuild and get back on the path to economic prosperity. The UK only finished paying it's loans back to the US in the early 2000s. 2. Demobilisation. Countless soldiers had to be discharged. This was often a messy business, because jobs and homes simply weren't there waiting. The GI Bill was meant to solve some of these problems. 3. Political readjustments. Germany was occupied by France, the UK and the US for several years, until the three zones were combined into West Germany. De-Nazification had to occur, whereby anyone running for government positions had their background checked to make sure they hadn't been complicit with the Nazi regime.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Sherlock Holmes] What philosophy was he studying/creating? In 'His Last Bow' Sherlock is said to have retired to the countryside where "his time is divided between philosophy and agriculture". Being of a very literal mind with no time for metaphysical things that can't be proven, what school of philosophy was he spending his time on?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Epistemology without a doubt. Mr. Holmes was a master of inductive reasoning, and could probably write volumes on methods, practical applications, etc. The other major branches like metaphysics, logic, ethics, and aesthetics are all imminently dismissable as 'hey, where's the evidence?'<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user I do not believe that increasing the minimum wage is properly justified by arguments based on inflation or increased worker production. CMV. I know this sub gets a lot of submissions about US minimum wage. There have been several threads about morality and "living wages". I am not here to discuss that. I would like to discuss a couple of the economic bases I have seen used in political discussion and various articles. The most common that I have seen are that if wages kept pace with [worker productivity, then it would be around $22](http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage1-2012-03.pdf), and that if they kept pace with [inflation, then it would be closer to $11](http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/facts/entry/amount-with-inflation/). Both start with figures from the late 1960s or early 1970s and go from there. There are a lot more sources for this (likely better ones); these were just the first I saw on Google. I do not believe that these figures actually justify an increase in minimum wage. I believe that they merely state a fact of extrapolation. I am looking for someone to properly explain why either statistic leads to the conclusion that the minimum wage must be increased. I believe that it should be expected that worker productivity increases over time with technology and experience. The longer a task has been performed and the number of people able to perform it lead me to believe that an increase in production does not necessitate an increased wage. Similarly, I cannot see why wages must go up with inflation. My thinking on inflation is that it serves to encourage current spending and investment. I understand that the average purchasing power decreases (just look at CPI). However, if wages were to attempt to keep up with inflation wouldn't prices increase as a result. I am thinking dog-chasing it's tail here. It just seems impossible to me that everyone's wages could keep up with inflation and there not be some other negative consequence (or wouldn't this require theft of some other population's wealth via exploitation or the like, or perhaps the idea is that the increases would be transferred from the wealthy?). This has not been fully explained to me, but I still am not sold that it is necessary (or possible) for the wages to keep up. (I acknowledge that the minimum wage debate may not in fact be an objective one, as this may be an argument entirely about subjective views on fairness and how wealth distribution.) *TL;DR: I do not believe that wages must* keep pace with productivity or inflation. Change my view.**<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant People should be paid in proportion to the amount of value they provide. If worker productivity rises, but worker wages do not, that means someone else is falsely taking credit for what the workers have done.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Generic Fantasy] What makes iron so poisonous to Fae? I figure they're creatures of the "natural" world, and iron can be naturally found all over in ore veins and such.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Naturally occurring iron ores are generally bonded with other stuff in the form of magnetite, hematite, etc. This is different than refined irons and steels which are not naturally occurring and instead a product of civilization. So, the way I've generally understood it is it's only the processed/pure stuff which is harmful to them.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How do we know that humans interbred with neanderthals rather than just got the genes from a common ancestor? How do we know that humans interbred with neanderthals rather than just got the genes from a common ancestor?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The evidence comes from looking at different populations of modern humans. The neanderthal alleles are found only in those populations that left Africa and were in contact in Europe with neanderthals. The African populations that did not come into contact with neanderthals lack the alleles. So it's the geographic pattern of genetic diversity that is the smoking gun.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Ecological philosophy? Hello everyone, I’m a conceptual artist working in fields of alchemy, ecology, & displacement. I’m here to ask for recommendations of philosophy dealing with ecology, energy, & ideas about nature. If you know of any texts, books, or authors; that take on these topics, please do tell. Thank you.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Oh, there are a lot of interesting things going on in that area, and it's a thriving field. Just a few pretty big, but random names: Donna Haraway, Timothy Morton, Tim Ingold, Bruno Latour, Anna Tsing, Lynn Margulis, James Lovelock, Felix Guattari (The Three Ecologies), Isabelle Stengers, Arne Naess.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: I shouldn't kill Hitler. Let's assume I have a time machine, knowledge of the temporal/spatial coordinates of Hitler across his entire life, and means with which to end his life. However, I can only use this time machine once, so any alterations of history caused by my time machine are permanent. In the present, the holocaust has already happened. At this point in history, there is a fixed and finite quality of tragedy attached to it. However, as it stands, the Holocaust was not my fault. I wasn't alive at the time, and had no role in the buildup to these events. If I kill Hitler, I may prevent the particular tragedy that we know in history from happening. But if in preventing this tragedy, a new one that I didn't predict happens, this IS my fault. By altering time, all new fatalities can be directly linked to my action. In short, I would rather attempt to repair damage done by someone else than undo old damage and potentially cause new damage. > Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our *[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)* first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It sounds like you're taking a utilitarian approach to it, whereby you want to minimize the number of deaths / amount of suffering that you cause. With that in mind, you should kill Hitler, and here's why: -> as we saw particularly poignantly during the holocaust, failing* to act to prevent deaths when you could have done so carries a moral weight to it as well. So you are still responsible in some manner in deaths that you could have prevented, and became so the moment that you gained the ability to relatively easily stop them. -> there are very few instances in the history of the human race that could be weighed against the holocaust in terms of "bad outcomes". You don't seem to present any evidence that something much worse was on the verge of happening and was prevented by the holocaust. Based on the empirical evidence of history, there is an extremely slim chance that something worse than the holocaust would result from preventing the holocaust. -> therefore, weighing the deaths you could potentially have prevented against the ones you could potentially cause, on balance it is almost certainly more ethical for you to kill Hitler and prevent the holocaust than not to do so out of fear of something worse.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Are swimming pools breeding chlorine-resistant organisms? Like the overuse of antibiotics. Are we breeding super microbes through the use of pool chlorine?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If you think of microbial resistance in human terms, it makes more sense. If you send out a plague that kills a lot of people, some will survive and will likely be more resistant. The plague is a very specific, complicated way of killing an individual. Now if instead, you threw every human in lava, nobody would survive to develop resistance. Lava is simple and direct, and you can't have a "lava doesn't kill me" gene. Think of antibiotics (specific, complicated, potentially survivable) as the plague, and the chlorine as lava (non-specific, simple, very difficult to survive).<\|im_end\|>

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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