Split (1)

train · 52.8k rows

text stringlengths 82 65.5k
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How did we decipher ancient texts in extinct languages, like the complaint tabel to Ea-nasir?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant For example, we have learned how to read Ancient Egyptian thanks to the discovery of the Rosetta Stone - an ancient monument inscribed with the same text in three scripts: Egyptian in two different scripts and Ancient Greek. Since we already knew Ancient Greek (we’ve never stopped knowing it since ancient times) we were able to decipher the Egyptian version and use that knowledge to decipher all the other Ancient Egyptian inscriptions. For other extinct languages we usually need something like that too - al least some kind of clue linking the text to something already known. If there aren’t any clues, then we can’t decipher the language, and there are numerous such indecipherable ancient languages in the world.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: We should abolish all income taxes and replace them with taxes on natural resources. Monetary and financial activity (incomes, wages, sales, profits, and capital) and other "abstract" economic activity should not be taxed. Instead, only physical economic activity in the primary sector should be taxed (eg. land usage, mining, oil drilling, fishing, ...) It's fairer, greener, and less wasteful Why is it fairer? Because different people have different abilities to hide their monetary transactions from government. Unless it's a North Korea style total surveillance society, government will only be taxing a fraction of the transactions that happen in the economy. "Honest" people end up paying more tax than people who are able to operate in the dark economy or hide their capital. Government is constantly playing a game of surveillance whack-a-mole, at a huge cost, to extract ever diminishing returns from the dark economy. On the other hand, taxes on land and natural resources only require minimal surveillance because we are dealing with BIG physical things that are unambiguous and open for everyone to see. Land owners and miners of natural resources will pass the tax up the supply chain and the market will distribute the tax to all consumers, even the ones in the dark economy. Privacy is a basic human right. It is impossible to tax incomes, profits and capital without massive privacy violations by the state. Why is it greener? To put it simply, it penalizes economic activity that pollutes or takes stuff from the common good that is the global ecosystem. And it doesn't penalize productive activity that doesn't require a lot of physical resources (eg. education). Why is it less wasteful? We could get rid of a huge bureaucratic apparatus whose sole purpose is collecting taxes individually from every citizen. Taxes will be collected "in bulk". We could put an end to the arms race of ever more complex tax legislation and ever more complex schemes of "tax optimization". KISS. -------------------- Responses to possible rebuttals: 1-"But this will give an unfair disadvantage to land owners and mining companies". As opposed to giving an unfair disadvantage to wage earners and merchants? Everyone indirectly consumes natural resources, so everyone will indirectly pay this tax. 2-"But then we can't do redistributive taxation". There is nothing stopping us from introducing a guaranteed basic income that is partially funded by this tax. _____ > 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 Putting aside the difficulty of attributing use of physical economic activity, this system has the potential to increase inequality. Some of the wealthiest people and organisations in the world have made their money from intangibles (for example, the software, investment and consultancy industries). This system would lead to these giants being taxed absolutely nothing, while the local baker has to pay extra for the wheat he uses, in order to compensate for the lost taxation revenue. It's an arbitrary way of distributing wealth which won't always lead to fair outcomes. The increase which would be required is significant. There is a chance that resource intensive industries which are already struggling (for instance, fresh farming) will be unable to compete against less primary-resource intensive competitors (such as preserved/manufactured foods). Such a tax can therefore have ramifications for national health and well-being. Furthermore, and most significantly, there would be no tax on capital gains. Money made purely from investment would be completely tax-free (assuming money is invested in businesses not suffering the resource tax, or which have already had the resource tax applied). This would overwhelmingly favor the already wealthy, as wealth would be able to accumulate untouched and untaxed.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Does eye colour affect colour perception? Do e.g. green-eyed people perceive colours differently than e.g. brown-eyed people? I‘m aware of the individual colour perception, but is it related to eye colour?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Statistically speaking, so called "color blindness"...both red-green of varying levels of severity and blue-yellow which is more rare but more often almost total color blindness...is more common in blue-green eyed people, but much, MUCH more commonly associated with a condition which causes the sufferer to have more rods than normal. So, there's a good chance your colorblind friend can see better in the dark.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:Since Base 10 was just create due to the number of fingers on our hands, why are all of our senses logarithmic to a base of 10? Many scientists believe we began to use base 10 because it was easily countable on fingers, and 10 is not more special of a number than 11 or 9. Why then do our senses like hearing work in log base ten? I.E. in order to hear a sound that appears twice as loud, you need a sound that is 10 times louder.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It is not that the perceived intensity doubles for a ten-fold increase in stimulus, it is that for a given increase you need a constant multiplier (that is, the difference between perceived intensity of two stimuli is constant for a constant ratio of the stimuli). This gives you a logarithmic scale, no matter what the base is.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Feminism and Mens Rights Activist are equally discriminatory and should be grouped as "Human Rights Activists" CMV I think Mens Rights Activists and Women's Rights Activists/Feminists suffer from "Grass is always greener syndrome." Both sexes have different problems and different privileges and neither one really see what they have. Women do have a higher chance of getting sexually harassed, but men's problems are never taken as seriously as a woman's. As far as privileges go, there might not be a lot of women as engineers, math, etc. But there aren't a lot of men in social work and teaching jobs. Feminists focuses too much on Women's problems, and Men's rights focuses too much on men's problems. We should get together and make sure everyone is getting equal treatment and not be selfish and focus on our own problems. CMV.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Resolving issues is much more efficient if the group is focused on them. By your logic, everyone has issues (a true point.) But why stop a group focused on gender issues? Why shouldn't the group also focus on racial issues? Economic issues? And so forth. The most effective groups for social change are those that tend to have a razor-sharp focus on one issue (see the impact of MADD). The bigger groups get, the more they tend to degenerate into in-fighting, power struggles, identity issues, and the less they actually get done. A more reasonable argument might be for feminists and MRAs to spend less time fighting each other and more time working towards common interests (such as dismantling gendered social institutions that hurt both men and women).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user The human hearing range goes from 20 Hz to 200 kHz, but it's wider when we are young. Is it a case of degradation or does the extra ability serve a purpose for infant and children? I can assume that we see at our best when we are young and over time, our sight gets worse as our eyes wear out. Is it the same for hearing? Or is there a purposeful reason as to why our hearing is better when we are young (maybe something to do with language acquisition), and then we shed that ability when it is no longer necessary + casual wear out?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Human hearing sits in the range between 20Hz and 20kHz. You detect frequencies through the stimulation of microscopic hair cells in the cochlea. As you age, these cells deteriorate and die, and can not be repaired or replaced. The cells that detect higher frequencies deteriorate first. For males, the drop off begins in their early 20s and continues throughout their lives. Females retain their high frequency hearing for much longer. On top of this, noise-induced hearing loss can occur from sustained exposure to noisy environments or loud music. Source: am a sound engineer and acoustic technician.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are the females of some species (like insects) considerably larger than the males? What is it that determines the male-female size differences within a particular species? Edit: How about species where males are larger than females?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In many species of insects and fish the female is larger because it leaves more room for eggs. So call "R-Strategists" produce large numbers of offspring with little to no parental care, hoping a small number will make it to adult hood. A larger female can produce much more eggs and thus more will survive to adult hood. As opposed to a "K-strategist", the category most mammals fall into, including humans. A human female carries the child for 9 months, followed by at least 2 decades of care. A huge investment by comparison to the "lay it then leave it" method. During this time (especially during pregnancy and early childhood, when the parent must be extra careful) the female is slowed down by this "3rd wheel". Since the female is only birthing one or two offspring at a time, its not important for her to be big. It is more important for her to have a bigger stronger protection figure to help while she is slowed down by child care, a role the male would fulfill in a traditional cave man household. EDIT: minor errors, clarifications, more info, rewording<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 Why is market competition not driving down the prices of insulin in the US?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Many of the common modern insulin analogues are sometimes still under patent or only recently have had interchangable biosimilar products approved (also, getting an approval for a biosimilar also takes a very long time). When a company has the legal right to be the only supplier of a particular specific good, even if mildly similar alternatives exist, that company can set their own prices without much restriction.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If the vacuum of space is a poor conductor of heat, how do stars give off so much of it? Mostly interested on if this principle could be used in spacecraft to get rid of excess heat?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Heat transfer happens through 3 primary methods: Conduction, convection and radiation. As the name implies, the property "conductivity" only applies to the first of these three methods. In space, there is no heat conduction (or convection for that matter), so we say that the conductivity of vacuum is very low (essentially 0). Stars give off their heat through the third method: radiation. Stars emit massive amounts of electromagnetic radiation (visible light, infrared, UV, etc... the spectrum depends on the temperature of the star). Radiation is also the only way for a spacecraft to shed its excess heat. Unfortunately, radiation is not very effective at doing so (but since stars are so large, they still emit a lot of heat that way), but it's the only practical solution available.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Question about basis in infinite dimensional vector spaces? I read that in infinite dimensional vector spaces, a countable ortonormal system is considered a basis if the set of finite linear combiantions of elements of such system is everywhere dense in the vector space. For example, the set {ei / i in N} is a basis for l^2 (oo) (where ei is the sequence with a 1 in the i-th location and 0 everywhere else). I was wondering if there was a way of considering a set a basis if every element in the space is a finite linear combination of the elements of the set and this set is linearly independent. I guess the vector space itself generates the vector space, but it's elements are not linearly independent. Is there a way to remove some of the elements of the vector space in such a way that the set that remains is linearly independent and it generates all the space only with finite combinations?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant These two notions of "Basis" are different. Technically, a Basis is a set of linearly independent vector where every other vector in the vector space can be written as a finite linear combination of elements from the basis. In this case, your "basis" for l^(2) is not an actual basis, since we would need infinite combinations of these things. The Axiom of Choice guarantees that there is an actual Basis for every vector space, but it's not always possible to explicitly find them. If we're in a more geometric setting, we can look at a different kind of basis called a "Continuous Basis", which is what you describe. In this way, we can write every vector as a convergent infinite linear combination of basis vectors. You need the extra geometry to talk about converging sequences like this. Generally, these are the kinds of bases that you find when doing Fourier Analysis or in Functional Analysis in general. So, while l^(2) does have a basis, it's not very helpful, but it does have a continuous basis that helps us understand the space as an Inner Product Space rather than just as a Vector Space.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What makes a good question? There's some frustration among some panelists here about poorly-formed questions. When I was in grad school, asking a good question was one of the hardest things to learn how to do. It's not easy to ask a good question, and it's not easy to recognize what can be wrong with a question that seems to be perfectly reasonable. This causes no end of problems, with question-askers getting upset that no one's telling them what they want to know, and question-answerers getting upset at the formulation of the question. Asking a good research question or science question is a skill in itself, and it's most of what scientists do. It occurred to me that it might help to ask scientists, i.e. people who have been trained in the art of question asking, what they think makes a good question - both for research and for askscience.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The scientific method is good at answering questions that boil down to "What is the relationship between X and Y?" The precise way in which the question reduces to that form may not be immediately obvious. For example, take the question "Why is the sky blue?" Or, stating the implicit, "Why is the sky blue and not another colour?" The most obvious comment on such a question is, well, it isn't. Not always. At night the sky is black, and on overcast days it's some or another shade of grey. And at sunrise and sunset, the sky takes on a wide variety of yellow, orange, red and violet hues as well. Which means the colour of the sky appears to have something to do with the sun. Which allows us to restate the question as, "What is the relationship between sunlight and the colour of the sky?" And next thing you know, you've got Rayleigh scattering. You've just done science. Of course, one might not have gone that way. One might instead have wondered what the relationship is between the colour of the sky and the weather. Or between the colour of the sky and the time of day. Or between the colour of the sky and the temperature out of doors. In all of those cases, the answer is that there's only an indirect relationship … but even that is doing science. Discovering that there is no relationship where you thought one was, or that the relationship you imagined turns out to be far more complex and interesting than you suspected, is what science is really really good for. Bad questions are those that don't move you toward a greater understanding of the relationship between two things. Speculative questions, hypothetical questions, what-would-happen-if questions, is-it-possible-that questions, what's-the-deal-with questions, what-do-you-think-about questions, what's-the-purpose-of questions, and worst of them all help-me-win-an-argument questions … these are all lousy. Because while they might tickle our curiosity, they don't get us anywhere. They don't lead us to a better understanding of how the world works. Things exist. Things happen. Sussing out the relationships between things that exist and things that happen is what that scientific method is good for. If your intention is to do science — and while it's not mandatory that it must be, that is what it says up there at the top of each page in this forum — then toward those relationships is where your attention must be cast. Otherwise it's all just nattery and chit-chat.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: People who talk too much should be viewed as ineffective in the workplace. I don't know about you guys, but at every place I have worked, there has always been that one person that I dread talking to because I know I'm asking a question that could be answered in under a minute and end up getting a 15-minute response to the question. And it's not even that I got my answer in the first minute and got 14 bonus minutes of exposition; it really is that it took that long to get an answer. This absolutely kills my own productivity as I have to spend a large chunk of time receiving my answer. At the most stressful place I worked which tracked every single hour I spent on a project, I remember a common occurrence of asking for help from this guy named Chris and expecting at most 5 minutes to resolve my question but getting 45 minutes instead. And the crazy thing is that Chris was hailed as one of the best employees at the company just because he was ridiculously vocal and outspoken, but trust me, he made lots of boneheaded mistakes. And he absolutely killed my own productivity. The negative consequences of the inability to get to the point is far-reaching. A talk-too-mucher can dominate a meeting so much that others who have things to contribute get no chance to speak. Or maybe they need to have their own needs met and shoot the breeze with an employee who actually just wants to work and not chat but is too nice to say so. I honestly think workplaces need to make more of an effort to weed these people out of the workplace. A possible counterpoint is that these people may be viewed as very thorough and detailed, but that assumes that all additional thought is useful and that efficiency has 0 value. And honestly, in my experience, these chatterboxes are actually quite DISorganized. The tendency to go off on tangents stems from a mind that wanders and digresses constantly and you shouldn't really expect organization from that kind of mind. CMV.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There’s some value to community building in the work place. Don’t have it on me right now, but there’s a lot of evidence to suggest that good workplace communities are more efficient/effective workers due to more trust between them. People who talk a lot, even for 15 minutes for one question, may serve a purpose other than simply productivity. They can act as the glue that binds a community together, the effects of which offset (completely or, more likely, partially) the negative consequences of their time wasting<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What is your favorite non-technical CS book? I'm looking for some casual reading about CS (history, important people, etc.). I guess you could say I'm a bit lost and looking for motivation and inspiration for why I'm still in this field suffering :) As sort of an analogy, I'm looking for something like Mukherjee's The Gene, but about CS instead of Genetics. I'd really appreciate any suggestions!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If you want a nice history of computers, read The Innovators by Walter Isaacson. If you want a more well-rounded history of computers after reading the Innovators, read A People's History of Computing in the United States by Joy Lisi Rankin. If you want an interesting look at the people who make computers and what drives them, read The Soul of a New Machine by Tracy Kidder. Some of these are certainly more "computing" than Computer Science, but people mean different things by "computer science" so they might fit what you're looking for.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is the difference between fantasy and science-fiction?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It can be something of a spectrum with significant overlap, but principally, Science Fiction takes an existing scientific principal and expands on it in to explore the consequences, possibly hand-waving the specifics of the egineering, but generally holding to the accepted laws of the universe with specific scientifically justified exceptions. Fantasy includes clear impossibilties that are not even attempted to be justified by modern, real science, but instead are justified internally by "Magic", where "Magic" is an aspect of the in-story universal laws are fundamentally different than our scientific understanding of the real world.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: The US is over 18 trillion dollars in debt, why are we considered a wealthy, stable country? And why aren't more people freaking out about our debt?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant 1) The US has never missed a payment 2) The US has a strong economy that's rebounded nicely, and a huge amount of natural resources still available for development 3) The US government as a whole has an annual revenue of about $6 trillion, so $18 trillion isn't insurmountable 4) A majority of that $18 trillion in debt is held either by the government itself or the people and businesses of the US.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How to contact professors for research internships I have tried contacting professors by cold-emailing them every time and if possible, calling their offices to know whether they do have internship positions available. However, I receive a one-in-a-million replies and mostly it redirects me to the university admissions page. Consistent e-mailing might be regarded as spam bombing What do you think is the best way to contact professors politely to ask for research internships?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Your best bet is to ask your own professors if they have professional contacts in the field/location that you're interested in. If you want more specific suggestions, you'll probably have to be more specific about your goals and background: Are you contacting professors at your own university or elsewhere? Are you trying to get an internship in your own country or abroad? What country and subject are you in?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What is the current research consensus for effective therapies? Hi all, Just wondering what the current consensus is regarding different types of psychological therapy and their efficacy?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Cochrane Reviews are good for meta-analyses for the best treatments for different conditions. Therapeutic alliance is definitely important but so is evidence-based formulation-driven treatment. I’ve changed methods (same client same alliance) when not getting results and a new modality has led to improved symptoms.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user cmv: Religion does more harm than positive, and in general is holding us back as a society I would like to specify that I meant to talk about organized religion and I have no problem with people believing in a god. Thats what I was trying to say in the first paragraph.+ First off, I’m just going to start by saying that I would by no means tell this to a religious person, and I respect their right to believe. I also personally know numerous people who have been helped by religion, and numerous religious figures who are really good people. I just think the negatives outweigh the benefits Ok now on to why. The first reason why I think so is because most modern religions instill racism indirectly through their teaching. They teach that their religion is the correct one and what god intends, and that anyone who doesn’t agree is a sinner. This mentality leads to followers thinking they’re superior to another group of people and use religion as a justification. Throughout history there have been countless examples I don’t even need to mention. And even in modern day there are examples, such as conflicts with the US and the Middle East. Although backed by economic reasons, the religious rhetoric used by each side is constantly stoking the fire, and to be honest I think a lot of Americans who want to go fight for the US do it for religious reasons. (That is at least what I have experienced, I haven’t met a single peer of mine who went into the army who hadn’t talked about some sort of religious justification or just been plain racist against Muslims) Next reason is that religion leads to a lot of illogical conclusions that have no place in our day today. For example, teaching children celibacy rather than sexual education. How is this in any way a logical idea? And even if it is why should religious followers just trust in this idea because someone wrote it in a book thousands of years ago. Another thing is anti abortion sentiments. I’ll talk about Catholicism because I don’t know about the others on this topic, but the Catholic Church has no stance on abortion until the 70s. Once it was politically beneficial to stir controversy about abortion, the church picked a side Similar thing with homophobia. The Bible did not contain anything about homophobia and the modern excerpt used to justify it comes from a mistranslation of the original text. Fact of the matter is religious views change, and the followers of these views take them for granted and don’t use their own heads, making religion a dangerous thing for someone who knows how to use it. Also religion is just purely illogical, and believers believe in it without any sort of scientific evidence at all. This leads to a society that trusts what they are told, and doesn’t question their world views through evidence. The American president has stated many times that he wants to instill Christian values, and people support him because that. They continue to do as religion has taught them; they listen mindlessly and don’t think about adjusting their world view, but just listen to this figure who claims to support religion. Last thing is just a question but what makes a religious text so special that people trust in it and sometimes even quote it as evidence for certain articles. It was ultimately written by one person, or a few, and has been changed many many times. Not a single thing in it has been proven, and it states numerous hilariously crazy claims that are just stupid. If it had been written differently, the people in the world who were religious would act differently. Just because the initial author decided to write it that way. Anyways, I think as a scientific society with constant advancement in that direction, religion is just holding us back. Although a lot of my reasons were based on individual instances, without religion at all these instances would not happen. People need to think for themselves, and not be told what they need to think. This will just lead to problems. Anyways, looking forward to seeing people’s opinions.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A lot of your points are extremely sweeping generalizations without great backing in facts. Lets look at some of your claims: > modern religions instill racism indirectly through their teaching Most religions also claim that we should treat all people with respect and dignity. While religious identity can be wrapped up with cultural identity, blaming religion for racism is wrongheaded. People can be all sorts of racist without being religious. Additionally, many of the modern conflicts have reasons beyond religion. We aren't having a holy war out there, instead spheres of influence and natural resources have more to do with the conflicts. > teaching children celibacy rather than sexual education Not exactly true. Many religious institutions give a thorough sex education. IT is also with the caveat that they teach that celibacy is the morally correct choice. While you might disagree with that teaching, it is on solid, well debated ground. Increased sexual liberation is not necessarily progress. >the Catholic Church has no stance on abortion until the 70s The church has had teaching on the sanctity of life since the 1st century. While it was not political until the 70's, the moral opinion is unchanged. > making religion a dangerous thing for someone who knows how to use it. Making any system of belief dangerous is possible. Look at China, they are not religius but are actively perpetuating human rights abuses. > This leads to a society that trusts what they are told, and doesn’t question their world views through evidence This is also true of non-religious belief systems. Look at the propaganda of any state or social entity. It seems that you have come to a lot of these conclusions based on an almost religious adherence to atheist rhetoric. The categorical assumptions that the religious are sheep, That the texts are without value, and that belief is blind are rhetorical talking points that don't hold up under scrutiny. Furthermore, many of the scientists and philosophers that advanced society were religious. It cannot be separated cleanly. Religions have many problems, some are incompatible, it does not prove that there is no god, that there is not wisdom in religious texts or communities, or that religion holds back society.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Are we bound to get cancer if we don't die from something else before that? If I don't get a heart attack, or die by komodo dragon bite, will I eventually get cancer?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Pretty much yes. Cancer is an unavoidable consequence of evolution. A multicellular organism is a colony of cells that work in concert for one common goal. As we have evolved our cells have developed mechanisms to make sure all the cells divide and grow as complying members of the whole. Still, an individual cell that mutates (mutations happen all the time) to grow out of this control will do so! The control systems have evolved to reduce the risk of cancers until they no longer posed significant selective pressure on reproductive success. Generally though, because of evolution, as you live longer the chance of getting cancer approaches 1. That being said, there is no reason why we should not be able to push this back a lot further. =)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is "hello world" always the first thing you write on computer programming applications?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In the past, the hardest thing about writing a new program wasn't the programming language. It was understanding how your programming tools worked. To use C as an example, in order to write your first program, you would need to: 1. Understand how your text editor worked, a non-trivial task on a text only, mouseless computer. 2. Understand how the file system worked, and how to save your program with the correct file extension to the correct location. 3. Understand how to run your compiler. This was before graphical interfaces, so you couldn't just click a button. You had to exit your text editor, type something like "cc -Wall hello.c -o hello", see if there were any syntax errors, and they pull up you text editor to fix them again. 4. Understand how to execute your program once you got it to compile. That is a lot of things to figure out, "Hello, world!" is an exercise in getting them right.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How people who communicate in sign language raise babies that can communicate verbally<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant By trying very hard, and by using an outside coach (usually through school). Children born to deaf parents are actually known to struggle when learning verbal communication, mostly because sign is their first language and English (or whatever) is their second language. It's difficult to raise a bilingual child when one of the languages isn't spoken at home, but most kids will pick it up if they go to a verbal school.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user I think I threw my thesis out of the window The idea was to write my Master's thesis in a computational field, about a topic that I had barely touched upon before. So I spent a long time familiarizing with said topic and trying to fill my knowledge gaps (let's say for a couple of months), then I installed the model I was supposed to use and tried to apply it to my research subject, but with no success (this took a month, in which I also started working an almost full time job because I need to support myself). At a certain point I contacted the author of said model, who said that the original function I needed had been knocked off. I tried to ask him if it could be restored but haven't heard from him since. At this point my supervisor redirects me to another model, which seems to work better than the previous one, but I haven't managed to adapt it to my needs. It's been one and half months, and still nothing. I honestly doubt I have the skills and the knowledge necessary to do it, if it's even possible. I think I'll give up on the experimental thesis and ask my supervisor if I can go with a compilation one on the same topic since I have two and half months left if I want to graduate on the next available date. I honestly can't help feeling like an utter failure. It's been months and I basically haven't even started, because nothing works!! I guess I did learn something at least and some minor things worked out, but it's been such a waste of time and so many dead ends. I feel so crushed (I've been crying the whole day about this) but I honestly don't even care anymore.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Welcome to research! In all seriousness, this is why thesis-based graduate programs don't have specific timescales the way undergrad does. A masters may be "around 2 years" and a PhD may be "around 4.5 years" (less not in the US) but that really means "1.5-3ish" and "4-6ish" based on how your research is actually going<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are people in medieval paintings often depicted with tilted heads?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Medieval European art developed directly from late Byzantine art, which was mostly religious in nature. In early Christian art, the people’s faces were always depicted as being turned attentively to God, the heavens, etc. to illustrate that their attention was on holy things, while their bodies were doing something else, meant to help identify who they were or what their station in life was. In combination, you often got strange or unnatural postures as a result. In addition, the artistic style was generally relatively primitive and non-realistic compared to modern tastes, so subtleties like depicting proper head posture while letting the eyes indicate the focus of a persons attention were more difficult to achieve.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 how countries like Egypt and Jordan can seek and destroy ISIS within days/hours after their countrymens' executions, and yet the US and other more powerful enemies of ISIS seem to have trouble locating them? You really don't have to explain like I'm five. I just didn't know where else to post this. It seems like anytime ISIS releases a video or information regarding an execution, within days or even hours, we hear about how X country has bombed and killed X ISIS members or positions. If ISIS can be bombed days or hours after an execution, why can't they be bombed as easily before? All of these reactionary strikes seem to come with such ease. So why is it so hard to kill ISIS members in the meantime?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Most of the time we have no problems finding who we are looking for. the problem is how to deploy troops to go resolve the problem. in a lot of cases we find them in a "not so internationally friendly way" so we have to create a story to allow us to engage the mission or wait until we have a story or a reason to be in that area. talking to them in some instances isn't as easy as it would seem because they may have informants within the ranks. Source: Former 96B<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How do we solve problems that don't have constant acceleration? I understand basic physics and how we solve motion problems using kinematic equations, but these all rely on a constant acceleration. How do we solve problems where this isn't the case, such as a rocket leaving Earth's gravity(since acceleration due to gravity gets smaller the further away you are).<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Calculus! Lots of it. We solve Newton's second law which is a second-order ordinary differential equation. Solution methods for finding analytical solutions for several sub-classes of such equations are typically covered in a course on differential equations. Such sub-classes of equations include separable equations, exact equations, linear equations, etc. There may also be so-called integrals of the motion which may be exploited to reduce the order of the differential equation, which often makes finding a solution much easier. (Exploiting energy conservation is an example of this last method.) For a force law of the form F(r) = k(r - a)/\|r - a\|^(3) (e.g., gravity), there are well-known analytical solutions in terms of conic sections, and these solutions are examined in more detail in a first- or second-year mechanics course. For general force laws, there is no known method to find an analytical solution (and there may not exist such a solution in terms of elementary functions and their integrals). So we have to use numerical methods to solve the equation approximately. There are many such numerical methods, which vary in accuracy, robustness, and complexity. The basic numerical methods (e.g., Euler's forward different method) are covered in a course on differential equations. More specialized methods are covered in a course on numerical analysis. Finally, sometimes we are not able to find an analytical solution but we don't really care. For many problems we may only want to find the solution "for small angles" (or some other approximation) or we may only want to know some general dynamics about the long-term behavior of the system. Questions like that can often be more easily treated not by appealing to Newton's second law directly. For instance, if a system can be described by a suitable Lagrangian function, then we can extract a lot more information, particularly about the fundamental symmetries of the problem. In high school or introductory physics, a problem like a rocket launched from Earth would most likely be treated using energy conservation. You can perfectly well answer questions like "what launch speed is required to get the rocket to a certain height?" without having to find a full analytical solution for the rocket's trajectory.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: It is dangerous to take fiction seriously This is an idea that I only recently considered, and I am not fully convinced myself, but here goes: It is dangerous to take fiction seriously. There are two major points I have here. First in good fiction there are no coincidences, and second fiction will inherently create a straw man argument. In a work of fiction the story is curated by an author in order to convey a message. In a novel it is reasonable to believe that the blue curtains indicate that the protagonist is depressed, but In real life there are thousands of reasons the curtains are blue. In a literary analysis class students will therefore learn to read into everything in the book. Applying this sort of reasoning to real life gives you conspiracy theories. For example I don't think Bush did 9/11, but if I were reading a book about a fictional 9/11 (in an alternate universe where 9/11 didn't happen) I could foresee the author intending for the audience to catch on to hints conspiracy theorists bring up as foreshadowing for the twist that Bush did in fact do 9/11. Regarding my second point I think it is fine to read fiction and consider the points that it makes as interesting ideas to explore, but I don't think that fiction should be cited as a reason to believe those points. For example if you read a fictional story advocating for UBI it would be reasonable to consider the idea, and if it holds up research its effectiveness in the real world, but it would be crazy to cite the work of fiction as a reason to implement UBI. The reason UBI works in the work of fiction is because the author explicitly wrote the story so that it would work. An example where I saw this actually happen would be when Jordan Peterson cites Dostoyevsky's novels for the reason one should act as if they believe in god. Admittedly I haven't read these books so I might be straw manning here, but my understanding of the argument is that the protagonist in one of these novels murders a woman more deserving of murder than anyone else. The protagonist gets away with the murder, but despite this their life is ruined anyways, the moral being that murder is wrong full stop. But the only reason the life of the protagonist is ruined is because the author decided it should be ruined. I could just as easily imagine an alternate story where the protagonist has a happy and fulfilling life after the murder. Anyways please change my view, or at the very least help me refine my argument. Thanks glhf. [Edit] u/DUNEsummerCARE asked a great question: "Can we, for the sake of this cmv, define what 'take seriously' means?" My answer is that my CMV can be summarized (more or less) with the following two points: 1. It is counterproductive to cite fiction in an argument. 2. It is counterproductive to use the tools one learns when analyzing fiction to analyze reality.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant >For example if you read a fictional story advocating for UBI it would be reasonable to consider the idea, and if it holds up research its effectiveness in the real world, but it would be crazy to site the work of fiction as a reason to implement UBI. Fiction does not typically set out to make cases like this. After all, if a writer's purpose was to explain why UBI is a good public policy, she would have written a piece of \non-\fiction. Fiction sets out to explore different kinds of truths, truths about what it's like to be a person in the world. And taking this kind of thing seriously can (and perhaps should) impact political beliefs, independent of the kinds of information you would find in an essay or piece of journalism. For example, a novel might give you insight and language into the ways that inequality erodes the dignity of our lives and highlight the ways in which our world uses the market as its moral compass. And this expansion of your moral imagination (what fiction really does do well) might well cause you to re-think specific policies like UBI. &#x200B;<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Gender count shouldn't be mentioned after innocent by standers have been negatively effected from a tragedy or crisis. When I read a news article about a bombing overseas, why is it always said that - for example; '13 innocent people were killed, including 3 women and 2 children'? If humans want sexual equality and not chauvinism then we have to start accepting people as people. If there are innocent civilians who were effected, injured or killed in a crisis, tragedy etc it shouldn't matter how many men, women or children were involved to make the story any less saddening. A loss of life is a loss of life. Young, old, black or white. If there are 10 men or 10 women or a mixture of both it's just as relevant to everybody. The gender count shouldn't even be included or mentioned.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The more details we hear about the victims, the better we are able to relate. A blanket statement of "5,000 people killed in a tsunami" is just a statistic. "A family of four on their way to a movie to celebrate the child's birthday was killed by a drunk driver" has a far more visceral impact on most people, even though it's a much smaller number. Also, particularly when it comes to children, age DOES make a difference. Children aren't supposed to die. Most societies are set up to protect and nurture children - so that even those without children share in the cost of educating them, because they are of course the future. There's also the question of "innocence". While to you they were just bystanders, a terrorist could see all American adults as supporting the system they oppose. But a child is too young to have any culpability for the society they live in - it's a higher level of innocence.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: The UN should add Hindi as a 7th official language<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant English, French, Spanish, Chinese, and Russian were languages that historically belonged to large, global empires. This is why you find countries that those languages across the world (Russia and China are a bit more localized, but still have a vast spread). Arabic was added because it is one of the most common official languages (27 countries). Hindi has a lot of speakers in terms of population, but very limited use at the state level. If Hindi continues to spread out and eventually become the dominate language in countries in other continents, it certainly should be added to the list. For now, the language has the depth (population) for an official language, but not the breadth (states and institutions).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Do masculine and feminine nouns in romance languages shape gender roles in those countries where it's primarily spoken? I know that all nouns in Spanish are masculine and feminine but some occupations like lawyer is"el abogado" and teacher is " la profesora". Does that affect gender roles in those countries? Are men more likely to become lawyers because of the association of lawyer with men via the noun (same with women and teachers)? &#x200B; Not sure of the occupational demographics of those countries so these terms could be bad examples. &#x200B; Marking this a social science since it deals with more in the realm of sociology more than linguistics but I would really love to know the origin of these nouns as well!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Most professions in Spanish and Portuguese have a masculine and feminine version of the word. Abogado/abogada, profesor/profesora, medico/medica etc. A better question might be how do the masculinity or femininity of a noun reflect the views of society about men and women. Why are the words "snow" or "rain" feminine while the words "fire" or "earthquake" are masculine? Or why certain words have double meanings and what they say about gender. For example in Spanish "esposas" means "wives" and "handcuffs". In portuguese "piranha" is a word for both the fish and slut.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 : Why are we taller than our ancestors? I've been told that it's because of genetics, of our better nutrition etc. What is the exact cause?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Better nutrition is a good start. Compare the average height in South Korea (5'8 1/2") with the average height in North Korea (5'5"). And that's after just half a century of malnutrition. Not sure about the rest, but the importance if better nutrition cannot be overstated here. I can imagine there's been some evolutionary selection in mates favoring taller, stronger, healthier-looking people, as well, but that depends on how far back you go to define "ancestors."<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What happens if a person is given the wrong type of blood for a transfusion.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Blood has anti other blood sensors on it. Type A has anti-B, type O has anti A and anti B, type B has anti A and type AB has neither. So following these rules, Type A can receive from only A or O. Type B can receive B or O. Type O can only receive O. Type AB can receive O, A, B, and AB. This is why type O is considered the universal donor while type AB is the universal receiver. If they are not a blood match, the blood will attack the foreign blood. The reason someone is getting a transfusion is because they need blood. Adding bad blood triggers an auto response from the blood to destroy the foreign blood. This exacerbates the lack of blood issue by causing existing blood cells to die and destroying the transfused blood cells as well. Now the body not only has survive whatever trauma but also has to clean up the giant mess in the bloodstream now with multiple clots that can reach cause heart attack or stroke. Most likely it kills the patient if not caught immediately. . Edit: Rh factor is another aspect of the blood. This is either you have Rh factor (+) or you don't (-). Those who don't, don't want it and those who do don't care if they don't get more.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How does speculative execution in CPUs work? "Speculative execution" in CPUs has been mentioned in the news recently due to the Intel bug. What operations can be speculatively executed at the CPU level and how does the processor know it has a likelihood of a speedup without any higher level understanding of the problem it is solving?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Let’s start with pipelines: Traditionally you would expect a CPU to execute one command, then the next command, and so on, one command per clock cycle. Unfortunately this would need very low CPU speeds. To get faster speeds pipelines were introduced: During one clock cycle only parts of the command are done and the intermediate state is saved, during the next cycle this intermediate state is passed on to the next stage, meanwhile the next command starts already. A simple pipeline might just have 3-4 steps, modern CPUs have many more. There are two cases where this leads to problems: * a command needs the result of a previous command that is still in the pipeline * the program logic depends on the outcome of a command: “if x>5 do this else do that” The first case can be reduced by software that makes sure these dependencies are not too fast behind each other. For the other case: A CPU could stop executing commands and wait for the condition to be known (here: what is x), but that would take time. Usually these conditions occur in loops, where the outcome is the same many times (x is smaller 99% of the time). A modern CPU has extra logic that makes a best estimate what the result will be (which code to execute next) and start working on the following code. If the prediction turns out to be wrong then the result of this predictive execution has to be discarded. Most elements of modern CPUs are logic to determine what depends on what, what can be done in parallel, how to clean up if the prediction was wrong and so on. A bug there is not too surprising.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Mad Max] how is knowledge of mechanical engineering preserved? So a lot of factions have vehicles - bikes, cars, and most of them are cobbled together from lots of different parts. But how do they know how to make working, driving cars? How do they know how to keep an engine running, or how to fix issues? The only three possibilities I can think of would be these: 1. It's a broadly master-apprentice system, where someone who has the knowledge takes an apprentice and teaches them everything they know. But is this realistic in smaller groups? 2. They learn from pre-collapse material, like engineering textbooks and manuals. But these are usually made with the expectation of a full school education in mind, so how useful would they be? Also, you'd need to be able to read. 3. They reverse-engineer existing vehicles. So your warband manages to tear the tires off some unfortunate wastelander's car, you murk them and then take the thing back to your hideout. But there the problem is that it's an endless cycle.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Mostly 1, there are crews that preserve that knowledge and they pass it onto the younger generation. Its most realistic in the smaller groups, but the knowledge is very specialized. They don't know how to fix cars, they know how to fix THAT car. The knowledge itself become nearly religious in nature. Given that the vehicles are typically critical to the group's survival, preservation of that knowledge is a survival activity. Two is also a possibility, but most humans do not know how to read. Some still do, and those kinds of humans will probably have some manuals about. Further, in some of the manuals there are enough pictures that some processes can be replicated without a firm grasp of the text. Three is more scavenging than reverse engineering. You have two broken cars, the more broken is stripped and now you have one working car. The cars that they use are also very different than the cars we do. They are much more similar to cars from the 50's, where there are no significant electronic components.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What happens to blood samples after they are tested? What happens to all the blood? If it is put into hazardous material bins, what happens to the hazardous material?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I worked at the CDC doing some blood analysis for a few years. We trashed the blood vials in biohazard bins which were tagged for incineration. They might have been autoclaved first and then incinerated. Disposal of bodily fluids is a very controlled and regulated process and must be thoroughly decontaminated to prevent the accidental spread of disease.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 Quantum Computing Is it faster? Or is it for storage? Is it real or just a theory? And how does it work?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Quantum Computing is currently just a theory. The basic idea is that computers actually work in binary. Information is in a series of bits. A bit is just a 0 or a 1. Quantum computing is the theory that a bit can be 0, 1 or both. It is "faster" in the sense that it reduces the way to combine data. For instance, a 256 bit encryption key is currently thought of to be unbreakable because there are so many possible combinations that it would take all the computing power in the world several years to try out all the combinations. Basically, if a computer were to "guess" a 256 bit encryption, it would literally need to first try 256 0's, then 255 0's and one 1, then 254 0's, one 1, one 0. etc. Quantum computing would be able to line up 256 quantum bits that are both 0 and 1 and quickly break the encryption. Again, it's still theory, so we don't have something that can actually do this yet.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: why do humans have phobias I have noticed that there are many different phobias but some of them don't make sense to have as a survival instinct like clowns. Does anybody know why we have phobias for survival and others for random thing.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If you have an experience which makes you genuinely afraid for your life then you pick up on features of the environment that serve as a trigger to that danger. People tend to unconsciously fixate on things that are novel to them. An easy example is that you go to a party and you eat some caviar on toast and you've never eaten caviar before. Then you become violently ill. You're more likely to develop an involuntary acquired nausea response when exposed to caviar (because it's unfamiliar to you) than to toast (because you've eaten this many times before and know it's benign). Similarly if someone is raped by someone wearing a leather jacket they may acquire a phobia against any exposure to someone wearing a leather jacket. They rationally know that leather jackets have nothing to do with them getting raped. But we are hard wired to acquire involuntary phobias to things we associate with danger, especially if they are novel, regardless of how rational this is. It's an evolutionary advantage to avoid anything that we associate with a threat to our life. Again, regardless of how rational that is.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What's all this about Stem Cell research and why is it so controversial?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Human bodies are made of many types of cells, all with their own special purpose. Putting a lot of the cells together eventually creates an organ. A heart is made of heart cells, a brain is made of brain cells, and etc. But because cells are so specialized, they cannot be used for anything else. A liver cell could not be used to replace a skin cell, for example. Cells recreate themselves by cloning, kind of like making a baby cell. That's what is so special about stem cells. As it turns out, all cells started as stem cells (or are the baby cells of stem cells or their babies). Which means every stem cells has the ability to become any other cell! This is very useful because if a person is missing certain special cells, they can (potentially) use stem cells to replace them! The controversy comes from two things actually. The first is how they get the cells, and the second is how they can be used. The first controversy comes from how stem cells are collected. Unfortunately, the easiest way to find a stem cell is to find a human that is young enough to have unspecialized cells. This means using an unborn human fetus. However, there is good news. There have been methods discovered that can revert a specialized cell into a stem cell. This means it might not be necessary to use human fetuses to advance stem cell research. The second controversy comes from cloning. It is theoretically possible to clone a human using stem cells, since the stem cells can (potentially) change into any form. But there is good news on this side as well. If it is possible to clone an entire human, it is definitely possible to clone a single organ. This means that if someone needs a liver transplant, they can simply grow it using stem cells!<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why do LED light bulbs have a much more continuous spectrum than CFL? I thought that both create first blue light, and use phosphors to create some more colors out of that, which then mix up to white. But why is the spectrum of CFL just some needles, and the spectrum of LED is continuous?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Phosphor converted LEDS (PCLEDS) and CFLs both operate on the principle of down-converting blue and UV light (respectively) to visible light via phosphors. The reason that the CFL spectrum looks like needles is that the it contains narrow line width emitting phosphors. What that means is that the phosphors only emit a very narrow and specific wavelength of light (usually corresponding to an electron transition in a rare-earth metal f-orbital). They use a bunch of these narrow ones at key wavelengths to give the final result of white light. LED phosphors on the other hand, are broad spectrum, usually something like a yellow phosphor with a blue LED. In this case, the single phosphor is the cheapest and if they were to use a narrow emitting phosphor it would look like blue and yellow light mixed together. By having a broadly emitting yellow phosphor, they can cover more of the spectrum giving better white light. Going a step further LED companies are now aiming to add multiple narrower phosphors, like the ones in CFLs, to blue LEDs. This will truly fill out the spectrum and give a better color rendering index to the LED lights. If you are talking about color mixing LEDs, those use 3 or more individually colored LED chips to produce white light. This is much like how small red, green, and blue sub-pixles make up one white pixel on your computer screen. In that case, the spectrum shape of each LED is Gaussian and they make a more continuous looking spectrum. Source: PhD candidate who grows LEDs. Edit: Fluorescents phosphors are f-orbital transitions, and PCLED phosphors are f-d orbital transitions<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star Wars, Star Trek, Warhammer 40k, Halo] Which mode of transportation is more efficient? Hyperspace? Warp Speed? Travelling through the Warp? Or Slipspace?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant How do you mean efficient? If you mean fastest, then technically travelling via the Warp is fastest, as you can arrive instantly, quickly, slowly, never, or even before you leave. The Warp is unpredictable like that. However, that's not what I'd call efficient, what with the chance of you being permanently stranded in a hellish dimension where you are likely to be set upon by demons.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why there are no sky-colored birds? Why they don't mimetize with the sky?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant For the most part, birds are safe in the air (the exception being from some birds of prey which usually strike from above, not below). Birds are vulnerable when on the ground, so it makes more sense to blend in with their usually terrestrial habitat than the sky. Or they are brightly colored to attract a mate, simply building spending most of their time in remote, hard-to-reach areas where few predators can reach them.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why Delta-V and not Acceleration? I hear the term Delta-V from rocket scientists a lot. If I recall from my University Physics 101 course, the change in velocity with respect to the change in time is called Acceleration. So why does the Rocket Science Community use the term Delta-V instead of just saying Acceleration? Or do I fundamentally misunderstand? What is the difference between Delta-V and Acceleration?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Acceleration is the measure of how quickly your velocity is changing, whereas delta-v is the total required change in velocity in order to complete a maneuver. So if in order to get to a certain orbit you will need to increase your velocity by 1000 m/s, an acceleration of 10 m/s/s will allow you to complete the maneuver in 100 seconds. Delta-v: A change of 1000 m/s. Acceleration: 10 m/s/s. The reason why delta-v is useful is because typically fuel gives you a specific impulse (for every unit of fuel you get so much change in momentum), so it is a more useful figure when talking about fuel consumption.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: there are no good reasons for going to Mars and we should not do it. I'm a scientist myself and I'm very passionate about space exploration and science in general. I think the time, money and human effort that would be spent on a manned mission to Mars would be largely wasted. Some of the arguments I hear in favor of a human mission to Mars are often related to having a "backup planet" or exporting our civilization elsewhere. I will just dismiss these arguments as ludicrous immediately: Mars is a barren rock with no hope of sustaining life. As a species, we currently have no clue how to keep this planet inhabitable, we have no hope of ever populating Mars with any decent numbers. A scientific base? Maybe, sure, an actual colony? That's science fiction. As far as new scientific knowledge that could be gained from a manned Mars mission, I doubt the enormous resources required for a scientific base on Mars couldn't be spent on having the same or better results with an unmanned probe. Curiosity has been roaming the surface of Mars for 9 years. It needs no food, no water, no human relationships or mental health assistance, and if after all this time it falls in a crater and breaks, no human life has been lost. I find it hard to believe that an automated mission designed to bring back samples from Mars would be harder to realize than a manned mission, and it would be infinitely less dangerous. I think the idea of a Mars mission is largely a romanticized "to set foot where no creature has ever set foot before" glorification of the human species for some, and a publicity stunt for your garden variety billionaire like Musk. There is little practical reason to do it. That being said, I love things that are done with no reason other than advance our knowledge and culture, but poetry, art, music, pure mathematics or quantum gravity don't cost billions and don't put any human lives at risk for the romantic ideas of a country or the profits of a billionaire.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Projects with a lot of prestige, like a manned Mars mission for example, can serve to excite a large amount of people for the cause of scientific exploration and as such create more resources for projects that actually have a big projected return. This sometimes makes flashy, but questionably effective projects like this worth it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do doctors know the amount and strength of medications when prescribing for acute conditions. When a doctor diagnoses you with something, say a localized infection, how do they determine the amount of the medication as well as the length you take it?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The general guidelines and typical dose is first determined by pharmaceutical companies who created the drug; and the company get the number through FDA testing/trials to determine the effective dose, allergy, side effects, min/max safe dose, etc. The prescriber will usually start with the typical dose and adjust if needed… rarely going beyond the recommended max dose so not to damage the liver/kidney/OD/other risks. Sometimes a drug will be given for “off label” use and that’s usually determined/backed by research articles. Off label just means the type of use have not been approved by the FDA. Source: Im licensed to Rx meds.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why are physicists searching for magnetic monopoles? I'm an undergraduate physics student and I've heard that the discovery of magnetic monopoles could be really important for the simplification of essential equations in theories like supersymmetry. My understanding of the electromagnetic force is that magnetic fields are generated by aligned spins of charged particles. If this is true, then anything that generates a magnetic field must be polar. So why do physicists have reason to believe that magnetic monopoles exist?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Ina 1931 paper, Dirac showed that if there is a single monopole anywhere in the universe, then electrical charge must be quantised, provided that Maxwell's equations hold true. As charge is in fact quantised and Maxwell underpins everything taht we know and use in electronics, monopoles are consistent with reality. Like dark matter, they elude discovery. Electrical charge monopoles exist everywhere. Electrons are an example, but their magnetic counterpart is absent. Arguably, they are too massive to create or too unstable to last, although their decay would be interesting. Indeed, magnetic monopoles may be required to be black holes.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How come in some instances we don't feel pain until we look at the injury? I remember getting a huge gash in my hand and I didn't feel a thing until my friend pointed it out to me. Happened to a lot of my friends too<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The ability to ignore wounds like that was a significant evolutionary advantage: in general, getting wounds means that you're probably in danger. There are very few kinds of danger for which sitting around immobilised by pain and screaming is a good way to get out of the danger, but an awful lot where not having to worry about the pain and carrying on as you were is helpful.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What the numbers on my camera lens mean ? I'm very amateur photographer . I'm use differents lens : standard , wide angle , zoom lens , macro ? But ...what the number on my lens mean ? By way of illustration : -Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM -Canon Fixed Focal Length EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM -Canon EF 300mm f/4.0L IS USM Edit : I'm very happy for all the answer , is dinner time here in Ireland . After my dinner I going to spend time reading every post here in ELI5 . Thanks a lot and if you want to see some of my picture //goo.gl/oOO8Ay [ I'm 100 % amateur ]<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The numbers in mm refer to a focal-length in millimeters. This is a measure of how far from the lens (in mm) the light converges to a focused point (on the sensor, for a properly focused image). For a telephoto lens, the number is high (and the lens body longer), and for a wide-angle lens the number is low (and the lens body shorter). The f-number refers to the minimum aperture. It is the ratio of the focal length to diameter of the aperture (wide-open) of the lens. The lower the number, the more light gets in to the sensor. Low numbers are good because they mean that you have a wider range of possible exposure and you can work in lower-light conditions. Zoom lenses have a range of f-numbers because you physically change the distance of the lens from the sensor while zooming (so the ratio changes).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do people sense that a situation or person feels "off"?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There's two levels in a person's perception. There's the stuff you outright notice and the stuff that you don't quite consciously realize. Examples of the latter for situations might include a slight breeze that your skin feels but that you don't really notice or a curtain that's slightly out of kilter compared to the last time you were in a room and it makes a different pattern that indicates someone might have been in there. Examples with respect to people might be someone who changes the nature of their eye contact or someone who's a little twitchy and you're not aware of a reason why they should be, or when someone gives you direction to do something and it just doesn't seem to make immediate logical sense. Whether you directly notice it and consciously evaluate it, or it's a collection of not-quite-directly-observed little things that add up to a perception that makes you a little antsy, those types of things can make you get the feeling that something's "off".<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user A short text for freshman students to read… Any idea for a short, accessible text to read with freshman humanities students on their very first week? I’m just starting out as a lecturer and looking for something that can provoke discussion among students about how university education/learning may differ from their prior education, what are the goals of higher education etc. especially in a liberal art/humanities setting. (They don’t need to answer these questions, I want my students to discuss!) Ideally, I want something that touches on the importance of independent, critical thinking. I first thought of Said’s Representations of the Intellectual but I believe I need something more relatable (and short) for my students… I’ve looked at articles on The New Yorker etc. but haven’t found one that quite fits the bill… any suggestion would be appreciated!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I don’t have a specific suggestion, but ideally whatever they read will including helping them recognize that learning the material is their responsibility. and privilege. I’ve got way too many classmates who simply don’t understand this. They haven’t made the switch, and no one is forcing them to make the switch, from “I have to be here,” to “I get to be here.” They continue to be spoonfed, and teaching them is like pulling teeth.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do different people poop at different frequencies? Where does the waste go for people who don't poop often? I apologize in advance for this gross question. But I poop 2-3 times per day, and my wife poops 1 time per WEEK! I don't get it, is her body just better at getting all nutrients out of her meals and thus making less waste? Is her colon packed out like a Jersey shore club on a Saturday night? Why? Plus when she does poop its some little nugget dudes, as opposed to my soft/wet mess (again I can't apologize enough about this post). Is that a factor?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Here are a few factors that determine one's bowel movement frequency: * Diet (esp. fibre) * Fluid intake * Gut motility The last one just means "how enthusiastically your gut pushes stuff along." It does vary from person to person, so someone's "normal" might be once every few days where another's (like you) might be frequent. It's also affected by medications, like laxatives and drugs that constipate you as a side effect. Poop that isn't pooped out just collects in the colon; that's really the colon's job (in addition to some water absorption). As long as it stays there, it gets harder and drier. So yes, someone who poops less frequently will have a harder time of it. From a doctor's perspective, the ideal bowel movement just comes out when you're ready, rather than needing any straining at all.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do the mechanical elements of a hydraulic press (oil, pumps, valves etc) withstand pressure that can flatten a piece of metal?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The mechanical advantage of hydraulics is that extremely high pressures are not necessary to generate a large force. If you had a piston 1 foot in diameter, a measily 50 psi can generate 5000 pounds of force. Force = pressure times area.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How to develop academic twitter as grad student? I've recently signed up for twitter but am having concerns about how it could affect my future reputation. I mainly just retweet articles and tweets I like and keep things civil. But I like to keep up with politics and follow a lot of people whose tweets I end up liking. It's nothing offensive as far as I see it but clearly shows my political leanings. A friend recently told me I should be careful with what I like. I guess what I'm wondering is how much do profs pay attention to your twitter? I don't want a few tweets I like to come between me and an interview, so if that's the case I will just back track and keep my Twitter strictly school related.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Using Twitter is great for staying in touch with your field. It's also perfectly fine to be politically engaged on Twitter, especially in academia where political engagement is largely the norm. As long as you're not being extremely unprofessional, an active social media presence is likely to help more than hurt.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Gender identity is a useless construct that appropriates the actual mental illness gender dysphoria. In my view, gender identity is identifying with a characteristic that doesn't describe you, like identifying as tall when you're a short person, or identifying 20 when you're actually 60. There are people with actual gender dysphoria which is similar to body dysmorphia and it is a serious condition that currently is best treated by transitioning, in that case identifying as another gender is a therapeutic tool and the only solution to the mental illness. When people claim to be trans or nonbinary or any other type of non-cisgender without the diagnosis of gender dysphoria, it appropriates a mental illness and is basically the same as someone claiming to have OCD, depression, anxiety, ETC... without actually having them. EDIT: my view has changed I understand the other side and thanks to you guys see gender identity as a spectrum. Thank you guys.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant To change your view on this, it might be helpful to think about gender dysphoria as a spectrum rather than a binary (yes/no) kind of thing. For example, I've known people who have a gender identity that doesn't match their biological sex that experience milder forms of gender dysphoria. It's not intense enough to require therapy or a formal diagnosis (which is expensive for many to get). Rather, a few lifestyle factors can be changed to mostly manage it. Gender transition isn't absolutely necessary either (and indeed, for people who are non-binary, transitioning wouldn't help things).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Kant’s Meaning by “Nature” Kant uses the term “nature” extensively in the CPR and Prolegomena. Since we are to avoid all considerations about knowledge of noumena as a result of Hume’s arguments, then how exactly do we understand Kant’s concept of nature with no ties to things in themselves? I feel like this should be easier to grasp... Though it’s like trying to remember the word for something I never knew in the first place.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant For Kant the application of the law of causality to phenomena constitutes nature. Nature, consequently, is the world of determinateness and necessity as opposed to morality, which is the sphere of freedom.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do commercial fishers know what they are going to catch? They will seek out huge loads of one species and throw out the rest... but how do they hunt and track specific species?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Location, depth, bait, tools. Certain fish are only in certain locations, so to fish a specific fish you must be in a specific location, this isn't necessarily the difference of Alaska vs Florida, but can be location where a certain environment or phenomenon is observed IE: where currents come together, or where certain food can be found said fish like. Certain fish swim at certain depths, you fish as deep where the fish will be. Certain fish are attracted by certain kinds of bait. To catch specific fish you might use different methods or tools, something that is most effective for that kind of fish, it's not always just massive nets.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do Hindu dieties have more than 2 arms/multiple faces usually?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Hindu {and some associated with some schools of Buddhism) have multiple arms as a symbol of their capacity for actions (how much more could you do if you had more hands and arms?) and multiple faces/heads to show their all seeing natures.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do people nod their head when they hear music they like? When people like music you see them nod along with it, are they any particular reason why this occurs?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Charles Darwin researched nodding for his book The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals and found that head nods were fairly (not completely though) universal for agreement. So if something is agreeable it seems we are built to nod. Nice music, nod.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Optical insurance should be part of regular health insurance plans In the US, vision insurance is usually sold separately from health insurance plans for the rest of your body. The reason for this, I understand, is historical. Eye doctors/optometrists aren't educated at the same facilities as ophthalmologists and the professions were historically considered separate. However, I don't think it makes sense that traditional health insurance plans in the USA don't cover vision care. Arguments I have heard for why this makes sense: &#x200B; * Most people don't use vision insurance, so adding it in would drive up premiums unnecessarily. I don't think this makes sense at all. Most people won't require \most\ services that their health insurance plans cover. I have never needed a cardiologist, a radiologist, or a dermatologist, but if I did, my health insurance plan would cover it. * Vision insurance isn't medically necessary; you won't die just because you can't see well. I think this argument is made primarily by people who don't have poor vision. I do have poor vision, and my glasses/contact lenses allow me to live a normal life. It's just as medically necessary for my health and happiness as a hearing aid or prosthetic. I could not function independently without my glasses. * Vision care is relatively cheap, so most people can afford it on their own, so it isn't an injustice that it isn't covered. Perhaps, but it's still a huge hassle to have to shell out a couple hundred dollars every year for something I need to function. * The only argument I've ever heard that even remotely makes sense to me is that eye care is usually a very predictable, fixed cost every year, so it wouldn't make economic sense to cover it. For example, insurance companies know that it will cost them about $100 per person with vision deficiencies per year, so they will try to get each of those people to pay in about $100 each for the benefits, which then defeats the purpose of the insurance policy for the customer, as they will be just as well off paying for the services directly themselves. The thing I don't understand is why this argument is applied to vision insurance and nothing else. For example, I could see it being quite predictable that women of child-bearing age will each cost an insurance company $500 every three years for pap smears--thus insurance companies would try to raise prices to recoup those costs--and then the insurance plan would no longer really be a viable option for the customer. But it only seems to happen for optometry and other services considered medically unnecessary. I actually am generally extremely pleased with my health insurance, but this one baffles me. Other than for historical reasons, why can't I get vision care through my insurance? Why can I get so many services for free but when I need glasses, I'm left scouring weird websites hunting for deals? Why does this system make sense at all? Someone please CMV.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Ok, first... you need to understand why routine care is covered by medical insurance rather than being "pay as you go": People who skimp on preventative care because of the cost are very expensive to the insurer in the long run because lack of preventative care means you have a higher chance of an expensive disease or missing cancer until it's too late (and much more expensive to treat). Furthermore, there are public health benefits to things like vaccinations and infectious disease review. Vision, on the other hand... really doesn't have any of these problems. There's almost nothing you can do to "prevent" vision problems, so there's no reason for the health insurance company (or the people paying for it, like your work) to want to cover "routine care". And you basically automatically know when your own vision is getting blurry... you don't need a doctor to tell you that. The only exception might be glaucoma screening... but you can have that done by an opthamologist's office on your medical insurance already. Now we come to the economic reasons: Others have mentioned the predictability of vision costs... actually, it's the exact opposite: you spend as much on glasses and contacts as you want to. It's almost entirely under the control of the patient. For this reason, as you've pointed out, vision care always has a low-end "allowance" for the cheapest possible glasses. And the premiums for that are actually higher than the predicted payout, to allow for insurance company profit... so actually there's very little incentive for an individual to want to pay for vision insurance... it's a sucker's game... it's basically prepaid service, not insurance. Except for one thing: in the US, healthcare is generally paid for by employers, who will offer this "insurance" separately as a benefit to attract employees (and employees having good vision is in their interest too... and many companies actually care about their employees)... But... naturally... a company doesn't want to pay for vision coverage for every worker... only those who actually need it and are willing to cough up a small coinsurance payment to discourage everyone from just taking it. Hence... market forces have demanded that it be separate coverage in the US and other places with common workplace-based insurance.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:Why are diseases that have been eliminated kept in labs.What if the labs get contaminated and the disease spreads again?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant they are kept in case some country or terrorist group has an unregistered secret culture (a viable or dormant preserved form of the disease) that they may use for biological warfare. If, say, smallpox was released to the public in a terrorist act, everyone born after the 1970s when they stopped vaccinating would be susceptible to the disease. The idea behind keeping cultures of these diseases is to allow the quick and workable design of a new vaccine for a hyper-mutated weaponised strain in the event of attack, to eliminate loss of life. However the debate behind keeping these cultures is rife and the potential risks may outweigh the benefit. Basically, they should probably just cook the cultures and be done with it but we can't be sure that someone isn't harbouring the disease in some secret place.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user To what extent does the conversion from metal wires to fiber optics mitigate the economic risk from solar storms? My question occurs while reading [this article](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/03/110302-solar-flares-sun-storms-earth-danger-carrington-event-science/) about the worst solar storm ever recorded, in which telegraph lines generated electrical fires. It seems that perhaps the greatest terrestrial risk from solar storms are very long metal circuits, such as might exist in power or communications lines. However, power cables are, by definition, ready to withstand electrical surges to some extent (although the article discusses the risk to transformers). Does the transition from copper wires to fiber for the world's communication grid help mitigate the extent of disruption a large solar storm would cause?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The long haul optical fibers have conductors in them to power the optical amplifiers needed to boost the signal periodically. If the power surge that is induced in the line damages the amplifier systems, game over. Short runs can be just the optical components as the losses are low, and those would be stable in an EM storm but the electronics on the ends would still be sensitive.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Functional programming Can you give me some examples in which problems or areas functional programming solve better than OOP or/and Procedural Programming?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I just want to add that learning functional programming isn’t only useful for doing functional programming. You can take concepts from it and apply them in other language paradigms as well. You can make side-effect-free or “pure” functions in C, do recursion in Java, and use lambdas and closures in Python, for example.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What would happen if we could zoom in with a microscope infinitely? Would we keep seeing more detail or is there a 'cut off' where we can't see any more detail?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Let's say you want to look at a Hydrogen atom in the DNA of an animal with your theoretical microscope. At normal zooms, everything looks normal, and as you zoom in on the cell you see more detail of smaller things. You keep zooming and eventually you see the chromosones all coiled up. It's probably around this point that things start to look fuzzy. As other people have mentioned, seeing smaller things means using smaller wavelengths, and using smaller wavelengths means using more energy. To see smaller and smaller things, you need to put more and more energy into a smaller and smaller space. That doesn't bode well for the strands of DNA you're about to look at! As you keep zooming, you keep throwing photons (or electrons) at the DNA to be able to see it, and as you get closer in, the energy you're adding is enough to break the bonds, breaking the DNA molecule up. No bother, you're really interesting in that Hydrogen atom! As you get closer, you start to see bumps where the different atoms are, and they may even be moving around each other. These bumps are the electron clouds of the atoms. The electrons exist in the space around the nucleus of the atom, and the amount of space depends on two things: the force between them, and the mass of the electron. If the force between them is large, the space the electrons exist in is smaller. If the electrons had a larger mass, the space the electrons exists in would be smaller. (There are experiments with atoms that contain muons, which are heavier than electrons, and those atoms have smaller muon clouds than electron clouds.) After a while you get bored of seeing these bumps and clouds, because that's not what you expect. You want to see where the electron is, and what it's made of. You crank up the zoom again and pump some more energy in. That cloud shrinks in size and then disappears from view. The electron hasn't exploded, you've given it enough energy to escape the atom and it's gone. It's a bit like trying to squeeze an oily rubber ball. Squeeze it hard enough and it shoots off in some random direction and is gone forever. Even if you could zoom in on the electron, you'd see no substructure to it. But let's pursue the electron a bit more. Let's say you catch it in an electromagnetic field and can zoom in as much as you want. What would you see? As you zoom in more and more, you pump in more energy. You start to see electrons, positrons, and photons coming out of the region of space where the electron is. What's happening is that the energy you're adding is creating more particles. But still, the electron itself is just a very tiny cloud, so tiny that it looks like a particle. Don't be fooled though, the electron cloud is only small because the forces acting on it (the electromagnetic field) are stronger than the forces acting on it when it was in the atom. The more you zoom in, the more particles you create, and the more variety, but ultimately, you see nothing new in terms of substructure of the electron. How disappointing. You're not done though. You notice that the Hydrogen atom is still there, and another electron has wandered in to fill the gap left by the previous electron. You zoom in on the Hydrogen atom, this time looking at the proton. The proton cloud is smaller than the electron cloud because the forces holding it together are much stronger. In fact, they are called the "strong force". The proton, like the electron, exists in a small cloud. You crank up the zoom and notice that the proton is wobbling and pulsating slightly. As you zoom in more, this becomes more pronounced. It turns out that the proton does have some substructure! As you crank up the zoom, you notice you can see the cloud actually looks like three sub clouds, all overlapping each other. You notice that your microscope has a "chargeometer" for measuring electric charge. This is because at these zooms, you are literally firing photons (light particles) at the target and seeing where they bounce off. These light particles interact with electric charge, so the more charge the microscope looks at, the more light particles get reflected back. You point your microscope at the electron cloud to calibrate it and it comes back with a charge reading of -3. Now you point it at the proton again, zoomed out a bit, and it comes back with a charge reading of +3. Interesting... the electron and proton have equal and opposite charge readings. That must be something to do with how atoms form and they are electrically neutral. You zoom in again and try to focus on the sub clouds in the proton. They keep moving about, but you can just about point the chargeometer at them, and you get readings of +2, +2, and -1. It seems that the proton has three smaller particles inside, each with their own cloud, and with different charges. These are in fact the quarks that make up the proton, and you can see them dancing around. You press on and zoom in even more. As you do so, the dancing of the clouds slows down, and you start to see faint traces of other clouds between them. (The slowing down is because of special relativity and quantum mechanics. Everyone sees the same things happening, but from different perspectives. From the point of view of someone in the "centre of mass" frame of references, the proton and photon move towards each other with equal and opposite momentum. As you crank up the zoom, the photon carries more energy, so in this "centre of mass" frame, the proton has to move faster to match it. The faster the proton moves, the slower time passes for it. You see the outcome of this, not as time slowing down, but as interactions between the photon and proton becoming less frequent.) Essentially, as you crank up the zoom further, you start to "freeze out" the quarks, and their clouds become more distinct. Around this level of zoom, you also start to notice the other particles around the quarks, known as "gluons". Gluons hold the nucleus together, and they are, as the name suggests "sticky". They don't have electric charge, so you can't see them directly. Instead you see other particles bouncing off them, first the quarks, and then new particles you are creating. This is just like with the electron cloud. You pump in more energy, and you get more particles. You crank up the zoom to see what happens. The proton starts to wobble and the quarks shift apart, It looks like you're about to split the proton apart! But no, a new particle, this time a "pion" shoots out the side, and the proton goes back to how it was before. No matter how much try to zoom in, and give the proton more energy, you will never split it up. You will never separate out a quark or a gluon. Instead you will just create more and more particles. In fact this is how the LHC works. The LHC smashes protons into each other at super high speeds. The quarks and gluons get "frozen out", and as they fly past each other, a tiny fraction interact and make new particles. Of those new particles, an even tinier fraction are the Higgs boson. You decide to keep zooming. You create more and more particles, until eventually you have a sea of quarks, antiquarks and gluons. This is known as a quark gluon plasma, and it acts like a strange fluid. It's hard to see "inside" it, because the quarks and gluons absorb nearly all the light they produce. You press on further, and see a handful of new particles (W and Z bosons, Higgs bosons, occasionally a neutron or even a Helium nucleus). Edit: Wow, thanks for all the awards and lovely comments! :D Edit 2: Clarified the size of the electron cloud and proton cloud vs the size of the electron and proton.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV it is Immoral to Prevent Alfie Evans from Seeking Treatment Outside the UK There is a big controversy going on in the UK about a child named Alfie Evans. He has existed in a semi-vegitative state for 18 months with no signs of improvement. He has been on a ventilator and a feeding tube to care for these needs. Recently the NHS decided to terminate care for him against the wishes of his parents. The parents have advocated for Alfie to leave the UK and seek treatment in foreign countries. A court in the UK has barred Alfie from leaving the country. The ban on travel seems unnecessary and immoral. Here's an article about the case: https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/25/health/alfie-evans-appeal-bn/index.html<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant As part of the way the NHS functions, authority for acceptable and ethical treatment is given to a patient's medical staff. This is necessary to prevent parents or other medical lay-people from refusing necessary treatment, implementing alternative remedies rather than doctor prescribed ones, or any other ways in which a legal guardian could negatively impact treatment. For instance, if a child was in the hospital with a life-threatening infection, the NHS could prevent the parents from visiting him and giving him an unknown family remedy because that would be materially likely to harm the patient. And as sad as it is, part of acceptable and ethical medical treatment is preventing patients from experiencing undue suffering or hardship in end-of-life situations, which can include refusing transfers and/or a controlled removal of life support for patients who are essentially guaranteed to die. It is not ethical for a doctor to recommend aggressive action they believe has an insignificant chance of working just because its something different and miracles can happen; the most likely result of such recommendations would just be for those patients to suffer before dying. Based on the article you have linked, the parents wish to transfer Alfie to a hospital in Italy, but even there they expect to simply perform palliative care; in this situation, that would essentially be putting Alfie on life support and hoping for the best. Even with Alfie's success at breathing on his own, neither the hospital in the UK or in Italy believes there is any chance Alfie will recover and can only plan to keep Alfie alive as long as possible. Given this situation, the medically ethical decision is not to keep Alfie alive but vegetative forever, nor would it be ethical for doctors to recommend a risky transfer to another country just so they could keep Alfie alive but vegetative.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: If someone is on death row and has a medical issue causing them the die sooner than their execution date, why would they be given medical help? Morally I kind of understand, but financially and logically it does not make sense to me.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Up until the moment the executioner turns the key, the state must provide care for their convicted felons. The logic behind this is that up until that last moment, the execution is not 100% certain. There are years of appeals, and the governor might still pardon the convicted at the last moment. Also, allowing someone to die from a disease without treatment can be considered as cruel and unusual punishment.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is physically happening when your ear suddenly starts ringing?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The first thing to understand is how we perceive sound: We have outer and inner ear hair cells, and they both detect vibrations and pressure changes of the basilar membrane. The reason we have two types of hair cells is because, while vibrations travel very efficiently in the fluid of the inner ear, they require a lot of energy (think about trying to run on land vs. trying to run in a pool). Outer ear cells, then, are designed as amplifiers. When they detect low energy vibrations, they vibrate in time with them, amplifying the signal and sending it to the inner ear. Most of the time, this system works perfectly, but - like any biological system - it can get buggy. Sometimes the outer ear cells will freak out and vibrate on their own, and that's when you get the sudden onset tinnitus. There's also a control system that will tell the outer ear hair cells to knock it off, but it takes about 30-45 seconds to kick in.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 why are there so many B vitamins?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant B vitamins is just a classification grouping of vitamins. They are only B vitamins because someone decided they fit in that group. Importantly they are water soluble playing roles metabolism and red cell production. Converting food to ATP is an important and complex process. And being complex has many steps and many needed chemicals to achieve that goal.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Frustrated with how much of the philosophy I read I forget; how do you retain information from harder texts? For example, right now I am reading Rawl's A Theory of Justice and am on chapter 2. I've reread chapter 1 a few times but even with this I forget the more nuanced arguments. Sure, I can remember his basic statements on equality but the purpose of the book itself (from my understanding) takes mostly well known principles like equality to a more abstract/higher level so there's not much to gain from just looking at an online summary. It's those abstract/ higher level arguments I struggle with retaining; Rawls is definitely not an easy read for me either. I do well when there's imagery and such in a book because then I can connect events/arguments but when it's just primarily a sequence of arguments one after another I have to frequently look back at the notes I took when reflecting, and even then I'll forget many of the premises after a week. The point is, while I can summarize, say a piece of history or the plot of a novel and have no issues, I struggle with memorizing deeper/higher level arguments Philosophers make. I'm not reading Rawls for a class so I don't have the benefit of lectures/ writing papers on him for better retention. In my general note taking process I try to write in the margins and summarize what I think the author is saying. I guess I'm looking for a better way to read/ process/ take notes for harder philsophy texts I read. EDIT: Thanks for the advice, I will definitely try more exercises that force me to engage with/understand the material like explaining it in layman's terms.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Try writing summaries in a way that someone who hasn't read the text will understand. Also try to compare and combine theories. It's easier to remember things that you are sure you understand. The best way to know if you understand something is being able to explain it. That's the point of the exercises of summarizing, comparing and combining. &#x200B; You could also try to draw conceptual models of theories as a visual aid.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 what and why is mixing and mastering (music) good for? Also, can i do it to my own music or must have someone objective? Thanks reddit<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant 'Mixing' in this context means to mix the different channels. Every channel might represent one or more instruments/vocals/sounds. You mix them by adjusting the volume levels of each channel. 'Mastering' is the whole finish of the song which is done by applying equalizers, compressors, stereo effects etc. Proper mixing and mastering ensures the right mix of channels, a clean composition with no unwanted interferences of frequencies and no unwanted overdrive. You want your final track to be as loud as possible but still be dynamic and not overdriven, which is achieved with a limiter/compressor. You 'normalize' the track, that means you rise the overall level so the loudest part is near 0dB. You try to get an overall loud composition without any distortions. All in all, you get the 'right sound'. The difference between amateur tracks and a major production. You can do the mastering without any help but you need at least a pair of proper monitors (neutral studio speakers). Test your final track on as many different speaker combinations as possible. As soon as your track sounds awesome on a regular stereo, your computer speakers, your TV, in your car, on headphones and on a mono radio - then you got it. Protip: Keep your mastering sessions under an hour. Your ears get used to the sound and start to gradually distort it so your result gets fucked up, which is pretty obvious when you hear it next day.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why are the psychological prime colors (red, blue, yellow) different from the mixing primary colors(magenta, cyan, yellow)? Cobalt blue looks pure, niether greenish, nor purpleish, but the real primary color, cyan, looks like its just some random mix of green and blue. Cadmium red looks pure red, but the real primary color magenta is violetish color. If I mix pthalo blue and scarlet lake, I don't get purple. I get a near black. Is it training from childhood, or the way the brain works, or the color sensitivity of the cones on the retina, or some trait of light itself that causes this discrepancy?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Primary colors are defined relative to their application. The main gist is making the distinction of different ways wavelengths of light can be manipulated to absorb and reflect different colors. When a certain wavelength is reflected from a surface, it enters our eyes and we see the color. When a wavelength becomes absorbed by a surface, that color never reaches our eyes. For the mixing of light like in old TVs and monitors, the primary colors used are red, blue and green and they are based on the premise that black is a complete lack of any wavelengths being reflected. The RGB color scheme is "additive", in that you start with black -- and mixing more colors increases the number of wavelengths that are reflected back to our retinas. While for printing and pigment mixing purposes, cyan, magenta and yellow are used on the premise that white is the summation of all wavelengths of visible light. The CMY color scheme is "subtractive", in that you start with white -- and mixing more colors will subtract from the number of wavelengths being reflected into our retinas. After all, there is no such thing as a magenta wavelength... it is the result of green wavelengths being subtracted from white light. So, the RGB colors are based on the premise of adding wavelengths to black to convey certain colors. By adding a whole buttload of wavelengths together (until they become pretty much a continuous spectrum), eventually every color becomes reflected and so what we see is white. On the other hand, the CMY colors are based on the subtraction of wavelengths from white to convey certain colors by controlling which wavelengths are not reflected. So, eventually subtracting tons and tons of wavelengths means you will essentially absorb all colors, leaving you with black.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do investigators figure out the cause of a fire, including the massive California wild fire?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It's not an easy task, because fire destroys the direct evidence. However, there are signs that trained investigators can read within the context of what burned. Example: in an apartment fire, maybe they notice that the ceiling is more damaged in a corner rather than in the opposite: so it's likely that the fire started there. If there's an electrodomestic like a TV or a fridge, it's even more likely that the cause is an electric problem. Petrol and chemicals leave stains on the floor, and if they find multiple starting points, an arson is most likely involved. Another example: if a parked car burns starting from the front, it could be some battery problem. But if the fire starts from the back wheels, someone could easily have put some ignition source. And so on<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:When did the "Germanic tribes" transition from tribal form to its current form and how did it happen? Can Germans even trace their tribal affiliations anymore?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The Germanic tribes adopted Christianity (giving them permanent links to Rome and to other European groups) adopted writing, and transitioned into being feudal kingdoms. Feudalism started as little more than warlords pledging their loyalty to stronger warlords, with the various warlords controlling/protecting the peasants under them. The Migration Period, around the time the Roman Empire fell, was a time of huge disarray in Europe, as the Huns pushed in from the East, displacing Slavic tribes, who displaced Germanic tribes, causing the latter to migrate and establish kingdoms all around Europe, some working as mercenaries for the Romans and some eventually conquering Rome itself. The Germanic tribes then turned into feudal kingdoms. What is now Germany was part of the Holy Roman Empire (which was ruled by Germanic kings) for most of its history. But r/history or r/askhistorians could give you a much better and more detailed answer.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is assisted suicide illegal but DNR's are legal? They are both to end potential suffering and both require you to be mentally capable to choose that option.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The first is a request for someone to harm you and kill you. The second is a request for people to not give you medical treatment. In general we acknowledge adults have a right to refuse medical treatment. In the first example the action is taken by a doctor (or otherwise) and it leads to your death. In the second inaction happens, the law generally considers action and inaction differently, that's the main point.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What are the benefits that zero-G environments provide to science or manufacturing?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant At the moment its mainly for science. Not much commercial activity in space yet, outside of communication and observation satellites. The main things that benefit from zero G are things to do with crystal formation, like alloys. Say you have a big pot of molten metal alloy. As it solidifies, some alloys form tiny crystals called dendrites. The way these dendrites overlap and intertwine determines the properties of the resulting alloy. In gravity dendrites are subjected to all kinds of convection currents, density fluctuations etc. As such, they grow in very irregular shapes and break before they grow too large. Therefore it is very hard to make an alloy that lives up to its theoretical properties. In space all these flows and currents are drastically reduced, or eliminated entirely. As such you get a much better alloy. Same thing for many other things relating to crystal formation. Zero G allows for bigger, purer crystals. If we look a few decades into the future, there are many things that could benefit from a space environment (provided launch costs go down, or we use materials readily available in space). Zero-G means you don't need to worry about support. This allows for much more versatile manufacturing methods. For example, right now silicium wafers used for semiconductor manufacturing are 300mm in diameter. Any bigger than that and the wafer flexes too much. In space the wafer won't flex due to gravity, as such you could conceivably have wafers tens of meters in diameter. Space is also a fantastic vacuum, which would really benefit semiconductor manufacture. Another cool thing about space is that liquid droplets will quickly form perfect spheres thanks to surface tension. This is pretty useful for several industrial processes. Zero G also allows you to mix normally unmixable gasses/liquids. Oil and water don't mix on earth, because the oil floats on top of water. In space they'll form a great emulsion for long periods of time. This allows for chemistry that's difficult or impossible on earth. Space is also a great place for dangerous processes. If some industrial accident leaks thousands of tonnes of neurotoxics into the environment its a terrible disaster on earth. In space nobody would give a shit, outside of lost profit. All in all, space manufacture would be pretty useful. But only if launch costs come waaaaay down, or we start exploiting asteroids and set up a nearly independent industry in space.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why do grapes and raisins differ in health benefits?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant What differences specifically are you referring to? By weight, raisins have much higher caloric content, but that's just because a lot of the weight in grapes comes from water. That means 100g of raisins obviously contains a lot more sugar than 100g of grapes. Raisins also have higher mineral content (e.g. iron, calcium, phosphorus, etc.) for the same reason. If you standardize by the number of grapes/raisins instead of by their weight, though, those differences disappear. Eat 50 grapes or 50 raisins and you'll get roughly the same amount of sugar, calories, iron, etc. Even when accounting for the difference in water weight, there will still be less of many vitamins, polyphenolics, and flavonoids in raisins than in grapes, though, and those are often among the health benefits people talk about. There's two potential reasons for the differences. First, these are all complex organic molecules and are prone to degradation during the drying process. They basically break down into either simpler or related but different molecules that in most cases our bodies can't use in the same way as the originals. Second, grapes are actually still alive and undergoing cellular processes during the drying process and so they're relying on and consuming some of these molecules, particularly the ones associated with stress and oxidation responses in their cells because the progressive drying damages all of the cellular components.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do different languages each have their own version of the same names? Why is Joseph not Joseph everywhere? When did he become Giuseppe? Who decided that Guillaume should be William? When hearing a new name, why does a culture make its own version of it instead of letting every name stay at its root?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Names begin as a single name in a parent language like Latin and will be spread throughout the geographical area where that language is spoken (in the case of Latin, most of Western Europe.) However, languages change gradually over time, with speakers slowly but surely changing the pronunciation rules of individual letters/sounds. The interesting thing about those changes is that they tend to occur consistently across the entire language, instead of in small pockets. The names end up being pronounced differently because the descendent languages have changed how they pronounce the original sounds of the name. Often spelling used to change to match pronunciation, which introduces another way for names to drift. As far as names adopted from other languages: remember that languages do not share the same sounds as each other. Many languages employ sounds that speakers of other languages simply cannot say correctly. Thus, many names couldn’t be adopted directly even if the adoptive speakers wanted to do so. As to the idea of “why don’t they keep it the same?” — that’s treating a language like it’s a conscious entity. It’s not: a language is simply the sum total of everyone who speaks it. If everyone hears a certain pronunciation, they will follow suit. There is no overarching control over how the language changes.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: My mind can make snap decisions or opinions instinctively, but it's very hard to articulate my reasoning. Why is that? For example: I was just reading a post about female life expectancy being, in general and on average, longer than men. One person chimed in 'there is a biological explanation for this, as grandmothers play a vital role in raising families and children'. My mind instantly goes 'that is so incredibly stupid'. Now, whether or not that's true, somehow my brain leaps to a conclusion/opinion on the matter, and I even get annoyed by the statement. But if someone challenged me back in conversation and asked me why that is such a bad argument, I find it difficult to respond and articulate why. So, what is going in my head that 'enables' me to make snap reactions if there is no perfectly-formed conscious line of thought behind it?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Our brains have processes called heuristics. You know how when you walk across the same place in the grass a lot, the grass dies and turns into a path? A heuristic is the same thing, but it's a pathway for thought. A pathway that gives you a shortcut around logic, because it's easier. In your case, you've maybe heard a lot of people argue for an evolutionary basis for something they've noticed. Maybe you associate those arguments with people who have certain beliefs with which you disagree. Maybe you've seen those arguments debunked often. Whatever the case, you've worn down a shortcut in your brain where when someone makes that argument, you just cut across to the part where you think it's bullshit.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How much land does it take to support one human being? How big does my plot have to be before I can support myself with vegetables and fruit? I live in the UK, so temporate and usually more than adequate rain.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant >The minimum amount of agricultural land necessary for sustainable food security, with a diversified diet similar to those of North America and Western Europe (hence including meat), is 0.5 of a hectare per person. This does not allow for any land degradation such as soil erosion, and it assumes adequate water supplies. Very few populous countries have more than an average of 0.25 of a hectare. It is realistic to suppose that the absolute minimum of arable land to support one person is a mere 0.07 of a hectare–and this assumes a largely vegetarian diet, no land degradation or water shortages, virtually no post-harvest waste, and farmers who know precisely when and how to plant, fertilize, irrigate, etc. [FAO, 1993] From the FAO (the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Note: .07 hectare = .17 acres<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: why do disposable razors with 5 blades not cause razor burn compared to a razor with 2-3 blades?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Good blades and good shaving practices will usually help you avoid razor burn, moreso than the number of blades. But generally speaking, pulling, tugging, and scratching are the basic causes of razor burn. This can be on hair or skin. Friction is one of the main reasons why this happens. While increasing blades increases the friction, it also increases surface area. This increases surface area decreases pressure placed on the skin at any one point of the blade, making it run smoother. Think of using your fingernail to scratch versus using your fingertip. Your nail is much thinner and applies that pressure in one specific spot, whereas your fingertip spreads that pressure over a larger area. Perhaps the other important reason is that more blades increases the amount of hair that can be trimmed and stuck in the blade, decreasing the need for passing the blade again in the same spot (means less dry skin to blade contact). This also helps the blades to not wear out as quickly (less usage each day).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Eli5: How does a computer know how long 1 sec is? Do they perform a series of calculations that take exactly 1s? Or am i looking at it completely wrong?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Computer Engineer here, Timekeeping on computers (indeed, most electronic devices) is performed using two methods. 1.) A small quartz crystal that, when energised, oscillates at exactly 32,768 hz, is fed through an amplifier and bistable oscillating circuit. This assembly is often embedded within a real-time-clock circuit, which in some products can track the date and time down to the millisecond. 32,768 is exactly 2^15 which is extremely easy to count in logic. One second elapses every 32,768 oscillations. Crystals that oscillate at other frequencies, such as 50Mhz, and 100Mhz are available as well. As long as the oscillating frequency is known and oscillation is reliable, a counting circuit can be constructed around it. 2.) Most operating systems include support for the Network Time Protocol. There are a large number of NTP servers on the internet, computers simply query these to periodically update their system clocks in the event that the RTC wanders a bit; timezone and DST can also be updated if sufficient information is known.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:Can intelligent microscopic life exist? I know "intelligent" is relative so let's say as smart as humans, for example. Is there a size limit for intelligent organisms? Seems like in our planet microscopic organism aren't very smart but can we know for sure? Like Tardigrades might be as intelligent as a dogs. We don't know. Do we?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Everything we "know" about "life" has to be qualified with the phrase "as we know it". Life as we know it requires a certain degree of biological complexity to be intelligent, something microorganisms don't have. But we can't say for sure it's impossible; just that we certainly haven't found any examples of it, or evidence for it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How does light have the property of "bleaching" or removing color?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A photon is able to break down a chemical bond if it carries enough energy. The energy of a photon depends only on its wavelength. Some molecules absorb longer-wavelength photons without breaking, dissipating the captured energy by some other means, but will be damaged by a photon with short enough a wavelength. After being damaged, the structurally changed molecule may no longer be able to capture the longer-wavelength photons, affecting the color of the material. Also, short-wavelength light can modify some molecules into chemically active forms that attack colorant molecules.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user In quantum entanglement, how do we know that the entangled particle pair do in fact "interact" over a distance, and wasn't just aligned when they first interacted? I don't know anything about this really, except for what I've learned from watching clips on youtube and reading wikipedia. But I'm sort of stuck with this question, and can't find an answer. It says everywhere that the attribute of the second particle measured is always opposite to the first one, almost no matter how close together in time the measurements are made, and how far apart they are in distance. Sounds to me like they were aligned oppositely the whole time, after interacting with each other the first time. How do we prove this is not the case?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant This is addressed by a result known as Bell's theorem. In short, Bell's theorem proves the following. Suppose you build a theory in which particles' observable properties or attributes really do have definite values at all times (call this assumption R, for "realism"), and that nothing that takes place at one region of space can instantaneously affect the results of a measurement at some distant region of space (call this assumption L, for "locality"). Bell showed that, assuming these two results, the degree of correlation between the outcomes of two distant measurements of systems whose states were prepared in the same place is bounded by a certain number. So if your suspicion is true, and one can say the spins were aligned oppositely the whole time (that is if R is a good assumption), and assumption L holds, then when we actually carry out this experiment we should see correlations that do not exceed this certain bound. However, a quantum-mechanical calculation of the results of this experiment predict a degree of correlation that exceeds that for the above case, when R and L hold. So if we do the experiment, and find that the correlation exceeds Bell's bound, then one of the assumptions (R,L) must be false, favouring the view of quantum mechanics, where things just don't have definite properties before measurement. Finally, many such measurements have been carried out, and it is found that Bell's bound is exceeded, favouring the standard quantum mechanical view. However, two things should be noted: 1) many of these experiments have minor loopholes, and so don't technically show completely that the assumptions (R,L) taken together fail 2) even if the violation of Bell's bound is experimentally shown without any loopholes, we may still drop ONE of the assumptions (R,L) and have a theory consistent with quantum mechanics. For example, we can drop the locality assumption, L, and build a theory that satisfies realism R, which means that things do really have objective attributes before measurement, and still agree with the predictions of quantum mechanics. Such theories exist, the Bohm-de Broglie "causal interpretation" of quantum mechanics being one such notable example. In this interpretation of quantum mechanics, causal influences really do travel instantaneously. At this point, it is a matter of taste which interpretation one chooses.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Employees Should Not Give Notice When Quitting A few things first: First, let me say that there are exceptions. Surgeons probably shouldn't quit without notice due to public health reasons. Attorneys shouldn't leave their clients unrepresented in court. Second, anyone is free to do as they wish. I'm merely talking about what the norm should be. So on to it: The largest part of my post focuses on those working in the corporate world. I believe the standard notice period of two weeks (or any notice period) is inappropriate. The reason for this is because: 1) If you are fired or laid off it will generally be on no notice with no out placement help or severance; 2) The impact to you being let go, in most cases, will be far greater than to the company should you up and quit; and 3) if the company wanted to secure notice, they should guarantee at least an equal term severance or pay you upfront at hire for the requested notice period. Any "impact" to your team, even if you like everyone (manager included), is countered by the fact that the company would still let you go with no notice and no help. If a manager thought they could hire someone cheaper or better (at the same price), they would. So, please, change my view. Edit 1: Let me clarify, I'm arguing about what the norm should be. I agree employers may bash you for up and leaving. That's because we have a system where the expectation is two weeks. That should change. Does no one else think it's manifestly WRONG for an employer to bash you to a future employer based on your last two weeks versus your entire tenure (which would be supported with actual performance reviews)?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You give notice because a good word from past employers of you being a good employee is very valuable to you. If the person you're interviewing calls up and the last thing they remember about you is you leaving without notice that doesn't look very good to the interviewer because it means you could do it to them too.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: If humans and chimpanzees share ~98% of their DNA with each other, then why do human siblings share only 50% of their DNA?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Humans and chimps share 98% of the available selection of genes from which the choices which define an individual could be made. Human siblings share 100% of that measure - they share 50% of the actual choices which are made from that.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: The pro-choice camp made a mistake opposing the "Born Alive" Bill It's a pretty specific topic so here's an [article](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-blocks-bill-on-medical-care-for-children-born-alive-after-attempted-abortion/2019/02/25/e5d3d4d8-3924-11e9-a06c-3ec8ed509d15_story.html) about what happened. Basically it was a bill that requires doctors to give medical care to babies that were supposed to be aborted but was instead born alive. I necer thought I'd post anything here due to the time commitment, but I really want someone to change my mind on this. IIRC only 4 Democrats voted for the bill, and I think the Democratic Party has plenty of intelligent people. I feel like I'm missing something here. I'm pretty much your stereotypical social justice warrior. I actually don't see anything wrong with the term and I pretty much embrace it. I'm pro-life and pro-choice; I think abortion is totally wrong but the government shouldn't be the one making the choice for women. For pro-lifers, that essentially makes me pro-choice. I think opposing the bill is wrong because it has nothing to do with the woman's choice and everything to do with the baby born. As far as I know it doesn't force the woman to take custody of the child. It's completely medical and I think it completely aligns with the Hippocratic Oath. Somebody goes and gets an abortion, abortion was too late in the pregnancy, fetus comes out alive instead, so the doctors will have to give it medical care. What's so controversial about that??<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Medical practitioners are already required to give medical care to babies that are born alive. The problem with this bill is that it adds the _special_ requirement that a child born alive after an attempted abortion be "immediately transported and admitted to a hospital." This goes beyond the standards of medical care that are ordinarily provided for infants: there is no general legal requirement that an infant be immediately taken to a hospital. And this bill would effectively create the requirement that any abortion facility is equipped and located such that it can immediately transport an infant to a hospital. That would make it more difficult for independent abortion clinics to operate, and unnecessarily so.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do airplanes use green camo instead of blue? Wouldn't it make more sense, since they would be less visible on sky? Thanks!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant First, look at the purposes of camouflage on aircraft. In past and present years they had three different goals--disguise the aircraft on the ground, Disguise the aircraft in the air, or a scheme to make it difficult to judge an aircraft's distance away, speed, altitude, etc. Green camo falls into the first category. Green camo was common decades ago (WWII for example), In those eras most reconnaissance was still completed by aircraft and bombings were done based on visual recognition--green camo made it difficult to see aircraft on the ground. Keep in mind that many of the airstrips of the time were simple and there weren't many hangers. Modern grey camo is the best choice for aircraft today. We don't see blue sky everyday and grey has been found to be the best choice for all weather conditions. In reality, camo matters far less today in an era of advanced radar, weaponry, and GPS.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is having fun a waste of time? Like I like Overwatch, it's my favourite game. I don't like school that much, but is playing overwatch a waste of time? Should I be off getting educated? edit: just to clarify, i do in fact do schoolwork and im doing well. I just like OW and sometimes i feel bad that maybe i play too much. second edit: ty for the answers<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Integrity means making choices that are consistent with your true self. It means leading an authentic life (Heidegger), it means becoming (Binswanger), and should ultimately lead to self-actualization (Maslow, Nietzsche). When one does not have the courage to make these decisions and move forward, one is just treading water and avoiding their life. This is an inauthentic life, or as Rollo May called it, self-alienation. It may be that school is not the right choice for you which is why you can't bring yourself to engage with it. Or it may be that you have chosen the wrong type of academics. Or it may be that you just don't have the courage to do take the hard road and become yourself, instead opting for the path of least resistance. Recreation and leisure are not a waste of time, there are noted health benefits, but still can be problematic if that is all you ever really do. I would recommend thinking very hard about who you are, and what you want out of life, and then find the courage to achieve it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How much light is actually reflected by a mirror? I know a mirror doesn't reflect 100% of light so what's the percentage and can anything actually Reflect 100% of light<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It depends on the material of the mirror, and also varies with wavelength of light. An ordinary bathroom mirror is likely to use an aluminum coating which is around 90% reflective in visible light. A mirror using silver is likely to be 98% reflective. Gold is very good at reflecting infrared but poor at reflecting green and blue light (which is why it looks coloured). Dielectric mirrors use many layers of nanoscale thickness to create 99.99% reflectivity at their design wavelength by means of constructive interference.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How is blood created in the human body?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Bone marrow, a tissue within your bones, contains special stem cells, These are the cells that can reproduce and then mature into specific types of cells. They form your blood cells and then release them into the bloodstream.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is the Multiverse and why do we think it exists? I saw it on Cosmos, and don't understand the idea that there are many "bubbles" that each contain a universe. How does that reconcile with the Big Bang theory where space expands from one single point? How would a multiverse start?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In mathematics and physics, you can ask questions with mathematical equations or series of equations and proofs. Generally, without getting too far into it, when quantum physicists specifically address this question, the math sometimes suggests that multiple universe exist. It takes some imagining if you don't understand such advanced mathematics. But generally speaking, equations tell us something about our universe, even simple ones like 1+1=2. These very clever and thorough physicists are trying to tell something bigger than that. And sometimes the math tells us that multiple universes must exist using the logic and math we understand.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How is it that large LCD flat panel displays have gotten so cheap?. I remember hearing 20 years ago that the LCD displays were created from a single crystal, but this can't be possible for the 100" panels now available. What advancement in manufacturing made this possible?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In a lot of cases it's not a major breakthrough, just progressive improvements in the process and tools. If you start out with 1 panel in 10 being defective, you're wasting a lot of time and materials and have to price the other 9 to compensate. Think about how common "dead pixels" were 10 years ago. Defect rates were so high that consumers were even willing to accept minor ones. Then as you continue to refine your process that number becomes 1 in 30, then 1 in 500, and as the amount of panels wasted to defects drops so does what you need to charge just to recoup costs. Couple that with economics of scale (sell more -> charge less) and you see substantial price drops.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do most people talk to pets with a higher pitched voice? Most people that I've met talk to their pets, or animals in general, with a higher pitched voice. Why is that?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Habit and social convention mainly But pets (especially dogs) tend to respond more positively to higher pitched sounds than lower pitches. Most likely it has to do with the lower pitched sounds (like growls and deep barks) being more aggressive/negative then higher pitcher sounds (yelps, howls, playful barks) etc in the wild. But mainly just because it's a habit people have gotten into.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are some books (mostly reference and educational books) printed with two columns of text, as opposed to novels with one column?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Reference and educational books tend to have smaller type than novels. Smaller type means more words per line and it is harder to make sure you don't skip a line while you are reading. Also, information in textbooks and references tends to be much more dense than in novels. If you miss a word in a novel, you can usually figure it out based on context. If you miss a word in a reference text, it can be a much bigger problem.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user While reading BC Science 7 for fun, I realized that the definition of a pure substance is extremely confusing. How do you define a pure substance? (Details in the text) Original text: >Is there anything that is not a mixture? What about a bar of pure gold? Pure gold contains nothing but gold. Every sample of pure gold has the same properties as every other sample of pure gold. For example, a nugget of pure gold from Barkerville, British Columbia, has the same melting point, hardness, and density as the nugget of pure gold from Yanacocha, Peru. Pure gold is an example of a pure substance. A pure substance is the same throughout. Every sample of a pure substance always has the same properties. Other examples of pure substances are helium, pure water, and white sugar. Pure substances are homogeneous materials. Homogeneous [hoh-moh-JEEN-ee-uhs] means that every part of the material would be the same as every other part. For example, let’s take a piece of chocolate made up of 71% cocoa powder, 11% milk, and 18% water. Now, imagine that another piece of chocolate have the same composition. Then a whole supply chain of this chocolate. It is the same throughout. So is everything a pure substance, assuming that there is another thing on Earth(or beyond) with the same chemical composition? Is everything pure? Then we realize that atoms in every sample of matter is made of electrons, protons, and neutrons, which technically means that it isn’t the same throughout. Electrons, neutrons, and protons are made of quarks, held together by gluons, so those aren’t the same throughout either. Is there such as thing as a pure substance? Are all things pure substances like I suggested in the first argument? Is there nothing such as a pure substance, like in my second argument? Am I overthinking this? Am I going insane and crazy mulling over this?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant All of those substances can be described by a single chemical formula, and consist of a single atom or molecule. A gold bar is obviously just Au, helium is He, water is H2O and white sugar (sucrose) is C12H22O11. Purity for those can be defined as only having those atoms bonded together the right way - water usually isn't pure because it picks up ions from the ground or air around it - Chloride, Sodium, Iron, etc, so you can differentiate between normal water and pure water. These change its properties very slightly compared to all other samples of water. Now we see how a piece of chocolate can not be pure - the cocoa powder, milk, and water are all chemically different things. They are different molecules and chocolate consists of a mixture of those molecules together. Milk and cocoa powder can't even be described by a single chemical formula - they are mixtures of chemicals together which makes a substance that it's easier for humans to label as a single thing. Chocolate can't be pure because chocolate can't be boiled down to a single atom or molecule. Purity, however, does depend on what you are interested in. We can talk about "pure" chocolate being 100% cocoa even if that cocoa isn't chemically pure, because we only want to break things down to a chocolate/not-chocolate level when buying a chocolate bar. Same with a bar of gold - given that we can't break the gold atoms up into their parts without going to CERN, all we are interested in is the gold/not-gold level of the atoms in the bar, even if you could say it's a mixture of subatomic particles with different properties. Does that help clarify things?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:How does communication between two languages initially develop?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Usually via description of similar objects. For example, Dog in English is Perro in Spanish. Even if an English person didn't know any Spanish, and vice versa, they could both learn and establish that this furry four legged creature currently wiping it's ass all over the rug because it has worms, is known as dog/perro. Source: Goddamnit we just had Stanley Steamer over last week.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are tires black in color? Why not green or blue?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Carbon black is added to the rubber in tires to add durability. It’s possible to make tires in lots of colors, but they lack some of the durable features such as heat dissipation that tires with carbon black have.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI: How does muscle growth and decay work? If I remember from biology class correctly, large muscles are a result from large sarcomeres, not more of them. So how does working out (i.e. tearing and rebuilding muscles) make them bigger? And why do they get smaller if they're not used?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Your body is like anything in life that needs "fuel".There are 3 Macro - Nutrients. Protien/Fats/Carbohydrates. Fats and carbs are the primary "fuel" and the protein is the building blocks or new cells. Exercise breaks down muscle fibers which causes micro tears. These are repaired stronger and bigger to try to stop the muscle breaking down again if enough protein has been consumed. Lack of protein will cause limited muscle growth and cause them not to repair to the same or or bigger than before. Too little carbs/fats your body uses stored body fat to fuel your body. Too little for long periods of time it then breaks down muscle as a final back-up to keep your body running. Too much fats/carbs creates fat cells in which the "fuel" can be stored for times when food isn't in constant supply. Hope this helps :)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How can a photon have a mass of zero without violating the mass - energy equivalence? Photons are particles without mass. But whenever a system emits one, it loses a small fraction of its energy, and therefore its mass. However, the photon lacks mass and only transports energy, so conservation of energy is given, while conservation of mass is violated. If the photon is added to another system, the other system gains (although very little) mass. So is a photon transporting mass without actually having any? I'm really confused right now, and might be I just miss something simple here. Thanks in advance for any answers! EDIT: Thank you all for taking the time to write these answers down. They did indeed clarify a lot, concerning my question and giving a lot of further, interesting information!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Yes, everything you've said is correct (for a particular choice of "system" versus "surroundings"). It's because mass is not exactly what you think it is. Mass isn't simply "the amount of stuff" in the system like you might've learned in introductory science classes. Mass is just energy not due to the overall motion of your system as a whole. Since a photon has no mass, all of its energy is energy of motion (you could call it kinetic energy). The mass of a system of particles is not simply the sum of the masses of the particles. So while photons have no mass, adding or removing photons from your system can change the total mass of the system.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:Why is there CONSTANT road construction in most US cities? Are there not any long-lasting solutions?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The road industry has two seasons: plowing snow and repairing roads. Freeways are very long lasting solutions, and they only require repaving every 30-40 years. However, that means repaving 3% of the road every year, plus any new lanes that are added. City streets and non-Interstate highways are not s long lived because they face another problem, right of way access. For convenience and protection, many localities put power and communications underground with water, gas, and sewer. If any of those 5 utilities need more capacity or infrastructure replacement, the road must be cut up. It doesn't pay to have a road that lasts so long that all 5 utilities get to dig it up, so repaving is more frequent.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Wheel of Time] What did Elayne Trakand see during her Accepted test? All she says about it is "I could not be that awful, Egwene. I just couldn't!" Any guesses as to what Elayne saw during her [Accepted test](https://library.tarvalon.net/index.php?title=Accepted_Test)?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The three tests loosely follow the pattern of past, present and future. The first test would show Elayne's commitment to the White Tower measured against her history. Gawyn and Morgase would be in danger, perhaps with Caemlyn under siege from the False Dragon Logain. Elayne must leave them to their unknown fate to proceed. The second test would measure her commitment versus her current life. Her new friends Nynaeve and Egwene are under attack in the White Tower from the Black Ajah, she must leave them to face possible torture and Turning to proceed. The final test sets her against the future. Queen Elayne of Andor and the Dragon Reborn, Rand al'Thor stand against the Shadow at the Last Battle, joint leaders of the free world. The tide of battle turns and Rand is wounded and trapped, causing the morale of the Andoran army to break. Elayne must leave the fight when Andor most needs her, when Rand most needs her.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: So I found out that space telescopes capture "colors" that weren't there to begin with and see in black and white. What colors are really present in our universe? EDIT: To clarify, the Hubble colorizes white and black images by adding colors to represent the spectrum. I'm just wondering "what colors are really present in our universe," as in, what colors are actually out there in space? Not how they color it. That's my bad.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You might be mistaking a few things, lots of telescopes CAN capture colour, others do not. When you see a false colour image it isn't that the microscope is detecting something that we dont see, false colours are just substituted for other values to make things easier to see. For example, we cant see infrared radiation, but we can detect it with IR cameras, however in order to make sense of the data we colour different values of IR detection with different colours to create a "predator vision" type of image that can be useful to us. Similarly there are lots of telescopes that dont operate in the visual spectrum, they detect xray, or IR, or gamma bursts or microwaves, or some other portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, and we give these wavelengths false colours so that we can more easily visualize them.<\|im_end\|>

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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