Split (1)

train · 52.8k rows

text stringlengths 82 65.5k
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How is it that all these houses in the UK can hold back a river. Are all the doors completely watertight, and they have brick walls that let no water in at all? What is this sorcery?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Some houses, in some areas, where flooding has previously been a problem have adapted their houses to be much more watertight. This involves sealing flaps over air vents and dams for doorways, and ensuring the toilet doesn't back up. Houses that have been extensively renovated after previous flooding will almost certainly have had all the wiring moved up above the expected flood level. Brick walls are surprisingly watertight if they're in good condition. If they're not then you can waterproof them with sealant. Of course - the best solution is to not live in a wet bit, but sometimes floods come along with cover areas previously never submerged.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star Wars] What's household technology like? What sort of household technology would a normal middle-class person have access to on a technologically advanced world like Coruscant during the late Republic or early Empire eras?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Well tech is basically uniform. Lower class will have some holonet access. Maybe industrial level droids. Middle class will have better access and astromech droids patrol their apartment buildings. Upper class will have protocol droids as well as dedicated astromech droids as well as their own hyperactive engaged ships. But in general on Coruscant, a middle class citizen likely lives in an apartment in one of the higher levels. They'd have good access to the holonet, larger apartments, could probably afford a speeder and galactic scale transport on commercial travel. Most importantly, they're away from the crime that plagues the under levels of Coruscant. OOU: They have the lifestyle of a middle class person in any large Western city on Earth, but with holograms instead of screens and droids instead of people working service jobs.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Stargate SG-1] - In season 1 it's mentioned that it costs 7 billion per annum to run the Stargate program. How on earth (and other planets) does it costs so much?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It takes a small fortune to maintain an underground base with 28 floors filled with cutting edge equipment which has its own water reservoir and can be self-sufficient for prolonged periods of time. It houses thousands of soldiers, scientists, technicians and all sorts of support personnel who work around the clock every day. And all this was before they started building off-world outposts and developing experimental weapons and technologies.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How country borders are determined? How are country borders decided to begin with and how are they enforced? What events decides/decided how large a country is/was?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A lot of factors come into play here - (1) Village/town/city boundaries can constitute the limits of a border. (Think Singapore) (2) Geographic features and Rivers can often act as agreed upon borders. (3) Historical military expansion and settlement can redraw borders. Some countries are even sometimes absorbed into larger ones, whilst collapse may cause a large nation to break into many smaller states (Such as Ukraine, Kazakhistan, etc breaking away from the USSR) (4) Old Principalities or Kingdoms predicate modern nation states in some areas of the world. (5) Treaties and agreements between states - often imperial powers - dictating where to draw the lines on the map (notice all the straight lines in Africa?). This also touches upon your second point of enforcement. Usually states have a map encompassing regions which they lay claim to and if it's an undisputed claim then it's recognized internationally through treaties and normal diplomatic relations. The problem comes when two countries lay claim to the same area at which point things become messy. (Think Kasmir between Pakistan and India). Countries either sort this out by holding diplomatic talks and hopefully resolve it peacefully, or they can go to war and occupy the disputed territory.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why the infrared thermometers have separate settings for 'body' and 'object'? when measuring my temp with 'object' settings I get around 2,5 degrees colder reading than with 'body' settings on. Why... What gives...<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Not all objects emit the infrared radiation in the same way, this propriety is called “emissivity”, this is needed to calculate the temperature by measuring infrared. Your thermometer will choose an good emissivity value for human skin, and a more average value for general objects, it’s probably not as accurate with objects as it is with skin, but it‘s probably still pretty good Also metals don’t really work with infrared thermometers because they are shiny and you see the reflection, this is why it’s better to put some tape on where you want to measure so it will be more accurate<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Free trade is equality for the world. The people who oppose it is no different than the greedy 1%<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Free trade makes economic conditions all over the world converge. However, owners are the most likely to benefit the most from free trade since ownership is the most mobile form of capital. Therefore all other factors have to bend over backwards to accomodate the interests of the owners: that way, a race to the bottom starts where countries have to offer the lowest possible social, environmental and labor standards to attract capital. Even though this will eventually decrease demand and reduce profits, this will cause capital to become even more scarce, exacerbating the race to the bottom. So it will requires a conscious policy of international agreements to mitigate that.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: There is a large number of the population that area easily mislead and cannot think and reason for themselves. This is the reason we need government regulation on things like employment, health, EPA, and SEC oversight. Whether you wish to believe it or not, I sincerely believe that there are a large number of people in the US and the world that are exploitable at their very being. They believe whatever you tell them, if you use the right psychological tricks. Whether this be xenophobia, bandwagoning, or tribalism. Because of this, the government needs to be there so that these individuals aren't exploited to the extent of tear-jerking poverty and maltreatment. We are already seeing a backlash against this type of protectionism the government is needed for, and people are barely able to afford an education, housing, and healthy food, where once this was the norm for a family with a single earner. Banks are being allowed to work with criminals for minimal damage when caught. Companies are allowed to pollute with minimal overall responsibility. Large amounts of the economy is funneling to the top, and the overall populace is getting less and less knowledgeable on the whole. _____ > 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 The reason we need regulation is not because people are gullible or ignorant. It is because people have a tendency of being primarily concerned with their own needs, and they don't always see the value in conservation and moderation. For example, many unregulated fishing grounds have been depleted of stocks of fish. Individual fishermen will do what they do: catch fish. It's not a question of them "not being able to think for themselves" -- they are thinking for themselves, that the more fish they catch, the better it is for them, and if they don't do it, somebody else will -- that's where government regulation comes in and makes general rules for everybody. Sometimes those activities need to be regulated in order to provide for the common good. Furthermore, as a society grows larger, more issues appear that require regulation, especially involving shared resources such as fresh water, airspace, transportation, etc. It's critical for "big picture" decisions to be taken into account when allocating resources in order to preserve them and make them functional for all. On top of this, there is the ongoing development of special interest groups that have their own agenda and the means to influence large groups of people, which may not always be in the best interests of everybody. Central regulatory agencies whose responsibility is to shepherd public resources are essential in order to preserve those resources. Is government infallible? No. But government, or any entity that is expressly-established with a mandate to protect the publics interest will always be a better regulator than a private company, whose primarily objective is to profit and create value for shareholders. In each case you have entities that have a "nature" that should not be ignored. Governments' nature is to "help people". Private companies' nature is to "create profit." When things break down they obviously need to be repaired, but a private interest inherently will gravitate away from the public good if it conflicts with its primary mandate of creating profit. Governments that become driven by money will, likewise, gravitate away from their mandate of representing the needs of the people. Neither is perfect, but both have different objectives, that are not based on whether people are smart or lazy.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Does special relativity have any flaws? We know that the theory of general relativity has its shortcomings, but what about special relativity? Are there any circumstances under which special relativity falls short or fails altogether?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The special theory of relativity is, as the name implies, a special case of the general theory of relativity. Specifically, it's what you get from the general theory of relativity if you assume there are no gravitational sources present. As such, any physical situation that can't be described using the general theory automatically can't be described using the special theory. Moreover, the special theory doesn't work in any case where you have gravity, though it can be used as a very good approximation when gravity is fairly week and uniform (like on the surface of Earth).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What causes embarrassment?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant People hypothesize that it has been developed as a social tool to have people be more forgiving when you make a mistake around others. It shows instinctual, genuine remorse, so it shows true intentions, which in turn increases your group's chance of survival. It's also probably a solid learning tool. Making a mistake in a group setting sometimes meant decreasing your groups' chance of survival. Feeling embarrassed would push you to do better next time. >Pass gas when throw spear at a deer >Scare deer away >Grognac laugh >No bring food back >Feel bad, face red >No pass gas next time >Grognac no laugh<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why can't you ever have truly monochromatic light?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The wavelength of light is related to it's momentum, and quantum objects (such as light particles) cannot have their momentum defined with infinite precision. That's why a photon cannot have one exact wavelength, instead it has a range of possible values for it's wavelength.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why can people lift so much on a leg press? I know people that can leg press like 600 lbs but can only squat about a quarter of that. So I was wondering what the differences were? I was able to determine, using high school physics, that because the weight rests on the sled at about a 45° angle, only about 71% of the weight is effectively being lifted in the direction the sled travels. However, this didn't satisfy me because a 600 lb leg press does not mean a 424 lb squat. So what else factors into this??<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A few more things to consider, besides the lower force required to move the mass, would be a shorter range of motion and musculature involved. Most leg press machines don't allow the range of motion that a barbell squat does, effectivly cutting the amount of work being done. Most people's squat is not being held back by lack of leg strength, but by their ability to support the weight with their core musculature (abs, lats, spinal erectors, etc). You're not required to support the weight on your shoulders in the leg press and are therefore not limited by core strength. The solid back support does the work so your muscles don't have to.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Teachers should have a comparable salary to doctors I strongly believe that the two most important things we should supply to our society is health care and education. Health care to keep us alive, and education to give us a reason to live (poetically speaking). In other countries (Japan, Korea, Finland, etc.), being a teacher is one of the most honorable professions available. In the United States, teachers are one of the most loudly vilified. Education is the key to improving your life. Even if an individual realizes early that they don't want to go far in academia, having the best education possible will still prepare them for life better than a worse education. In order to discover medical breakthroughs, create cool new gadgets, and in general increase the quality of life for citizens, a good education is vital. Teachers have a demanding job and do it as a labor of love. Shouldn't our kids be taught by the brightest and best available? If the compensation teachers received was comparable to doctors, the quality of teachers would undoubtedly increase as the field became more competitive. Many teachers today don't stay in the field too long because they don't feel well appreciated or well compensated. EDIT: Okay, people seem to think that my statement is akin to teachers being equal to doctors. Or that for some reason I don't value doctors and want them to be paid less. Or that the factor is that the amount of time spent on education is equal to the required compensation. First, I value doctors an extreme amount. I'm diabetic and in my doctor's office all the time. As I originally stated, I believe education AND HEALTH CARE are the most important things our society provides. So yes doctors = good. If the time spent was a factor, here's the way that should work: a teacher with a master's degree - 5 to 6 years of education. Doctor - ten years of education (I don't know for sure, so clarify if necessary). So if a doctor spends twice as much time getting their education, should they then make twice as much as teachers? That would put a starting doctor salary around 90k. My point here is that the amount of time spent on your personal education doesn't guarantee anything in real world earning power. _____ > 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 There are a limited number of doctors, you need advanced degrees, medical school, thousands in debt, residency, internships, studying, all that to be a doctor. To be a teacher you need a bachelors MAYBE and in some states a few hours of helping in a classroom. There are WAY more people qualified to teach than to be a doctor, therefore the pay is lower.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: All these articles talk about the housing shortages and rising rents. Explain to me where all these people lived before! No article reports on this side and I’m confused.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Typically you have people at various points in their housing lifecycle. Young people renting apartments, then buying condos or starter homes, having kids and upgrading to a family home, then downsizing to a retirement home when the kids move out and they get older, then perhaps into an assisted living or nursing home. COVID threw those progressions off — old people stayed out due to outbreaks in assisted living facilities; empty nesters didn’t want strangers in their homes or want to travel to shop for retirement homes in Florida and Arizona. And perhaps their single adult children decided to move home rather than be stuck alone in an expensive apartment in a shut down city. But at the other end you had various people wanting to move up to the next housing stage because they wanted more space. So people who might have planned to buy a house in a year or two jumped into the hunt for a starter house or their upgrade to a bigger house when parents were working from home and kids were remote learning. So something like 3x as many people wanting to buy as usual, but half as many looking to sell as usual created a bottleneck in the housing market. If seniors don’t downsize, then people in starter homes can’t step up, and that means nonstarter homes for those wanting to buy their first homes. Apartments are going up for a few reasons. One, people are returning to cities as vaccines are available and city life is more available. The rent deals to be had when people chose not to renew and moved back home with mom & dad in the suburbs last year are gone. And inflation means higher costs to maintain and keep up apartments, higher utility bills, causing landlord to raise rents to reflect cost increases. And both home sales and rental apartments were affected by COVID causing delays in building, as things like permits and inspections took longer, building material shortages and skyrocketing prices, labor shortages all meant fewer new housing until being built to replenish obsolete ones, growing population of adults, etc.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: The science of saline - why can we drink pure water, but when we put water into our bodies in other ways, like an IV, must we add minerals to it?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Your blood has a salinity concentration of about 0.9%, this is why most IV fluids have a similar “salt” concentration. If you were to hypothetically flood someone with pure water through an IV, it would offset the natural gradient of 0.9% causing fluid to flow into your cells and cause extreme swelling.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is it possible to use multiple satellites across space to speed up space communication? Reading about the Webb teleacope amd it sending info back at 25mb a sec, i was thinking abput if it were possible to put satellites throughout space as relays. Kinda like lighting the torches of Gondor. Would that actually allow for faster communication?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The area you probably want to look into as part of signals and systems is Shannon’s Theory. It states that you can trade signal power (or strictly signal to noise ratio, SNR, which is effectively the same as power as long as the noise floor on the channel remains the same) for bandwidth. As signal power drops off with distance, it follows that for a given broadcast power at a certain distance, with a given noise floor, there is a bandwidth limit. Adding relays that rebroadcast at the same power but closer to the telescope could help as the reduced distance effectively reduces the SNR but because space is hard we don’t do that as orbital mechanics says we can’t have satellites orbiting (stably) at different altitudes moving with the same orbital velocity. So in some sense you are right. In fact sub-sea fibre optic cables use this very principle to ensure good SNR and thus maximise bandwidth. They have repeaters every so often powered from copper wires inside the fibre bundle to retransmit the signal.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How do those 99c-and-free-shipping items make any profit for the seller? To clarify: I mean on eBay. These sellers tend to be Chinese and have very similar layout/designs as each other. As a five year old - how do the Chinese kids down the road sell their lemonade at a really low price while still making money even though their prices don't seem to cover costs. Edit- although economies of scale might be one answer, there are some items which are even lower than .99. IIRC PayPal already takes .3 + a certain percentage as fees and just counting eBay and PayPal fees, the user is already selling at cost.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant These items are also often used to gain five star ratings. If they sell a few thousand items for $1 and get a few thousand five star ratings, it makes them a trusted power seller. That way people will be okay with buying their more expensive items.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How can concavity (cardinal property) of instantaneous utility imply preference for smooth consumption sequence? I know that concavity is a cardinal property since f(x) = x is concave, g(x) = x\^3 is increasing and g(f(x)) = x\^3 is convex. I also read (e.g., in Per Krussell's Real Macroeconomic Theory) that a concave felicity function implies that the consumer prefers a smoother consumption stream. This feels like a contradiction - is it? And if it is not, can you help me understand why?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Consider a two period example where utility of consumption is u(c), and the budget to be split across two periods is I. No savings or work, therefore consumption in the two periods is such that c1 + c2 = I. (Assume the consumer cares about both periods equally so their goal is to maximize u(c1) + u(c2). The solution is such that u’(c1) = u’(c2), and so c1=c2. Why? Concavity of u implies diminishing marginal utility for consumption in any period. Say instead you picked c1>c2. Then, because of concavity, u’(c1) < u’(c2) and so moving a unit of consumption from 1 to 2 will increase utility. A usual thing that’s confusing is that concave utility means convex preferences. With convex preferences you prefer diversity of what’s in your bundle (including across time) rather than putting all your eggs in one basket.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Half-Life] What exactly does health measure? Actual health would presumable be too complex to measure linearly. What exactly does the health bar in the HL games measure?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Expected chances of survival projected across the next 15 minutes updated by the second based on injures sustained (or lack therof) and remaining treatment medications available within the suit's system.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If you're lost, is it better to look for your search party or wait? Assuming neither of you know the other's starting location or plan, what is the best strategy to be found as quickly as possible? Ignoring environmental conditions and survival necessities, speaking strictly mathematically, how can you maximize your chances of two points on a plan meeting? Do their relative speeds make a difference?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In general, ignoring survival conditions, staying where you are should increase your odds of being found. A search party will systematically rule out locations where you are not, and you risk moving into a previously searched area or even away from the search party. There is always a chance you will head towards the search party, or even back towards safety, but assuming there only a handful of directions that lead to safety (an entrance to the area you're lost in for example) then you have a low probability of heading in that direction. If you can't be sure that a search party is coming, it changes things a bit.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: A ban on Burqas for the reason of public safety is faulty and a human rights violation. I personally believe that the view that banning the burqa for the case of public safety is faulty simply because if we look at the latest attacks in Europe, we can find that non of the perpetrators is wearing a burqa. They are dressed like 'normal' European youths (normal here meaning they were no visible religious markers of any kind.) So I believe that to call a ban of burqas or other religious coverings for public safety is a slightly misinformed position. Secondly there is the argument that many women are forced to wear a burqa by their husbands (or other authoritative male actors) and is therefore the subjugation of women. I definitely understand this and I feel for this argument. But what if even only 1 percent of women who wear a burqa do so out of their free will, how is banning them from wearing one not considered a violation of the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, which states that everyone who wishes should be able to express their religion openly (of course this argument only works if you, like I, interpret that the burqa is no threat to public safety.) I hope to hear from you guys, please make me understand. I wish to understand the other side and am very open for Changing my view if I feel convinced.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Agree with your position for the most part however the tricky part comes with things like forms of identification. So in places like a motor registry (drivers license photos) or a courtroom, or any situation really where legally a persons identity has to be known the burqa then needs to be removed. Hijabs would be fine though. So not a ban all together but a ban in certain places.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 Why do some injuries hurt at the moment of impact while others hurt the day after? For example let's say you fall and you can't move for a a few seconds because your knee really hurts, peter griffin style, but the next day what really hurts is like your back or your shoulders. Why is the pain at that moment so sudden and goes away quickly while the other will come a while after?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are two types of pain: * an immediate severe one to make you escape closest danger (e. g. you'll reflexively remove your hand from a flame or a sharp object); * afterwards a different, long-lasting, deep ache if you have been seriously hurt. Its function seems to be to send you (or any animal) into a safe place to heal, and also to limit exercise while getting better.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Shoes should come pre-dipped in a hydrophobic liquid So the main argument against this I am expecting is the argument of monetary incentive. \- It would cost money for a company to make their shoes longer-lasting (two opposing forces since people would buy fewer shoes) However, I would be willing to buy more of a company if I knew they were longer-lasting, one of the main reasons I don't buy nice shoes is because I know they will get ruined so quickly, however, I would be willing to pay a higher price for premium shoes if they lasted longer and looked pristine for longer. Also, the price of hydrophobic material could be greatly reduced since a lot of it is wasted in spray, if you had it in liquid form you could dip shoe after shoe with minimal wastage and also use very little simultaneously. Also, the longer people can wear your shoes the more they will talk about how long they last and how good they are creating free advertisements. &#x200B; Edit: I never said all shoes, I said there should be an option of pre dipped hydrophobic shoes, the reason for this is because any attempt with spray or anything else is imperfect and tedious. I have officially changed my view, thank you to everyone who contributed.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Most shoes breathe well. Leather is already easy to clean and work shoes are already water resistant. Non-work shoes that will be worn casually are meant to breath well, by adding hydrophobic coating you lose the breathability, it costs more and it isn't permanent. It also can damage the shoes faster as parts might lose it earlier than other parts it might pull the fabric off when it is falling off. So overall it isn't just costs, but functionality and Durability. Shoes that need to be hydrophic are usually already water resistant and easy to clean, all the rest need to breath.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does a nearby lightning strike make the power flicker?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Electromagnetism is one of the forces of nature that acts at a distance. Gravity is another example. Just like two magnetic north poles will repel each other, electrons repel one another, push against each other from a distance, because they have the same electrical charge. The sudden and enormous blast of current that flows through a lightning bolt creates an electromagnetic field that can briefly interfere with the electrical currents flowing through nearby power lines, jiggling the electrons in the power lines, even if the lightning doesn't strike the power lines directly.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What does it actually mean when a state “declares a state of emergency”? I hear that phrase all the time. Most recently, governor McMaster of South Carolina declared a state of emergency in anticipation of hurricane Michael. I’m just wondering, what does that actually do? Simply raise awareness of the disaster? Does anything more practical happen automatically as a result? Government buildings, schools close, etc?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A state of emergency waives some legal procedures and requirements that would otherwise prevent the government from quickly stepping in to help affected areas. In addition, a state of emergency can be used to effectively rapidly inact temporary "laws" that otherwise would not be permissable or contradict existing laws. For example, contractors may be called in to assist cleanup/rebuilding important infrastructure bypassing the competitive bidding process (which is a massive time sink, see the i85 bridge collapse in Atlanta as an example), and the state government can call in federal millitary for assistance if needed. In effect, declaring a state of emergency typically grants the state/local executive branch of government a lot of powers it normally wouldn't, as the interest of the public demands rapid action.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How are we able to have a voice in our head? For instance I’m able to say “I need to go to the store” but it “sounds” like my voice in my head. Or I can think I bet she would say “blah blah blah” and it’s in her voice. How are we able to have a voice in our head that “talks”?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant This is ultimately the question of consciousness. How did consciousness develop? Entire religions and libraries are dedicated to answering this question. We may have developed it in relation to "self" and planning "future" when we discovered "time". Hope this helps<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What type of Math is used in Computer Science? Can someone tell me if the math in Computer Science is hard? I’m currently learning Calculus 1 and 2 in school and I feel like I’m understanding them very well. I read online that calculus 1,2,3 and 4 are used in computer science and that, in general, the math is hard. Can someone tell me what to expect if I decide to major in Computer Science?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In theoretical CS, mostly discrete math. it is easier than calculus. mainly: graph theory, combinatorics, number theory (in cryptography), and mathematical logic. but you would be doing a lot of mathematical proofs in other areas not typically considered math like formal languages, automata theory, analysis of algorithms, complexity theory etc. In artificial intelligence and machine learning you would need statistics, probability and calculus.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Are people who "talk" with Jesus or God considered schizophrenic? Why are people who "talk" to Thor or Zeus or Satan considered differently? Is it just because Jesus is more popular today?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The DSM consistently and specifically exempts religious beliefs. For example, from DSM-IV's definition of delusion: >The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person’s culture or subculture (e.g. it is not an article of religious faith). (765) And a specific note on diagnosing schizophrenia: >Clinicians assessing the symptoms of Schizophrenia in socioeconomic or cultural situations that are different from their own must take cultural differences into account. Ideas that may appear to be delusional in one culture (e.g., sorcery and witchcraft) may be commonly held in another. In some cultures, visual or auditory hallucinations with a religious content may be a normal part of religious experience (e.g., seeing the Virgin Mary or hearing God's voice). (281) As for why this is the case, it basically comes down to the fact that a lot of people are religious and it doesn't make practical or political sense to diagnose them with psychiatric disorders. Exactly how to make sense of the distinction between psychotic experience and similar religious experiences is an open question in the philosophy of psychiatry.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is there a way to learn how to learn on your own? I'm interested in a few subjects. Over the years I've wanted to learn psychology, modernism, the history of world war 2, programing. With programing the path is easy, you can easily find a road map, regardless of whether you can keep going or not at least you know what to do, you know you need to learn technology x, y, z. With these theoretical topics, I feel lost. I'm inspired to ask this especially after reading the responses to [Going back to school for art history in my mid-30s--pros, cons?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAcademia/comments/tp8yx6/going_back_to_school_for_art_history_in_my/) because I always thought "one day I would go back to university for the hell of it", but the more I think about it, obviously it would not me the magical experience I imagine it. Someone in another forum wrote "Whatever it is you want to learn, there are thousands of resources out there waiting to help you: books, articles, podcasts, websites, apps, videos, courses, people you can ask questions …" and it's true we live in an amazing time to learn, but Do you just dive in and learn from any resource available or do you create some sort of syllabus for yourself?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A lot of universities have their syllabus for courses online so you can copy the syllabus, get materials on them and study. Professionals in those fields have done a lot of work developing those syllabus for rhythmic/seamless learning. For those whom are already good at self study, you can dive in and revert to study the help topics you encounter on your way. But for a beginner, following a syllabus will serve you better.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Public-key cryptography How does the public-private key system work? Why does it work?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant ELI5 example how public-key cryptography works: Imagine persons A and B want to transfer secret message but they can only send packages to each other in mail which is unsecure. Anyone can steal a package and take what ever contents are inside or even swap them to something else. In symmetric key cryptography they would use a locked box and they both would have a key for the lock. Problem is they can't exchange keys safely. If A buys locked box, how can he send key for it to B without possibility that someone steals the key and makes copies. In public-key cryptography person A buys a lock (and keeps the key for it in some secure place) and sends the unlocked lock to person B. Person B then puts his message inside a box and locks it with A's lock. Then he can send it safely to A without anyone having access to the message. Locks in the examples are cryptographic algorithms. Public-key algorithms are much more expensive to calculate so usually they are just used to do the key-exchange: both send a symmetric cryptography key to each other using public-key cryptography. From there on they just use the symmetric cryptography to encrypt their communication.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Black Panther] How can simply having access to a single metal (Vibranium) lead to such a wide range of unrelated technologies in such a short time? (computers, cloaking, medicine, weaponry) I mean, computers, cloaking, construction, medicine, flight, levitation, weaponry etc. are all pretty different domains/disciplines. Real world technologies don't come from one single source and have progressed over thousands of years in a leap-frog fashion: knowledge in one field advances a little, and it spurs progress in other fields, the results of which then help in advancing that first field a bit further, and so on. Many discoveries were made by accident, and from observing and interacting with the wide world, including space. Not to mention all the technology that was created for global-scale warfare (something Wakanda has never experienced) and then went on to improve public life. So, unless Vibranium literally increases human intelligence and basically plays a YouTube walkthrough of all the exact steps required to achieve and implement each technology, I don't see how it can result in such an advanced AND self-sufficient civilization. Because in addition to upgrading our brains, Vibranium would also have to be: ☑️ A clean energy source (or Wakanda's region would be severely polluted by now, and you can't cloak that.) ☑️ A food source (you can't possibly feed millions with the few pitiful, idyllic farms shown in the movie.) ☑️ And many other things, some of which are mutually-exclusive, like a construction material that can support massive structures as well as personal armor and flight (I mean you don't see real-world people wearing concrete), as well as be usable for batteries and electronic circuits, since we don't see them mass-mining copper and silicon etc. Also, how big was the meteorite that it has been mined for thousands of years without being depleted by now? And if it was so big, how the fuck is Earth still intact Like wtf really<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Let's look at this from another angle -- what if early man did not have access to wood? Wood is an important building material. Even today it goes into our tools, furniture, and buildings. Wood is also an important fuel and industrial raw material. And then there's paper, which is still an important medium for storing and transporting information. Wooden digging sticks saw use during the Dawn of Agriculture. Charcoal fueled the smithies of the Bronze Age and Iron Age. The first printing press was made out of wood. Soon most books were made out of paper. Wooden ships enabled the Age of Discovery. The destructive distillation of wood yielded substances (such as paraffin and creosote) that found ready uses during the Industrial Revolution. The first planes and cars were built of wood. Many early computers and computer accessories were housed in wood. The cellulose in wood goes into many synthetic materials. And scientists and engineers are still finding new uses for wood. It's in your eco-friendly food packaging. It's in your medicine cabinet. It's in your clothes. If civilization had to develop without wood, then Wakanda would be that one country with a wood mine.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does cannibalism have such negative health symptoms? Meat is meat, right?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Meat is meat, but different meats carry different diseases. When you eat a person, you are eating all the things that can thrive in a human host. One of the most famous diseases associated with cannibalism is Kuru. It's a prion diseases, meaning it's a protein that converts functional proteins into more of itself. Kuru can lurk for years undetected and only affects humans (as far as we know). Edit: minor change for clarity<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why didn't the Europeans acquire new diseases when they explored the Americas? Disease was one of the biggest causes of death for most of the Native Americans, so why didn't the Europeans encounter diseases that they could have carried back to Europe and caused another epidemic.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I believe this is related to the relative levels of development of the societies. In the stage of transition from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to one of farming and domestication, humans become susceptible to epidemic disease, because they are living closer together, and also in close proximity to animal vectors. A lot of early epidemic disease, for example smallpox and measles developed from diseases which originally infected domestic animals. The Europeans had already gone through this stage when they arrived in the Americas, and so had developed resistance to these kinds of illnesses. The Native Americans had not and so had no resistance to the imported diseases, and local ones that might affect the Europeans had not emerged.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why is Aristotle often considered a more important philosopher than Plato? Kant as well? The general consensus among philosophers is that Aristotle, Plato, and Kant are the three most important philosophers in the history of the western tradition. I don't dispute that consensus, but I'm curious about why the order is the way it is. From what I've seen online and from what I've heard from one of my professors(Small sample size, I know lol), Aristotle is slightly more important than Plato, and Kant seems to be about as important as Aristotle and a little ahead of Plato. Why do they think this? What do you guys think of this pecking order? Agree? Disagree? Thanks for your time.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Really, really depends on what you mean by "important". If you mean "historically influential", Aristotle probably wins for various reasons. If you mean "relevant to current work", Kant probably wins in a landslide. If you mean something like "foundational; historically necessary", then maybe Plato wins. But there's no uncontroversial notion of "importance" to make this evaluation from ahead of time.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Would it be possible to view the Pillars of Creation with our naked eye? I was reading this askreddit thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/2skk1s/what_fact_about_the_universe_blows_your_mind_the/ It got me thinking. The Pillars of Creation (or any other supermassive, on the order of light year sized astronomical objects) are soooooo big. If we had the capability to travel to the pillars via a space shuttle, is there some point during the approach when we could look out the window and see them? Granted, I realize that the Pillars of Creation that we see in pictures are probably false colored or based on some other method because it is not within the visible spectrum, but let's set that aside and assume we could put on glasses to view things outside our visible spectrum. Or would it be that they, and other super massive objects are just too big for us to view without the help of massive distances and huge telescopes?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The big issue is that the surface brightness of a resolved object does not increase as you get closer - even if you're looking through a telescope with your naked eye. The only way to make an object brighter is to use a long exposure or a more sensitive detector, which is what we do with the cameras attached to our telescopes. If you look at the nebulae you can see with the naked eye (e.g. in the Pleiades), or at the nebulae you can see through a telescope with your eyes without a camera (e.g. Orion nebula, Tarantula nebula etc), these things just look like quite faint white clouds. You can just sorta make out some colour in them if you have particularly good eye-sight. This is about what you would see with your naked eyes if we were near a nebula - e.g. within 10 light-years or so. It would be a faint grey-ish cloud that covered some portion of the sky, and would not be visible in most cities. This is the general principle for what we can't see a lot of the great stuff in the sky: it's not that it's not big enough, or not close enough, it's just that it's too dim. The Andromeda galaxy is larger than the full moon, but we can only see the central core with the naked eye, and even then it's dim enough that you need fairly decent conditions to see it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Diversity is not an intrinsic good and pluralism is not desirable. So yeah, diversity is neutral. All it means is variation, right? To say that there is diversity is only to say there is variation. Be it in skin colour, religious belief, cultural practices, rites of passage, philosophical schools of thought etc. etc. Why then should we preserve each of these as distinct entities? The fact of the matter is that there would be no basis for racism if there were no different skin colours. There would be no basis for religious violence in the absence of religion, or in the absence of numerous religions. Some cultural practices are better than others, in the sense that they benefit their practitioners to a greater extent than other practices. Assimilate the best of other cultures, destroy the worst, ignore the neutral. We must blur all possible lines of division if the ill effects of omitting to do so are greater than what would be lost through a voluntary eradication of distinct cultures, ethnicities and races. We need a human culture, and we must select the very best each culture has to offer in its respective field of advancement. Destroy each unnecessary in-group/out-group and you destroy much of the suffering in the world.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Variation means the ability to adapt to different environments. No trait is "better" or "worse" for the individual or the species except in how it relates to the ability to survive and reproduce in a given environment. If the environment changes, then different traits become valuable. One good example comes from bananas. The type of banana you're used to seeing has been selected for traits we find desirable, and the result is you only see pretty much one type of banana. Recently, however, a disease has emerged which specializes in attacking that particular banana. This sort of thing would be far less problematic if we routinely grew many types of bananas instead of just the ones we see as the "Best" On top of that, when you're talking about people you run into more moral implications. It's been generally accepted at least since the end of WWII that no one has the right to decide what genetic strains are more desirable than others. Finally, your statement that we wouldn't have racism without skin color is entirely false. The word slave comes from the same route as slav, due to the racism involved in the Roman's slave selection. Furthermore even without race people will find something to discriminate based on. Think of England, with its numerous accents that were developed mainly for the purpose of distinguishing between classes. It's not race, class, religion or anything else that divides us. We divide ourselves. There will always be in-groups and out-groups, no matter how much genocide you commit.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 - Why if I own stock in a company and am literally a partial owner of that company I don't have a right to access all financial information of that company. Seems to me that I should be able to know everything about a company I co-own...<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Under SEC guidelines, all publicly-traded companies file quarterly and annual reports containing a great deal of financial information. They're usually available on company websites under an "investors" link. Apologies if you're already familiar with all that, and are asking about access to more detailed information. Presumably there are all sorts of issues associated with making things like detailed asset, revenue, inventory, and expense data publicly available.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: taxes should be higher on the rich and low on the poor I hold a left position on taxes and economics in general because I think that the rich, those with millions in income a year should pay more for social programs and infrastructure. Poor people on the other hand sometimes because of circumstance or misfortune are unable to afford basic necessities and therefore should be taxed at a significantly lower rate. Universal basic income sounds appealing to me but that would probably require massive tax hikes. I've been told that raising taxes on the rich is a greedy thing to do but greed is too subjective a term for me and assumes that poor people prefer handouts and can live lavish lifestyles which is untrue eg unemployment benefits in UK. No one has personally brought up trickle down economics although I constantly hear left wing commentators in the US attack this position. I am Malaysian so our taxes are progressive and the highest tax bracket at the moment is 26% for RM 600,001 to RM 1 million annually (~150,000-250,000USD) while the low income earners less than RM 20,000 (~5,000USD) pay no income tax at all. Cost of living here is much lower than the US a family of 4 costs around RM 85,000 (~21,000 USD) the income inequality in Malaysia is almost the same as the USA (according to the gini index) Edit: title unclear taxes should increase for the rich example (60% income taxed after a million and a 100% tax on a billion or more)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You have to consider the unintended consequences of raising taxes on top earners to that high of a level. One of the first things you might not expect to go is innovation. There's a conception of scientists as mad and driven solely by their work but that's not actually how it plays out in the numbers. When you raise taxes on top earners like that you tend to suppress innovation. It's rarely the individual innovating in 2019 it's the result of large enterprises with deep pockets and when you reduce those incomes people become less productive. A 100% tax on earnings over a billion is an even worse Idea because you're simply never going to see most of that money. People who earn that much are going to move their money offshore and keep it there. There is an idea in economics called Laffer curves. When you raise taxes exceptionally high, you actually get even less tax revenue than you would with lower rates because people will begin hiding and off shoring their money. They often use legal and illegal means to accomplish this. People will often claim that taxes were over 90% on people in the 50's and it didn't ruin society. That's true, but this is an example of the Laffer curve in action. The taxes then were so high that the effective tax rate ended up actually being 40% because people were taking advantage of numerous tax dodges to reduce their tax burden. France recently attempted, notoriously, a 75% tax on income. This famously resulted in actor Gerard Depardieu becoming a Russian citizen. That year the tax revenue ended up being barely over half of what the government had expected. €16bn instead of €30bn. Similar policies contributed to the French economy's stagnation and increased deficits. The government was forced to end it's experiment early after it failed. You can argue about the shape of Laffer curves. It's perfectly possible that you will raise taxes somewhat and still increase tax revenues, but it's hard to argue that they don't exist when we have numerous examples of them in action. I think there are fair arguments for raising taxes on the rich. Some of them are built around social considerations and others are built around economics arguments. However, your proposed numbers are far too high and would undoubtedly be counterproductive. E: some grammar bits.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: I see no real benefit from Marriage that I cannot get another way. I am trying to decide if marriage is right for me and my partner. I will explain our situation as I believe there are benefits for marriage in other relationships. I will state a few benefits I have read online and counter them. Please add other benefits that I am not aware so that I can consider them. 1. Immigration: We are both U.S Citizens 2. Tax Benefits : We both make around 6 figures each, which means we don't get any tax reductions at all. I was surprised to learn that high income marriage was penalized in a way. 3. Health Insurance : We both are employed and have individual health insurances through our employer. They are both terrific plans. 4. Discount Insurance : We are both in our own families auto insurance so we are already discounted for now at least. 5. Inheritance : We will create a Will when we decide we need to, which is essentially the day we commit to each other for life. 6. Pension/Retirement : Since we both work, we would get little benefit in Social Security, especially since we make about the same. 401k I believe I can write a will or something that would be equivalent to giving her my retirement savings. 7. Visitations in jail : She better not make me use this 8. Medical decisions : I believe we can do a power of attorney doc or something that would give her control over me in these situations. And thinking about it, I am not sure this is a benefit until after a couple of decades pass. I believe my parents should be the ones responsible for me for the near future as they are pretty much the only people who will unconditionally love me and will always want whats best for me. 9. Other benefits : I have read other benefits like, married men make more, but that isn't a direct causation in my opinion. Or married men live longer, which can just be attributed to spending your life with the women you love.Something that can be done without marriage. Some may claim that I am scared of commitment, but I plan to have kids with this women, which to me is more of a commitment than marriage. I can divorce the following year if I wanted to and never see her again, with a kid, we are part of each others live forever. These are some of the reasons I can think of on the top of my head. Please let me know if there are any I've missed. I primarily interested in ones that we cannot circumvent through some legal document and that are only accessible through marriage.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant >1. Immigration: We are both U.S Citizens What about moving to another country. What if one of you gets an offer of a lifetime to work your dream job in <insert your favorite foreign country>. Would being married not aide you in following your partner to that country or vice versa?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user eli5, What are hedge funds ? I ve started learning about the market but I dont know what hedge funds are. Please explain<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If you're good at investing or trading securities, you essentially have 4 options: 1. You trade for yourself and do whatever you want. It's your money. 2. You can create a proprietary trading firm and hire employees that will help you trade your money. You don't have any outside investors so you can avoid all the day-to-day headaches associated with that. 3. You can create a mutual fund. This allows you to accept money from the public but it's regulated. People invest in mutual funds through their retirement accounts. 4. You can create a hedge fund. This allows you to accept money from outside investors but they have to be accredited. In other words, you can manage the money of wealthy people. Compared to mutual funds, hedge funds can pursue more exotic investment strategies. They can long, short, trade options, invest in cryptocurrencies, trade the weather, gamble on who the next president is going to be among other things. There are advantages to creating a fund versus managing your own money. When you manage your own money, all of the risk is yours. All of the gains and losses are yours. On the other hand, if you lose money as a hedge fund, the losses are spread across your investors. Hedge funds can charge their investors whatever they want to manage their money, but historically the going rate has been "2 and 20," meaning an unconditional 2% management fee and 20% of annual profits (if there are any).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Parents shouldn't force their children to join their religion without asking them. I always little babies whose parents force them to join a random religion, without asking them if they would ever want. And I think that this is wrong. I mean that everyone is allowed to join any religion they want, but they force people to do, especially in a really young age in which they cannot think. Then they grow up with a view of things which isn't proved to be right and they continue to do the same thing to their children. For Example: little babies are forced to become christians and then they learn that if they will leave this religion (which they never have been asked if they want to join anyway) they are going to burn in hell. I hold this view because it sounds like the most fair to me. _____ > 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 just 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 Parents will quite naturally teach their own children what they believe to be the truth about the world ... if the parents believe that their god created the world, and that their god demands certain rules to be kept, they will teach their children those things, how can they possibly not* if they truly believe it? You teach your children what you believe: could you teach your children what you believe is false?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is it possible to hold a job without acting in "bad faith"? Most of us spend 40 hours a week doing things we wouldn't ordinarily do, and saying things we wouldn't ordinarily say. Would Sartre say that we're acting in "bad faith", or does this concept refer to something more specific?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I think the concept isn't so much about the action, as about your identifying with the action. If an individual earns a paycheck working as a waiter, that does not inherently mean he is acting in bad faith. Bad faith enters when the individual identifies himself as a "waiter", thus reducing the definition of man as expressed in his case to one particular task. Our culture seems to encourage this identification - we ask another person what their job is with the words "What do you do?", implying (be it intentional or not) that the entire activity of an individual's life can be summed up by his/her job.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Are there any studies or evidence of current evolution of humans? I know species evolve over millions of years but is there any evidence that shows how humans evolved in the past couple thousand years?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are a few classic examples thrown around. First, realize that evolution is really just the change in alleles in a population over time. Ideas from population genetics are useful in describing evolutionary trends. Towards that end: The prevalence of sickle cell anemia in areas with high incidence of malaria. The parasite Plasmodium sp infects red blood cells, causing malaria in humans. However, people with one allele contributing to the sickle cell phenotype for red blood cells are given a competitive advantage at survival and reproduction (ie a fitness benefit), as sickle cells are unsuitable for Plasmodium to reside in.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:What makes some people "naturally" smarter than others?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are some basic building blocks to intelligence to appear to be genetically linked. Things like memory, spatial reasoning, and pattern recognition are abilities that allow you to understand new ideas, across many different subjects, more rapidly than people that are weaker in those abilities. This is part of what people usually think of as "smart", though some people more mean "knowledgable" when they say smart. All things being equal though, a smart person learns faster, and therefore should be more knowledgable than someone else who has spent an equal amount of time in the same field of study, meaning there is some natural overlap between the two.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5, how instinctive knowledge and behaviour is passed through genes, as opposed to learnt behaviour. Eg. A kitten is put into isolation from day one, yet still scuffs at the floor when pooping.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Brains develop, much like all organs, from the control of genes. During development, neurons use various methods of signalling to "make" certain parts of the brain essesntially "hard-wired" for a behavioural tendency, which in turn can ~~illicit~~ elicit (too much crime reading haha, thank you!) a physiological response, eg. sexual arousal, wincing at a bright light, scuffing at the floor if you're a cat or a weird human. There is a high degree of genetic regulation in neural development, it'd be wild if many behaviours weren't hereditary.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [General Superheroes] Are there any, or many, superheroes (apart from perhaps Professor X and other "pure mentalists") who don't tacitly have "super strength" among their powers? It seems like fucking everybody has the power to hurl people, if not cars, all over the place. Wolverine's power is his advanced healing factor, and yet he seems to often be depicted as super strong. Batman technically has no superpowers, but is super strong. Aquaman is ruler of the sea and can swim really well (okay maybe he's a bad example; is super strength a part of his official repertoire?) (As an out-of-universe follow-up: where can I ask about the real-world side of this? i.e. did comics always depict heroes this way?)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant This all ties into what human beings are capable of in comics vs reality. For example, Batman is a normal human being who has simply trained a lot. He is capable of deflecting bullets and benching enormous amounts of weight. Captain America is defined as peak human and has similarly absurd durability and strength feats. If normal human beings can achieve such feats of strength and speed, it isn't a big stretch for heroes to perform similar feats of heavy lifting. Finally, wolverine is a somewhat poor example, he is lifting hundreds of pounds of weight ever single second of his life (adamantium is heavy). You'd be pretty strong too if every step required a several hundred pound deadlift.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is the production of iron atoms a sign that a star is dying? If I’m not mistaken, most elements were forged in the cores of stars at the beginning of the universe. Supposedly, when a star starts making iron atoms, that means it’s dying. Why is that?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A star is big and shines bright. Most stars have hydrogen, element #1. Stars are so big and strong that they can squeeze four hydrogen atoms together to make element #2: helium. When stars fuse atoms together, usually it releases energy that makes the star shine bright. The star keeps doing this and they can make all sorts of elements, including #26: iron. But that takes a lot of energy. When a star makes iron, it uses more energy to make iron than iron makes the star shine. Making iron makes the star tired, and it will die for it. Edit: a star is big and shines bright.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is it negative to hold students back in school? Children develop at different rates, so what does it matter if a student wasn't ready for, say, fourth grade? Why is this stigmatized? This may snowball into a 'philosiphy of education' thread, but that's okay. Education is arguably one of the most important foundations if society, and it's an worthwhile discussion. Why do we in America push marginal students through school?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Basically, school, particularly primary/elementary school isn't just concerned with academics. A good school should be trying to nurture fully rounded human beings and a large part of that is found in the social sphere. Separating a child from his peers can cause anxiety, depression, a drop in self esteem etc etc. generally it's viewed that boost in academic learning is not worth the trade off in the other less tangible areas. Particularly when most studies show that the child who repeats a year generally find themselves at the bottom of the class again within two to three years.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user I want to publish work unrelated to my dissertation. Should my PI's name go on it? I'm a PhD student working on my dissertation in my PI's group. I've done some work on the side that is barely related to my dissertation and my PI isn't even aware of it. If I try to publish it, does my PI's name need to be on it? He didn't contribute to any of the work, but I learned some of the skills needed for the work during my time in his group (on my own), and performed the work while I was paid by his grant money (though on my own time). Edit: it's a small review paper that I've put together as a weekend project<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Did you use group equipment, group consumables, university access to publications for references? You need to tell your PI that you have an idea for publishing and then offer them to review and offer to put their name on it. You don't want the drama from not telling.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user I am not wholly convinced that conserving certain species is worth the effort, CMV. Firstly, let me say I am not advocating disregard or disrespect of the environment, I think it's important to protect areas of biodiversity. I think it makes sense to conserve habitats and the ecosystems within them. However, I'm not convinced conservation that takes place by humans breeding and managing an endangered population is always the right thing to do. I understand that certain species are imperative to human survival - for example, bees. They pollinate our crops, a critical ecological service. I think it makes sense to try to protect bees because we have a vested interest in their survival. However, I think that a lot of conservation efforts are wasted on charismatic megafauna species, like pandas, simply because they are cute. There are also examples of species reintroduction that I think are ultimately useful only to make us as humans feel better that we saved a species from extinction. One such example would be the case of the Guam Rail, a ground bird that was preyed upon to extinction by an invasive species of snake. There are still Guam Rails being bred and raised in captivity, with a plan to release them back onto a nearby island which is free of the snake that killed them all off in the wild. I don't get why this is a good thing. Wouldn't the bird be an invasive species on the new island? I recently started volunteering at a local zoo, and I feel like everyone there just accepts without question that protecting every species is the right thing to do. I don't really understand that mentality, but I would like to. Thanks for your replies. Edit: Thank you to /u/geniussmiddy for helping me change my view about charismatic megafauna species, I understand now that they serve the function of being a sort of mascot for preserving the ecosystems of which they are part. Thank you to /u/extradownvoteforyou for helping me understand that biodiversity is a slowly renewable resource, of which there are no alternatives should we deplete it. Deltas awarded. Thank you to everyone for your comments and discussion. Oh ps: to all of you using male pronouns to refer to me, I'm female.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant As far as your panda example goes: trying to preserve a megafauna species, when done properly, requires trying to save large swathes of intact habitat for it to live in. This means, that by trying to "save the panda" you are actually saving hundreds of other species at the same time. While we might have studied pandas a lot, and know that they have no practical use for us (assuming seeing cool things in a zoo and in the while isn't useful), some other animal involved in the ecosystem that we've saved might e.g. a new kind of antibiotic from a fungus, or cancer fighting chemical from an insect or rat. If we let this ecosystem die, then we will be unable to discover this in the future.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How come things like washing machines and cars always stay at high prices, meanwhile things like radios and TVs get cheaper and cheaper? Never understood why washing machines , cars and cookers always stay expensive whilst other things get cheaper as they get easier to make?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Cost of things are proportional to the cost of their base materials. Things like electronics become cheaper because they are used in technology that allows you to make NEW technology (like whats used in electronics) faster, smaller and cheaper. So, the reason why a washing machine or car raises price with inflation is because the raw materials like steel, aluminum, and plastic are also rising in price with inflation and supply and demand. But, you cant develop new technology to "make" more steel or plastic faster, cheaper or smaller, you have to acquire it the old fashioned way.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What is going to be the next big thing in Sociology? What I mean is this, what do you think is the next stage in the evolution of the field? Are there any issues are at the edges of the field right now that you see becoming important to the field as a whole in the near future? What areas of research do you think are going to become significant to Social Science? Are there any sorts of new methodology changes or advancements in types of measurement or programs (like SPSS) that are going to push the Social Science in a different direction? Thanks in advance!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Big data: extracting correlations from large data-sets on human behavior and verifying them. A deluge of data will be coming and it will dramatically change everything about how sociology will be conducted.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: how does the Olympic gymnastics scoring system work?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Gymnast decides on a routine and submits it to the A panel. The A panel scores the routine with a set of rules. Every legal move has a difficulty class and is assigned a specific point value. A routine may include a move several times, but it only counts once in this part. The second part is doing multiple moves in succession. There's a set number of points available for connecting moves together. There are special moves called elements that must be present in every routine (each event has different elements). The panel then comes to a consensus for the value of the routine. The B panel scores the performance. Their scores start at 10. Every fault that occurs has an amount that gets deducted. Wrong foot position might be a 0.1 penalty. Skipping a move in the routine is a 1.0 penalty. Everything other error has other specific deductions. Then the subjective dislike of the artistry is deducted. It is theoretically possible to have a negative score. The B panel drops the high and the low scores. The rest are averaged. The two panel scores are then added together.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Can we tell that dinosaurs were cold blooded based of bones and fossils or is that just the popular theory?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant One of the things scientists look at is rate of growth which they can see from patterns in the bone. Cold blooded animals have limited growth rates - essentially their metabolism isn't fast enough to sustain high growth rates. From patterns in dinosaur bones, it suggests many dinosaurs were warm blooded. However some exceptions to this rule in animals today are also cited. Tuna fish and sea turtles for example are technically "cold blooded" but have some capability of regulating and generating body heat. So, there is given some leeway to suggest dinosaurs might have also fallen in this inbetween category of being half and half between cold blooded and fully body temperature regulating warm blooded.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What is the difference between blood types and why do our bodies only accept the correct type?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Biologically, ABO blood types are just seen as different combinations of sugars attached to some of the proteins within red blood cell membranes. The reason mismatching is problematic is because your body will initiate an immune response against the donor blood because the blood type is still an antigen. You don't attack your own cells because there is a process during lymphocyte (white blood cells that handle specific immunity) maturation, that will cause any cell that reacts too early (i.e. activates while still in the thymus or bone marrow) to die. ABO however are not the limit of blood types. Technically there are hundreds of different blood groups.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user eli5 How does laser cooling work<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Things to know/remember beforehand: * Temperature is the random motion/bouncing around of molecules and atoms * Light gets absorbed by atoms when the particles of light (photons) matches very specific kinetic energies that depend on the atom they're possibly getting absorbed by. This energy is directly related to the lights color (which is also it's frequency and wavelength). Otherwise the light just passed through without doing anything * If you are traveling towards the source of the light, you will see the light shift more "blue" (higher energy and frequency, shorter wavelength), opposite is true if you're moving away. This is called Doppler shift * When a photon gets absorbed by an atom, the momentum and energy of the photon gets transferred into the atom (conservation laws) So, when scientists want to cool individual atoms with lasers, their goal is to slow down that random motion of the atom. What they do is set up a bunch of lasers that are tuned to emit light just below those absorption energies. This way, the light only gets absorbed when they're moving towards each other (like a head on collision) because the light gets shifted into those energies to absorb. The energy is conserved by making the electrons jump to higher orbits around the atom, while the atom itself slows down to conserve momentum. This causes the atom to cool to as low as a few millionths of a degree above absolute zero<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Harry Potter] ELI5: How does sacrificial protection(i.e. Harry gaining"blood protection" from Lily's sacrifice) work and is it consistent throughout the series? Okay I've seen people try to explain this but it almost always seems convoluted and makes me think that it's not consistent and people are trying to make excuses for it. How exactly does this protect Harry? How does this enable him to burn Quirrell? Does he use these powers any other time? Can someone please give me a simple explanation and tell me if it is consistent? Thanks.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant # How to Grant Love's Protection 1. Be a Wizard. 2. Someone (henceforth called killer) is threatening to kill one or more people you love (henceforth called lovees). 3. The killer gives you the choice to save yourself. Having the choice matters! If you were just going to die anyway, it doesn't count! 4. Choose to die, then get killed by the killer. # What Exactly Does it Do 1. The killer—and only the killer—can no longer physically touch the lovees without being destroyed. 2. Spells cast by the killer on the lovees don't work properly. Magical enchantments put on the lovees will be spontaneously dismissed and other spells might bounce off or work at reduced potency. # Bonus: The Lovees Are Your Blood Relative 1. A third party may cast a special protective charm on the lovees if they are a blood relative of the person who sacrificed him- or herself. 2. This amplifies the original love's protection because blood ties are really important in magic. Even a Killing Curse cast by the killer against the lovees will be fully deflected, with almost little harm to the lovees. 3. To maintain this extra protection, the lovees must live with a shared blood relative. It's ok if most of the time they are somewhere else, but they must spend some time there (e.g., summer break) at least once every year. 4. The killer or any of his or her associates cannot enter the shared blood relative's house. 5. This extra protection is immediately cancelled if either (a) the lovees no longer call the house of the shared blood relative their home OR (b) they reach the age of magical maturity, 17. 6. This special blood protection charm was created by Albus Dumbledore. # For Dark Wizards: Love's Protection and You 1. There's no counterspell you can use to dispel the protection (whether the base one or the fortified blood relative one). 2. If you happen to lose your body and then recreate it using the blood of one of the lovees, you may affect that lovee as though he or she didn't have the protection. 3. However, even if you use a lovee's blood for resurrection, if that lovee's has the special blood protection, you won't be able to enter the shared blood relative's house. 3. If you use a lovee's blood for resurrection, you might act as a "positive energy Horcrux" for that person, meaning the lovee will not die as long as you live.\* 4. If you use a lovee's blood for resurrection and you have created any number of Horcruxes, your soul can be healed completely if you feel remorse. --- *^(Further conditions might apply. Please check your destiny is intertwined with the lovee's by word of prophecy and that you're using a legendary wand whose master is the lovee.)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Prometheus] How could the Engineers have created humanity while the fossil record of humans and their ancestors is well-documented and shows a clear line of human speciation from other primates? Basically, when the Engineer sacrifices himself to create humanity, wtf is going on in that sequence? Was it an Earth prior to microbial life? Couldn't have been considering the abundance of liquid water, a thick atmosphere, and enough oxygen for the Engineers to breathe. Was it the Mesozoic? Mammals already existed by then. Was it the cenozoic? Primates already existed by then. By the way, would Engineers count as some sort of primate at any rate? Are all Earth primates actually descendants of Engineers? How tf does any of this make sense?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The engineers seen in the beginning are at a very early stage of Earth's development. Iirc it's hundreds of millions of years ago. They seeded their own genetics into the muck of earth and created a series of evolutionary events that would end in humanity. A near identical species to themselves but with several cultural and biological differences to make it an experiment rather than a cloning practice.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Do honey products help or harm bees? I've heard about bees being endangered and it being dangerous to our ecosystem. Some honey products (ex: the young girl's honey lemonade business featured on Shark Tank recently) advocate for saving the bees. Does purchasing honey help this issue or are we draining these resources and therefore hurting this endangered species?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Bee farms depend on a healthy colony of bees to produce honey, so any business that is based on honey will intrinsically be good for bee populations. As for whether that will solve issues of endangered bees, no it will not. Bee farms encourage large populations of bees, but in very concentrated areas. To help with pollination and support the Earth's ecosystem, bees need to be widespread. In short, buying honey will help a little, but it won't hurt.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 how’s does my brain recognise “fake” computer graphics which are intentionally designed to not fall within the “uncanny valley?” I’m watching a movie action scene which I know is unreal yet it’s perfectly “real” at the same time?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Generally the difference is light. If the light is hitting objects at different angles, or if it’s not passing through partially transparent objects like skin, your mind will see that something is wrong.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star Trek] Instead of the various Alpha Quadrant powers always fighting over colony planets in far-off star systems, why don't they use their amazing technology to terraform new planets much closer to home for habitation?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Terraforming is a lengthy process. We actually do see it going on a few times. The Genesis device was intended to be a system for rapid terraforming, but between the death of David Marcus, the Genesis planet proving to be unstable, and the Klingon Empire declaring Genesis a weapon of mass destruction, the major Alpha Quadrant powers signed a treaty banning further experimentation with it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What exactly happens to muscles when you massage them and why is it good for them?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Massaging reduces the production of compounds called cytokines, which play a major role in inflammation. Also, it stimulates mitochondria which helps convert glucose into energy used for cell repair and growth. Massage causes microtrauma also, which stimulates nutrient flow to the targeted area and speeds recovery.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user eli5: Why do most racing vehicles (F1, IMSA etc) lose control immediately the second they touch grass where a 'passenger' car would retain some control?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A normal tyre is made to handle all kinds of surfaces. Race tyres, especially slicks, are only made for race tracks. Also really stiff suspension means race cars loose traction even quicker than normal cars.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Does Justice Exist? My friend and I are engaged in an argument on whether justice actually exists or not, and I naturally gravitated to the more skeptical view that justice doesn't exist. So far, I've discussed deconstructionism and variance (across history and time), but does anyone have any other interesting rationales? Perhaps equally as important, does anyone have any arguments on why justice exists?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In the first book of The Republic, Thrasymachus in dialogue with Plato, claims justice is "the advantage of the stronger". Plato spends the rest of the book trying to pin down what exactly justice is by formulating a polis in which he believes it resides, allowing him to trace it back to the individual. That book is a decently long read by one of the most important philosophers to ever live and yet didn't produce a definite answer to this question.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: There is no Reason to Care about my "Roots" or "Heritage" most who say they are, are lying. Whenever people ask me about my heritage and family culture, my answer is usually something along the lines of "I'm not really sure." They usually respond with, "don't you care about your roots?" and I can't help but answer no. Plenty of folks have a rather baffled expression, and I have no idea why. I mean, to me my culture is 21st century free market capitalism, lol. I like money, food, women, and friends. I like to dress well, make money, and play video games. There is not much to know outside of that, except what is needed in acquiring these things. I'm also well versed in not being a dick to people. That's not to say I'm this totally selfish guy with no vision outside of himself, I care about societal advancement particularly the impact technology will have for our health and enjoyment. But I'm not sure if I care about much outside of reducing suffering and making people happier. But I cannot fathom the negative reactions I get from some people, and in many cases, I can't help but see them as shallow hypocrites. People who say they feel connected to their heritage are such bullshitters imho. Buying a cheap scarf with an alpaca on it manufactured in bulk in china, does not make you in touch with your hispanic roots. I sort of view people who call themselves spiritual in the same light as well. They go on and on about how people are becoming so self-centered and this instant gratification society and how the next generation are ridiculous, but they are literally sold bullshit products all the time and eat it up. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Why shouldn't I hold this view? Why should I change it? Why should I care about my roots? _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Can you pinpoint which view you want changed? It seems there are two major points: 1) Most people who care about their roots or heritage are lying 2) you shouldn't care about your roots Do you want both of them challenged? Just one? Are we to convince you that most people who care about their roots are not lying, or are we to convince you that you should care about your own roots? Or both/either?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What is the philosophical basis for respect of human corpses? Or is it just cultural? Is there anything philosophically/ethically wrong with desecrating a human body? It feels intuitive that there is, but I am having trouble identifying if the basis and have been unsuccessful in finding one.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Consequentialist argument: People will be upset by your treatment of the body in unaccepted ways. So, if your treatment doesn't outweigh that in good, it shouldn't be done. And yes, this is based on only certain cultures. If the cultures changed, the judgment would too. Virtue argument: The way we treat inanimate objects might cultivate habits or traits in us that affect how we treat people or other things. If what we're doing to the corpse creates bad habits or sullies the trajectory of our life, we shouldn't do it. Relatedly, if it affects our social standing negatively, we shouldn't do it without good reasons to counter it. It's gonna depend on what we're talking about. Cremation? Necrophilia? Plasticizing and creating an artwork from it? Mandatory organ donation? Eating it to survive? For recreation?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How come when you do nothing all day you're more tired than when you're productive?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Hormones, or signals for your body, require a stimulus to be activated. The stimulus could be stress, fear, arousal, pain, motion, etc. When you sit around and do nothing, your body senses that it does not need to be alert, so nothing is stimulated and you stay tired. When you are actively engaged in doing something, your body becomes aware that you may need to be alert or ready for action, and it prompts you accordingly.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user I believe that college students should only be required to study courses relative to their major. CMV College students in America are required to complete all courses in their major in addition to a number of general education requirements. For example, I am a biology major but I also have to take courses in history, english, foreign language, arts, etc. This is a total waste of money and time for me. I could complete my degree earlier if these classes were eliminated, leaving me with less debt and providing me with an even stronger foundation in biology. I understand that basic math and writing skills are important in all areas of study, so I would be alright with having math and writing courses still be a part of all majors, with the opportunity to be placed out of these courses if proficiency in them is exhibited. The idea of a well-rounded student is a fantasy. Students often do whatever it takes to get a decent grade in gen eds and all of that information gets flushed right out once the class is over. Even if taking those classes does make a person slightly more knowledgeable, none of the students who enjoy those classes would rather have taken them than have less debt.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant For many students going into college, they don't know what their major is at all. Kids change their majors all the time. If anything, general requirements are a good way to introduce students to different topics or fields and produce a foundation to make sure they can adequately be informed about what a department is like. And besides, for most serious colleges, their overwhelming mission is to educate students — not to be a diploma mill. Part of educating means making a person as well-rounded as possible. You state how important basic math and writing skills are. What about basic history? Basic biology? Basic understanding of the world and foreign countries? I'd argue that it's also extremely critical to becoming a well-rounded and highly functioning member of society.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: why water doesn’t make a good lubricant It’s just kind of counter intuitive to me. I would expect water to to make things slicker but instead it often seems to make them rougher to move/touch or seems to chafe your body<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant What makes a lubricant good is that the molecules in the lubricant interact weakly with each other. This means that they can slide freely on top of each other. If you have many of these sliding molecules then you get a good lubricant which also "slides" on a macroscopic (visible) level. Water molecules, on the other hand, interact very strongly with each other. This means water has higher cohesion than oils, which is not a favorable feature for lubricants. Edit: rewrote the last paragraph to remove an ambiguous statement that could be interpreted as water being more viscous than oil, which is completely untrue.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Teaching a stats course this term. Student who rarely attends has asked for detailed walk-through of class activities, beyond the guidelines I already provided. How to proceed? I'm running a statistics course for the first time. The lecture and tutorial slide include very basic information on the theory behind statistical tests, and on how to run them. I've left a lot of details out of the slides to encourage attendance to lectures. Students who attend class and take notes should be able to use these to practice in their own time and seem to be doing quite well in class activities so far. However, a student who barely ever attends class has asked me to upload detailed questions and instructions online. I have uploaded some instructions and questions we explored in class, to be nice. He has now emailed me again to ask for a walk-through of how to deal with data sets, and answers for each dataset. I am reluctant to do this, first because this is stuff I've been doing repeatedly in the last few lectures. Secondly I don't have a lot of time to compile a huge document with all the results we obtained from several data sets in class. Students who took notes should have these results already. Is it unreasonable of me to suggest to him that he should attend class if he wants a more detailed walk-through? And should I even provide the answers he has asked for? I would be more understanding if this person would have missed 1-2 sessions, but I have rarely seen this person in my course and as such I don't feel particularly motivated to provide further materials. On the other hand I am concerned about potentially getting a poor rating for this module from him. It is a very small class so a single low rating could bring the average down. More experienced people, what would you do? Any suggestions would be much appreciated! Edit: I should add I already offered to see him during office hours in a previous email, but he decided to just ask for more information instead.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You tell the student to do the following 1. Attend class 2. Attend office hours 3. You will not make special accommodations just for them as it is unfair to the rest of the students 4. Ignore the rating. If you do your best to teach all the students then it will work out, even for a small class.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do trees get rings that can tell us their age? How are the rings formed? Also, can you calculate a tree's age by measuring the outside of it?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Trees grow from the center outward and different factors change the look of what grows. Lighter wood correlates to spring and darker wood correlates to winter (given the dramatic differences in weather between the two seasons). Since each year has either a spring or a winter, all we have to do is count how many winters a tree has been through to give a good estimate of it's age.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does AI (Bots) work in video games?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant AI in games has to have a couple things first; you have to have a designed goal for the AI to do first, and allow it access to stuff to achieve that goal. In a video game this might turn out to be something like a standard fighting game; where the AI is designed to win the match, and is given access to button combination inputs to achieve that. If they want to get a bit into it with difficulty settings, they could change which moves/combos the AI can execute, or how quickly it reacts. In something else like a strategy game, they tend to give the AI certain goals to hit before launching an attack/defending an attack. IE: Have 10 builders/harvesters, 20 attackers, and 2 defensive structures; then issue commands to move attackers across the map toward a target destination. How that all is built is basically programming the AI, although depending on what you want the AI to do, it might range from just mashing buttons to figuring out pathfinding for a giant army. And in plenty of cases, the person programming the AI might let the AI cheat a bit. Now in cases where people argue they want difficulty to mean something more than enemies become bullet sponges, while the player hits like a wet noodle. They want the difficulty increase to mean enemies are smarter too - but that comes at a cost in programming & CPU cycles. Is it really worthit to add in more in-depth AI that checks whether one room is good to hang out in because it has a lot of cover (and having all the programmatic checks and balances to go with that), or use those precious spare moments on the CPU to push out a few more frames per second?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: The differences between acetaminophen, ibuprofen, & aspirin? I know that aspirin helps blood clot, ibuprofen is a muscle relaxer, & acetaminophen is an NSAID. Yet all are recommended for (& provide relief for) headaches. This overlap I don't understand, what do these medicines have in common?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant What's common is that they all affect the way your body creates and processes pain, but that's about it. Why three separate ones exist is because they all have different chemical structures, and are handled when you take them by separate "metabolic pathways" (the process in which they are absorbed into, affect, and are eventually removed from the body) which make them better or worse for treating certain conditions. They all treat pain, but some are better for sprains than others (where swelling is an issue), some cause a little internal bleeding, some are better at reducing a fever, and they have different side effects. For example, if you have liver issues, don't take acetaminophen because it's hard on that particular organ. (But a correction: aspirin helps AVOID blood clots. That's why low dosage programs can help avoid heart attacks.)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How come flies and other bugs can so easily get into my house through a small crack in the window but then freak the fuck out and aimlessly fly at the glass trying to get out?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Flies and other insects are attracted to the carbon dioxide your body gives off, along with the smells of food and other household byproducts. This mixture of gasses flows out of the cracks in your house and gives the insects something to track down. When they're trying to leave, there's nothing attracting them out, so they're just trying to follow the light and nothing else. Insects aren't intelligent enough to understand windows, so they stupidly bounce off over and over.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What makes a circular paper airplane fly so well? Like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8Yehe2dbyQ<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Stability. 1. Circles are very hard to deform compared to other shapes. This means the "wing" will not flutter or collapse, which is the main problem when working with paper. 2. Having all of that weight at the bottom means it won't flip over, and won't roll over. It also looks like it is placed so that the more it begins to nosedive, the further forward the center of lift moves, keeping it level. 3. Straight wings make lots of whirling, messy air from their tips (like when you push your hand through a bath of water). These both slow the plane down because it has to pull the big balls of air along with it, and shake it about (point no. 1). In some passenger planes you can see little vertical "winglets" on the wing tips, which help reduce this. "Circular" wings have no tips, so they don't have this problem at all!<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Superman] why doesnt superman just go inside a giant star and overcharge himself to the point of godhood? wouldnt that be more beneficial to helping ppl?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant >wouldnt that be more beneficial to helping ppl? Not really- He doesn't need more power. He's good for that- if anything, he feels he has too much power. The main issue with him helping as many people are limitations, either in the sense of he wants to have a life outside saving people or in that he has ethical objections to lasering tyrants from space. He doesn't want to give those up (he's not a utilitarian) and if he changed his mind, he wouldn't need to overcharge to do that.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is it less difficult to become a professor at a smaller, less research oriented university? I went to a small (2000 people) school for undergrad. We didn’t offer PhDs and while some professors did research, many seemed to solely teach. The environment was much different than the research-focused state school where I did my PhD. I’m not that interested in continuing intensive research. I finished grad school in April and went into industry. I’d like to stay here for awhile, but I loved the environment of my undergrad school and would be interested in possibly becoming a professor that focuses on teaching rather than research down the line. Are these jobs still extremely difficult to get? I’m aware how tough tenure track positions are, but I’m curious if these positions are similar. If it is relevant, my field is engineering. Thanks!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I’ve served on numerous hiring committees at a teaching intensive PUI about the same size as your undergrad over the past 15 years and here’s the deal: it’s not about being more or less difficult. It’s about what kind of difficult. If you are a top researcher in an R1 PhD program with 5 tier 1 pubs and 1 semester as the instructor of record when you were ABD, you would not get hired at our institution. That’s not what we want. You can certainly come from those R1 programs, but you need to have a full teaching portfolio. Maybe one or two low tier pubs that show you know the field, but that’s it. It’s not that it’s easy or hard, it’s just a different kind of hard than research track positions.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: I think once you become a "grown-up" and have family, you become depressed. My mom and dad don't really live what would be considered a "happy" life. My dad has anger issues, hates his job (got laid off 7+ times) and is constantly stressed out. My mom told me today, "I think people tend not to like me...". She seems to have self-esteem issues which is ridiculous because she is the sweetest, caring and most loving person I know. Also, it seems like once you're used to your job, and family (grown-up), you lose all your friends. I haven't heard of my dad talking to a single friend ever since I was a toddler, and the only friends he talks to now are at church. And even then, they never hang out outside of church. Growing up into the church, I've been constantly surrounded by the same families with the same cookie-cutter parents. This reinforced the notion that parents just get used to life and go through that stagnant cycle of work, bills, church, etc. I also understand that with age, connections grow thin and the only the best friendships survive because of the dedication required to keeping in touch. I know that my view isn't correct, and many families out there are happy, but I really need to hear it for confirmation. Edit: I've found the answers- thank you all for the valuable insight. Reddit delivers.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The fundamental things that makes people happy and keeps people going are goals. Your life should always be building towards something- whether it's getting a new computer, tending a garden, beating that video game, having and raising kids- people necessarily hate stagnation. You hear it all the time- "Honey, we're in a rut." Now, stagnation is certainly a pitfall of adulthood, but it isn't an inevitability. And it's a subtle difference, so the confusion is easy.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Eli5 How come you can look up at a height and it not seem so high, but looking down from that same point the drop seems a lot further. Like if you’re looking at a point that is just above your head it doesn’t seem that high up off the ground. But if you were to jump from that height to the ground, the distance seems further.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A lot comes down to having a point of reference. If you're on the ground and you look up to a skyscraper, you're also looking at a bunch of empty sky When you're up on the skyscraper looking down, you see other buildings, streets, cars and people, and they look tiny, so you have a better measure of the distance This is the same phenomena that causes the moon to appear bigger when it's lower on the horizon<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: the feeling "I'm wasting my life" is more dependent on selection bias than any life decisions Sometimes I watch movies or listen to music or even meet people and think 'I'm not alive like they are alive. I'm stuck in some grey humdrum cubical of existence while they are out there experiencing what life should feel like." I am currently feeling that way now and so to cheer myself up I've decided that feeling is just because I have to live through every minute of my life, even the dull bits, but I am seeing the edited highlights of everyone else's. Sometimes its not even highlights its just fiction, like pictures that are edited to look better than any real person could or a carefully choreographed video of what looks like the worlds best party but is really just some bored, out of work actors on the 15th take. I feel like i've definitely had moments where I felt truly alive but they seem very far away now...does anyone really live like this the whole time? _____ > 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 Person A who has taken some risks to do the job they really want to do or try out the things they really want to do and person B who took the safe route through life and never quite figured out how to do the things they really want to do aren't on the same path. Sure not everyone's life will be happy all the time, but there are some people who set things up to maximize any opportunities that come their way, while others are just the "plankton" of life. Some people are content to stay in one place and eat the food as it drift by, but can't turn a simple opportunity into a series of opportunities. Some people create a blog and turn that into a full time career. If you're worried that you are living a "plankton" life then start moving.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: If programs are lines of codes, how do we see images? Especially in gaming where there are so much interactive objects on screen.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Are you thinking that if you looked really closely at your screen, like with a microscope, you would see the code, and that somehow it makes up the image? Code is just what tells your screen how to make an image. Think of it like this. Your screen has thousands of little empty dishes we call "pixels". We can put any kind of colored ball into one of these dishes. Code tells your computer which colored ball goes in which dish. After your computer reads the code and puts the correct colored balls in the correct places, then when you back out and look at everything at once, you see an image.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is Borderline Personality Disorder? Friend I grew up with was just diagnosed with BPD. What is it? Is that why he never got along with his family?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It is a mental health diagnosis that does impact people's ability to maintain close and long term relationships including family, friends and lovers. While there are several criteria and characteristics a few significant ones reported by many suffers include: 1) The feeling that there is a "hole" inside of them that needs filling 2) The thought that a close intimate relationship will fill that hole 3) Hot and cold running emotions toward people close to them, the swings from "you are the greatest person ever" to "you are trying to destroy me" can be sudden, frequent and seeming unprovoked. These things (and a few other) conspire to keep the person out of long term relationships and hopping from intense relationship to intense relationship in that constant search to fill the "hole".<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Does Einstein's theory of relativity connect electric and magnetic fields?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Yes; namely under changes of inertial frames in relativity (Lorentz transformations) E and B fields mix into eachother. Super minimal example to show this: static charge, there's only an E field. You change reference frame, it gets moving and therefore part of the E has turned into a B. Said in modern words, this implies E and B must be part (components) of a larger object that "transforms well" under Lorentz transformations, that is to say it doesn't mix into anything else, just into itself. This object is the Maxwell tensor F.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How do large scale shops/malls supply WiFi on such a big scale? How do shopping malls and big supermarkets supply a (considering it’s size) stable WiFi connection across such a large area? Sent using a shopping centres WiFi with a solid 20mb download.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant This could be a very long reply basically involving a course in wifi engineering, however, in simple terms it looks like this. 1. They use multiple commercial grade access points which are all controlled by a central controller device. This keeps track of connected devices and ensures the device connects to the ap with the best signal as it roams. 2. AP placement is carefully calculated to provide consistent coverage as well as load balance number of devices per AP. 3. Radio channel space is carefully planned to prevent interference (CCI) 4. AP are all connected to central controller by a fast (at least GB) wired netowrk. 5. The entire netowrk is connected via 1 or more fast broadband/ethernet internet circuits There is a lot more to it, but that is the basics.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are rural and urban cultures so different? One specific example: I recently asked my dad who lives in rural Australia if people in his community/town are homophobic, and he replied in a "D'uhh"-ish tone: "YES!!!"<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Density and variety. You're squeezed into a much closer area, and a much more diverse one. In terms of tolerance (sexually, racially, etc), one of the best ways to reduce intolerance is to expose people to different lifestyles. In rural areas, it's not uncommon to have the same 100 or whatever neighbors for your entire life.You know them all by name, and they're all pretty much like you (immigration into rural areas is low). In the US, that usually means white and Christian. This tends to lead to an "us vs them" mentality, especially when you add in things like news telling you about all the horrible things going on. Many rural people might never meet or meaningfully interact with someone who is gay/black/Muslim etc. It's a lot harder to be afraid or hateful when your office mate who you BBQ with on the weekend is one of those things, and he's a decent guy. In terms of other things, it often comes down to density. It's a lot easier to trust your neighbors when you know them all by name, and they've been babysitting your kids. In a city, you might buy a coffee, and never see that guy again. Even if say, 0.01% of the population are creepy, you probably pass by a few every day, just due to the sheer numbers.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user I believe that space travel should not be one of the priorities of mankind. CMV I think that space travel is an interesting concept, and I don't argue against learning more about outer space, however when I hear people complain about NASA's budget I just don't see what all the fuss is about. I mean, why should governments, whose main priority is to benefit the people and their respective nation, be forking over money to travel to places that will do little to benefit Earth (Although I do agree that many governments should top spending as much on their militaries) This probably comes down to personal preference, but I also think that the places we have the potential to go to in space aren't very interesting. If we really want to explore the unknown why not explore the deep ocean, that would be less expensive and we would actually see new species, while we probably won't find anything as interesting in our solar system. Ultimately, I think that we should focus on our own planet before others, but I am open to arguments as to why we need to travel into space.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There's lot that the space program(s) can do and has done to benefit folks back here on Earth: * Detecting near-earth asteroids from orbit. As our sensor technology has improved, there are now proposals for placing a satellite in orbit around the sun to look for potential Earth-bound asteroids. This may give us a chance to attempt a deflection or prepare for an impact. * Space-based services for Earth. GPS, Satellite TV, Satellite Phones, Satellite Internet/data, Satellite photos. All of these things have been made possible by the launch capability developed for the space program (and the military) and all of them have major applications on earth. GPS has become the 'stealth utility', synchronizing the clocks at cellular telephone sites, providing a high-resolution timing signal for electronics labs and providing location data for innumerable applications. Many broadcasters turn to satellites for up-linking their programming to distant locations. Satellite phone and data allow men and women to connect to the outside world in the most distant of places on Earth. * Development of new technologies. The space program has historically caused a number of talented engineers to solve difficult problems, some of which might have applications back on earth. This can run the gambit from advanced materials that can withstand the rigors of spaceflight and re-enter to the Apollo program's demands of compact computing equipment and the semiconductor industry.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How likely are we really to contract a virus or disease by drinking from the same cup? Given two scenarios: Your average US resident, sharing a drink from the same a cup of alcohol and also a cup of water (since I assume there would be less contamination in alcohol). Your third world country resident, from lets say the Democratic Republic of Congo, sharing a cup of water and also a cup of liquor. Personally what I think the whole "don't share cups" is ridiculously overblown, but I am curious.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It depends on the disease or virus and how it's transmitted. If we're talking flu virus...don't share that cup! Herpes is also very virulent, but only at the site of infection. If someone has a visible cold sore, don't share that cup! Some viruses don't spread very effectively through saliva, though they may be present. A famous example is HIV. HIV is very sensitive to the environment outside the body and can't survive for more than a few seconds in open air. If someone has HIV and isn't bleeding from the mouth, go ahead and share that cup :)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: The difference between mass and weight Edit: Thanks for the answers, everyone!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Your mass is a given quantity regardless of where you are. Its how much "stuff" you are made of. Weight is how gravity acts on your mass so you weigh less on the moon because there is less gravity but your mass is the same anywhere you go in the universe.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Religion as a whole does not need to be abolished. Disclaimer: I'm an atheist. With that out of the way, let me explain my view. [Many people on CMV](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/general#wiki_against_religion) have expressed views that religion is harmful to society and has stopped the advancement of science in society. Common examples are used such as killings and wars that have took place on the premise of religion. However, I do not believe that religion as a whole needs to be abolished. While I feel that certain fundamentalist views need to be abolished, in general most religious people do not engage in such activities, and instead seek to carry out the values of peace, love, etc. that keeps a society together. I think that as long as religion is kept a personal matter, it is alright for religion to exist. By "personal matter" I mean that people should not engage actively to uphold their own form of morality, and instead follow the rules that keep a community together. For example, while Christians may be against homosexual rights, they should not engage in activity that discriminates against homosexuals or support anti-homosexual policies, but instead advocate against homosexuality on a moral basis. This is under the assumption that homosexuality does not cause any harm to society, which I will not discuss further. Assuming that people do abide by these conditions, I see no reason why religion would cause harm to society. CMV. --- Clarifications (will update as time passes): 1. By personal matter, I make an exception for the spreading of ideas (such as discussing religion with your children or converting others). The crux is that your actions must not harm others. 2. I'm proposing that by keeping religion as a "personal matter", most harm will be curbed. --- List of common arguments (will update as time passes): A stands for argument, CA stands for counterargument. A: Publicly endorsing beliefs that are not supported by strong scientific evidence can be seen as causing harm to society and slowing down progress. CA: I do not think that publicly endorsing religion will cause a significant effect. People are already inclined to believe many things that are not supported by strong scientific evidence. For example, superstitions, pseudoscience, stuff on the internet on sites such as cough Reddit cough, and much more. A: Particular parts of religion clash with science. You are either forced to continually change and amend all religions to keep in line with the current scientific world view, or you are telling people to choose religion over science, harming scientific advance. CA: I'd opt for letting people decide, since it is impossible to amend all religions to keep in line with science. This will definitely harm scientific advance. [to be completed when I sort out my thoughts] --- After spending an hour, I couldn't think of a counterargument to the above arguments. I've awarded the deltas. Thanks for changing my view, /r/changemyview! I will try to come up with a modified solution and see if that works out. Hope I've at least inspired some discussion on this matter. _____ > 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 Publicly endorsing and advocating beliefs that are not actually supported by strong enough evidence could be seen as causing harm to society and slowing down progress however, even if indirectly. EDIT: And this might apply even when the belief leads to some beneficial behaviors, such as 'You should be nice to people because (insert religious motivation)'<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is gargling salt water known to help with sore throats, but eating chips doesn't? If the salt in salt water can aide the sore throat, why wouldn't the salt in chips, french fries, or any other salty food also be a suggestion to help?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There's a phenomenon called 'osmosis' which plays its role here. When two different liquids with different concentrations are separated by a semipermeable membrane (the one that allows one-way flow only), the liquids would flow in such a way that they attain a state of equilibrium, i.e. now the concentration of both the liquids is same. The bacteria which cause the sore throat also have their skin similar to a semipermeable membrane. When you gargle with salty water, the inner 'fluid' of bacteria (which makes them live, in a literal sense) oozes out (in order to equalize the concentrations of these fluids-salt water and bacterial body fluid). This kills the bacteria and their 'active fluid' is washed away when you gulf-out the liquid. Thus they loose their dominance on the sore throat and you feel relaxed.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: what is Keynsian economics?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In classical economics it’s all about supply and demand. If supply is higher then prices go down. If demand is higher then prices go up. Keynes added the actions of a central government to the model, allowing management of overall demand, and preventing extremes of recession and inflation. In other words, it recognises that governments aren’t exactly the same as other market participants, essentially because they also make the rules of the market.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why do quarks have "charges," and how does this work? I know that protons have a +1 charge because of their constituent quarks (+2/3, +2/3, -1/3), but I was curious as to what forces cause quarks to have these fractional charges and how it works.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Rather than forces creating charges, charges are what specify how forces interact with particles. Here we're talking about electric charge, which is usually defined in particle physics so that the electron has charge -1 (with no units). Then the fact that up-type quarks have charge 2/3 means that, in an electric field, they experience a force 2/3 as strong and in the opposite direction when compared with electrons. Down-type quarks experience a force in the same direction as electrons but 1/3 as strong. Electric charges are not forced to be integers or fractions, but we observe that all the particles we know about have integer or fractional charge with a small denominator (relative to the electron charge). Even more surprisingly the fractional ones are never found alone in nature---they always are joined together (confined) into integer-charge particles. HOWEVER the reason they are confined has nothing to do with their electric charge, and everything to do with their color charge, which relates to the strong interaction. It's a pretty interesting arrangement that is potentially explained by grand unified theories that join all of the forces, including color and electromagnetic, together. As a bonus fact, note that electric charge is special among the fundamental forces and charges in the Standard Model, because it's the only one that isn't forced to be quantized (come in integer multiples, in this case multiples of 1/3). (It happens to be, experimentally.) Mathematically this is because electromagnetism is defined by an abelian gauge theory, which allows any charge, while the weak and strong forces are non-abelian gauge theories which only allow fixed units of charge. Grand unification puts the abelian part of the Standard Model inside a larger non-abelian group, forcing the charge to come in fixed units.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How did we create precision-engineered components without a precision-engineered machine to make them?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Patience and Polishing. Basically how you create anything with precision. Rough cut. Smooth cut. Smoother cut. Coarse polish. Fine polish. Super fine polish. You just have to do this to the machine. It's feedback. Measure and cut repeatedly.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why do diabetes patients sometimes need their limbs amputated? Pretty much self explanatory. What happens to their limbs that causes them to be totally unsalvageable?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Diabetes causes high levels of glucose in the blood, which can damage just about any organ in the body. It affects the nerves in the feet, a condition called peripheral neuropathy, so patients lose sensation. It also causes vascular changes, hardening and clogging the arteries so the feet don't get enough oxygenated blood. That means patients might not feel an irritation until it breaks the skin, allowing bacteria to enter the wound. Because the blood supply is poor, the body has a diminished capacity to fight the infection, so the wounds don't heal.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How exactly does nothing (or almost nothing) react with glassware? I've been watching CodysLab and HTME on YouTube and seeing them put all those incredible reactive and dangerous into glass started wondering why/how it works? Are there other things that are as resistive to chemicals as glass is?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It really depends on the chemical in question, but plastics can hold lots of things and even some things that glass cannot (think of how many household chemicals are sold in plastic containers). Some metals are also great at holding things, especially various grades of stainless steel. The main reason this works is that there are relatively few ways that glass can interact with chemicals inside. The surface of glass is a bunch of Si-O bonds with usually H+ hanging onto the surface O, or some other positive ion like Na+. For anything that isn't basic enough to pull that proton off the surface the glass will be fairly inert. However, this means that glass is really bad at holding strong bases. If you ever mix up a solution of NaOH you best store it in a plastic bottle. Plastic is good in different ways. Plastics are not usually susceptible to basic attack, and most are fine against acids as well. However, some organic solvents can worm their way into the polymer chains and essentially melt the container or just leak through, and that isn't a problem organic solvents have with glass.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What can a "good lawyer" do that a normal lawyer can't? You hear of big businesses getting their way in court when they otherwise wouldn't because they have "good lawyers". Same with convicted criminals; a convicted man can receive a lesser sentence because he has a "good lawyer". I don't understand what being a "good lawyer" entails. All I can think of is that a good lawyer has a better way of words, can persuade people easier, pull up random obscure laws pertaining to something or whatever, but it's still confusing to me.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant All those things you touched on - knowledge of case law, experience, grasp of logic etc. Many criminal cases rely on a combination of physical and circumstantial evidence in order to convince a judge/jury 'beyond reasonable doubt'. A good criminal defence lawyer understands (and predicts) the argument being put forth by the prosecution, and the key aspects that the argument relies on (eg. A witness seeing the defendant at particular time/place), and will dismantle these aspects and throw on as much doubt as possible (eg. Asking a witness How did you know it was Person A? How close were you? Do you wear glasses? Had you been drinking? Had you seen his face before on to reports?). Going through all the details of a case is time consuming for a lawyer, which makes them expensive. Quite often (and particularly with public defenders) it's not that a particular lawyer is bad, they simply didn't have enough time to mount a good defence. As for corporate law, big companies maintain a lot of documentation in their contract and legal negotiations. They hire big firms because they have the resources to trawl through the many thousands of documents relevant to a case. Against this, a sole practitioner or smaller firm would just get swamped, and would probably seek an alternative (deal, agreement etc.) to going to court. They might have been in the right, but just don't have the resources to win. Sometimes plaintiffs with similar grievances with a big company will pool their resources behind the one firm in order to make a 'class action'.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Since I live in a country, state, and city with modern waste water treatment facilities, how is running water while shaving, brushing teeth, showering, ect. wasting water? Isn't water reclaimed, treated and reused? Since it is not destroyed (by changing states) can it truly be wasted?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant More accurately it's about the resources (energy, chemicals, facilities, etc.) needed to obtain water from the environment, treat it to make it potable (IE safe for you to drink), and then distribute it to everyone in the area. Then, after the water has run from your tap down into your drain, more energy, chemicals, and facilities are needed to move all the wastewater to wherever it's being treated, remediate it (make it safe to release into the environment or back into the drinking water system), and then push it out to wherever it's going, either into waterway of some sort, or back into your drinking water. All of those steps cost materials, time, and energy to happen, so that's what's really being "wasted."<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: I believe that trigger warnings are unhealthy, and institutions shouldn't tailor their content around them Edit: I evidently haven't thought this through very much, and my argument is criticising the wrong group of people. I think the bulk of my argument is a knee-jerk reaction to Tumblr-folk who misuse the term "trigger" to mean being offended or not happy about a trivial thing. I recognise that this is clearly not the same thing as a genuine trigger, for someone who has been through PTSD or suffered a genuine trauma. If people are unclear on terms, a "trigger warning" is a quick notice given before a speech, video, body of text etc., warning the audience that its content may trigger certain traumatic memories. For example, if a video talks about rape, it might have a trigger warning so that victims of rape can avoid it if they want to avoid painful recollections. I don't think this is healthy, and should not be encouraged as a practice. The victim of a trauma is always, eventually, going to come across stimuli that might be "triggering", it's not the responsibility of society to avoid giving those stimuli. They might end up studying rape in psychology, or law, or ethics, or a variety of classes. Should the professor start his class with "By the way, today we're going to be talking about rape, and if anyone's uncomfortable with that, you're welcome to stay out of the class"? No; there are potentially infinite possible things that could trigger a person, and a professor shouldn't be expected to account for all of them. Some considerations. Firstly, if the lecturer was showing something that would reasonably upset a lot of people (violence, abuse, suicide etc,) then yes, please put a notice at the start of a class. Secondly, I think the professor in this situation should be accommodating, and if a student specifically approaches or emails him about content they find uncomfortable, then the professor ought to make accommodations within reason. But, it's not the professor's job to foresee any possible triggering content - picture the sort of people you find on /r/TumblrInAction who are triggered by trees. I'm being silly, of course, but some people can't tolerate things that most people are perfectly okay with, and when that's the case, the person shouldn't expect teachers, friends and family to accommodate for them. And if a psychology student came up to the professor in the scenario and told him she found the Millgram experiment disturbing and didn't want to see any content relating to it, then the professor is entitled to raise eyebrows as to why the student is taking the class. I've perhaps not worded the argument very coherently, so, tl;dr, people with triggers shouldn't expect people to accommodate their behaviour, and should learn to deal with those stimuli. _____ > 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 > Firstly, if the lecturer was showing something that would reasonably upset a lot of people (violence, abuse, suicide etc,) then yes, please put a notice at the start of a class. Do you not include rape in this consideration? Because this is pretty much all anyone wants.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Eli5: How does a battery company produce say a double A battery that's better or worse than a competitor if it's the same thing? Do generic products just like add less juice and more popular ones add more or something?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Firstly there are several different chemistries that are used in AA batteries. Some are more expensive and have higher capacity than others. The consider that a battery is not just a pot of chemicals. There are various components including a carbon anode, separator, exterior can etc. The quality of these affects the capacity and internal resistance of the battery. Edit to add: rechargeable batteries have even more variation because the robustness of different geometries to repeated cycling is not trivial to optimise.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV:All drugs should be legalised Drugs are supposedly illegal because they are harmful and can cause damage to the user and people around them. How is this reasoning justified when alcohol, tobacco, obesity, motorbikes, skydiving, going into a tiger enclosure and many more are all legal. All of them and more can be harmful to the people doing it and people around them. Either, we should never be allowed to do anything because it might hurt me or someone else, or there is some logic behind the reasoning. If someone wants to take drugs, is it not their body, and therefore their right? _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant All negative effects of narcotic substances can indeed be mitigated by responsible use and quality control. It is not, however, currently possible to educate people to use drugs with care (e.g. to limit dosage) due to how destructive addiction can be mentally. It is also impossible to create and ensure standards for drug substances, which are highly toxic by nature. Moreover, drugs are not entirely victimless. While they directly harm only their consumer, addiction itself and mental health degradation due to organic damage can be harmful to others by harming interpersonal relations and pushing people towards criminal behavior.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Eli5: Why does meat from different animals taste so different? If it’s all muscle shouldn’t it be pretty similar? I can reason through cow and fish tasting different but not cow and pig.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Diet, environment, DNA and activity level will have an enormous impact on the taste of individual meats. There are times where two animals of the same species will taste different depending on how the individual animals grew up.<\|im_end\|>

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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